Is BSA failing by "Corporate" standards?

[concerned_scout66]

"If all the loyal Scouts keep telling the informed dissidents

to leave....who's going to change things?"

 

Great question. Here's my guess...

 

After dissenting opinion on the current major disagreements is gone, there would be no change for a while. This would continue until loyalists realize that they are really all quite different. They never will figure out that "respect and defend" was a way of life that they did not learn. They never will understand that the only reason they agreed on anything was that they had a common enemy in the liberals (whose only goal was to have BSA respecting and defending other people.) It wouldn't take very long -- a few years at most.

 

After this brief period, BSA loyalists would begin attacking each other. The non-Mormons might attack the Mormons because the church still preaches polygamy as a commandment (to be done in the afterlife) or because they perceive that the LDS church has lower Scouting standards. Christians might attack the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and others about the lack of supreme being, their differing views on the nature of "God", the validity of their scripture, or the proper methods of prayer. Various groups might again attack the Unitarians simply because they can't understand why this group will not join in the bashing.

 

This sounds absurd, doesn't it? If anyone has any doubt that this might actually happen they don't remember their American history very well. We can pull up all the inspiring stories we want about our founding fathers and respect for all faiths but the reality of our American past is that all of these groups were attacked for their religious beliefs by "God-fearing" Americans too intolerant to allow others to worship or not worship in their own way.

 

For me, I would much prefer that BSA get out of the bedroom and let the Churches dispense religion. Let the CO's do that. The only position that BSA should take on religious morality is to "respect and defend the rights of all people." To do anything else is un-American.

[Bob White]

JKHNY asks Do you know how many Eagle Badges have been mailed back to BSA by people TRYING to express their displeasure?

 

As a matter of fact I do. Over the years fewer than 100 have returned their Eagle in protest. LAST YEAR ALONE 50,000 SCOUTS EARNED EAGLE.

Anyone care to do the math?

 

JKHNY, any guesses as to what percentage of all Eagle Scouts the number of protesters represents? How about if we compared it to the number of Boy Scouts over the years any guesses what the percentage would be? Allow me .0000011

 

So now let's talk about this statement of jkhny's "BSA is losing some of its most DEDICATED members. Long serving leaders and boys from families with generations in Scouting HAVE walked away.

 

Who were they? I don't know and neither does he. There are over three hundred councils in the BSA, there is no possible way that he has any idea who if any or how many have taken the action he suggests. Even in a small council of say 1500 volunteers you will have hundreds of volunteers come and go each year and there is no way he knows why each left.

 

I know several multi-generation scouters in the district I live in, and none that I know have left because of what he suggests.

 

These accusations are unfounded, and unprovable. It's ranting pure and simple.

 

He goes on to offer that the the currect BSA leadership in Irving is unethical. Who specifically and what did they do in the course of their job that he knows was unethical and what were the actions taken against them?

 

By the way falsifying membership figures is not in itself illegal as jkhny has claimed. It does not become illegal until they gain finances based on the false numbers.

 

He asks "If all the loyal Scouts keep telling the informed dissidents to leave....who's going to change things?

 

The same people who have been responsible for change in the BSA since it began, the dedicated volunteers who replace the whiners, that take the training and do their jobs correctly without ranting.

 

We are a movement of millions each year. Because of our size there will always be complainers. But do not kid yourselves into thinking that they are the ones who serve the youth the best or who serve scouting the most. Like the annoying static on the radio, they are the spaces where there is no program to enjoy not the spots where there is an active signal. You have to decide for yourselves what you would rather listen to.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[jkhny]

 

 

About that whole "Trustworthty" thing - and "ethical and moral" decision making....Is Bob embarassed by anything in BSA?

 

The logic quoted by Bob is the convoluted logic that the immoral and unethical use to justify their bad behavior. The fact that a SCOUT would seek to justify such bad behavior by noting it in s not "technically" illegal.......

 

I'm dumbfounded.

 

Even the Catholic Church learned that you cannot defend immoral and unethical (and criminal) behavior by claiming that you were serving a "higher good" or "protecting" a worthy organization. Claiming that the far greater good done by an organization offset the "little" bad is an ethically challenged argument. Good acts do not excuse bad ones. And making the direct comparison - Did BSA really even come clean about their own issue there? Idaho and other cases raise serious questions and show it still occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's nice to "belong" but those "millions" are declinging rapidly and without pause. The "complainers" ARE leaving.....fed up with the hypocrisy. Shields doesn't get it - people ARE voting with their feet.

 

And a hell of alot of the kids being touted as "youth served by year end" showed up for only a few meetings during that year and haven't been seen since. How many kids are in BSA RIGHT NOW? I'll bet maybe 2.5 million, not the 3.1 million claimed via year-end numbers. Want to bet that the current active count is alot lower than 12 months ago?

