fred8033

This may be a naive question. BUT, what would BSA have told insurance companies? The laws did not exist then as they do now. Not liability laws. Not abuse laws. Absolutely not reporting laws. Also, what would BSA communicate? We had an issue with person X where parents, police, church leaders and others did not want to pursue the case? Also, how would they have pursued it? Our independent franchisee Council Y had an incident and we want to report it up? Our independent franchisee Council Y "charter partner" (church XXX) had trouble with one of the leaders that church selected as a youth leader? Also, I've had insurance policies over the years, business and personal. I'm an amateur, but I never remember an insurance reporting form where there was not a claim. Now, the claims are coming. Also, I'd argue insurance companies must have known that youth serving organizations tend to have issues like this. I'm sure they were not that naive. It seems like noise to say BSA did not let insurance companies know. Expectations are based on the time and place. Lawsuits are based on very different expectations now. The real issue is a 1970s insurance policy could never have conceived of the liability now being applied. I doubt anyone could have conceived of what is happening now with these lawsuits. The real issue here is BSA is a single-source with deep pockets ... or somewhat deep. Will the lawsuits now start being applied to every police department, church and independent person listed in these reports? I doubt it, because that would be too much work. But it could be farmed out to smaller law offices as a strong arm tactic to extort money.

Charter organization head can. If a church, that's a pastor at the church or the church council. CynicalScouter hit it on the head and addressed my main concern. When people ask how to replace someone in the scouting structure, it's because of conflict in the unit or other problems. I'd really invest in making connections, building friendships, getting to know people and seeing if you can encourage change in a friendly, constructive way ... as CynicalScouter said. Always avoid power struggles. They never work and people get damaged. I'd also reflect on the assertion that the COR is not doing his job. The job of a COR is pretty small and ideally, almost invisible. Is it really the COR not doing the job or is there conflict in the unit and a vision that things could be different?

Post removed.

Our pack had class B's that the scouts loved to wear and parents loved to see them wearing. They looked cool and often were a bragging point. Most importantly, they were very functional if we bought the right base materials. Many good suggestions so far. All docs online and via PDF. Get rid of gimmicky stuff. Simplify uniform. IMHO, the biggest problem with uniforms is that they are not functional. When I'm hiking, camping, swimming, etc ... the last thing I'd want to wear is a scout uniform. Heavy. Itchy. Catches on things. Expensive to replace. Painful to re-sew. My recommendations. Shut down the scout shops. Physical stores are a huge carrying cost. We're in the era of Amazon.com. Everything scouts and units need from BSA could be shipped as fast as needed. It would save the average scout leader time and money driving miles and miles. ... I'd also argue that the huge carrying costs of scout shops perverts decisions resulting in selling expensive books, gimmicky stuff and many piece parts to the uniform. ... I'd also argue the units should be the source of materials and parents should not experiencing the scout shop "sales pitch". Related BSA "in-person" sales should be focused on scout camps that have a trading post that sells a combination of property specific, BSA specific, quality outdoor stuff ... and candy. ... If parents want impress their kids, have them shop at a scout camp trading post. Units should stock advancements to enable awarding as soon as possible. Ideally, at the same meeting. ... This would support on-line sales. ... IMHO, I've rarely seen people wear ranks they did not earn. The real risk is probably units that go rogue and do not record advancements. ... but early awarding is much more important. .... So, let's save cost by not trying to correlated scout shop purchases with unit rank records.

I'd be interested to see cost vs benefit on many scouting programs. ATVs are cool, but what's the cost. More complex scheduling. Additional staff to run. ATVs. I tend to agree. Get out camping. A mix of yearly same-spot and new experience camping. The toys are okay, but not as important as just getting out.

This is an argument that it make sense. I love the scout properties, but they sit idle a large amount of time. There is potential to increase use if offered to public for alternative use. The real challenge would be how to keep scout properties available to scouts when also available to a more public / family use. Family camping and scouting camping may not be side-by-side compatible.

I could see some value in that. As a parent, I would have loved bringing my kids to a scout camp to fish, hike, etc. The camps have great programs and resources.

Ours offered a special patch for scoutmasters who can certify that during summer camp week they accomplished certain goals including not losing their temper during the week.

It's always nice when the scout fills out the fundraiser application. It's clearly a grey threshold if the scout is only fundraising within the charter org. If the charter org pays for the project, the scout does not need a the fundraiser application. If the fundraiser is completely separate from the charter org (and it's significant money ... and ...), then yes you need it signed. The scout could legitimately argue a fundraiser application is not necessary if all the fundraising occurs within the boundaries of the charter org.

No strict rule exists. The positive view is you've got a great problem to handle. Ten scouts going for Eagle. Great! Find a fair process / rule / idea. Approved project proposal write-ups before "conceptual" projects that are not signed off yet. Time sensitive projects first. First come, first served? The tangential comment you will get is it's very unusual to get ten scouts at the same time. It's even more unusual to have ten all asking for fundraising from the charter org. Did the charter org have a list of suggested projects? Or is there an "overly" supportive eagle coach? Or are they just feeding off each other's ideas? That does happen.

Dang. I responded to an old post. Correct. When working with the scout, use the words the scout sees. Use the GTA for your own education to interpret the words the scout sees. Further, I'd parse the requirements Plan ... What does the scout need to plan? Can the project be broken down into smaller steps that need to be coordinated? Do multiple groups need to be coordinated? Develop ... What does the scout have to solve? Choosing where to install. Purchasing. Pricing. Technical challenges. Give leadership to others ... How is the scout the "leader" of this project? This is beyond taking instructions from others and then repeating work instructions to a work crew. The requirements can also be summarized as how does the scout own the project? How is he a driving force for the project? How is this his project?

