posted
Okay. So you're calling for the dissolution for the Boy Scouts. Does that explain the opposition you're facing?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The opposition isn't surprising. Any group that has been unfairly privileged is going to kick up a fuss when that privilege is threatened.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, do you really feel that the Boy Scouts requires special privileges to survive? That seems to be what you're saying, but I disagree with you and am surprised to hear it from you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, now that I've missed a page of discussion on this I'm feeling left behind.
1. I agree that publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units. Or, in other words, I'm with TomDavidson on this one.
2. When it comes to public facilities and properties, the BSA and every other private organization, should enjoy the same rights.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the public sphere has gotten far too big. I don't think I should be forced to support most of what our government does.
Ding ding ding!
The problem is that when "acceptable" (however we want to define that) organizations get public money and unacceptable (same caveat) organizations don't, the unacceptable ones have been burdened, sometimes in significant ways.
The BSA was the beneficiary of this for years. Now it's starting to get justified pushback. however, I think the justification is based on exclusivity, not the BSA program content itself.
What I don't want is some generic camping/hiking/crafts/activities organization to get public money and Scouts not to. Alternatively, if the public wants to fund camping/hiking/crafts/activities groups, then the funding should be available to those that add a moral stance to the mix as well as those that don't - on an equal, per kid basis.
Making facilities available is even easier. Simply make the park/campsite/craft room available to groups with kids between the ages of X and Y. Find a way to schedule fairly and stay out of the content of the programs. (Safety, noise, neatness, convenience - i.e., non-content-based - rules are fine.
I'm not ready to agree with "publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units" until someone can tell me what "charter" means in this context. I can agree with "publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units if they won't provide the benefits that chartering brings to similar groups."
I can think of a hundred acceptable ways to give Scouts access to school facilities without creating official sanction for religion that violates the First Amendment or discriminating in a way that violates the 14th.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: I'll bite. I'm opposed to quasi-private/semi-public entities receiving public funding. I'm opposed to any organization, with selective membership, receiving public funding. If you want your little organization to be able to pick and choose members based on certain characteristics, then go jump in a frozen lake if you want my money.*
Like the military? Or perhaps you would prefer the military accept EVERYONE regardless of physical impairments, or age, or mental condition. We wouldnt want them to discriminate based on those things.
quote:If this is true, all public school chartered units should be disbanded. The BSA, while not a "church" per se, is by it's own definition a religious organization and therefore should not be supported with public funds.
This might sound nit picky, but a belief in God certainly does not equate to siding with one organized religion. Civic Religion is well within the bounds of the first ammendmant, look at the pledge of allegiance. Now you may disagree that people should be required to say, "under God" in the first place, all I am arguing is that with todays zeit geist the Boy Scouts are operating within the realms of civic religion and its constitutional for the government to work with them in that state.
I would not suprise me though if it could be demonstrated that if you had a Boy Scout with a belief in God that they would still experience persecution and that the BSA are not in fact practicing a seperate but equal docterine in regards to a belief in God.
I expect a Brown V Board of Education equivalent case eventually that will totally distance BSA from the government. Perhaps in a Utilitarian sense its unfortunate that it will be so, but from a deontological perspective it makes sense.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like the military? Or perhaps you would prefer the military accept EVERYONE regardless of physical impairments, or age, or mental condition. We wouldnt want them to discriminate based on those things.
There's a significant difference between job-related criteria in an organization that carries out a constitutionally-created function of the federal government and a private group using its own criteria when it is the exclusive recipient of a government benefit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like the military? Or perhaps you would prefer the military accept EVERYONE regardless of physical impairments, or age, or mental condition. We wouldnt want them to discriminate based on those things.
There's a significant difference between job-related criteria in an organization that carries out a constitutionally-created function of the federal government and a private group using its own criteria when it is the exclusive recipient of a government benefit.
Agreed, but the quotee was stating that no group should discriminate for any reason and still get funding from the public.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people wouldn't consider it discriminating to preclude people who can't perform a job. There are two uses of the word: making distinctions, and making irrelevant distinctions. I think it's clear which use was intended.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, I'd like to know how your "rephrasing" of what I said into something completely different is any less objectionable than what you accuse Tom of doing with your opinions.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*blink* I'm skipping the second post. I didn't deserve that.