 

And for losing Scouters....even BSA is getting a bit worried about the declines in ADULT volunteer membership.....and this despite a push to sign up anyone as a "registered leader" (for the added insurance you know). BSA itself shows a 27% decline in adult volunteers at the Council level in the past 5 years. Or are these just the old-timers dying off?

 

 

While one can admire Bob for his devotion to Scouting, has he bothered to read its Mission or Law? Does he understand them?

 

What does "Trustworthy" mean? Not lying. period.

 

Unquestioned devotion and obedience is NOT the type of behavior we should want from our children - not as they grow into adulthood. It may be approriate in a dog, but raising children means teaching them how to think independently. It also means teaching them what is moral and ethical behavior. Far more people have been killed by unquestioned obedience than through healthy skepcism.

 

Dedicated believers "following orders" have been responsible for some pretty horrific things.

[Bob White]

I noticed you did not even attempt to factually refute a single point I made.

 

Just because the council you are in may have lost 27% of their adult volunteers you have no evidence as to why each one left, nor do you have any evidence of that figure holding true in any other council or nationally. More importantly you have not proven that those 27% served the scouting program more by their presence than by their absence.

 

You only offer more static.

[jkhny]

"By the way the way falsifying membership figures is not in itself illegal as jkhny has claimed. It does not become illegal until they gain finances based on the false numbers"

 

.....for whatever reason the quotes from Bob did not appear in my previous post. That was the first one.

 

I find it hard to deal with the "logic" shown above. It scares me.

 

My answer"

 

The Mission of BSA is to teach youth to make ethical and moral decisions - paraphrasing, not having it in front of me.

 

"It's not illegal so it is ethical and moral to falsify numbers."

 

So it's OK to claim "Quality Council" status with faked numbers. It's ok to give staff raises based on faked performance. Where does it end - as long as it's not illegal its OK? That's my read. You can't argue with logic like that. And just as I'm not in Bob's Council, he's not in mine.

 

And about National.....Sovreign Smith was arrested for distributing child porn. ILLEGAL, not just repugnant. IMMORAL by pretty much any standards - including Smith's own. He was a big defender of keeping homosexuals out of BSA - though strangely he collected images of BOYS engaged in sexual activity ('wonder why the evil liberal press tended to leave that part out?)

 

But BSA let him RETIRE. You think they'd at least FIRE him to make the point that BSA finds this appalling. They fire gay staff sexually interested in ADULT males.

 

I'm still wondering about the yet to be seen fallout from Idaho. Court records show that BSA - AT ALL LEVELS (including NATIONAL) were informed that a child abuser was employed by Grand Teton Council. None of those that failed to report abuse has been removed from Scouting - many have been promoted.

 

Contrary to BSA rules (and various laws) NO action was taken to remove this person from Scouting for 7 years. A number of Scout paid leaders were guilty of ILLEGALLY failing to report child abuse but somehow these cases were not investigated until the statute of limitations expired. Scout leaders were aware of at LEAST 24 cases of abuse from that abuser. Parents of abused boys were NOT informed by BSA "because they wanted to let the boys get on with their lives" a quote from BSA attoreneys in unsealed documents.

 

The Scout Executive remains in place though another completely separate case of abuse was reported DIRECTLY to him by the victim who was raped at gunpoint. No action was ever taken against the assailant and the incident was NOT reported to authorities. The kid was terrified. But that's a local problem, not national? Shouldn't National intervene and fire this guy?

 

Why even touch on "minor" problems like enrollment fraud?

 

These FACTS do NOT reflect positively on BSA's image.

 

Does ANYONE think these FACTS DON'T have an effect on Scouting?

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Is falsifying mebership numbers unethical, yes. But that is not what you claimed. You said it was illegal and that is not true.

 

"So it's OK to claim "Quality Council" status with faked numbers.

 

No, but its not illegal.

 

Mr. Smith did not do his illegal activities at work or on BSA property or on BSA equipment. It had no more bearing on the BSA than it would if you got caught doing something illegal on your on time unrelated to scouting. To try and comnnect his activities to any fault of the BSA is just fear mongering.

 

They could not fire him because he retired prior to being charged with a crime. You have even less knowledge of labor laws than you do of Scouting. You cannot fire someone who is not in your employ.

 

I have no facts about the Idaho case, only hearsay, and unlike you I will not comment without more actual information.

 

Were the people you mentioned involved in any way in determining the quality of your next meeting? If not then why do you not go back to your role as a voluteer, if you have one, and stop using others as excuses for why scouts quit the unit you serve.

