fred8033

Size is the obvious difference but I don't think the significant difference. Biggest difference I've noticed is variety. Most Cub Scout dens do outings, attend pack meetings and cub camp. Though quality varies greatly, activities are very similar. BUT ... Girl Scout troops vary greatly driven, I think, by the troop leader. Some might camp. Some might be more craft oriented. Some might be school work like. Others might be yet different again. Each troop is different.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle92 wrote: "With the exception of 2 public schools way out in the county and one private school, because of the busing situation the "neighborhood school" is no more. So it is not uincommon to have 2 or 3 packs at one school." For our whole council, it's almost exactly the opposite. I'd bet there is less then five or ten elementary schools that have multiple packs and our council has 550+ packs. That's got to be an interesting challenge. How do you choose which pack to join? I'd bet a good number of packs fold as one or the other packs gets favored. Only to be recreated later as the other pack grows too big.

dkurtenbach wrote: "For the relationship to continue to work, (nearly) everyone has to be on board, most especially the Webelos Den Leader and the parents of the Webelos Scouts -- every year. If any significant percentage of the 5th grade Webelos in any year go to a different troop, you've got trouble. Not just from the breaking of the "social contract" between pack and troop, but from the new relationships being formed between pack families and the other troop. If the boys who went to the other troop have brothers in the pack, the "partner" troop can really be screwed, and they have to start looking to partner with other packs in order to sustain their membership. Chartered Organization be damned. That's exactly what I'm seeing. And I see a push to do more with the other troop and less with ours. Now we need to invest for years to come to re-build the social contract. Luckily, our COR is willing to help and attend pack and troop committee meetings. The trouble is that both troops are good. Different styles, but good. But the other troop invests significantly more in recruitment. But we have the COR and can justifiably attend the pack meetings and influence the pack calendar. But we need to do it in a nice friendly way. It's just frustrating. We're all volunteers. We all work very hard. But hard feelings are being developed between groups. I must admit that even though I like everyone involved, I get frustrated with the individuals because of the situation.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

ScoutNut - You are correct. I'm talking about the pack, not individual scouts. How exactly does your Pack "support", and/or "promote", Troops OTHER than their CO's Troop? By the pack (not dens) scheduling multiple events with other troops. By accepting den chiefs from the another troop without any inquiries into whether we had any interested den chiefs. The other troop pushes den chiefs strongly as part of their recruitment plan. We've lost den chief opportunities because of that. Generally, I'll support any scout independent of the troop. It just gets frustrating when it's more about recruitment then the POR or the scout. Eagle92 - why? Out of loyalty to the charter org that has been providing you space, facilities and support for years. Parents and individual scouts are welcome to go anywhere. But the pack has a structural tie to the troop thru the charter agreement, thru the charter org and thru the charter org rep. The single COR is the top officer of both the pack and troop. If the relationship is not good, help fix it. If the troop is not good, bring it up with the COR. Promote change. Communicate. For your individual scout, go to the best opportunity. But the pack is married to the troop. Eagle92 wrote: "Why would Cub leaders promote a troop that doesn't want anything to do with them, have leaders who are condescending to them, and are not supportive of Cub Scout program, when the neighboring troop welcomes them, helps them whenever asked, and are supprotive of the cub scout program? " ... If the troop doesn't care, then take it up with the COR or charter org. If they don't care, then send your scouts to other troops. Benefit from them. But you still need to communicate with your own troop even if it's a one way communication. ********************************************************************* dkurtenbach wrote: Bottom line, I think it is a lot easier, cleaner, and safer for the pack to strongly encourage Webelos Scouts and families to do their research, shop around, and cross over to troops that appeal to them Fine. I don't know about "strongly", but encourage fine. ---------------- "I've heard lots of Scout leaders tout the "shop around" method, but have never seen it in BSA literature. It's essentially the Webelos requirement to have multiple troop visits interpretted as multiple troops. ---------------- "I think that also has the salutary effect of requiring a troop to improve or die, rather than a poor or average troop being artificially propped up by a regular infusion of new Scouts from a partner pack" I have trouble with this statement. It's a true statement but inconsistent with other things. If anything, there's always more stability and quality issues with dens and packs then troops. But you never see multiple packs actively recruiting the same school. So elementary schools are rutinely propping up poor packs. Many kids miss the opportunity to be scouts because of a poor pack. So why don't we have multiple packs recruiting from the same school as the norm. I can imagine the conversation ... "Hey, we only get eight Tigers scouts each year. Let's start recruiting from XXXX elementary too." ... "But pack 123 recruits from that school." ... "We have a right to put fliers in that school. There's no law. They'll just need to gear up their recruitment if they want the scouts." I guarantee that people will be alientated from each other if you had multiple packs recruiting from the same school ... ESPECIALLY if you put blame that they should have geared up their recruitment better. But it's okay for multiple troops from one pack. Hmmm.... The biggest protest I see is that troops don't do enough for recruitment and they don't have a right to a special relationship. It's the pot calling the kettle black. In the ten years I've seen recruitment, I've seen way way more invested for recruiting by troops than by packs. Packs ... They print fliers and have a join scouting night. That's about it for recruitment. Planning starts maybe a month in advance by printing fliers and getting them sent out. Maybe at best a 2nd flier inviting kids to the next pack meeting. Troops ... Most have multiple special events scheduled six months to a year in advance. They open up multiple meetings with special events for pack visitors. Most troops have special camp-outs just for Webelos and/or invite them to camp with them during a district camporee. Troops commonly jumped hoops to recruit Webelos. Only later to hear that they don't do enough for recruitment. The reality is it was more either a personality preference or a should-have-done-yet-more issue. But what if you did let the troop die? Often, the troop re-starts sooner then later. Does the pack now support that restarted troop or continue with a special relationships with another troop? Wouldn't you support your charter org by supporting it's troop? ... Ya know, there is no perfect troop. And I don't think parents and Webelos don't really know enough until after they've been in a troop for six months. Perhaps that's why I'm fond of the one-unit concept. Let people switch if they are not happy. Otherwise, promote a single scouting experience that does not include such large transitions as shopping for troops and crews.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Our city has more troops then packs. In addition, several troops have had their packs fail. So recruitment has really geared up. I've seen "smoozing" at roundtable that gets just creepy. There are two troops that have extremely geared up their recruiting to the point that I swear they teach their boys a script to say. I've heard it from multiple scouts at different ocasions. The part that get me is that they refer to our aligned pack as their feeder pack. Usually there's alternating recruitment from the pack. One year they go to us. Other to them. Back and forth. Mainly driven by who's brother is in which troop. Well, there's many brothers to the other troop right now in the pack. And I'm noticing some alignment with the other pack. The key I'm sort of concerned iwth is that the leaders now have kids in the other troop too. I'm of the belief that even though they have boys in the other troop they still need to promote the COR's troop. Individuals can go to the other troop ... fine ... their right. But the pack works with the aligned troop.

