Legal Aspects of the Local Option

[OldGreyEagle]

I wanted to ask this question but didnt want to get the other thread off topic too much more

 

lets say BSA enacts a "Local Option", Chartering Organizations are responsible for adult leader selection. Because the Chartering Organization is doing the selection, they become soley responsible for the deeds/missdeeds of their leaders. If they want a gay or atheist leader its up to them. Can such a thing be done? The BSA gets sued when an heterosexual appearing father of 4 gets caught molesting boys when the BSA never knew anything about the man other than he passed the background check (because he hadnt been caught as yet)What does happen to the Chartering Organization? Do they get sued? How much in comparison to the BSA?

 

Maybe the current system stays in place except for Chartering Organizations that want the ability to allow Gay and Atheist members. Could a contract be written that takes the legal liability off the BSA and on the Chartering Organization?

 

I realize this goes against the Best Citizen statement but I am trying to understand possibilities

[Gonzo1]

OGE,

It also goes against the Duty to God and being Reverent.

One cannot do his(her) duty to God if he doesn't believe in God.

 

I think the CO's would be more liable if such a "contract" or "local option" were in place.

 

BSA has had Duty to God at its' core for almost 100 years. Let's not cave in to the 50 or so people who mught be able to join if DRP is dropped. I don't think dropping DRP would change enrollment numbers a bit.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE, I don't see it as being any different from the current local option of whether women are allowed to be leaders of particular BSA units, or having men in charge of coed Crews. There's no reason that changing to a local option would require any different sort of chartering agreement or liability.

[Gold Winger]

[deleted]

 

FScouter (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

 

Hah, he beat me to it

 

OGE (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[GernBlansten]

Gonzo, they can meet the Duty to God the same way scouts meet the Duty to Self. They do their best. We don't kick fat kids or adults out. But we try to get them to do their duty to self. Maybe they don't advance, but why not let them in the program to try. Can fat kids advance who don't do their best to their duty to self? To keep themselves physically strong and mentally awake?

Let the kids decide how they are going to meet their duties. I think you would be surprised at how well they might do.

[Gonzo1]

Gern,

In your model, any atheist who would be allowed to join would have his parents suing because his kid didn't advance, he'd be stuck without so much as a Scout Badge (not even Tenderfoot) because "his best" performance of Duty to God would be ZERO, no duty since he doesn't believe. Sure, he could earn merit badges and go camping, but couldn't advance.

 

I suppose overwieght kids could get a talking to in the SMC, maybe the SPL could look over patrol menus before campouts and check them during campouts. Maybe Have more aerobic games during the meetings and on campouts to encourge more fitness. Maybe the SM could encourage more fitness during the SMC.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

But you would pass the kid on advancement when he didn't meet his duty to self. Why not treat the God thing equally?

[acco40]

I ask Tenderfoot "candidates" during their SM conference what their duty to God is. Nearly 100% respond by stating what the expectations are of their parents. I get responses like pray, go to church, etc. I never get responses like "be good", "be kind", "be respectful", etc. When I ask them why going to church is part of their duty to God I usually get blank stares.

 

Same goes for duty to country. What is the duty to country for an 11 year old boy? Most are clueless, some state things like "don't litter" etc. I finally put the seed into their head that something as simple as don't break the law is part of their "duty to country."

 

Now, if I don't believe in God or gods can I have a duty to God? Well, I can easily state that no I do not have a duty and therefore easily pass this requirement. I know that is semantics but ...

 

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[skeptic]

When it became painfully obvious that there were a few truly obese boys becoming Eagle, the personal fitness merit badge was reinstalled in the Eagle requirements. This was surely directly aimed at that element of final advancement. Since then, few scouts become Eagle who do not a least meet a minimum standard of fitness; even though some might do the badge early in their scouting, and then become less fit.

 

So, then we come back to the idea that a more specific requirement would be put in place for showing duty to God and reverence. But one can be fairly clearly measured, while the other is very subjective, and ambiguous at best.

 

No easy answer. But taking taking it out is not it, as it is part of the backbone of the program. As the scouts progress, make sure that this element is being addressed, and they understand that eventually they will need to address the best they can.

[Gold Winger]

" I finally put the seed into their head that something as simple as don't break the law is part of their "duty to country.""

 

Considering that this country was founded by law breakers isn't that an unreasonable expectation?

[packsaddle]

Acco40, you noted: "Now, if I don't believe in God or gods can I have a duty to God? Well, I can easily state that no I do not have a duty and therefore easily pass this requirement. I know that is semantics but ..."

I made a very similar argument a long time ago in a thread on religious views. It is not simply semantics, it is perfectly logical. Kind of like having zero in the numerator, it doesn't matter what you write in the denominator, the result is the same.

Let's face reality here: we already HAVE local option. BSA already allows it - it just isn't official. As I see and learn more and more about units around the country, I am astounded how much local option is being exercised. BSA seems more interested in quietly collecting numbers and donations than in actively policing the units (emphasis on quiet).

[Beavah]

Yah, this thread went in a different direction, so I'm just goin' to briefly comment on OGE's original question.

 

No change. CO's are responsible for adult leader selection as it is right now, and are (solely) responsible for the deeds/misdeeds of their leaders right now. BSA only acts as insurer of COs, it does not select or supervise unit leaders and therefore has no duty of care. If BSA is named in a suit solely involving unit activities/unit leaders, they are routinely dismissed as a defendant during pretrial motions. Besides, even in da most conservative and uneducated parts of da country, it's hard to imagine prior sexual preference (hetero or homo as opposed to pedo) ever bein' allowed as a component of a negligence claim.

 

So a move to "local option" has zero legal effect. The liability is always on da CO, regardless.

 

The practical issue is that we run a lot of joint events, eh? Camporees, jamborees, summer camp, OA, MBC's that work across different units, etc. That means that even if a CO sets its own standard consistent with its values, looser standards by other CO's inevitably mean that their kids will be "exposed" to leaders with different values. I reckon that's da sticking point for a big portion of our membership, especially for cub scout and younger boy scout aged youth. There's a real and understandable interest by parents and values-minded CO's not to be exposin' their lads to "alternative lifestyles" at least until they're old enough to be prepared for such things.

 

Beavah

 

[GernBlansten]

OGE,

are you stating that allowing gays or athiests into the BSA opens the organization up to legal liability? Why would those two groups create a greater legal risk than any other adult or youth already allowed under the DRP?

[scoutldr]

Beavah said, "So a move to "local option" has zero legal effect. The liability is always on da CO, regardless."

 

The reality is that most CO's don't understand this, due to slick talking DEs whose main priority is to get a new unit going so they can stay employed for another year. I dare say that if all COs were made fully aware of their liabilities and held accountable for their obligations under the charter agreement, a lot of units would be sent packing, including my own. I think it is for the BSA to issue joining requirements, then point at the CO as the bad guy when it hits the fan.

 

Maybe this whole rhubarb would be avoided if BSA would abandon the "chartering organization" concept and take over control of the units, as the GSUSA did. I think the whole concept is confusing and frought with incongruities. B-P's concept, if I remember correctly, was to issue a "warrant" to the Scoutmaster, which empowered him to form and operate a scout group.