What's right? Smith vs. St. Jean

[jkhny]

While not commenting personally on or challenging BSA's policies on membership, the following news item caught my attention and raises the following questions in comparison with other events.

 

Sovreign Smith, a long time paid professional, was allowed to retire with benefits - even after admitting guilt in distributing child pornography. And while claiming he was not involved personally in any abuse of children, as another pointed out, Each and Every piece of child pornography produced and in someone's possession resulted from the abuse of a child - hence the leagal penalties for mere possession of this material.

 

In contrast, Dennis St. Jean, an accomplished paid professional, with exemplary reviews and no complaints about his behavior was dismissed after decades of service. He is receiving NO benefits. He was fired- it would seem - simply because BSA was presented with material implying that he was homosexual.

 

What is right?

What is ethical and moral?

Who was a larger "threat" to boys (if either)?

Who was a larger "embarassment" to BSA?

 

One can argue that in neither case did the sexual proclivities of either person "impinge" on their job.

 

BSA has made that claim in the case of Smith. They have said in effect that his "proclivities" did not directly affect boys in Scouting. It appears one can make exactly the same claim for St. Jean.

 

However,one broke the law - the other did not.

 

BSA went to great lengths to distance Smith's "personal" behavior from his position in Scouting. BSA did - wrongly it seems - claim that Smith had no contact with boys in his position. He did, escorting boys to the White House the week before and in fact a report out of Miami noted that Smith and another adult took an annual sailing trip for with 6 boys for a week. BSA made the point that Smith was married and no complaints had ever been raised about him. But then pedophiles do claim to be heterosexual, many are married and few victims come forward in such cases, often taking decades to do so.

 

It seems that BSA has had little to say about Mr. St. Jean. however other reports indicate that he took pains to keep HIS "personal life" private and divorced from Scouting. As with Smith, there seems to be no cause for complaint in his behavior towards boys but BSA is hardly going to the same effort to make that point.

 

Still, I have to wonder - did BSA investigate each case in depth to make sure that there were no past causes for complaint - even after the fact?

 

And - as raised originally -

 

Which case posed more of a threat to boys?

Is the disparity in treatment justifiable?

 

 

[jkhny]

Interesting but the report below noted that Smith was "placed on leave" by BSA when the FBI informed BSA they were investigating him for distributing child porn (and as the report below noted - unlike many - the porn was quite graphic). I suppose "innocent until proven guilty" must have applied here. Yet St. Jean was fired when BSA received evidence he had stayed at a gay resort.

 

Note that Wal-Mart revoked the retirement benefits package of former executive fired for theft and is suing him not only for for restitution of funds stolen but PAST bonuses. The suit cited a 2002 newspaper article quoting Mr. Coughlin (the fired executive) as saying, "Anyone who is taking money from associates and shareholders ought to be shot. That greed will catch up with you." So, once proven guilty, it seems like some employers DO take action when employees are guilty of criminal acts and act hypocritically.

 

Clearly, there WAS a very different response by BSA in these two incidents.

 

Accept that BSA's position on homosexuality is valid grounds for dismissal.

 

Accept that a criminal act is a valid grounds for dismissal.

 

Who received BETTER treatment by BSA?

 

It sure seems like BSA's employment of Smith did far more damage to BSA's image than its employment of St. Jean. Frankly, it seems as if BSA is going to catch flak for firing St. Jean unless there are other demonstrable reasons relating to job performance (and it seems that there are NOT).

 

And, if BOTH child porn and homosexuality are considered "issues" within BSA and grounds for dismissal from the professional ranks (not that Smith was "dismissed"), shouldn't the past behavior of BOTH long serving professionals be put under a microscope to make SURE nothing could have happened with either?

 

If you're goping to tout "ethics and morals" it helps if you're consistent - even better if you get priorities straight.

 

To many parents an obsession with child porn is a larger worry than homosexuality (closeted or open).

 

 

 

and

[Hunt]

I don't see anything in the article that says St. Jean is receiving no benefits. Maybe I missed it. Are you suggesting that BSA denied him benefits to which he is legally entitled? Or that Smith is receiving benefits to which he is not legally entitled? I'm not convinced that you've made out a case that they were treated differently. Perhaps there's an article from a journalistic source that is a little more objective than Mother Jones?

[Prairie_Scouter]

I think it's pretty clear that BSA has been trying to play both sides of the fence for awhile now. And, actually, I give them some credit for at least trying in some little way to keep their members, at least some of which, I think, are either opposed to some policies or at least neutral towards them. So, on the one hand, you'll hear them appeasing the religious conservatives with their anti-gay policy, while at the same time implementing a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And, this has worked for quite awhile, and I think many people can live with that. It's not ideal, but it's something. Of course, it does lead to a double standard, as indicated by this article.

 

So, I think there's the "ideal" world of Scouting, and there's the "real" world of Scouting, where they need to keep existing members and get new ones, keep a good public profile, get funding, etc. So, they will appease the religious conservatives to keep them, but they really can't afford to irritate the general public who make up a good deal of the membership.

