fred johnson

Okay. You made me laugh when you say "you lot" referring to me as leftist or liberal. That's actually quite funny. You have no clue about my politics or my opinions on transgender issues. But to be honest, that's the point. BSA is not taking a stand. They are leaving it to the charter org and parents. BSA is saying if you want to be in scouts, we'll help you find a unit that will work with you. That's not about being left or right. It's about working with each other. Previous stands were about taking a moral stand on values. A stand that often contradicted the values of the very charter orgs BSA charters. BSA provides a program and structure. Leave the value choices to the churches and the charter organizations. They do a better job than any of us on this.

That's what many were doing. Bad press. Values that contradicted many of their own charter partner values. It has driven many away. "Membership would not have accelerated it's decrease" ... it would have continued though. The huge membership issue started when BSA lost access because they wanted public school access but then wanted to march to values different than the public organizations they were recruiting from. This is part of marching down the path to heal the damage done by 1999 Dale V BSA. "Money would not have dried up" ... It is because of the membership disputes that caused money to dry up in the first place. United Way. AT&T. many others. This is about healing and moving on.

Argumentative and not based in reality. Twenty years of bad press and expensive court cases for a society issue that just doesn't affect BSA. The issue has very small impact directly, but taking a stance on the issue has a huge cost in membership and finances. Doing "absolutely nothing" was not a choice and a shallow suggestion. BSA did the right thing by trying to move on and move away.

It's a rant. Yes, many will get so so so caught up in their own rightfulness that they will cut off their own arm because it offends them. But Christian's won't flea any more than the amount of Christians we'd lose by not changing the policy. The key is there is no such thing as a single Christian church with a single set of opinions. Denominations vary greatly. Individuals of faith vary greatly. The only right issue is to get BSA out of the debate. Let the charter orgs choose their membership such that it reflects their own values. BSA provides a program and structure. Charter orgs that are churches provide the faith. Perhaps the best thing scouts could do right now is double down on the coming Scout Sunday and get their scouts in-church-in-uniform.

BSA has not said it's right or wrong. It's about positioning BSA so that it can continue to provide great experiences and developing character, citizenship and physical fitness. The 1999 "Dale V. BSA" decision (right or wrong) did horrible damage to BSA because of the marketing and perception result. This is about trying to get away from a hot button, modern era issue so that BSA can focus on mission. Largely it's a non-issue that we will not deal with day-to-day beyond maybe attending camps that have to upgrade their bathroom and shower facilities. I can respect you if you think it's bad. I have personal opinions on this situation too. I'd just rather focus on BSA's core mission.

That would be a very hard lawsuit to win in most cases as most units are chartered by churches and those churches usually treat it as an extension of their youth program. As such, it has freedom of religion protection. Yeah, that already happens in every direction. I have a friend who is another race, but calls himself white because his strong cultural connection is local.

I like Trail Life in that it has a nice functional easy web site. But it's just not a real option for most scouts in our area. It doesn't have the infrastructure or membership. There are seven troops in our state. BSA has 500+ of troops in our state. It's just not the same.

We may or may not like the change, but society is going through contortions right now over these issues. The real question is how can BSA focus on the key benefits BSA can provide without being damaged by current day politics. Essentially, it better to be involved in society than to be separate. I'm not going to leave. It is not healthy to be stuck in the past and issolate ourselves. We talk about citizenship, character and physical fitness. Let's find a way to continue driving those goals. Now I have my opinions too and they probably are not very popular in the liberal area. But BSA shines the most when we focus less on politics and focus more on values, getting out and doing things. Don't worry about letting boys be boys. Worry more about teaching them how to swing an axe; how to port a canoe; how to not bath for a week and still smile. At some point, being negative is beyond not scout like. It's something we don't want to teach our scouts. IMHO, the only real damage that can occur here is by being too reactionary. Day to day, this means little to our units. Let's get back to focusing on our scouts.

Agreed that it is going to be here eventually. It will happen. BSA should get out of the membership selection business and let units set their membership to reflect the values of their charter org. "one person tents" ... I would not be against it. My experience is that scouts behave better when there are fewer in the tent. I always cringe if someone brings a cabin tent.

So true.

Good. Sometimes BSA is it's own worst enemy. I've seen it several times where someone winged it and wrote something that sounded nice but was not based in the BSA program. That's what the originally posted web article sounds like. Someone winged it without realizing there were key points and ideas on how a troop should do annual planning.

I can't find criteria in the BSA Guide To Advancement for accepting good completion criteria in the scout's Eagle proposal. What if a scout defines a project that is part of a sequence of a larger project. What if the scout does parts A & B (70%), but the beneficiary needs to get part C (30%) completed to make it useful? Or there is a much much larger project (parts A-Z) and the scout does part K. Part K is useful, but only in context of completing parts A-Z. Does a scout's Eagle project have to stand by itself? Is it acceptable for the scout and beneficiary to negotiate a hand-off criteria that leaves the beneficiary to do significantly more to make the project useful? If the beneficiary doesn't deliver their part, then the scout's project never benefited anyone. I've seen several projects that trigger these questions. I'm looking for better guidance on how to evaluate such projects.

Yeah, sadly true. Except for personally tracking advancement, the handbooks serve relatively little purpose now. They feel like decoration over function. I've almost given up the battle of telling scouts to bring their book.

