Proud Eagle

And if all the civil rights protesters are correct, the police in the city of Louisville have executed 7 people in the last 2 years for being the wrong color, and that the justice system then conspired to make all but 2 of those appear clean.

Do I believe that? Not entirely. Do I think at there was something a bit odd about a few of those events? Yeah, but I am not certain I would call it an execution. Should someone be held accountable? Yes, both those directly responsible, and if fault if found in policy, procedure, training, or leadership, then at least someone up the chain of command should also be held accountable.

So, if finding the truth (and proving it well enough for everyone to agree on it) in questionable activities in our own back yard is so difficult, then I am beginning to wonder if we will ever get to the bottom (or top?) of the abuse cases in Iraq.

At this point a few things appear certain. Prisoners were abused. At least these seven soldiers were involved in it.

Were others involved? I don't really know. It seems quite likely that someone else at least knew about what was going on. Certainly the chain of command in this unit, and the insolvent of other units such as military intelligence, and outside groups such as CIA and civilian contractors needs to be looked into.

You are welcome.

If you contact one of 558's lodge officers or advisers, they can probably check around and see if they know anyone from that time period. It is quite possible on of those people you are hoping to get in contact with is now in some adviser position in the lodge.

Back when I was White Horse Lodge Chief there were several people who came forward wanting to renew their memberships because of sons entering Scouting, or finally settling down after a long string of moves, or other such things. While we would always ask if they had an old membership card, we knew that generally would be unavailable. So instead, we would just made certain there was some evidence of their having completed the ordeal or brotherhood. As far as I know all of them were able to accurately describe the ceremony, so we decided that was proof enough for us.

What if a council actually did issue a tour permit for laser tag? I know the prevailing wisdom is that they won't, but what if they did? Particularly what if they issued one to a unit where no one had figured out that a rule that addresses firearms also covers laser tag?

That would be the bombshell of the year if it turns out some officer or NCO was staging all this for the purpose of creating (or having the ability to create) such a scandal. I don't think it is likely, but it is certainly possible. I can also see the Army deciding to cover up such an event, since it really doesn't benefit anyone for that to be the explanation.

More likely however was that there was serious problem in communicating the standards to these MPs. From what I have heard, these MPs were basically loaned out to MI folks. It is quite possible that through the combination of orders received from the MP and MI commanders that they decided they were supposed to help make these prisoners talk. Without proper supervision (the MI people weren't really their commanders, so they didn't have to supervise them, the MP chain of command was cut out of this section of the prison, so they couldn't supervise them) they assumed what they were doing was all part of orders. They then continued to escalate their actions, still thinking it was part of what they were supposed to be doing, but long since having past what was intended.

Sometime in the 70s Stanford did a study on prisons. They took a group of psychology students as volunteers. Some of them were selected to be prisoners and others were selected to be guards. Within a matter of days the guards were degrading and humiliating the prisoners. Some of the prisoners even attempted to revolt. They used forms of mental torture so affective several of the prisoners had breakdowns. Even the professor running the experiment began to lose perspective and started seeing the prisoners as something less than human in a space of days. Another researcher who came to observe several days into the experiment essentially had to snap the guy out of it. The experiment was terminated because they realized it posed a risk to the physical safety of the students and ran a very high risk of causing permanent psychological trauma.

So if this is what happens when a group of psychology students in the US are placed in a prison setting in a controlled research environment, it is little wonder that abuse takes place on the far side of the globe in a war zone. It is a wonder that far worse things haven't happened far more frequently. I would also point to some of the problems with the domestic corrections system. California for one has some very severe problems with its prisons. It isn't unheard of for prison guards here in the US to be involved contributing to the deaths of prisoners.

I for one certainly hope that the ongoing investigations are able to shed some more light on how and why this was able to happen. It seems impossible that someone didn't at least suspect what was going on. If they did, then we must know why they didn't try to stop it. If no one knew, we must find out how such a thing was able to happen without anyone noticing.

