BSA councils attempt to defraud public for funds

[local1400]

Merlyn, care to make an FOS donation to either of those councils? You can write a nice letter telling them how bad BSA is, how wrong they are, and they will still cash your check!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

local1400, still no comment on the dishonesty of the Los Padres council? Do you approve of BSA councils using HUD grants for programs that violate terms of those HUD grants by lying to city officials? Maybe you'd approve of hitting old ladies with lead pipes to take their purses to fund BSA programs as well...

[Lisabob]

Oh for goodness sakes people, can we not have a discussion without devolving into silly name calling?!

 

Let us start with the premise that everyone is "for the children" here. I think that is a fair premise and people who start with the opposite assumption are usually simply trying to paint the other side in a (false and) ludicrous light.

 

Whatever you think about the relative worth of the Scouting and Soccer program as a means to provide services or opportunities or just safe fun to a bunch of kids who undoubtedly would benefit, Merlyn's larger point is still true(even if unpopular here) - public tax dollars simply cannot get used to support private religious programming in this country. Since the BSA identifies itself as a religious organization then there is no room for gov't funding of BSA programs that DENY membership to a segment of citizens.

 

I heard an interview recently a former director of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, John DiIullio. He made the comment that one of the early challenges he faced occurred when his office insisted that faith-based providers of social services would have to make their programs available to people of any religious background if they wanted to receive federal funding. He said that this angered a lot of social conservatives who had planned to have an explicit proselytizing aspect to their programs, but the predominant interpretation of the Constitution doesn't allow for much leeway here. Seems to me this is Merlyn's point too.

 

So it seems there are two options here. One is for the BSA to alter the requirements for this particular program so that any youth may join. The other is not to use HUD dollars to fund this program.

 

 

[local1400]

Merlyn, do you have UNDENIABLE proof that those BSA councils intentionally "defrauded", as you put it, HUD? Now it was not right of me to call you a gay atheist, but one can only assume that you are, with your eternal spewings from your soapbox on those two subjects every chance you get. Why do you feel compelled to get involved in these "fraudulent" situations in CA and CO if you're in MN? If you are a true champion of the taxpayer, please get involved with the fleecing of us hard working Americans by the US Government and our elected officials, rather than the BSA. If you are not a member of the BSA, please register today-we will take your money! And the last thing I will type, I do not ask an 11 year old boy who wants to join our troop if he is gay or hates God. EDITED to ADD: Merlyn, to answer your question, I would rather see BSA get my tax dollars to help out children in America than see my taxdollars used to kill and maim children in Iraq. Local.(This message has been edited by local1400)

[Beavah]

Oh, but when it comes to the BSA's dishonesty regarding atheists, many here are completely, insanely blind.

 

I'm still curious to know how many Latino immigrants living in HUD you feel are atheists? It's quite possible that da BSA was bein' perfectly honest - they really could serve all of the target population.

 

In the real world, yeh have a choice, eh, similar to the one you presented us.

 

1) You can choose to help people, by meeting them where they're at and using resources from all the population, or

 

2) You can choose that your personal agenda is more important than helping people, in which case you can try to force religious immigrant groups into exclusively secular programs, or reject resources from people whose views you don't like.

 

If you really want to help the latino community with government programs, you had better be workin' in public-private partnerships with the church communities that provide their real social support and community backbone. The CO's for Soccer and Scouting are going to be Catholic Church organizations, eh?

 

At least until folks like you are willin' to step up to the plate and move from suburban life down to the housing developments, eh?

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Local1400, I'm the midwest regional director of Scouting For All, which advocates that the BSA change its discriminatory policies. As part of that, SFA is opposed to using HUD grants to unlawfully fund BSA programs that violate HUD requirements (all of which have nondiscrimination requirements on the basis of religion).

 

Yes, I do have proof. Look at the links I gave for the Pike's Peak council. The proposed budget says that HUD funding is used for packs, troops, and crews. The national BSA controls membership, and does not allow atheists into any packs, troops, or crews. Yes, I've even called BSA officials at their national HQ on two occassions, specifically about publically-financed BSA units, and asked if atheists could join these units paid for with public money, and both times, I was told no. Rather pointedly, neither of these programs exist any longer.

 

And I can't register as a member of the BSA, local1400. I'm an atheist, and I'm honest.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah, sorry, you can't assume there are no atheists in any target population, even one made up entirely of, say, priests. An organization that excluded only Australian aboriginals would not be eligible for a HUD grant, even when there are no Australian aboriginals within 200 miles. People move.

 

And you're still trying to whitewash the Los Padres council's dishonesty. They COULD have CHANGED the contract to be some sort of Learning For Life program, so they could honor the contract they signed. But since they never intended to honor it, they simply cancelled it when they were caught. Yeah, everything fine & dandy until you get caught.