 

That, from a political standpoint, is one of the beauties of the "local option" that we've discussed before. Such a policy would say, in effect, BSA is open to everyone, but we let the local chartering organizations limit membership in ways that reflect their particular views, as long as those views don't violate the law, etc. With such a policy in place, if, say, the Mormons (and they are JUST an example) were to leave in disgust, who is it that looks bad then? The BSA, for encouraging openness, or the Mormons, who would look like they're unhappy because they're particular religious views aren't being forced on everyone else? It'd be an interesting situation, and one where BSA would come out smelling like a rose.

[Kahuna]

It was my impression that the BSA had been following a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the criteria being if you were living an openly gay lifestyle. If so, and if the above is an accurate statement of the facts of St. Jean's case, they aren't following that at all. If they obtained a receipt from a gay resort (which in Key West doesn't mean much, there are many B & B's that cater to gays, but heteros stay in them as well) and used that as evidence of openly living a gay lifestyle, I'd say they are pretty thin in their "don't ask don't tell" position.

[MartinVT1979]

Irony - I recently read that it was Mr. Smith himself who personally and in person fired Mr. St. Jean

[Bob White]

REMEMBER jhnky creates his own facts even when they do not appear in his "supporting" material.

"below noted that Smith was "placed on leave" by BSA when the FBI informed BSA they were investigating him for distributing child porn"

 

Nowhere does his article state that.

 

In the Walmart case the executives crime against the employer was discovered while he was still employed. His firing negated his retirement just as St. Jeans did.

 

But Smith took retirtrement BEFORE his crime was revealed to his employer. You cannot fire someone who is not an employee. Nowhere has jhnky or anyone shown that the FBI revealed the nature of the crime to anyone until AFTER the investigation was completed and the charges were made. All which took place after Smith took his retirement.

 

The fact that Smith fire St.Jean is indeed ironic but that's all it is. At the time of their employment that was Smith's responsibility. Ironic that it was Smith yes, illegal, no.

 

[Backpacker]

Bob, Bob ,Bob,

 

"jkhny creates his own facts", thats a rich accusation coming from someone who does just that most of the time in your own posts.

 

First of all Smith was guilty of a crime, and a major felony at that. St. Jean was guilty of no crime, just of having a lifestyle that the BSA disagrees with so there is no real grounds for comparison on the merits of their cases alone. Anyway you want to twist it St. Jean got a raw deal from the BSA based on his years of service to the organization. I don't want to argue whether or not the BSA had a right to fire him as that point is now moot. I am sure that St. Jean's attorney will easily be able to get him the benefits he deserves since the BSA is on a real slippery slope legally for denying him benefits in the first place he had earned from his years of service.

[jkhny]

BW must have someone screening news reports so he can avoid reading anything that doesn't fit with his view of things.

 

According to BW...."REMEMBER jhnky creates his own facts even when they do not appear in his "supporting" material.

 

"below noted that Smith was "placed on leave" by BSA when the FBI informed BSA they were investigating him for distributing child porn"

 

Nowhere does his article state that. "

 

Did I not cut and paste everything? sorry.....does BW expect to be spoon fed? Somehow he missed what EVERY news report at the time was reporting??????

 

Smith was PUT on leave BECAUSE OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. That ALONE would have been grounds for IMMEDIATE "firing" of a volunteer - IMMEDIATE revocation of his registration.

 

Blind defense or semantics based "justifications" do NOT help BSA - they only make my point - that change is NEEDED in BSA.

 

Below from CNN - one report of MANY and the first to surface on a search. There are far more.

 

 

"Ex-Boy Scout official faces child porn charges

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 Posted: 11:30 PM EST (0430 GMT)

 

Douglas S. Smith Jr.

 

DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- A former top official of the Boy Scouts of America faces federal Internet child pornography charges and is expected to plead guilty Wednesday, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office said.

 

Douglas S. Smith Jr. faces a single count of receiving and distributing child pornography -- a charge resulting from a federal investigation conducted with German authorities.

 

The U.S. attorney's office in Fort Worth, Texas, filed the charges after federal investigators found images of children engaging in sex acts on Smith's computer.

 

Smith is scheduled to appear before a federal judge Wednesday in Fort Worth, said Kathy Colvin, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office.

 

"We anticipate Mr. Smith will enter a guilty plea at that time," she said.

 

Smith retired from the Boy Scouts in February after a 39-year career with the youth organization, based in suburban Dallas.

 

The organization placed him on administrative leave after learning that he was under criminal investigation, and Smith stepped down soon afterward, BSA spokesman Greg Shields said............more"

 

[evmori]

It seems Smith was placed on leave prior to retiring. Therefore he was still a BSA employee & his pension & benefits could be revoked since he was charged with a felony while he was employed by the BSA not after he retired. Wonder why he was allowed to retire?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

"The organization placed him on administrative leave after learning that he was under criminal investigation"

 

Notice that what jhnky wrote and what the article actually said are not the same. No one but jhnky has even suggested that the BSA was informed of the reason for the investigation until AFTER the investigation was completed. As soon as the BSA was informed that Smith was being investigated he was put on leave, while on leave and BEFORE he was charged with ANY crime Smith retired.