For the first one, enough of a porportion of chartered units are chartered by public schools that dissolving them would cripple the BSA. Take away access to all public buildings as well, and you're asking a troop of say 50 to rent a building at market price once a week while charging the boys only $10 a year. Either the troop dissolves or it is no longer cheap (it's not really cheap now, what with the uniforms and camps) to be a Boy Scout. Sure something would replace it, but probably just to the relatively-wealthy families.
The BSA would not survive in any recognizable form or numbers. Maybe that's what people want. I think that'd be a loss.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts I've ever come into contact with met either at private schools or in churches or something. I don't think I've ever actually come across a troop that met in an elementary school.
posted
It's a loss for other groups as well. I think we are worse off because people don't gather in community groups anymore.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I don't want to see the BSA dissolved. I would love to see it stop discriminating on the basis of religion. Barring that, I would want to see it have to face the same challenges and have the same freedoms that other religious group face and have.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts I've ever come into contact with met either at private schools or in churches or something. I don't think I've ever actually come across a troop that met in an elementary school.
You grew up relatively-wealthy, right? That's probably why. The groups meeting in public schools are not meeting in Highland Park.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's a loss for other groups as well. I think we are worse off because people don't gather in community groups anymore.
Not quite sure I understand...are you saying that religious groups should be publicly funded?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts I've ever come into contact with met either at private schools or in churches or something. I don't think I've ever actually come across a troop that met in an elementary school.
You grew up relatively-wealthy, right? That's probably why. The groups meeting in public schools are not meeting in Highland Park.
Erm. I'm talking about the neighborhood Boy/Girl Scouts. There were some at my private school, yes. But every time I met anyone who was a scout, they met at a church.
I kind of think I should step out of this thread because I'm a bit wary of it turning into "u dun knoe me u r a snob." I was just pointing out that there ARE alternatives. Like churches.
posted
Yes. Yes, that's it. Despite what I've been saying all along, what I'm actually meant is something completely different that you can easily refute.
pH: Public schools are the largest sponsor of Boy Scout troops overall. You don't know any. Clearly either my facts are mistaken or else your experience is not comprehensive.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes. Yes, that's it. Despite what I've been saying all along, what I'm actually meant is something completely different that you can easily refute.
kat, all I was asking for was an answer to what is a loss for other groups. I was guessing the what was public funding - and asking if that was what you meant.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this is what Kat thinks, but if I had to suggest a hypothetical reason, it would be that its positive value as a group outweighs the presumed negative value associated with the special treatment.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is true, it is only a positive value for some people. And then only if we don't consider the negative value of religious discrimination
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: *blink* I'm skipping the second post. I didn't deserve that.
I offered several different alternatives to allow the organization to continue without changing its organization, and you said I wanted to dissolve the Boy Scouts. It felt to me like you either didn't read my posts or were being intentionally obnoxious.
quote: Take away access to all public buildings as well, and you're asking a troop of say 50 to rent a building at market price once a week while charging the boys only $10 a year.
No, I'm not. I said schools could still allow free use of their facilities to groups made up of students. (ANY groups.) I also suggested alternatives such as meeting at apartment community rooms or a leader's home, the second of which would admitedly only work for smaller troops. And finally, I said that I believe most of those troops would find other sponsors, which would then provide meeting space. That's a far, far cry from what you're accusing me of.
quote: The BSA would not survive in any recognizable form or numbers.
That's your opinion. I think you have an unrealistically low view of how resourceful people are. Including poor people. Besides, isn't the Boy Scouts supposed to teach resourcefulness, courage, and problem-solving? Don't you have faith that the people in the program and the people who've gone through the program would be able to deal with this sort of change, especially if they had plenty of advance notice and perhaps a helpful packet from the national organization giving suggestions on where to start looking for new sponsorship?
quote:Maybe that's what people want. I think that'd be a loss.