 

And I've said twice that the funds will be redistributed to honest organizations, so your red herring about how I'm "hurting" the community isn't true. I'm hurting the dishonest Los Padres council, true, but they deserve it for lying to the public in the first place.

[Lisabob]

local I'm really glad you aren't interrogating 11 year olds! This, I think, is part of the problem lots of people have with the BSA joining requirements, which either require a form of "Don't ask, don't tell" with all the difficulties that entails, or which requires inquiry into matters that children, by their very nature, are not fully prepared to understand or discuss.

 

I'm neither gay nor an atheist either but that doesn't mean I can't understand why the rules of the US Constitution (as interpreted by the US Supreme Court) should still apply to people who are one or both. The Constitution is not a document of convenience! And thank goodness that minorities, women, the disabled, and others did not have to rely only on the views of people living in their state to gain federal recognition of and support for their constitutional rights. Heck, some states would still be actively denying voting rights to African Americans today if that were the case, I'm willing to bet. And HUD is a federal agency and those tax dollars it redistributes don't come only from the states in question.

 

I question the effectiveness of Merlyn's strategy (it seems unlikely that he will single-handedly make a big picture difference in HUD allocations or in BSA policy either, for that matter). However I understand entirely where he is coming from.

[CalicoPenn]

I support Merlyn 90% on this one.

 

It doesn't matter that he's in Minnesota and the Councils are in California and Colorado. It isn't state money that funds the grants, it is federal money, paid by all taxpayers throughout the entire United States. As the United States no longer requires tax dollars to be collected and distributed in an apportioned manner, there is no longer any validity to a potential argument that only the taxpayers in California and Colorado are responsible for the tax dollars paid to the Feds that were going to be used for the HUD Grants. That money can come out of any of our, or from all of ou, pockets - no matter what state we live in. That gives Merlyn just as much interest in how HUD grants are distributed anywhere in the country as anyone else - even local folks.

 

People seem to be missing the bigger point - and the point is that HUD Community Development Block Grants have eligibility requirements that MUST be met. Cities may disperse the grants, but they MUST ensure that the projects meet the eligibility requirements. In these cases, its clear on the face of it that the projects do not meet the requirements.

 

Merlyn makes clear that the Los Padres Scouting Soccer Clinic would have crossed the line IF they would be using the same BSA membership forms that other Soccer & Scouting Program's use. Los Padres Council was given an opportunity to say that they wouldn't be using those forms to conduct their soccer clinic and that it would be open to all youth - including athiests and girls (surprised you missed that angle - the grants also require nondescriminition on the basis of sex too - and would the BSA let girls fill out the normal BSA Application for the program?). Los Padres Council could still have been granted the Block Grant funds if they showed the City that the clinic would be open to all youth - The Los Padres Council apparently decided not to do so and withdrew their funding request instead.

 

Its easy to miss that bigger point when we look at the projects - and we can all agree (as I'm sure that Merlyn does) that the projects are worthwhile. But that is not the question. The question is about funding. Had the cities used their own funds which may not have had such restrictions, we wouldn't be talking about this. Instead, the cities were using funds they received that have very specific regulations attached to them. And if they receive conflicting information about a grant project, they are required to investigate to ensure that the grant funds are properly awarded. Had they failed to take action, then they could lose future Block Grant funds from HUD which would affect much more than just the BSA in their communities.

 

It looks like this is what is happening in the city that granted Block Grant funds to Pikes Peak Council - investigating the project to ensure it meets the eligibility requirements. If Scout Reach doesn't allow Athiests to participate, then under the Block Grant program, it wouldn't meet the requirements and funding would have to be revoked.

 

On the other hand (here's where that 10% comes in), I'm willing to cut the councils a little slack here and not jump to a conclusion that they had intended to commit any fraud. Many Councils don't have professional grant writers on staff and use grant writing services who peruse many opportunities and apply for grants that look like they might fit a particular part of the program. To be frank, not all of them are that concerned about meeting every requirement. They get paid based on the number of successful grants they get. In many Councils where grants may be written internally, they may not notice every detail of a grant requirement and end up not making sure they've crossed every t and dotted every i. I'm willing to give these two Councils the benefit of the doubt in these matters.

 

If you're that upset about the loss of funds that they didn't qualify for in the first place (note, I said QUALIFY for, not "deserve" - I'm not saying these programs aren't deserving of funding - just stating, as Merlyn has pointed out, that they don't qualify for funding from the Block Grant program), why don't you send a check to these councils and earmark it for those programs.

 

Sometimes I wonder if people actually take the time to read and understand Merlyn's post, or if they are just so close-minded that they automatically go into "Disagree with Merlyn no matter what he say's" mode. I think there are some folks who just might try to dispute the statement that "the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West" if Merlyn were to make it.

 

Calico

 

 

 

[Eamonn]

Have to admit that when I read that a Council is trying to do things like this it makes me mad.

 

Council Professionals know or should know that trying to do this is just not right.

