I received the following - after the break - in 2005 from another who was unhappy about the state of affairs in BSA. At that time a number of scandals were breaking - NONE to my knowledge ever addressed by BSA or outside authorities. A few people quit or 'retired' but there was NEVER any real accountability on any of the scandals noted here.
I post this here as an insiders pov - a follow-up to an earlier diary on BSA.
BSA seeks and receives preferential treatment from the Federal government - from its Congressional Charter which prevents competition to use of public facilites without charge. But people would be outraged if it became clear just how UNtrustworthy BSA was in the way it reports its 'accomplishments' and membership and the way it handles the money and property contributed to it.
What has happened to Boy Scouts?
What happened to the Scouting of my youth? They’ve sold off all the places I knew as a youth, but it seems that they’ve also sold their soul. Boy Scouts of America – the organization - isn’t about boys or "values" any more. "Values" are simply part of this organization’s public relations effort and though widely touted are just as often ignored. All B.S.A. cares about is "numbers" and money. This attitude comes from the "top" (the paid "professionals" running B.S.A.) and flows downward – it does not reflect the feelings of volunteers that are the core of Scouting. B.B.A. – the organization – does not serve or support us. It does not represent us. Frankly, it is an embarrassment to many of us.
"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Law."
And just what kinds of moral and ethical choices have the Boy Scouts of America been making of late?
Councils in 5 states are under investigation for Membership Fraud
The Head of B.S.A.’s Youth Protection efforts pled guilty to receiving and distributing Child Pornography
Scout Leaders are arrested for Child Abuse (a regularly occurring problem with an incident being reported every two weeks or so)
Failing to Report Child Abuse – a notable case in Idaho shows willful failure to follow Child Protection guidelines at ALL levels of BSA by local through National paid staffers.
Yet Congress is passing preferential legislation to restore access to governmental facilities – access prohibited to other discriminatory organizations.
It is time to hold B.S.A. accountable to the "high" standards of character they claim to represent. Instead of admitting error and working to correct wrongs, B.S.A. simply hides behind a Norman Rockwell image it does not deserve and refuses to answer questions on camera or off. If there was a real will to end wrongdoing – and real consequences, none of the following issues would have arisen. B.S.A. – the organization – and the paid staffers that control this organization – need to be held accountable for their failures. It is time for wholesale and fundamental change in this organization.
Congress has chartered B.S.A. and given it a monopoly on "Scouting" for boys, Congress should be sure that Boy Scouts of America – the organization - is worthy of that responsibility. Instead of giving this organization preferential treatment exempting it from U.S. law, it should be investigating B.S.A.’s numerous and repeated violations of U.S. law.
It is time for everyone – Congress, local lawmakers, volunteer leaders and paid professionals to hold Boy Scouts of America and its leaders accountable to the "values" they claim to represent.
Those who most ardently defend the "values" and "character" Scouting claims to represent should be asking themselves if Boy Scouts of America, the organization and its paid leaders, is truly showing "timeless values" or is showing "values" far too typical of our times.
B.S.A. is failing to serve America’s youth. It is failing to follow its own values. But this organization will not and cannot change from within. Volunteers have no voice in B.S.A. – despite its claims of being a "representative democracy." Those that have led B.S.A. away from the values of Scouting remain firmly entrenched and in control. Dissent is not allowed. Speak out and you will be punished.
Nobody can force someone to join Scouting or remain as a member. Too many dedicated volunteers have walked away from B.S.A. Good, well–run units attract boys and adults. They exist in too few numbers. Many dedicated leaders simply avoid "Council," B.S.A. and paid professionals. They’re what Scouting should be and used to be – great adult role models giving time to teach their own kids and some other boys about "Scouting." They remain involved in Scouting IN SPITE of B.S.A. When volunteers feel that their biggest problem in Scouting is B.S.A. – the organization – something is very wrong.
Boy Scouts of America has lost its way.
Let’s look at the moral and ethical choices made by this organization and the "values" shown recently by B.S.A.
Boy Scouts of America is lying about how many boys are in Scouting.
"We use numbers and statistics to measure our success in delivering the
Scouting program," quoting Chief Scout Executive Roy Williams.
But those "numbers" are too often misrepresented and the statistics carefully manipulated – and Mr. Williams knows it. The success of an organization is measured by how many people join it. B.S.A. admits this by its unrelenting push to add to membership. Despite its claims, membership in Scouting programs is declining. B.S.A. is failing in its chartered mission to represent the Scouting movement in the United States.
This will be detailed in many ways later but a short look at overall membership will suffice here. B.S.A. claims to have "over 5 million youth members" on GuideStar – a charity ranking site yet B.S.A.’s own 2004 Report to the Nation reports "4.8 million youth served." These are carefully worded misstatements, giving a false impression of the number of boys in Scouting. Membership for organizations B.S.A. itself defines as "Traditional Scouting" is:
988,995 Boy Scouts reported in 2004
1,878,752 Cub Scouts reported in 2004
280,584 Venturers reported in 2004
From B.S.A.’s own statistics, there were only 3.2 million youth in Scouting at the end of 2004. This figure is not widely touted. Total youth in Scouting programs is down 26% over the last 15 years though the number of available youth has been increasing. Yet even these "numbers" (reported as of 12/31/04) do NOT reflect actual participating membership on that date or at any point in the year. A conscious change in the way B.S.A. handles unit charter renewal procedures was made to maximize membership claims. B.S.A. claims any youth enrolled in B.S.A. at any point in a calendar year (for however brief a period) as a member on 12/31 of that year. This is itself is highly misleading if not fraudulent.
