BSA Chicago "Representative Democracy " (NOT)

[johndaigler]

This is from jk's earlier post:

 

"The COR's et al have VOTED the slates DOWN. Chicago Area Coiuncio has TWICE now refused to approve the handpicked slated proposed by their Council "leadership" that wants to remain in place.

 

Yet the Council "leadership" refuses to allow the hand-picked "nominating committee" to nominate ANY candidats that the volunteers (through their COR's) WANT to VOTE for. "

 

BW, your response to jk was to tell how it is CORs who have a vote in this situation, and that they represent CRs not volunteers. He seems to have already addressed this. It appears, Council Leadership is not listening to the CORs. What should the CORs do next? If, as jk tells it, the CORs are being disenfranchised - what should happen next?

 

jd

[evmori]

What time is Oprah on?

[berkshirescouter]

If the CO's are the cutomer for BSA national, what if the majarity of the CO's approched national and said they want to start a new council. Would that get nationals attention?

[scoutldr]

As I understand it, the CORs are voting members of District Committees. The District Chair is a voting member of the Executive Board. The Staff (SE, DE, etc) are employees serving at the will of the Executive Board. As a non-profit corporation, a Council has to abide by the laws of the state and the articles of incorporation. Sounds to me like the CORs who are being ignored should ban together and hire an attorney to give them advice as to how to proceed.

[Bob White]

I t would seem to reason that if there have been two votes that wthere will likely be a third.

 

The nominating committee appears to be continuing to do their job of submitting nominees to be approved. The process will continue unitl a full board is approved.

 

My poiunt was to explain that the CRs are not there to represent their unit's volunteers but to make decisions that are for the god of the council scouitng community as a whole.

 

 

[Bob White]

oh bother!

 

It would seem to reason that if there have been two votes that there will likely be a third.

 

The nominating committee appears to be continuing to do their job of submitting nominees to be approved. The process will continue unitl a full board is approved.

 

My point was to explain that the CRs are not there to represent their unit's volunteers but to make decisions that are for the gOod of the council scoutng community as a whole.

 

 

 

[jkhny]

When asked if that meant that there was no way to vote them out of office, Chookaszian responded, "that is correct". He further emphasized that the current board would remain "whether we liked it or not."

 

As noted, the current leadership has said they will provide a third slate of candidates - of THEIR choosing. If that THIRD slate is voted down they have said they will change the bylaws to allow current Board Members to reappoint themselves.

 

So....this is as if ONE candidate was running for President of the US. Voters refuse to "approve" him and vote NOT to elect him - twice. BUT they are not allowed to run any candidate they WILL vote for. The president remains in power - like it or not.

 

And that is EXACTLY what the "un-elected" but not removed leadership has said in Chicago.

 

Here, Executive Board members who objected to our SE were removed from the Board (District Chairmen are somehow no longer part of the Executive Board despite Council Bylaws to the contrary). Board members that have "disagreed" with this SE are NOT nominated for re-election at the end of their term. It sure seems like some COuncils "make up the rules as they go along" to do what the "leadership" wants - irrespective of what the majority of the volunteer members want.

 

And BSA's response is that it is a "local" problem, though National COULD simply suspend that Council's charter pending PROPER "elections" that represent the will of the majority.

 

So, back to the question, HOW do you oust "leadership" that refuses to leave?

 

Should members have to go to court to force BSA and their local Council to follow BSA bylaws?

[Bob White]

As has been explained to you a board cannot be un-elected, why you insist on refering to them as an un-elected board is a personal problem you will need to deal with.

 

The board is not un-elelected. They have just not been re-elected nor has a replacement board been elected yet. So until a board is elected the existing board continues to serve.

 

How do YOU get the changes you want. I have no idea, you are not in a position of reposibility or authority that gives you any say in the current situation.

 

Your are an angry bull with no horns.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[jkhny]

As has been explained to you a board cannot be un-elected

 

EXACTLY!!! It is IMPOSSIBLE for the membership in this "representative democracy" acting according to rules and procedures specified by this Council's bylaws to REMOVE ledership that REFUSES to leave.

