Leader made a mistake

[erickelly65]

PeteM Wednesday, 10/31/2007: 10:16:19 AM

Since all was "supposedly" resolved, how do you know that the boy was NOT going to be withdrawn anyway?

 

Reply Because, PeteM, I believe it is fair to believe there is a correlation between the two events (Leader incident and boy withdrawing) because Scoutlady105 speaks of them together in the same thought. Also, if there was no relationship of these events, the comment about a boy withdrawing quietly would not be germane to the thread.

 

I dont know for a fact but only based on what is posted here as do I not know what transpired during this incident, its duration, the general quality of the two leaders or the parent/witness, etc.

 

Also, believing open and frequent communication with ones DE is important to putting on a good program, the bar for me discussing issues, successes, challenges and problems in my unit is pretty low. I know my DE would want to hear about an event like this.

 

scoutlady105 Wednesday, 10/31/2007: 7:10:57 AM

Well, for an update to all you concerned leaders.

 

Leader #1, the male who visited Leader #2's tent at 3 am, talked to the parent who saw him make his 3 am visit. This parent was "sleeping under the stars." All was supposedly resolved and they were going to quietly withdraw their son.

 

[ASM915]

Ouch!! Ouch!! Ouch!! Those damned stones. Where are they coming from?

Oh they were just little hail balls from above, not stones from here on Earth.

 

My Scoraterian thoughts get me in trouble from time to time. Please forgive me for calling the third a Voyeur. They were probably awaken by what they thought was a Stud (opps, I mean Stag in rutting season) coming their way and didn't want to get trampled during the rush for the prize.

[John-in-KC]

Scoutlady,

 

It's the COR's call on whether or not the DE gets brought in. As Beavah said, "But it's da CO's call. BSA will almost always follow the CO's lead."

 

Often, I ask for more information, because a simple question in Scouting too often has an answer of "well, here's what xxx BSA pub says". This is one time we didn't need "the final element" of the story.

 

As to those who made comment about the morals in play here, there is one, and only one, moral judgment which counts for this case: That judgment belongs to the Chartered Partner! Do I personally think a few people had a huge "dumb attack?" YES. Does my vote in this case count? NO.

 

I think Barry is smack on in his comment "Im betting their recruiting will struggle next year." There's a lot of drama going on in Peyton Place. All concerned need to get done with the drama and get on with raising up young men.

[DanKroh]

"Am I the only one (through obviously biased prism) that thinks this thread stinks of double standard?"

 

No, TJ, you aren't the only one.

[scoutldr]

OGE, you look funny with your tongue in your cheek like that!

[ASM915]

Has not Hester & Arthur suffered enough? Both their Scouting careers are now tarnished.

Can we not just move on to more important Scouting stuff?

Yes DanK. it does.

[tjhammer]

On behalf of gays everywhere, I apologize for our role in destroying the sanctimony of these Scouters' marriages.

 

 

[CA_Scouter]

Why is it that if someone shows a lack of morality regarding a sexual issue ( these are adulterer's after all ) that any criticism at all is regarded as 'judgemental' or 'unfair'?

 

Yet we will condemn them to death for not wearing the uniform properly, or not attending 100% of the meetings, or some such other breach of BSA procedure ( real or imagined ).

 

We are so willing to forgive sexual escapades - 'its none of my business', 'oh well, nature just taking its course', etc. Why do we do that when we are so willing to slam them for other things?

 

These were adulterer's carrying on in front of the scouts. Parents entrusted these leaders not only for the safety of their scouts but for their character and leadership on the outing. The troop lost a scout over this - its a BIG DEAL.

 

If you are not going to ask them to resign their leadership positions ( not kick them out of scouts ), then not having them both on the same campout seems the best resolution.

 

 

 

[John-in-KC]

CA,

 

Simply put, because those decisions belong to two people:

 

- Executive Officer of the Chartered Partner

- Chartered Organization Representative

 

NOT the SM, NOT the CC, NOT the Committee, NOT the ASMs, and NOT the parents.

 

The Chartered Partner owns the unit. It should have decided to license Scouting because its values agree with Scoutings'. I want to think the Chartered Partner will do the right thing.

 

At the same time, our society is litigous. As we've seen in recent years, "truth is always a valid defense" doesn't always work anymore. The right thing is to let those responsible for making the call DO SO. The rest of us need to BUTT OUT. Our job is to serve the youth, let those who are charged with leader selection and approval do their jobs.

 

Do I have a value judgment in this situation: YES. I've said it elsewhere.

 

DO I get to make this decision? NO.

[PeteM]

erickelly65 - What I was saying was, I agree, the boy is being removed from this troop because of the incident, but he is not being removed because the leaders are staying on in the troop, but because the incident happened. It wouldn't have mattered to the boy's parent(s) if the leaders were removed from the troop or not. They are removing their boy BECAUSE it happened in the first place. The Scouts were not involved at the time of the incident, only after the parent decided to let it known to the troop in general.

[NeilLup]

In reading this thread, I believe that I hear the strains of "Pick a little, talk a little" from the Music Man. That was the song sung by the ladies gossip circle.

 

Eisley very correctly made an important distinction - the difference between being removed from Scouting and being removed from the unit The former is an extremely formal process. The latter is quite straightforward. As has been said, the COR or IR can effect it. But if a person is removed from another unit, they can go to another unit.

 

Many comments have been made about the morality of this situation. But not every religion would agreee taht this is greviously immoral and not every chartered organization is a religious institution. If these leaders did not believe that they did anything wrong or contrary to their religion, would it change matters at all?

 

It certainly is the prerogative of a parent to remove their child from the unit for any reason that they choose. The DE does not need to be involved. The boy simply stops attending meetings and campouts and is not reregistered. However, calling a public parents meeting to make accusations of fornication or adultery on a camping trip stries me as WAY over the top. This parent clearly has an agenda. If they are leaving the unit, it seems that they are following a "scorched earth" policy of trying to do as much damage to the reputation of the unit and its leaders as possible in their leaving.

 

This is, I fear, the action of a busybody. It is really unfortunate.

 

However, with all this mud being slung, it is probably wise for the chartered organization and the Troop leadership to take some action to remove the mud. It might be wise to ask the second leader to work with another unit or to take a leave of absence from Scouting for a period of time. That should allow things to calm down

 

The action of the leaders was clearly unwise in the context of Scouting. It was contrary to the explicit guidelines of the Guide to Safe Scouting although hardly unprecedented in the Scouting situations that I have known. The correct action might be to reinforce in the Troop that every leader and hopefully every parent has read and understood the Guide to Safe Scouting and promises to follow it. That should be enough.

 

 

[SSScout]

Behavior is a choice.

Choices have consequences.

As humans, we are perhaps unique in being able to PREDICT the consequences of our choices.

"What was I thinking?" as the C&W song reminds us.

 

Now, what do we tell our boys about 1) what they heard that night, 2) Why Johnny ain't at Troop meeting any more, 3) Why everybody is looking strange at Mr. XYZ and Ms. QPR, 4)Why Mr. DEF isn't ASM anymore...

THEY did THIS and HERE's what happened?

 

[erickelly65]

SSScout

I think the issue isnt if there should be consequences but rather "what" consequences should there be. The secondary issue is who's responsibility is it to determine and implement the consequences.

[evmori]

Actually, we don't know what they did other than visit each other in a tent. And if that's all that happened, a reminder that perception is reality would be appropriate, but nothing more.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

Good point Ed. Had it been two male leaders visiting each other would the same assumptions be made? I think I now see TJ's point.