fred8033

It will be interesting to see if that is true. From what I'm reading, the original donors wishes may need to be honored, even if it isn't within the boundaries of "BSA". It will be truly interesting to see how this washes out. If the property was purchased, it could be a very different story.

A transfer to hide or protect assets, yes. But many donations do NOT 100% cut ties. Donations can be conditional. In fact, I believe there is a local camp donated for scout use, but if scouts choose to not use it as a camp anymore, the ownership transfers back to the original family / owners. I doubt the local scout group could sell it for cash even under court order as they do not outright own it.

That's the same thing our troop does. Our current treasurer uses a spreadsheet. Previous treasurers used Quicken or another tool. The key is that all transactions roll up through the scout account, aka "virtual" scout account. If the scout makes a payment, it credits the scout account. If the scout is charged for camping, dues, etc, then the scout account is debited. If parents want, they can see how their scout's account has increased and decreased over the year. When scouts get credit from a fundraiser, it's just a credit to their scout account.

Many of the scout properties were "donated". Is there any information about rescinding rights for donated properties? For example, if BSA chose to sell, the property ownership would revert back to the original owner. Philmont was donated by Phillips family and there is discussion of restrictions. Big Monson was donated by Homer Formby. The Submit was donated very recently. Were there rescinding rights that block sale ?

I'd hate to see BSA lose sea base. It's an incredible and unique experience for scouts. But then again, I'm betting BSA could partner with outside firms to provide similar experiences without owning the BSA asset. But, I'd sure hate to see it lost.

You will NOT get a clear cut answer. You will get the answers people want to give to justify a desired answer. Scout accounts is always a very contentious debate in scouting. Heck, money always messes things up. BSA's publication is fairly consistent with IRS's letters. IRS has intentionally left this vague and rules are set by precedent on a case-by-case basis. But, IRS's intention is clear. Money is for the non-profit. Below substantial amounts, scouts can receive to their scout accounts funds as an incentive to help raise funds for the unit. Dollar "amounts" is mentioned because small amounts minimize IRS audit risks. IRS cases from 1990s reflect band boosters with 60,000+ in fund raising (if I remember right). The main issues are interpreting "private benefit" and "substantial". Substantial private benefit is wrong. Here's my recommendation. Don't let this burn friendships or people. Depending on the debate and who's involved, this can go every direction. Publish your rules. Be consistent. Be kind. Be courteous. Don't sweat it if your troop doesn't get the exact answer you want. It's really hard to get a clean answer. Watch for people getting upset. Money is always a contention point. For me, I think the IRS rules are clear. Scout accounts can receive benefits from fundraisers, but keep it 10% to 20% of sales. Over 30% is substantial and against IRS rules. Under 10% won't be a an incentive. It's just that the risk of being audited is extremely low with the amounts an average troop uses for fund raising. Even if your troop raises $30,000 in wreaths. BUT, if your troop is depositing $100,000 each year in your troop bank account from a single fundraiser, then I'd be more concerned. At some point, if you really want a good answer, hire a tax attorney and pay them their fee to get an answer. And, if you don't like the answer, get a different tax attorney. You probably will get a different answer.

That's my experience too. Scouters bend over backwards to help all.

Like "defund the police", "local choice" can infer good and bad. When I hear "local choice", I think of the beliefs and values of the the charter organizations. BSA asks the charters to give physically and financially. BSA provides the conceptual structure and the written program. Charter organizations provide this physical space and financial support. In that context, BSA must not discriminate membership. Charter organizations have the right though to host programs that reflect their own beliefs and values. There is always the option for parents to form scouting units under secular organizations and have a secular program: VFWs, schools, city governments, "parents of". Such secular organizations would reflect a more secular belief system. IMHO, "local option" means parents need to choose the scouting unit that reflects the values they want to teach their kids. I'm Catholic and I love my church. As a Catholic parent, I'd prefer my kids to be in a scouting unit hosted by a Catholic church. If there is no other benefit, my kids benefit from being in that church more than just Sunday morning. But then again, my kids have also been in units also hosted by other churches. I really didn't have an issue with that either. My sons have met youth and adults pretty much of every possible set of beliefs, value system and life styles. ... and to be honest ... it's never been an issue. ... the real issue in scouting is adult personality and conflict. But that's not a belief system issue. It's a personality issue.

