He Made a Mistake - Will You Turn Your Back on Him?

[Rikki12]

So if I hear correctly, BOYS, are held to a higher standard than adults. Yes, the boys deserved to be fired, no question. But to be banned is overkill and teaches the wrong lesson. Whether paid staff or not, this is still a boy. As the parent of an ADD boy myself, I know all too well the struggle these kids deal with on a daily basis. That is no excuse, but it is a contributing factor. Like other parents, I would expect my son to be able to attend/work at camp without being exposed to pot. As a boy scout run facility, I have higher expectations of the work environment than I would if the place of employment were a local business.

 

The boy still stepped forward and admitted his mistake. Neither boy was found with the drugs on them or in their possessions. At the time of the event, the boy did not even know his hair could be tested for drug use. It was not in his sphere of normal day-to-day environment. As I stated, the boy's activities are closely monitored by his parents. For these kids, unless they are extremely interested in something, they don't pay a whole lot of attention to the ins and outs. As the 30% rule explains, intellectually, these kids are equal to their peers, but in executive functioning they are roughly 30% behind their peers and need extra guidance. For these kids, that is equivalent to an 11 or 12 year old. Apparently it is recognized by the BSA, because it is a question on the medical form required for participation.

 

So many are looking at these boys as though they are of the same level of ability as adults to think through and make the correct choices all of the time. Parts of society know this is not true. The drinking age in most parts of the country is 21, because it is well-known that the maturity of the brain is such that it is not at the level to make the correct decisions. Many car rental places will not rent to those below 25, again because the brain is not yet mature enough to work responsibly in too many cases. But more than anything, forensic psychology recognizes that the average brain does not reach maturity until the age of 30. These kids are 30% behind their peers and that puts them even further down the scale in executive functioning. Obviously, the BSA recognizes this enough to ask the question in the first place. Since opportunities and education are handled based on chronological age and not executive functionting age, these kids are already behind the 8-ball. If the BSA recognizes this enough to ask the question, then I expect them to handle their mentoring and guidance appropriately.

 

The bigger question in my eyes, is why the local council is so unwilling to put into writing the information they had received that compelled them to revoke the membership and why are they unwilling to provide copies of SOPs for such situations. The judge said he often throws boys in jail the first time they smoke pot, but at least when the boys step into his court they know exactly what they are accused of. It was only through endless pushing by the parents that the SE finally, in a moment of anger, verbalized the accusation. An accusation that is very different than what camp administration and witnesses stated when the parents picked up the boys.

 

I started this thread to find out how many were really and truly interested in providing the real mentorship and guidance that the BSA's mission statement uses. For those that are truly supportive, I thank you. It is nice to know such people do believe in the need to guide and mentor these boys. As Jesus said, He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her." After all had departed without throwing a stone, he also said Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.

 

I am not asking for anymore than what Jesus offered. I was hoping to find enough that felt the same that perhaps the councils that had lost their way could be regained and returned to the purpose they were meant to provide. The secrecy and walls this local council has raised and the unwillingness to accept responsibility for the part they played in the whole situation, is definitely not the BSA I believed in. The boy stood up and admitted his guilt, and offered to resign his position. The camp admin and local council have not admitted their failings, only condemned. I am afraid their continued actions will destroy the BSA, that at the moment, exists in his wonderful troop.

 

[packsaddle]

I too am a parent of ADD children. Mine have made huge mistakes in their lives and survived, thankfully. But they have not been in positions of responsibility over other children when they made their poor choices.

If a boy makes a personal mistake that is one thing. Even in this case, the personal aspect is regrettable and if that had been all there was to it, I would have viewed it as I did earlier.

The difference is that in this case, he was in a position of official leadership and responsibility over other boys, over children if you like. If the nanny sneaks one at her home and lights up then she might be persuaded to stop. If the nanny sneaks one into the home of the children over whom she has temporary responsiblity, it is a far different matter. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

The boy was there to teach, to lead, to protect, and to set an example. It doesn't matter that standards were unfairly NOT applied to others. In this case he received fair application of the standard and was fairly dismissed. Not simply because he made a mistake in itself, but because of the position he occupied when he made it. At least that is the way I view this. The fact that others got off without a penalty is regrettable but that doesn't change the situation for this boy.

Lesson learned, as hard as it may seem for him and others. Time to commit that to memory and avoid that path in the future which, I note, remains completely open and available to him in other aspects of life. He didn't meet the legal system, be thankful for that.

[evmori]

I agree ed. And a staff member who covers up molestation should get what?

 

The same thing, Gern, fired.

[PeteM]

How about if the boy wasn't a paid staff member, but a CIT.

 

What would you-all do then?

