fred johnson

Move on. Ignore them. But I would be tempted to forward to the district unit commissioner chair. It sounds like their unit could benefit from a friendly face. Or at least the district commissioners would know there might be a pack that needs help soon.

Yeah, I can understand. Fully agree. It's less acceptable and more understandable. More along the lines of we learn from our mistakes. It's hard to learn how to behave or respond until you have been in the situation. This is absolutely my number one concern. I've seen it happen multiple times.

Your wording reads more into the situation than wasn't written. Plus, it's hard to tell what really happened. Even Qwazye is 3rd person away from the BOR. Now the scout may or may not have handled himself properly. Plus, I think it takes time to learn how to behave and respond when you have been wronged. In the end, the scout rose up and decided progress was better than fighting a battle. I just hope he treats scouts better when he's an adult.

I'm glad the scout worked through the problem situation and overcame it. It's just sad he was wronged and put in the bad situation. Credit to him for overcoming it. BORs are never about demonstrating skills beyond the skill to talk to adults. My fear is that he was wronged. What will he do now when he is on the other end of the BOR? Will he lead the BOR as he experienced it or as documented in policies and procedures.

LOL ... Most museums are about survival, not profit. BSA is a niche museum at best. Philmont is an understandable choice. You have a guaranteed visitor base from all over the nation with all the high adventure scouts. I don't understand though why not the Summit too? Or, multiple locations.

This does sound like a good move. Those training and hiking are pretty much guaranteed to go into the museum. Those passing through wanting to see Philmont again pretty much guarantee an audience too. IMHO, having a museum at Philmont and maybe ALSO at The Summit is a good idea. Now about moving the HQ ....

A few comments. A district can't hold money and is the same non-profit organization as the council. Any funds raised by a district go directly to the council. BSA's "unit money earning application" is usually ignored. In my 13+ years, I've never seen one filled out. Personally, it sort of offends me. BSA tells us we can't wear uniform when doing such non-profits. We can't use BSA good will to support sales. BSA says sales must be done on their own merit. As such, I really don't see what the council would be approving as the only thing the BSA council approves is their own non-involvement. Districts should not be choosing between troops except maybe to staff a district event. And districts don't run council fundraisers. And if it was a council fundraiser, one troop running it would not be enough motivation for the boys and adults to keep it running. It would die. So from what I understand, we are really talking about giving a unit fundraiser from one troop to another troop. Hypothetical ... If Troop X started running the tree stand, would Troop X share profits with Troop Z? I am assuming no. Why would Troop Z let it happen then ? Essentially ... A tree stand that Troop Z runs is really run by Troop Z's charter organization. It's theirs and the money raised is raised under Troop Z non-profit status. The property use agreement (lease, rental, whatever) is with the Troop Z non-profit. The money might be obviously targeted directly for Troop Z, but it's still the non-profit org. .... As such, the district (a different non-profit business) can't pick and choose who will financially benefit in different non-profit orgs and can't choose who will run it between different non-profits. IMHO, letting a district get involved in a unit fundraiser decision puts things at risk. Keep the unit fundraiser at the unit level and just do it. Tell the district people to politely focus on their district activities.

I think we've had this discussion before. Your method works for you and your troop. And, I can understand the reasoning. .... like another post in this thread though, I don't prefer it as it does not work within the boundaries of what BSA describes and publishes. I also fear a scout that somehow runs into the wrong district advancement person during an Eagle BOR and says his POR while a Life scout was Patrol QM. If you are a single patrol troop, probably okay as the patrol is the troop. If not a single patrol troop, then it's explicitly wrong. Now, in my district the scout would probably still pass as we would view it as an adult mistake that we would not punish the scout for not knowing the rules. But, I could see other districts with more hard nose scouters having a harder time. Here are two references for this from BSA. http://scoutingmagazine.org/2016/04/boy-scoutings-required-positions-responsibility/ http://www.scouting.org/filestore/boyscouts/pdf/Troop_Leadership_Positions.pdf I also "prefer" the whole troop voting for the SPL. It has it's own challenges, but it's what BSA publishes and our troop makes it work. I do say "prefer" as if it works for you, it's not that big a deal. And, there are much worse issues that could be happening. I'm just glad you and your scouts are having a good experience. I just prefer to promote and work within the flexibility of what BSA says. In our troop, the thing that I really really prefer ... we leave pretty much the whole election to the scouts. No pre-printed ballots. No SMCs to run for positions. It's the scout's choice. If the SPL is not comfortable running the election, in advance of the election meeting, the SM will coach the SPL. Beyond that, the adults pretty much are on one side of the room and the scouts are on the other while they run the election. We just ask that the SPL (or scribe ... or someone) tells us the results of the election. The election being for SPL and each patrol votes for their own PL. We also ask the SPL to tell us who was selected for the other PORs. We have had variations over the year. Such as the troop having two ASPLs, one appointed and the other being the elected SPL who will take office in six months after watching and learning. Other times the SPL takes over immediately. Sometimes the SPL has run an election for troop level positions (and surprised us adults), but the SPL knows he can appoint his own too. We pretty much leave it up to the scouts to choose their own leadership. KEY POINT ... I like the post that said the adult leaders should not view the election results as critical to making the program work. IMHO, everything is about learning. PORs are a chance for the scout to learn too, even the SPL role.

