Screaming Irony

[Bob White]

Your donations go to your council and your council had no involvement in St. Jeans dismissal.

 

You belong to your council which belongs to the BSA National Council. You do not own, nor are you a part owner of, the BSA National Office. Those are two different entities.

 

You do not have enough information to determine that the BSA was the one who violated the Oath or Law you have only an over-emotional post from jhnky as your sole source of information. That alone should tell you that you are geting a very subjective story.

 

The fact that it is that your behavior reflects more on the BSA than the behavior of a few employees reflect on you.

 

And since is the type of forum you suggest, do I have less right to disagree with you in my comments than you have to disagree with the BSA in yours?

 

If the purpose here is to discuss things then why not welcome the opposite side of the coin than you offer?

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

"You belong to your council..."

 

And here I thought Lincoln freed the slaves and I guess it is MY troop after all... or rather I am THEIR committee member (This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Hunt]

I have no problem with you presenting the other side of the coin, Bob. Indeed, in this case I mostly agreed with you that we don't have enough information to judge either case fully. But my problem with many of your posts is that rather than presenting the other side of an argument on substantive grounds, you want to argue that nobody has any business discussing the issue at all. I think that's a very quixotic position to take on an Issues and Politics board. Defend BSA all you want, that's great--but defend it on the merits.

[evmori]

So if I belong to my council & my council belongs to the BSA then I belong to the BSA. Sorta like A=B & B=C therefore A=C. I like math!

 

We as volunteers are the ones people see as the BSA, not National. We are the one who will be asked questions, not National. All the front-line volunteers want to know is all the facts. If the BSA can't give them out because of some legal reason, then just say so. I wouldn't like it but I can live with it. But if they aren't giving the front-line volunteers all the info because they just don't want to, then that's just plain wrong. National wants our loyalty & wants us to live according to the Oath & Law but doesn't practice what they preach. And we do have a right to know the facts. After all, we are dues paying members.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Just for fun, no one I know has ever asked me a question about St. Jean or Smith and two said it was a shame about those guys who died.

 

I am not sure osawippee (sp?) is on the nation's conscience right now.

 

Ed, how many St Jean and Smith questions have you been asked?

[Bob White]

How exactly did this become about how you perceive my posts. I never said you or anyone couldn't discuss it. I said no one here has enough information to know what happened. How wouldenjoy having your personal business discussed on the internet with little more than gossip as the basis?

 

To think that as unit volunteers we have any authority in the personell dept. of the national office, or that they have any reason to heed our opinion on the matter, is egocentric to say the least.

 

 

[packsaddle]

I can't speak for Ed, but I think he made a good observation just then. I get these questions ever so often but never specifically about a certain event (as in this case). Rather it is a nebulous question that indicates a vague impression formed over time, possibly from multiple sources. When this has happened in a group setting, such as a parents' meeting, the followup from the rest indicates to me that a lot of them are wondering these things and are just too polite to ask. Problem is, as Ed mentions, I'm only slightly better informed than they are.

 

But now, at least, I have the perfect response - I can dismiss the parents' questions by informing them that it is egocentric to think that any of us have any authority in BSA's personnel department. Yep, that should just about do it.

[evmori]

OGE,

I have been asked questions about these situations (not osawippee). They have come in the form of "Hey did your hear about yada yada yada? What do you think? I always answer the best I can which considering the amount of actual factual information I have isn't very good & usually ends up being my opinion. From the reactions I have gotten, that's not what people wanted to hear. So maybe I should use the line "If the BSA did it, it must be right."

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

McDonalds Corporation owns a restaurant business plan (A)

The lease this plan to franchisees (B)

The franchisees hire employees ©

 

DOES C=A? NOT EVEN A LITTLE!

 

Is McDonalds in the business of pleasing the Cs? NOPE their job is to support the Bs and C's in serving the D's the customer...the scouts.