That's not what I want. I think I've been very clear that I think scouting is valuable, and that there are ways beyond the current mold that it can work. I deeply resent being told that I'm calling for something that I never said, and it being implied multiple times that I just don't know what I'm talking about. No, I don't know as much about the current structure of the boy scouts as you do. But I do know enough about how the world works to know there are possibilities and opportunities out there that you are completely dismissing, prematurely and unfairly.
Community centers offer space for free to community groups who want to meet there. Many non-profits who are active in inner city communities do, too, at least in my city. My church has taken advantage of soem of them, as we do not have a building. Churches have space. Some businesses that rent space might be willing to donate it to the group as a tax write off.
Or, of course, the BSA could decide to let all Americans participate. I don't even care if they don't let gay people be leaders, as far as letting public schools sponsor charters. But any kid who wants to participate needs to be allowed to participate, and participate fully, or it's absolutely ridiculous to expect a public school in America to be actively involved in the organization.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband was an Eagle Scout. We are planning on getting our son involved in Scouts, and I respect the organization immensely and would hate to see it disappear.
Kat, I hope you're willing to answer my questions, because I value your expertise here and I promise I'm not trying to play "gotcha." But I am confused.
You said:
quote:No. BSA funding comes from private sources.
Yet, the quotation from Artemisia is this (emphasis mine):
quote:Within the terms of the charter, the Chartering organization agrees to provide adult leadership and supervision, a meeting place, and financial support.
That seems to suggest that the chartering organization, for our discussion purposes a public school, provides some sort of financial support which contradicts your earlier statement. Can you elaborate?
And so you know where I stand, I think BSA should have access to public school facilities, but only if equal access is available for other groups. If an atheist parent organization wants to start a camping/outdoors club they should be allowed to meet at the schools as well, and BSA should not receive any preferential treatment the other group doesn't receive.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, Katie, I'm asking why you think the Boy Scouts deserve special treatment.
I think that they provide a community good. It's not perfect, and it's a little bigoted, but for the most part, the BSA is a worthy institution. We pick and choose our poisons and virtues, and the BSA is one that America should, on the whole, be proud of and support, kind of like the NEA.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If that is true, it is only a positive value for some people.
Sure. I didn't suggest otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And then only if we don't consider the negative value of religious discrimination.
Adding the negative value of religious discrimination wouldn't necessarily inherently make the net value negative for everyone. I'm surprised that you explicitly qualified my hypothetical but did not qualify your own.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if I know how to set a negative value amount on discrimination. I should have said, "It is only a positive value for some people (others don't get to experience it- except as the negative of being rejected). And even for those people we aren't considering the negative value of being taught religious discrimination (which may or may not negate the positive - I think it does; others might disagree). We also aren't considering the negative value on the community of reinforcing the idea of religious discrimination - which again may or may not be offset by the positives (again I would argue that it isn't.)"
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't suggested that it's even possible to set absolute positive or negative values. What I have suggested is basically what Irami said: it's possible, and not inherently unreasonable, to believe that the BSA is "worth it."
As an aside, I was a Cub Scout. I'm pretty sure it didn't teach me religious discrimination.
I feel a bit like Dagonee today, proposing hypothetical arguments in support of multiple positions on multiple threads that I don't actually hold. </random>
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it is certainly possible that it is a net positive for those who aren't among those discriminated against.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you contend that it is a net negative for all of those who are discriminated against? I ask because I wouldn't, which I think is the first direct statement of personal opinion that I've made on this forum today.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have one question for now. Those who are calling the BSA a "religious organization," would you label Masons the same?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, I'm not even sure I would have survived the Boy Scouts, as I have a bit of an independent streak and an aversion to violence, even Christian violence like the military, and I'm just seditious enough to encourage others.
quote:We also aren't considering the negative value on the community of reinforcing the idea of religious discrimination - which again may or may not be offset by the positives (again I would argue that it isn't.)
Actually, I am factoring that in, I'm just willing to look the other way about it. The NEA, PBS, and Sports Teams all alienate and discrimminate, but without them, I think that the world would be a poorer place.