Congratulations !!!

There's a magical mix. Sometimes it works. Sometimes not. Depends on mix of boys, parents, den leader and much else. BUT ... Boys like seeing and touching. Being able to open their book and see their advancement is important. I also hope scouts never goes 100% away from paper tracking of advancements. ... though I am becoming more fond of ScoutBook (shivering even as I say it)

Yes. That is the distinction. Raised funds versus money kicked in by parents to help cover the costs of another parent who's also volunteering to run their son's den. As a den leader of multiple dens, I paid for a lot out of my own pocket and never asked for reimbursement. And, I would not comment as other den leaders would try to be reimbursed for minor expenses. Their choice versus my choice. IMHO, it would have been nice as a den leader if the parents in the den would have each voluntarily kicked in a few bucks to cover the year of activities we did. Food. Snacks. Materials. etc. Most dens are 6 to 10 kids. Minus the den leaders kid. So if dues are $75, you are talking about $375 to $675 per den. IMHO, that's petty cash. IMHO, it's also nice because ... risk of losing a large amount is less because it's spread and it's between a close knit set of people in the same den. all den leaders are financially supported at the same level. Shy or nice den leaders are not penalized because they won't ask for reimbursement. too often dens are not given money by the pack to operate. As such, it reduces the quality of the den experience. Raised funds is a different issue though a shared portion could be allocated to the den who raised it. That's an IRS accepted practice as long as it's within boundaries. Personally, I would not have setup the pack this way. I also would never recommend this. But, it's what you joined. I would not have that hard of a time living with what you describe. Now if they were doing fundraising of $10,000+ ... I could imagine many different ways I could be ill-at-ease. Den leaders only giving pack cost of product. Dens allocated more than 30% of profit of their sale. Den leaders holding large amounts of cash from the fundraiser. But to be honest, these days $600 is not that much in the long run. It's a lot to ask a volunteer to submit a reimbursement sheet for when they buy two boxes of Oreos and drinks one month. Or another month go the scout shop and buy eight Bear faced coin pursue craft kits. Or collecting $10 for pizza, giving it to the pack and then getting a check from the pack for $80 to pay for pizza, drinks and desert (parents fed too).

Yes and no. Fundraisers are more clear cut, but even then there are complexities and arguments that can be made. As for den "dues", the term dues would need to be clarified. If I told parents that we are having a den pizza party and the cost would be about $10 per kid, people would not argue that's den money and/or den family money. If I told parents the kids were going to a science museum and the admittance charge was $12 per person and parking was about $3 per person, it would be reasonable for the den to collect and hold $15 per person. If I don't know how many pizza parties I'll have or how many projects I'll need to purchase materials for, I could just say I'll target $75 per year and I'd like each family to kick in that much to cover den expenses for the year. I think it would be hard to argue that money does not belong to the den parents. If not spent, it should revert back to the parents or the troop their scout joins. I personally would not care for an accounting of the $75 as I'm sure every den leader for my kids spent at least that much on my scout. Sometimes we get so so stuck with terms that we lose site of something that can be viewed as not a big deal. Now, I've never seen a pack work as you describe, but I don't think it's unreasonable. In fact the more I think about it, I like it. Dens need funds to operate. Packs should be able to run unit programs and even the recharter wholly on the profit from fundraisers. Or, dens could kick dollars up to the unit to pay the recharter. I really don't think I have that big of an issue with it. In fact, I'm growing to like the idea more and more.

You're push back is reasonable. I've never seen a pack work like this. It is not the best practice. But you are also stepping into leadership in an existing pack that has 90 members. I'm taking that as a pack that is relatively successful. Pushing for significant change while being the new leader will not go well. You'll get resentment and push back. Pushing for change because it's not the ideal solution in a pack that is viewed as running okay will not go well. My comments were just trying to find a way to accept how the pack is running now. Perhaps over time you can drive change. Either find a way to accept how the pack works or step back and just enjoy the pack with your scout.

Continually recruit. Get used to stepping aside so the scouts can run their own program. ... but support (help, encourage, ...) them to make it a fun interesting program.

I hate viewing it as an either or. I think that's a big problem in scouting. People try to force views, opinions and solutions. I'd rather view it as something that's not working. Change things to accommodate different mixes of scouts, ages and capabilities. Scouting is a game. Look for ways to teach and make it fun. Instructors don't have to lecture or force the teaching. Help them find a way to make their role useful. Maybe some times it will be a sit-down let's learn. Other times it will be helping the scout that's having trouble or helping a scout that wants to complete a requirement.

