Sleeping Arrangements

[NeilLup]

"2/ What is going to be done?

I don't have the answer to that.

It would seem that the people who are empowered to answer it have all the information.

(snip)

 

If a policeman pulls him over, he can decide if he wants to give the guy a ticket or not. That's his job. "

 

It would seem that within the lines of Eamonn's excellent post is the crux of the problem here:

 

The problem is not did the DE do something contrary to the Guide to Safe Scouting. Clearly he did. The problem would seem to be that, as Eamonn has said, the people with authority to do something about it have all the information and have chosen not to do anything. In Eamonn's words, have chosen not to give him a ticket. For whatever reason. The DE indicated that he has permission for his sleeping arrangements. We can only speculate what the DE would have done if his management had said "We really think that you and your fiancee should have separate sleeping arrangements." But while some posters believe that the DE's sleeping arrangements are inherently immoral, other posters are not that bothered. It certainly is not extravagantly outside the bounds of behavior that many engaged persons in their 20s in 2008 would consider appropriate and "moral."

 

So the question would seem to be not what one should say to the DE but rather what one should say to his boss or to whomever gave him permission. I have had that kind of discussion in Scouting and elsewhere many times over the years. In almost all occasions, the boss had very good reasons for what they did. In some cases, the boss was unaware of the ramifications of their decisions and appreciated my comments. Sometimes, the boss suggested that I talk with the person in question or that we have a 3 way conversation. In some cases, the boss and I disagreed on the significance. At that point, I had the choice of further escalation or choosing to fight another day.

[ASM59]

Neil...,

 

So, are you saying it IS our (the vounteer at the unit level) place to call someone on a rules infraction?

 

The disagreement on this thread regarding if it is our place to do that or not is the reason that I spun the other thread about the BSA Rules Police.

 

I understand that in this case you are advocating going to the DE's superior to address this, but in order to understand where he received his permission, you would have had to have had a talk with the DE about the matter.

 

I'm really trying to understand our (my) responsibility in matters such as this...

 

ASM59

[scoutldr]

I thought it was clear that you have no responsibility in this matter. The young man's employer (SE) has the responsibility and from what adamsdwa said, it is being addressed in a confidential manner, as it legally should be. Your reponsibility is to your unit and to your family. If you think you have enough information, and you are not happy with the outcome, you can remove yourself and your family from future involvement with this DE, and let the SE know why.

[Eamonn]

A hypercritical situation.

Eamonn the volunteer is upset that a unmarried male DE is sleeping in the same tent with a unmarried female at a BSA event. Eamonn knows that this pair are engaged and both share the same address and phone number.

Eamonn decides that the SE needs to be informed of this breaking of a BSA rule. He writes to the SE.

The SE sends back a letter thanking Eamonn for his letter and telling him that the matter is being dealt with.

 

To my way of thinking this should be the end of the matter.

Eamonn has reported the situation and the SE has informed him that it is being dealt with.

What happens next is in the hands of the SE.

All roads after this do end up with this situation ending up on the SE's desk.

If Eamonn were to write to the Council President, the President can talk to the SE. But the SE will tell him that the situation is being dealt with. The Council President can't fire a DE.

If Eamonn were to write to the Area President, The Regional Director or someone in the National Office, it would end up back on the SE's desk.

Sure they all might advise the SE as to what they think he or she might do. But it is up to the SE.

While he or she might want to inform the Region, the Area and National Office and inform the Council Key 3 about what is happening. At the end of the day it all comes back to the fact that the situation is being dealt with. That's all anyone needs to know.

How it is dealt with is up to the SE.

Eamonn has no need to know what happened.

I would hope that if the SE decided to reprimanded the DE and placed a letter in their personnel file that this would not be made public.

Eamonn is not an attorney he doesn't know what the definition of married is. Maybe the SE doesn't know either and sees the DE and this female as being a common law type of marriage?

If Eamonn is so incensed that to his mind nothing is happening and this situation is so far from what he believes that Scouting should be. Eamonn has to look at his options.

One might be that because this is so very offensive to him that he has no choice but to quit and look for an organization which is more in line with his standards.

The SE was selected by a group of volunteers and approved by a group of volunteers.

If Eamonn truly believes that this SE is not serving the needs of Scouting as Eamonn believes, it really is for the best if they part company.

Eamonn.

