Well, as summer approaches and I reflect on my youth, I have to say that things are different for my sons. I spent many of my summers at Boy Scout Camp - a rite of passage not familiar to many boys these days. I have to say - That may be a good thing. First, none of the places I knew as a kid are left. BSA sold them. They're gone.
And while "Scouting" can be a great program for youth, BSA has done a horrid job over the past few decades in overseeing Scouting in the US. BSA was granted a congressioal charter giving it a defacto monopoly running "Scouting" programs for boys in the US. BSA even tried to keep Girl Scouts of America (a COMPLETELY different and separate organization) from using the word "Scouts".
But comfortable without any real competition, and having a "brand image" that seems impervious to scandal, BSA has not done a very good job in serving American Youth. It HAS done a VERY good job for its paid executives.
BSA's mission is to teach youth to make ethical and moral decisions. If only their own paid executives knew what those words meant. The more involved I have gotten in Scouting the more astounded I am to see the amount of semantic wordplay and evasion of truth - the antithesis of the "straightforward honesty" we were taught to show as Scouts.
Even though I've met some great volunteers in Scouting, people dedicated to serving kids, I am horrified at what I see in the paid executive ranks. I wouldn't trust one of the professionals I've met. Few volunteers here would disagree with me. A "good" BSA employee is unique enough to be worthy of mention. We joke that the ONLY time we see a paid staffer is when they show up to ask for money. They sure don't do anything to help us run our Troops. The exec running things here has made a mess of Scouting here but it seems like there's nothing we can do. You'd think Scouting is the "Amway" of popcorn - with the focus on selling popcorn (grossly overpriced and lousy to boot) and adding members. But local finances are tanking and membership is dropping. Adult leaders are walking away, convinced that BSA National plans on grabbing whatever assets are left after our Council implodes BECAUSE of our paid leader's incompetence. But he makes more than many of the volunteers running Troops here.
You think BSA would be worried at having such a lousy image among its own volunteers, but no. BSA is very busy defending it's "values."
BSA has gotten a great deal of flak over "membership criteria." If you're gay or an atheist, BSA doesn't want you. Funny how some of the kids in my Troop growing up actually turned out to be gay. They were 'differnet' in a vague way that I suspect they didn't understand at the time but weren't of any concern to the rest of us. We were more annoyed with a couple of "perverts" that never stopped talking about girls (and who, in retrospect - clearly knew nothing about them). Our Scoutmaster had little tolerance for any such talk. Sex - in any way, shape or form - including uninformed verbal speculation - was NOT part of my Scouting experience.
Atheists were a non-issue. Aren't most teenagers an atheist at some point or another? Isn't that part of growing up?
Scouts was the ONLY "inclusive" group in my youth. In the clique dominated world of junior high and high school, Scouting had EVERYBODY...... even one who turned out to be an evil lawyer working for the ACLU. We were all Scouts to our Scoutmaster and each other.
The athiest issue is a relatively new one - coming up over the past few decades. It seems to be a blatant "accommodation" to certain powerful groups within BSA - particularly the LDS (Mormon Church) and other conservative religious groups - that sponsor various units. Their position on homosexuality is also one taken to appeal to certain groups though it is muddled by confusion with pedophiles - more on that later.
In pandering to these extremists, BSA has lost appeal to a wider base. THere are now almost no units sponsored by Reform Jewish Synagogues and other "liberal" Christian denominations. BSA has an ongoing "tiff" with the Unitarians over the definition of God.
Most Scout leaders I know think all of this is a joke - and ignore it. But these stances by National have been driving out more "liberal" leaders who often quit - or simply never join - because of these stances.
Ironically, despite BSA's stance on homosexuality and the many that defend this as a matter of "protecting boys" - child abuse continues. Some would say that an openly - or admittedly - gay Scout Leader would be one of the safest, since EVERYBODY would be watching him like a hawk. It's the nice trusted types that seem to be the pedophiles - and an awful large number of them are married and claim pointedly that they are NOT "gay."
BSA has NOT done a very good job of dealing with this issue. But then you can't even discuss the whole topic without BSA trying to throw you out. Dave Rice in California got thrown out after decades in Scouting for simply saying BSA should be more "tolerant." The whole gay/pedophile issue seems to be deliberately muddied by BSA.
