Personal beliefs versus BSA policy

[Kahuna]

Beavah says: Workin' for change or makin' change by starting a union drive, going on strike, bein' a whistleblower, etc. might be a better choice... not just for oneself, but for one's fellow workers.

I'm not suggesting we should do nothing, just that we have to remember the difference. I agree we should not have to leave the BSA because of our personal views, but they do have the right to protect their public image as they see fit.

[SSScout]

"Has anyone any direct experience with BSA retribution against a leader expressing disagreement in a rational and courtious way?"

 

"Packsaddle gives us an example of a threat to revoke membership if a critical op-ed was published--is anyone aware of anything like that actually being done? It seems to me that it would be pretty bad PR for BSA to kick out somebody for disagreeing in an orderly fashion (it would violate the Scout Law)."

 

I was cruising thru the "headlines " area a few weeks back and came upon the story from Bradenton Florida about the future of "Camp Flying Eagle" of the Southwest Florida Council. Seems the council is not really considering selling the camp BUT " we'll listen to serious offers" ummm...

So the Volunteer Campmaster , B.J. "Red Dog" Maynard, age 77, a Scout for over 50 years, decided to protest this non-policy, and after going thru "official" channels, helped form a community activist group to lobby about zoning subjects, and ended up being president of the association. The association brought suit against the Council to prevent the sale of the camp (bequest considerations, wills, non-policies etc. complicate things). And so the Council ( a combination of two prior councils, another story there) has stated that Mr. Maynard must EITHER resign from the community group OR resign from Scouting, OR he will be removed from the rolls, the Council citing a perceived "conflict of interest" and "loyalty issues".

 

Google ""B. J. "Red Dog" Maynard"" for lots more info...

 

Is THIS retribution ummm?

 

[scoutingagain]

I would say the Red Dog case is a case of retribution and his situation and the whole camp sale has been discussed at length in another thread. The bone of contention related to this thread though is did he express his "disagreement in a rational and courtious way?"

 

Some might argue filing a lawsuit against the BSA is not "working within the system" nor rational or courtious to address his particular grievance. Others would argue he is simply using his constitutional right to address grievances throught the courts.

 

Personally I don't see where kicking a dedicated volunteer out of the organization for actions other than for youth protection issues accomplishes much for the council. Seems rather petty to me.

 

SA

[SR540Beaver]

Come on guys. Let's say you work for a company with several divisions. Another company comes along and says they want to buy your widget division. You've worked for the company for 25 years and they've always had a widget division. In fact, they have a proud tradition of making the finest widgets in the world. You've always been a company man and they'll divest themselves of the old widget division over your dead body. You start to protest in front of the company. You decide to take legal action to stop the sale of the widget division. just how long do you think the company is going to keep you on the payroll when you are publically working against them? Retribution? Really? Who struck the first blow? Not the perceived first blow, the first actual blow? Does the company have the right to sell the division regardless of how the employee feels about it? Can the employee expect to continue being employed when he bad mouths the company?

[jmenand]

Setting aside for a moment what the BSA has a legal right to do, there is a possible difference between a traditional corporation and something like the BSA. The BSA is, in my eyes and the eyes of many others, a steward of an idea called the scouting movement. Over the years and even from the beginning the BSA has had to balance that stewardship with the real world demands of a functional corporation. I am simply arguing (nay, suggesting) that despite the BSA's *right* to exercise it's legal rights, it should do so while being conscientious of the principals of the scouting movement it claims it stewards. I feel the scouting movement is something that cannot be owned, and I feel dismay towards modern developments which indicate that the corporate exercises might, *might* be taking precedent over the moral responsibilities of the stewardship of scouting values.

 

The ideals and values of the scouting movement are augmented by the BSA's interpretation and implimentation of those values. I feel it is nonsensical to rely on the legal rights of private groups to justify the actions of an organization which prides itself on values- Values which in most ways excede what the law requires of a person. If the BSA wants to claim it's values are simultaniously American as well as the ideal of what American character *should* be, there is something wrong when those values as presented by the BSA's program are so often at the center of controversy concerning basic American culture and freedom.

 

I'm not saying the BSA should "water down" it's value system. I am merely saying they should carefully think about their own values and how and what they want the program to teach as a component of American culture. Perhaps it is the case that the leaders of the BSA no longer view themself as an organization that teaches ideal American values. I realize that there are some who feel American values have changed and that the BSA should stick to their "mission."

 

Few people are suggesting that the BSA should suddenly start *advocating* certain behaviors and beliefs such as homosexuality or alternate spiritual beliefs that fail to meet the declaration of religious principal. This is a case of fixing something that wasn't broken. There was never before a need to confront these issues the way the BSA's national policy has chosen to, why is it happening now? When a new policy is introduced where no policy was before and no policy may even be needed, red flags should go off in the minds of the people who care. People like me.

 

In a widget factory, such things could go unquestioned. In a group that stewards the scouting movement, such things MUST be questioned.

 

The BSA claims to be based around American ideals. Is it only the ideals of the 1910 USA we should hold the BSA accountable for? Some new policies are just part of modern life, like the G2SS. But other policies seem specifically designed to wage a culture war against modern American freedoms- freedoms the people in charge of the BSA might not personally feel content co-existing with. And by golly, if they can't force people out of America at least they can force them out of Scouting. But I feel that just because they are legally allowed to do something doesn't neccisarilly mean they *should* do it.(This message has been edited by jmenand)

[Hunt]

I don't think the "Red Dog" case is an example of a person trying to change a rule he disagrees with in an orderly way. It's rather a power struggle, in which he chose to use legal tools outside of BSA to actively impede what the council was trying (maybe) to do. I can't really fault BSA for expelling somebody who becomes an active adversary.