Hmmm..... I've been involved with Cub Scouts for 15+ years and multiple packs. I've never seen funds managed like you describe. Usually, all funds are held at the pack level and rarely float down toward the den. BUT ... Just because it's different does not mean it's bad. Suggestions View the den money as den family money, not unit money. It's just money parents share with each other in advance. Let the den's be and manage their own internals. Respect the pack traditions. If you are not comfortable with it, then don't become the treasurer of the pack leader. Potentially good Often, den leaders spend lots of their own money ... OR need more money to run a good program. I know I myself often bought and paid for things out of pocket ... significantly ... without being reimbursed. So having some funds would be nice. Keeping the funds closer to the scouts who will benefit from the money. Reducing the amount that is managed by the larger pack. A 90 member pack could easily have $6000 to $10000 in dues. $30000 to $40000 in gross fundraising. And $15000 to $20,000 in fundraising fundraising. And another $10000 in camping fees. Large amounts of money are hard to manage and even harder to spend efficiently. Potentially bad Packs need money to operate. Pack meetings. Events. Banquets. Rechartering the membership. Loss of accountability Loss of control Fundraising in the name of a non-profit should be managed by the non-profit. Fundraising in the name of a non-profit should benefit the whole membership of the non-profit, not just the subset that managed it. You can target a significant portion to those who raised the funds, but significant is definitely less than half of the profit, probably more like 20% to 30%. My comment is don't reject the idea out of hand. Don't try to fix things that may not necessarily broke. Wait for the right time or the right reason.

Almost all scouts earn MBs these days through some form of class or lecture. I agree with your ideal. I just don't see that as how almost 99% of the MBs are earned. The only time I've been contacted to work one on one is after the scout is all done and needs signatures. IMHO, that also defeats the program. It's supposed to be about mentorship.

That's the same as our troop. The only difference is, if possible, we do the BOR the same night. But it's not always guaranteed as we don't always have the right people or the SMC happens too late. IMHO, that's also what the GTA advises. Read GTA section 8. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf That's what I remember reading. I was looking and can't find the BSA document that says it. I remember BSA doc saying: it is not the job of the scout to request the BOR. It is the scoutmaster's job to see that one happens after the SMC is done. ... or similar wording ...

My experience is most 18 year olds that want to stay as ASMs have scouting as something that fills a place in their lives. And, I'm 100% okay with that. As long as you make it clear about youth protection and expectations, I'd be easy on the new ASM. Let him find his place. Treat him as a fellow adult and as a friend guide him into his new role. But let him enjoy it.

I fully agree with the ideal. And, many scouts do develop life long hobbies or new professions or just have their eyes opened up to new things. The trouble is the mix. too many lame MB programs too many MB programs where the MB content is way less than the scout's life or school experiences too many MB programs that just have no added value to the scout and leave the scout with a "that was a waste" attitude. Every one of my sons has had experiences with MBs that were just bad or beyond bad. I'm often the driver and sitting in the back of the room. I've finally developed enough trust with my sons that if they look back at me with an expression that it's a waste, we leave. My son went to a computer MB session two Decembers ago. He really wanted to learn something. It was bad ... even from my view. Same with my sons attending dentistry and crime prevention. The presenter didn't know anything special and was not even experienced in the topics. We left. I really think the MB program can be great when it is the right match and done well. ... AND every scout has their favorite badge that they are glad they did it. But it's 2 bad for every one good or even worse. A great example is the citizen merit badges. For a inexperienced 11 year old, they may be good. But for a seventeen year old who is academically average, they are lame and way less than they learned in school.

Girl scout troops are different also from how recruiting is done. And GSA troops tend to have a smaller committee, aka the adult leader. IMHO, that adult leader has great latitude in size and content and membership of the troop. Otherwise they can find another adult volunteer.

Two quick comments ... #1 Units get to know the leaders from other units. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if the troop you are looking at already knows the behavior of the other troop. IMHO, you don't need to dig up dirt or get them on your side. Just be open and honest. My experience is that adult leaders want to help the scouts. #2 Usually when a BOR takes place, the BOR checks that the SM signed in the scoutbook for the SMC. Also, the BOR checks the other signatures. Finally, the BOR signs the book. If I was a leader in the troop your son was joining, I'd want to see the book signatures, have a quick conversation with your son and then I'd help him submit his rank advancement for the rank he already earned as documented by the signatures in his book. You can also talk to your district advancement chair and/or representative. They can help your son.

Each situation and each scout is different. I've come to fully believe in viewing each and every situation as a question of what the scout will learn from our response. The big challenge is different people emphasize different lessons and different results from lessons. Sometimes throwing out the scout is the right decision. Sometimes hard being hard nosed is the right decision. But I've found it's just as important to keep the door open for interaction and future lessons. Call it compassion or call it just simple logic that when you cut ties you cut your options to teach future lessons.

I believe sports is a worn out (no pun intended) analogy too and a bit of a stretch. The real analogy is military, but ... do you want to use a military analogy.

Wow. Trump as honorary BSA president. wow.