When it comes to child abuse, BSA is VERY clever in putting the legal responsibility on local units and their sponsors. Only recently has BSA even begun running background checks. But even when BSA is told - point blank and without reservation that they have a problem - they too often refuse to do what is right.
A scandal in Idaho involved the abuse of dozens of boys over the years - by numerous abusers. BSA took great pains to keep this problem hidden and out of the media. But a reporter dug deep and exposed all the improperly sealed cases and exposed what happened. He recently received an award for his reporting but no longer works in Idaho. He was not very popular there and subject to a concerted campaign with paid ads criticizing his reporting as unjustified attacks on Boy Scouts.
http://www.kpvi.com/...
One abuser who served a short time in prison is now back there after violating parole. BSA did not even inform the parents of many of his victims - so, as BSA's attorneys put it "they can get on with their lives." A number of cases have been settled and more are in the courts. But BSA says "not our responsibility" and has been fighting this in the courts. What BSA fails to say is that court records show that BSA was informed at the local level, regional level and National level that one of their employees had a history of abuse - and BSA did nothing.
The paid head of this Council had boys report abuse to him PERSONALLY - TWICE (in two completely separate incidents) - and did nothing. This not only violates BSA procedures but local state law. Funny how local authorities only looked into his failure to report abuse two days AFTER the sattute of limitations had expired on this crime.
In fact, Idaho is revamping their child abuse laws specifically because of these cases. The legislator in charge of this effort has called on BSA to remove this executive, but they have refused to do so. A full court legal CYA effort is underway. BSA seems to appeal things to death, employing the corporate "we will bury you" strategy.
http://www.kpvi.com/...
IDAHO SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR BOY SCOUT CASE
Jun 17, 2006
The Idaho Supreme Court will hear a molestation case filed against the Boy Scouts of America.
Benjamin and Adam Steed brought the lawsuit against the Grand Teton Council.
They claim the organization should be held accountable for the actions of Brad Stowell, a former camp leader who molested children in the organization.
Stowell pleaded guilty seven years ago to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
In January a district judge ruled the group could be held liable.
But the Grand Teton Council appealed and the idaho supreme court has agreed to hear the case.
Still, a final ruling from the high court could be a year away.
You really have to wonder about just how ethical and moral BSA is about all of this though.
A recent NY case just resulted in the sentencing of a leader
http://www.midhudsonnews.com/...
While another case has a victim suing BSA and BSA claiming that the then 13 year old victim "consented".........
http://www.nypost.com/...
OH, BOY, WHAT AN OUTRAGE: SCOUTS BLAME VICTIM FOR THE RAPE
By ANDREA PEYSER
May 10, 2006 -- BE PREPARED. The Boy Scouts of America has come up with a sick way of protecting the organization from pedophile scoutmasters.
The Scouts blame the victim for getting raped.
I kid you not.
It happened in the case of scoutmaster Jerrold Schwartz, who for more than 20 years led a terribly exclusive troop of Boy Scouts - Troop 666 - on the Upper East Side. Until he admitted in 2002 that he sodomized and raped a Scout, even on his own wedding night, starting when the child was 12. Schwartz is now doing up to eight years in prison.
This is where it gets twisted.
Faced with a lawsuit from the angry family of the young man, who at 24 is in and out of mental hospitals, the Scouts demanded the suit be dismissed.
The reason? The boy wanted it!
I've gotten hold of a copy of the 24-page motion, written by Scouts lawyer S. Paul Battaglia of Syracuse.
From the start, he asserts the boy consented to rape - even though he was just a child.
The boy "does not allege that Schwartz forced or coerced him to have physical or sexual contact with him," says the document, filed in state Supreme Court last year, but just now coming to light.
"[His] allegations and testimony describe a relationship that slowly progressed from 'back rubs' to masturbation and anal sex during more than two years of sexual contact with Schwartz. During that time [the boy] became emotionally attached to Schwartz."
The motion then tries to "prove" he wanted it - by quoting from the boy's deposition in the case.
It is sad.
"Did you ever tell him during that period of time that you loved him?" the boy was asked.
"Yeah, he constantly made me say that I loved him," he replied.
"So you did say that to him on occasion?"
"I didn't come out and just go, 'Oh Jerry, I love you.' He would go, 'You love me, right? Tell me you love me."
"And then you would respond?"
"Yes."
But on April 26, state Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Shafer refused to dismiss the case, ruling that the Scouts must prove their scurrilous allegations at trial.