I would imagine there are still some members in the new lodge that were in the old lodge during that time period. They may or may not be active, but there should be at least a few still registered. If not that would be a bit odd.

As for finding membership records from that time period, you will likely find that to be next to impossible. I suppose someone may have kept a copy of the old lodge roster, or someone may have an old newsletter collection or something of that nature, but that isn't very likely, and even if such a person exists, you still must find them.

It shouldn't be very hard to prove you were a member if you remember your ordeal (and can describe it to them), and other lodge activities of the time. If you have your old OA handbook, sash, and lodge flap that would also help. If you know the admonition that would be very helpful, though I would imagine that is probably long forgotten. Most lodges are generally pretty trusting about inactive members seeking to become active again.

It is too bad you didn't send this a few weeks ago. I spent the last weekend of April at the SR-6N conclave. Ahoalan Nachpikin #558, the lodge of the Chickasaw council is one of the nine lodges in SR-6N.

You can find more about 558 here:

http://www.chickasawbsa.org/template.asp?page=Lodge

and here: http://www.freewebs.com/lodge558/(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Bob, I think we aren't really very far apart, we are just applying terms a bit differently.

Why is pointing a firearm at someone unnacaptable? That is pretty easy to answer. It is unsafe to point a firearm at a person.

Now the more difficult question is why have they decided that laser tag equipment is an example of a firearm? That is more difficult to answer since a firearm is a very well defined device and that definition does not under any normal circumstance include laser tag equipment. Also, there is no clear danger from pointing a laser tag device at someone.

Or why have the decided to ban laser tag? There are all sorts of potential reasons why the think laser tag is innapropriate, but they don't bother to tell us what that reason is.

I can't see any way that you can require a peer review. You could strongly encourage it, but I can think of no way to force someone to go through a peer review after all requirements are signed off. It might (or might not) be a good policy to include a peer review, but it isn't the BSA policy.

Now on the other hand, I guess you could require that all requirements be deomonstrated to a peer review group to have them signed off. That would be a bit unusual, but I think it would be within the rules.

Bob,

I can say that quite easily and without any reservations. That is an example of WHAT the rule is, not WHY the rule was written that way.

If you do some searching on the board you will find a couple of old threads that went over this very heavily. I won't go over all those arguments again, but here is the core of it:

http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=ba

"Pointing any type of firearm (including paintball, dye, or lasers) at any individual is unacceptable. However, law enforcement departments and agencies using firearms in standard officer/agent training may use their training agenda when accompanied with appropriate safety equipment in the Law Enforcement Venturing program."

Many have determined that laser tag equipment qualifies as a laser firearm. Beyond the obvious contradiction in terms, laser tag equipment in no way resembles a firearm. However, most councils read this part of the Guide to Safe Scouting as prohibiting laser tag. So weather that was the intention when it was written or not, laser tag has affectively been banned. There are even some that think it may be necessary to ban the use of water pistols. Next thing you know any IR device such as a TV remote will be banned because it "shoots" a "beam".

As for an actual official reason, there is none. BSA does not by any means explain why it does what it does. Even if you get someone from the national council to comment on it, all that most of them can do is give you their personal opinion. So the real reason behind the rule (or the reason why the rule has be interpreted as it has) will most likely remain a matter of speculation.

I have never seen any published limits or guidelines. However, there are some things that must be kept in mind when planning hikes or backpacking trips.

The physical condition of both the youth and adult participants must be taken into account. Nothing should be done that would endanger the health or safety of any participant. Also, consider not just the single day mileage, but also the mileage for other days of the trek. Someone may be able to handle a 20 mile single day trek, but may only be able to handle 10 miles per day for a week long trek. Keep in mind that if someone gets hurt or otherwise is unable to go on you have to find a way to get them out.

Terrain, climate, and weather are also limiting factors. Higher elevations mean more energy is expended in breathing and pumping oxygenated blood. This limits both endurance and speed. Extremes of temperature or humidity can also be serious issues.