Actual counts of active membership at any given point in time are significantly lower than the official "year-end" numbers. In our District, when we subtract the boys that are no longer with their units when charters are renewed, the actual number of boys actually enrolled in Scouting is at that time is 20% LOWER than the official "year-end" count - there are NEVER as many boys actively participating in Scouting at any given time as BSA reports.
Direct comparisons are not easy; Cub Scouts was not founded until 1950 and ages have shifted for programs. However Boy Scouting (serving boys in middle/high school years) now has roughly the same number of adults and boys it had in 1939 when my father was a Scout - only 20 years after its founding when it was drawing from a Depression reduced population of youth. How "successful" is an organization that has seen 65 years of growth evaporate?
Scouting at all levels (Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, adults and boys) is roughly half the size it was during my youth in the 1970’s. The number of available boys is roughly equivalent for both periods so one cannot blame "demographics." How successful is an organization whose membership has dropped to half the size it was at 32 years ago?
These comparisons use B.S.A.’s own numbers. But the truth may be even worse. B.S.A. is quite good at using statistics to misrepresent "success." An accurate count for boys in Scouting might be only 2.6 million - but even that count does not take into account enrollment fraud. Besides manipulating the way counts are conducted and who is claimed as "members" B.S.A. counts can include completely fictitious "Scouts" and even non-existent units. Who knows what real membership is?
Boy Scouts of America is now under investigation for fraud in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Oregon.
B.S.A. should be under investigation for membership fraud in far more places. This problem is not new. Enrollment fraud has happened within B.S.A. with disturbing regularity for decades. It is not a "minor" problem. Some Councils have overstated membership by 30-40%. These are not simple "errors" as some would claim. Inner city units in Atlanta claiming thousands of participants have only hundreds. The problem of lying about membership is worsening. This would be bad enough in any charitable organization but B.S.A. touts its "values and high standards of character." But B.S.A. tries to divert attention from problems of their own making. They claim that their "values" are under attack by "liberal outsiders" like the ACLU or Gay Rights organizations. But B.S.A. is NOT being unjustly attacked by "outsiders" in these cases. Its own members – being true to the Scout Law - are the ones raising alarm after unsuccessfully trying to get BSA to deal with these problems internally.
Does ANYONE believe that boys are listed as John Doe "for their protection?" My Scoutmaster would be appalled at such a blatant lie. Whole units have been fabricated out of thin air. National leadership issues lawyerly denials blaming "individuals" (though one of those involved in the Alabama Scandal was instrumental in the Texas scandal). B.S.A. may claim that any "errors" were unintentional and make "minor" corrections after internal investigations, but Independent audits never occur. Yet if you check back in a year, reported membership has dropped by thousands - after media attention has turned elsewhere.
This problem occurs BECAUSE of the unending push by B.S.A. leadership to "add members" – yet they refuse to take responsibility for the results. If there was a will to end fraud and real consequences for paid staff reporting inflated numbers this problem would have ended decades ago. Ironically paid professionals have been forced to resign from B.S.A. for NOT supporting this type of fraud. A paid staffer from Oregon is suing B.S.A. over just this issue.
These deliberate misstatements of membership are clear and should not be "controversial." B.S.A. has regularly and repeatedly lied about the number of youth it serves in soliciting donations. B.S.A. has clearly proven itself to be less than Trustworthy in this venue. They have broken the law.
But how well does the Boy Scouts of America serve the Boys that are participants in Scouting?
How well does B.S.A. protect the boys entrusted to its care?
Recently unsealed court records show that B.S.A. was "repeatedly placed on notice" that a Scout Leader had abused boys as far back as 6 years BEFORE he was arrested and charged with sexual abuse of a child.
Any organization that deals with youth should be held to the highest possible standards in protecting them. This organization has made large strides in "protecting" boys since its own pedophile crisis in the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, the history of this issue is disturbing; B.S.A. has been less than open about this problem. B.S.A. continues to hide its past and present failures to deal with child abuse. There are still regular reports of abuse in Scouting however more disturbing is how some of these cases are handled. Even after finally developing specific procedures and policies to deal with child abuse, it is clear that this organization does not always follow them. B.S.A. has allowed pedophiles to remain as leaders for years after receiving complaints about inappropriate behavior – in clear violation of plainly stated policy. B.S.A. makes great efforts to keep any abuse incidents out of the public eye and seeks to keep all settlements and court judgments confidential (to protect B.S.A., not victims).
The case of Brad Stowell parallels too many others in this organization’s history. Case records have recently been opened despite attempts by B.S.A. to keep them sealed. The pattern of inaction shown here clearly violated existing procedures. The following was reported when court files relating to this case were opened:
National Scouting Headquarters received a letter dated May of 1991 warning that Stowell had molested a 6 year old child in 1988 when he was 16. There is case evidence of a note made by a Director of the Western Region of a phone call warning that Stowell had fondled and sodomized a child and was working with young boys at a Scout Camp. At least 7 people within Scouting were given reports about Stowell. Despite all these warnings and an investigation by B.S.A., Stowell continued to work at camp several more years until he was arrested for child abuse in the summer of 1997. The record also alleges that B.S.A. did not notify the parents of other victims to avoid further liability. Stowell swore under oath that he molested 24 other boys. According to the documents, Boy Scouts of America leaders felt telling parents of the abuse would have opened old wounds. Instead, the victims should -- quote -- "get on with their lives."