Battaglia refused comment, noting that the matter is in litigation.
St. Bartholomew's Church, which is home to Troop 666, did not return a call, nor did the Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts of America.
Just who is in charge? The New York Scouts have so much juice, the list of officers and directors reads like a who's who of our city's business, media and legal elites.
John Whitehead of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. is listed as chairman of the executive committee. The advisory committee includes Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, retired chairman of The New York Times.
Michael Dowd, lawyer for the young man at the center of the suit, is astonished that the Scouts should play hardball against one of their own charges.
"They are supposed to be a national organization that protects children," said Dowd. "To take the position that sex between a scoutmaster in his 30s and a 12- or 13-year-old child is consensual is an outrage!"
He said the young man in question is "in bad shape." Though he's trying to finish his education, he is in and out of mental institutions. He cuts himself. He's tried suicide. He needs the comfort of a service dog - like a seeing-eye dog, though the young man is not blind - just to get through the day.
When Schwartz was sentenced, his mother described, in heartbreaking detail, how the young man spent hours in the bath, trying to wash Schwartz's stink off his body. It was all the more awful, because he went out of his way to get the whole family to trust him.
Be careful whom you trust, New York. Once the pedophile is finished with a child, the real abuse begins.
But BSA can't seem to figure out that homosexuals and pedophiles are different. BSA goes to great lengths to throw out homosexuals - claiming that they are protecting boys. Yet there are an awful lot of pedophiles still surfacing in BSA.
Last Spring, the head of youth protection - Sovreign Smith - fired the head of Miami Sea Base after he was "outed" as gay. This 30 year employee had an examplary record, no complaints against him and was quite well thought of. He was fired - no benefits, no retirement package, nothing. Word is that a disgruntled employee outed his boss, forcing BSA to act.
Yet Smith was allowed to retire (with benefits) a few weeks later when the FBI informed BSA that he was under investigation for distributing child porn (he later pled guilty). BSA went to great lengths to point out that Smith had no contact with youth - though he had escorted a group of boys (to the White house I believe) only a few weeks before. That "trustworthy" issue again...... A report oout of Miami also said that Smith and another adult went on an extended sail every summer with 6 boys. Would you want YOUR son on that boat? BSA seemed determined NOT to look too closely into Smith's history.
The ousted head of Miami Sea Base sued BSA - and apparently has settled - though a confidentiality agreement was signed. One can only hope he did as well as Mr. Smith will be doing after being convicted of a crime.
I concede that child abuse is an ever present problem whereever youth are. But my issue is BSA's regular and routine response to it. Their Procedures for dealing with abuse are foicused more on protecting BSA from legal liability than protecting boys. Even so, it seems like lots of money is still being paid out in abuse settlements - though you can't tell how much. Everything seems to get sealed or confidentiality statements. BSA simply stonewalls on this topic in general. TRY and find out what's going on or what has happened. You can't. But BSA seesm to have had a pretty large problem in the past (thousands of cases documented in a 1994 book) and any Google search shows regular reports on child abuse cases (try "Boy Scout abuse"). The problem seems far from "solved."
BSA seems to be focused first and foremost on protecting its own senior executives.
Last Spring BSA was in the news with a numnber of enrollment scandals. BSA overstated "youth served" as a way to solicit more charitable donations - and a way for executives to look good.
Ronnie Holmes - the Scout Executive in the story below - was caught for the SECOND time faking numbers in five years. He lied about membership in Dallas in 2000. This vey same person bragged about taking over as the head of BSA when its current leader retired (a nice gig - compenstaion package was $915,000 in 2004 - one of the highest paid non-profit CEO's).
Now Holmes was making only $240,000 in Birmingham Alabama (median income there is around $40,000). Seems like BSA execs get paid pretty well - most make a lot more than the volunteers that serve as Scoutmasters and such.
The volunteer that blew the whistle on this fraud got thrown out of BSA. As the head of training, he was worried that so many unit didn't have ANY trained leaders. Turns out that they didn't exist. BSA went to great lengths to say that boys listed as "John Doe" had this done for their own "protection" - from who? Holmes blamed the ACLU for missing units. They wouldn't let schools charter Scout units - so, what happened? they disappeared? Everywhere else the PTA charters units.... no problem. Well, Hol,es got caught - and got to retire. Want to bet his pension is six figures? BSA - commmit a crime and get a pension.
