fred8033

Semantics of a different question. ... To answer the that question, you can skirt the issue with making it a charter org fundraiser. ... The challenge is I've never seen a charter org run a fundraiser for a unit. Usually, it's the exact same people that run unit fundraisers. And the same rules are applied for scout accounts and sharing the results. ... Heck, most charter orgs are just not involved at all. ... It also introduces other issues ... if it's a charter org fundraiser and the charter org donates the money to the unit, I think that makes it much more difficult to credit any specific scout accounts any amount. The incentives to raise funds should be at the charter org level and specific scouts don't exist as separate entities in the charter org. My big fear in calling it a charter org fundraiser is it sets a bad lesson for our scouts. They see adults skirting policies and permission by effectively lying. But then again, my solution is probably not any better. Our units just don't ask. We play naive; not knowing we should ask.

They absolutely have the power to say no. The have little power to enforce. Just be considerate. Support your council by selling popcorn and friends of scouting. Beyond that, I wouldn't ask about other fundraisers. Focus on making your unit provide the best scouting program. The rest is noise.

Guilty. I like their feel and often wear them even outside scouting. I always buy extra every time they are on sale. I'm very critical of the uniform, but the socks are a weakness.

When our pack or troop sold wreaths, we didn't ask permission. When other units sold candy or flowers, I doubt they asked permission. With that said, you need to provide at least some details (even if generic) to put context to the question.

I have luckily never encountered such a predator ... at least to my knowledge. But I have repeatedly seen adults who are trusting of other because of character or reputation and willing to ignore the taught rules. We need to help others follow the rules and to remind them of the rules. We need to not be embarrassed to call people out on the rules.

I absolutely disagree that adults need to lead the course. IMHO, one of the best teaching methods is having scouts work with scouts. Our troop hasn't done ISLT recently. But when we did ... SM coached the SPL (who ran the course). The coaching was not hours and hours. It was more to familize with the materials ... 15 minutes at a time. Over a few weeks. The night before the course, the SPL and SM (and another adult) prep'ed the training and the materials. The training itself was a combination of 10 to 15 minute segments of BSA produced VHS tapes specifically for ISLT … with "now pause the tape" Games Exercises Reflections and discussion Scoutmaster comments / thoughts … really short comments and thoughts It was all run by the SPL for the scouts. One of my favorite parts was lunch. Paper bag lunches. One bag had bread. One had cheese. One had meat. Chips. The scout that really was happy was the scout who had all the deserts in their lunch bag. It was interesting to see if it was immediate or 30 seconds ot 60 seconds before they realized they had to share and work together to have a good lunch. … But the kid with the deserts always had a big smile on his face.

Looking back, I may not have been as sensitive to the project and the scout. It is just that Eagle projects are a mixed bag.

Agreed. Misbehavior should be dealt with by SM / CC outside of BOR. Such misbehavior may prevent the BOR from starting.

Scouts get flustered all the time. And, scout oath and law were requirements for a specific rank. It's troop program that keeps the skills up and not the advancement program. A good way for a troop to keep that skill current is to have the scouts say the oath and law before every meeting. Your example about camping nights seems slightly different. The scout said he didn't, but it's signed off. As such, the scout said he had not met the requirement. IMHO, you can ask the scout to recite oath and law at BOR, but you really can't suspend the BOR because he flobbed it.

That's different. A scout is answerable to having the requirements reviewed and tested. The signature in the book indicates it's been tested and judged worthy. It's not the BORs place to re-evaluate or retest or rejudge if a scout met the requirement.

Hmmm .... Good quote, but not a motto. A motto is something Trump could easily twitter.

Scouts do not fail BORs. BORs are suspended and reconvened. Only aging out stops a BOR after a missing requirement is found. Reasons to suspend a BOR ? Unsigned requirements. A scout had everything signed off except the service hours. It was never approved by anyone. And in this case, the scout was short hours. Truly exceptional circumstances. Being arrested. Bringing drugs to scouting events.

I wish I could edit more as I bet I could come up with many or refine my thoughts. Here are a few that I like. "Keep the outing in scouting" ... My interpretation --> Focus on doing. In doing, we create opportunities to teach and make a difference. "Teach at all times. Use words if necessary." ... My interpretation --> Our actions are our greatest teacher. Flip side, too many "teaching" words kills the scout spirit. ... Quote is often attributed to Francis of Assisi, but it may be a pairing down of their religious rules and not a real quote.

I like that Socrates quote. IMHO, that's a good match for how scoutmasters should work.

Just finished a week of summer camp. It was a non-issue. Yes there are some challenges due to the transition. But program and the experience of summer camp had no change.

I should qualify my answer. I think you could technically do it. There is no rule preventing. It's just not a good idea at all.

Wonderful CBS news story.

Looks like a typical summer camp tent setup. I can only imagine the mom was thinking the old rule with tarps under tents. A tarp that is exposed beyond the edge of the tent collects water and can draw water under the tent. IMHO, that does not fit this case. Side comment ... guy on the right got a better deal. Less gap for bugs. Cot solidly on platform. Opportunity for middle of the night laugh when his friend on the left falls out of the tent because the cot not solidly on the platform.

