Boy Scouts Dual Charter

[CadetProgramGuy]

Like I said... I was playing devil's advocate -- just wanted to get some possible questions answered.  I'm tired of hearing of female cadets being excluded from things (because of lack of female seniors) and I'm glad this isn't the same thing. 

Hope I answered your questions, please feel free to contact me if any more come up, the worst that can happen is I may say, "I'm not sure and I will get that answer for you" 

Are you indicating that the Venture Crew meet on a different night than CAP does if they are in the same unit?

[Major Lord]

I think you will find that being dual chartered as a Venturing Crew is is pretty much transparent to your normal operations. They don't go on a witch hunt. If a member believes that the BSA is an evil institution, they are not obligated to join as an adult leader, or let their children join. Its more of a case of what the affliation with the BSA allows you to do, which expands the Cadet's scope of participation to include the "High adventure " activities that are open to Scouts. Not all of these activities are appropriate for 12 year olds. Venturing Crews are color and gender blind.

Also, unlike CAP cadet activities, activities carried out as a Venturing Crew are covered by BSA liability insurance. We have never had a problem with non-BSA affiliated Cadets being kept from BSA sponsored activities as guests.

As a former Boy Scout and Leader, I am immensely proud of BSA. You may not like their political views, but do you think that CAP would take a public stand over an ethical, civil rights ( The right to free association)  or moral issue like the Scouts have? Character is doing the right thing even when you know its going to cost you, and the Scouts are treated like lepers by places like Berkeley, and organizations like the United Way.

Besides, Cadets get one more piece of flair for their uniforms.....

Major Lord

[PlaneFlyr]

When participating in activities, it is usually important to do it under the guise of one group or the other, since each has differing rules.  Here is my take on it:

Example: when unit is participating on "CAP activity" and wearing CAP uniforms, they cannot rappel or do firearms training. 

Opposite example: when participating on "BSA activity" in BSA attire, they cannot fly in CAP planes (at least I don't think they can, since CAP requires cadets to be in CAP uniform).

A lot of this is legal requirements to help differentiate which organization is covering the insurance.  It also clarifies which set of rules you must follow for the activity.  This avoids someone saying "we don't have to follow (CAP or BSA) rules because we're dual chartered". 

CAP requires units to get a "mission number" for training activities (even unfunded) to grant insurance coverage.  Does BSA have something similar that they require before an activity? 

I would suspect that you could bring both uniforms to an overnight activity and have everyone change according to what you're doing.  Anyone dealt with that before?  If so, how do you officially change hats in mid-activity to ensure insurance coverage?

You still have to follow rules, but you have more "rules" available to operate under. 
If done honestly and correctly, dual charter is a great way to increase the amount of things your people can do, and increases the resources available to them.

[cap235629]

CAP requires units to get a "mission number" for training activities (even unfunded) to grant insurance coverage.  Does BSA have something similar that they require before an activity? 

I would suspect that you could bring both uniforms to an overnight activity and have everyone change according to what you're doing.  Anyone dealt with that before?  If so, how do you officially change hats in mid-activity to ensure insurance coverage?

You still have to follow rules, but you have more "rules" available to operate under. 
If done honestly and correctly, dual charter is a great way to increase the amount of things your people can do, and increases the resources available to them.

The BSA requires a "tour permit" for insurance coverage.  The "uniform" of the venture crew is whatever the crew voted on (on the BSA side)

Also by regulation the CAP uniform is worn and the regulation specifically states that the dual charter allows other activities prohibited by regulation so the issue of uniforms during "prohibited" activities  is non-existent.

[PlaneFlyr]

CAP requires units to get a "mission number" for training activities (even unfunded) to grant insurance coverage.  Does BSA have something similar that they require before an activity? 

I would suspect that you could bring both uniforms to an overnight activity and have everyone change according to what you're doing.  Anyone dealt with that before?  If so, how do you officially change hats in mid-activity to ensure insurance coverage?

You still have to follow rules, but you have more "rules" available to operate under. 
If done honestly and correctly, dual charter is a great way to increase the amount of things your people can do, and increases the resources available to them.