 

You are like a scandal tabloid. You scream sensational headlines and contrive stories to entertain those who are unwilling to learn the facts but love a good story.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Unfortunately, Bob, the tone of your posts seems to indicate that you're willing to turn a blind eye to everything That's being reported in the press. To play a semantic game of whether something is "illegal" or simply "unethical" seems to be exactly the wrong thing to do. To suggest that it's ok that a person closely connected to Scouting was caught with child pornography because he was on his own time just, I don't know, makes it seem that you're oblivious to the obvious visibility problems it causes for Scouting, justifed or not. As the defender of all things good in Scouting, Bob, I'd think that you would be infuriated by these people who have falsified Scout numbers and done other things that have soiled the Scout image. But, that just doesn't seem to be there.

[Bob White]

It's not that I turn a blind eye to the press it's that I do not rely on the press to learn about the structure and the responsibilities of scouting at its various levels.

 

If you got arrested for a crime that had no involvement with scouts, no involvement with your role or responsibility as a scout leader, didn't happen on or with scout properties, it would be loudicrous to think it reflected in any way on the scouting program.

 

Lots of people commit crimes without it having anything to do with where they work. Why are you so focused on trying to make his persons crime a scouting problem?

 

To say that I said it was "OK for for Smith to be be caught with child pornography because it was on his own time" is a lie. I never said that or even suggested it and anyone who reads my post will see that I neither said it or implied it. That was a ruthless insult and it should struck from your post.

 

Words and their meanings matter. Jkhny is one of a few posters who make statements that are blatantly false. He said that the action was illegal, a very specific and well known term. The fact is its not illegal. I agree its not ethical, but ethics and law are often two different things.

 

Each Scout Council is an independent corporation owned, operated, and served by the community in encompasses. I do not live far from you Prairie Scouter and you cannot tell me that what happenes in Atlanta has ANY effect on the quality or resources of your local program.

 

I trust the people of Atlanta are perfectly capable of managing their own council. What I do in my roles in this council has no effect on them or they on me. To use them as an excuse for your own problems is ridiculous.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[tjhammer]

Bob, come on, let's not be so disingenuous here.... Smith was one of the three top paid executives for Scouting, had been directly in charge of Youth Protection guidelines, and was one of the very regular, vocal opponents to "homosexuals" in Scouting.

 

The fact that he didn't search for and trade pictures of naked boys at the office, but confined such activities to home, seems like a pretty minor detail compared to the hypocrisy of the above, don't you think?

[Bob White]

You cannot blame his sin on his employer simply because it happened to be the BSA. After a thorough investigation by the FBI, THEY not the BSA, determined that he never did his act while at work, on work properties, on work equipment nor did he involve any scout or scouts, and he did not use his role in scouting in any way during the crime.

 

You cannot rationally make this a BSA issue.

 

He did not create the BSA position on avowed homosexuality, nor was he responsible for its implementation. So the fact that he agreed with it is irrelevent, millions of people agree with it.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Prairie_Scouter]

Bob,

 

When you start playing semantic games over whether something is "illegal" or simply "unethical", it's very easy infer from such a discussion that because somebody was caught doing something illegal on their own time, you'd think that that was ok in the sense that you think it has nothing to do with Scouting. Not meant to be insulting, only what I saw as a legitimate interpretation of what you said. I didn't say that you said that; I said it was suggested by your comments. I honestly don't think that you think that way, but I do think that you underestimate the potential damage these kinds of things can do. The problem is, these situations DO affect Scouting.

 

If you were to re-read my post, you'd see that what I was talking about was not any sort of legal liability for BSA, but clearly, the visibility problem that it causes BSA because this person was closely related to BSA. This is bound to be played up in the press, and was. Like it or not, the actions of those associated with BSA affect the public persona of BSA, and that does affect us. Whether it should or shouldn't is kind of irrelevent; the fact is that it does, and BSA has to deal with that effectively.

 

Hey if you live that close by, maybe we should get together and "eat some crow" sometime. I'm sure that there's plenty to go around

 

[johndaigler]

There's a huge chunk of me that would like to go back and edit (erase) most of what's found on the last three pages. But, I think I'd rather be on time for my root canal!

 

Perhaps we could use less diatribe and more dialogue.

 

jkhny - Your angst is obvious, but we've read it in several threads now. Whether agreeing or disagreeing, you're preaching to choirs. You'll help yourself, and your readers (most of whom don't reply), by shortening your work to novellas - Perhaps Eamonn can help. Make a point or two, and then chill while you wait for replies. KISMIF!

 

BW - I'm not going to go back and edit, yours or his; neither of you should be strutting around puffy-chested at the moment.

 

I'm going to close the thread - Everyone's free to continue it elsewhere. Perhaps a fresh start will bring us closer to a Scoutlike discussion.

 

Yours, in moderation!!

 

jd

 

Can't ya just hear the "Kumbayah" gently in the background???