scouts-l Mail Archive for August of 2000: Re: Clinton's signature dropped...
Mon Aug 28 2000 - 08:10:59 CDT
Mike, et al
Settummanque, the blackeagle ((MAJ Mike L. Walton) wrote:
> >1) National is not openly informing people of that option;
> With good reason, Jay, I am sure...the biggest thing I can see is that in
> openly telling everyone of this option, it opens up the entire issue of
> having THIS Honorary President's signature on everything...which the BSA
> doesn't want to restart.
Since you capitalized THIS it highlights how focused BSA's decision
was. It also raises the "jumping the gun question" as to how the
decision was reached, and by whom, and whether there was a polling of
the "stakeholders" (no pun intended). If they wouldn't want to restart
that issue then they should have had the good sense not to have made
what was an irrevocable decision.
> All valid statements...there was a "jumping of the gun" (at least what I
> understand it being) when President Nixon left office early, the BSA had to
> destroy a lot of certificates and cards in a rather hurry and start
> producing the new ones with the signature of Gerald Ford, the next President.
Yes, some of the stock on hand might have had to be destroyed, but Nixon
was still President until his resignation. Pipeline cases, those whose
EBOR occurred before that date, should have had Nixon's signature
despite what is commonly perceived as his attacks on the Constitutional
process. Because of the "pipeline", including review by National, BSA
had (and has) two-three weeks to get its printshop working.
> So, when President Clinton's issues rolled over into Congress and
> impeachment votes, the BSA hedged their bets and printed new certificates
> (before, mind you, the final vote) without a Presidential signature.
Had BSA wished to hedge its bets (and maintain tradition) it would have
made preparations for a print run with "President Gore's" signature.
That would have been in keeping with tradition and the normal
> after some Scouts and Scouters and former Scouts started in with the "I
> won't have anything with his signature" thing, the BSA was ready with
> blank certificates.
And, for those Scouts (and those Scouts only) they could have provided a
> Not so much political but procedural decisions, Jay. The Honorary National
> President's signature has appeared on BSA items going back to the middle
> 40s, if not before then (I'm only personally aware of the 40s.). To change
> policy now is to change tradition, something that the BSA is not really
> willing to do right now....
Sorry, but these statements contradict procedure and tradition. That
leaves reasonable people to consider political motivations and pandering
to financially and verbally influential minority group influence.
I'm sure that the following statement will result in some flaming, but:
I would submit that BSA's "dissing" the President/Presidency relieves
President Clinton of any obligation from speaking out against BSA's