Bob White 20 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I cannot belive that the the COL council would try to manipulate the wording of a document to able to please both the BSA and the Philly city council. I am stunned! After all everything the government authors is so clear cut and makes no effort to straddle fences to appease multiple parties, why does the COL council not follow that example? Keep in mind the COL is not required to please the city council to remain a scouting council. They only need to do so to retain some current city resources. The COL council does however have to please the BSA if they wish to remain a council. Also keep in mind that there are other anti-discrimination laws at play here. For instance if the City of Philedelphia allows any use of public property to any organization at no charge, then they must offer it to the BSA as well. They cannot dicriminate against us. Link to post Share on other sites
Laurie 10 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 And why are we so quick to believe that what the paper has reported is correct? Has anyone who wants to criticize Cradle of Liberty actually contacted the council? I have, and they did respond. What angers me is that a big assumption is made here, the assumption that what is reported must be true--that Cradle of Liberty is working to be one thing but say another. I am part of Cradle of Liberty, and I am one of many who would leave the council in a heartbeat unless satisfied that it was willing to abide by National policy in order to maintain its charter and thereby Scouting in this area. Saying one thing, doing another--I will not tolerate that. It is not what the BSA is about, so I don't understand why such a large group of Scouters would be called into question without first finding out if the news is accurate. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Laurie, Based on your contacts with council, what statements in the newspaper article are incorrect? Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Bob says: Keep in mind the COL is not required to please the city council to remain a scouting council. They only need to do so to retain some current city resources. The COL council does however have to please the BSA if they wish to remain a council. All of these statements are true in theory. However, theory doesn't balance the budget. I suspect that if an officer or professional in that council were writing the second sentence that Bob wrote, the word "only" would be nowhere to be seen. I seem to recall at some point there was a story that estimated how much the "some current city resources" are worth. The "resources" in question consist mainly of a building (how large I do not know) in or near center-city Philadelphia. What would the market rent per month be on that space? I don't have enough information to guess at an answer. Might it be $5,000 per month? $10,000? $15,000? More? Do you think they were counting on that expense in their budget? The impression I have gotten from these stories is, no, they weren't, and they can't. I think they know very well, Bob, that they need to "please the BSA," but they would also like to "please" the government that is providing them with rent-free space. They are trying to walk a tightrope, and I am sure they would rather not be doing it. If they could afford to simply move to other suitable space, none of the legalistic and linguistic acrobatics evident in this newspaper article would be necessary. As I suggested in the last thread about this, it would seem fair to me if the councils around the nation who support the gay-discrimination policy would pony up some money to assist a council that opposes the policy, so they can afford to stay in business until the BSA finally comes to its senses. I have been told that it is very unlikely that this money will be provided. But that only makes my point stronger. Link to post Share on other sites
Fat Old Guy 11 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Laurie, how would you leave the Council? Link to post Share on other sites
dsteele 20 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 NJcubscouter said: "As I suggested in the last thread about this, it would seem fair to me if the councils around the nation who support the gay-discrimination policy would pony up some money to assist a council that opposes the policy, so they can afford to stay in business until the BSA finally comes to its senses. I have been told that it is very unlikely that this money will be provided. But that only makes my point stronger." This has been a difficult year finanicially for all non-profits. Local councils don't have extra funds -- and many more in addition to mine are cutting positions they would rather keep because they don't have the money. Last year was a much better year financially for this council -- and we still ended the year only about $1,100 to the black. DS Link to post Share on other sites
Laurie 10 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I asked very direct questions of three different executives when this news first hit a few months back. That resulted in my recieving e-mail, postal, and telephone responses. This is what I understand from those communications that I find to conflict with what is reported in the news: COL did not institute a new policy. It did discuss, and it has admitted to discussing, the policy to see if there was a way to be less discriminatory without endorsing any particular sexual orientation and without violating National's policy. COL did not go against National, nor did it want to, nor does it want to now. Therefore, there was no need for the supposed threat to happen. COL wants to deliver the Scouting program to as many as possible, and it wants to do so in keeping with National's policies. COL is not initiating things here. It is responding to what the city has asked of it. If the article seems to be about what COL is doing, yet the city has put something in motion. Perhaps the reason we see so few quotes from council and they have so little to say is that they are not the ones looking for change. COL is not getting nearly so much attention locally as it might seem. The news is using little pieces of news to create a larger article--in a word: sensationalism. COL serves more than Philadelphia, though it is often represented as or spoken of us the Philadelphia Council. At one time it was just that, but it now includes Montgomery and Delaware Counties. This is not just a Philadelphia issue, though the physical location of this building would certainly be a city issue. COL, due to serving such a large area, has areas in support of change and areas very much against it. That leaves no middle ground. National says very clearly that there are to be no homosexuals, and COL does not want to go against National (even those who disagree with policy want to work within to create change--and not within the media), and COL has stated that it will remain consistent with National. I guess what I'd ask of fellow Scouters is to try to be more understanding. I know there are Scouters who take place in these forums who want change. However, I don't get the sense that they want defiance. COL is in an unenviable position in that regard. It's made up of great people--I have had the privilege of meeting many--and they really just want to see Scouting continue on and to serve the boys in this community. It's doing that too, even under such intense pressure. I'd encourage anyone who would like to know more to contact council. Contact information can be found at http://www.colbsa.org/ If you learn that I am wrong, tell me who within council I need to talk to now--I will do so. I just don't like to see anyone misrepresented, and I will defend those who I feel need it--in this case, Cradle of Liberty. Link to post Share on other sites
Laurie 10 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 FOG: We live closer to an out-of-state council than we do our own, so it's actually easy to do. We'd simply register our sons and ourselves in a different pack and troop; we know of some close by. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob White 20 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 I do not disagree with what you say NJ. Which is why I can't understand posters who cannot accept the care with which the council is choosing its words. It's tough to serve two masters. Link to post Share on other sites
Laurie 10 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Bob, do you think I did not chose words with care? If so, please tell me. As for leaving council, that may sound harsh, but the absolute only way I'd do so if it were to stop carrying out BSA policy. I prefer to support it, and I am happy to do so as often and in as many ways as I can. I don't see it happening. By the way, to all, the website is updated, and there is some United Way-Cradle of Liberty news posted on-line that you might find interesting as it relates to this thread. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 The way the COL council worded their statement was terrible! They are not practicing unlawful discrimination! The Supreme Court said the BSA was well within the law to not allow gays to be leaders. The "unlawful discrimination" phrase is nothing more than a buzz phrase used to appease. A blessed Christmas to all! Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
Laurie 10 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Ed, maybe I'm missing something, but the only two quotes attributed to anyone from Cradle of Liberty are: "That's the model," said Cradle of Liberty executive director William T. Dwyer 3d. "Until the city is satisfied, we can't let anything out, until things are officially ironed out," he said. "It has been a major distraction," Lipson said. "It's hurt the morale." Quite frankly I don't understand the lawful versus unlawful discrimination wording (and I don't see it attributed to COL, but I may be missing it somewhere), but maybe that's because I think of BSA as a private organization with membership criteria...period. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Laurie, What I meant was with the COL stating "that's the model" was that they agreed that the BSA was practicing unlawful discrimination. Sorry if I didn't explain that well. A blessed Christmas to all! Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
Laurie 10 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 No problem Ed--thanks for clarifying for me. The one thing I know with absolute certainty is that I am mighty glad to be working with a unit and not having to deal with all of this directly. It must be so hard. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now