pchadbo - I acknowledge the BSA shopping model for webelos. I take zero offense if a scout chooses another troop. I might be sad, but not offended. That though is the Webelos scout and/or den. They are working on what's best for the individual Webelos. What's best for the pack and COR and troop is very different. I assert it's always better for the pack to promote their sister troop. The pack (larger group) has no "shopping" model or instruction from BSA. Their sister troop is "ANNOINTED" as partner through the charter organization. As such, the pack should treat their sister troop special ... even if the troop ignores them or if the troop is going thru hard times. The COR is the marriage between the pack and the troop. If my wife is upset with me for a few months, I don't head to the local pub to shop around. Ya work on fixing the relationship. Same with pack & troop. To be blunt, if a pack wants to promote another troop (not talking about webelos shopping) then that pack should join the other troops pack or start a second pack under the other troop's COR. Otherwise the larger group should support the aligned troop and help fix the problems. "Individual scouts" have an absolute right to shop around and that's what BSA promotes. But the "pack" does not shop around.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Basementdweller - Wow. I knew I posted from different aspects of this point. I didn't remember I posted so many times. It's just a hot button topic for me lately and has become even more hot button lately. It just seems the "pack" should focus on partnering with their sister troop. Webelos dens can shop around, but the pack should focus on the sister troop.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I'm okay with dens shopping. That's what BSA instructs. But what about the pack. Should they promote other troops or focus on the partnership with their partner troop?

