Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[Gone]

Just heard that the leadership of a unit in my cousin's district resigned en masse because of the BSA local option memo. Their CO held a pre-announcement vote and decided to allow gay adult leaders. The entire TC and scouter staff resigned, as did nearly all of the youth leaders.

 

I assume this will hit the press at some point.

[CalicoPenn]

Horizon - Thanks!!

 

Desert - only the single funniest moment in movie history - Dan Ackroyd deadpanning "It's the stay-puft marshmallow man" (as Gozer the Gozarian).

 

Bad Wolf - sounds like the CO has been spared the task of rooting out the bad seeds from their unit.

[eagle77]

Just heard that the leadership of a unit in my cousin's district resigned en masse because of the BSA local option memo. Their CO held a pre-announcement vote and decided to allow gay adult leaders. The entire TC and scouter staff resigned, as did nearly all of the youth leaders.

 

I assume this will hit the press at some point.

 

  Do you believe the press will make this out as a positive move or as a negative? I could see a headline that would say "Bigots leave BSA after BSA allows some units to allow gay leaders".

[Gone]

 

Bad Wolf - sounds like the CO has been spared the task of rooting out the bad seeds from their unit.

 

I have no doubt you see it that way. If you resigned to stand up for your convictions I suspect there might be a few narrow-minded people who saw you in the same light. I would at least respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I wish you thought enough of others to be equally as tolerant rather than demonstrating your disdain for those who oppose your viewpoint. Sad.

 

  Do you believe the press will make this out as a positive move or as a negative? I could see a headline that would say "Bigots leave BSA after BSA allows some units to allow gay leaders".

 

I don't know, nor do I really care, how the press will handle this. I suspect the left will call them bigots, much like our poster above. I suspect the right will applaud them for leaving and sticking to their beliefs.

 

What will be interesting is 1) how many leave and 2) how many join as a result of this decision.

[Rick_in_CA]

There's a couple of issues here. Why would people who like purple want to join a group that has people who like red or blue but not any other colors?

 

And why would purple lovers expect the blue and red people to all of a sudden start liking purple just because they joined?

 

One can respect and be courteous towards someone without having to be BFF with them.

 

I have had many differing discussions with others over the years, but none of them have been those of my religion or denomination. For the most part they don't seem to be in a hurry to join my group either. We can still be friends and neither gets in the face of the other. Of course I'm not in a hurry to join their group either so with mutual courtesy and respect, we get along just fine.

See, you demonstrated my point. Instead of addressing the idea that not allowing the purple liking people violates the values of the All Colors Club (i.e. explain why it doesn't, or why it's OK to violate it), you ignore the whole point and instead ask basically "why don't you join a purple club instead"?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Rick_in_CA

[eagle77]

I have no doubt you see it that way. If you resigned to stand up for your convictions I suspect there might be a few narrow-minded people who saw you in the same light. I would at least respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I wish you thought enough of others to be equally as tolerant rather than demonstrating your disdain for those who oppose your viewpoint. Sad.

 

 

I don't know, nor do I really care, how the press will handle this. I suspect the left will call them bigots, much like our poster above. I suspect the right will applaud them for leaving and sticking to their beliefs.

 

What will be interesting is 1) how many leave and 2) how many join as a result of this decision.

 

 You always refer to the membership numbers. I think BSA knew already they were going to take some kind of hit with this issue. I also think thats the reason they have dragged their feet for so long on how to address it too. Are they doing this because of outside pressure? Again I don't think that is the only reason. I think that they may also be getting pressure from within, by other religions that charter BSA units who do not believe that these people should be omitted from a program that they sponser units for. So BSA says those religions that liked the old way may continue with that and have our full support, those that don't are free to allow these members now and have our full support. I think it would have been better if all CO's religious or not have the "local option", but some have pointed out that there may be some legal issues concerning that.

[Gone]

 You always refer to the membership numbers. I think BSA knew already they were going to take some kind of hit with this issue. I also think thats the reason they have dragged their feet for so long on how to address it too. Are they doing this because of outside pressure? Again I don't think that is the only reason. I think that they may also be getting pressure from within, by other religions that charter BSA units who do not believe that these people should be omitted from a program that they sponser units for. So BSA says those religions that liked the old way may continue with that and have our full support, those that don't are free to allow these members now and have our full support. I think it would have been better if all CO's religious or not have the "local option", but some have pointed out that there may be some legal issues concerning that.