The BSA requires a "tour permit" for insurance coverage.  The "uniform" of the venture crew is whatever the crew voted on (I have yet to see anything but CAP uniforms being worn)

The type of clothes you are wearing does not affect what you can do, it is the authorization you are operating under.  If the cadets are participating in in venturing activities they can wear their CAP uniforms, or not, it's up to them.

I was thinking along the lines of Reserve Assistance Officers, who also are CAP members.  They are required to wear one uniform or the other, and only may act in that capacity at a given time.  This prevents (hopefully) conflict of interest.  Of course, for RAO's, they earn points toward retirement (i.e. - extra $) during RAO duties, but not on CAP duty.  Failure for them to differentiate could result in fraud.

For CAP/BSA, there's no pay involved.  But insurance coverage and ensuring they are within the regs is still important.  How do most dual units differentiate?  Do you need a CAP mission number and BSA tour permit if a weekend training will cross into both areas.  I'd be afraid of having a CAP bivuac where the unit decided to go rappeling, and having someone get injured.  USAF and BSA might both decline responsiblity for the coverage.  USAF would say "rappeling isn't an approved CAP activity", and BSA would say "it was a CAP event". 

Is there any good regulatory guidance out there to clarify these issues for people?  If so, I've never seen it. 

[Nathan]

Now understand LEADERSHIP position means Adult advisors as well as Youth leaders.  If they are gay, they cannot act in a leadership capacity.  So your openly gay squadron members could not hold a position as the crew advisor or crew president (read senior youth leader) nor could they register with the BSA as a leader.

You sure about that? According to the section of CAPR 52-16 that Eclipse kindly introduced to the discussion...

6-2. CAP Policy for Dual-Chartering With the Boy Scouts of America. CAP and the Venturing and Varsity divisions of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have much in common. CAP encourages dual membership in both CAP and BSA as either a Varsity Scouting Team or Venturing Crew, with CAP being the chartered partner. By being the chartered partner, CAP is the basis for the union; therefore, members first belong to CAP. The existing CAP structure does not change and all members will conform to CAP standards and wear the CAP uniform.

and...

e. Regulatory Compliance. A jointly chartered CAP Venturing Crew or Varsity Team will conduct all operations and activities under CAP regulations or clearly and unmistakably conduct itself under the auspices of the scouting program only. If the unit wishes to conduct any activity outside of, or restricted by CAP regulations, the unit commander will obtain Scout liability insurance protection for CAP and the members of the unit from the Scouting Council or Scouting National Headquarters before proceeding.

CAP is the hosting organization, so ALL members, whether gay or not, are considered CAP members BEFORE Boy Scout members. So long as the activity is being hosted and regulated as a CAP activity (which will likely be most of the time for most squadron members), we run with CAP regulations.

CAP regulations do not prohibit gay members from holding leadership positions. So, if we are at a Venture activity and we are CAP members first, then CAP members are certainly allowed to hold leadership positions if they are gay. The idea that gay members can only show up as guests is simply not dictated by CAP regulations.

I can think of at least one gay CAP venture crew leader I've had the pleasure of working with from time to time. Small world, huh?

[RogueLeader]

^^ You miss the point of what he was saying.  While it is okay for that leader to be gay in CAP as a leader, he can not register as a leader in Boy Scouts or Venture Crew.  CAP Regulations are not binding on BSA.

The member is allowed to be gay under the dual charter, but not as a Stand-Alone BSA/VC activity.  While you may disagree with the Supreme Court ruling that allows them to do that, you still have to abide my it.

[Nathan]

I don't think I missed the point at all.

He said that gay squadron members would not be permitted to hold a leadership position. Any activity that a squadron member (implying affiliation with CAP) is participating in would be DUAL CHARTER, not stand-alone. Since CAP is always the hosting organization for the dual-charter, they are CAP members first.

