BSA Chicago "Representative Democracy " (NOT)

[jkhny]

THEORY

 

From BSA "talking points"

 

The BSA is a representative democracy

 

.Local councils elect representatives to the National Council, which in turn, sets policy.

 

The BSA procedural methods for input are well-established.

 

As a private organization, the BSA conducts its affairs according to its charter, articles of incorporation, and bylaws.

 

The National Council operates just like local councils. Governance is provided by an elected executive board composed of volunteers.

 

The BSA is a representative democracy that considers diversity of opinions invaluable.

 

Our bylaws provide a mechanism for local council input on program and policies.

 

 

REALITY

 

Below - forwarded from Chicago

"per www.fortdearborn.org (from a handful of contributing reporters)

 

8/28/05--Dennis Chookaszian decided to host two more open volunteer meetings on Chicago's Northside the week of August 15th to reportedly solicit ideas and opinions from CAC volunteer Scouters about council nominations. This is on the heels of the fiery meeting held at the European Chalet in mid-July.

 

Many that went felt that the meeting was a travesty and a waste of their time. There were about 20 there including a few from the "new" council nominating committee, namely George Walper, Tom Thilman, and Sue Castillo. As in prior meetings, many in attendance walked away feeling that their ideas and grievances fell on deaf ears.

 

However, while the meeting was supposedly organized to address council governance issues and the board nomination process, Chookaszian kept jamming his theme of..."Owasippe's gone, now lets all get on the bandwagon and plan for the future."

 

When asked about the nominating committee procedure, Chookaszian explained that the committee would present a slate and, if it were voted down, they would take 90 days and either revise it or not and present it again. If it were defeated again, the board would move to appoint themselves. When asked if that meant that there was no way to vote them out of office, Chookaszian responded, "that is correct". He further emphasized that the current board would remain "whether we liked it or not."

 

Someone asked what then was the purpose of even holding a vote to which he responded that the real ones who should have the vote are the boys themselves. Another then replied that as the unit's chosen council representative, he had a vote but felt that this exhibited attitude disenfranchised the voting membership "whether he liked it or not."

 

During discussion about the slate, it was asked why the May 5th slate wasn't used as a model and, if additional representation for LFL needed to be put onto the board, why not just add additional names to what was already researched and reviewed. Mr Walper of the new nominating committee suggested that the prior duly selected nominations committee had done a poor job in putting together a representative slate on May 5th.

 

Chookaszian also reported that the CAC hierarchy had been looking at camping properties near Madison WI (Makajawan?); Dubuque IA, and Rochelle IL (a 3-Fires Council Camp?). According to Chookaszian, they are looking for approximately 500 acres with a lake for swimming. Some Scouters present felt that the criteria Chookaszian outlined sounded like they were looking for a camp similar to Hoover Outdoor Education Center and wondered, if that were the criteria, why HOEC was sold last year? Chookaszian emphasized CAC's desire to build a "Cub World Camp" and intended to do it "whether we like it or not" (a phrase he used liberally throughout the meeting)!

 

While Chookaszian had been concerned about getting Scouters to attend and to present their ideas and input, he seemed very quick to challenge, dismiss or even ridicule opinions rendered by those whom he asked to participate.

 

Following both meetings, a general impression of attending Scouters was that Chookaszian had shown a total disrespect for volunteer Scouters and a disdain for allowing them to manage the destiny of their own council organization."

 

 

 

About that "representative democracy" -

 

When asked if that meant that there was no way to vote them out of office, Chookaszian responded, "that is correct". He further emphasized that the current board would remain "whether we liked it or not."

 

And this is how BSA works when you try to exercise that "representative democracy" clause........

 

American values, character, ethics and morals - all lacking.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Speaking of democracy, first 20 posts, tell me if this thread should be closed as there is no new topic here to discuss or do you wish to leave it open?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[stlscouter]

KNOCK! KNOCK! KNOCK!....Nobody home.

[Bob White]

I would not like to see the thread shutdown as I do not see that as a solution from keeping identical threads to be started.

 

And what makes this thread any more obnoxious as similar threads that have been originated by other posters who share jhnkys beliefs and values.

 

I am a huge supporter of the freedon of association, where a private group has the right and authority to choose to associate with people of similar values and deny association to those who do not.

 

hint hint.

 

Freedom of association, one of the great freedoms of a democracy.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Prairie_Scouter]

 

Well, OGE, if the 1st 20 that you're watching follow the trend, then I guess jkhny also has the answer to the question implied in his report, that is, "does anyone here a problem with a Council's leadership that refuses to abide by the results of their Council elections". That answer would appear to be "no".

