GovernmentExecutive.com

The Defense Department, in a settlement agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union, will clarify its policy that forbids Pentagon sponsorship of nongovernment organizations, particularly the Boy Scouts of America.

Admitting no wrongdoing and denying any act of sponsorship, Defense agreed to order the termination of Boy Scout charters executed by department personnel acting in their official capacity. Defense personnel are still allowed to work with and sponsor Boy Scout groups in a personal capacity.

The ACLU sued the Defense Department in 1999, claiming the Pentagon sponsored the Boy Scout organization and that sponsorship violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. By requiring its members to swear an oath of duty to God, the ACLU said the Boy Scouts violated the religious freedom of those who wished to participate, but didn't want to swear an oath, instigating religious discrimination.

The ACLU also accused the Defense and Housing and Urban Development departments of spending tax dollars in support of Boy Scout programs.

"If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based upon religious beliefs," said Adam Schwartz of the ACLU of Illinois, where the lawsuit originated. "This agreement removes the Pentagon from direct sponsorship of Scout troops that engage in religious discrimination."

Boy Scouts spokesman Bob Bork said the settlement will affect about 400 members, or less than 1 percent of the organizations's troops, which were chartered by the military. Despite acknowledging that the settlement will have little effect and that troops can continue to meet on military bases, Bork said the organization is disappointed overall.

"We think it's a shame that the ACLU continues to dog the Boy Scouts as it has over the past couple of decades because it doesn't like what we stand for," Bork said. "We find that disturbing and wrong."

The Pentagon has denied sponsoring the Boy Scouts, or any other nongovernmental organization, and claimed that doing so would not violate any law. A clarification of the Pentagon's policy will be sent to U.S. military bases worldwide.

"The settlement does not reduce the level of support provided to the Boy Scouts by the Department of Defense," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joe Richards said.

The lawsuit also involved the Pentagon's funding of the Boy Scout Jamboree at Fort A. P. Hill in Caroline County, Va., which is held every four years and costs about $2 million, according to the ACLU. The 76,000-acre Army base will host the event on June 25, 2005, as it has since 1981.

Eugene Winkler, et al., v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees, et al. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. (1999-02424), Nov. 15, 2004.

An Improper Hire

The Office of Special Counsel filed a Merit Systems Protection Board complaint against a Fish and Wildlife Service employee for hiring a friend instead of a disabled veteran.

Carmen Simonton, a GS-11 lead legal instruments examiner for the Division of Migratory Birds and State Programs in Atlanta, selected her friend for a legal instruments examiner position after circumventing veterans' preference requirements by canceling the job opening and re-announcing it at a grade level for which the veteran could not apply.

Simonton, who oversees the issuing of permits as a wildlife compliance specialist, would not comment on the case.

The veteran, Sharon Silmon, applied for the GS-4 job in December 2001 and was ranked highest by the Fish and Wildlife Services Human Resources Office with a score of 98. Silmon received a 10-point, 30 percent compensable disability preference. Simonton's longtime friend, Jodi Godwin, ranked third with a score of 94.

Simonton asked the Human Resources Office to cancel the vacancy announcement and re-announce the position as a GS-7 position a month later.

Despite the fact that another nonveteran candidate scored 100, Simonton hired Godwin,who had a score of 96, on Feb. 7, 2002. Silmon could not qualify for selection at the GS-7 grade-level.

The OSC is charging Simonton with unlawfully manipulating the selection process in order to hire Godwin over Silmon, willfully obstructing a veteran's right to compete for federal work and granting an unauthorized preference to her friend.

OSC Special Counsel Scott Bloch said appointment preferences in federal jobs are how the government can recognize veterans' sacrifices. "The multiple violations set forth in this complaint are serious as they strike at the core of the merit system," Block said. "Veterans have my commitment to prosecute vigorously federal managers who knowingly disregard or seek to evade veterans' preference requirements or otherwise violate service members' rights.

The OSC is asking MPSB to have Simonton fired, reduced in grade, debarred from federal work for five years, suspended, reprimanded, or fined up to $1,000. Simonton has 30 days to respond to the MSPB complaint.

COMMENTS

• Wasn't this about a Scout troop that happened to be located on a military base? Where are they supposed to go? After all, the kids live there with their families. Aren't they entitled to the same opportunities that other American kids have? Isn't that the American way? The Scout leaders were military personnel, who volunteered to serve on their own time. Isn't it prejudicial, and hypocritical, to say that the Scouts have done a lot of good, but these kids can't have their own troop because of where they live? Unless they travel to a surrounding community, where they'd be strangers, they can't enjoy the benefits of Scouting? Sounds like second class citizenship to me. The military has chapels on its bases, where military chaplains conduct religious services and otherwise serve the religious needs of military personnel. Will that be the next target of the ACLU? GovExec.com reader Posted December 2, 2004 1:09 PM
• No one is condemning the BSA, or even saying it's a bad organization. Clearly, the BSA has been a positive influence on our lives for decades. The problem is that the federal government had put itself in the position of directly sponsoring the BSA. The problem here is that the BSA really is a religious organization, due to its required oath of belief in God. As such, the federal government must refrain from direct sponsorship because the Constitution's promise of religious liberty is supposed to guarantee that no citizen's religious affiliation - or lack thereof - should matter when it comes to dealing with the federal government. A government-sponsored organization that discriminates based upon religious belief violates that constitutional promise. GovExec.com reader Posted December 1, 2004 1:03 PM
• I strongly echo the previous comment on this story. The Boy Scouts of America have been under attack from such liberal, God hating organizations and individuals for years. The BSA had lawsuits filed against them because one father wanted his son in the Scouts, but didn't want him to recite "duty to God and country" in the Oath. The Scouts won. The United Way dropped all affiliation with the Boy Scouts because of this. Yet the Scouts persisted. Gays petitioned and filed suits to be allowed in the Scouts. Again the Scouts won. Now the ACLU is taking shots at the Scouts. The solution is simple. If you don't believe in the principles set forth by the BSA, don't join. And for those who don't join because of this, too bad you don't believe in God, because you're gonna need Him. Win, Lose or Draw, I'm extremely proud of the Boy Scouts for upholding their moral and ethical standards and not knuckling under to "political correctness" like most would have. If more organizations did this, we'd be a lot better off. Hold firm boys! I salute you! Barry Ward Soil Scientist and Eagle Scout Barry Ward Posted December 1, 2004 10:39 AM