The SF Chronicle featured a nice big report today, as did other Hearst papers. The articles claim that the BSA's ban on gays and athiests has had a negative impact on membership and finances and that Councils around the country have been forced to rely more and more on their forest and wilderness holdings for income, often skirting or outright violating environmental regulations and even the original deed of gift. But of course, to hear them tell it, the Scout councils breaking the law are the victims.
In a detailed response, the Scouts National leadership wisely avoids blame:
22. Please tell us how the national and local councils made up for revenues lost from the United Way and/or charities that eliminated or reduced annual revenue streams in the aftermath of the controversial gay and atheist membership bans?
This question assumes there was revenue lost and that it was caused by one issue. (Please see Response to Todd Bensman, question #1).
It is impossible to accurately measure the impact these issues had, as they affected different councils and communities in different ways. However, throughout this period the BSA as a whole remained the nation’s largest youth service organization with a strong financial outlook.
With that said, local economies and local issues primarily affect revenue streams and not every council is affected in the same way. Finding ways of raising more funds varies in each local community, but in most cases councils will create fundraising events and spend more time developing new relationships with potential donors in their communities.
But that sure didn't stop the LOCAL folks from blabbering: "The Boy Scouts had to suffer the consequences for sticking by their moral values," said Eugene Grant, president of the Portland, Ore., Cascade Pacific Council's board of directors. "There's no question" that the Scouts' anti-gay, anti-atheist stance has cost the organization money, he said. As a result, he said, "every council has looked at ways to generate funds ... and logging is one of them."
I left Scouts GLADLY many years ago. For all the fun times, it was not fun overall, but rather paramilitaristic macho bullying, and various dads using questionable "leadership" tactics on unprepared kids.
Exactly.
In a detailed response, the Scouts National leadership wisely avoids blame:
22. Please tell us how the national and local councils made up for revenues lost from the
United Way and/or charities that eliminated or reduced annual revenue streams in
the aftermath of the controversial gay and atheist membership bans?
This question assumes there was revenue lost and that it was caused by one issue.
(Please see Response to Todd Bensman, question #1).
It is impossible to accurately measure the impact these issues had, as they affected
different councils and communities in different ways. However, throughout this period
the BSA as a whole remained the nation’s largest youth service organization with a
strong financial outlook.
With that said, local economies and local issues primarily affect revenue streams and
not every council is affected in the same way. Finding ways of raising more funds varies
in each local community, but in most cases councils will create fundraising events and
spend more time developing new relationships with potential donors in their
communities.
But that sure didn't stop the LOCAL folks from blabbering:
"The Boy Scouts had to suffer the consequences for sticking by their moral values," said Eugene Grant, president of the Portland, Ore., Cascade Pacific Council's board of directors. "There's no question" that the Scouts' anti-gay, anti-atheist stance has cost the organization money, he said. As a result, he said, "every council has looked at ways to generate funds ... and logging is one of them."
I left Scouts GLADLY many years ago. For all the fun times, it was not fun overall, but rather paramilitaristic macho bullying, and various dads using questionable "leadership" tactics on unprepared kids.