If they want to have a learning for life soccer clinic, that's fine and dandy. If the guy in charge happens to mention to the boys and the parents that they might be interested in joining Cub Scouting and explains what the requirement for membership are? I think that's fine.

 

But trying to "Pull a fast one" is never a good idea.

In the end when they get caught it makes us all look bad.

 

Some years back we had several Scoutreach Packs in low income areas that were chartered by HUD. But after the "Memo" we found new CO's.

Much the same thing happened with units on military bases.

 

We as an organization have stated what the requirements are!

If we were willing to change them? Chances are that we might qualify for these grants. But as things are right now we just don't meet the requirements.

 

Maybe this was just a mistake? Maybe it was the work of some new guy? I don't know!

Maybe the word "defraud" is a little bit too strong?

Of course if someone knows that the guy who made the application did so knowing that he was bending the rules? Maybe it's the right word.

I would kind hope that before we use the word, we were 100% sure it was indeed a fraud. -Not just an oversight?

Eamonn.

[Gold Winger]

"Gentlemen, Merlyn is not and never has claimed to be gay, he has repeatedly stated he is married to a good Christian woman."

 

How can you say that he is not gay? Do you have proof? Marriage to a woman is not proof. Does the name Rock Hudson ring a bell? Could he be married to a woman just to get medical benefits? For that matter, how do we know that he is married to a woman?

 

As I've said before, Mrelyn is a spoiler.

 

 

[Lisabob]

It does not matter GW. The argument stands on its own merits, not on the basis of the identity and marital status of the person making it. So let's discuss the argument instead.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

A few points on CalicoPenn's post:

 

From what I've read on the internets, some of the pilot Soccer & Scouting councils admitted girls and some didn't. The one that I've read that did apparently signed the girls on via learning For Life (but the boys through Cub Scouts). I would only find it acceptable if all youth were signed up through L4L (of course, then the council wouldn't get any 'cub scout' members out of it, which appears to be the whole point of S&S). My emails to the city of Santa Maria brought up the ambiguity of how kids are admitted into the S&S program, which is why I requested contact information at the Los Padres council. At that point, of course, the Los Padres council cancelled their agreement (but I'm still trying to get more information, and a copy of the nondiscrimination agreement that was signed).

 

Yes, I know that CDBG also includes sex; it looks like having some programs boy- or girl- only is accepted practice if they are about equal. The funding for the Los Padres council was identical to the amount awarded to a local Girl Scouts council.

 

Another point, city funds can't be used to discriminate on the basis of religion, either.

 

And finally, in the case of the Pike's Peak council, I brought up this identical issue in 2005, but about a grant that had paid for a program that had already passed. The Colorado Springs manager said they still had the paperwork from that, and that the Pike's Peak council was asked about the program. The council said that "participation was open to all boys."

 

If the PP council's packs, troops, and crews are NOT "open to all boys" (and it's pretty clear they aren't), I have no problem saying they are committing deliberate fraud, given that this same issue was raised earlier.

[Axeman]

A.) The Los Padres Council signed a non-discrimination agreement to gain access to CDGB funds for a non-discriminatory, no-obligation, clinic at which completed BSA Youth membership applications were not required.

 

or

 

B.) The Los Padres Council signed a non-discrimination agreement to gain access to CDGB funds for a Soccer And Scouting Jump-Start Day, a recruiting/organization day where parents must fill out the BSA Youth application for each youth who is not already a registered member, these applications being cross-referenced by the registration and scheduling coordinator to ensure that each parent (for the boys) had completed the appropriate application.

 

From halfway across the country, it looks like B, so this was a good catch by Merlyn and/or SFA.

[Beavah]

Yah, there is little question that Merlyn is correct on the regulations affectin' HUD grants, eh?

 

I'm back to raising a different issue of principle.

 

Is it good public policy?

 

Does it really accomplish goals we feel are important?

 

Does it really honor the hard work of locals who understand the local situation far better than folks half way across the country and who are just trying to do their best by kids? Who knows better what the local need is?

 

Fact is, you can't reach the kids and families in at-risk, high-poverty environments without workin' with the Churches. At least not without greatly reducin' your effectiveness.

 

There weren't any kids actually denied access, eh? So it may well have been the local councils and S&S folks who were playin' a quiet "civil disobedience" game on the BSA in order to do good work for kids, possibly even with a wink and a smile. So Merlyn only accomplished undermining his natural allies within the BSA.

 

That's the problem with these tactics in my mind. Yeh do more damage by scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners polarizing tactics than yeh do by goin' along with things in small ways when the net effect is positive. So noxious is the effect of such tactics that yeh even get presidential candidates talking about constitutional changes to address such issues - changes that I think most all of us would object to - but dat's where polarizing tactics push things, eh?

 

When we're talkin' about $5K out of the entire federal budget for a kids' soccer program highly leveraged by volunteers, we're in the noise. Better to spend our time on somethin' of substance.

 

Beavah