BSA councils attempt to defraud public for funds

[evmori]

[ Returned to sender for editing ] (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

[ Returned to sender for editing ] (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm....

 

That was an interestin' round of irrational personal attacks, eh?

 

I reckon Merlyn has run out of rational arguments.

 

Self Moderation Engaged... Beavah participation in thread terminated

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

reposted with the parts the moderators don't like removed:

 

 

 

Beavah writes:

The BSA itself is not a party to the HUD grant nor directly subject to the HUD regulations.

 

Wrong.

 

It is altogether likely that the BSA was never asked by the cities to certify non-discrimination based on religion.

 

Wrong again.

 

Here's what the city manager of Colorado Springs said in part of her email to me:

I did receive a non-discrimination clause from the BSA chapter in Colorado Springs and will be sending a copy of that to you along with our final determination

 

If Merlyn has any real evidence that the cities demanded and were given such a statement by one of the BSA councils, he should feel free to share that, eh?

 

Given above.

 

Ergo, no fraud. And, to be honest, Merlyn's accusations of=

fraud sure look an awful lot like libel.

 

Beavah, now you're so vehement about NOT admitting that the BSA acts dishonestly that you're actually now trying to say I'M libeling them. Wow, you're really far gone, you know that?

 

Significantly, as I read this, the cities could still choose to contract with the BSA. There is no obligation that an individual contractor not discriminate, just that the city in its administration of the grant not discriminate.

 

Significantly, you are not a lawyer.

 

A city, for example, could use several different contractors=

to provide the same services to different groups. The city could=

contract with a Muslim group to provide counseling services to Muslim residents, a Christian group to provide counseling to Christians, and a University to provide counseling services to everyone else.

 

Ah, separate but equal. Riiiight.

 

In fact, I believe that sort of thing happens relatively frequently, especially with denominational contractors like Catholic Social Services.

 

In fact, you're wrong again. Are you claiming Catholic Social Services gets public funding but refuses their services to people based on religion?!

 

So if the BSA is providing soccer clinics for the faithful Latino community and Boys & Girls clubs are providing soccer clinics for other program beneficiaries, I'm not sure there's necessarily any problem here at all. At least not any federal one. And of course we'd need a real, live program beneficiary to truly be discriminated against in order for this to be actionable, eh?

 

We'd need a real, live PROGRAM, too. Or did you already forget that, as soon as the city asked about religious discrimination, the Los Padres council CANCELLED THEIR CONTRACT?

 

Ed writes:

It seems the BSA are the ones who refused the funds not as you have depicted it.

 

Ed, what are you talking about now? The BSA cancelled the contract when they got caught.

 

local1400 writes:

Merlyn writes "You know, maybe you should join an organization that teaches ethics." I am ecstatic you have suggested that. Well I've been to the site of that group you hold in such high esteem, Scouting for All.

 

Why? SFA is not an organization that teaches ethics, it's an advocacy group.

 

Of course, the BSA isn't an organization that teaches ethics, either.

 

I actually couldn't find any info on any unit in any area, or a council either.

 

Because you apparently can't read, either.

 

And since there appears to be NO SFA "troop" in my hometown, it appears that Scouting for All isn't really for ALL. They are excluding me and anyone in my town who may want to join! THATS DISCRIMINATION!

 

You can certainly join SFA, just go here, fill out a form, and send in $20:

http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/forms/volunteerform.html

 

We even take people like yourself, who can't seem to find and/or read what SFA is about:

http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/layer02/mission.html

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

I reckon Merlyn has run out of rational arguments.

 

Beavah, that's totally intellectually dishonest of you. You'll note that THROUGHOUT this entire thread, I have been posting links supporting my statements.

 

YOU, however, have posted NOTHING to support your wild accusations that the BSA can legally use HUD grants for their discriminatory programs. Zilch.

 

I have NOT run out of arguments, but I HAVE run out of patience with people like you.

[local1400]

No thank you Merlyn, I will stick with the BSA. My beliefs are about the same as theirs. Now, would you please answer my questions?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No; your questions obviously aren't genuine, and they have nothing to do with what Scouting For All does.