There is far more to this case than this brief synopsis indicates – none of it flattering to B.S.A. The official statements issued in the Stowell case are at great odds with now unsealed court records. B.S.A. did NOT act promptly; local, regional and national levels were told bout problems with this individual long before he was arrested. No Scout officials were arrested or prosecuted for failing to report child abuse. It seems that law enforcement officials "delayed" investigating these issues – so much so that the statute of limitations has expired and charges cannot be brought. B.S.A. should be held to the HIGHEST standards in protecting children, not excused for their failures. As a parent, I’m horrified. Ignoring visible warning signs and repeated complaints is inexcusable.
These issues can plague any organization but B.S.A. has been less than open with its history of "protecting boys." Unlike other organizations dealing with children, B.S.A. will not reveal ANY statistics about child abuse incidents. It is difficult to say how many other cases of child abuse have occurred because settlements are sealed by "confidentiality agreements" in abuse cases. A California court case in the early 1990s revealed that B.S.A. had privately documented about 2,000 cases of sexual abuse of scouts and other boys over two decades without telling law enforcement officials.
How well did B.S.A. handle these cases? If they didn’t tell law enforcement officials, the answer seems obvious. Did they even inform parents? How many cases of abuse have there been? What was reported in sealed case records? Did B.S.A. follow their own procedures in those cases? How many cases of child abuse have occurred within B.S.A.? How much warning did B.S.A. have in these cases? How much has been paid out by B.S.A. to victims in these cases? In "Scout’s Honor" by Boyle - a book published in 1994 chronicling B.S.A.’s problems with child abuse – it was reported that B.S.A.’s insurance reserve in 1980 held $6.5 million. By the end of 1991, this fund had grown to $85.4 million (with most payouts seemingly going towards settlement of sexual abuse cases). What is that amount now, fifteen years later? How much money has been paid out by B.S.A. in sealed settlements of child abuse cases? How much money has B.S.A. spent on attorneys to fight these cases?
This is an explosive issue that nobody wants to talk about. It is a "feel bad" story that the media avoids. It has been highly politicized and confused by mixing homosexuality and pedophilia. A sane and rational discussion of these issues is impossible within B.S.A. under current leadership. But boys have been abused in Scouting and policies designed to protect them ignored . How can this happen? If you ask "Who’s in charge?" - the answer is not to be believed.
The former head of B.S.A.’s "Youth Protection Task Force" has pled guilty to charges of distributing child pornography.
With a sense of irony that would not be believed in fiction, Douglas Smith, the former "Director of Programming" and former head of B.S.A.’s "Youth Protection Task Force" was recently arrested and pled guilty on Federal charges of distributing child pornography. Over five hundred images of children engaging in sex were found on his home computer." Smith had spent 39 years working for B.S.A..
While no organization is immune from such issues, the arrest of a senior official in Boy Scouts on these charges – the very person heading their child protection efforts - should be cause for alarm. B.S.A. claims that Smith was in a Staff position having no direct contact with boys but pointedly failed to note that Smith WAS in positions having regular contact with boys earlier in his career. Even in his present position, Smith escorted boys to the White House for an awards ceremony and a report from Miami notes that Smith visited the High Adventure Sea Base once a year where he and another adult would take 6 boys on a 7 day sailing excursion.
Though a national staff position can be a valid promotion, volunteers routinely joke about there not being enough desks at "Headquarters" to put the paid professionals that shouldn’t be in the field (if you read B.S.A. "Rules and Regulations" you’ll see how difficult it is to actually fire a paid staffer). Was Smith someone who "shouldn’t be in the field?" If so, why? Would B.S.A. answer this question honestly? They weren’t really honest about his contact with boys.
Child abuse and child pornography are serious issues – and yes, one can never know who may be involved. I doubt there was a direct link between these two cases but the mere existence of these cases cannot help but raise serious questions. In the case of Brad Stowell, abuse occurred for years – despite warnings to B.S.A. In the case of Mr. Smith, an F.B.I .investigation left B.S.A. no real choice in what happened. Of course B.S.A. will swear up and down that "there were no signs" and "we didn’t know." But past history clearly shows that B.S.A. has known about serious problems before and simply covered things up. Ask Brad Stowell’s victims.
How serious B.S.A. is about dealing with these issues? How open has B.S.A. been? Is B.S.A.’s first priority protecting boys or protecting its image?
Contrast the repeated "understanding" shown towards Mr. Stowell – detailed in the Post-Dispatch’s series and how B.S.A. treated dedicated Scouters – as detailed below. Look at how B.S.A.dealt with a dedicated and honored Scoutmaster who raised valid questions about priorities in his Council.
A long serving and honored Scoutmaster had his registration as a Scout Leader revoked after questioning financial issues in his Council
B.S.A. has moved far faster to remove dedicated and honored leaders who have raised questions about Council finances than it has acted to remove some pedophiles. As reported in the Auburn, N.Y. "Citizen", A 17 year Scoutmaster in Auburn N.Y. had his registration as a Scout Leader revoked after publicly questioning why $500,000 was being spent on new Council offices instead of programs for boys. This Scoutmaster’s name headed a letter published in a local paper, a letter also signed by 23 others. The local Scout Executive – the paid professional heading this Council – was less than forthright about meeting his fundraising goals in this effort. He continued to solicit funds even after a large donation was made that provided the matching funds needed in this effort. This volunteer was removed despite widespread protests by the Troop he led, the church that sponsors this unit, his community and the Scouts in his Council. Lacking the financial resources to take on an expensive court fight (something B.S.A. depends on), this dedicated leader remains serving Scouting with the support of his unit and church – an embarrassment to B.S.A.
