More news about COL Council

This is the first public mention I have ever seen about national threatening to revoke the charter of a local council of the gay issue. I don't know how much truth there is to this report, but for what it is worth, here it is.

_________________________________

United Way Charity Suspends Scout Grants Over Gays

Fri Aug 1, 1:50 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Philadelphia-based United Way charity suspended funding to the nation's third-largest Boy Scout council after the group capitulated to a national Scout ban against homosexuals, officials said on Friday.

The United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania canceled the second half of an annual $400,862 grant to the Boy Scouts' Cradle of Liberty Council, saying the Scout group did not comply with the charity's policy of not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

The grant represents over 6 percent of the council's budget.

In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled that the Boy Scouts of America could bar homosexuals as troop leaders. The Boy Scouts of America National Council claimed the ruling as a victory, saying "an avowed homosexual" was not a proper role model for youth.

The Cradle of Liberty Council, which serves 87,000 youths in Philadelphia and its Pennsylvania suburbs, defied national leaders in May by adopting its own nondiscrimination policy toward gays.

But the group later rescinded the policy and agreed to oust an openly gay scout after the Irving, Texas-based national council threatened to revoke its charter.

The United Way, which also suspended a grant to a smaller suburban Boy Scout group near Philadelphia this week, said the money would be reinstated in both cases if the Scout councils complied with its nondiscrimination policy.

Local and national Boy Scouts officials were not immediately available for comment. But the charity's move was not the only headache confronting Scout leaders in Philadelphia.

The Boy Scouts' ban on gays has already prompted the Pew Charitable Trusts to suspend a $100,000 grant to the Cradle of Liberty Council.

The Philadelphia Inquirer also reported that the City of Philadelphia was looking into whether the Boy Scouts should continue to use city-owned property as their headquarters.

Should read "over the gay issue."

That was eluded to in other earlier articles, but when I contacted council, I was told that there was no new policy for the BSA--only a clearly spelled out non-discrimination policy for LFL. My SE gave me a copy of it. It is the same one that later appeared on national's website. My DE also called me and spoke to me directly on this issue, assuring me that though there are varied thoughts in council (when aren't there in any group?), the council had no desire to go against national and had remained consistent with national and would continue to do so. There has been no new news on the property, but I do hope that is resolved. It's sad, isn't it, when the media is portraying the BSA as local council against national.(This message has been edited by Laurie)

Has the Council found other sources of funding???

Laurie writes:

> That was eluded to in other earlier articles, but when I contacted council, I was told that there was

> no new policy for the BSA--only a clearly spelled out non-discrimination policy for LFL.

This is incorrect.

The policy adopted by COL read in part:

"United Way has brought to out attention the fact that the Agency Membership agreement contains a promise to "operate, by policy and practice, on a non-discriminatory basis" including "sexual orientation" as well as race, color, religion, ancestry, age, non-job related handicap, and citizenship."

"It is our duty to live up to that promise fully in our policy and practice, including all programs, employment and adult leadership. This practice reflects the spirit under which the Cradle of Liberty Council has been operating."

This was presented to the United Way and other local funders as covering "all programs" of the council, just as stated above. There would have been nothing newsworthy about a policy only covering LFL, since LFL is already run in a non-discriminatory manner anyway.

This policy was re-spun after National came down on COL and threated to revoke their charter and replace the board.

> My DE also called me and spoke to me directly on this issue, assuring me that though there are

> varied thoughts in council (when aren't there in any group?), the council had no desire to go against > national and had remained consistent with national and would continue to do so.

This isn't accurate, either. The Council President (David Lipson) and United Way leaders spoke at length to Linda Harris at the Philadelphia Inquirer, and they made it pretty clear that everyone had agreed that the new policy applied to "traditional scouting programs" in the COL as well as LFL. Remember that this is also one of the council that sponsored the resolution from the 2001 National Meeting to change the membership policies from a national standard to a local option.

