fred johnson

CO can choose membership. It is an incorrect question to ask if BSA explicitly allows COs to choose members. BSA has a structure and a program. Charter Orgs choose to run a youth program using the BSA framework. I don't think BSA "allows" anything as the CO can choose / filter the youth it offers scouting too. CO's can limit membership because of unit size, religious / location / money / ... ... ... / other affiliation, etc. Similarly, units can ask members to leave for almost any reason.

Personally, I think this is where BSA gets in trouble. On one hand they say they offer a program and let the CO's select the leaders. On the other hand, BSA has thrown specific members out because of non-criminal issues. It muddies the water on who controls membership and who supplies the youth program.

References

"How Scouting Operates", Page 3, http://www.scouting.org/filestore/commissioner/pdf/33118_WB.pdf

Annual charter agreement, 2nd dot, http://www.scouting.org/filestore/membership/pdf/524-182_web.pdf

"The Charter Organization", http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/32196.pdf ... "... to support that goals and objectives". This is about as clear as you'll find.

Eagle732 wrote: "I'm concerned that if I get too involved the SE will put me in the Ineligibility file."

Ummm..... I'm not saying you did anything. But you have bigger fish to fry than worry about an FOS policy.

(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

Our charter org has a troop and a pack. Others have a troop, a crew and multiple packs.

Why does the CO sign multiple charters? That just seems wrong and annoying to the CO. It should be one charter with one COR and one master CC. The troop should have committee members that run it and report to the CC. The pack should have committee members that report to the same CC. Same with the crew.

Not only is multiple recharters annoying, I think it's a root cause problems in that units are structured to be separate and thus even within a COR, units often don't talk and troops usually don't mentor / support their packs. There's always the exception to the rule, but generally I've seen a large separation with new troop parents leaving their previous pack volunteering in the dust after their son's cross over.

BadenP - Yeah. I know that and you know that. Our IH signs the re-charter paperwork and doesn't usually pay much attention to who's who on the list. He might say ... "oh look, Tim is an ASM. Tim's a good guy." But the IH rarely is a scouting expert and has no concept of the significance of a COR.

Basically, IH usually don't pay attention. Volunteers often don't pay attention OR just don't realize what's going on. Until a few years ago, our pack and troop were doing it. By accident, we were flip-flopping the COR at recharter time. Registrar office never said anything as it was four months between the change. It just kept flip flopping.

To be honest, there's a good question here... I'll spin it off.

Make it happen. Doesn't need a DE. Just a task of your district committee and a contact with the SE for approval.(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

SeattlePioneer "Personally, I never recall seeing a district activity limited to units in the district."

I agree. Camporees. Klondike Derbees. Training. Etc. Generally, not limited.

BUT ... I've received very strong strong hints that a District Pinewood Derby was only for a specific district and that ours was only for our district people. So we never ran in the other district. It happened when our district scheduled the pinewood derby ... poorly.

With that said, I do know some parents and leaders who are ... extremist about their pinewood derby ... and would protest in a second. They would raise a royal stink. And I could understand and agree with them. Because it affects their son's chances to win a trophy and to advance to the council race and win a trophy there. I've seen parents watch inspections to help disqualify cars. Heck, if the district pinewood derby races were really open, I know parents who would go to multiple races just for the fun of seeing their son win a trophy.

.....................

SeattlePioneer "But perhaps better than struggling in a district with district leaders who are a pain in the neck."

I'm just saying make it official and get the council to recognize that your unit is now assigned to the other district. If you don't, you can pretend to be in the other district but your contributing to your own pack/troop having a bad experience at the district level ... because you can't fully separate from your own district and your experience with your own district won't improve until you get involved with it.

.....................

Personally, I've seen seven DEs in my 12 years. Some lasted a few months. The longest was about 30 months or so. I'd bet that is fairly normal. If your DE isn't cutting it or is a pain to work with, let people know. Get others to protest. My experience is that you can get a new DE.

District leaders tend to turn over too. Some district leaders do tend to grab onto their position like a tick and not let go. But that's generally not my experience with most district staffers.

Basement ... I'm sad you've had such a bad experience with your district. I question whether the bad situation is a two way street.

The items I described are pretty standard for a district in our council. And I thought in most councils. Nothing special. Nothing imagined. But to be fair, I forget how differently councils can run things. Our council has 1400 units and 24 districts. So our districts are signficiant in size and resources. Our district itself has 100 units.

BSA24 - I did not miss any point. Perhaps my wording could have been better. My words were "I know some have recommended just doing it yourself "unofficially" but there are reasons to either make it official or not do it at all." The talk about about unofficially transfering districts, not going it alone.

If you want to go it alone, fine. Doesn't really matter. But the conversation was about just starting to get involved with the another district. My point is do it officially or don't do it. Get switched to the other district.

Sure ya can attending training or events with the other district. But if you want your unit to interact with the district beyond just rechartering, then get it recognized as a your unit is now in the other district. There's just too many headaches otherwise.