Further, keep in mind hiking at night is more dangerous than day hikes. If hiking is to be done at night everyone needs to understand the extra demands that places on them and come prepared for it. This is an extra problem if hiking on trails of poor condition or moving cross country without trails.

Finally, keep in mind the event should be fun. There is no need for a forced march.

Putting all of this together, it is best to plan conservatively. Be prepared for the worst possible weather conditions. Give yourself an extra bit of time to get to that next destination. It is better to have extra time at the end then to get stuck doing something like cooking a trail side dinner in the dark, then hiking on for hours more in the dark, and finally having to set up camp in the dark.

All this being said, I would not exceed 20 miles on a day hike in moderate terrain at low altitude, or 10 miles per day with full packs on a multi-day trek in similarly easy terrain and altitude. For any increase in altitude, any increase in the ruggedness of the terrain, or for extremes of temperature you will need to cut those numbers considerably. Now this is just an estimate of what sort of capabilities your average troop may have. If all you are taking is older, more experienced Scouts, you could perhaps do considerably more. If you have a very young group with very little experience, you may want to do even less. You really need to have a few day hikes in a local park or something of that nature that lets you gage the abilities of the group in question. This will tell you far more than any book will likely be able to do.

He needs to be removed from leadership entirely.

The Charter Organization Representative can do this.

The Institutional Head of the charter organization can do this.

The both have the responsibility to maintain proper leadership standards. This includes enforcing BSA policy and enforcing the policies of their organization. I would say the Scout Oath and the Scout Law could both be used as reasons if this guy demands an explanation for why he is being removed. "to obey the Scout Law", "help other people at all times", and "keep myself... morally straight"

from the Law:

trustworthy - people have trusted him to help developed the character of their kids

loyal - needs to work for the good of the group, not of himself

helpful - yelling and cursing is not helpful

friendly - nor is it friendly

courteous - doesn't sound real courteous either

kind - again, the yelling and cursing

obedient - he isn't in charge, it isn't his organization, needs to respect the rules and respect the decisions of the other leaders

cheerful

thrifty

brave

clean - foul language obviously isn't

reverent - if he happens to use the Lord's name in vain, that isn't reverent, he also seems to lack respect for others, and since we are all God's children, that would be a problem

I would be willing to guess this guy has issues of some sort. Usually people that have their act together don't use the "do it my way or else" approach. They also don't usually resort to screaming, yelling, and cursing. This guy probably has some sort of self esteem problem or something. I am no psychologist, but he sounds like he could use therapy or something along those lines.

What do you plan on using it for?

Also, remember it is always a bad idea to cut a rope, cord, or string unless necessary. It is easy to make a long cord short but it is a good bit more trouble to make a short cord into a long one, particularly if you want it to retain its original strength and not become easily tangled on knots.

Unfortunately the stoll to be worn is not usually the decision of the wearer. Most schools mandate that only certain items may be worn during graduation. I think an Eagle stoll would be a fine idea, but such things are usually limited to school related activities and awards, and I have no idea what you would use for such. Perhaps you should discuss this with someone involved in planning the graduation such as a principal.

I actually watched several hours of the House and Senate hearings yesterday. It was very interesting to see what actually happened.

The Secretary of Defense didn't see the pictures until 7:30 p.m. the night before the hearings. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw them at the same time. However, the chairman had been made aware that pictures of some sort existed as far back as January. (Remember, the abuse took place sometime last fall, by most accounts.)

You also have to understand a bit about the military justice system to figure this out. CENTCOM had total and complete control over the investigation, prosecution, and the press releases related to this. CENTCOM believed that all copies of the pictures had been rounded up as part of the investigation, and in order to maintain the integrity of the justice system (not taint potential juror and such) decided to keep the circulation to a minimum. It was also thought the pictures appearing in the media would lead to the death of US personnel. That was CENTCOM's position, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs concurred regarding the risk that release of the pictures posed to the lives of those deployed. So, the media was informed of the investigation, including the various allegations, but the pictures were not released. (Also, release of the pictures could have actually been a crime itself, because the Geneva conventions do not allow public humiliation of prisoners. So releasing the photos could have been considered by some to be a war crime itself.) Then someone released portions of a report classified as Secret to the press without authorization. It appears the media then ran the pictures before either CENTCOM or DOD could put together some sort of response. In fact the Sec Def was in Congressional hearings the same day the pictures were released by the media, yet he had not seem them himself, nor did he know the media had them at the time.