I think it's abundantly clear that many in the COL wanted to take a step away from National's policy here, but were crushed. Even the later statement from the COL exec, Bill Dwyer, was issued and distributed from Texas.

> It's sad, isn't it, when the media is portraying the BSA as local council against national.

But that's precisely what happened. COL only fell back into step after National put the screws to them back in May.

YiS,

-Mark

Mark,

Couldn't help but notice you seem to be part of inclusivescouting.net which is a group that feels the BSA should not exclude anyone. Interesting! I must ask since I noticed something else, are you a homosexual? Somthing I have read seems to indicate that.

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

NPR ran a story on Friday about the Cradle of Liberty Council and its current funding problems. It quotes both BSA national spokesmen and board members from the COL stating that the COL's policy _was_ intended to be inclusive, but within days of its adoption National threatened to decharter the council if it didn't publicly rescind its policy:

(about halfway down the page)

Evmori:

In response to your question:

> Couldn't help but notice you seem to be part of inclusivescouting.net which is a group that feels

> the BSA should not exclude anyone. Interesting! I must ask since I noticed something else, are

> you a homosexual? Somthing I have read seems to indicate that.

Yes. I revealed my sexual orientation in a newspaper article and was kicked out in July 2000 against the wishes of my local troop, parents, and the church that had hosted our troop for over 60 years. There should be plenty of background on it if you do a Google search on my name...

YiS,

-Mark

I agree that the council committee meant for the policy to reflect on e of total inclusiveness. An act they had no authority to undertake. The Council signs the same charter with the national office that the units do. It is a shared agrrement that each party agree to specific responsibilities. Included is that the council will operate in accordance with the policies, rules and regulations of the BSA.

The Council Committee is not empowered to alter the membership rules to be be less restrictive than national's rules. if the volunteers of the that community wish to offer a a program open to any and all they are free to do so, however they are not free to use the Boy scout program to do so. They are free and welcome to use a program of their own or to choose to use a different program.

If they want scouting then they are required to use it according to the national regulations.

The BSA reminded them that it is not a have your cake and eat it to proposition. Had the COL Council committee not agreed to follow the national guidelines the BSA would have have merely removed the membership of the Council committe and replaced them with volunteers who would continue to support the program.

Bob White

BobWhite says:

Had the COL Council committee not agreed to follow the national guidelines the BSA would have have merely removed the membership of the Council committe and replaced them with volunteers who would continue to support the program.

First, I have to laugh at yet another statement about "supporting the program," as if the exclusion of gays has anything to do with the BSA "program." The Cradle of Liberty council seems to understand the "program" better than national, at least in this respect. Nevertheless, it is national that has the authority to interpret the Oath and Law, and since the lesson the BSA is apparently trying to teach the boys is "might makes right," it looks like they're succeeding.

All that aside, this is the first time I have ever heard that national has the authority to remove members of a council. A council is not merely a "division" of national. It is a separate corporation. In fact, this statement of yours bears that out:

The Council signs the same charter with the national office that the units do.

This would clearly give national the authority to revoke a charter. But how does national get the authority to replace members of a council committee? They do not replace members of unit committees, they simply revoke (or decline to renew) the charter.

I do understand that replacing council committee members would be a lot "cleaner." Revoking a council's charter and replacing it with a new council would be an administrative and financial nightmare and disruptive to the units. But we're talking principles here, right? Not administrative practicality. I don't see how you can grant an organization a charter and then go in and change their membership... unless the charter says you can, but if it is the "same" as the charter granted to units, that is not the case.

NJ, you base an erroneous aasumption on an erroneous premise. You suggest that the BSA cannot or has not removed a member of a unit committee from membership. That is incorrect.

When I say that the BSA will replace them I should have said they would approve the membership of new members who would support the rules of the BSA. The new members would be selected by a nominating committee just as the original ones were, in accordance with council by-laws.