I've been reflecting on the Cub Scout to Boy Scout transition for awhile. I know there is no strict answer and that things can vary greatly. And BSA is pretty vague too on this stuff. Previous posts - Unit alignment ... Earlier this year, I heard rumors of an initiative to align same COR units. So I asked and heard some great comments including a few by TwoCubDad in a 1/17/2012 3:48:51pm post. CLICK HERE to read - Pitting troops against each other ... Later I expressed my frustration at pitting troop against troop for Webelos recruitment. Good discussion. The one I agree the most with is a short quick response from Crew21_Adv. CLICK HERE to read - Boy Led ... I've also stated that one of the phrases I really don't like anymore is "Boy Led". It's the correct concept. But it's so vague that it's meaningless *** AND *** it's almost always used passively as an insult that other troops are not boy led. I've grown a distaste for the term because it's almost always used during troop shopping. "Join us because we're boy led." ... meaning that the other troops are not boy led and thus are not true Boy Scout troops. ... anyway ... *** NEW QUESTION *** ... To what extend should "packs" help scouts see all local troops versus support / partner with their charter org's troop? BSA seems intellectually inconsistent on this stuff and just wants to tap dance around the detailed issues. - Depending on COR's to provide units but then promoting scouts to shop at another COR's unit - Promoting troop shopping but matching up elementary schools with "usually" one Cub Scout pack. IMHO, a pack should work with their COR's troop and present the troop as it's partner. Similar in that the troop should work with the pack and be there for the pack. The key is that it's not the job of the pack to present multiple troops. That's the job of the Webelos scouts and/or den. The pack partners with it's COR troop. (different discussion if the COR doesn't have a troop) So I'm just trying to double check my thoughts. Should it be generally expected that a pack supports it's COR and the COR's troop? I know I'd get upset if other packs continually advertised at our elementary school to recruit Cub Scouts. There is an unstated agreement that elementary schools are aligned with a specific pack. For the most part, Cub Scouts don't shop for the best pack. If anything, we expect those new scouts / parents to help renew the pack. Should we have the same assumption between packs and troops? ... Side suggestion: Perhaps the committees should meet on the same night??? Pack & troop coordinate committee meetings so they are at the same place / time. Especially if they are under the same chartered org. ... Side note ... our COR's units work pretty well with each other. It's outside factors I'm wondering about.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Rotate when you need fresh ideas or new enthusiasm and energy. Otherwise, I strongly prefer long-term scoutmasters. - Personality. A major shopping point is the scoutmaster. A good match is important. A mediocre match is tolerable. A bad match drives scouts out. I'd rather find the good match and stick with it as long as possible. The key is that the personality of the troop is the personality of the scoutmaster. - Experience. Scoutmasters need time to learn and experiment. Though it appears simple, scouting is not obvious. It takes time to learn how to make it work. Once they have been in it for a few years, they know the program and have dealt with dozens of experiences. A long running SM benefits from all those years. - Mellowed out. Scoutmasters need to have dealth with alot so they can mellow out and figure out what's important.

In our troop.... Starts in April. Published in May. - The PLC does it. Patrol leaders are supposed to get suggestions from their patrols. - The SPL leads the planning. - The SM meets with the SPL a day or two in advance to prepare for the planning. - The planning agenda is ---- #1 Agree on the process to do the planning ---- #2 Goals --------- Identify goals. More hiking? My water sports? Caves? Advancement? Fun events? Character? Service? Other. --------- Once all listed, prioritize them. ---- short break ---- #3 Ideas --------- Identify ideas. Specifics. Places, activities, etc. --------- Prioritize the list. ---- short break ---- #4 Build the calendar --------- Put fixed items on the calendar (scouting for food, scout sunday, B&G for local packs, etc). --------- Start putting the ideas on the calendar based on priority. When done, the troop has a functional calendar for the next year. It's transposed from the large poster paper duck taped to the walls of the outdoor shelter into our web site calendar (which can be printed). The next committee meeting reviews the calendar to confirm everything is do-able. That's what our troop does. I thought it came out of some BSA book, but I've never found it. One key part is that as patrol leaders get ideas from the patrol and then represent the patrol during planning. Scoutmaster gets ideas from the adults and represents the adults. The scoutmaster tries to guide / coach the discussion but it's the scouts planning session. We try to shield the scouts from the other adults.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Dang. Yet another trolling post to ignore. Merlyn - Don't you have anything else in your life to do?

"bet even Merlyn is hopin' there's such a thing as resurrection" ... LOL.