I would absolutely not put that in place. A special camp out for those that sold seems wrong. Pack program should be for everyone. Packs have a hard time doing one or two pack camp outs a year. I fear an invite only campout would not be an "addition" but rather a limit that reduces opportunity. Most importantly, those-that-camp may not always be good fundraisers. And, those-that-fundraise may not always want to camp. Incentives are important. Boys (and parents) compete for incentives, but this is a badly matched incentive.

I'm not surprised. Long-term quality is hit and miss with Eagle projects. Often an Eagle project is fixing short comings with an Eagle project from previous years. IMHO, it should have been anticipated that wet, shady areas can cause the boards to get slick. They can become a falling hazard.

A few other key points ... Involving others can trigger things beyond your control. You may or may not need to do this, but be warned. Things can take a life of their own. Does the kid want to be a scout? Parents often push scouts to try to offset other behavior issues. Sometimes youth are interested in exploring the darker side of life (drugs, alcohol, theft, etc). If so, their interests are not compatible with scouting. Period. Suspending does not have to have a time limit. In this case, a time limit serves no purpose. The real need is for the youth to lose the interest in drugs and want to be a scout. I would simply in as friendly a way as possible say ... The path you are choosing is not compatible with scouts. We want to support you as we can, but at this point your interests are not compatible with scouting or our troop. You are welcome to come back if you change your ways. But until then, it is best if you find somewhere else to spend your time. "If it were me" ... if a scout brought pot to a meeting (even if outside) ... and that scout had other dark behaviors too ... then I'd remove the scout. Period. If they want back, I'd consider it through conversation with him and my view if he really was changing his path. Watch out for people saying "if any kid needs scouting, that kid needs scouting". The kid might, but at what cost. Other scouts? More incidents? Killing recruitment for five to ten years. From my experience, our troop has always been worse off going with reasoning of "if any kid needs scouting, that kid needs scouting." If he stays in scouting, you are accepting responsibility to protect others. You know he's a risk and will introduce other bad habits to the troop. Do you really accept that risk? BIGGEST POINT ... You will lose good kids and you will scare away families if you don't handle this and handle it now. You already lost one kid from summer camp. Your troop could earn a label as having troubled scouts and new families will avoid your troop because of it. Bad behavior needs to be dealt with immediately. Especially if it is a pattern of bad behavior.

It can happen and has a special patch that says ... "Proud son of a super mom!"

@Sentinel947 Well done.

I agree and disagree. IMHO, the RSO handled it poorly. ... but we need to separate that from the fundamental of his need to teach the scouts and to keep them safe. A RSO absolutely needs the prerogative to remove scouts who can't listen, can't focus or are screwing around. From the RSO point of view, it doesn't matter if it's just bad behavior or a disability. But the RSO should have handled it better.

Sad that parents or whoever had to escalate this to the broadcast news. Hasn't scouts been dragged through enough already? Doesn't the parent want his kid to stay in scouts? Now, their kid will be eternally known in their troop, in their district and in the local schools as the kid who dragged his own organization into the public opinion space. I trust the adults to treat the kid fairly, but the other scouts might not as much. I assume if a family does this, the family is planning to leave scouts. BSA and scouting and local volunteers bend over backwards to help kids with special needs. And, we've had lots of scouts with all sorts of issues. Now and then adults don't every situation well. Or specific situations get the better of the leaders. If this situation is as it was said, then the guy being paid effectively $ 2.00 per hour did not handle it well. And it's sad because it gives everyone a black eye after all the hard work put in. No scout should ever hear people asking if they are mentally disturbed. ... to be honest though, the rest of the story seems reasonable. ... RSO saying they've had trouble with kids like that is questionable depending on context? statement is ok if referring to screwing around or not sitting still or not listening or ... It's not ok if referring to autism ... even then it should be discussed quietly to the side with other adult leaders or camp staff. Not in front of the scouts. I've run BBGun and Archery ranges. I have asked parents to help kids who need a bit more focus. I've asked kids to step out because of their behavior. The point is I was responsible to keep the range safe. But riffle and shotgun are different than cub camp. And it needs to be the prerogative of the RSO. It's their neck if the range is not kept safe. My issue is I just never seen a scout leader or staffer use those exact words. As such, it seems like a very one sided representation of a bad situation. ... I have seen scouts use those exact words about each other. Usually, it's followed with some adult finding an opportunity to coach the scout. With that said, we've got multiple scouts in our troop on the autism spectrum disorder scale. Two of them ... depending time of day ... depending if they took their medicines ... I could see being kicked off the firing range because they can't sit still and listen. At those times, they will screw around and distract the others. The RSO needs to maintain control of the range and keep things safe. If the scouts are squirrel-ly or not listening or screwing around, they should be kicked off the range. It can be mater of factly handled and bluntly. ... But the issue is not the diagnosis. The issue is the specific timing and whether the scouts can participate safely.