Hech, you'd be attending the other district but needing your leader apps and rechartering paperwork signed by the old district DE. Your

Yes. But needs justification like your unit pulls most of the scouts from the other geographic area. I have seen this before. Not a big deal.

Yes. But needs justification like your unit pulls most of the scouts from the other geographic area. I have seen this before. Not a big deal.

Yes. But needs justification like your unit pulls most of the scouts from the other geographic area. I have seen this before. Not a big deal.

Yes. But needs justification like your unit pulls most of the scouts from the other geographic area. I have seen this before. Not a big deal.

Since my Nixon affinity has been exposed .... I read a book a long time ago that I was quoting passages of when George Bush junior was gearing up for our entry into Iraq. I fully believe Nixon's book "No More Vietnam's" had strong insight that directly applied to Iraq. The book applied to analyzing the justification (weapons of mass destruction) and planning an exit stratagy. I remember when Iraq was gearing up saying the justification was just not there and looked very flaky. Also, it was obvious when you enter into war with a country like Iraq, you better know your exit strategy or you will be there for years and years. George junior's failure was hiring too many past administration retreaded yes men and not being critical of what he was being told.

Great book .... http://www.amazon.com/No-More-Vietnams-Richard-Nixon/dp/0380701197

(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

Ya know... I hate quoting Nixon. You instantly lose credibility with anyone who's partially informed.

People unfairly associate Nixon with Vietnam, extreme right wing positions, corruption, etc. Now, you can legitimately associate Nixon with vulgarity, dirty tricks, paranoia and plenty of other things. But he was not a bad president. In fact, if not for Watergate, he would be up on the list of very good presidents. We still benefit from Nixon supporting / creating the EPA, OSHA and many other good things. But sort of like the Kennedys assassination cemented his greatness, Nixon's Watergate torpedoed his legacy.

Read a Vietnam timeline on Nixons involvement. It reads very much like Obamas Iraq / Afghanistan history. Troop reductions. Peace talks. Pull outs. Nixon bombed Viet Cog supply routes in Cambodia, but Obama did secret missions to assassinate top terrorists including Osama Bin Laden.

Nixon inherited a huge mess that involved our soldiers fighting in Southeast Asia. The simple importance of Nixon visiting China could not be understated. Heck, that itself probably helped prevent WWIII. I never realized the importance before. The Pentagon Papers documented that the number one reason we were fighting in Vietnam was to avoid a humiliating loss. But, Nixon was able to humble the Presidency to go visit China. That was huge back then and controversial.

I hate doing this, but as far as health care, Nixon had it right. He also was an ERA supporter. As president, he worked to desegregate schools and implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant affirmative action program. He approved the Apollo-Soyuz mission, a very important part of improving relations with the USSR.

But I still hate quoting Nixon.

Obamacare eligibility ... Had to read on it. Still don't understand.

I have noticed my son being able to easily land multiple 20+ hour a week jobs, but zero opportunity for a 30+ hour a week job. IMHO, this is a result of well meaning government laws on "who" is a full time employee and "who" is eligible for benefits. Full-time versus part-time is a result of broken governmental laws. I see Obamacare only exacerbating this. Fifty years ago, you could take a basic job and do it as a full time. Now, companies want to staff to avoid having "full time" employees and employees have to take multiple part-time jobs that are cumulatively "full time" but don't qualify for any benefits.

IMHO, that's a broken situation, a result of government laws and an example of a non-free market.

Republicans should jump on a national health care bandwagon. Get it out of business so that businesses can succeed. Right now, it's a strangle hold on the economy.(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

Obamacare ... I don't significantly understand the law or how it will affect things. But..

- I like that pre-existing conditions are OUT. Too many people have a family member with pre-existing conditions and this affects many.

- I once calculated the tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance. From what I saw, few would pay the penalty for not purchasing insurance because the cost of insurance is so great compared to income. So the individual mandate seems to be almost a none issue. Yeah, it's a tax. But is anyone hit by it? At the time I did the calculation, I worked a company that allowed employees to purchase health care, but the cost for my family was $1800 per month.

- I did work at a company (much larger than 50 people) that was considering dumping their health coverage and paying the penalty. The decision is waiting for 2014. But for them, it might be cheaper to pay the tax penalty then to provide insurance. Plus, the insurance might be better and it simplifies their company HR admin.

- I think the current Obamacare is dysfunction. BUT ... it's a neccessary step. I view it like the fiscal cliff we are in. President signed a budget bill hoping to get improvements later and now might be stuck. Same with Obamacare. I think it was signed with the plan that further legislation will fix the problems. I doubt a political consensus can be made to fix it now. But it is better then nothing.(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

I've voted Republican 80% to 90% of the time. Probably always will. I was driven to the party years ago because of the hatred and bigotry in the Democrat party. I always find it interesting to see the Democratic party asserting moral ground.

- It was the Democratic convention that refused to seat a black delegation 1964.