CAP regulations do not prevent gay members from holding leadership positions. What the Boy Scouts say for their program is irrelevant to ours, and since our members participating in dual charter activities are still OUR MEMBERS before Venture Crew members, then our regulations permitting them to act in leadership positions take precedence. The Boy Scout ruling against gay leaders conflicts with our membership allowances. According to the regulations, we win.

My feelings on the Supreme Court ruling have nothing to do with it.

[RiverAux]

I'm not a big fan of the dual charter concept in the first place.  If there are activities that we want our cadets to do, we should be able to work it so that they can do them as CAP cadets, not try to come up with some scheme to game the system such as this. 

[cap235629]

If it were to become known to the BSA that a known or avowed gay squadron member was in a leadership position as a registered leader in a Venture crew, the first step would be to revoke that members BSA membership and send them a letter advising them that they are no longer a member of the BSA and can no longer participate in any Venture Crew activities.  If this does not work, then the BSA will most likely revoke the Venture Crew Charter of the Squadron thus ending the affiliation and dual charter benefits.

If your squadron wants to reap the benefits of having a dual charter then the rules and regulations of BOTH organizations must be followed.  If this is a problem then I suggest that you look at other options. 

Like I said before, this is not a discussion about the merits of the policy.  I am simply stating what the realities of the dual charter concept entails.

[Nathan]

If your squadron wants to reap the benefits of having a dual charter then the rules and regulations of BOTH organizations must be followed.  If this is a problem then I suggest that you look at other options. 

This would only be true if the regulations were not contradictory in nature. However, the membership qualifications ARE contradictory. CAP does not discriminate against gays, and the Boy Scouts do. According to CAP regulations, CAP is ALWAYS the hosting organization. The Boy Scouts organization that charters with CAP understands this when they enter into the charter.

If they want to kick up dust for a gay member being in a leadership position, that's fine. But the fact remains that CAP members in dual charters are CAP members first, and Boy Scout membership regulations do not override CAP's so long as CAP is still the hosting organization in the charter. Because that happens by regulations, the choice of the Boy Scouts to back out of a charter would be based upon terms that were ALREADY agreed to when they signed the charter.

[cap235629]

Nathan you are wrong.  All the barracks lawyering in the world won't change this.  The Boy Scouts of America is an independent private organization with an ABSOLUTE right to exclude anyone it desires to.  If you don't like it, then don't dual charter.

[RiverAux]

I think he is pointing out that if BSA had a problem with this issue, they wouldn't or shouldn't do a dual charter in the first place.  CAP has a right to its own rules and if BSA can't live with them, they need to scrap the whole concept. 

[Nathan]

Nathan you are wrong.  All the barracks lawyering in the world won't change this.  The Boy Scouts of America is an independent private organization with an ABSOLUTE right to exclude anyone it desires to.  If you don't like it, then don't dual charter.

Stating I am wrong means nothing without evidence.

So far, I've quoted the regulations. I've found that when someone accuses another of "barracks lawyering", it's because the regulations aren't on their side.

The Boy Scouts can certainly exclude anyone they want to in THEIR organization. But to dual charter means that the members joining aren't completely Boy Scout members. They are 49% Boy Scouts, 51% CAP. That's the way the charter works. CAP is the hosting organization, and I've provided the regulations that say CAP members during charter activities are CAP members first. Our regulations apply at ALL times. Boy Scout regulations come second unless we are agreeing for a particular activity to abide 100% by Boy Scout rules, which means no CAP uniforms, no real CAP affiliation at all. That is the ONLY time that the Boy Scouts would have any real ability to force out ANY member based purely on sexual orientation.

These are the rules as written by CAP and as I am assuming the Boy Scout Venturing program has already agreed to (which is why we have it in our regulations). I honestly don't have to go look elsewhere for a program. The program is already set in place. If you don't like it, well, tough noogies. If the Venture program doesn't like it, they have yet to change the wording.

Until the regulation is changed, gay CAP members are allowed leadership positions in any dual charter activity with the Venturing program so long as it wasn't agreed to by BOTH parties that CAP would forfeit hosting privileges, including regulatory jurisdiction, for that particular activity. Until you are able to cite a regulation that beats the already established authority of CAP regulations, the case is simply closed.