 

 

I bring it back to membership because that is what drives the organization. There are two camps here. The first is the traditional BSA camp that believes that they can continue to prohibit gay leaders from joining and still maintain a decent membership size with roughly the same year on year drop in numbers (~3%) we have historically seen. Then there's the other camp that believe that gays should be allowed and that there's some pent up demand among those like-minded folks that will either a) offset those who will leave or b) will actually grow BSA because they feel there are more folks who support allowing gay leaders than there are folks who would leave for allowing gay leaders.

 

BSA was not forced in to this decision. They could have stayed the course and they *may* have lost some sponsors and their membership *may* have dropped, but no more so than we have see pre-2013. Since 2013, we have seen that membership loss double and we have seen no stampede of sponsors back to BSA. And if BSA thinks sponsors are going to come back after going with the local option I think they are mistaken. Those sponsors who left because of the non-gay policy are NOT going to come back to BSA after they pass the local option. Why? Because BSA will be seen as still tacitly allowing non-gay units through the local option. Those sponsors that left want BSA to eliminate their non-gay policy. Going with the local option does not eliminate that issue, it merely moves it down to the local COs. Those sponsors that left cannot guarantee their money will not go to help those non-gay units, so they won't come back.

 

Of course, this is all conjecture now. We will have to see how this plays out.

[Rick_in_CA]

I have no doubt you see it that way. If you resigned to stand up for your convictions I suspect there might be a few narrow-minded people who saw you in the same light. I would at least respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I wish you thought enough of others to be equally as tolerant rather than demonstrating your disdain for those who oppose your viewpoint. Sad.

 

 

I don't know, nor do I really care, how the press will handle this. I suspect the left will call them bigots, much like our poster above. I suspect the right will applaud them for leaving and sticking to their beliefs.

 

What will be interesting is 1) how many leave and 2) how many join as a result of this decision.

Unfortunately, I think most of us can agree on how the press will handle it - badly.

 

As for how many leave or join, I believe we are going to see more scouts and scouters leave than new ones join. Especially in the short term.

 

What you are describing is a CO that has made a decision that most of the unit leadership very strongly disagree with (enough to resign over). It doesn't matter who this CO is, nor what that decision was about. We have seen this before (it's been pretty rare though) and will see it again. In the past, sometimes the unit finds another CO, or the members find another unit (or start a new one themselves). I hope the scouts and scouters involved in this instance find a way to stay in scouting, but I know that might not happen.

[Horizon]

Bad Wolf - any idea if their CO is a church or not?

 

Too bad about the leadership. I hope they find a unit tied to their faith where they can follow the local option and continue in Scouting.

 

Personally, I expect my CO to hold the line, which I will respect. Once my son is 14, I will look into working with our church to charter a Crew for our small youth group under the options. Prior to this our church was not willing to sponsor due to the restrictions (our prior youth minister is gay). We won't have the massive numbers, but I think I can build a successful Crew over time.

[Gone]

Bad Wolf - any idea if their CO is a church or not?

 

Too bad about the leadership. I hope they find a unit tied to their faith where they can follow the local option and continue in Scouting.

 

From what I understand it was a religious organization. The troop leaders and most of the scouts are not members of that organization but are the engine that have driven that unit for nearly 25 years. The CO, like most in that area, are CO's in name only. They do not really get involved in the unit. However, they are a bit more liberal in their view on gays than most other religious organizations in that area.

 

As I understand it, the leaders are looking for another conservative organization in that town to charter a new unit but not necessarily in BSA. Am getting this from my cousin, so there may be some lost in translation.

[NJCubScouter]

As I understand it, the leaders are looking for another conservative organization in that town to charter a new unit but not necessarily in BSA. Am getting this from my cousin, so there may be some lost in translation.

I hope they find what they need. I do not want anyone to feel they have to leave Scouting over this, though some will leave. As I've said before, if people want to make this work, it can work, and if they want to make it not work, well...

