Cradle of Liberty rent trial begins

[shortridge]

The Philadelphia BSA rent trial starts today: www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20100614_Trial_over_local_Boy_Scout_headquarters_begins.html#axzz0qqWwQghf

 

It comes down to $200,000 a year the city is asking for in rent. NPR reports Cradle of Liberty says it'll have less money to spend on programs if ordered to pay: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127827319

 

FYI: The council's 2008 IRS Form 990 (viewed at guidestar.org) reports it spent $3.96 million on general council program for Scouts, plus $227,470 on Scoutreach programs. Total expenses were $6.5 million.

[shortridge]

From the Inquirer:

 

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts of America could set rules as a private organization, even if that meant excluding homosexuals, the Philadelphia chapter disagreed with the exclusionary policy.

The local group, the Cradle of Liberty Council, thought scouting should be open to everyone. It even adopted a resolution saying it opposed any form of discrimination.

But Bill Dwyer, a retired chief executive of the council, told a federal court jury Tuesday that he and other leaders realized "in our heart of hearts" that "we couldn't repudiate totally the national position. They would put us out of business."

 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100616_Trial_opens_in_suit_over_Boy_Scouts_headquarters.html#axzz0r1kdDRjL

[boomerscout]

I don't see why this is such a problem. The Scouts gave the building to the park commission in return for free rent. If the city no longer wants to abide by the agreement, then just end the agreement and the Scouts take back their building

[Twocubdad]

We may have plowed this ground before, but can someone explain to me why this isn't being argued on breech of contract grounds? It would seem to me that the Federal/constitutional grounds would be a much more difficult case on both sides, both from the standpoint of being much less certain and the out-of-court PR problems it raises.

[evmori]

Not feeling the love from the City of Brotherly Love.

[OldGreyEagle]

I thought the terms of the lease was one dollar a year, renewable each year for perpetuity with either side able to cancel the lease with a one year notice to quit.

 

Philly gave their notice more than a year ago

[GernBlansten]

And this case could have been easily avoided with two words: Local option.

[gsdad]

For COL to say they didn't know of a national is a bold face lie. I personally know of more than one Eagle Scout/Vigil Honor member run off due to speculations and accusations of their preference. That being said, I think the city is looking for ways to boost revenue and the openly gay city official heading this action found what he thinks is the golden egg.

[Narraticong]

No local option in this case. We stand for the same ideals we did 100 years ago. Local option opens the door to vast changes in our organization. If you don't like what we stand for, work to change the national rules, or go start your own group. One way or another, we must be heard as one voice.

 

Ken

[Eagle92]

OGE,

If memory serves, it was stated somewhere that no one can find a copy of the original agreement. grant you I am shocked since that is a public record and should be archived, but no one can find it.

[CalicoPenn]

I believe the "agreement" is in the form of a local ordinance - and that ordinance has been refered to in court filings by both parties. There is no other agreement as far as I know.

 

No matter what happens in this trial, it will be appealed by the losing party.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

OGE is correct. The agreement (apparently in an ordinance) says the city can terminate the lease on one year's notice, the city gave the one year's notice and the BSA sued to stop the eviction. That is why the BSA is not arguing this on the basis of a breach of contract, because there was no breach of contract. The BSA is therefore forced to argue, and try to prove, that the city is enforcing their right to terminate "selectively." The city argues that it has the right to enforce its anti-discrimination policy. I think the city will win.

 

Narraticong, no, the BSA does not stand for the same ideals it did 100 years ago, actually the BSA has improved its ideals. Racially segregated troops were perfectly acceptable 100 years ago, and more recently. They no longer are. It was only in the 70's that the BSA made clear that troops could not discriminate on the basis of race in selecting youth leaders. 100 years ago (and 40 years ago) females were believed to be unfit as leaders, now they are leaders. The BSA national leadership (which I refer to separately from the BSA, which is us) has come a long way in ending discrimination. They just have a little ways left to go.

[NJCubScouter]

Dratted double post. But it gives me the chance to say something else. Normally a thread like this would have to be moved to Issues and Politics, in fact I am not sure why it was started here. But I realize that it does not seem so out of place here, because almost every thread under "Council Relations" is controversial in some way. Hmmm. Ponder that. (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[shortridge]

I started it here because I saw it as a Council relations issue, not a political one.

 

Nothing's come out of the Philly media on the case since Tuesday.

[shortridge]

The Philly Inquirer editorializes in favor of a settlement: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100618_Editorial__City_takes_wrong_path.html#axzz0rCtLOKH3