I applaud your drive. Sometimes fighting a good fight for what is right is important. But it easily moves from being right to being wrong. Essentially, tilting at wind mills and rehashing damaging stories. Plus, I suspect if we talk with the involved leaders we may hear a different story. Often when hard feelings exist about stuck situations, then each side has a strongly different story. With the tens of thousands of scouting units out there, these things happen. Just as it could happen in a little league, girl scouts, sports teams or many other organization. But I view it different. Imperfect people created a bad situation. Now the real challenge is moving past it and maybe fixing the bad situation. Get the charter org to support scouting again. Help these families back into scouting. Help create positives for you, your family and everyone involved. I wish you the best and hope you can move on.

I think your first judgement is best. Keep it simple. Maybe ask as part of the troop committee meetings if there was anything interesting learned from the BOR. But I'd really avoid adding more paperwork and formalizing things. It leads to more forms and checklists and ....

The smaller size of fundraising is probably the main reason each scouting unit is not audited by the IRS. But there are other key differences too. Scouting units often buy equipment that will outlast individual members and help subsidize the registration and expenses of the volunteers that help keep the program running. but I agree the main difference is size. BUT ... I've also looked at my scouting units. If you just look at the bank account, you will often see $40,000 or $50,000 going through the checking account each year. $20,000 gross fundraiser sales. $10,000 for summer camp. $2,000 per person for high adventures. It quickly adds up. Most of the money is pass thru. But it adds up. And I bet most active troops that are 30+ members have $20,000 going through checking each year.

Agreed. I'm betting most troops don't follow through with all the required paperwork. I'm betting there are tens of thousands of bank accounts with EINs that were created for charities / non-profits fail to follow through with the next part. That's why I think the way "most" scouting units are legally structured is a mess.

My biggest challenge as a new leader was to develop the right frame of mind. I finally have the right one, or so I think. I can sum it up with: Mellow out. IMHO, the program works the best when the focus is on doing things and letting the scouts figure it out. Carry your own load. Help out. Keep the scouts safe. Help them be friendly and nice to each other. Through your actions, be the example of of who you want your scouts to become. And, have fun. The program is continually damaged by people that obsess about creating the perfect PLC, patrols, and other troop structures. To be explicit, you don't help the program by creating yet another meal checklist, camping checklist, code of conduct, procedure list. You don't help by continually injecting into the scouting program. Scouting is about doing and the inter personal skills. I once thought BSA lacked in training. But if BSA does lack in training, I think it's in mellowing out. BSA needs to counteract the nature of people that value scouting so so much, that they obsess on how to do it exactly right and there-by damage the program.

I'm not a tax lawyer but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. If I was the company, I'd be concerned, but not that much. If you really look into how scouting units are legally structured, it's a mess ... IMHO. The key issue is how was the bank account opened. Most units do not mix their money with the chartered org money. Usually, the scouting unit has a separate bank account. So the real question is: did the charter org give the tax ID / EIN to open the bank account? I'd be concerned if the business did provide it for the bank account. Even most non-profits don't do that. I really really bet that a business that has an accountant and looks at bank statements would not do such a thing. My experience is scouting units go to a bank to open a bank account. The banker asks for an EIN or SS. If none is available, then the banker helps the person go the the IRS web site to request a non-profit EIN / tax id. And the EIN usually has a title of "<CITY> <Troop/Pack> ###>". That's why I say most units are legally a mess. Some documents saying one thing. Others saying another. Fundraisers misstating stuff. I'm betting a unit chartered by a for-profit business still has a bank account with a non-profit EIN. I often think about past unit treasurers that don't realize their names are probably still tied to their scouting units 10 or 20 years later. I remember being with one treasurer who setup the non-profit to have her house ####. I'm betting the non-profit is still tied to her house address all these years later.

I agree fully. We need to learn the rules so that we can learn how to be flexible. I have a very very wise adult leader in our troop that measures situations like this with "How would that be of any use?" In this situation, nothing is served by not recognizing the BOR that he completed. If anything, it creates negatives that could serve to end his scouting experience. IMHO, it's better to cut this experience as short as possible and move toward positives.

I was just reading about this late last night. Great positive story from a very sad situation.

Gumbymaster answered while I was typing. He's exactly right. My only comment in addition to his is move on as fast as possible. Time in scouting is actually very short. Move on so that your son can get back to positive experiences. I'd be frustrated too, but move on and leave the old troop in the past. The signatures in the books should be enough but work with the troop to find a resolution. They will get to know you and your son quickly. Focus on the future great experiences.

Requirements are what you make of them. I don't think the wording of the new requirements is bad, but it just seems too verbose. In most cases, the requirements are 90% more words ... almost double in size. It's frustrating and a waste. The requirements just don't seem set up for scouts to manage them. They seem setup for adults to manage.

Also just let your troop and scouts know and ask who the cards were from. Be friendly and humble and re-create the records. It happens.

No. I'd be uncomfortable with that. Salute during the pledge is fine. Scout sign during scout oath and law is okay. But do we salute the motto? the slogan? If not those, then why the code? It's a code. IMHO, this reflects the ever growing verbosity of the BSA requirements. I may like the new categories to organize the requirements. But the requirements need categories now because they are so much more verbose. Just too many words. Requirements need to be more manageable for the youth who we try to teach managing their own advancement. IMHO, the requirements are now written for an adult to manage, not a youth.