[NeilLup]

"Neil...,

 

So, are you saying it IS our (the vounteer at the unit level) place to call someone on a rules infraction?"

 

Hello ASM59,

 

I have the feeling that if you and I went out for ice cream, we would select different flavors.

 

I don't believe that I said that it is the place of a unit level volunteer to call someone on a rules infraction. Nor did I say that it is NOT their place. I believe that I said that based on my experience and as a practical matter it is more a function of the personalities of the individuals than the badges that they wear on their sleeves.

 

To me, conferring with someone's boss is not calling someone out, particularly if it is done in a friendly manner. I don't care who gave him permission. That is for his boss to determine.

 

Depending upon the exact personalities of the individuals involved, I might say, doing my best to be Friendly, Courteous and Kind:

 

1) To the individual "I don't want to be a pain or a busybody and I want to do everything I can to help and support you. My understanding of the Guide to Safe Scouting is that only married persons should have joint sleeping quarters. I wanted to be sure you were aware of that and weren't unintentionally doing something outside the Guide to Safe Scouting"

 

or

 

2) To the person's boss "I don't want to be a pain or a busybody and I want to do everything I can to help support you, the professional staff and the council. My understanding of the Guide to Safe Scouting is that only married persons should have joint sleeping quarters. Am I missing something with the situation at Cub Scout day camp? I really want to be sure that our professional staff is as effective as possible and there isn't anything that potentially is negatively impacting their effectiveness and credibility."

 

Maybe to you, that's calling out. To me, done privately, it's not.

 

I would add one other thought that I had last night. If I do this and I get an answer of "I really don't think that it's that big a thing." I have two Scouting acceptable choices at that point: escalate or shut up. I do NOT have the option of bringing it up to every volunteer at my level who will listen and saying "Do you knooooooooow what is going on at Cub Scout Day Camp. The Camp Director is living in siiiiiiiiiin. We've got Trouble. Right here in Cub Scout Day Camp. With a capital T and that rhymes with C and that stands for Cub Scout." That would be a total violation of Courteous, Kind, Friendly, etc. I must either raise my concern/objection responsibly or cease publicizing my concern/objection.

[adamsdwa]

my last post on the subject because I am confident that those empowered to handle this situation are doing so.

 

Someone mentioned sharing the same address and phone number, they don't. Thus, the reason many parents were concerned. That's how public this couple is.

 

Secondly, the last post hit the real source of the issue. Gossip! If everyone who had an issue with it had followed the chain of command adn acted in a respectful fashion to all not nearly as many people would have known. Hence, the post I made before about people being out to get him.

 

If we as adults don't perpetuate the gossip and contribute to the rumor mill we would all be a lot better off. The bottom line here is:

 

1. He messed up. I'm sure he's been told and knows.

2. Those who were aware and have a personal agenda against this young man made the situation worst by spreading it arounud. While it was wrong what he did, I don't believe thier actions to be any better.

3. I have had trouble with this DE also - however, at age 24 I was a lot like him. So, I do have some empathy.

4. There needs to be no rules police - only moral fiber and the courage to address our peers and embrace them with respect, support, and understanding when mistakes are made. After all, we all make mistakes. The difference in us is how we learn from them.

 

 

[adamsdwa]

my last post on the subject because I am confident that those empowered to handle this situation are doing so.

 

Someone mentioned sharing the same address and phone number, they don't. Thus, the reason many parents were concerned. That's how public this couple is.

 

Secondly, the last post hit the real source of the issue. Gossip! If everyone who had an issue with it had followed the chain of command adn acted in a respectful fashion to all not nearly as many people would have known. Hence, the post I made before about people being out to get him.

 

If we as adults don't perpetuate the gossip and contribute to the rumor mill we would all be a lot better off. The bottom line here is:

 

1. He messed up. I'm sure he's been told and knows.

2. Those who were aware and have a personal agenda against this young man made the situation worse by spreading it arounud. While it was wrong what he did, I don't believe thier actions to be any better.

3. I have had trouble with this DE also - however, at age 24 I was a lot like him. So, I do have some empathy.

4. There needs to be no rules police - only moral fiber and the courage to address our peers and embrace them with respect, support, and understanding when mistakes are made. After all, we all make mistakes. The difference in us is how we learn from them.

 

 

[ASM59]

Neil...,

 

I like vanilla ice cream; yeah I know it's kind of plain, but that's what I like.