It basically sounds like those in charge of the criminal investigation were just following normal procedures by keeping a lid on the evidence until a court martial could be held. Then when CENTCOM finally figured out how bad the pictures were, it figured the best thing to do was sit on them because of the danger their release posed to the troops. I would guess CENTCOM didn't really trust the Pentagon to not leak them, so that is probably why they didn't send them up the chain.

We would all like to think in the future the impact of such things could be lessoned by having them be released officially. Unfortunately, that runs a severe risk of compromising a criminal investigation. So chances are little can be done to reduce the impact of such photos in the future.

-----

Now on to cause.

It appear the MP Brigade involved was a total disaster. Reports indicate they did not provide adequate housing, dining, and other facilities to their soldiers. Uniforms were optional in some cases, and uniform standards not enforced in others. Saluting was not used. Senior NCOs and even officers of at least field grade were refereed to directly by their first or a nickname by subordinates and superiors alike. Training standards were non-existent. There appears to have been no posted Standing Operating Procedures. There was no Mission Essential Task List produced by the brigade(an important training standard, it is essentially a list of everything that every soldier must be able to do and know about). The command structure was not clear with members of the MP brigade being loaned to Military Intelligence in such a way that neither the MP CO or the MI CO had clear control. Further, internal memos and such in some cases appear to contradict various Army policies, such as those published in the relevant field manuals.

I would say their needs to be a long, hard look at the chain of command within that Brigade to find out why the fell apart. Also, someone needs to find out why it took something like this for anyone to realize the brigade was a complete mess. I wouldn't be surprised if the Brigadier General in command ends up being court marshaled for dereliction of duty or something of that nature. On the other hand, it also wouldn't be surprising to see them get off with a letter of reprimand.

Military units can not survive without discipline. If discipline breaks down on uniforms, customs and courtesies, and such it will eventually start to slip on more important things. Pretty soon after soldiers aren't required to act like soldiers they stop think like soldiers and become a big gang or mob instead. The BG has since been replaced by a MG that had been in command at Guantanamo. Sounds like they called in a latter day MP version of George Patton to straighten things out.

Oh, and KS is right. The Geneva Conventions have been applied to prisoners in Iraq, as have all the various DOD and Army policies on treatment of prisoners. Unfortunately, this one unit didn't do a very good job of maintaining discipline and training standards. Add to that a unusual command structure in that wing of the prison, bad living conditions, the stresses of a war zone, and you end up with a very small number of soldiers who have weak enough moral and ethical standards to crack and do some very horrible things.

Oh, one final note. There are apperently at least one other disc containg pictures. Some of those may even be worse. There is also at least one videa as well. Some have suggested there may be clear cut sexual abuse depicted on one of those. So from the testimony given on the hill yesterday, it sounds like the worst is still to come in terms of the images.

OK, this really is the final note. Not all of the pictures of abuse floating around are real. Some pictures published in Britian were found to be either fake or from some place other than Iraq, because they contain pieces of British Army equipment not deployed to Iraq. Also, at least a few Arab newspapers have published pictures from Internet porn sites that are not in any way related to this incident. Unfortunately they appear similar enough to inflame the average reader. As to media coverage, all the major US cable/satelite news channels covered the entire Congressional hearings live. Also, at least three Arabic language news channels carried the entire hearings live with translations.

-------

Question for anyone that knows the law or the military justice system very well. If we finds some group of people that murders a US soldier due to these abuses, could those would carried out the abuse be charged with reckless endangerment or some other crime relating to causing the killings, since they broke the law and did something highly inflamatory?(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I suppose it is possible he knew of them ahead of time. I don't think he was behind either. It is possible he was involved in some nebulous, indirect sort of way.