Bob White

By the way it is not might makes right, it is the excercise of the constitutional rights of a private organization. Granted to the mighty and the weak as citizens of the U.S.A.

Just because you want to swim in your neighbors pool does not give you the right to do so.

It seems the URL to the NPR story didn't display in my last post... it's:

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=22-Aug-2003&prgId=2

(about halfway down the page)

What I said is true, and I resent being quoted as incorrect. Mr. Noel, it sounds as though you are accusing me of lying. I have a choice: believe quotes in the press or believe those Scouters within the council. I choose to believe my fellow Scouters, for they have not given me reason not to do so. Should I one day find that I chose in error, the worst that will have happened is that I remained loyal as I served those within my community.

Laurie:

I am not accusing you of lying... I am simply stating that your characterization of the events in the COL was incorrect -- and most probably because you were given incorrect or "spun" information from Bill Dwyer or whatever DE you spoke with.

The original policy adopted there was, in fact, designed to buck the National one, and it wasn't until National jumped down their throats a few days later that they reversed course.

You don't have to believe me over your SE (even though I haven't nearly the same vested interest in this issue that he does) -- You can listen to your own board members from the COL describing in detail exactly the same thing I've already laid out. Check out that news piece on NPR I posted earlier...

YiS,

-Mark

Being the open minded guy that I am, I listened to the NPR broadcast to see what was said.

I had been under the impression that the "ban" was not on homosexual Scouts, only on homosexual Scouters. NRP kept saying that the ban is on homosexual Scouts. Score one for NPR for spinning the story.

The comments from the Council "board" member were interesting but said nothing about COL's original change, if indeed one occurred. Who knows what he said first. Score another for NPR.

They also make it sound as if the Scouts in COL would be abandoned. That isn't likely, they'd simply be absorbed by neighboring councils.

BobWhite says:

NJ, you base an erroneous aasumption on an erroneous premise. You suggest that the BSA cannot or has not removed a member of a unit committee from membership. That is incorrect.

Well, I don't think I suggested that. What I actually said was: "They do not replace members of unit committees, they simply revoke (or decline to renew) the charter." As you acknowledge later in your post, "replace" means appointing someone, not just removing someone. So I did not "suggest" that national cannot or has not "removed" anyone. What I did suggest is that it is inconsistent with having a separate (but chartered) organization for national to directly appoint (not just approve the appointment of) a committee member. Apparently, you agree:

When I say that the BSA will replace them I should have said they would approve the membership of new members who would support the rules of the BSA. The new members would be selected by a nominating committee just as the original ones were, in accordance with council by-laws.

Ah, now I see. You made a mistake. When I say something that you believe is erroneous, you say it's erroneous, and a few times you have said that I lack knowledge and just make things up. But when you make an erroneous statement, it's "I should have said..." That's OK, Bob. We're all easier on our own errors than we are on the errors of others. We all make mistakes.

By the way it is not might makes right, it is the excercise of the constitutional rights of a private organization. Granted to the mighty and the weak as citizens of the U.S.A.

Just because you want to swim in your neighbors pool does not give you the right to do so.

This frames the issue as "we vs. them", or "inside vs. outside", or "BSA vs. non-BSA." That's not the issue as far as I am concerned. The BSA itself is divided on this issue, within itself. Some BSA members favor the policy (a majority on the national executive committee, for the time being), and some BSA members do not. I am one who does not.

It's not just some "private organization." It is an organization of which I happen to be a member. I care about it and want to help improve it. I do not care about the membership policies of, say, the Sons of the American Revolution or the Knights of Columbus or Veterans of Foreign Wars, all fine organizations but ones where I would not necessarily be admitted, and if I were I would not fit in, and would not want to impose myself. But the BSA is my organization and more importantly, my son's organization. I have a stake in it. I have the right to have my say, as long as I do not involve the boys in having my say, and I do not.

Or to put it another way: It is not my neighbor's pool. I have a membership card in the pool.