Absent criminal behavior (or anything relating to "membership criteria") B.S.A.’s own rules state that ONLY the chartering organization can remove a unit leader. The church that charters his Troop – opposes their Scoutmaster’s removal. This upstanding citizen who has given years of service to Scouting and his church has been portrayed as a "trouble maker" by B.S.A. who has banned him for life. Procedures drawn up to "protect boys" were misused to remove this leader and slander his good name. He was a good Scout; he was "brave" and spoke out for what he thought was right. His removal could have been overturned at the Regional and National levels. B.S.A. could have done what was "right but they did not. B.S.A. does not like public criticism by its members and punishes those that publicly stand up to them.
Neither "Free Speech" or Due Process exist within B.S.A.
Dave Rice, one of the founders of Scouting for All was removed from Scouting over the objections of the Council he served for advocating "tolerance" within B.S.A..
He has 59 years of service in Scouting, a record few can match. He was "brave" and spoke out for what he believed in. He did so in a non-Scout venue but still had his registration as a Scout Leader revoked.
How can B.S.A. change when the mere mention of "change" will get you thrown out?
It is impossible for B.S.A. to change from within when NO discussion of issues or questioning is tolerated. Despite claims of being a "representative democracy" volunteers have no voice in how B.S.A. is run. Volunteers remain the conscience of Scouting – yet B.S.A. does all it can to silence any dissenting voices. As a result, many leave or simply soldier on serving local units and trying to avoid "politics" for the sake of the boys they serve. These Scouters have no voice in B.S.A and will not be able to change things.
What "moral and ethical choices" were made by B.S.A. and its paid professional employees in these instances? Do these instances show the "values" of Scouting?
Roy Williams – Chief Scout Executive (the "C.E.O." of B.S.A.) – says these are all "local" problems.
He claims to be unaware of any wrongdoing. He might learn a lesson from Bernard Ebbers – former Worldcom C.E.O.. Pleading ignorance doesn’t work in court – especially when the demands you have put on your subordinates have led to fraud. President Truman said that "The Buck Stops Here," Mr. Williams’ role model seems to be Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes – "I see nothing." B.S.A.’s leader – the one who should be setting an example for all Scouts - hides in National headquarters. He refuses to take any responsibility for what has occurred. He won’t face the media or answer direct questions. High priced lawyers craft carefully worded statements. Ridiculous excuses are offered – boys are listed as "John Doe" to "protect" their identity. How absurd.
No more excuses. That’s what my old Scoutmaster would have said.
My old Scoutmaster taught us to take responsibility for our actions and work to correct wrongs. That is not happening and – given past experience with the same issues – will not happen. It is time for B.S.A. to listen to its conscience - its volunteers. B.S.A. ignored – and even threatened its members when they raised the issue of fraud. In how many other ways is this organization ignoring its members? It is time for excuses to end. B.S.A. SHOULD stand for "timeless values" – not a phantom, short-sighted focus on "image" and illusions of "success."
Should ANYONE be defending such behavior?
All of these incidents are indicative of the problems within B.S.A.. This organization fails to acknowledge their own failures to meet the "high standards of character" they claim to represent. Instead of acting decisively to correct problems, B.S.A.’s focus is more on controlling the press and protecting its image. Instead of responding to valid questions raised by dedicated volunteers, B.S.A. attempts to silence them.
In ALL of these cases, B.S.A. representatives refuse to face the media and answer questions. They hide and instead release carefully crafted statements declaiming any responsibility and blaming "individuals" even when B.S.A. had clear knowledge of abusers. It is clear that the "buck stops nowhere" in B.S.A.. As a volunteer I am horrified at the abject refusal of B.S.A. to EVER take responsibility for any of these problems – all of which come from within.
Yet Boy Scouts of America blames "outsiders" for its problems and hides behind "values" that it refuses to practice.
B.S.A. has become arrogant in hiding behind "values" even as it boys have been molested by Scout leaders. B.S.A. sees no problems in routinely lying about its membership numbers and soliciting contributions on a false image of "success." B.S.A. moves swiftly to remove critics who have served Scouting while ignoring reports of child abuse registered at all levels of the organization. B.S.A. fails to see the irony of having the very person heading "Youth Protection" efforts distributing child pornography As is, B.S.A. was less than clear that this person could and did have contact with boys through his positions with B.S.A. B.S.A. sees no ethical conflict in failing to comply with laws while seeking preferential treatment from government. B.S.A. touts its status as a "private organization" yet carefully structures its programs to make the most possible use of governmental support. Lawmakers should be horrified, instead they are complicit. B.S.A. uses Senators to draft laws giving them preferential treatment – exempting B.S.A. from laws any other organization has to follow. Would Congress do the same for the K.K.K.?
Sites detailing B.S.A.’s discriminatory policies (and providing detailed information on enrollment scandals and far more issues are) are:
http://www.scoutingforall.org/
http://www.inclusivescouting.net/...
http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/
Child pornography and sexual abuse are explosive issues. Nobody wants to talk about them. – especially B.S.A. So, Let’s Ignore Them.