Can you take picture of blue and card and send image of the card? ... from what I'm hearing ... SM is trying to help and well intentioned, but may be a little over zealous ... OR, just trying to learn how to do things in this new COVID-19 safe-distancing world.

Simple answer ... it should not be an issue. Recording MBs in ScoutBook do NOT require entering the MB counselor's name. Is the SM having an issue with this?

... sadly ... until about a year ago ... I could have answered. I had old versions of the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures from before 2000 that I inherited. I also had the ACPP versions I started using in the mid 2000s. ... happily ... I have more of my house back. Really wasted a lot of space keeping old documents / books that I'd be purging in ten / twenty years when I move again. I'd rather have the clean house now. From what I understood, the MB program was never a troop program and has always been overseen by council / district. Scouts have always been open to use any MB counselor. The gray area was how much say the SM had in the scout starting the MB and who they could use. ... FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND ... and I could be wrong ... the intention has always been SM awareness and not SM control. ... Now, units could have done things differently themselves. But BSA's intention has been fairly clear.

That's great !!! From what I'm hearing this is all administrative stuff adults should resolve. It's not a scout issue. If you want to be helpful, you could provide supporting place the SM could use. But at some point, the SM should say "I trust you and it looks good."

Did each merit badge start with a conversation between the scout and his SM ? ... email, phone call, socially distant in-person ? Every MB starts with the scout letting his SM know .... "Mr SM. I'm going to be joining this MB session in another council to do this MB ...." ..., then I'd hope the SM would make it easy for him. That's explicit in the BSA Guide To Advancement and the scout's blue card. It's not about the SM approving the MB situation. It's about the SM being aware of what's happening. SMs want to be aware as advancement growth is not about the number of MBs a scout. Growth is about the process the scout has to do to earn the MBs. Phone calls. Efforts. Doing it himself. Scouting owning the responsibility. ... Too often the MB venue or (and my apologies here) the parents subvert the MB program. And scouts often subvert the program naively (and sometimes not-naively) claiming a MB is done. Scout failing to let his SM know about pending MBs is not a blocking point. But it can raise questions and concerns. So my questions are #1 Is the SM questioning the MBs ? #2 Was the SM aware of the scout working the MBs before?

Nicely stated. I've been a scout leader for 15+ years and I'd definitely be challenged to keep any cub den running. It's ALOT of work and confusing to understand if you are doing it "RIGHT". I think that's why so many adults are relieved to cross into troops ... if they make it that far. ... But then troops have a different issue.

So true. Scouting is hung up in political and legal battles that are tearing the program apart. Maybe it is time to let the scouting program shrink. Too much contention. Too many arguments. Too much confusion on what scouting really is. It should never be about who is allowed or not allowed to be a scout. Or specific beliefs to be a scout. The test is about people living the scout oath and law in an outdoor oriented program that develops character. Of course, the personal beliefs are important and scouts should be able to find a unit that has compatible set of people. I really believe scouting would be best served right now by focusing on the basics. Outdoors. Camping. Skills. Fellowship in the outdoors while camping and developing skills.

We live in sad times. It is the worst of closed minded intolerance to destroy art, statues and rename the past. In no way does enjoying art or remembering the past exist as a modern statement advocating for returning to the past. In no way does hiding the past promote enlightenment. Each time I see something like this I think about the Buddhas of Bamyan that were destroyed. I think of book burning. I think of hate and intolerance. Baden Powell was not perfect. He was a man of his times who did extraordinary things. If he isn't worthy of a statue, no one is.

It promotes an unhealthy US vs THEM attitude. I live in a city where there are probably 10+ troops within 10 minute drive. It is wholly natural for parents / adults to adopt "that's our feeder pack" attitude. Then, another troop learns and improves recruiting and starts succeeding recruiting from them. So then hard feelings develop, etc. It's a hard hard pattern that I've been on both ends of. Then while one unit is good with recruiting, that unit grows to 50+/60+ scouts and the other crashes to 15/20. And, the pendulum shifts. I entirely believe the correct approach would be umbrella based (charter or org or ...). The committee serves that umbrella group and has a CM, SM, OA advisor and committees for cub camping, troop camping, etc. Different ages help each other. For example, our boy scouts always enjoyed running pinewood derbies, especially if we bribed them with post-derby activities / movie / bowling / ??? They took pride in the derby stuff and enjoyed fellowship with other scouts. Same with cub camping. Our scouts enjoyed cooking etc. I believe emphasizing a transition causes divides. Age based divides. Unit based divides. US vs THEM divides. It's wholly unhealthy. Scouts should always be welcome to shift or change at any time. AND, we should make that easy easy to happen as possible. But encouraging shopping is just not good.

