A major embarrassment

[evmori]

Mr. Smith pled guilty to distributing child porn. We don't know if he is a pedophile or not. I'm not sure what he was charged with initially & it is possible he pled guilty to a lesser charge to stay out of jail. It seems he is being treated as a 1st time offender and been given leniency. Personally, I think anyone who is involved in anyway with kiddie porn should be tossed in jail! Let the population of a maximum security prison handle them!

 

Bob,

I have asked my questions. I have made no allegations. Read my posts. If the Catholic church had asked questions and investigated they might have avoided the legal battles they got involved in! I don't want to see the BSA end up in the same position! If you do, then you are doing a disservice to the BSA!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum]

DadNow,

Welcome to the forum. I, for one, appreciate your thoughtful contribution. IMHO, you have neatly nailed the issue.

[fgoodwin]

I think this thread has reached the point of diminishing returns, but to answer Bob's question to me: its possible Dadnow mis-spoke. I agree that Mr. Smith has not been charged with pedophilia, but instead he pled guilty to charges of possessing & distributing child porn.

 

But I do agree with DN's assessment that this incident creates a public relations problem for BSA. Rightly or wrongly, the public will wonder what's up with BSA leadership when it turns out that the professional in charge of the YP task force is himself into child porn.

 

It may not be fair, but its a fact of life that the public will question what's going on in Irving. You can protest all you want that the public should not blame BSA for the acts of an errant employee, but that won't change the public perception of potential problems in Irving.

 

I think that's all DN is saying. And I agree with him.

[DadNow_EagleThen]

Bob is right to correct me on the charge: it was of course child pornography, not pedophilia. Sloppy on my part, and what I get for typing late at night. I still wouldn't want the guy anywhere near my children.

 

But I stand by the rest of my post. Senior employees of Scouting are leaders in the general, and truest sense of the term. Their actions reflect on the program as a whole. To split hairs and redefine them as "mere" employees is evading the issue.

 

Thanks,

MF

[evmori]

Maybe it would be a good idea for National to redo the bachground checks on ALL employees at National and ALL councils.

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[eagle54]

Mr Smith said that he pleaded quilty to spare the Boy Scouts the embarraseement of public trial.

 

As to how he recieved child porography he said some one sent it to him self. Jesus says "flee the sin" = hit the delete key.

 

He is facing a sentence in either June or July of 5 to 20 years.

 

 

 

 

[scoutingagain]

Well welcome Dad Now, glad to have another Yankee onboard and I don't mean Yankee fan.

 

I agree with DNET's post as well. No one is saying the BSA has done anything wrong here or is guilty. But the public image of the BSA has taken a pretty big hit and I believe it will effect fundraising at both the national level and the unit level, at least for the short term. It is also likely to effect near term recruting efforts. We had 9 Webelos cross over about a month ago. At our meeting this week we had 6 Moms show up to observe the meeting. Prior to this week, other than the adult leader that agreed to work with them as a New Scout Patrol, they seemed content to drop them off and pick them up.

 

Our district has been gearing up for a spring recruiting event. Now imagine your the parent of a 5-8 year old boy, with no background in scouting. This week the only information your have on the BSA is headlines reading BSA OFFICIAL PLEADS GUILTY TO CHILD PORN CHARGE. Next week you see a poster that says COME SIGN UP FOR SCOUTS. Any one that doesn't think the events of the past week won't come back to that parent and they'll question whether or not this is an organization their son should be associated with is naive. Heck when I signed my own son up 9 years ago I had to convince my wife who had no background in scouting this was a safe thing to do.

 

After multiple cases of registration misrepresenatation(fraud), other cases of child abuse, and now a national executive involved in child porn, some of us are beginning to wonder if there isn't just a little too much smoke to think we shouldn't check to see if there's a fire and I'll admit I don't know how one would do that. Like SNET said, the vast majority of Enron employees were good honest employees, the vast majority of Catholics are decent moral people however both institutions were significantly damaged by the actions of a few key leaders. I'd hate to see the same happen to the BSA.

 

SA

 

 

[eagle90]

We are talking perception here. Not the perception of us here who understand how the BSA is run. But the perception of the general public. They see a picture of Mr. Smith in full uniform and regalia and see a scout leader. They have no clue if he is an employee, a Scoutmaster, or whatever. They see a scout leader who has blemished the organization. As much as it is said that the BSA had nothing to do with this, and we here can understand and agree, that is NOT the opinion the general public will have. Not in this day and age.

[Bob White]

"Maybe it would be a good idea for National to redo the bachground checks on ALL employees at National and ALL councils."

 

For what purpose? If you had done a background check of Mr.Smith just 3-days ago nothing would have shown up. Background checks reveal past convictions and nothing else. Mr. Smith had no prior convictions.