[evmori]

Got caught doing what? You have no proof that the participants of the clinic had to subscribe to the DRP or join the BSA, so the BSA was doing nothing to get caught for!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[FireKat]

Merlyn  - Your statement about Scouting For All do not appear to jive with their positions. I did a fast look over the site and fully expected to see it full of your type of rantings.  Imagine my surprise when I see that they support the BSA!!  I really do not think that they would like what you are claiming. If you are anti-BSA go take your rants elsewhere and do not associate with any organization that supports the BSA.

I also lokked at another link that went to an atheist site and found a very rational thught line by an atheist on why he ENROLLED his son in the BSA - as it stands now.  I belive it was one you posted. Do not twist other peoples ideas, it will never help your arguement, much less the mudslinging.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Got caught doing what? You have no proof that the participants of the clinic had to subscribe to the DRP or join the BSA, so the BSA was doing nothing to get caught for!

 

Which is why they dropped the contract, right Ed? Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense.

 

FireKat writes:

Your statement about Scouting For All do not appear to jive with their positions.

 

Which statements? Be SPECIFIC and QUOTE SOMETHING I'VE WRITTEN.

 

I did a fast look over the site and fully expected to see it full of your type of rantings. Imagine my surprise when I see that they support the BSA!!

 

They support "scouting" as it was and ought to be. They do not support the discriminatory policies of the current BSA.

 

I really do not think that they would like what you are claiming.

 

SFA does not support the BSA defrauding HUD, and I'm writing a press release for SFA on this with the full support of Scott Cozza.

 

[packsaddle]

Wow, I can't believe I just read through all these. I think Merlyn is correct. LPC clearly withdrew once the issue was raised. And although we'll never know what the thoughts were for the SE, if this had involved some shady action by Enron instead of BSA, we'd probably agree with Merlyn and there would only be a page or two of responses.

 

LPC probably knew the law and if they didn't they're clueless to the point of incompetence.

LPC therefore shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, knowing they couldn't meet the non-discrimination requirement.

But they did it anyway and having done so, they managed to further damage the stature of BSA in the view of outsiders as well as more than a few of us.

THAT just makes this already sad case even worse. LPC didn't exactly cover itself or BSA with honor.

 

Folks, if we remain blind to BSA's own failings and refuse to admit to problems that are clear and real, things are only going to get worse. The 'outside' world sees these things with very different perspectives. While there may now be a sense of surprise or outrage at these kinds of occurrences, that at least is because of an external expectation that BSA should be better than this.

Our denial with regard to these problems can very quickly change BSA to an object of public ridicule, even for the good things.

Once lost, regaining honor will be a very steep climb.

 

[evmori]

You're right that makes no sense. Yoooou don't have any proof, do you Merlyn.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes I do, Ed. But it seems you don't accept email from city officials as proof.

[evmori]

In that e-mail, does it state each participant must subscribe to the DRP or become a BSA member, Merlyn?

 

[SSScout]

Boy, I'm glad I have a daytime job so I don't get too involved in internet forums...

Otherwise, I might end up like some of my electro-magnetic peers and end up bludgeoning a deceased equine.

 

Thank you, Lisabob, for your more reasoned thoughts. It is always difficult to admit fault, whether it is our personal own or our organizations. Like Beavah noted, there are some among us that will stoop to padding the roles (what? judged by numbers?) and adding paper units and Cub Scouts that may or may not actually participate as Cub Scouts. If the parent signs a CS application, guess how that piece of paper is counted? "soccer participant"? I wouldn't expect so. Else, why not use a special registration "soccer camp" form?

 

I fear that this case walks and quacks and swims like a duck.

 

Non discriminatory is as nondiscriminatory does.

 

PPC and LPC could have easily coached a soccer camp for any boy or girl, THEN talked about Scouting (B or G). The DoRP would never have been a problem until they went from nascent soccer striker to Bobcat nominee.

 

I am reminded of the Salvation Army that will feed ANYONE (underline ANYONE), and then speak to them about Jesus. There is no sneakiness about it. You can even leave after the meal if you don't want to listen to it. (Personal experience).

 

I believe the Law is "A Scout is Trustworthy"

Not

"A Scout should appear Trustworthy"

 

Oh yeah, anyone heard from Chicago Area Council? They still in business?