 

Seems like within the past week or so, we've gone into a new territory in "Issues and Politics". It used to be, posters would attack an opposing view, and sometimes degrade into personal attacks. Recently, it seems, some folks are saving time by ignoring the posts completely and just attacking the poster. It's ok to disagree; it's not ok to become disrespectful of the posters. If you don't like a topic, just don't respond to it, it will quickly age off in that case.

 

 

[evmori]

I don't have a key for this door!

[johndaigler]

The Chicago story makes me sad.

The Atlanta story makes me sad.

The Idaho story makes me sad.

The St. Jean story makes me sad.

The Smith story makes me sad.

The growing (and hardening) devisiveness on this forum makes me sad.

 

 

jk, OK, great, now I'm sad. What the heck are you trying to accomplish?

 

Are you making a call to action? If so, stop complaining and do THAT.

 

Are you asking a question? If so, stop complaining and do THAT.

 

Are you suggesting we be vigilant in our future? If so, stop complaining and do THAT.

 

Are you suggesting you have an answer to these problems. If so, stop complaining and do THAT.

 

Are you just angry and want everyone to know? If so, stop complaining!!! We get THAT.

 

 

I don't think deleting the thread is necessary, but if the only way to change jk's direction is to avoid him and his posts, then I'm done with replying.

 

I only hope that we will stop feeding the fire by using jk's posts to take generic shots at other forum members. He speaks for himself - he is not the mouth of some negative group. As long as we stay on this destructive path, none of us are doing our best.

 

jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[NJCubScouter]

Before we discuss whether the thread should be closed, I'd like to know, what exactly is wrong with this thread (or more specifically, the first post in it)? Most of it is taken from an official district web site, and the rest of it is jkhny's comment on the factual information presented. If people disagree with what has been said, they can say so, or they can just ignore the thread or read it but remain silent (as I most likely will do after this post, as I have done with the majority of the other threads jkhny has started.)

 

So I guess my feeling is clear, I see no reason to close the thread.

[jkhny]

Many have repeatedly said BSA "works" and that ther eare rules and regulations and procedures in place to deal with things.

 

In the case cited - Chicago - things are clearly NOT working.

 

Please do not dispute the "facts" - they have been confirmed by numerous sources.

 

My point is:

 

What do you do when it is clear things are NOT working?

 

What do volunteers do when they have followed all the rules and regulations and are STILL ignored?

 

Is this appropriate ANYWHERE?

 

What should the volunteers in Chicago do?

[OldGreyEagle]

jkhny, thank you for asking concise questions. I have my thoughts. Next, I asked for opinions on if this thread should stay open or closed. I get PM's asking why the moderators allow "stuff like this" to keep being posted and then when I raise the subject, the closest thing I get to a close it vote is a comment why start here? I dont know, I guess if you are going to Hades in a handbasket, it makes no sense to change direction, just keep going.

 

now,

 

"What do you do when it is clear things are NOT working?"

 

Whenever I think its clear things aren't working, I ask others if they see the same things I think I do. And I sk a lot, and I dont ask people who I like and think like me. I ask the opinion of people I normally like to stir clear of, just to be sure I have a grip on reality.

 

What do volunteers do when they have followed all the rules and regulations and are STILL ignored?

 

I guess you have to go to the annual meeting and voice concerns, it would help if you got the CORs involved as they are the ones who actually control things. If you say the CORs are non-responsive, then you have to work to get them more on the ball.

 

Is this appropriate ANYWHERE?

 

I am not sure what this means, but IF its bas as you say, no its not appropriate, but then again I dont know what the opposition viewpoint is. Could you invite a Supported of the Chicago Council to become a member and let us ask them quesitions.

 

What should the volunteers in Chicago do?

 

I mentioned it before, first organize and get your COR's to see the issues you see. Its the CORs who wield the power. Next, contact the Executive Board members who may be middle of the road and those who dont see it the COuncil way. What can they do? I dont know myself, but as you have experienced the lone wolf in the desert doesnt efect much change, but a group working from within does wonders (See the Illiad)

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Council offerings are political and not for the faint of heart. If you get queasy on the first downhill slope, then let others ride that can hold their noses through the loop de loop all the way to the end. There are plenty of jobs in Scouting where one does not need to think about the shenanigans downtown. It is a big world and if you think about what you want out of it, it is possible to find true happiness.

[jkhny]

"I guess you have to go to the annual meeting and voice concerns, it would help if you got the CORs involved as they are the ones who actually control things. If you say the CORs are non-responsive, then you have to work to get them more on the ball. "

 

The COR's et al have VOTED the slates DOWN. Chicago Area Coiuncio has TWICE now refused to approve the handpicked slated proposed by their Council "leadership" that wants to remain in place.

 

Yet the Council "leadership" refuses to allow the hand-picked "nominating committee" to nominate ANY candidats that the volunteers (through their COR's) WANT to VOTE for.