[cap235629]

The charter agreement that the squadron signs when it joins the BSA expressly states that the chartering organization (the squadron) agrees to abide by the standards for leaders set by the BSA as a condition for granting the charter.

The burden of whether or not to enter into the agreement lies upon the requestor, not the grantee.  CAP knows where the BSA stands.  It is no secret.  Once the squadron signs the charter agreement the BSA assumes that the squadron will meet the standards.  If it does not the BSA revokes the charter.

CAP agrees with the rules or not, it's NOT the other way around.

[Nathan]

The charter agreement that the squadron signs when it joins the BSA expressly states that the chartering organization (the squadron) agrees to abide by the standards for leaders set by the BSA as a condition for granting the charter.

The burden of whether or not to enter into the agreement lies upon the requestor, not the grantee.  CAP knows where the BSA stands.  It is no secret.  Once the squadron signs the charter agreement the BSA assumes that the squadron will meet the standards.  If it does not the BSA revokes the charter.

CAP agrees with the rules or not, it's NOT the other way around.

I think you're seriously getting the concept of "host organization" confused...

[cap235629]

Nathan please don't take this personally but I have been affiliated with the BSA longer than you have been alive (at least according to your profile).  I have been the Chartered Organization Representative for a BSA unit (the one who signs the charter on behalf of the host unit), as well as on the local council board and staff.  Cite all the CAP regulations you want, but the BSA is not required to follow them.  To be granted a charter in the Venturing program the CAP squadron agrees to follow BSA rules.

And as far as my evidence, here you go:

● Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S.640(2000)
An Assistant Scoutmaster who was an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist sued after his leadership was revoked, alleging that Boy Scouts violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division granted summary judgment in favor of Boy Scouts, but the Appellate Division and thereafter the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Boy Scouts had acted in violation of the State's public accommodations law. The United States Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court and held that a state may not, through its nondiscrimination statutes, prohibit the Boy Scouts from adhering to a moral viewpoint and expressing that viewpoint in internal leadership policy and that the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision violated Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of freedom of association. Briefs of the Parties . Briefs of Boy Scouts' Amici Curiae

● Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America, 952 P.2d 218 (Cal. 1998)
An open homosexual sued Mount Diablo Council under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, challenging the council's refusal to approve him as an adult leader. After trial, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scout council. On appeal, the California Supreme Court granted review and held in a unanimous opinion that Boy Scouts is not a "business establishment" for purposes of the Unruh Civil Rights Act's requirement of equal rights to public accommodations.

● Boy Scouts of America v. District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights, 809 A.2d 1192 (D.C. 2002)
Open homosexuals filed complaints in the D.C. Commission alleging that they were denied privileges of a place of public accommodation when they were rejected as volunteer Boy Scout leaders. On June 20, 2001, a year after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dale, the District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights refused to apply Dale and instead held that Boy Scouts of America and the National Capital Area Council violated the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed, holding that to force Boy Scouts to appoint open homosexuals as Scout leaders would violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment freedom of expressive association.

● Chicago Area Council of Boy Scouts of America v. City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, 748 N.E. 2d 759 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)
An open homosexual filed a claim under Chicago's human rights ordinance alleging that he was denied employment with the local Boy Scouts council because of his open homosexuality. Ultimately, an Illinois appellate court held that the Boy Scouts were allowed to require job applicants to observe the Scout Oath and Law when they were seeking to serve as professionals acting in representative capacities for Scouting. The court remanded for a determination as to whether the employment tester was seeking a nonrepresentative position from which he was improperly excluded, and the Commission determined that he had not been seeking such a position.

CAP regulations have no standing outside of CAP whereas State and Local Law does.  However, as the courts have upheld, the BSA has an absolute right to exclude anyone it wants to, local law or regulation to the contrary.

I hope you take the time to read these cases, it will prove educational.

