quasi govt sponsors of BSA units

[Lisabob]

(I tried to spin this off, but I kept getting error messages.)

 

I realized that I had contributed to the hijacking of the thread discussing a possible decline in LDS numbers (or declining growth in numbers, or whatever it was). So, with apologies to the original thread discussion, maybe we can continue talking about COs who are of unclear gov't origin as sponsors, here.

 

In particular, I am curious about Volunteer Fire Depts and "playgrounds."

 

I know we have units in my district sponsored by VFDs. I know, as well, that various DEs in the last 5 years have strongly advocated for more such units, sponsored by additional VFDs. I am talking about traditional units (packs, troops, and crews) and not LFL units.

 

Back when I was doing district membership stuff, I raised concerns about the appropriateness of Fire Depts as COs with various scouting professional staffers. They claimed that the voluntary nature of the VFDs in question made them more like PTOs than like gov't entities. And while the fire fighting equipment and building was paid for primarily by taxes (hence, it is gov't equipment), the assertion was that scout groups aren't prohibited from meeting in public places where tax-funded equipment is present (like schools), so why should they be kept away from VFDs. Also, scouts weren't using the equipment and in some cases, weren't even meeting at the fire halls, but instead were only chartered by the VFD and held their meetings elsewhere.

 

I never quite bought the "VFDs are like PTOs" argument, but I heard it plenty of times.

 

Now about playgrounds. Merlyn, do you know of any actual "playgrounds" that sponsor BSA units? Or is this just an aggregate data category (playgrounds & rec centers) that you can't parse any further? Not trying to give you a hard time, just trying to understand this. Setting aside rec centers, which are at least entities with a staff and therefore have agency, how would a playground actually sponsor anything?

 

Maybe a hypothetical group like "Friends of City Park Playground" could sponsor a BSA unit. They would be able to provide an actual person as institutional head, and a Charter Org. Representative. But that would be legally acceptable, wouldn't it? Such a group would not be any sort of a gov't entity, but instead a private citizen group of people who support the park through more ways than just their tax dollars, and who also support scouting.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It's the BSA's category, not mine. What I mostly see are entries like "xxx park & recreation dept"

 

The 2008 figures have 1,386 units listed under "Fire Departments"

[GernBlansten]

I think its a pretty simple test.

Would the VFD exist without public funding? If the answer is yes, then then can charter a BSA unit, if the answer is no, they cannot.

Most VFDs I'm aware of would simply dissolve if tax payer money was cut off.

[Oak Tree]

I think it's going to come down to the specifics of how the organization is structured and what the state laws are. With respect, Gern, I doubt that the legality is as simple to establish as you suggest.

 

I can imagine a situation where the government owns the equipment and pays for the upkeep, but a separately organized, non-governmental volunteer group operates the equipment. Now, I have no idea how VFDs are actually structured. I would guess, though, that they are almost always not part of the government. The question would be whether they have signed some contract, or there is some governing legal authority that would require them not to sponsor units. My completely uninformed guess would be that it's ok.

 

Playgrounds, on the other hand, generally are run by the town, with government employees, assuming they have employees. At least, the town where I grew up would hire temporary workers for the summer (often teachers). It didn't operate year-round, though, so it would make an odd sponsor. But unless it's a distinctly private rec center, it seems like it would be government-sponsored. Certainly, "Park and Rec Dept" strongly sounds like a government entity.

[Oak Tree]

Here's one example of a VFD: http://www.delmar74fire.com/

 

"The Delmar Volunteer Fire Department is a non-profit organization that is funded by the State and County. However, we rely heavily on fundraising events and donations from the residents in our area. Please support our organization with your tax-deductible donation. Your donation will be used to help purchase new fire gear, and maintain existing fire apparatus. "

 

Perhaps a good analogy would be Catholic hospitals. They appear to depend on government funding, but they are clearly a private organization.

[evmori]

List from 2008. This is 2010! How about something a little more current! And where is this list, Merlyn?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Complain to the BSA, Ed. This is part of the BSA's end-of-year summary, which usually hits about May, so 2008 is the very latest. 2009's report will probably be out around May.

 

I have a copy up at http://www.westley.org/bsa2008.pdf

[CA_Scouter]

Our unit is sponsered by the 'Volunteer Firefighters Association', which is not the govt entity but the social organization of the local volunteer firefighters. My guess is that BSA would lump us into the 'Units sponsored by Fire Dept' category, eh?

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, it's very difficult to make any general claims about how organizations are set up and how the law for this sort of thing applies across da several states.

 

That having been said, from what I'm familiar with, generally VFDs are set up as private NFP corporations. They have quasi-governmental status in that da state laws accord them some privileges (ability to run lights & sirens, extensions of sovereign immunity, etc.), and they might receive grant or contract payments from municipalities for services. But they would not be a governmental entity for da purposes we're talkin' about here. The closest equivalent people may be familiar with is private ambulance companies, which are very common even in urban areas. PTO would be a kind of strange analogy, though .

 

Gern's test of "but for" government funding it would not exist ain't valid. That would make all government contracting firms from Lockheed-Martin on down U.S. government entities. Yah, and probably Haiti as well at this point .

 

Beavah

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I think a valid test would be:

 

Could your VFD legally create a youth baseball team that said Jewish kids could not play on the team? If they could legally do that, they can charter a BSA unit. If not, they can't.

[Oak Tree]

In general, Merlyn, I think that test is about accurate, but probably not that helpful as most people don't know the legal answer to that question either. It does make your point.

[Lisabob]

Merlyn,

 

I understand that the list comes from the BSA and so you can only be as specific as the list, itself, when it comes to parks & playgrounds as charter orgs. Too bad the list isn't more detailed in that category though - it seems quite odd.

 

So I wonder, Merlyn, what your group's perspective is on VFDs as charter orgs? Is this a group of units that you believe to have been wrongly, even illegally, sponsored by gov't institutions?

 

Ed - it is quite common for statistical indicators to lag a couple of years behind. Collecting, organizing, and publishing data is time consuming work. #s for 2008 cannot really be fully collected before year-end, meaning that they can't be published until sometime in 2009 at best. That assumes an efficient organization, and we all know the BSA isn't the most efficient bureaucracy on earth, especially when it comes to data management. Don't blame this one on Merlyn.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

From what I've seen of VFDs, I'd say that any VFD that gets any funding from the government or via taxes would not legally be able to practice religious discrimination. Members of that VFD would have to form a "friends of xxx VFD" to charter a unit, because governments have to avoid even giving the mistaken appearance of religious discrimination.

[GernBlansten]

 

I'll adjust my test.

If an organization can legally discriminate based on religious or sexual orientation in their membership, they can own a BSA unit. Churchs certainly can. Social clubs certainly can.

 

So, can a VFD discriminate against athiests and homosexual volunteer fire fighters? I suppose they can if they get no taxpayer money and are a self funded, private fire department.

 

Never heard of one that didn't get funded through local taxes though.

[evmori]

And did ya notice the drop to 0 in most of those government agencies chartering BSA units? It appears you are making some assumptions, Merlyn, as to those units chartered by gov't. What are you counting as a gov't organization?