But even if you remove all those horrid issues nobody wants to admit can occur in Scouting,
Boy Scouts of America – the organization - has STILL failed horribly with the trust they have been given.
Let’s look at something that can be analyzed "rationally" - membership reporting.
B.S.A. deliberately misrepresents its membership and service to youth.
From the press release accompanying this year’s report to Congress:
"Today, one out of every two American males has had an affiliation with the Scouting program"
What does that mean? It implies that half of American males – roughly 70 million - have been enrolled in Scouting – if only for a limited time. A careless reader may believe that Scouting serves one of two boys. But neither is not true. Where does that statistic come from? It’s difficult to say. Is B.S.A.counting the fathers of Scouts as having some "affiliation?" That would not be true. In our Troop some fathers aren’t even seen at drop-off or pick-up.
Using current census numbers and membership in local Scouting – about 11% of the boys from 5-18 are currently enrolled in Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts – this is close to the actual membership statistics reported by B.S.A. and the pool of available boys. Claiming "affiliation" for all boys that have participated at some point might boost that percentage to 25%. Yet under no circumstances could you claim that one in two males in this community has had some affiliation with Scouting.
Let’s look at another of our leader’s quotes again:
"We use numbers and statistics to measure our success in delivering the
Scouting program".
I (and many other Scout leaders) have a real problem with the mindset shown by this statement.
This statement comes from a businessman, not a Scoutmaster. Personally, I feel that I’ve been "successful" when a boy shows that he’s learned something from Scouting. I’m proud of the boy that does a "good turn" without knowing that anyone might be watching, or stands up for a friend against a bully. A boy that acts calmly and deals with an emergency, giving appropriate first aid is a "success." A boy that completes a difficult 10 mile hike (in the rain) – something he never thought he could do – is a "success." If a boy earns Eagle Scout great, but I’d rather he learn the REAL values of Scouting. But let’s look at Scouting the way B.S.A. does – like a business, where boys are numbers and success is measured by "numbers." Keep in mind that numbers and statistics are easily manipulated. That seems to be the norm in too many businesses – and in Boy Scouts of America.
Just how "successful" has B.S.A. been? Let’s look closely at "numbers."
Boy Scouts of America deliberately encourages "misinterpretation" of its actual membership numbers. The truth is that B.S.A. serves a small proportion of American youth and membership has dropped dramatically and drastically over the past few decades. Volunteers see what has happened to Scouting. Communities that once had 3 or 4 Troops are now lucky to have one. Scouting membership is a fraction of what it was at its peak - though you will not find membership numbers readily available. It is easier to hide what you cannot readily defend.
B.S.A. is desperate to reverse – or at least slow declining membership. Instead of working to build membership and correct the problems that have led to drops in membership, it is easier to talk of "values" while faking "numbers." You regularly see media reports talking of "increases" and "over 4 million boys" or "almost 5 million boys" in Boy Scouting.
Let’s look at the two programs people think of when it comes to B.S.A. –
Less than 1 million boys are actually "Boy Scouts" (988,995 reported in 2004)
Less than 2 million boys are actually "Cub Scouts." (1,878,752 reported in 2004)
If those are year end numbers (and typically that is what B.S.A. cites), even these numbers are significant OVERSTATEMENTS of actual – and active membership. Enrollment numbers are overstated significantly by the way B.S.A. counts members. "Year-end" numbers still include those that have "aged out" or failed to re-enroll at the start of the school year. Actual counts of boys actively participating may be lower by double digit percentages. Locally, our counts after charter renewal are down about 16% - and our listings are still showing units that are no longer in existence and others whose counts are questionable.
"Venturing" – though classified as a "traditional" Scouting program encompasses a wide range of programs from the truly "traditional" (successors to the old "Explorers" program) to activities "affiliated" with B.S.A. For example, "Safe Rides" a program for high school students to get safe transportation when they or their driver is impaired – is insured through their affiliation with B.S.A. as a "Venturing" program. This would not be considered a "traditional" Scouting program in anyone’s eyes though B.S.A. counts it as such. Venturing has less than 300,000 members (even with all its affiliated programs) – one third the size of the old "Traditional Scouting" Explorers program once had.
Claims of higher membership comes ONLY through other programs not widely thought of when "Boy Scouts" is mentioned, a program even B.S.A. does not classify as "Traditional Scouting."
"Learning for Life" is described as a "classroom-based character education program." It is the only program where B.S.A. can show growth. Boy Scouts of America has gone to great lengths – and used its political connections – to expand this program. B.S.A. is PAID by school districts to run this program – through funds often appropriated at the request of B.S.A. Part time paid employees spend an hour a week teaching "values" – though locally it seems that their efforts are focused more on teaching basic crafts to learning impaired children. This program has grown – the ONLY B.S.A. program to do so – more through political connections than any real demand for the service provided. THIS program serves just over 1.5 million boys and given current trends will exceed the number of boys in Cub Scouts within a few years. But this program is NOT "traditional" Scouting in any way shape or form. It is a carefully crafted program having little to do with "Scouting" that is designed to bring in income and allow B.S.A. to claim far more boys as "members."
B.S.A. cannot blame declines to a reduced population of available boys – that population numbers over 27 million boys and is growing ("Traditional" Scouting programs in B.S.A. serve about 10% of the boys eligible to join). B.S.A. goes to great pains to hide their "success." You will be hard pressed to find detailed membership numbers in B.S.A.’s report.