Occasional, come on, even the Boy Scouts call themselves a religious organization. Don't burn what good will I have towards your organization by showing yourself to be a git.
posted
This is for BlackBlade, from earlier in the thread:
quote:Like the military? Or perhaps you would prefer the military accept EVERYONE regardless of physical impairments, or age, or mental condition. We wouldnt want them to discriminate based on those things.
quote: There's a significant difference between job-related criteria in an organization that carries out a constitutionally-created function of the federal government and a private group using its own criteria when it is the exclusive recipient of a government benefit.
quote: Agreed, but the quotee was stating that no group should discriminate for any reason and still get funding from the public.
Dagonee is correct in this assessment. I never mentioned the military in my argument, and it doesn't apply; as a government entity, it fits a special purpose.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the BSA, AA, and other organizations that talk about God are cast out of schools and libraries, does that become discrimination of a form?
I don't really think AA is likely to, because they have a studiedly vague definition of "a Higher Power". But there are still those who manage to find it offensive.
I mean, I could argue that as a person who has never drunk it offends me that my public facilities are used for AA. I would be contradictory and wrong-headed in such a thought, but it is something I would have been capable of at some point intersecting with my ability to vote.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Would you contend that it is a net negative for all of those who are discriminated against? I ask because I wouldn't, which I think is the first direct statement of personal opinion that I've made on this forum today.
I suppose it would depend on the person. If it is a net positive for those that are "in" it would put those who are out at a disadvantage. They wouldn't get to make the same social connections, they would be at a disadvantage in Army careers, tying knots could remain forever a mystery. On the other hand they would have all this free time while all their friends are camping. There could be an emotional toll - they could spend a lot of time being hurt for being excluded to the point of self-despising - thinking that the group was right to exclude them. I know people who have experienced this. Of course, for the very strong, that could be a character building experience.
Sorry - I have to go now. I would be interested in your reasoning, but I'll have to wait till Monday.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Don't burn what good will I have towards your organization by showing yourself to be a git."
Although I am an Eagle Scout, I am not as enamored to the organization as you seem to imply. I asked a simple question to see how people are defining things. And, for the record, I have never heard it called a "religious organization" until now. Seriously.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I suppose it would depend on the person. If it is a net positive for those that are "in" it would put those who are out at a disadvantage.
Basically, Kate, I don't accept this. There are valuable things children can do with their time that do not involve being in the Boy Scouts; not being in the Boy Scouts is not an inherent disadvantage in life. In fact, I think suggesting otherwise attributes even more value to the Boy Scouts than I would place on them in my hypothetical argument.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not ready to agree with "publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units" until someone can tell me what "charter" means in this context. I can agree with "publicly funded organizations should not charter BSA units if they won't provide the benefits that chartering brings to similar groups."
Technically, the chartering organization owns the troop. If the troop dissolves, all its assets go to the chartering organization.
A chartering organization can do a lot for/with the troop, or it can do next to nothing. The cub scout pack my son was in was chartered by the local fire department, which gave us $150 and a signature once a year. Nothing more. But the pack met at the local elementary school until the mid '90s.
The troop I grew up in was chartered by a local church, but met in my elementary school. The church provided storage for our equipment, so that's where we always left from when we went on an outing. I wasn't aware of any presence of church leadership in our troop. The church has always been on the recieving end of service projects, however. Nowadays my old troop meets at the church, because they aren't allowed to meet at the school anymore.
quote:pH: Public schools are the largest sponsor of Boy Scout troops overall. You don't know any. Clearly either my facts are mistaken or else your experience is not comprehensive.
I'm pretty sure your facts are mistaken. The two largest sponsors of BSA troops are the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church. I think schools are just the most common meeting place.
Now, there's also another charter we have to consider. So far we've been talking about the charting of UNITS (troops and packs). But the BSA itself is "chartered" by congress. I've never found a good definition of what that means. The President of the United States is also the honorary head of the organization.
I've never experienced anti-gay or anti-atheist discrimination within the packs/troops I've been involved in. And there are entire districts that have tried to disregard the national leadership's position, by publicly allowing gays and atheists to be members. Of course they get their knuckles rapped by national and have to decide whether to stay in the scouts, or leave and join Scouting for All The problem lies with national, really.