Actually, the Oklahoma City case has some interesting evidence that points to foreign involvement of some sort. It is actually possible there may have been some connection with Islamic terrorists in the Philippines. Unfortunately there was never conclusive proof, and being so far after the fact it is difficult to find any further evidence at this point.

Like any other major case, there will always be crazy theories. Like the one that the Clinton administration was behind it. Some engineers even came out and said the building was blown up using carefully placed shaped charges on the inside of the structure, that the truck bomb was just a cover. Pretty nutty. Some other engineers were asked about it, they thought it looked more like evidence of a flaw in the building design, others just attributed to blast damage.

Anyways, maybe next week we can have it be the Issues and Politics JFK conspiracy week... And then the 9/11 conspiracy week... And then the Pearl Harbor conspiracy week...

And of coarse the moon landings were fake...

I watched Gods and Generals on HBO yesterday. Good movie for those that like war movies, the Civil War, or American history related films.

It was actually the second time I had seen it. I went to see it when it came out to theaters. First time I had ever seen a film with an intermission.

Lee is certainly not politically correct, but I would take him over a raft load of Congressmen any day of the week.

As to weather the war would have happened without slavery, that is nearly impossible to determine. Would the Republican party have been formed and succeeded in placing a president in the White House? Hard to say. That would certainly have changed things a bit. The only answer I can provide is a maybe. There were certainly other issues, but perhaps had there been one less issue of contention there would have been no war. My guess would be there would have been a war of some sort, but that it may not have been at that exact point in time, and some of the other variables would have been different as well.

This won't do. You can't serve drinks at an event with kids. It is clearly a violation of the Guide to Safe Scouting.

Now if at an adults only event some un-invited guests show up, then I would say you don't really haven any choice but to go on. Chances are the contract for the facility included the bar being open, and so closing it would be a breach of contract.

It would be far better if these youth were recognized in some other way. In our council there is a recognition/awards/Eagle dinner. All the Eagle's for the year are recognized, as are any Silver Beavers, and any James West Fellowships there may be that year are presented. This function is always very nice and it would be a great place to recognise a special youth.

However, a fund raising event is no place for youth recognition.

Another idea on these fund raisers, especially when they have special speakers, is for the council to not technically host them. Have some of your friends of Scouting host it with all proceeds going to Scouting. That way, if someone brings there kid to hear the great speaker that year, and someone decideds to have a drink, no problem (at least with the G2SS).

So now any contract of any sort reached between a government entity is a violation of the United States Constitution unless it was subject to competitive bidding?

Can anyone tell me what article and section contain open competitive bidding clause?

Oh, wait, there is none.

Can anyone find a federal law enacted by the Congress that says this?

Something tells me the answer is again a no.

This is one of the greatest farces I have seen lately. I doesn't surprise me. In fact, this is the sort of thing I have come to expect, particularly those out on the west coast.

Invent some totally ridiculous legal requirement to suit the ends you would like. If the judge had ruled the lease was unconstitutional because it allows for atheists to sometimes be excluded from use of the facilities, that would actually be a more legally sound ruling since that would at least be religious discrimination. However, ruling that it is religious discrimination to award a contract based on something other than competitive bidding is farcical at best. Of coarse the thing will wiggle its way through appeals for the next several years, and I am sure at least a few "higher" judges will agree.

Merlyn you logic is lacking on one issue. You claim you want all groups to be treated equally under the law. However, you then go one to say that only religious groups are subject to the requirement for competitive bidding. Now that would indicate it is OK to discriminate against religious groups by not offering them the same chance to place a bid that you are saying must be given to non-religious groups when a religious group is the party making the initial offer. That is clearly two separate, unequal standards. It is unfavorable to religious groups, and favors both the secular and the various anti-religious groups.

I submit once again, that the proper place for this to have been tried would have been a California state court. The law to be applied should have been California law. Most likely the relevant sections would be those laws pertaining to public contracts, use of public lands, open meetings, open records, and various other rules governing the way government itself works. It is quite possible these lease agreements may have violated one of those laws. However, I still cannot see any legitimate federal constitutional argument, either in the case of the plaintiff, or in the ruling of the court.

