Leader DUI...

[Beavah]

Yah, TwoCubDad, this reportin' thing seems to cause no end of confusion, eh?

 

Understand first that da BSA's national materials cannot get this right, because da various states are all over the map on this stuff, eh? So if you're just relyin' on some national video, you're not gettin' da real picture. Take it with a grain of salt, and certainly never quote it authoritatively to others. That's why da online course is supposed to make yeh download da local rules. Unfortunately, councils are pretty sloppy about puttin' those together.

 

Because there are so many jurisdictions I just can't give yeh any reliable advice, eh? All I can do is speculate out loud about who does what.

 

Child Protective Services (or whatever it's called in your state) typically has jurisdiction over investigations of suspicion of child abuse and neglect, however those are defined for your state. Usually, child abuse and neglect is limited to abuse by parents/guardians. In some states, it also applies to abuse by summer camp employees. In no state that I'm aware of does it apply to unit scouters, but these things change all da time.

 

So... if you have reasonable suspicion of child abuse by a parent or guardian, yeh call Child Protective Services and only them. If yeh call your SE, that constitutes defamation if there's no proof of abuse and da person's reputation was harmed. That's not goin' to be a small judgment against you either, eh? You will pretty much have ruined someone's life. Only reports to CPS (or law enforcement in some states) are granted limited statutory immunity, not reports to an SE.

 

Law Enforcement (the police) has jurisdiction over investigations of crimes of battery and such on children by non-custodial adults (like volunteer scouters) or peers. If yeh witness such a crime, or have direct evidence of such a crime (like da direct testimony of the child), yeh call da child's parent and law enforcement. If yeh call CPS, they'll only refer you to law enforcement because they don't have jurisdiction. Statutory immunity in these cases typically does not apply, which is why yeh should set a higher standard than "reasonable suspicion" for makin' such an accusation. Mostly, you're there to encourage da child and their parents to report, not to make an accusation yourself unless you witnessed the crime. And of course in this case yeh also let da SE and program supervisor know, so they can handle da media and insurers.

 

The Program Supervisor has jurisdiction over internal investigations of their program and dismissal of their volunteers and employees. So if yeh have reasonable suspicion of a crime of battery on a child by a scouter, yeh call da program supervisor (COR/IH for unit programs, SE for district/council or for units which don't have a response policy set up). And no one else. Da point is you are expressing a concern to your superior for his/her attention, rather than making an accusation. Your supervisor then is responsible for doin' an investigation to decide whether removal (or referral to law enforcement) is called for.

 

When yeh just have "suspicion" for a crime outside of scouting, dat's the trickiest. That's why in da youth protection trainin' they tell you to stay available for a child who is showin' signs, to be there if he (or she) wants to talk. At da point where the child tells yeh about a crime, then you can act. I reckon for most of us if our suspicions were strong, we'd approach law enforcement or the district attorney quietly with our suspicions without makin' an accusation. And tell no one else.

 

Personally, I think da information Hal_Crawford got from his YPT class is irresponsible, and what Buffalo Skipper reports is much more sound.

 

But then I'm just an anonymous furry fellow on da internet, and nuthin that I type should ever be construed as legal advice or opinion. Just da theoretical meanderings of my muse. If yeh get in da thick of things, do your best to do what's right for both da kid and the (potentially innocent) adult. If you're unsure, ask for real advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your state. Not da SE, eh? Someone real.

 

Of course, none of this has a lick to do with this DUI fellow, so forgive da hijack.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eamonn]

Been thinking about this one!

As ever I find myself between a rock and a hard place!

I really don't know the laws or how they work when it comes to DUI.

When I think about this I'm kinda all over the place!!

I do think that there is a difference between get caught for maybe being slightly over the limit and driving roaring drunk.

Having said that a good pal of mine who was a very high ranking police man in the London Metropolitan Police, once took the time to try and explain to me that drinking and driving was a crime, but you had to be over a set limit in order to be prosecuted.

As far as I know here in PA, most first time DUI suspects can make some sort of a plea (Not sure what sort??) But they have their driving privileges suspended for a while (about 30 days I think?) Take some court ordered classes and are on probation for a while (A year I think)

 

Just looked it up :

http://www.duiarresthelp.com/dui-ard-program.php

 

 

From the site:

 

By admitting first time PA DUI offenders into the ARD program the state of Pennsylvania is able to avoid lengthy court proceedings and the defendant is able to have their DUI expunged from their criminal record once they complete the ARD program.

 

Being as the criminal record is expunged. I'm not sure if preventing the guy to serve as a Scouter is the right thing to do? I'm thinking maybe he deserves another chance.

 

But...

Chatting with an inmate the other day he mentioned that he was "Only in for DUI".I thought it was strange that a guy would get State time for DUI? That was up until he told me that he'd been caught five times!!

Clearly this guy has a real problem and maybe shouldn't ever even be allowed to mow his grass?

I'm thinking that the person Lady_Leigh67 is talking about is not a first time offender.

 

 

This then brings up the matter of "Do people change?"