[LongHaul]

First I would like to say that as a person that has suffered with ADD all his life and has two sons that also suffer from this condition IMO it is a contributing factor in decision making BUT when it is offered as an excuse for bad decision making it is just that an excuse. If this boys decision making powers are such that ADD is his defense then he should under NO circumstances be allowed to be in a position of responsibility because he admittedly is not responsible. As to the expulsion, I believe it was unwarranted in this case and unjustified in light of the fact that the punishment was not equally administered.

 

As to the belief that this was not the boys first encounter with illegal drugs I must remind everyone that there has to be a first time. The first time I was offered a joint was 1968 at the World Jamboree in Idaho. Admittedly I led a sheltered life as far as some things went. I dont remember even hearing about marihuana in high school. Had I accepted the offer to join my fellow scouts in partaking it would indeed have been my first time. I know first hand of scouts that were exposed for the first time to marihuana at camp, this scout did not accept the offer and reported the incident which resulted in several adults walking into a staff cabin that still had smoke in the air but no actual drugs still present. Everyone in the cabin was fired and sent home but I do not believe anyone was expelled from scouting. My point is that it could very well have been this boys first time and in light of the manner in which it was handled Id have to ask what lesson was taught here.

 

As a former staff member I have to respond to the reference of a nanny doing something on his/her own time and doing something OTJ on the job. The incident I described that I personally know about occurred well after lights out and not in the presence of any campers. Should this not be considered a boys own time? I know of many adult leaders while at camp that slip off to town in the evening. I know many adult staff that slip off to town while off duty. These people are up at camp for 7 or 8 weeks and should be allowed personal time. My question here is what is the difference other than the legality issue? Do we only consider ourselves to be leaders or scoutmasters when scouts are present? Am I not a SM 24/7 ? When we have taken down camp at the end of the summer it is customary to celebrate with a trip to town for everyone. We go to a bowling alley that has a large game room and serves food and liquor. The rule is no uniforms and the adults make use of the bar. The message I see here is that it is OK to drink just dont do it in uniform. Yes I drank, I even tended bar one year when there was a staff shortage at the bowling alley.

LongHaul

 

Gern, other than those directly involved with the molestation case do you think there are true scouters that think denial and evasion are proper methods of dealing with those cases?

[nldscout]

The thing that amazes me Rikki12 is you seem to not realize the serious nature of the offense these young men did. In this state and in most, the commited a CRIME, that people go to jail for, pay serious fines, and or get other not so pleasent consequences.

 

What would you have the council do, say "Gee its tio bad you broke the law, we forgive you".

 

If they did that what credibility would they have, it may sound harsh to you to ban them, but I think they didn't go far enough. They should have called law enforcement and had them carted off, rather than call the parents. Let the parents pick them up at the local Jail. Then the word would be out there in the staff that these type of actions would not be tolerated.

 

As to the statement the other boy didn't get a letter, maybe he did and is just accepting his actions and not sniviling about it.

[Beavah]

Yah, guess I should clarify my "not the first time" statements, eh?

 

Of course there's a first time for any kid usin' drugs.

 

But da math and the psychology and the simple reality is that it is extremely unlikely that a lad is going to be caught by adults his first time. Almost never happens.

 

The result is that almost every time a boy, or especially a naive parent, claims "But it was his first time!!" they're lyin' or fooling themselves. Parents really want to believe it was "the first time." It allows them to excuse it and feel better and avoid the hard work of really knuckling down to get on top of helpin' their kid. Kids use the claim to avoid punishment as best they can.

 

Longhaul's stories are good ones. When a boy is offered drugs at a scout camp, if it really would be his first time, he's going to say no. Yeh don't do your first hit in that kind of risky, public way. Yeh do it way out of the way, in private, where yeh aren't going to get caught.

 

If we had fewer parents who were gullible enough to believe "oh my kid would never do drugs" and "oh, this was his first time", we'd be a lot better off. That attitude really is "turning our backs on" the real needs of a kid.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[LongHaul]