 

The membership REFUSES to vote "FOR" the slate provided that maintains the status-quo.

 

Yet the membership is NOT allowed to choose candidates that their representatives WILL vote FOR.

 

This is not "democracy" in any way shape or form. This is an autocracy where those in power refuse to relinquish it.

 

The LEADERSHIP in this Council is refusing to follow rules, procedures or the corporate bylaws. But somehow it's the members - who have done all they are supposed to do - that are at fault....???!???

 

Making it as simple as possible.

 

Following procedures and rules, the representatives in this Council, following the will of the membership, refuse to re-elect current leadership.

 

Current leadership REFUSES to provide an alternative slate of candidates or allow a competing slate of candidates to run against their choices.

 

The membership wants to "elect" DIFFERENT leadership but are NOT being allowed to do so.

 

How can the membership - which has followed the rules - get rid of leadership that refuses to leave?

 

Is their only alternative to take this to court?

 

How absurd is that?

 

This whole incident clearly shows that "leadership" in BSA can and does refuse to be accountable to membership and will do whatever it takes to remain in place - even over the objections of the majority of a Council's members.

 

This is nothing resembling a "democracy" - this situation shows that even when complying with the difficult and onerous procedures needed to vote out a Council's leadership, the volunteers in BSA are ignored wih impunity.

 

This has nothing to do with "me" - this has to do with Council leadership that refuses to be accountable to membership or even their own bylaws. Should volunteer members have to take BSA (or its subsidiary corporations) to court simply to get them to follow clearly stated bylaws?

 

Again, this is about openness, transparency and all the things that BSA SHOULD represent - ethical and moral behavior, character, American values. BSA National should find this situation intolerable and intercede - as they can - by revoking this Council's charter and forcing open elections to be held. Why aren't they doing so?

 

Once again, instead of addressing the issue, the response becomes personal.

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

The Scouting program that YOU are responsible for takes place at the scout meeting of the charter orgaqnization YOU work for, serving THEIR scouts.

 

WHO ever told you that the district or councils responsibility was to represent YOU?

 

Who ever told you that YOU had representation on the council?

 

The charter organizations have representation on the district and council, not adult volunteers. COs own the unit...not YOU. The District and council are there for the scouts and scouting. They provide services to help and support adult volunteers. YOU agreed to deliver the BSA program, and the council and district is there to help you keep your promise. They are not there to help you CHANGE the program, They are there to help you learn and follow the program.

 

Now that I have answered your question...AGAIN...isn't time you answered mine? You know what it is, you know which thread.

 

 

[jkhny]

Ok.....you still missed the point.

 

THE COR'S REFUSE TO APPROVE THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP. The duly qualified "representatives" do not want current leadership in power.

 

NOBODY WANTS THESE PEOPLE TO STAY BUT THEY WON'T LEAVE

 

They did everything they were supposed to do.

 

 

as far as

 

"YOU agreed to deliver the BSA program, and the council and district is there to help you keep your promise. They are not there to help you CHANGE the program, They are there to help you learn and follow the program."

 

Schirach would've loved this mindset

 

Funny but most of the leaders I know think that BSA is supposed to be here to serve and support the VOLUNTEER leaders that actually do the real work of Scouting. LBP himself questioned whether or not there should even BE paid staff in Scouting and many other Scouting organizations do NOT have any.

 

But then with a "take it or leave it" attitude, maybe that's WHY the number of adult leaders is dropping even faster than the numbers of Scouts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Jhnky, why is it you cannot accept that the BSA, and the council and district that serve your community Are not about YOU or what YOU want?

 

Funny but most of the leaders I know think that BSA is supposed to be here to serve and support the VOLUNTEER leaders that actually do the real work of Scouting.

 

Why does that not suprise me.

 

Tell the people you hang around with that the district and council are there to support the local program and the organizations that use scouting. We help train their volunteers so that the CO and the scouts can have a stronger program. The support is to benefit the Scouts, we do that by helping scouters. But make no mistake we are here for the children far more than for the adults. SO SHOULD YOU BE.