I think they do!

We had an old timer in our District.

A super nice guy. He passed away a few years back, so I don't think anyone will be upset if I mention his name.

Pete Rice was seen by many in our are as being the ideal Scoutmaster, a truly wonderful man.

He loved the kids he served. He loved Troop 133.

He never married and 133 was his life.

I met Pete back in 1977 and he seemed old then. (He was about the age I am now!!)

Over the years I got to know him fairly well and when he'd visit my home I'd always offer him a drink, he always very politely refused but said he'd take a cup of coffee.

After several years he told me that when he was a young man he'd had a problem with alcohol and after getting into trouble just gave it up. He never said that he was an alcoholic or in any program, he just gave it up.

Pete was a super guy and a wonderful Scouter.

a few years back Scouting magazine did an article on a guy who was a leader of an inner-city Troop in Ohio. The guy had been one of Pete's Scouts and said that it was thanks to Pete that he was doing what he was doing.

 

I of course don't know the guy that Lady_Leigh67 is talking about.

I think he needs some heavy duty help.

But maybe one day he will get his act together and who knows what good he might do?

Eamonn.

[Lady_Leigh67]

Holy Smokes, we are at four pages already!

 

Thank you to all who posted their thoughts, and advice. I have read each and every response. Obviously, since the man is in jail, we cannot get his resignation or tell him to step down until he gets out. I do believe that he will do the right thing. Our boys/families pull from a small school and word gets around quickly without anyone meaning it to, you know.

 

I should clarify a few things too. He passed the background check when he became a leader in 2006. Or atleast nothing came up to Council that would have red flagged him. I even went back to look at his app. and the little part of "have you ever been arrested. etc." was not filled in. We had no reason during his time with the pack to be under any concern ever.

 

When he was arrested, he was driving home from work (he is self-employed in as an electrician.) His kids were not with him, and he was not even near home at the time.

 

We do renew our YPT yearly, simply because of new folks coming in and it's a good thing to do because of all the outings we do.

 

Agreed that the judges sentence shows that he has done the prior (maybe even way back before his family joined scouts.) But, we have no record of that.

 

We hope that his son and wife will continue. His son is on track to earn AOL Feb. 2010. He is so close.

 

We notified our DE. She will meet together when he gets out jail. She did feel that we need to give him a very small window of opportunity to resign as a leader. But, we agreed that by setting up a meeting with her present, might "encourage" him to do the right thing, without being asked or forced.

[John-in-KC]

Lady Leigh,

 

Thanks for the update.

 

For me, this is not a Committee matter. This is a Chartered Partner (as the licensee of record) and a Scout Council matter.

 

IMO, the Pack Committee Chairman and the Cubmaster need to have a business sit-down with the Chartered Organization Representative and the IH. It's their franchise with BSA that is in play. They are the only two decisionmakers. Period

 

When the IH and COR have given guidance, then reporting can move forward. Yes, the SE should be called, imo the COR is the only person who should make that call.

 

In doing this, I absolutely agree with nldScout ... this is serious stuff, the guy has been in court before. At the same time, this is not the business of the Committee, nor is it the business of the Den Leaders. It is the Chartered Partner's business.

[evmori]

Obviously, since the man is in jail, we cannot get his resignation or tell him to step down until he gets out. I do believe that he will do the right thing.

 

Since this guy is unavailable, I would go to you charter partner, let them know what happened & have them call you council office & have this guy removed from your charter. I would not wait until he gets out. You need to move on.

[Lisabob]

I agree that the charter partner ought to be involved here. They, not your DE, are the ones who should be applying the pressure on this gentleman to resign before he is removed. If you even really need to wait that long. Anyway, there's a better-than-even chance that his wife will be in contact with him before his 6 months are up so he could certainly pass along the word that he accepts a resignation.

 

Regarding this sentence: "When he was arrested, he was driving home from work (he is self-employed in as an electrician.) His kids were not with him, and he was not even near home at the time."

 

I don't see what that has to do with anything? I'm glad he was not directly endangering his own kids, but he was endangering every single person on the road with him that day, including (most likely) other people's kids.

 

 

 

[ScoutNut]

I agree, it is not the DE's place, or job, to threaten this person with dismissal. The DE should not have even been brought into this, likewise the rest of the leaders in your Pack. Especially at this stage.

 

If you are the Committee Chair, you should immediately, contact your COR, and the IH of your CO (no one else), and have a meeting with them about the issue. The CO owns the Pack, and the COR and IH, ultimately, are the ones who are responsible for any hiring and firing of leaders in your Pack.

 

The COR and IH can drop this man's membership at any time they want. IF that is what they decide, they should contact his family and let them know. THAT is the point that the SE (not the DE) should be contacted by the COR or IH, and not before.

 

IF, for whatever reason, the COR and IH decide they want to give this man another chance and keep him on as a registered leader (in whatever position THEY choose), that also is their right to do. When they make that decision, THAT is the point that the COR or IH should contact the SE (again not the DE) and let the SE know what is going on.