Perhaps we are circling the same issue. Which came first? Chicken or the egg? "THROUGH THE METHOD OF OUTDOORS". This is where scouting shines. ... and it supports as a by-product character / leadership. It's just that I really don't scouting adult leaders do a good job of "explicitly" teaching leadership. BUT, on average they quickly learn to teach out to setup a tent, tie knots, cook in the rain, etc. Scouting shines when we focus first on outdoor adventures. Scouts crashes and burns when we focus first on telling adults to teach leadership and character.

Your thoughts are dead on right ... though I don't express it the same way. My youngest son recently said he loves the camping and activities, but he wishes he could do it more outside of scouting as he doesn't like the scouting aspect. He comes from a scouting experience of way too many adults inserting themselves way way too much. And it's adults that often just don't have the skill to teach what they are preaching. And, adults that trip and fall over each other. It just drives kids away. Memory ... I experienced more than one summer camp where the troop leaderships were proud of how many adults attended. 12 to 15 adults for a troop of approx 20 to 25 scouts. Adults was assigned roles and jobs to make sure camp went smooth. Perhaps I was off base, but I considered this bad. For a 20 to 25 scout summer camp, the perfect number of adults is 2 to 4. Three was bad. Two is good for cribbage. Four is good for hearts. Three allows one adult to nap while playing cribbage.

The above graph 100% matches my experience. I challenge the ability to separate the 1st (camping) and 2nd (time with friends). Many scouts see camping as fun because they hang with their friends away from the normal world / adults / homework / etc. They get to create their own world that they control ... until the next big thunderstorm.

We so so so need more of this in scouting. ... A little bit of good humor and taking things not as serious goes a long way.

I swear I'm just too tired. I kept reading catheter.

"BSA already knows the answer to that one too. It just lacks the will to impose the necessary standards and practices" ... "BSA lacks the will here to impose discipline and direction on a loosey-goosey program" I agree in scouting is often a loosey-goosey program. BSA lack's the will I disagree in that BSA does not know the answer to provide consistent quality. BSA does not know the program they want to be. JROTC? Outward bound? STEM? Career? Or, is it just all-things-to-all-people. BSA depends too much on charismatic, high quality leaders as the answer to the program. BUT, they can't consistently get those high quality leaders. In some ways, maybe the future is good. BSA needs to slim down and decide what type of program it is. BSA needs to trim off all the side programs and focus on the core. It's just that BSA does not really know what that core is. Perhaps, BSA should just use the 1910's handbook.

I was thinking about this the other night. I strongly argue that most adult BSA volunteers share their time because they like being outdoors, in camps, at camp fires, on a river, hiking, etc. But, we want kids to be in it to learn leadership and character. I think that's a bit hypocritical. I strongly believe scouting shines when we are more like a camping club. Friends planning meals. Friends helping setup tents. Friends starting a camp fire and singing songs. Friends planning their next adventure. Oh, as a side benefit, they learn naturally learn leadership and character and develop physical fitness hobbies. So, I'm 100% fine with saying scouts learn leadership, etc, etc, etc. But stop trying to teach it. Scouts learn better when we stop trying to teach.

I agree that we must keep a stiff upper lip, but this is wholly unfair. BSA has been a huge net positive. BSA had a youth protection program in place years before others. BSA did the best to track and remove violators before society and police had similar structures. BSA is being uniquely targeted because of assets without parallel targeting of structures with similar assets that had arguably statistically similar abuse history: schools. sports. and almost every single youth serving organization. BSA is being targeted using 2020 standards / expectations / judgement that were not existing for 1970s / 1980s. BSA's huge mistake was not purging records that were decades old and of zero value / use to BSA before any hint of lawsuits happened. Every company I've worked established in the 1990s document retention policies, in large part due to liability risk. I think it's negligent BSA's legal team did not address this long, long ago. We must meet this as scouts, but I will never accept this as an acceptable penalty. This is a money grab. This is a smear campaign. Shame on the law firms. Shame on the individuals. Shame on the legal system that is blind to this.