 

I really don't think we are that far apart. By calling someone on a violation, I simply mean speaking to them about it; not trying to get them in trouble, but simply giving information. This is in fact close to the first option that you mentioned. I simply want to make sure that the other person is aware that they are indeed violating the rules. In my experience simply pointing out the fact that the violation has been noticed is enough, or sometimes the person really didn't know that it was a violation.

 

ASM59

[Beavah]

Yah, ASM59, in this case I think yeh have to be ready to admit that you might not even know what da rules are, eh?

 

G2SS is not the rule book for councils and council employees. That would be things like the employee handbook, state and federal employment law and the like, eh? Generally speakin', takin' employment action based on a single, non-criminal act done by a man in his own temporary residence is somethin' that keeps attorneys that do that kind of work in clover, eh?

 

Our laws in da U.S. generally don't allow a boss to fire an employee over what guests he has in his home, eh? Nor evict a tenant on the same basis. And rightly so.

 

So yeh see, for all you know, both da SE and the DE are followin' the law/rules. Good judgment and best practice are different matters, perhaps.

 

Dat's why folks like Eamonn and I and adams are all sayin' that once the "powers that be" are aware of the situation, it just ain't the business of the rest of us.

 

Just as Jesus in the story of the adulteress makes it clear that it ain't the role of the crowd to condemn or correct the woman for her fault, eh? That's between her and her Boss.

 

Beavah

 

[SR540Beaver]

Baloney! What keeps lawyers in clover is splitting hairs and parsing words that the average common Joe uses plain common sense to understand. Sure, BSA professionals have workplace rules and regulations just like any other employee in any other job. To suggest that the BSA rules about sleeping arrangments at scout events somehow doesn't apply to a professional scouter is......baloney. You can try to justify your client's actions counselor, but most judges are not buying it. Just because the 14 year old girl looked 18 doesn't cut it. Just because you thought the spped limit was 70 instead of 40 doesn't cut it.

 

Let me ask you a question Beavah. You are on an outing with a Boy Scout troop and one of the dad's pulls out a can of beer to drink with his dinner. Or an adult sits around telling dirty jokes and using foul language. What are YOU going to do? Just say different strokes for different folks? Just look the other way and act like nothing happened? I mean after all, the persons in question are grown men responsible for themselves and you have no right or obligation to say or do anything. Is that what you are saying? Is there nothing anyone can do that you wouldn't have a friendly word with them to set them on the right path?

[Beavah]

Yah, SR540, I hear yeh.

 

I guess I'm just a lot less certain that I know what "the right path" is for everybody, eh? Mostly I'm grateful that I only have to make hard decisions occasionally. It's so easy to get those wrong, and do people harm by not bein' thoughtful enough or listenin' enough. Especially since judges do tend to buy my arguments more often than not.

 

And a lot depends on what my position is, eh? If I'm a unit leader in a situation, dat's different than bein' a COR in a situation, different still if I'm a commish, and very different than if I'm just another scouter who wandered by camp to say hi, or if I'm an EB member or a camp accreditation team member or whatnot. A wise man knows that his role in a situation matters a lot, because it's important to respect da roles and relationships that others have.

 

So in the case of a dad openin' a beer, been there. Many times. Sometimes da answer has been "do nothing" because other folks were there and aware and it was their role to respond, not mine. Sometimes the answer has been to tell someone they were no longer welcome as an adult leader in Scoutin'. Sometimes it's been to say "Hey, George, save me one, will ya?... but let's save 'em together for tomorrow when you're dryin' the tents out, eh? Right now we're here for da lads." And a few other more creative approaches to boot, eh?

 

Thing is, had I chosen the wrong approach in each case, it would have been worse for everyone involved than if the dad had just had a beer in peace, eh? It's so easy to end up damagin' relationships, messin' up units, or hurtin' kids. Been there once or twice too, eh? That's da risk and downside of thinkin' I know da "right path" when really I'm just bein' an equine derriere.

 

Beavah

 

[ASM915]

As asked posts,

IS THERE A MORALITY CLAUSE in the DE's contract? Do Councils and or National have one as part of the Professionals contract?

Many companies and schools have them. If they are violated, your toast. I just read an article where some young high school art teacher on the side posed seminude. The pictures were tasteful. Everything was covered by arms, hands etc. so nothing was exposed. The students somehow came across the pictures. Toast and gone. She's not teaching at that system now.