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/...
Probe finds Alabama Boy Scout group inflated membership by 13,000 youths
Birmingham, Ala. | An internal audit disclosed Friday that membership rolls of an Alabama Boy Scout group under FBI review were inflated by more than 13,000 youths over three years.
The Greater Alabama Council, which serves much of central and north Alabama, said nearly all the questionable memberships revealed in the probe were linked to a program that is supposed to serve inner-city children.
The group issued a statement announcing "corrective actions," including the retirement of the head of the council, Scout executive Ronnie Holmes, and periodic audits by someone outside the Scout staff.
The FBI began reviewing the council's records in late 2004 amid questions about whether membership rolls included so-called "ghost units" or bogus youth created to falsely boost the size of the organization. The council also launched an investigation.
While no reason was given for the numbers to be falsely increased, critics have said they possibly could lead to additional funding from donors - the United Way gave almost $1 million in 2005 - and a career boost for scouting officials whose programs were shown to be growing.
No charges have been filed, and federal prosecutors had no immediate comment on the audit results.
In a statement, the council said it was cooperating fully with the FBI.
"The FBI investigation is separate and apart from the (council) investigation," said the statement.
The audit found several thousand questionable registrations annually from 2002 through 2004, according to the statement. They mostly involved an inner-city program in which a $10 fee is waived to help youngsters from low-income homes.
The worst year was 2002, when 5,619 applications were found lacking basic information, including parent signatures, correct birthdate or home address. The number represented 13 percent of the membership in the council's traditional Scout programs that year.
Registrations were off by 4,265 youth in 2003 and by 3,518 youth in 2004, or 11 percent each year, the audit found.
Tom Willis, a dentist and Scout volunteer who went public with claims of inflated membership, has said Scout employees would often add fictitious children to rosters under pressure from council headquarters, which oversee programs in 22 counties.
In one case, Willis said, he found about 20 children in a school-based group with the last name of "Doe."
Willis said he was pleased to hear of the management shake-ups.
"They're cleaning it out," said Willis, who reached the top rank of Eagle Scout.
A year ago, the council said it was dropping more than 6,000 youths from its rolls because of the threat of a lawsuit over the group's use of public schools and government buildings to operate Scout programs for those youths.
Willis said the reduction was more likely an attempt to correct the numbers when they began to come under scrutiny.
The statement said the council's membership count of 21,055 boys in traditional Scout programs as of Dec. 31 was found to be "substantially correct." At the same time, a school-based program called "Learning for Life" had enrollment of 27,127 youths that was verified by school officials since individual student registration isn't required, the review found.
If an INTERNAL audit found they were 13,000 short, an indepentdent outside audit would probably find DOUBLE that.
God knows how many times BSA has been caught faking numbers and somehow nobody EVER gets fired much less prosecuted. Any other organization would have faced a RICO prosecution by now with so many of the same problems occurring over and over and over again. And soliciting funds based on inflated membership claims constitutes mail fraud, a federal offense. Never mind the politically directed funds used for other purposes.
But this article also touches - barely - on a REAL and MAJOR scam involving BSA.
BSA is a discriminatory organization. It chooses not to let homosexuals or athiests join. That is their choice but in doing so that makes them inelegible for certain types of funding.
"Learning for Life" is a contrived "independent corporation" that lets BSA get governmental and charitable funding BSA cannot get - AND lets BSA claim far higher "membership" than Scouting programs have.
BSA goes to great lengths to say "Learning for Life" (LFL) is NOT Scouting. But whenever BSA touts membership numbers, they include LFL. In truth there are less than 3 million boys in Scouting programs - a number equivalent to what they had 50, 60 years ago. Boy Scouts has less than 1 million boys enrolled - a pathetic count even in this era of varied choices.
LFL boosts counts substantially. There are more youth in LFL than Cub Scouts.
LFL lets BSA "buy" members. Paid staff will candidly concede that anytime you see a Council where LFL membership outnumbers Scouting, odds are that games are being played. Note that LFL has 27,000 in the Council in the article above - while Scouting has only 21,000. Want to bet that the 27,000 - which is NOT being investigated - is grossly overinflated?
BSA does NOT want ANYONE looking at LFL too closely.
This is how LFL works. Using politically earmarked or charitable funds, BSA pays staff to run 'classes' in schools.