Bear in mind, most of this wasn't an issue before about 1985. There were plenty of openly atheist scouts and scout leaders before that time, and the scout handbook specifically stated that it was a scout's duty to defend the beliefs of people with no religious belief. Prior to 1985 it didn't matter if you were an atheist, as long as you were willing to sign the declaration of religious principles (and they said so).
With gays it was different, because before a certain point society simply accepted (with no formal policy as such) that you wouldn't allow a gay man around boys. But back then most gays were closeted. I'm sure there were plenty of gay scoutleaders, but they didn't try to assert their right to be openly gay.
My own feeling is that the Boy Scout program is such a good program that it's a shame that the national leadership has been co-opted by religious bigots. I'd like to see it healed.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, just to clarify, the Chartering Organization is expected to furnish financial assistance to the Scout Unit. However, in my experience, most units that are chartered to "pubilc schools" are actually chartered by a PTA or PTO or by a Teachers group ect. the PTA or PTO provides the financial backing. There are philanthropical organizations that provide funding for Scout programs in "challanged" public schools. Sometimes they provide the funds and a school administrator signs the Charter. But, that is not the norm.
EDIT: Several years ago, the National PTA recommended that the individual PTA's not charter Scout units, because of the liability that the Chartering Organization has when they provide the leaders. The "Chartering Organization Head" has to sign the application for each and every adult leader certifying that he or she has checked the prospective leaders background and is satisfied that they are OK to work with kids.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bear in mind, most of this wasn't an issue before about 1985. There were plenty of openly atheist scouts and scout leaders before that time, and the scout handbook specifically stated that it was a scout's duty to defend the beliefs of people with no religious belief. Prior to 1985 it didn't matter if you were an atheist, as long as you were willing to sign the declaration of religious principles (and they said so).
Isn't this a bit like saying "It didn't matter if you were Christian, as long as you were willing to openly declare that there is no god?"
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
As far as joining the organization was concerned. What happened in 1985 was that Rob Sherman refused to sign the DRP and insisted that the enrollment form be changed. BSA said if you want to be in the organization, you have to sign the form as is. Sherman sued and lost.
BTW, the DRP doesn't say there's a god, it says that you have to accept the BSA's position that religion is an essential component to being a good citizen.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Public money paid for the school buildings. I am in favor of letting anyone use them in approved ways (as Dag said -- controls should be on how they take care of the space, not on the purpose of their meeting). Religious or otherwise, as long as they don't burn things, etc.
I view it as pretty much the same thing as a band-shell in a park. Anyone who wants to can reserve it. If the facilities have to be unlocked or someone has to be there from the Parks Department to run lights, unlock doors, etc., there should be a modest fee schedule to cover it all, and everyone pays the same fees.
I'm not sure what "chartering" a club entails, but I am uncomfortable with a public institution, like a school, or police department, or fire department, sponsoring a group which does not adhere to the same non-discrimination practices as its parent organization.
This obviously could vary from community to community, but I'm okay with that because it's going to be community money going towards the activities, no? So...if the community bans discrimination against gays, then any public money should go toward sponsoring or chartering a group that cannot agree to the same policy.
Same deal with religious discrimination...
I think that would make it impossible for any public school to sponsor a BSA troop if the BSA requires belief in God of its members or leaders.
To be frank, I'm a little uncomfortable with this knowing that my church sponsors a BSA troop. I think we do it to help out disadvantaged kids in our neighborhood. So...in reality, I'm a little torn on the whole thing. I think the anti-homosexual policies of the BSA are at odds with the "open doors, open minds" policy of the Methodist Church. The church, however, as a denomination (and within Iowa) is still struggling with the homosexuality issue -- at least with respect to clergy (we've got no problem with church members, afik). I would be really upset, however, if a professed atheist were turned away from membership in our church-sponsored troop. We wouldn't turn away an atheist from attending services at our church, so why should we allow a group to use our space if they can't abide by the same rules that we do as a church?