 

The threat has already been made - vote for us or we're changing the rules and reappointing ourselves.

 

Council leadership HAS been voted OUT (an almost impossible feat given BSA rules) but they REFUSE to leave.

 

The local bylawas and BSA rules and regulations are being BLATANTLY ignored by this Council's leadership. Even the full Executive Board is being ignored with COuncil business being approved by a hand-picked "Executive Committee" - something NOT discussed in Bylaws.

 

The situation in Chicago parallels events in my Council where "rules" are being violated at will. Yet BSA National says this is a "local" problem and does nothing.

 

Should volunteers have to SUE their own Council Leadership to get the LEADERSHIP to simply follow rules and regulations?

 

My point is that Councils HAVE and DO blatantly inore BSA's own rules and regulations - and that there is NOTHING short of court action (volunteers suing their own Council) to stop this.

 

Anyone else have a solution?

 

This is a valid issue and concern - yet some would prefer to say it is NOT a problem and is unworthy of discussion. If it can happen in one, two or more Councils it can happen anywhere in BSA.

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Volunteers are not represented through the CRs. CR stands for Charter Organization Representative, not volunteer representative.

 

Unit volunteers work for the charter organization. They agree to follow the Scouting program and deliver it for the CO.

 

The Charter Organizations are represented on the district and council by the CRs.

 

The district and council board is made of individuals who are looking past the needs of an individual or individaul unit and work for the intersest of the council Scouting community as a whole. They look not only for what is best this year but to help insure the future of the council as well.

 

It is not the unit volunteers role to make decisions for the council. Nor is it the councils responsilbility to make decisions based on the emotional outbursts of volunteers.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Thanks for the good advice JD. There is a comment that is sometimes stated in these forums regarding the freedom of association. The first amendment does not specifically articulate a freedom of association. This extension of the first amendment, as I understand it, is an interpretation by an activist judiciary .

But given that it has become the law of the land through that activism, there is something about its application by BSA that merits further examination.

 

The adult membership application contains the requirements to which applicants must agree. If there is disagreement among the members about other aspects of BSA, that disagreement should not affect membership. An honest adherence to the terms of membership demand this.

However, if 'freedom of association' is interpreted to extend to elements beyond the requirements as simply articulated in the application, say, to include 'values', it is incumbent on the organization to clearly specify those as part of the requirements. Otherwise that would constitute additions to the requirements that are not officially listed.

And failing such clear specification in the requirements on the application, those values should be open for discussion by members.

[jkhny]

"It is not the unit volunteers role to make decisions for the council. Nor is it the councils responsilbility to make decisions based on the emotional outbursts of volunteers. "

 

A clear avoidance of the issue.

 

The volunteers through their representatives, in compliance with the Council bylaws voted NOT to approve the ONLY slate of candidates submitted by the handpicked nominating committee.

 

A SECOND slate of candidates was ALSO voted down, in compliance with the Council bylaws and procedures.

 

The Council Leadership has refused to allow ANY other nominees but those THEY nave chosen on a slate of candidates.

 

A "democracy" - even a "representative" one ius supposed to reflect the will of its members. BUT as structured, most COuncils ONLY allow representatives to vote FOR or Against the full slate of candidates chosen by a "nominating committee"

 

If the slate chosen by this committee has been voted DOWN twice, it it time to allow the candidates that the majority WILL vote FOR to at least be put on the ballot. But this Council leadership REFUSES to do so. This Council leadership REFUSES to follow its own bylaws and rules.

 

Having in effect been told - We (through our "representatives") will NOT vote FOR current leadership - or their hand-picked successors, the majority are NOT being allowed to run candidates they ARE willing to elect.

 

Council leadership has clearly stated the they are NOT going to step down - despite losing two elections - and will change bylaws as needed to remain in power.

 

The COuncil ledership has refused to follow BSA rules and their Council's own bylaws.

 

The volunteers, having done all they are supposed to do to remove their "leadership" has been stymied in their efforts to do so.

 

 

Back to the questions:

 

If BSA IS a 'representative democracy" how do you remove leaders that refuse to abide by the legally and rule abidingly expressed wishes of the majority?

 

Is the claim of being a "representative democracy" meaningless in practical terms?

 

NO response has answered this directly or dealt with the flagrant disregard of BSA's own procedures and bylaws by leadership that REFUSES to relinquish control. The "volunteers" are blamed for THEIR behavior - yet they have done exactly what they needed to do to oust their leadership. The leadership simply will NOT leave.

 

If this is what happens when volunteers attempt to "take control" of their own Council, then any claims of being a "representative democracy" are a fraud (at least in this Council) and claims that BSA "listens to its members" equally false.