[RiverAux]

I find it odd that CAP doesn't have a national level MOU with the Boy Scouts on this issue.  At least we don't have one posted on the NHQ web page.

Not sure why court cases that have absouletely nothing to do with the relationship between CAP and the Boy Scouts are being brought up.  Irrelevant to the topic at hand. 

Another thing to consider is that in many places CAP units get funded directly by various governments, some of which may bar such discrimination by any organization that they fund.  If that government won't fund BSA directly then they might not want to fund a dual CAP-BSA unit.  Just a thought.

[Nathan]

Nathan please don't take this personally but I have been affiliated with the BSA longer than you have been alive (at least according to your profile).  I have been the Chartered Organization Representative for a BSA unit (the one who signs the charter on behalf of the host unit), as well as on the local council board and staff.  Cite all the CAP regulations you want, but the BSA is not required to follow them.  To be granted a charter in the Venturing program the CAP squadron agrees to follow BSA rules.

First off, all the Supreme Court cases you are throwing at me mean nothing to this argument. I am not arguing as to whether or not the Boy Scouts is allowed to toss out gay leaders. That is not my business, and I could not care less what the Boy Scouts does with their own people, since I am not a member of the Boy Scouts.

However, a DUAL CHARTER is different than what the Boy Scouts does in their own organization. A dual charter is an AGREEMENT between two organizations to follow by a certain set of rules. Is the Boy Scouts required to follow CAP rules? No. Not even CAP members are REQUIRED to follow CAP rules. But in either case, if the member doesn't want to play by the agreed rules, the member can leave.

In this case, CAP is REQUIRING any CAP unit desiring to dual charter to be IN CONTROL of the situation by hosting the charter. If CAP cannot do that, they are NOT PERMITTED to be part of the charter. So IF the Boy Scouts decided not to give up their hosting rights, then any union between a CAP unit and the Boy Scouts would be ILLEGAL per CAP regulations. No CAP unit can enter into a dual charter without maintaining regulatory authority.

Because of this, we by definition hold all jurisdiction when it comes to membership application. The Boy Scout rules come second. If they don't like that, and decide to attempt to enforce their regulations, then they are violating the agreement they HAD to accept before chartering with the CAP unit. If that is the case, they can choose to leave.

So regardless of what laws protect the Boy Scouts within their own organization, those laws do not apply when the Boy Scouts agree to turn over regulatory jurisdiction to CAP when dual-chartering. That's the key. For ANY CAP unit to be allowed to dual charter, the Boy Scouts HAD to have given up that authority. If they do not, the charter does not happen.

Can you see where this is going?

Without that regulatory authority, the Boy Scout rules on who can and cannot be a leader come second to CAP's rules. CAP allows gay members to be leaders. CAP has jurisdiction. Therefore, gay CAP members can hold leadership positions in dual charter activities unless, as I have said, it was previously agreed to by both parties for CAP to forfeit 100% of jurisdiction to the Boy Scouts for a PARTICULAR ACTIVITY.

It really is easy as pie. Stop thinking about this as a purely Boy Scout issue. While I understand that is where your experience lies, a dual-charter program is a different animal, and you have to start treating it as such.

EDIT: I realize that I used "Boy Scouts" in the singular form here for most of the post. I'm not going to change it, since I'm referring to the singular program, so I hope you can follow along.

[CadetProgramGuy]

When I read 52-16, it tells me that CAP is the host unit.  Therefore CAP rules run the roost 'so to speak'.

That one paragraph in 52-16 tells me that there is no discrimination for anyone.  When you dual charter, boy scouts age in at 14 for the venturing crew.  What about the 12-13 year olds?  They are CAP.....What about those that choose not to be in the BSA?  They are CAP.

IOW, I don't care about the gay issue in this thread.  I don't care that BSA has a very open stance on their thoughts  on gays.

I just want to provide the youth in my area a better chance in life, and if CAP is that answer, then so be it.

and if you are gay (your life choice BTW) I will welcome you into my squadron.

Last thought everyone.......

I appreciate a really good debate and arguement, but lets get back to work.....