nldscout, As I read Rikki12's posts I see several things >>Unlike the camp staff that was expected to provide training, supervision, and interaction and was lacking in all areas, the boy did take responsibility for his actions.<< This leads me to believe that the boy in question was NOT on staff but was a camper. This relates to him being in a positions of responsibility that taking drugs would have compromised. Later posts make it unclear as to whether the boy was a staff member. (Incidents of adult staff threatening youth staff with dismissal and/or replacement) Then I see >>As I said, another boy brought it to camp. The boy in question was curious and tried it. Apparently someone saw, went to admin and reported it. A couple hours after the incident the boys were called to admin, questioned by admin and law and then picked up by their parents.<< This leads me to understand that the "law" was involved and found no evidence of drug use. When you refer to the seriousness of the action I wonder to whom are you referring. Serious in the eyes of the law? Law apparently does not find evidence of a crime. In the eyes of admin? Evidently possession, transportation, distribution are not serious enough for expulsion. (If indeed that is the case.) You speak of the repercussions people have seen for doing what this boy did, what is the purpose of these "sentences"? We impose fines and sentences to try to detour repetition of the act. The message I see being delivered here is honesty is not rewarded. Had this boy remained silent would we be having this debate? Serious because it was a breech of the law?  We all are guilty of that if we want to take the letter of the law to it's extreme.  Had the joint been a cigarette would the reactions have been the same?  How about a can of beer?  As a Judge have you incarcerated first time alcohol users?

LongHaul

[evmori]

How about if the boy wasn't a paid staff member, but a CIT.

 

What would you-all do then?

 

Same thing except he would then he would probably be a juvenile & subject to different treatment under the law.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

LongHaul, I will attempt to answer as many of your questions that I can.

"The incident I described that I personally know about occurred well after lights out and not in the presence of any campers. Should this not be considered a boys own time?"

 

No, not really. If the nanny lives with the family for most of the week and sneaks one into the home, even during a time when the children are asleep, it is still in the home of that family. As such she not only compromises herself but the family and their home. This is the better analogy.

 

" I know of many adult leaders while at camp that slip off to town in the evening. I know many adult staff that slip off to town while off duty. These people are up at camp for 7 or 8 weeks and should be allowed personal time."

 

I agree. They should be allowed some free time. If they engage in something like this outside the bounds of council property or outside the bounds of a scouting activity, they would still be subject to the legal process. Whether or not BSA took further action is anyone's guess, given the varied performance they've demonstrated so far.

 

" My question here is what is the difference other than the legality issue? Do we only consider ourselves to be leaders or scoutmasters when scouts are present?"

 

Each of us has to answer that for ourself. Outside of scouting events I consider myself to be a citizen like anyone else. That, in itself, should be sufficient to do the right thing.

 

" Am I not a SM 24/7 ? When we have taken down camp at the end of the summer it is customary to celebrate with a trip to town for everyone. We go to a bowling alley that has a large game room and serves food and liquor. The rule is no uniforms and the adults make use of the bar. The message I see here is that it is OK to drink just dont do it in uniform. Yes I drank, I even tended bar one year when there was a staff shortage at the bowling alley."

 

That's right, just follow the G2SS and BSA regs and you're fine, no laws broken, no bad examples for the boys. Hoist one for me next time. I'll do the same...I just armed myself this summer with an ample supply of Moose Drool. Yum!

 

[LongHaul]

First let me make it clear that I do not condone illegal activity, especially on Council Property. Slipping of to town makes all the difference in that it is off scout property.

Committing an illegal act on scout p[roperty is adding insult to injury.

 

Packsaddle, Moose Drool? Is this a local brand or a pet name?

[packsaddle]

An actual brand. I think it's brewed in Missoula, MT. I buy it whenever I drive across the country, this time I stopped in Bozeman. They also have a local soda whose name I like, "Flathead Lake Monster" soda, or something like that. Can't say much for the food up there but the libations...not bad.

[LongHaul]

Any chance it could be shipped? Some people like to wine taste, I like to sample local brews.

LongHaul

 

Brain engaged after I hit submit and I googled Moose Drool.(DUH) Got the web site and ordered some.(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[packsaddle]

Back before airline security went insane I'd pick up a few six packs and carry them on. I once carried 4 six packs in a single bag. The x-ray guy stopped me and nearly fell over laughing when he inspected the bag. Ahhhh, for the good ole days.

[BrentAllen]

Longhaul,

The difference is the adults leaving camp to drink a few adult beverages isn't against the law.

 

"The message I see being delivered here is honesty is not rewarded."

Rewarding honesty by not punishing the boy? So, everytime he smokes pot, he just admits it, and gets off with no punishment. Yeah, that makes sense.

No - you punish for the offense, but if he lies about it, the punishment for lying is worse than the punishment for the offense. What could be worse, you ask? Taking it to law enforcement and having it put on his record.

 

"This leads me to understand that the "law" was involved and found no evidence of drug use."

I believe the boy admitted guilt. Do you need more evidence than that? If so, use a drug test kit.

 

I don't cut the boy any slack. From my reading, he was a staffer. Behavior like this must be stopped immediatly, or it will spread quickly. Illegal drug use has no place in Scouting, either for adults or kids. The message should be sent loud and clear - you do drugs, you don't do Scouting - it's your choice. Too bad this boy's leaders didn't deliver this message.