 

The instant the BSA was informed that he was under investigation he was removed of all his BSA responsibilities. What more could the BSA have done at that point?

 

"But the public image of the BSA has taken a pretty big hit and I believe it will effect fundraising at both the national level and the unit level, at least for the short term."

 

Not if we keep our heads and not get caught up in the irrational ideas adn misinformation that some of our own leaders are creating. The BSA was his employer, The investigation which has lasted almost two years has turned up no evidence and no allegations that Mr.Snith ever molested a child. His actions were done at home and never involved scouting or scouts.

 

Tell parents and scouts the truth. Your character is not determined by the uniform or the rank. It is determined by the decisons you make each day. Mr. Smith made some very bad decisions at home.

 

They were not decisions made by the BSA. They did not involve any contact with children. He developed an addiiction to child pornography on the internet, and when at home he collected and sent images to others over the internet. That was his crime. According to the Dallas News reports he faces no jail time but a fine up to $250,000.

 

He was not a leader in the BSA, being employed does not you you a leader. He was a department head, with a very distinguished work record. His freinds were astonished to learn of this other life that no one else knew of.

 

We need to keep this in perspective as we deal with the public. We are not victims here. Any wounds you feel are self-inflicted.

 

The BSA is not the criminal lets stop suggesting that they are by talking about investigating them or other employees.

 

Irrational reactions on our part as volunteers will do more to harm our local programs than this man's actions have done.

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori]

For what purpose?

To say to the public "We are on top of this & want to ensure it doesn't happen again".

If you had done a background check of Mr.Smith just 3-days ago nothing would have shown up. Background checks reveal past convictions and nothing else. Mr. Smith had no prior convictions.

While we don't know this for sure,I would agree that is a true statement. I think I posted the same thing awhile back. And while new background checks might not turn anything up, it would be a good step to take. Shows the public the BSA is doing everything it can to prevent this from happening again and not just sweeping it under the rug.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

While we don't know this for sure

 

What don't we' know for sure Ed?

That he has no prior convictions? Have you not read the news articles or listened to any reports? The District attorney said that he has no prior convictions or sex abuse allegations.

 

Or, that background checks can only see prior convictions? Do you have any idea what a background check can see? If you do then you know it can't see a conviction that hasn't happened yet.

 

And while new background checks might not turn anything up, it would be a good step to take.

 

If doing them again won't do turn up anything then how can it be a good step to take?

 

Shows the public the BSA is doing everything it can to prevent this from happening again and not just sweeping it under the rug.

 

Are you following this Fred?

 

How would a background check of every employee have kept this from happening this time let alone from happening again?

 

What is it that you believe has been swept under the rug here that you don't want to happen again?

 

This had nothing to do with the BSA other than he was an employee. He was caught, he was charged, the BSA was shown to have no connection to the criminal activity, they did not try to hide the fact that he was an employee. They said here is who is was with us, here is what he did as an employee.

 

What could you possibly believe was swept under the rug? Whose ruge was it? Who did the sweeping?

 

We don't know right, so what's the soultion? Well it seems to be "investigate EVERYONE" of course. For what? Who knows? But won't it make us look good to the public!

 

Calgon take me away!

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle]

Bob White, While I am in general agreement with your arguments on this topic (Mr. Smith's crime), I think you could have been more careful in crafting your recent analogy.

 

I know people that would be categorized as 'poor', based on family income. They probably work harder for their paychecks than most of the more affluent people I know...and I respect them very much. To imply that poor people don't work hard and that they would be antagonized by someone (implied as not poor) who does work hard, is unfortunate because it has the appearance of prejudice.

[Bob White]

BackPacker, If you want a thread about me then start one, and see if it is allowed. I will not cooperate in your attempt to alter the topic of this thread or your attempt to twist my words for your personal goal of attacking me.

 

If you have nothing to offer that is on the topic then it would be best if you just read.

[packsaddle]

 

(This message has been edited by packsaddle) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Yes, I started a thread in the disappearance of Bob White due to many comments on the forum about him and I wanted a sinlge place to have people post about it rather than have seveal references in many places. I often do that, this thing with Smith and Pornography is another example, I closed all but this thread to keep all comments in one place.

 

I will have to be directed to the post backpacker made saying he would start a thread on bobwhite, so far I have missed it.

 

As occasionally happens this thread has become a contest amoung posters over who said what and why and why cant I say this and you shouldnt say that and I frankly am getting tired of the PMs that are asking me why I cant control you guys. And the heck of it is, I agree with the PMs, you guys get out of control so fast it makes my head spin. If you want to continue arguing with each other, please do so in PMs. I am closing this thread. If you want to discuss the topics of Mr Smith, the BSA and child pornography start another thread in this section but this one is closed.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)