 

Scouting does not exist to serve adult VOLUNTEERS. They are the program and system that the VOLUNTEERS agreed to follow in order to serve the boys. The adult leaders while vital to the delivery of scouting are of no use to Scouts if they are looking for Scouting to serve THEM rather than serve the scouts.

 

McDonald employees understand that they are there to serve McDonald's customers...McDonald's product...McDonalds way.

 

Why do some scouters have trouble grasping what is perfectly clear to a teenager?

 

 

 

[jkhny]

The sad thing is that you're never going to hear "complaints" about alot of these issues - like Smith. The people that reacted negatively to it simply will not go near BSA.

 

Anyone hear the rant on Fox by Greta Von Whatever the day that story broke?...and this was FOX the all-American network.....She was screaming over how could BSA let a pervert be in charge of Youth Protection. How many people that MIGHT have been interested in Scouting decided - "no....I don't think so" after that?

 

As far as Owasippe, most Scouters don't have a clue that is happening - unless their own Council is selling more property off....they start looking and stumble across that. BSA seems to forget that NOTHING is "local" anymore....

 

Scouters DO get fed up with sales and the way they are handled......THOSE issues drive SUPPORTERS out of Scouting - especially when they see how impossible it is to be heard. Those that THOUGHT they really did have a voice in Scouting see they don't. Nothing like disillusioning a "true believer"

 

The fact is - like it or not, BSA has been failing to act as the "pillar" of ethical and moral behavior it claims to be. THAT hurts. It staked out the high ground on "character" - making its failures pretty visible (Just as when your motto is "Be Prepared" it's pretty embarrassing when you're NOT. The Jamboree id dNOT reassure people about Scouting, but then you're not going to hear it from people that won't be coming to your open house.)

 

BS has already driven away a large part of its potential base with its stance on some issues. We lost some GOOD leaders over the gay issue - not ambivilent parents who were reluctant leaders but truly involved and "moral" people who felt they could not remain involved in BSA. Some pretty vocal supporters of the BSA stance are rarely seen at ANY meetings or activities. BSA has lost whole denominations over that issue (though some would argue it would lose others if it took a different stance - I wonder.)

 

One cannot help but wonder if BSA is becoming more and more "conservative"? Look at the thread on "creationism". Many people will look at that and go - this is not me. BSA is NOW viewed as "exclusionary" - like it or not. The BSA of MY youth was INCLUSIVE - the ONLY organization for boys that had a wide spectrum of kids - smart, athletic, "skaters" even "heads" - it was amazing. There was no concern about any of the kids who were a bit "different" - we were ALL Scouts. The few that turned out gay later in life were of less concern that the "perverts" that were always talking about sex (and ignorant beyond belief). Our SM would periodically shut them down with "This is NOT appropriate in Scouting." We ven had a few - gasp - "liberals" who ended up lawyers, one is even in the ACLU. His kids aren't Scouts. Few of those I knew in Scouts have kids in BSA now.

 

Yet the conservative and truly "regligious" - who take their "ethical and moral" behavior seriously are "disturbed" by what they see in BSA as well. Well paid professionals lying about acomplishments who are NOT held accountable for their bad behavior. Paid professionals who cover up abuse. NO amount of letters saying "Your child will be safe at Scout Camp" will offset the headlines reporting the FOURTH pedophile who'd been active in that Council's Scouting program. Some Councils NEVER recovered from abuse scandals decades ago. Old dedicated Scouters (and how many Council Scouters are well over 60, with no replacements in sight?) are unhappy with professionals who talk ceaselessly about "numbers" and money instead of "boys." Former Scouts aren't donating money when you've sold off THEIR memories. And "marketing" BSA in any way just to get kids in the door does not KEEP them in Scouting if you don't have quality leaders who care about Scouting and do a good job - even if the "numbers" look good at year end.

 

The reality is you 're NOT going to hear concerns from those who decide NOT to become involved in Scouting. The rather "incomplete" explantions provided by BSA do NOT allay the concerns expressed by the few willing to voice their thoughts.

