Speak out and get ousted - no free speech in BSA

[mgkaiser 10]

If the county, state, or SWFMD were interested in CFE as a park before, why would they not still have the same interest now? Discussions were held with Foundation for Dreams, another youth group, to purchase the camp and use it as a youth camp. The rezoning does not make the land valueless. It insures that it stays a youth camp, park, preserve, or some other sort of green space.

 

We could still sell it to the County, State, Foundation for Dreams. We don't need the money now (I know, my COR gave me a copy of the budget). We do need a camp now.

 

Quit fighting the suit, quit fighting the rezoning and put it all aside and run the program. If we get cash poor later, we can bring it up again. I think that we all accept that this will be in court for 2 years or so.

 

But I have a better idea.

 

The community is fired up about the camp. I, myself, and members of my Pack have redoubled our efforts toward the program. We getting busy at the school to make sure next year's recruitment is high. We're getting out and volunteering to take care of Camp Flying Eagle. We're getting other people excited to.

 

So.... Extend the olive branch. Drop the suit for now. Leave the rezoning be for now. BUT... Make sure the community knows that this comes at a price. The price is community support. They're all listening now, so tell them. I'm telling anybody I talk to that the key to keeping the camp is using the camp, volunteering to maintain the camp, and supporting the camp. It would be easier to do if we could stand together and assure them there would BE a camp.....

 

 

[jkhny 10]

capnwhizz -

 

BSA's own statements say that it is a "representative Democracy that welcomes a diversity of opinion." In the Scout Law, being "Brave " is defined as speaking up for what you believe in. "Trustworthy" - means that your word is your bond. BSA itself, its paid staff and structure exist to serve and support the Scouting efforts of volunteers, not to dictate to them.

 

 

given this and all Scouting claims to represent:

 

First - how can a Council's leadership even entertain selling property accepted with the understanding - formally and legally stated or not - that it had been deeded to BSA with the understanding it was to preserved for the use of Scouts? Is such a move ethical and moral?

 

Even entertaining the legally and morally specious argument that sale of this property still "benefits youth", shouldn't Council leadership have sought out those most directly involved - and openly discussed the issue beforehand?

 

How can you possibly justify the removal of a volunteer for doing as he was taught by Scouting - for standing up for what he believes in?

 

What is the justification for Mr. Maynard's removal - and please cite the SPECIFIC line in the relevant BSA publication defining those grounds.

 

Quite frankly, it appears to many that you have a Scout Executive who has forgotten that BSA does NOT exist to provide him with a job. HE exists to serve and support the volunteers in Scouting. YOU as a Board Member exist to represent not the Scout Executive but the VOLUNTEERS.

 

You claim that it is your fiscal responsibility to entertain offers on property - yet many times in the past BSA has claimed (clearly without seriousness in retrospect) that property is sacred in Scouting - to be preserved forever. If that were the case, why didn't the Council forst explore any and all options to preserve this property under conservation easements and such?

 

Now, you and others may not care one whit about Camp Flying Eagle. It may be far from where you live and you may never use it. BUT as Councils become larger and larger there is the concern present in any democracy that they tyranny of a few large "locales" not disproportionately marginalize smaller ones. It seems that Manatee has not had a real voice in your Council and has been marginalized.

Does than make the situation morally and ethically right?

 

Since BSA states that its mission is to teach boys to make ethical and moral decisions, how can any of what has transpired here be considered ethical or moral - specifically Mr. Maynard's removal?

 

It seems that you, the Executive Board and your SE are expressing a corporate - or autocratic mindset - that views any dissent or opposition (especially SUCCESSFUL opposition) as a "betrayal" or "disloyalty" or "failing to follow orders." Instead, most will argue that this is expression of "free speech" and a successful "petitioning of government" to achieve an ethical and moral aim. Where in the BSA or Council Charter and Bylaws does it specifically state that volunteers do NOT have these rights?

 

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

kaiser,

I believe you and Red Dog and your followers have missed the point. Conservation groups, like the water management district, would like the see the land remain natural, or undeveloped. They don't want to buy the property - they just want to keep it from ever being developed. Hence, they just buy the development rights (kind of like buying the mineral rights), which would be much cheaper than buying the entire property. The conservation group doesn't mind the Boy Scouts using the property; in fact, I'm sure they would welcome it because they would maintain the property and keep it from getting trashed. Everybody wins in that situation. Pressure from developers is removed since the property can't be turned into a neighborhood or community or a marina. The Boy Scouts get to use the property as they have been, while receiving a nice payment for doing so, possibly in the 7 figure area.