A politician may earmark funds to a local school district to run a LFL program. BSA will get around restrictions that some charities put on funding by using these funds to pay for LFL. But ultimately, the money still goes to BSA.
Often LFL "classes" are nothing more than teaching simple crafts to learning disabled kids. Now there may be some "value" to having kids doing simple construction paper projects, but this is NOT "Scouting."
Schools are thrilled to have someone else footing the bill for supervision. Think of this as setting up a clinic to take Medicaid funds and then pulling people off the street as patients. Few - if any - participants in LFL would be there if they had to pay the dues and costs themselves. And the dues paid for LFL - and the fees for materials and such - go to ........BSA.
There are also other programs that come under the LFL umbrella. BSA will provide insurance coverage to some groups that are "vocation" related - think a junior EMS crew- and claim them as members. But again, this has nothing to do with Scouting.
Politically directed funds go to LFL and then to BSA. Nice end around the "discrimination issue" limitations. You see, LFL does NOT discriminate. Think of BSA as a defense contractor that depends on governmental funding - using political connections to get funding for LFL (and use of governmental facilities). How is it that BSA can't use STATE and LOCAL facilities in a preferential way but CAN use FEDERAL ones? How much did the US Army pay out to host last summer's Jamboree? (theone where over a thousand kids sufferred from heat exhaustion and a few leaders got electrocuted.... what happened to "Be Prepared?!")
With LFL and preferential legislation, BSA gets to keep religious groups happy AND get funds that they shouldn't be able to get otherwise.
About the "ethical and moral" decision making?????
If you want to discriminate, discriminate, but DON'T try to get around the consequences.
OF course, politicians don't want to look too closely at this ....... "attacking" BSA is still like attacking Mom and Apple pie. BSA is VERY good at using rhetoric......
Lets you hide all kinds of misbehavior......"You're attacking our values."
It seems like BSA really doesn't care much about "Scouting" anymore. It's about doing whatever you can to pull in the money needed to pay nice salaries. Hence the regular sell-offs of Summer Camps andother property donated for the use of kids.
Most of the places I knew as a kid are gone - millions of dollars worth of property gone. Nobody seems to know where all that money went.
So....... I suppose I'm glad my sons aren't going to Scout Camp......
I trust the local leaders and know them well. I wouldn't be worried about abuse. But I would be worried a bit about the upkeep and maintenance. Seems like Camp is a bit run down......
BSA only seems to be getting more and more "extremist" in its religious and political views as the more "liberal" leaders walk away. Others are simply fed up with the priorities shown by paid staff - "Raise more money!"
BSA seems not to realize - or care - that it NEEDS volunteers to run Scouting. It seems to be driving us out. But then the paid execs are guaranteed their pensions even if BSA completely fails and fades out of existence. God knows BSA is sittin on enough money - though you'd never know it by looking at most camps and facilities.
But the executives are well paid. Nice to know BSA has its priorities 'straight.' I was told - but have yet to confirm that a few years back BSA had a problem. Non-profit ocorporations are not allowed to have too much cash on hand. They're supposed to SPEND money on whatever it is they do. Well, BSA made alot of money in one of the market run-ups (lots of money is in "endowment funds" - for what? who knows?). The IRS got antsy and said BSA had to spend some money. Well, BSA could have spent these funds on things that DIRECTLY benefit youth - like fixing up local camps, or funding programs for underserved areas (BSA has "multi-ethnic" faces in all of its literature, but take a close look at its Jamboree or any other Scouting event. THe scandal in Atlanta last year involved leaders in inner city units scvreaming that they were not getting funding though BSA was more than eager to overstate their service - and participation - of 'disadvantaged youth').
But no. BSA "early retired" a load of executives. Nice pensions - and early at that. A response to a post earlier on BSA noted that retired execs in BSA have been know to get cars as retirement presents. Any other non-profits treat their staff as well?
Funny how many reporters start on this story - and walk away.
I won't even touch on all the deaths last summer. A reporter was working on that - but it seems to have disappeared. BSA did not leave a good impression on parents involved. A lightning death in NY went to court - BSA just settled (confidentiality statement) after it became woefully clear that BSA staff did NOT follow their own safety procedures...... though BSA said quite the opposite at the time..... an "unfortunate and unpredictable" event with BSA having no liability since safety procedures had been followed.....(NOT, apparently)
I just hope this summer is better.