 

At the same point, the dedicated Scouters that try to raise these issues are far too often given the simple ultimatum - "If you don't like it, leave" (and isn't that BW's pov?) - and that is JUST what many ARE doing. Far more remain involved IN SPITE of what they see - ONLY on a Unit level, avoiding ANYTHING in BSA above that level. THAT is happening here, with a massive collapse of support at the Council level. But even Unit Leaders are growing tired of the "games" with numbers and lack of support and simply walking away.

 

As for the McDonalds analogy......

 

LBP came up with the structure of a "program" - the outlines of a "movement". Those practicing "Scouting" here were VOLUNTEERS who looked to provide a structure for serving and supporting THEIR efforts. THAT is the genesis of BSA. But BSA Inc. - the corporate "parent" is not doing a great job SERVING Scouting and those IN Scouting.

 

To use your analogy, it is as if a number of burger stands following the same basic premise - coming from a shared "heritage" saw an advantage to sharing resources. They "standardized" and formed a "co-operative" parent organization to do purchasing, store design and marketing.

 

Only now they find that those in the organization that is supposed to be HELPING them is doing quite the opposite. Those in "corporate" would not exist if nobody was selling burgers. That is THEIR reason for existing. Yet "corporate" thinks they "know best" and are now pushing Sushi more than burgers......instead of serving and supporting the burger stands, it is DICTATING to them - and not doing a very good job in providing the service and support they need.

 

Long time customers are walking away. The quality of the food is declining - it's not what it used to be. Hungry new customers coming in for a good burger are finding overcooked tasteless shoe leather with counter help more concerned with raw fish (LFL). They won't be coming back.

 

Yet the corporate parent is touting success by counting people coming in to use the rest rooms and saying "traffic is up." They reward themselves with large raises, even though business is tanking, stores are folding and employees quitting. That scandal about e-coli in the last shipment of beef won't have any long lasting effects. The place in Wisconsin that blew up because of a gas leak won't hurt business - only a couple customers died. We keep running out of fries, but it really doesn't matter if we give them chips instead. After all that's what "corporate" says to do.

 

 

Some Scouters view BSA as an organization that volunteers are supposed to blindly OBEY.

 

Others see BSA as an organization that is supposed to serve and support THEIR efforts in providing Scouting.

 

 

 

Dictatorial and autocratic organizations rarely work well even when their "workforce" or "customers" are captive - even with a core of dedicated "true believers". Eventually they fail or become so small as to be irrelevant to most potential customers.

 

Organizations that listen to their "workers" run far better and are far more effective. Companies that are responsive to their "customers" thrive.

 

Simple concept. My elementary school kid gets it.

[Bob White]

"She was screaming over how could BSA let a pervert be in charge of Youth Protection."

 

An emotional response based on a shoratge of facts...not unlike your own response. As all the later reports show the BSA had no knowledge of Smith's behavior until after the results of the FBI investigation were completed. Do have evidence otherwise? Because no one else does.

 

Baden-Powell developed the Scouting ideals and its methods including the boy lead program, he did not design or develop the American scouting movement. There are over two hundred scouting programs in the world and they are nearly all different. Even the UK program today does not look like the B-P program of 1910. Things change, get over it.

 

"BS has already driven away a large part of its potential base with its stance on some issues"

 

Total fantasy! You do not have so much as a single piece of data that shows that.

 

"As far as Owasippe, most Scouters don't have a clue that is happening - unless their own Council is selling more property off....they start looking and stumble across that. BSA seems to forget that NOTHING is "local" anymore.... "

 

HELLOOO! You aren't listening. The property is not owned by the volunteers..it never was...in any council. The property is owned by the local council corporation, and the unit volunteer except for the CR is not a voting member of that corporation. Your district and council are local. Your council is an independent non-profit organization that contracts with the BSA to supply scouting to its local community. (New Leader Essentials...it only takes a couple of hours)

 

"Long time customers are walking away

 

LONG TIME customers age out. Short term customers usually leave do to the quality of the local program delivery.

