Local Option Redux

[NJCubScouter]

OK, it's time again, happy campers, for a new thread, and a new opportunity to discuss the real controversy. I was also getting a bit weary of BobWhite's personal attacks against me, such as:

 

Your posts are rife with opinion but little knowledge, giving your thoughts volume but no substance.

 

Very poetic, however false and un-Scoutlike it may be. But rather than continue in that vein, let's look at this statement by Bob:

 

Lets through a little logic at just one 'opinion' reoccurring here. That of local option. How does an organization have a national program AND local option when it comes to policies? Imagine the NFL if every team could determine its own rules. McDonalds if every restaurant could fix whatever they chose however they chose. The Military if every base determined its own function and policies.

 

I can tell you with absolute certainty that as a national organization the policies, methods, and membership of scouting will always be determined by the nation executive committee of the BSA. There is no other way to insure a "national" program.

 

I have no doubt that the membership of Scouting will always be determined by the national executive committee. That is what I am counting on. Because on the vast majority of membership issues, the BSA national executive committee allows local option. Here, Bob, is how a national program has local option:

 

A unit (specifically a CO) can decide it wants to have only male Scoutmasters. Or it can decide it wants to have male or female Scoutmasters. Either is fine with the BSA. That's local option.

 

A unit can decide that a person who had a conviction for smoking pot 20 years is acceptable as a Scoutmaster, or it can decide the opposite. That's local option.

 

I believe, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that there is no national policy against having a leader who is cohabiting with a member of the opposite gender, to whom they are not married. Many units would not accept such a leader, on moral grounds. But I am sure that some would. If there is no hard-and-fast rule against this, then this too is an example of local option.

 

Other examples: an overweight Scoutmaster; a recovering alcoholic Scoutmaster (no drinking in front of the boys of course); a Scoutmaster with tatoos. You name it. There is local option on all but a small number of traits, including traits that some might classify as involving "morality."

 

And what are those traits for which national would come down and say, you can't have this person as a leader? Well, murder would be a good guess. Any other serious (meaning violent)crime, including sexual abuse of children. I also suppose anyone who expressed an intention to commit a serious crime, such as an "open pedophile" who had not been charged with that crime (like maybe a member of NAMBLA who expresses agreement with the aims of the organization), if there are in there anything else it wants to have a Scoutmaster.

 

For serious but non-violent crimes, I suppose it would depend on the severity and how long ago they took place. If someone embezzled a few thousand dollars 20 years ago, served his time (if any), and had no other record, would national or council come in and say no, you can't make that person a leader? They might advise not making the person troop treasurer, but something else, why not if that is what the unit wants?

 

So, to summarize. Violent crimes and serious crimes above a certain level of severity and recent-ness, NO local option. Everything else, local option. Except, of course, being gay. It makes no sense. The national program goes along just fine with all sorts of local options regarding membership, but this one is not permitted. Why?

[NJCubScouter]

I can't stand this. Why can't I edit my posts.

 

OK, here is the errata sheet on my previous post.

 

The first time I say 20 years, I mean 20 years AGO.

 

And then there is this paragraph, which I did not edit very well at the end the first time around. Here is what it is supposed to say:

 

And what are those traits for which national would come down and say, you can't have this person as a leader? Well, murder would be a good guess. Any other serious (meaning violent)crime, including sexual abuse of children. I also suppose anyone who expressed an intention to commit a serious crime, such as an "open pedophile" who had not been charged with that crime (like maybe a member of NAMBLA who expresses agreement with the aims of the organization.)

 

That's it. Carry on.

[scoutldr]

I have been told by my employer that I must value diversity. I do not patronize McDonalds because I know they are universally bad. I can count on it no matter where in the world I happen to be.

[evmori]

While I'm not for the local option idea on this issue, there is a great example of how a local option works! Every state in the USA is a local option. Each has its own laws that its residents must follow and these residents are also subject to federal laws.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10