 

At this point the SE can decide to go along with the decision of the CO, or the SE can decide to release this man from his membership in the BSA irregardless of the CO's wishes. However that decision is up to the SE ONLY, not the DE.

[Eamonn]

"Regarding this sentence: "When he was arrested, he was driving home from work (he is self-employed in as an electrician.) His kids were not with him, and he was not even near home at the time."

 

I think (I don't know) that the point here is that if he had children in the car, he would be seen as placing them in danger. (I'm not in any way saying that by him driving in a state of intoxication he wasn't placing everyone in danger.

 

As for who should be informed and if need be ask him to leave?

I kinda think this depends.

If the CO is active and a "By the book" CO?

I'd be happy to leave this all in the hands of the COR and the CO.

If the CO is just names on paper? (Of course we all know that this never ever happens!! LOL)

Someone needs to decide what is going to happen next?

In this case I'd seek guidance from the SE.

 

If in time this fellow changes his ways and remains out of trouble and wants to return? Again someone would need to look at this and again a lot would depend on how active the CO is.

We had a guy who made a silly mistake at a District Camporee.

(He mooned a group of Scouts) The then District Chairman (Not me!!) Seen this as a hanging offense.

The then SE revoked this guys membership.

The SM of the Troop and this guy were really good friends.

The guy had a son in the Troop.

For a number of years while this guy was never a registered member he was at every event, his wife served on the Troop Committee as his mouthpiece and he served as an unofficial Eagle Scout adviser.

After several years the Troop committee wanted him to be invited back.

I was at that time the District Chairman, they requested that I write to National a letter supporting his request to return.

This put me in a very difficult position.

First off, I never liked the guy.

So I had to put that to one side.

I do think we can do without adults who go around mooning youth members.

So I refused to write a letter in his support.

The SE asked me what had happened?

I gave a full a truthful report. Stating that I might be a little biased and that the District Chair at the time of the mooning had a history with this guy and both of them never seen eye to eye.

The SE did ask National to review the case.

They seen it as a big violation (As far as I know they never said of what?) and said that he couldn't return.

The son was a nice Lad, I took him to the 2001 Jambo. He was active in the OA and went on to become an Eagle Scout.

In time he aged out his Dad seemed to be happy to step aside.

The SM retired and now very few people even remember what happened and I guess in time we all will have a hard time even remembering the guys name.

 

I do think we do need to look at each and every person as an individual.

People do change and maybe the mistakes of the past do need to be forgiven.

I'm 101% for ensuring that the children placed in our care are safe and not in any danger.

Many of the area that have a high African-American population can't find leaders because the adults have at one time been involved in drugs.

Many of these adults have seen the error of their ways and have changed.

I would hope we could find a way of forgiving them and allowing them to serve the youth in the communities where they live.

Eamonn.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Here's my take:

 

At my church, the minutes of our monthly church council meetings get posted.

 

Some things, such as matters involving people do not get posted. In fact, the key officers go into Executive Session.

 

The members of this Pack are spreading word about one of them by way of "He's convicted of DUI." While the truth is always the best defense should someone be hit with a slander or libel lawsuit, who wants to pay an attorney to get to the point of having the suit dismissed? I certainly don't.

 

This needs minimal, calm, quiet, businesslike treatment, not the Den Leaders and Committee people talking with each other and "voting" the person out. What happens when a Scouter talks to Mrs BobbieSue Jumpback, who is a parent, not a leader, and she spreads the news..... ???? HMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[evmori]

The members of this Pack are spreading word about one of them by way of "He's convicted of DUI."While the truth is always the best defense should someone be hit with a slander or libel lawsuit, who wants to pay an attorney to get to the point of having the suit dismissed? I certainly don't.

 

The guy is in jail! He plead guilty! He is convicted of DUI! That is a fact! No slander or libel going on! The dude is guilty!

[Beavah]

The guy is in jail! He plead guilty! He is convicted of DUI!

 

According to his wife.

 

I wonder if anyone's checked?

 

B

 

 

[evmori]

Did I miss the post that stated his wife passed this information along?

[John-in-KC]

Without hi-jacking this, the best place to get information when Bobbie says Billy has been convicted is the Court.

 

Trust me, spouses have been known to do nasty things to each other. The CM and CC need hard information, not rumor. It's available in public records.

[Lady_Leigh67]

Lisabob, the reason I mentioned that he was alone when arrested, is that in some of the other replies, they have gotten into speculation and basically saying that he was in his leader duties at the time of arrest. Not true.

 

As for his wife spreading rumours, she is not. She came to us in confidentiality, and we are trying our best to stress that a minimal number of folks know. Ultimately, we don't want her reputation ruined, or the kids. Especially their kids.

 

We know for a fact that yes, he is in jail and convicted of a DUI.(This message has been edited by Lady_Leigh67)

[John-in-KC]

Then, if you are the CC or the CM, get your opposite number and have a business visit upon your IH and COR. This is their matter to attend to. Even contacting the SE is a Chartered Partner matter.