As part of our effort to made the United Way Watch List as accurate as possible, the Scouting Legal Defense Fund (SLDF) wrote all the local United Ways we planned to include in the latest update.  We laid out the criteria for being listed, told them that we had information that would put them into one of the categories on the Watch List and asked them to contact us if they thought they should not be listed.  Click here to see the text of this letter.

This simple request almost immediately triggered an unexpected response, one that by any standard is an over-reaction. Within days, the national United Way office issued a memorandum to all 1400 local United Way offices, directing them not to cooperate with out request.  (We had only written the 65 that we had been able to identify!) The memo also said that as part of their “initial response” to our efforts, the president of the United Way of America, Brian Gallegher, had talked to Roy Williams, Chief Scout Executive. The memo claimed that Williams agreed that the maintaining and publicizing the Watch List was not helpful to the Scouts and that he would be contacting the SLDF with that message.  See a copy of this memo here . 

Gallegher also wrote to the SLDF to express his “concern” about the Watch List and request that we “discontinue” it.  He argued that there may be many reasons that local United Ways stopped funding their local Scouts and that our characterization of these actions as discriminating against the Scouts “is legally inaccurate and may be libelous.”  He further threatened to “take action to protect the interests of our members” if the SLDF published any “misrepresentations” about local United Ways.  Click here to see a copy of this letter.

Robert Carleson, Chairman of the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), the group that sponsors the SLDF, wrote an extensive rebuttal of Gallegher’s letter.  He notes that the original letter was an effort to make the list as accurate as possible.  Providing the public with an accurate list clearly is in the interest of all local United Ways, he points out.  One of the problems has been that local United Ways that were continuing to fund the Scouts but are located in the vicinity of one that had cut off funding were often hurt by the adverse publicity that results.  An accurate list would prevent that.   He notes that the national office’s claimed support of “diversity” is at odds with the discriminatory policy against the Scouts.  Responding specifically to the national office’s “initial strategy” of getting the national Scout office to bring pressure on us, Carleson notes that because United Way is a major source of funding for the Scouts, this request raises a “disturbing” question of whether the Scouts are being unduly pressured to take a position that may not be in their best interests.  He also notes that the directive in the memorandum to local United Ways not to comply with the SLDF’s request raises questions about whether they are as autonomous as is claimed.  Carleson specifically asks for Gallegher’s response to the issues and questions raised, but none has been received.  See a copy of his letter here .

As Gallegher had requested, Roy Williams, the Chief Scout Executive, did write the SLDF.  In his very short letter, he makes a weak defense of the United Way, noting that the Scouts believe it plays an important role as a “coordinated community-wide charity.”  He claims that maintaining and publicizing the Watch List was resulting in less funding for the Scouts in some areas, but offers no evidence or examples.  His only request is that the SLDF “cease this particular line of inquiry regarding the United Way of America” (which, of course, was not the point of our inquiry, but rather the offending local chapters).  Significantly, while he does not specify which United Ways had cut funding, he did verify that the number we have identified was very close to their number (about 70).  You can view a copy of Williams’ letter here . 

In his response to Williams, Robert Carleson notes that it appears that Gallegher had exerted “inappropriate pressure” on him to contact the SLDF and request that we cease maintaining and publicizing the Watch List.  It is clear, Carleson says, that the national United Way is part of the growing problem of United Ways discriminating against the Scouts in funding decisions.  He points out that the Scouts benefit from the Watch List in two ways.  In those areas where people realize that funds have been cut off, direct contributions to the Scouts generally increase.  In areas where the local United Way continues to fund the Scouts, potential contributors are reassured if there is an independent source of information such as the Watch list that accurately monitors local United Ways on the Scout issue.  He assures Williams that the SLDF will intensify its efforts in behalf of the Scouts, including maintaining the Watch List, and “will not be intimidated by Brian Gallegher.”  A copy of this letter is available here .