The reason I'm torn is that we are an inner-city parish and I think the Scouts do help kids. I think the kids who are helped the most are probably the ones from disadvantaged backgrounds, or those with bad home lives. If they can find in scouting a source of solid socializing influences, and role models of people with stable home lives who aspire to something more than the dead ends that many of these kids find themselves in...then it's a heck of a lot better than nothing...
So, I'll probably not object openly to having a Scout troop using our space. It's probably a net good for the community. I don't like BSA's policies in one or two areas, but I like their effects overall.
I probably won't donate directly to the organization.
I wonder though. If John ever expresses a wish to join the Scouts, I would not discourage him. I think it'd be fun. And (as I said in the other thread) I would go along on camping trips, etc.). I like the people I've met here locally who are scout leaders. But at least while he's young, I wouldn't let John go on a camping trip without at least one of his parents there.
Same with church trips... but then, dkw's likely to be on those already anyway.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what "chartering" a club entails, but I am uncomfortable with a public institution, like a school, or police department, or fire department, sponsoring a group which does not adhere to the same non-discrimination practices as its parent organization.
This idea has been expressed several times, so I'm curious: do people who think this also think that single-sex scouting organizations should be ineligible for public sponsorship?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the BSA itself is "chartered" by congress. I've never found a good definition of what that means. The President of the United States is also the honorary head of the organization.
I'd like to see a good definition of that.
Many people don't know this, but, until general incorporation laws began to be passed, all corporations were "chartered" by the legislature. There was no other way to make one. Even though chartered by the legislature, they were always been recognized as private institutions. The Supreme Court ruled in the Dartmouth College Case that such charters were contracts, not subject to retroactive change by the legislature. Presumably this meant revocation as well.
Later charters included standard reservation of powers to modify in order to circumvent this case. But the act of a public law chartering a private entity was commonplace for much of our history.
So I would really like to know more about the BSA charter before deciding whether it is a public entity or not.
I'd guess it's not based on what I know now, but that's only a guess.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, triple posting here, but the Charter can be found here by putting in these criteria:
Title: 36 Subtitle: II Part: B Chapter: 309
And clicking "Search." This is public domain (it's a U.S. Statute) so I'm pasting it here:
quote:36 USC CHAPTER 309 - BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 01/19/04
-EXPCITE- TITLE 36 - PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS Subtitle II - Patriotic and National Organizations Part B - Organizations CHAPTER 309 - BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
-HEAD- CHAPTER 309 - BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
-MISC1- Sec. 30901. Organization. 30902. Purposes. 30903. Governing body. 30904. Powers. 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words. 30906. Restrictions. 30907. Annual and special meetings. 30908. Annual report.
Sec. 30901. Organization
(a) Federal Charter. - Boy Scouts of America (in this chapter, the "corporation") is a body corporate and politic of the District of Columbia. (b) Domicile. - The domicile of the corporation is the District of Columbia. (c) Perpetual Existence. - Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.
Sec. 30902. Purposes
The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.
Sec. 30903. Governing body
(a) Executive Board. - An executive board composed of citizens of the United States is the governing body of the corporation. The number, qualifications, and term of office of members of the board are as provided in the bylaws. A vacancy on the board shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the board. (b) Quorum. - The bylaws may prescribe the number of members of the board necessary for a quorum. That number may be less than a majority of the entire board. (c) Committees. - (1) The board, by resolution passed by a majority of the entire board, may designate 3 or more members of the board as an executive or governing committee. A majority of the committee is a quorum. The committee, to the extent provided in the resolution or bylaws, may - (A) exercise the powers of the executive board in managing the activities of the corporation; and (B) authorize the seal of the corporation to be affixed to papers that may require it.
(2) The board, by majority vote of the entire board, may appoint other standing committees. The standing committees may exercise powers as provided in the bylaws.
Sec. 30904. Powers
(a) General. - The corporation may - (1) adopt and amend bylaws and regulations, including regulations for the election of associates and successors; (2) adopt and alter a corporate seal; (3) have offices and conduct its activities in the District of Columbia and the States, territories, and possessions of the United States; (4) acquire and own property as necessary to carry out the purposes of the corporation; (5) sue and be sued within the jurisdiction of the United States; and (6) do any other act necessary to carry out this chapter and promote the purpose of the corporation.