[Rick_in_CA]

I bring it back to membership because that is what drives the organization. There are two camps here. The first is the traditional BSA camp that believes that they can continue to prohibit gay leaders from joining and still maintain a decent membership size with roughly the same year on year drop in numbers (~3%) we have historically seen. Then there's the other camp that believe that gays should be allowed and that there's some pent up demand among those like-minded folks that will either a) offset those who will leave or b) will actually grow BSA because they feel there are more folks who support allowing gay leaders than there are folks who would leave for allowing gay leaders.

You might be right that for National, this is all about numbers and money. But for me, this fight is, and has always been, about respecting the values of boy scouting that I grew to love as a young man.

 

Requiring COs who's religious convictions say it's wrong to discriminate against gays to do so is a violation of the Scout Law and other BSA values. Local control on this issue is the only way to fix this. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that only religious COs will be given local control (though I still think the language of the proposed rule change appears to give all COs local control*). Especially when one has to decide who is and isn't a religious CO?

 

* What I think are the relevant bits:

The standards for selecting adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America are as follows:

 

Adult leadership positions in the Boy Scouts of America are open to adults who meet the requirements set forth in the Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations, and the policies of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Adult leaders in the programs of the Boy Scouts of America must (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and © demonstrate at all times behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and that is consistent with Scouting’s values and codes of conduct.

 

No adult applicant for registration as an employee or non-unit-serving volunteer, who otherwise meets the requirements of the Boy Scouts of America, may be denied registration on the basis of sexual orientation.

and

The Boy Scouts of America rejects any interference with or condemnation of the diverse beliefs of chartering organizations on matters of marriage, family, and sexuality. The message of Scouting is one of toleration and respect for different religious and moral conclusions in this matter, acknowledging that reasonable minds may honorably differ. Any effort to exclude or penalize chartering organizations based on their beliefs or policies regarding marriage, family, or sexuality is contrary to the Boy Scouts of America’s commitment to religious freedom and respect for the beliefs and convictions of its chartered organizations.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

 

No local council may refuse to process or approve a charter application or in any way limit the participation of a Scouting unit based upon the chartered organization’s exercise of its right to select adult leaders as provided in this resolution.

Bold emphases above is mine.

 

See, it doesn't say "religious chartered" organizations, and the don't discriminate clause only appears to apply to BSA employees and non-unit volunteers. In other words, only the district, council and above are prevented from denying membership on the basis of sexual orientation. The full resolution is in the key 3 memo on the issue. A link to it was posted somewhere above.

 

Can anyone find a clear and unambiguous statement from the BSA on this?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Rick_in_CA

[CalicoPenn]

I suppose I should clarify my bad seeds comment - it was not meant to call those Troop leaders and Scouts bigots - I actually give them credit for voting with their feet.  What I meant by it is that these folks were unable or unwilling to support the CO's vision - and it's much better for them to leave then to try run the Troop contrary to their chartered organizations wishes.

[Scouter99]

 

Can anyone find a clear and unambiguous statement from the BSA on this?

Can anyone find an unambiguous statement from BSA on anything?

 

I suppose I should clarify my bad seeds comment - it was not meant to call those Troop leaders and Scouts bigots - I actually give them credit for voting with their feet.  What I meant by it is that these folks were unable or unwilling to support the CO's vision - and it's much better for them to leave then to try run the Troop contrary to their chartered organizations wishes.

Again, if it's better for a troop to basically disband rather than run counter to their COs views, why shouldn't pro-gays get out rather than try to change BSA?

[CalicoPenn]

The CO said their unit would allow gay leaders - the folks in the unit said they didn't like that - part of local option is that the members of the units also have the right to move on to a unit more to their liking - and the leaders of that unit have a responsibility to either accept the CO's decision or to move on as well rather than undermining the CO's authority in these matters.

 

So the folks in the unit have all left, hopefully to find a unit or a CO that is a better fit to their own philosophies - in the meantime, the CO now has a lot of equipment and all of the funds in the bank account(s) which they can use to recruit new leaders who accept their philosophy.  If the unit had "scout accounts", the only obligation the CO has to the former Scouts is to refund any funds that they directly deposited to their "scout accounts" - all other funds in the scout accounts get wiped out. 

 

Since there will be CO's that support the "pro-gay" stance, then why should the "pro-gays" get out?  They have a home with a local chartered organization, just as the "anti-gays" will have.  Frankly, the next step is to get rid of that stupid rule that bars athiests and agnostics from being part of the Boy Scouts of America.