[9877] in APO-L
Re: BSA status?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James C. Porter)
Thu Oct 20 23:05:24 1994
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:50:53 -0400
Reply-To: JPor466@AOL.COM
From: "James C. Porter" <JPor466@AOL.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
This is a difficult subject for me, more so than some of the other issues I
have posted on recently.
I do not have a particular problem with the BSA taking a less formal
relationship with our fraternity. In fact I don't mind if they do not have a
role in approval of charters or fixed members on the national board. I think
if they don't want to, you can't make them. It's one of those "you can lead
a horse to water....." things. In fact, if they do not have to approve a
charter in my section, it will probably make my life easier, because one of
my DE's is not as easy to get along with as he could be.
The rest of the changes which amount to verbage, I don't have a real good
feel for. Before I decided, I would want to know is this what they wanted,
what we wanted or is this a result of a compromise. What were the range of
options discuss? And is this the best we could do.
Whatever the fraternity decides, I can live with. Obviously, I can have a
say but no vote in the matter. I would rather have the purpose be a single
sentence, kinda like a mission statement. The way the purpose is proposed in
the amendments almost makes the relationship look like an afterthought, which
is not the way it is. It does not flow well as written and I would have
thought so as a pledge when I had to memorize the purpose for my pledge
tests.
I personally do not have a problem with the purpose as written, i.e. "in the
fellowship of the principles of the Boy Scouts of America". It says that we
have some common views, it does not say that we will adopt their membership
policies or rules. It says nothing about legal relationships, oversight,
interlocking boards, or anything that would make either party liable to the
other.
If I had a vote (which I do not) this is probably the only thing that I would
not vote for (changing the purpose). On everything else, my position would
be, if they want it let them have it. But then again everybody doesn't get
everything in life that they want, do they? I would listen politely to thier
suggestions (after all that's all they can be) and then do what is our best
interest, which may not necesarily in thiers.
Sorry Jerry. I have some lawyer jokes if they will make you feel better.
YiLFS
Jim Porter
Section 33 Chair