(b) Limitations on Exercising Certain Powers. - (1) The corporation may execute mortgages and liens on the property of the corporation only if approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire executive board at a meeting called for that purpose. (2) The corporation may dispose in any manner of the whole property of the corporation only with the written consent and affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the corporation.
Sec. 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words
The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.
Sec. 30906. Restrictions
(a) Profit. - The corporation may not operate for pecuniary profit to its members. (b) Stocks and Dividends. - The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.
Sec. 30907. Annual and special meetings
(a) Annual Meetings. - The corporation shall hold an annual meeting at a time and place as provided in the bylaws. At the meeting, the annual reports of the officers and executive board shall be presented, and members of the board shall be elected for the next year.
(b) Special Meetings. - Special meetings of the corporation may be called on notice as provided in the bylaws. (c) Quorum. - The number of members necessary for a quorum at an annual or special meeting shall be prescribed in the bylaws. (d) Locations. - The members and the executive board may hold meetings and keep the seal and records of the corporation in or outside the District of Columbia.
Sec. 30908. Annual report
Not later than April 1 of each year, the corporation shall submit a report to Congress on the activities of the corporation during the prior calendar year.
This looks like a standard corporate charter, no real special privileges.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just have to say thanks to this thread for inspiring me to call my Dad and then have one of the coolest conversations I've ever had with him.
I just basically told him about the thread(s) and then we started talking about the subtopics in them and he was giving me so much information and getting so into it that I really loved it.
So thanks.
On a total side-note - I interuppted him and my Mom watching 'Rocky Horror Picture Show'. Wow - my parents are cooler than I ever knew. Only took me almost 27 years to realize it.
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But at least while he's young, I wouldn't let John go on a camping trip without at least one of his parents there.
Bob, When I was a scout leader, the official policy was that boys under 12 (I think) could not attend over night camp unless one of their parents came along so your policy is right in line with BSA police. This policy often caused us some personal conflict because disadvantaged boys (particularly those in single parent familes) were less likely to have a parent who could come, yet they were often the ones who might benefit most from coming.
My feelings about BSA are pretty close to Bob's overall. I've worked with the Boy Scouts. I am (or perhaps was) a trained BSA leader. I appreciate many aspects of the program including the emphasis on community service, personal achievement and conservation and outdoor recreation. I think that the program is particularly benficial to boys who are economically disadvantaged or come from marginally functional families because it provides them with many wholesome opportunities they would otherwise miss.
I am also very disturbed by the exclusionary nature of the program. It doesn't bother me particularly for BSA to exclude adult leaders who don't share the programs values, but it does bother me if they exclude boys who are atheist, agnostic or gay. To the extent that BSA is a private organization, I support its right to limit its membership in any way it desires but if it does so, it should not expect to receive public support.
If a public school charter for a scout troop includes spending tax payer dollars to support the troop, then the troops should be required to follow public school rules. If a public school excluded children because they were atheists or gay, it would be utterly unacceptable. I think that applies to every official school activity. If the school football team excluded players based on religion, it would be unacceptable even if the team was funded 100% by donations rather than tax payers.
If public school sponsorship simply means that BSA is a school club, allowed to use the school building and run by volunteer parents and other community members and funded by private donations, I don't see a problem. If on the other hands, the BSA gets money from the school budget and teachers of school staff are paid for the time the spend on BSA stuff, that crosses a line which in my mind shouldn't be crossed.
To say that we must choose between allowing public schools to sponsor BSA troops that require descrimination on the basis of religion and/or sexual orientation or loose all the benefits that come to the community from these troops presents a false dichotomy.
The other options is that BSA could allow the chartering organizations to opt out of these requirements. Private chartering organizations that agree with those values, could continue to require faith and heterosexual orientation in their members. But Troops sponsored by public schools, military bases and fire departments would be open to all members of the community. If BSA thinks that the benefits it offers the community are that important, they could accept this compromise rather than giving up the public resources they receive.
If they think the stand they are making on faith and sexual morality is critical to their mission, then they must be prepared to opporate without public (i.e. tax payer resources).
[ November 01, 2006, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