To put this in the context of a real (but not quite as inflammatory as others) issue, let's imagine that you are a Scouter who believes that it is time to allow girls at all levels of BSA. I think it would be "orderly" for you to bring this up at district and council meetings, to urge your CO to push for the change, to write letters to top leaders in Irving, etc. BSA shouldn't kick you out for doing any of these things. I personally think they also shouldn't kick you out if you publish a respectfully worded op-ed saying the same thing. On the other hand, I wouldn't fault them for kicking you out if you you bring a lawsuit under a state's anti-discrimination law seeking to force BSA to allow your daughter to join. At that point you've moved from being a critic to being an adversary.

[scoutingagain]

The reason I believe kicking Red Dog out is petty, is because his membership in the BSA has no bearing on the court case as far as I can tell. The court case will play itself out and a decision will be made one way or the other. I don't see how Red Dog's membership status effects the case.

 

The only reason to kick him out, is for the Scout Executive to show what he can do to those that take him on. As was said, a show of power. In the meantime, the youth and scouters formerly served by Red Dog, no longer have his services as a scout volunteer available. Apparently there are at least a few who found his service of value.

 

On the other hand, perhaps a more appropriate way to deal with this would have been to have a DE call the New York Times and reveal the fact that his wife is a covert agent with the CIA.

 

SA

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)

[LongHaul]

I've held off responding to this thread because unless you have the back ground this is just another he said they said. If you want the background PM me and I'll do what I can. The volunteers in Chicago Area Council have been in a struggle with the Executive Board for about 6 years now. We are currently in court to restore voting rights to the COR's, background for this can be found at http://www.fortdearborn.stalphonsusscouts.org/, scroll all the way to the bottom. In the early days of this fight all our council camps were put up for sale. In response to this some volunteers organized groups to prevent the sales. Some were trying to raise money to buy the camps, some were trying to organize residents local to the camps to resist and block the sale. One organized a protest rally to be held in front of the Council Office on the day of an executive Board meeting to be sure the board knew how the "people" felt. The rally organizer was told his membership would be revoked if youth attended the rally. The board had decided the rally was a "political" event and that youth involvement was forbidden. The Organizer was told this by the Council Commisioner during an unrealted coversation an nothing was put in writting nor did any other Council official express these concerns. Youth did indeed attend and the organizer was sent a letter signed by the Council SE, Council President and Council Commissioner revoking his membership( which has since been made a permanent revocation). At this rally a different Scouter addressed the crowd and told the youth present that their presence at the rally could be used to fulfill requirements for Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge as this was an example of peaceful address of grievances and an exercise of their civil rights. This Scouter was suspended for 6 months for "making a mockery of the Merit Badges Program". At the Council Meeting to vote on a proposed slate of officers (a slate which was voted down three consecutive times and is part of the cause for the law suit) a Scouter was accused of repeatedly bumping into another Council member, and attempting to impede that members attempts to eject news reporters from the meeting room. The offending Scouter was suspended for six months. National does not revoke you membership your local council does and fighting to get it overturned is very difficult because the people you need to petition are the people who revoked your membership in the first place.

LongHaul

 

[SSScout]

"Follow the money". I believe that came from DEEP THROAT.

"It's for the kids". Bob the Tomatoe said that.

"Let's sell the 2 main Council camps and buy this bigger property for cheap, and consolidate our camps" Somebody said that 15 years ago...

"Wow, I didn't know it was a 4 hour drive down to camp Q. Let's go to camp X in this other council. It's only 1 1/2 hours away." I said that...

 

The question almost always seems to gravitate to deciding between:

 

**Is the BSA Council a 'Business'? (A business must show a profit, and if it does, who benefits? Are there "stock holders?")

** Does the BSA Council have a 'Greater Purpose' that it was created to serve? (not just making widgets.)(would Habitat for Humanity really worry about monetary profit?)

** If there is a 'Greater Purpose", what assets are most useful to that end? Money in the bank? Well paid, well dressed executives? Can these 'Bosses' demonstrate their worth? Wooded Campsites close to the Clients? Equipment kept in good condition? What might it cost (in salaries) to replace any volunteer workers with "professional" workers?

** Are reputations or egos being challenged? Are egos more important than the 'Greater Purpose'? Or the "clients"?

** What is the REAL purpose of the Council Executive Staff, as defined by the above questions?

 

Get the newspapers interested in helping to define the difference between the OFFICIAL 'Greater Purpose' and the REAL purpose of the governing board.

 

"follow the money"...

[Beavah]

You decide to take legal action to stop the sale of the widget division. just how long do you think the company is going to keep you on the payroll when you are publically working against them?

 

If you're in one of the many states that prevents companies from takin' employment action against people for legal outside-of-workplace activities, a long time.

 

If you are a union representative acting on behalf of da union, a heck of a long time.

 

Bein' an employer doesn't make you king.

 

In da Red Dog Maynard case, Red Dog was apparently da president of the association that had given the camp to the BSA on the condition that it be used for a camp. That he acts as directed by the association he is president of to protect their interest seems like an honorable thing to do, eh? And I note the council backed down on that revocation.

 

I'm with jmenand... beyond legal, der's right. And when da paid BSA officials are no longer serving as stewards of da principles of the Oath and Law, it should be "the right of the people to alter or to abolish them."