I'm just curious, since BSA deals with youth whether there is one in place.

[Chelle]

I think all or most of us agree that the De's actions are up to somone higher up the ladder to decide on the outcome of that particular situation. Done and said.

 

At this point I see a NEW Thread coming out of this one circumnstance. What are our obligations as volunteers or whatever position we hold to help guide the boys on the "right path?"

 

Everyones definition of the "right path" can be different, but can we rely on sighting the "rules" in BSA in a friendly manner? Or are any of us out of line for expressing concern in any of the situations brought up by Beavah?

 

Alchol at a BSA event- OK when no boys present or never OK? A little necking between consenting adults at a BSA event- OK with no boys present or in private, or not appropriate?

 

Do I have the right to tastefully and kindly express my opinions to some I feel is not going down the right path? I am not saying jump over their heads and bust them with their bosses, but is the a good standard of rules that ALL of us should follow; volunteer to paid employee?

 

I don't like to sound like I am on a high-horse or a soap box. I just wonder about these things. Situations like these will come up. How do we handle them right then, when they are happening. Do we do what we think is best for the boys (which will always be different to different people) or do we keep our mouths shut and risk an irrate parent?

 

Food for thought...

[ASM59]

Beavah,

 

I'm OK with disagreeing on something like this. But I am a firm believer in being able to disagree and have a respectful dialogue about the reasons that we disagree. It doesnt mean that I think youre horrible so please dont think I am saying that. But you have to understand that there are probably just as many who agree with my side or somewhere in between our seemingly diametrically opposed positions.

 

You say, So yeh see, for all you know, both da SE and the DE are followin' the law/rules. Well it occurs to me that based on how you say this that you dont know that they arent breaking the rules. So, it would be great if we could clarify this fact or even answer the ever pending question regarding if a DE would typically have a Morality clause in his contract.

 

You seem to indicate that it might be OK to let the adult know that he is violating the rules under certain circumstances. Im OK with that and yes we should let the proper people handle the situation if they are there. But as you seem to indicate, it may be totally appropriate to let Dad know that the Beer should wait, again under the right set of circumstances.

 

I am going to stick to my feeling on this one that it is better to quietly and gently explain a rules violation to someone rather than allowing the boys to see that adults dont have to follow the rules, or rather than allowing a rules violation that could cause a dangerous or compromising situation.

 

ASM59

 

[Beavah]

Yah, ASM59, I'm not even sure we disagree, eh? At least not in principle.

 

I think in the specific incidence of the DE and his fiancee, a lot of folks were doin' two things. First, they were tryin' to do da SE's job, without really understandin' that the SE has to worry about a lot more things, eh? Pesky things like the law. Morality clauses in contracts are by no means a "get out of jail free card," particularly in a very ambiguous case like this one. And how much of da council's money are yeh willin' to put into that effort, eh?

 

Second, they were imputin' a lack of morality to someone when they had no evidence of any immorality at all. Dat's the kind of judgment that I reckon any good Christian should recoil from.

 

In short, in obeying the Scout Law, we should be Loyal to our fellow Scouters, Friendly, Courteous, and especially Kind to our fellow Scouters and Professionals. And Obedient to da proper organizational structure, which means not tryin' to take the SE's job until we're wearin' that patch (with wreathes or whatever ).

 

If I had a personal, positive relationship with this DE, would I at some point have a "Hey, George... about Melissa..." moment with him? Yah, sure, if da moment was right and I thought he was in a spot where he might listen. But if I was a unit scouter at camp, and didn't have a personal relationship with this DE? Not my business or my role, eh? I should be spendin' my time on my kids, and lettin' the SE do his job. And in the meantime, be Friendly, Courteous, and Kind, eh?

 

My struggle with those that like to whack people over the head with Rules (often rules which they don't fully understand, eh?) is that more likely than not they ignore 3, 4, 5 or more points of da Scout Law and at least 1 or two of the Oath in order to hammer at that Obedience thing, eh? Like da Pharisees of yore, I reckon that sort of behavior is a far, far worse example to our youth of proper moral or ethical behavior. Jesus never condemned the adulterer or the tax collector. But he sure did have some negative things to say about them that thought they were enforcin' God's rules. "Brood of Vipers" was da least of it, eh?

 

But YMMV. Da intellectual descendants of Caiphas are as strong as ever, and make seemingly good arguments.

 

Yours in Scoutin' service,

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)