 

"it is as if a number of burger stands following the same basic premise - coming from a shared "heritage" saw an advantage to sharing resources."

 

While that might make a nice bed-time story it lacks any historical accuracy. Councils did not gather to form the BSA. The BSA was formed and designed the council system.

 

No one says you have to follow the BSA program. No one says you had to be in the BSA program. No one forced anyone to join. But those of us who are members agreed to follow when we joined. Whether or not you fulfill that agreement is left to the character and integrity of the individual volunteer.

 

You have lots of emotion and no actual knowledge of the program. I do not see how you will ever be happy with the BSA or the scouting program, if in fact you are really a member. Nor do I see how your distain for the product allows you to be of any value in delivery of service to a unit.

 

So why do do you continue to rant on subjects you do not know about and do not want to learn about?

good night.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori]

This ain't McDonald's. There ain't no McScouts!

 

The membership card I get is from the BSA, not my CO or district or council. Actually my CO or district or council appear nowhere on the card. Hold on let me make sure - (rummaging through wallet) - nope none of those appear on the card. Just says I'm a member of the Boy Scouts of America Troop 0001 Pittsburgh, PA. It also says I am entitled to all the rights & privileges.

 

So A=B and B=C. Therefore A=C.

 

Even franchises have to follow corporate rules & regs & the employees of those franchises have to follow the same rules & regs so A=B & B=C so A=C does apply!

 

The answer to Greta's questions is "Because they didn't know."

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

So A=B and B=C. Therefore A=C.

 

Really?

 

A Square is a Rectangle (A=B) (True)

 

and a Rectangle is a Parallelogram with equal angles but adjacent sides of unequal length (B=C) (True)

 

Then for A=C A square would be a parallelogram with equal angles but adjacent sides of unequal length.

 

And that's False.

 

Your premise does not hold true in all cases therfore it is not valid. Sorry, not my rules.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Nothing in jkh's mention of Owasippe said anything about the unit volunteer's owning the property or having voting rights on it's sale. In fact, the comment was only using Owasippe as an example of what people can find if they start looking around for BSA-related matters, ie, the comment that nothing is "local" anymore. Anyone who wants to spend the time to look around can find published stories about perceived problems with the attempted sale of the land, and, I would bet, the sale of other camp lands owned by BSA Councils as well. And that hurts BSA visibility, as do any of the stories about "creative" membership numbers or problems with BSA employees for whatever reason.

 

So, Smith dealt in child pornography on his own time, unconnected to his work at BSA. It doesn't matter. Why? Because his job connects him to BSA and his job with youth protection looks very bad for BSA. The fact that he did these things on his own time is completely irrelevent to the bad publicity that was created.

 

BSA markets itself on the high moral ground it believes it is standing on. It has to be squeaky clean to retain its credibility. ANY time stories like these come out, it is bad news for BSA. People don't care that the units, districts, councils, etc, are legally separate from BSA National. The average Joe on the street doesn't see that stuff. All he see's is "Boy Scouts".

 

There was a comment made about the volunteers agreeing to certain things when they sign up. Isn't it reasonable to expect that the leaders of BSA pledge themselves to ethical behavior and behavior that is in keeping with the standards that BSA is supposed to live by? At least some don't seem to be doing that.

[evmori]

1st off, ya need to get your terminology correct!

 

(A)square - A plane figure having four equal sides.

 

(B)rectangle - A four-sided plane figure with four right angles or a parallelogram with four right angles.

 

©parallelogram - A four-sided plane figure with opposite sides parallel.

 

A=B and B=C and A=C

 

A square is a rectangle.

A square is a parallelogram.

A rectangle is a parallelogram.

 

Validity proven. And just because something isn't valid IN ALL CASES doesn't invalidate it.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10