- It was the Democratic south that blocked civil rights and the Little Rock Nine. It was a Republican president who sent out the Screaming Eagles and the national guard to protect them.

- I've never seen anything close to racism in any of the offices I've worked in, but I've seen and heard explicit racism on union AFL/CIO production floors.

- It was a Democratic president and government that grew the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers covered explicit lies and deceit of the Johnson administration.

I'm also a Reagan Republican and it was Reagan, the candidate, who advocated for the free flow of people and products across the Mexican and Canadian borders. It was Reagan who signed the 1986 amnesty for 3 million immigrants. It was the Democratic AFL/CIO who was fighting that immigration of products and people.

I'm not saying Republication party is morally better. I just find it repulsive that the Democratic party tries to act better-than-thou and that the press coverage is so very much more favorable for the Democratic party. ... But the Republican party has run some flaky candidates lately and has taken a turn away from their traditional roots too. So they have earned some of the press coverage.

But I'm still repulsed by much of the Democratic party "attitude". Generally, I'm against arguements that have at their base "take it from them because they have it and they are a smaller insignificant voting base."

Specifically, in this day and age, I'm repulsed by the 1% arguement. I'm far away from the 1%, but it screams to me of spurning hatred, blaming someone else and make others pay because they can. It's not at all about "fair share".

Ratio - Tax % to Income %

---- Top 1%.... - 2.17 - Earns 16.9% and pays 36.7% of income taxes

---- Top 5%.... - 1.85 - Earns 31.7% and pays 58.7% of income taxes

---- Top 10%... - 1.62 - Earns 43% and pays 70% of income taxes

---- Top 25%... - 1.33 - Earns 65% and pays 87% of income taxes

---- Bottom 50% - 0.17 - Earns 13% and pays 2.3% of income taxes.

And they have been paying more over the last 25 years.

% change in income tax share (1987 to 2009)

---- Top 1% .... up 48% ... 1987 24.81% of total income taxes. 2009 36.73 %

---- Top 5% .... up 35% ... 1987 43.26%. 2009 58%.

---- Top 10% ... up 27% ... 1987 55.61%. 2009 70.47%.

---- Bottom 50% ... down 63% ... 1987 6.07%. 2009 2.25%.

To say the top wage earns are not paying their "fair" share is rediculous.

It is an honest debate to discuss if top wage earners should pay more. But, IMHO, they have paid their fair share and it is intellectually dishonest to infer differently.

...

I'm a Republican and for free markets. So, let's get rid of the number one tax shelter for the upper class, mortgage interest deduction. That interest deduction never helps the lower 50% of the population. It barely helps the bottom 75%, but it greatly helps the top 10% of society. Or cap the interest deduction at $100,000 of principal. When I see measures like that out of the Democrat party, they will start earning some of my respect. I'm for free markets and this deduduction artificially inflates housing values and prevents the rich from paying their fair share.

...

Gotta admit, that even as a Reagan republican, I'm looking forward to Obamacare. It needs drastic improvements, but the current system is failing. I say that as I've been paying $1800 a month for health insurance not including dental, life or disability insurance.(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

Beavah.... Wow.... Absolutely common sense is core to being a scout leader. BUT... that common sense applies AFTER complying with what's written in the G2SS. And heck, common sense is to comply with BSA policy guidelines.

It makes little difference whether it is the BSA root "policy document" or the non-lawyer, human readable BSA policy translation. It's published by the BSA as our "guide" to those policies. That's why for my units, it's if in doubt, check G2SS. (It's updated pretty much every year, making it as curernt as you can get. Plus, it's free. BSA wants every leader to have one.)

Here's a real world example from my pack. Our pack leaders are gung-ho outdoors people. Five eagle scouts. Former BSA summer camp aquadics staff. Former BWCA tour guide. Life guards. EMT/paramedic. Really, it's pretty cool.

For the last four years, different Webelos leaders have wanted to take their Webelos dens canoeing and/or to the BWCA. These cub leaders are thourghly qualified and they've coordinated trips with neighbors and the neighbor kids. Most, if not all the cubs, have already canoed and/or gone to the BWCA (outside of scouting).

I, as committee chair and to stay on their good side, say it's fine as long as it's okay with the G2SS and get a tour permit. I'll probably let them know what G2SS says and that the council has rejected previous tour permits for those activities with Webelos. But I'd help them pursue getting council permission ... which won't occur.

My big fear is if you say BSA comes down to common sense and G2SS applies differently to different leaders, different cubs and different areas of the countries, scout leaders might just say: what the heck, let's take 'em anyway. I am not a lawyer, but I can almost guarantee you that those leaders are personally liable for accidents as they well should be. Also, I'd bet their BSA membership will be revoked too. Of course, all that makes little difference after they bury some poor kid. Or more probably bury some poor parent who couldn't hack it.

Wow. Good question. I've never heard it asked before. In my neck of scouting, G2SS is primary and supersedes all other BSA publications. If in doubt, check G2SS.