Compare B.S.A.’s annual report to that from Girl Scouts of America. G.S.A. has detailed membership breakdowns by state – and race. Boy Scouting’s failure to serve a wide range of youth despite highly "pushed" efforts is an embarrassment (and behind the fraud shown in its "inner cities" programs like Atlanta where "hundreds" of boys were actually members instead of the "thousands" claimed).
Boy Scouts of America deliberately misrepresents the true level of participation by boys and lies about its "success" in serving youth.
"Increase numbers" – the first priority of paid staffers
Of course B.S.A. should want to increase its membership. But why is B.S.A. being investigated for membership fraud? Why has this problem recurred with alarming frequency over decades? (And keep in mind that the true scope of this issue is not visible – the reported cases of fraud are but the tip of an iceberg). B.S.A. pushes paid professionals and volunteers to raise their "numbers" – volunteers prefer to think of them as "boys." The number of boys enrolled is the measure of "success" in B.S.A. – how many "members" it has. It is probably the number one factor in evaluating a paid professional’s "success" (along with raising money). But B.S.A. keeps losing members. It tries to hide that fact as well as it can instead of finding out why. Volunteers might have some insight but we’re ignored.
Desperate to show "improvement," in enrollment numbers, membership fraud is NOT unusual or isolated. Far too many unit leaders find boys listed on their rosters long after they have left Scouting. These "roster errors" are a far more prevalent (and less obvious) way of inflating enrollments than listing "John Does." Most volunteers will not see this paperwork – and many of those that do accept the "mistake" explanation provided by their Council. "Ghost units" – those that have gone out of existence – may be completely "dead." They have no members no leaders, hold no meetings. Yet they are still listed in Council records with fraudulent membership rosters and reported to National. There are units with less than the minimum members required by B.S.A.’s own rules. Rosters are padded with fraudulent listings to make these units "legal." Many of the adults listed as members of B.S.A. are simply "paper leaders" –parents listed as "leaders" to fill required positions. None of these tactics would be obvious to volunteers who do not have contact with related "paperwork." Knowledgeable volunteers may feel that the "numbers" touted in the local press seem a bit high but won’t have access to any proof. That is deliberate. But then even the way members are counted confuses the issue and overstates membership for a third of the year. "End-of-year" numbers still include boys that "age-out" or failed to return when school started up in September – though new boys are added as soon as they register. They won’t be removed until unit charters are renewed. In our District, the drop in enrollments was almost 20% and there are still "errors." Even the "accurate" numbers are questionable.
Boy Scouts of America – the organization and its paid leadership - has failed numerously, repeatedly and in a way that cannot be dismissed as mere chance to accurately report its membership. It has not followed the values they so publicly embrace. It lies about membership – regularly and at many levels. Volunteers do not do this. Paid professionals, reacting to clear and unending pressure from B.S.A. national leadership are behind this problem. Even B.S.A.’s Reports to Congress shows deliberate distortions. Compare the "1999 numbers" in the 1999 report to those in the 2000 report – keep looking, it doesn’t end (until they stopped detailing numbers).
Why should anyone care if B.S.A. lies about "numbers?"
Well, first because Scouts are supposed to be "Trustworthy." B.S.A. is not.
Second, because it’s illegal. B.S.A. uses these numbers to solicit funds. That makes lying about membership fraud.
B.S.A. has repeatedly violated the law. The issue of membership fraud is clear, longstanding and obvious. Even this organization’s own reports to Congress go to great lengths in distorting numbers to B.S.A.’s benefit. The real numbers show what volunteers clearly know: B.S.A. - the organization - is in trouble, trouble of its own making. No amount of political rhetoric can change that. Serious attention needs to be focused on the very REAL problems within this organization. Enrollments are declining. B.S.A. does NOT serve a wide range of youth.
Hiding behind "values" only compounds the hypocrisy. Volunteers see what’s going on. It’s embarrassing to be a Scout Leader when you yourself know how things really are. Many of the best – the leaders B.S.A. NEEDS – walk away.
Let’s look at the Second priority in B.S.A.
"Money, Money, Money" but where does it go?
One of the biggest complaints registered by volunteers is the focus on money. Volunteers are under continuing pressure to raise money for Scouting. But little of this money goes to their units. While there is a need to fund local units, B.S.A.’s fundraising efforts focus on Council and National funding. B.S.A. wants volunteers to raise money to support their local Council. Most of those funds go towards paying the salaries and associated costs of the professional paid staff – "administrative costs." But many volunteers feel that all paid staffers do is raise money to pay their own salaries. Many will say that the only time they see a professional visit their units is when one shows up to ask for money.
