More news about COL Council

[Bob White 20]

It is not inconsistent in that even committee members are registered with the BSA just as is any youth or adult member. The BSA has removed individual memberships at the committee level. The Charter is for the charter organization. The membership is by individual. The BSA controls both.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob, if your last post was supposed to be a response to mine, it has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about appointing people, not removing people.

 

But while we're on the subject of national removing council committee members so that the nominating committee can nominate new ones...

 

You seem to be assuming that if a council committee opposes the BSA's anti-gay policy, they must be some rogue people who are off on their own agenda, and do not represent the opinion of the council (in other words, the CO's within the council.) But what if that is not true? What if in fact the majority of the CO's oppose the policy? They could keep electing committee members who feel that way, and I suppose national could keep disapproving them. It's certainly a good way to stifle dissent... and indirectly, to pretty much guarantee that the opponents of the policy will never be able to gain a majority within the organization. Yet another manifestation of might makes right. If what you're trying to teach the boys power politics, you're doing a great job.

[Bob White 20]

You may have a membership card to the pool but only because you have been allowed the priviledge of membership not because you have a right to it, and you are not on the committee that controls who is allowed or disallowed membership. You are still aguest. Break the rules and you can be relieved of your membership.

 

"You seem to be assuming that if a council committee opposes the BSA's anti-gay policy, they must be some rogue people who are off on their own agenda, and do not represent the opinion of the council (in other words, the CO's within the council.)"

 

Not at all. What I am saying is the council represents the COs that signed an agreement with the BSA to abide by the policies and regulations of the scouting program, not an agreement to change the BSA rules as they deem appropriate. Once they violate the rules, the agreement can be vacated by the BSA, and new agreements signed with those who will follow the program.

 

The goal of scouting is not to serve the majority, but to deliver it's mission to those who want it. If you do not want the values then you are not obliged or even invited to join. Don't tell me you want everything about scouting but the values. Just how shallow is that? The values are the gift of scouting, everything else is the wrapping it comes in. The values of scouting mean more to the BSA than a poitically motivated cause du jour.

 

If the Council Members of the Cradle of Liberty lack the integrity to abide by the rules they promised to support, then the BSA has the authority and the responsibilty to find the community leaders who want and support the values and policies of the BSA.

 

The Council is not the scouting program. It is a non-profit corporation which exists soley to deliver the scouting program, not change it.

 

Bob White

 

[MarkNoel 10]

FOG writes:

 

> 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 BSA itself stated that the policy applied to Scouts as well as Scouters, or in their words "homsexual members and leaders." Check out the statements the BSA submitted in the recent court case involving the state of Connecticut for some good examples of this. This wasn't "spun" by NPR -- rather, they got it right and refused to be taken in by the popular spin that this whole thing is about gay adult outsiders trying to get in.

 

 

> 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.

 

What they said first was very clearly documented in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and was consistent with everything said in this most recent story. Think for a minute -- why would National threaten to revoke the entire charter of one of its largest councils if no real change was on the table to begin with?

 

YiS,

-Mark