I continue to maintain that there was a de facto open bidding on this piece of property. The property was owned by the city. It was not leased to anyone. This was public record. Any group or individual wishing to use that property needed only to submit a proposal to the city. No one else chose to do so, which indicates there was no other interest in the property. Further, I would be willing to guess that it became public knowledge that BSA had made the offer in advance of any final decision being reached. That should certainly have prompted any other group to go ahead and submit its own proposal. However, no group did so. I guess the city could have mailed out engraved invitations to every person on the face of the planet, but chances are the same fictitious theoretical group that was unable to bid on the property the way it was done before still wouldn't have gotten the message. I think the city could have rented the Good Year blimp and had a giant sign flashing over the city saying, "The BSA wants to lease Fiesta Island. Anyone have a better idea?" The same hypothetical group still wouldn't have figured out what to do. Also, I might note, at least in the blimp example, the same judge would have ended up ruling in the same way.

My first real watch was a little Timex digital with indiglo, second time zone, complete date, day of week, stop watch, timer and alarm, and a plastic band. At a OA Lodge fellowship a couple of years back I had volunteered to be head cook/menu planner/purchasing agent (that was a real challenge for youth new to the lodge that had never planned anything larger than a troop outing) and I was sleeping in the dining hall pantry. I did this so I could keep tabs on everything that went on in the kitchen that weekend and to make certain I woke up in time start cooking breakfast. Unfortunately, I woke up during the night, used the indiglow to check the time, and the glow got stuck in the on position. I did everything I could to turn it off, but come morning the thing had run down the battery. Since then I replaced the battery and the old band with a cloth/velcro one which is very comfortable but gets to smelling funny after being worn very long, so now it works fine, unfortunately, all the paint has been worn off so it looks a bit sad.

I also have a Ducks Unlimited analog watch, but the lens has become badly scratched.

I have a very heavy Swiss Army steal analog watch with steal band. It includes the day of the month, and the hands and numbers glow.

For those occasions that require something a bit nicer, I wear the Eagle Scout watch from Citizen.

FOG,

Try this- let them know that the way to volunteer to be in charge of planning next months patrol activity is to be the next person to complain about not having anything to do. Then they will start complaining about how unfair you are or some such thing. Its kind of like when someone complains about a headache and you offer to take their mind off it by kicking them in the shins or some such thing. (not that a good Scout would ever do something like that...)

First I would like to say I am not a lawyer nor am I an expert on this particular case. I have however been an observer of politics and the law since I was in 7th grade and I think I have a pretty good mind and a fair amount of common sense. I tend to try to keep my arguments and thinking from becoming too complex and legalistic. I really can't stand some of the case law that is based on legal theories that are based on other legal theories that are based on case law based on a legal theory that is itself not directly based on the law as originally written. It is such irrational thinking that leads some people to interpret the law in such a way as to believe the Second Amendment is talking about a National Guard or the State Police.

This really seems like a case that should be reversed on appeal. If the city had given the BSA a city pool to use for free that would be a different matter. Instead, the city gave the BSA the right to build an aquatic facility, pay for running that facility, receive first chance at the facility a couple months each year, and have the entire thing belong to the city when the agreement expires. It sounds like the city got a pretty good deal to me. There doesn't seem to be any favoritism at work to me. Now if the week before the atheist society of San Diego had made a similar offer and been rejected, there would be a valid case.

However, as is, it would appear to me the only potential case would be one concerning state laws on open bidding, use of public lands, and things of that nature. If the state (or city) requires open bidding on all lease agreements, then there would be a case. However, if there is no requirement that open bidding be offered, then it seems everything is OK.

