The Boy Scouts In Crisis - A Historian's Perspective

[CynicalScouter]

30 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

The statement had been made that the NEC and NEB are all volunteers, let's confirm that. Who are they? I could not find a listing on scouting.org nor in the last two Annual Reports.

If we don't see or hear from leaders, it is hard to follow them. If they don't provide fact-based, rational explanations for their decisions, it is hard to support them.

I agree. There's no way to know who these people are.

The only think I could think of and I think it worked is the IRS 990 forms which by law have to include the NEB.

https://i9peu1ikn3a16vg4e45rqi17-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2019BSA_Form990_publicdisclosure-1.pdf

I won't list the names but they can be found at that link.

So as a cross-reference I took one NEB name.

Other than that 990 form, this last name appears NOWHERE on scouting.org.

So I thought sure, maybe it is on scoutingwire.org. Nope.

I even ran a google search. Nope. There are references to the 990 and South Dakota posts the board of directors for all foreign corporations registered to do business in the state (note "foreign" here does not mean "from outside the U.S.", it means "from outside the state", the state here being South Dakota).

So we have NEB members that are never announced or made public other than that which is required by law to be done.

Nice transparency.

[TAHAWK]

"The Boy Scouts of America may revoke or decline to renew council charters for failure to comply with the Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, or policies of the Boy Scouts of America, or in any instance where it deems such action advisable in the interests of Scouting."   

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/mission/pdf/523-027_WEB.pdf

https://scoutingevent.com/attachment/BSA509/document_15474979790_2028.pdf

 

 

No local council ... shall have authority to increase or diminish requirements or standards established by the Corporation [BSA]."

Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America, Article VII, Section 5, Clause 4.

 

No power.  What a hoot.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by TAHAWK

[vol_scouter]

25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I agree. There's no way to know who these people are.

The only think I could think of and I think it worked is the IRS 990 forms which by law have to include the NEB.

https://i9peu1ikn3a16vg4e45rqi17-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2019BSA_Form990_publicdisclosure-1.pdf

I won't list the names but they can be found at that link.

So as a cross-reference I took one NEB name.

Other than that 990 form, this last name appears NOWHERE on scouting.org.

So I thought sure, maybe it is on scoutingwire.org. Nope.

I even ran a google search. Nope. There are references to the 990 and South Dakota posts the board of directors for all foreign corporations registered to do business in the state (note "foreign" here does not mean "from outside the U.S.", it means "from outside the state", the state here being South Dakota).

So we have NEB members that are never announced or made public other than that which is required by law to be done.

Nice transparency.

CynicalScouter,

Not certain how looking up names tells you anything about the volunteer status.  Just as your local board members are required to register as members of the BSA, so are the members of the NEC and NEB.

My friends on the National Staff get abusive, threatening, and obscene calls over policies.  One close friend has received many death threats.  Think about that, receiving death threats for a change to a program to help children.  It affects those staff because they do not know if any are really serious.  Could one of them be killed for doing their job in a children's afterschool program for changing some requirement as directed by others?

Do you not think that NEC and NEB members would receive similar emails, calls, and letters?  Could it cause really good people to chose not to volunteer?  Would you not want to try to minimize the ability of others to abuse NEC and NEB members?  I do.

[vol_scouter]

Tahawk,

I outlined that the charter for a council could be revoked or not renewed.  So do think that it is a good policy to revoke charters because some volunteers think that a Merit Badge College is too easy despite others, i.e. those doing the MBC see it as appropriate?  Really?  You would totally reorganize a council for that?  Of course not!  It is a so called nuclear option.  It takes months if not years to work through everything and harms relationships in the council.  It should only occur for grievous problems.

If the council has an SE who is wishing to move up to increasing larger councils, non-compliance could theoretically harm their ability to be promoted but it is not really very practical because of HR law.  

So as I said earlier, the only reasonable way to have compliance is the appeal to the local council and volunteers.  

[CynicalScouter]

19 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

CynicalScouter,

Not certain how looking up names tells you anything about the volunteer status.  Just as your local board members are required to register as members of the BSA, so are the members of the NEC and NEB.

The point is that every other major not-for-profit and/or service organization I know of puts the name of their board in their annual report. BSA apparently does not AND goes out of its way to not identify the board on their website.

Girl Scouts has an entire page dedicated to their board. https://www.girlscouts.org/en/about-girl-scouts/our-leadership/national-board.html

Boys/Girls Club? Ditto. https://www.bgca.org/about-us/board-of-governors
And on and on.

BSA is hiding from any scrutiny. Any wonder why?

Edited November 29, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[TAHAWK]

Where does one find published telephone numbers for BSA National managers? 

My recent experience, say over the last thirty years, is that when, I obtained such a number, largely through relationships with Scouters at National, the most common response I received to the controversial "hello" and "My name is X and I am the Y in my district"  was  "How did you get this number."  I was calling with questions that came up at roundtables and Key Three meetings that Council  said it could not answer.  We felt like having The Word so that we could follow BSA policy would be nice.  Being abusive when you are seeking help is not only rude but also stupid.  Oh, there was a couple of years when the head of training insisted that his staff answer calls from volunteers in the field - say 2014-2015, but he retired,  Good guy.  The old policy promptly returned.

The BSA safety guy used to come here, which  I found educational, but it's fair to say he was given a hard time.  He has not been around, I think, since the squirt gun rule was adopted.

 

[mrjohns2]

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

If the council has an SE who is wishing to move up to increasing larger councils, non-compliance could theoretically harm their ability to be promoted but it is not really very practical because of HR law. 