Yet volunteers do most of the real work in Scouting. They run the units, run events, run training for new members, staff most of the positions overseeing Scouting, and even staff summer camps. A volunteer checks us in at the local Scout facility for weekend camping – and checks us out. Scouting is not cheap. Uniforms and "official" supplies are far from inexpensive. B.S.A. is profiting from those sales. We pay for weekend camping at Scout facilities. Summer Camp isn’t cheap. Some of the money raised for local Councils does go to upkeep of local facilities, but there are many "working weekends" when volunteers perform maintenance. Property was donated to Scouting – sometimes with trust funds for upkeep and maintenance. We DO pay for usage – and those fees are not low. We pay three times the going price for firewood if we use any from the wood boxes at our local Scout reservation ("local" being a relative term – the most "local" facility is now an hour away compared to 15 minutes in my youth). A recent mailing form our Council (soliciting donations) says that "Camping costs" represent 40 odd percent of our Council’s expenses yet "Camping fees" represent the same percentage of total revenue. It seems that "Camping" pretty much pays for itself. Yet 50% of expenses are classified as "Direct Unit Support." Now I and other leaders have no idea what that means. We only see paid staff when they show up to ask for money. Volunteers run our unit, run events run training. I suppose that this 50% covers "paid staff" and offices but frankly, it’s hard to think of that as DIRECT support. They’re "overhead" – and expensive overhead at that - that does little in helping me run my unit.
One of the biggest sore points with long time volunteers is the sale of Scout property. Volunteers wonder why Councils are always short of funds – even after millions of dollars in property has been sold. Many properties are sold for less than expected – and sometimes resold later for far more. There seems to be little oversight in these sales and questions of appropriate valuation, favoritism and more have surfaced all over the country with respect to such sell-offs. Volunteers are upset with continued decimation of assets. Continued sales of Scout facilities hurt Scouting programs. Literally hundreds of Scout facilities have been sold off since I was a Scout. Units cannot book space for weekend cabin camping or slots at "High Adventure" summer camp. Try going to Philmont – B.S.A.’s national camp. "Demand" outstrips supply in too many places. Why?
Millions of dollars worth of property (hundreds of facilities nationwide) donated to B.S.A. for the use of boys has been sold off despite the protests of volunteers. Too often these sales legally evade the terms of original bequests. The scope and pace of these sales outstrips the decline in membership. Why? Where have the millions of dollars from these sales gone? Long serving volunteers ask questions – but rarely get any answers. This was another of the issues in Alabama – one not covered as widely by the media.
Does B.S.A. teach "Values" or Hypocrisy?
It is hard for leaders to teach "values" when confronted with B.S.A.’s own hypocrisy. B.S.A. fails to comply with Federal and State laws that apply to any other organization. B.S.A. violates laws until challenged in court. Losing in court, it seeks exemptions to laws through legislative action. And though courts have allowed B.S.A. to discriminate against homosexuals and atheists, many women and minorities feel that they are the victims of clearly discriminatory treatment within this organization. Other volunteers agree.
Does B.S.A. deserve the preferential treatment it receives? What are the "values" shown by a mindset that feels itself above the law and seeks special exemptions to laws it doesn’t want to follow? Would Congress give the K.K.K. the same preferential treatment it has given B.S.A.? Courts have ruled that organizations can choose who they admit to membership. But having chosen to claim protection as a "private" organization, why does B.S.A. continually seek preferential treatment from legislators? When courts rule against B.S.A. for failing to meet the same standards expected of any other organization using governmental facilities, why doesn’t B.S.A. simply comply with the law? Actually, why aren’t they following the law in the first place? But let’s ignore "membership criteria" completely.
Why does Congress give preferential treatment to an organization that commits blatant fraud in claims of its service to youth? B.S.A. LIES to Congress. B.S.A. breaks the law. Why are they receiving preferential treatment from Congress?
Congress should demand that B.S.A. allow independent audits of membership numbers and finances to see if this organization deserves its Congressional charter.
B.S.A. was granted a de-facto "monopoly" on Scouting for boys in the U.S. by Congress. Given this organization’s ongoing failures, should that charter be continued?
B.S.A. does not serve or represent the volunteers who do the real work in Scouting; we have no real voice in this organization. Like too many corporations, B.S.A. is run by executives focused more on their own careers than those they are supposed to serve. It is clear that Boy Scouts of America will not change by itself. B.S.A. stifles any attempts at change from within and refuses to deal with problems brought to their attention. Claims of being a "representative democracy" are a fraud; professional paid staff choose and control our "representatives." B.S.A. ignores its volunteers. When its own members have to call in the F.B.I to investigate clear wrongdoing, something is horribly wrong.
Other issues – like ongoing property sales are more obvious and leave volunteers disillusioned. Property donated to B.S.A. (for the use of boys) has been sold off faster than enrollments have declined. Councils once rich in facilities now cannot cope with demand from the units they are supposed to serve. Scouting programs are hurt by these sales – which often "legally" violate the intent of the donor.
"Timeless Values" or "Typical of our Times?"
While lower level paid staff within B.S.A. are not well compensated, upper level executives are paid quite well (though you may have problems finding out just how well). Roy Williams earns substantially more than his counterpart at G.S.A. And frankly, the pay for District Executives is abysmal so you draw the dedicated or marginally capable. Too many of the dedicated grow disillusioned and leave. A new District Executive in one Council rushed back to get to Summer Camp in his Council after training in Texas only to be greeted by his Scout Executive with "get the f---out of my way!" This former DE is now a Deputy Sheriff. His Scout Executive remains a "paid professional" in the employ of BSA despite repeated complaints about his "leadership." There are too many "executives" in professional ranks focused only on their careers and too few Scoutmasters focused on serving boys.
Like too many other companies, B.S.A. is run for the benefit of those upper level executives. There is little concern shown for the majority of its "employees" – paid or volunteer. Little concern exists for "the customer" – the boys that it is supposed to serve. "Perception" counts more than accomplishment.