Look at it this way, if I own a piece of properly and someone comes and offers to pay me some given sum for that property, I am in no way discriminating against others (legally or illegally) by accepting the offer. The reason is there is no other offer on the table. I didn't hide the fact that I owned the property from some group to prevent their making an offer on it. All anyone had to do was go luck up the property records, and make an offer if they chose to do so. No one else chose to make the city of San Diego an offer on this property, either at that time, or some previous time, as far as anyone knows. Therefore the city did not engage in discrimination. It accepted the best offer it had at the time.

Now if any of this had been done in secret or if the public had been mislead about who was leasing the property, or how much they were paying, that wouldn't work. But to my understanding all of this was done through proper public channels and open meetings were held. There was a de facto open bidding process at work in this case.

As for the Balboa park lease, most of what I just wrote about the Fiesta Island lease would seem to apply to it as well. In addition, it is common practice to offer an opportunity for current lease holders to renew or renegotiate their leases when they expire without any competition. This is certainly the practice in private business, and to my knowledge it is also common practice in the public sector (though of coarse such public agreements are subject to various open meetings requirements and open records requirements) when not prohibited by specifically prohibited by some sort of law or regulation governing public contracts.

Also, I would say that the agreements reached with all of the other private organizations through non-competitive process would have to be ruled unconstitutional (if anyone ever brings a court challenge) based on this same ruling. If non-competitive contracts are inherently discriminatory, then there are a great variety of leases and other agreements between cities, states, the federal government, and various private organizations, including churches, that would have to be nullified as well.

One last point, it would seem that a federal judge would be somewhat unqualified to interpret or apply state law, and that a federal ruling that is at least in part reliant upon state law would be more easily overturned on appeal than a ruling that relies purely on federal constitutional grounds.

Unfortunately I am unfamiliar with the various laws regulating public contracts, open meetings, open records, and public reporting requirements in the state of California and the city of San Diego, and therefore I can't say for any certainty weather or not the leases would hold up under a challenge based on such state law. However, I am convinced that there is no direct violation of the US constition in this case, unless it can be proven that the city gave the BSA a better deal than was available to other groups.

However, it seems this would be almost impossible to prove since the Girl Scouts, and the camp fire group have recieved almost identical deals negotiated at approximately the same time.

I would go even further and say that if The Secular Youth Group and The Religous Youth Group are both looking for identical use of identical public lands, they should both be given use of public lands under identical terms. To do other wise is to discriminate in favor of athiests, agnostics, and members the various "secular religious movements" (secular huminism being an example, though many argue it is a spiritual rather than religous movement, I don't think the law currently has the ability to distinguish between a spiritual and a religious movement, group, or belief) and against anyone thats religious beliefs cause them to think the youth activity in question is best conducted in a pro-religion setting. I would even gow so far as to say that The Neo-Nazi Youth Group should be able to recieve the same benefit under the same terms.

Under the consitution as it now stands the Patriotic America Loving Citizens and the Un-Patriotic America Hating Citizens must both be viewed equally under the law, though we haven't quite managed to get the courts to defend the rights of traditional, majority, or previously favored groups as well as they seem to defend the rights of other groups. That seems to be slowly turning around, but we aren't quite there. Now to get into some politics, I think a local goverment should be able to decide that love of country is better than hate of country and provide more favorable treatement to one group than the other, but that would require some change in the law (or case law at the very least).

I must say that both the rule and the reason given for it both seem very odd. It also seems that this was done in a somewhat rude manner. I have a feeling there is something we don't know about this situation, either because you don't know or don't think it is relevant enough to pass on. Otherwise it sounds like you have about enough specimens to start a funny farm between the unit committee and the charter organization.

I must however, make one other comment.

I think it is a very good idea for there to be at least one male adult on every overnight outing of a Boy Scout troop. I don't think this really needs to be a rule, but it should be the standard practice of every unit that is able to do so.

(Colorful illustration of the point deleted to avoid offending anyone's sensibilities, or reminding anyone of unpleasant camp experiences caused by improper hygiene.)

I think my post has been misunderstood.

I am not suggesting anyone should be removed from their position or the outcome of an election be changed.