Agreed. It's not a problem. It's just a twinge and a place for future improvement. As a friend, I'm saying ... that's a stretch. Everyone treats it as an in-charge title. The big chief is always expected to be skilled, but the focus is on command more than skill. Example, "headmaster" is about being in-charge of the school and less about being more knowledgeable about the educational topics. A headmaster should be a successful academic, but the job is about control. "Scout master general" is defined as "A person, formerly so called, under whose direction all the scouts and army messengers were placed." https://www.definitions.net/definition/scout-master-general Everyone expect scoutmasters to be skilled, but expect scoutmasters to lead the scouts. I understand the long standing tradition of "scoutmaster". I've just never been endeared with the term as much as others.

Maybe it's just me then. I've repeatedly run into people where it's not a positive term. Even myself. When I first took training, I was a bit creep'ed out by the term. I've known the word my whole life and I've known it's respected. But the term can be creepy. ... It's never been a major issue with anyone. ... I just don't think it's a good choice. ... I put it in the category of a place we could improve / clarify.

Well said. I agree. I doubt it's the highest priority.

Fair enough. We have different opinions. That happens. For me, the tools of scouting is getting scouts outside, active, in-fellowship with other youth and having to work to do things. I'm less invested in the term "scoutmaster". But, that's me.

I have mostly the same understanding. IRS allows commissions as it helps raise funds for the non-profit. It's a common fundraising tool. But if you go beyond "significant" such as 30%, then the commission begins to outweigh the non-profit benefit. I'd argue "inurement" is still an issue as often the CC and SM are key personnel deciding how to spend funds and it can directly affect their own costs. For example, the troop that pays for the SM's costs on a trip even though there are multiple other adults willing to go and it's mostly the SM's sons going on the trip and maybe one or two others. Either way, it's often a matter of "risk". Troops are too small usually and IRS is too busy. And, it would usually be the "church" that needs to be audited and troop finances rarely appear in church book keeping. It's like a magical line-item that's never mentioned.

IMHO ... you almost need two sets of recruiting materials. One for youth. One for parents. Youth want to do things. Go places. Get out of the house. Get out from under adult oversight. Parents want a safe environment with positive peer relationships. Environments that teach responsibility and values. IMHO, what youth and parents want are very different. Best way to market is through your existing scouts.

Program. Exciting and interesting stuff. ... #1 recruitment tool is the existing scouts.

Tradition values the term "scoutmaster". It's been used for 100+ years. ... but a different term would be better. Yes, I do say a change is needed. I'm less concerned about the politically incorrect as the misinterpretation. Many scouters have been trained for years and years. But all to often, they do forget the role as it's termed "master". 17 vs 10 is a consideration, but if the scout is in a troop, then let the scout make his own choice ... as long as it's within the boundaries of safety and reasonableness. I see little difference advising a 17 year old vs a 10 year old. ... It all depends on maturity and capability. And, then we should consider the youth too. The reason to keep the term "scoutmaster" is tradition. The reasons to change it are many.

"Advisor" is the better term and more accurate toward the intention. I've always thought the term scout"master" caused misinterpretation. And long term, adults forget their role because they keep hearing "master". I was once thinking "coach", but I've seen too many coaches with a military general command-n-control complex too. Language meaning changes over time. Acceptable words from 100 years ago now mean very different things. IMHO, it's fully acceptable to update words to reflect the desired intention. Changing to "Advisor" fixes both a politically-correct issue and a misinterpretation issue. It may even help perception distance the scouting program from past abuses. IMHO, it would be a very good update. Sadly, I see many long time scouters having issues with the change. But, it's a change that is needed.

I support you. Beyond the long standing tradition of the terms, the terms can be creepy and easily misinterpreted.

I remember being a young intern working with male and female engineers and technicians. I was always uncomfortable talking about cables having male / female connectors. Seriously.

I've seen that too. Recently, I've seen units that begin to charge unusually high dues, but give all fundraising back to the scouts directly to subsidize those charges. The net result is they collect very committed scouts who do fund raise or who's parents can afford the program. There is no middle ground for scouts who don't want to raise funds or who's parents can't afford the costs.

If you want absolutes, ... Don't do fund raisers or ... Don't route any fundraiser profits to scout accounts or ... Run it as a for-profit event (aka helping individual scouts reduce their cost) Pay sales tax. Give the scouts an IRS 1099-MISC for scouts earning about IRS threshold But it seems clear, there is a reasonable middle ground.

When I ran a business, I initially invested hundreds (probably thousands) of hours understanding how to setup a business and setup the whole infrastructure. ... It was cool. IRS would send paper copies of each and every of there publications. And, there was this place in Pueblo, CO that would send educational materials. ... Then, I discovered the incredible, incredible value of an accountant specializing in business administration and tax preparation. unemployment, quarterly filings, with-holdings, etc. I often joked with her that she kept me out of jail . The KEY is that the accountant rarely spoke of legal vs illegal. The tax preparer almost always spoke in terms of audit risk / attention risk. ... She was often annoyed how risk adverse I was. ... She was the best business expense I had and I was happy to pay her invoice when it came. This might be semantics, but it's the thresholds that are NOT clear. The law is clear. If Johnny brings in a fundraising net of $200, all $200 going to Johnny is wrong. It's the what about $100? What about $60? What about $10? From what I've seen, IRS says 30% is "substantial". If the remaining fundraising dollars only lower Johnny's costs without lowering cost of others in the troop or helping the troop as a whole do more, then it's "private benefit" and not a non-profit actual.