 

But now, Red Dog and his group are suing to rezone the property. If the property is rezoned, the developers are out of the picture, and so are the development rights - no payment from any conservation group or agency to purchase them. The property value is diminished, with no remuneration to the owners - gee, what a great deal for the Scouts! Not!!

 

So, how much did the actions of Red Dog and his group cost the Council? Possibly millions. As we used to say in school - smooth move, Ex-Lax.

 

Yeah, that Council, the SE and the Board sure are evil! Sounds like they are pretty shrewd to me. Well, they were until the hero of Manatee County jumped in to spoil the pond. Meanwhile, jkh is still worried about how much the SE makes... Give me a break.

[DougD 10]

QUOTE:

I believe you and Red Dog and your followers have missed the point.

END QUOTE

 

Sorry Brent, it's YOU that miss the point. Well-evidenced further in your post.

 

QUOTE:

But now, Red Dog and his group are suing to rezone the property. If the property is rezoned, the developers are out of the picture, and so are the development rights - no payment from any conservation group or agency to purchase them. The property value is diminished, with no remuneration to the owners - gee, what a great deal for the Scouts! Not!!

END QUOTE

 

Red Dog and his group are NOT suing to rezone the property. You are the one sorely in need of having their facts straight before posting on the subject at hand. The Manatee County Boys Development Association has sued to prevent a SALE. The COUNTY is undertaking a rezoning effort, NOT the MCBDA.

 

QUOTE:

So, how much did the actions of Red Dog and his group cost the Council? Possibly millions. As we used to say in school - smooth move, Ex-Lax.

END QUOTE

 

Council chooses to continue the legal battle and invest the funds. Council also threatens to sue the County over the rezoning effort. Who makes those decisions? Certainly not Red Dog et al.

 

Council easily has the ability to stop the financial bleeding of funds paid to lawyers by dropping their opposition to the suit, agree to maintain the property for Scouting, and stop threatening to sue anyone that undertakes an action to preserve the property.

 

Yanking people's BSA membership is something that will also likely lead to legal fund investments, for again no sensible reason.

[BrentAllen 10]

O.K., Doug. I'll correct my small error.

 

Not ONLY did Red Dog work with a group suing to prevent the possible future sale of the property (which would eliminate development rights and diminish the property value), he ALSO encouraged the county commissioners to rezone the property. BOTH actions would do the same thing - wipe out any possible sale of development rights and greatly diminish the property value. He wasn't content with just fighting the Council on one front - he chose to do so on two fronts!

 

"Commissioners were considering whether to amend a future land-use for the camp, in order to prevent development for posterity.

 

Hampton and other Scout executives were there to oppose the amendment contesting that such an act would impose on their rights to sell the property in the future.

 

Hampton previously said the council is not actively marketing the campground but might consider selling it if an offer were attractice enough, according to the Herald's archives.

 

Maynard told the commissioners that Camp Flying Eagle is one of the community's amenities and should be protected from future development." Bradenton Herald.

 

Happy now, Doug?

 

Once the development rights are sold, the issue is over! Developers will have no interest in the property, so there will be no offers to consider, and the property will always remain a camp.

 

The issue could be handled in a couple of ways, all with the same result. One had the potential to pocket the Council a 7 figure payment, which could have been used to make real improvements to the camp. The other ways (rezoning, suing to stop sale) will keep the property as it is, but will result in NO payment for development rights. Gee, which would be the wise course to take??

 

[jkhny 10]

"The issue could be handled in a couple of ways, all with the same result. One had the potential to pocket the Council a 7 figure payment, which could have been used to make real improvements to the camp. The other ways (rezoning, suing to stop sale) will keep the property as it is, but will result in NO payment for development rights. Gee, which would be the wise course to take?? "

 

 

But the Council was deeded property for the use of Scouts - to be preserved for the use of Scouts. PERIOD. There should have been no expectation of additional value to be gained and no thought given to any sale. IF the Council no longer wished to be responsible for the property it should have reverted to the donors - and Maynard was one of those - correct?

 

If the Council acted ethically and morally, a sale would NOT be on the table - nor should offers ever be entertained for that property.

