[15194] in APO-L
1996 National Convention
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gerald A. Schroeder)
Thu Oct 31 20:23:34 1996
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:20:10 -0500
Reply-To: "Gerald A. Schroeder" <gschroed@CAPACCESS.ORG>
From: "Gerald A. Schroeder" <gschroed@CAPACCESS.ORG>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Ordinarily, I do not comment on proposed legislation at a convention. I
make an exception here for the good of the Fraternity.
A Brother from Drexel has proposed certain bylaws amendments and
resolutions pertaining to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) that would
reverse actions taken by the 1994 National Convention in Dallas. An
example is the proposed change to Article II of the bylaws.
I want to say up front that I *know* this Brother has proposed these
changes in good faith and with the best interests of the Fraternity in
mind. I do not question his intentions or motives -- in fact, I respect
them.
But, I fear he, and possible others, are unaware of the events that led
me to propose (and it is extremely rare for a sitting National President,
as I was at the time, to propose bylaws amendments) the changes he now
seeks to reverse.
Shortly before the 1992 National Convention, BSA initiated a dialogue
with me, as the then National President, regarding the future of our
relationship with them. As I told the 1992 Convention in disclosing the
existence of these talks, APO and BSA were old friends, and friends often
find it necessary to talk about individual and mutual interest, sometimes
from differing perspectives.
Nonetheless, this dialogue led to a reaffirmation of the mutually
supportive relationship between BSA and APO that has existed for the past
70 years. In addition, we agreed, rightfully so in my opinion, to
respect the constitutional right of all private, voluntary organizations,
including APO and BSA, to determine their own values and policies.
But BSA initiated the dialogue because of the differences between our
membership policies, not because they wanted to change our policies, but
because they believed that some members of the public held an erroneous
perception of official affiliation between our two organizations. As
part of talks between myself and the Chief Scout Executive, APO was asked
and agreed to help reduce or eliminate this misperception. The result
was my proposals at the 1994 Convention. At this point, I want to
empasize that BSA did not seek, nor did I agree, to negotiate APO's
bylaws or ceremonies. But, it was fairly clear from our discussions
where the "issues" were.
What I believe the mover of these new proposals does not fully
appreciate, and what everyone considering his amendments needs to
appreciate, is that the 1994 changes were made in response to BSA
concerns and not because someone in APO wanted to distance us in any way
from BSA or our heritage, or play with our bylaws.
Now, it is pure speculation (that I won't engage in) as to what might
have happened had not both sides to this dialogue understood the others'
concerns and respected our longstanding, mutually supportive
relationship -- and wanted it to continue. But it is in no one's best
interests to reopen this discussion now, and would be a clear consequence
of any reversal of the 1994 Convention's decisions. I repeat, that
result is in no one's best interests.
As I said in the Fall 1993 Torch and Trefoil, the best interest of Alpha
Phi Omega were well served by this outcome. Our rich Scouting heritage
was confirmed. BSA and APO continue to collaborate in serving the youth
of America. We continue to enjoy the advice and support of
representatives of BSA on both local and national levels. And, the
clarification of our common interests enhances our ability to cooperate
with other youth groups, such as the Girl Scouts of the USA and
Campfire.
Therefore, as well intentioned as these proposals are, I suggest, as the
representative of Alpha Phi Omega for months of discussions on these
questions, that APO should honor its commitments and that this dialogue
should not be reopened -- for the good of the Order.
I will be happy to meet with my Brother and friend, the proposer of these
changes, in Phoenix and to [I *know* this is a mistake! :)] answer any
questions subscribers to this list may have.
Thanks for listening. This is probably the longest post I have ever made
to apo-l, and that ought to provoke some lawyer jokes. This is serious,
however, and a discussion among us is both warranted and necessary.
Again, many thanks for your indulgence.
P.S. No one will be happier than me if this post gets me no responses,
and Ellen will be delighted, I'm sure, if it gets no responses to the
list! :)
Jerry Schroeder
Immediate Past National President
Alpha Phi Omega