Paid staffers are the ones failing to make "moral and ethical" choices. Volunteers have been the annoying conscience of B.S.A.. Some volunteers have openly wondered if Scouting even needs paid staffers (or at least as many as they have). B.S.A. – the organization – views such talk as heresy though in the opinion of many volunteers, "All paid staffers do is raise money to pay their own salaries."
Volunteers do all the real work in Scouting. Volunteers run units, conduct training, run events, staff camps and do pretty much everything. They don’t often have a high opinion of the paid staffers – or the organization. One of the few things they’re supposed to do - record keeping - is abysmal (though often on–purpose). Paid staff is supposed to help and support volunteers, but ask any Cubmaster or Scoutmaster what paid professionals in Scouting have done to help him. Most will be hard pressed to have an answer. Paid professionals show up once a year (if even that) to visit a meeting and ask for money.
There are great and dedicated paid staffers – but they’re unusual enough that they DO stand out. If a confidential poll were taken of volunteers to rate paid professionals, the results would be appalling. Too many paid professionals are not held in high regard. And despite the fact that paid professionals are supposed to be evaluated on "Volunteer relations" – that aspect is far below "numbers" and money on the performance chart. B.S.A. really doesn’t seem to care what we think – and that’s one of the basic problems.
On the other hand every community seems to have one or two "local legends" in Scouting – volunteers that have been the center of Scouting there for decades. Dedicated volunteers keep Scouting going – often in spite of the efforts of paid professionals and the organization that is supposed to "help" them.
Something is wrong when dedicated and accomplished volunteers within Scouting feel that their biggest problem in Scouting is Boy Scouts of America – the organization and its paid staff.
B.S.A. and its paid professionals – those that run this organization - have failed to show the "high standards of character" they expect of the volunteers in Scouting. B.S.A. is just like many other companies – for the benefit of its own executives than those it is supposed to serve. Paid staff focus on short term goals and their own careers – not boys. It is easier for them to fake enrollments than reverse years of declining enrollments. But then B.S.A. has no desire to address fundamental issues behind those declines.
Claims of "timeless values" are undercut by B.S.A.’s own behavior. Awards for service have been "devalued" and made easier to earn – rewarding "short-time" volunteers instead of real service to Scouting. Leadership awards that once required three years of service now only require one year in a position and another as an assistant. More troubling are Troops that serve as "Eagle Mills" – where the focus is more on adding to a boy’s credentials for college than learning and living the values of Scouting. Other issues cannot even be discussed. Simply raising those topics will guarantee your removal from Scouting.
If members question enrollments, finances or policies within B.S.A., they are told to be quiet, threatened with ouster, removed from District and Council positions and in the case paid staffers, forced to resign. Some volunteers that have questioned finances too closely have been removed from Scouting – using procedures drawn up to "protect boys." A 17 year Scoutmaster was removed from Scouting for protesting the construction of new and unneeded offices (benefiting paid staff far more than boys). He and many others felt that those funds should have been spent on programs for boys. He made the mistake of going public with his concerns in a letter to a local paper.
It is time for the politicized rhetoric to end. Decades of dropping membership, a clear failure to serve a wide cross-section of American youth (as the recurring fraud in "inner city initiatives" highlights), recurring fraud in overstated enrollment numbers, squandering of assets, shameless political manipulation of government to protect its interests (while avoiding legal requirements that apply to any other similar group) and the simple failure of B.S.A. leadership to meet their own "high standards" of character more than justify a call for change.
It is time for change within Boy Scouts.
B.S.A. needs to be held OPENLY accountable for its behavior.
How many times must the same fraud be committed before B.S.A. and its leadership are held accountable?
Why does B.S.A. resist calls for independent audits and oversight?
Why is Congress giving this organization preferential treatment to exempt this organization from laws that any other group must follow?
B.S.A. needs to be DIRECTLY accountable to its members – the volunteers that do the real work in Scouting. Why don’t the volunteers that do the work in Scouting have a real and DIRECT voice in how B.S.A. is run?
It is time for an open and apolitical discussion of what has gone wrong in Boy Scouts of America.
This discussion is impossible within this organization under current conditions. This is a concern for all because B.S.A. is chartered by Congress. B.S.A. has a "monopoly" in representing the "Scouting" movement here. "Scouting" is a world-wide movement with many organizations under its umbrella. Yet those volunteers wanting to participate in a "Scouting" program in the U.S. have no real voice in the organization that is supposed to serve and support them. B.S.A. solicits funding from ALL Americans and has received millions of dollars from individuals and organizations based on fraudulent enrollment numbers and a deliberately false perception of what this organization is accomplishing.
Note: I have been an active leader in BSA for over a dozen years. Some of the best people I have ever met were VOLUNTEER leaders in BSA. Some of the LEAST trustworthy, scheming and amoral people I have ever met were Paid Staff in BSA (and I've worked on Wall Street). Not ALL paid staff are bad - but far too many are horrendous. I am not talking about those that are simply incompetent but those that are deliberately and willfully scheming liars, willing to do anything to make themselves look better, caring nothing about the effects of their own actions and caring NOTHING about the boys they are supposed to be serving.
Before I get flamed - I would like to note that I am VERY well informed oin this topic and have internal Council e-mails sent to paid staff that would embarass ANY organization......that is from MY personal experience alone. There are dedicated Scouters all over the country that have TRIED to change BSA - who have suffered personally for their efforts. This is NOT a 'local' problem. It comes from the top down.