 

As jhnky's own article reports at the time Smith was arraigned he was "A former high ranking Scouting executive"

 

jhnky also insists that as soon as the BSA was told Smith was being investigated that he should have been fired. jhnky is as unfamiliar with employment law as he is with scouting. You cannot fire a person because he is being investigated. You can accuse anyone of anything, just because they are being investigated does not insure guilt or that charges will even be filed. What jhnky suggests is totally illegal but he is willing to allow his own personal hunt for vengance on the BSA for selling a camp to not only blind from facts, but he has convinced himself that the search for facts is unnecessary as long as his imagination gives him the story he wants.

 

Ed has also overlooked the fact the Smith retired while on leave BEFORE the charges against him were announced and while the investigation stage was in progress. So at the time that he was charged he was no longer a BSA employee.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Without knowing all the details of Smith's situation, no one can really make completely accurate statements. It is all conjecture at this point.

 

We really don't know the order of events; just what's been published. It is entirely possible that "behind closed doors", BSA was aware of the investigation and decided to give a long time, loyal employee, a chance to leave with benefits intact. They wouldn't be the first company to have done so. Whether it was the right thing to do depends on your point of view of such things. But it appears that BSA was certainly aware of a criminal investigation in regards to Smith, and place him on leave as a result. It's not that big a stretch to think that BSA received information about the content of the investigation and allowed Smith to retire.

 

Why they didn't allow St John, another loyal, longtime employee the same courtesy, if that's indeed what happened with Smith, is something that might be discussed further.

 

As far as the BSA's ability to fire Smith, it depends entirely on his employment agreement, which we, of course, would not be privy to. Can they fire him simply because he's under investigation? Sure, they can, IF his employee agreement has a clause saying that the mere hint of impropriety can be a cause for termination. Companies who are in the public eye do sometimes use such terms in their hiring agreements. It's really not that unusual, and has nothing to do with whether the employee in question has actually done anything wrong. Such terms allow the company to protect themselves to what extent they can from adverse publicity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hunt]

The news articles don't make the Smith timeline very clear. This one:

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/033005dnmetscouts.187522a17.html

 

clearly implies that BSA knew what the investigation was about before the indictment--they allowed his work computer to be searched in "late February." Somewhere around this time he was put on adminnistrative leave. He also retired in "late February."

 

It seems to me that BSA acted prudently in this case. This guy had been employed for 39 years with no criminal record. He was being investigated, but hadn't even been arrested or indicted. His retirement benefits were probably fully accrued and couldn't be taken away. I have no doubt that he would have been fired if he hadn't retired. Maybe it would have looked better if he had been immediately fired (even if he still got his retirement benefits)--but what if he had turned out to be innocent?

 

As for St. Jean, again I ask if there is any evidence that he was denied any accrued benefits to which he was entitled. Unless one can show that this occurred, there isn't too much different between these cases--both of these guys lost their jobs because of unacceptable behavior outside of Scouting. You might not agree with BSA's view of what's unacceptable, but I just don't see differential treatment.

[Hunt]

Here's a publication with an interesting article about St. Jean. It's amazing that he wasn't fired earlier, because he was actively involved in gay organizations for years. He was a volunteer at the gay and lesbian community center in Dallas while he was working there as a BSA exec, for example.

 

http://www.indynews.4t.com/0217/pdf/0217A.pdf

http://www.indynews.4t.com/0217/pdf/0217B.pdf

 

Also, St. Jean was originally placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, and was only fired later.

 

It is stated in the article that he was two years away from retirement, so maybe that really is a distinction with the Smith case. While he could have quit before being fired, perhaps he would have forfeited benefits if he had done that.

 

But you really have to wonder what were the politics behind this case. I mean, this guy was really openly gay--it's hard to believe that nobody at BSA had a clue. Why did they suddenly decide to make an issue of it, based on something as slender as having stayed in a gay hotel? Perhaps the disgruntled employee was threatening to reveal that BSA wasn't doing anything about him, even though they knew he was gay--that would have made their policy toward volunteer leaders look bad. Or maybe St. Jean really was astonishingly discreet.

 

I still don't know if there really was disparate treatment--it may just have been St. Jean's hard luck that his secret hit the fan two years before retirement, while Smith's didn't hit until after retirement age.

 

 

[evmori]

The organization placed him on administrative leave after learning that he was under criminal investigation, and Smith stepped down soon afterward

 

From this it sounds like Smith was still employed by the BSA, got caught with kiddie porn, charged, placed on leave by the BSA, then retired from the BSA.

 

What part did I get wrong?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10