I do think this is the major reason for councils to not speak up. It would be not at all against HR law to hold against a council executive who did not follow national policy. Fear of this type of retribution would be a huge motivator for executives at all levels. 

[mrjohns2]

5 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Oh, there was a couple of years when the head of training insisted that his staff answer calls from volunteers in the field - say 2014-2015, but he retired,  Good guy.  The old policy promptly returned.

The current commissioner staff is like this. They have the names and email addresses of the key assistant commissioners all on their webpage. They also answer emails. 

I have received, within 2 weeks, answers from safety and field sports off of their webpages. 

[TAHAWK]

10 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Tahawk,

I outlined that the charter for a council could be revoked or not renewed.  So do think that it is a good policy to revoke charters because some volunteers think that a Merit Badge College is too easy despite others, i.e. those doing the MBC see it as appropriate?  Really?  You would totally reorganize a council for that?  Of course not!  It is a so called nuclear option.  It takes months if not years to work through everything and harms relationships in the council.  It should only occur for grievous problems.

If the council has an SE who is wishing to move up to increasing larger councils, non-compliance could theoretically harm their ability to be promoted but it is not really very practical because of HR law.  

So as I said earlier, the only reasonable way to have compliance is the appeal to the local council and volunteers.  

No, I would fire every single Scouter, employee or volunteers who took it upon themselves to cheat by ignoring the Guide to Advancement,  Addition by subtraction.

They might be allowed to reapply under appropriate conditions were recidivism seems unlikely.

 

Tell me more about what you think HR requires.  It was one of my areas of practice as a counselor and trial counsel for AT&T in all levels of state and federal federal court.  So far as I can tell from results in cases, ignoring company rules is always a valid basis for adverse employment decisions, unless the rules themselves violate some law, such as by requiring volunteers not to report instances of sex abuse to public authorities.  There, is not, I believe, a civil right to cheat and lie - another example of the general legality of being discriminating.

Edited November 29, 2020 by TAHAWK

[TAHAWK]

3 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

The current commissioner staff is like this. They have the names and email addresses of the key assistant commissioners all on their webpage. They also answer emails. 

I have received, within 2 weeks, answers from safety and field sports off of their webpages. 

Great news!  See, things can improve with the right leadership. 👍

[RememberSchiff]

My understanding was there are no secret soceities in Scouting. 

[vol_scouter]

All should realize that there have been hundreds who have lost their jobs at the National Council and Supply so the staff is strained to do their jobs and several others who are not there.  Also, most inquiries are now directed to local councils.  This new policy does make me concerned about questions being answered uniformly but it has happened.

 

[mrjohns2]

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

All should realize that there have been hundreds who have lost their jobs at the National Council and Supply so the staff is strained to do their jobs and several others who are not there.

This is where moving to a more volunteer based national will be key. If there were more people involved in the particular committees, with better channels for communication, this would not be an issue. 

[CynicalScouter]

Update:

BSA National USED to list the NEC and NEB in their annual reports from 2012 (at least) to 2016

https://www.scouting.org/about/annual-report/

It was in a section called National Officers, Executive Board, and Advisory Council in the back of the annual report.

They stopped publishing it in 2017.

I wonder why? Well, no. I don't wonder at all.

 

[TAHAWK]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

All should realize that there have been hundreds who have lost their jobs at the National Council and Supply so the staff is strained to do their jobs and several others who are not there.  Also, most inquiries are now directed to local councils.  This new policy does make me concerned about questions being answered uniformly but it has happened.

 

The policy for decades is that questions should go to council.  The practiced pretty generally for decades is that if council doesn't have a clue, tough.

COVID is not a general absolution.

 

EXAMPLE: BSA once had a policy that expressly said that drugs, including alcohol were not allowed on Scout property or at Scout activities:  "It is the policy of the Boy Scouts of America that the use of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances is not permitted at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members."

When the question of Scouts possessing personal prescription drugs at camp came up, say drugs to be taken within seconds of the onset of a medical crisis, I was told by a council "professional" that all prescription drugs in that council's camp had to be kept locked up inside that camp's locked medical lodge, over a mile from our camp.  Good luck with that.

The BSA policy on drugs was cited, so, on return from camp,  I tried to look for that policy and found it had been edited out of G2SS  and not replaced elsewhere.   Instead, remaining rules adopt the non-existent rule by reference:  

"Controlled substances,  ...

1. I will not possess, distribute, transport, consume, or use any of the following items prohibited by law or in violation of any Scouting rules, regulations, and policies:
   • Alcoholic beverages or controlled substances, including marijuana.... [emphasis added].

But the rule, regulation, and policy statement to which the Code of Conduct once referred, is no longer in existence, so one has no guidance in fact, only by speculation.

My council was skeptical, then flabbergasted when they looked for the former policy and found it gone, and it was suggested that I "call National." and share what I discovered.  Surely, they thought,  BSA still intended to ban drugs in some sense.  This was a 'clerical error."   In the meanwhile, they republished the former BSA policy as a council policy.

It was their opinion that, under what was then council policy, live-saving drugs had to be kept somewhere where they could do some good.

No one at National would take my calls, so I wrote. I received no answer to my letter, or the two following letters, each polite and straightforward.  I was busy truing to organize  seven week's of Scoutmaster Training at Summer Camp on one month's notice, so I gave up trying to have BSA communicate.  We wrote the other council off as a potential summer camp site.

I assumed thereafter, and to this date, with all attendant risks, that the revoked policy - not published by BSA for years now, but still repeated by councils - was still in effect but did not apply to our severely allergic Scout's Epi pens or similar cases.

"Sound leadership."

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by TAHAWK