 

maybe that's WHY the number of adult leaders is dropping even faster than the numbers of Scouts.

 

More horse hockey, you have no data to support that.

 

Now about that one question you have yet to answer.

 

As Smith's employer on what grounds would you fire him, when he had not been charged with any crime, and when once he was charged he no longer was an employee?

[evmori]

This thread is funny!

 

BTW, doesn't jkhny sound sorta like another poster that has been banned?

[jkhny]

"As Smith's employer on what grounds would you fire him, when he had not been charged with any crime, and when once he was charged he no longer was an employee? "

 

ANY BSA employee or volunteer involved in activities involving child abuse or child pornography or illegal acts of any kind (especially that reflect on his position in an organization that deals with youth) should be subject to TERMINATION. (Do you disagree with that?)

 

Smith SHOULD have been put on "suspension" pending outcome of charges - since the FBI made clear they had substantial evidence of wrongdoing and had an investigation underway.

 

Once "suspended" Smith should not have HAD the "option" to "quit" or retire. He should have been in an intermediate disciplinary holding state pending the outcome of expected legal charges.

 

Having pled guilty, Smith should have been FIRED. The far more appropriate question is WHY DID BSA LET HIM "RESIGN?"

 

Other companies have denied retirement benefits to employees who have committed illegal acts.

 

Like it or not, many people see BSA letting a now convicted distributor of child porn take the "easy" way out of BSA - a way that let him collect benefits (and they wonder just why BSA let this happen).

 

And what CRIME was St. Jean charged with? What was the legal justification for HIS termination? And if BSA can terminate ANY person for any reason (which I expect will be your argument), why didn't they terminate Smith as oon as the FBI informed BSA about their investigation?

 

And why is the SE in Grand Teton still an amployee of BSA after failing to report child abuse in two separate cases? THAT is a violation of BSA procedures and Local law.....THAT sure doesn't make parents feel that BSA puts child safety high on their priority list.

 

 

Checked recent headlines? amazing how the abuse cases keep coming...Why is that? Is it possible that BSA policies have driven many qualified leaders away from BSA - to the point where many units will take volunteers without looking too closely at their motivations or qualifications? OF COURSE it's the Chartered Organization that's at fault here - though many pay attention to BSA ONLY once a year when they sign charter renewals. Not in accordance with BSA policy? Well, it's reality.

 

 

Funny how some people will find reasons to justify anything and NEVER even question things that so many other people see as being so very wrong.

 

There is a reason most people simply "give up" trying to deal with the hypocrisy in BSA and simply leave. But some downwind wonder what the godawful smell is, look closer and try to get problems fixed. Some refuse to be party to clear wrongdoing and bring in outside authorities.

 

But others blindly ignore the stench and go "What smell?" They don't smell anything. They are later Shocked! - absolutely OUTRAGED! - when it becomes clear what was going on. They NEVER saw signs of problems, NEVER had any reason to believe anything was wrong.....they never thought that those "troublemakers" they ignored may have had real concerns....all those news reports didn't apply to THEIR Council......

 

About Alabama, Atlanta, Florida..........the ACLU must be real busy making BSA look so bad.....are all the volunteers going to the media about membership fraud secret ACLU operatives?

 

Sometime the most vehement "defenders" of BSA make clear the problems being raised.

 

[Bob White]

Good lord jhnky, can't you give a simple answer to a simple quetion.

 

Look, just because you have an opinion it doesn't have anything to do with real life. An employer cannot punnish someone for being investigated. Ever hear of innocent till proven guilty?

 

Smith was put on paid leave. Then he chosse to retire BEFORE any charges were announced. An employer, even the BSA, cannot refuse him retirement when at the time there was no known impropriety.

 

You can't just make up YOUR rules and then hold the BSA to the ficticious standards YOU set.

 

As far as the council being a representive for of 'government' it is, it just doesn't designed to represent YOU.

 

It is structured where local volunteersw represent the BSA scouting program to you, not YOU representing scouting to them.

Thank goodness.