 

Any attempt to garner further value from this gift is questionable ethically and morally. At BEST, a conservation or preservation easement might be obtained as long as the property was preserved. Yet it seems clear that the Council had no interest in pursuing these possiblities UNTIL after all the criticism raised over a potential sale. Seems like a smokescreen - after the fact, a possibility that was never real and is now brought up only to show "loss of value" in re-zoning.

 

But by even considering - and apparently soliciting - offers, Council breached the conditions of the deeding. Weaselly lawyers will jump in and say - "not in writing" - and even if it were, odds are they'd find a way around it. This has happened with property given to BSA all over the country. Somehow it never reverts to the donor and BSA pockets the sale proceeds. Which goes back to "ethical and moral" and Trustworthy. BSA is being none of those. The donors deeding the property were remiss in trusting BSA to act ethically and morally and abide by the stated conditions of the deeding. I expect it was beyond the capability of Mr. Maynard and others to imagine that BSA would betray that trust. Mr. Maynard acted in a way that helped preserve the property in the form it was deeded - and in the way it was intended to remain. He used the courts to in effect make it so BSA would have to comply with the original conditions if the bequest. FOr once, someone beat BSA at their own legal weaselling. Seems like THAT is why he was removed.

 

BSA has regularly benefitted from tax-exempt status and preferential teratment for its properties BECAUSE they preserved land in an undeveloped state. Land has been donated to BSA for the use of youth - NOT for future sales or additional profit making opportunities. Yet it always comes back to "its worth more if we sell it" - worth more HOW? In these cases the possibility of a future sale was NEVER considered. BSA was never supposed to be able to sell the property.

 

The legalistic justifications profferred for the most appalling unethical and immoral behavior may make such actions legal. It is bad enough to see this in other circumstances but in Scouting?

 

In talking about the potential for gain and value lost it is clear that the focus is on MONEY - and NOTHING ELSE here.

 

And btw, isn't BSA supposed to be a non-profit organization?

 

And as for the justification for Mr. Maynards removal - just what would that be? Specific procedures, rules or regulations?

 

BSA seems to have a hissy fit when its members DO express their right to free speech - and gets even madder when volunteers stand up to what is simply wrong. And - in so many ways - what has occurred here is wrong.

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

What a bunch of hooey!

 

Blaaah, blaaah, blaaah, the BSA is terrible, blaaah, blaaah, blaaah....

 

The Board and the SE had a plan to keep the camp as it is, while selling the development rights. It would not generate a profit. It would generate revenue for expenses. What expenses? From the Wall Street Journal:

"Camp Flying Eagle, for example, needs $3 million for capital improvements such as updated bathrooms."

 

I guess some people can't grasp a concept, no matter how plainly it is laid out before them.

 

The value of development rights is tied to the value of the property - it is the leverage for the transaction. Without the value, no leverage, no deal, no nice payment for capital improvements.

 

I think it is an absolute riot to see jkh lecturing others about following the Scout law, and being ethical and moral leaders! Hey jkh - a Scout is cheerful! Try it sometime!

[DougD 10]

The $3 million in improvements for CFE has been a figure that's been bantered about. However, at the CFE 75th Anniversary (2004), money was raised for this. That money has yet to be invested in CFE. That number continues to be used as fodder for reasons to sell, yet donations already were made to cover it.

 

It appears Council is using CFE as some form of cash cow to milk money from the community. However, Council doesn't wish to answer direct questions about the issues.

[BrentAllen 10]

Once again, council is evil...

 

Hmmm, that $3 million dollar figure came from a February, 2006 article. If it was the NYTimes, I could understand the error, but the WSJ is usually a little more accurate.

 

How much money was raised in 2004?

[mgkaiser 10]

Brent, I know you mean well, but you are gusssing on numbers. I, on the other hand, have the 2005 budget in front of me. I will not publish numbers here as that serves no purpose, but I am discussing what I see with my district committe chair.

 

In 2005 a significant of money, but not the full $3 million, was collected into one of the trust accounts that is named in such a way to indicate that it is for Camps. I do not know the rules associated with the use of the funds from that account. I do not know if a decision was made to park the funds there for a while to earn some interest before using them. I don't know a LOT because the folks in Ft. Myers don't talk to us, but I'm working that in a constructive manner.

 

We're not building a single building. We're improving a camp. So we don't need the full amount for all the improvements in one year. Improve SOME of the camp sites. Prioritize. We have enough to go a long way. Also get creative. If people won't donate money, donate time. I've bounced some ideas off the District Chair which I have not gotten feedback on yet. When I do, I'll share the ideas.