I am suggesting the SM could possibly discuss, in general terms, the issues of proper ethics in campaigning and elections with the PLC and suggest they consider coming up with some guidelines for how to conduct a campaign. Another possibility would be to use an SM minute to discuss, again in a generic way, ethical decision making in a democratic forum.

No corrective or disciplinary actions are needed as far as I can tell. However, a bit of guidance on the proper way to conduct elections and campaigns seems to be in order.

One possibility would be to hold nominations and elections at two separate meetings. Ask that everyone refrain from campaigning (beyond perhaps letting others know they are interested in the possibility of seeking a position). Also, allow time before the election for a brief speech and some question and answer. This provides a formal process for campaigning that will help avoid future back alley campaigning.

I must admit I am biased in favor of open, public, formal style campaigns. I don't like back room deal making. Every election I have ever won was based purely on an out in the open campaign. I have never made a secret deal to get elected. Part of this may also be because I am much better at making speeches and such than I am at privately negotiating for someone's support.

Also I must point out a discrepancy between the original post and the way some are interpreting the post.

"Billy was telling him that if he voted for him for PL, he would make him his APL" - EagleInKY

"he is just saying if I become the PL you will be my APL" - dan

These are two different things. I consider the first to be a highly questionable method of obtaining votes not much removed from vote buying. The second is far more benign and is often part of the way leadership teams are created.

Let me try to explain myself more clearly. If I say, "Vote for me and I will make you my assistant", that statement atomically implies that the opposite is also true "don't vote for me and I won't make you my assistant". This is bad for three reasons. Number one it is attempting to obtain someones vote by offering some benefit to them, which is something that is not good, particularly if done secretly. Number two, it could influence someone to vote for someone else for personal gain rather than for the good of the patrol. Number three, it indicates that the person is selecting their assistant based not on who is most qualified or some other objective criteria, but rather on who likes them best or who is most easily bought, or some other such subjective criteria. I would say that second reason is the most troublesome.

Now, if I say, "If I am elected, I would like for you to be my assistant" that doesn't have the same meaning. In reality it may have a similar affect, but less directly so. I am simply offering you a position, without requiring you do anything to acquire that position. This is a case where a small change in wording changes weather or not it appears to be a perfectly innocent way of selecting possible members of a leadership team or a shady method of colluding to put mutual gain ahead of the good of the group.

You could say the difference is one is an offer with strings attached, while the other is an offer with no strings attached.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I think many of us here are probably not the fence sitters, but rather the more entrenched supporters of various policies, positions, parties, and candidates. Usually the well informed voter that takes time to find out a bit about the issue, and actually is able to decide what position they prefer, is able to make a decision independent of very much advertising. Unfortunately, many don't bother to find out about the issues on their own, so all they hear is how candidate X slept with so and so and candidate Y stole money from a real estate venture, and candidate Z is un-American because he hates children, the homeless, the environment, minorities, the old, and the disabled because he won't raise everyone's taxes to infinity to pay for unlimited government benefits and programs for everybody that decides getting someone else's money for free is a pretty good system.

Its too bad their isn't some magical fool proof system to screen out the apathetic and the tragically uninformed at the voting booth. Of coarse everyone gets stuck with some vote they are uncertain about at some point in time, but it would be nice is people made a bit more of an effort. What I really can't stand is people that just go in and vote a straight ticket without even bothering to know what the issues and candidates are. The fact that the family has been voting for the same party for three generations isn't really a good reason to keep voting that way.

I looked at that site quite a while back while gathering some intelligence on the various foes of the BSA. (Which I then compiled into a report that I presented at a secret meeting I attended at a unacknowledged facility I was flown to in the unmarked black BSA helicopter.) :-)

The site was quite informative about the true motiviations and desires of the BSA's opponents.

It makes it quite clear that the objective of these people is not some sort of reform, but rather to destroy the BSA entirely. Though I must say, this is by no means the most passionate or extreme of the anti-BSA groups, a fact that is somewhat disturbing...

I am really not a fan of a anti-Scouting group using a modified world crest as their apparent logo on their website.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)