One of my biggest mistakes years ago in scouting was around the structure of patrols. The patrols were imbalanced. I thought it would be good to fix that. So I brought it up at a committee meeting. Well, everyone had to have their two cents. Hours of discussion before it even reached the scouts. Then, it ended up as something that was forced onto most of the scouts either thru the agreement of the SPL or other. Many were upset. Some quit. To this day, the patrol loyalty is not what it was. IMHO, patrols work well when scouts have ownership and loyalty to the patrol. If you break that ownership ... if you break that loyalty, you break much of what is best in the patrol method. With that said ... Let the scouts deal with it. In our troop, I hope it's understood now that scouts can switch patrols by simply requesting a switch from the SPL. That's it. Nice and simple. We don't even want the SPL to dictate who's in what patrol. Suggestion - Before figuring out if you need to restructure patrols ... First figure out what you want out of the patrols. I view it as two possibilities (thought there may be others ... or you could structure the problem domain differently) #1 - Patrols exist as a structure for teaching. Older scouts teaching younger scouts skills and leadership. In this model, the number one teacher is the patrol leader. #2 - Patrols exist as a structure for doing things together. A group of friends that get out to go hiking, swimming, camping, etc. In this structure, the number one teacher is the troop guide. I strongly prefer #2. And now I'd argue that a patrol of three 17 years olds is not necessarily a bad thing. Good luck!

I just don't think anyone can force change faster than people are willing unless you are willing to drive those people out of the unit. So creating plans, vision documents, priority lists and so are only interesting exercises. Focus on .... #1 Continually learning more about the scouting program... #2 Building relationships, trust and acceptance. Over time, opportunities will come. You can slowly make changes as situations permit.

You're in a hard situation. It would drive me crazy to have three former SMs on the committee and to repeatedly hear they did it differently in the past. I'd hope they'd wish you the best and support you as you move to more mainstream practices such as electing the SPL. Heck, that's how it's designed and documented!!! But I get concerned when you write the previous SMs say you are wasting your time with roundtable and being brainwashed. My partially informed opinion is that you have many attitudes and practices to change. Your going to be very frustrated for a good amount of time. Having been in your position, I'd suggest changing to a unit that's closer to what you want. Either help start a unit (per your previous email) or switch to one that is closer to what you expect. Heck, perhaps you can bring your one son's friends with him. To be honest, I've never heard of a troop that assigns SPL based on who's oldest.

Unit commissioners and unicorns. Two things I've never seen. Don't believe anymore that they can possibly exist.

I've seen lots and lots of adults with ebook readers. Heck, many sit in camp chairs with ebook readers. I view it no differently than if they were to sit down with a paperback. Only difference is cost. I don't really have an issue with scouts using them. We'd need to find a different sign-off evidence path. Plus, the big thing is that kids are rough on things. We don't ban cell phones. We just give parents our cell phone numbers and ask that they don't call us if their son chooses to bring a phone and it gets lost, drowned, stepped on, rained on or just broken when a bag is thrown or dropped. Most parents have the phones left at home. Kids are rough on things. I'd expect an e-book reader to not last a year in a scout's hand on camp outs.

Oak Tree - Agree with your quotes and responses. What seems to be okay in the case quoted as the IRS overlooking is that the money was never the unit's money. Whereas allocating money earned at a unit fundraiser to individuals is not acceptable. But if the scout sold cookie dough or popcorn, his sales can be treated as his sales. I'd really like to know if this is "overlooked" or if there is an aspect of the law making it okay. To be honest, I love tax law stuff. I wish I had more time to dig into it.

I think this point is key to justifying fundraisers going into scout accounts. **** Does anyone have more information on this aspect? **** "However, the IRS still will overlook individual fundraisers (i.e., each girl selling cookie dough) in which the girl keeps her own money earned. This distinction between types of fundraisers may seem obscure, but the endeavors involving participation by the group and the amount of money raised, as opposed to one individual at a time, seem to be the deciding factors." ...

Twocubdad is adding to the requirement. Video please. Seriously though, the book is not required. Same as your membership in a troop is optional too. If a troop says that's how their troop tracks and administers advancement, it's part of membership in the troop. You can always find another troop. Though it would be difficult to find a troop that didn't use the scoutbook. I must admit that I'd be gun-shy to use anything else. Ya the adults use TroopMaster and the adults use on-line software. But that's for the adults to coordinate the group. That's the bureaucracy part. The key is that the scout is responsible for his own advancement. Not the adult scouters. So he needs a clean record so he can prove what he did and, more importantly, know what he needs to do to advance. You can't get a better way to track it then the BSHB. Heck, each requirement includes a page number discussing and documenting the requirement. Ya gotta like that. IMHO, the BSHB sets the bar pretty high to use something else. I also favor the comment (though not wording) of twocubdad. If your going to fight or protest using the BSHB to track advancement, ya got other issues beyond scouting.

The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. --Kosh Love that show though I'm sad the Vorlons turned into bad guys.

Oak Tree: I should mention that I'm close to full agreement with what you wrote. I just don't think it's a 100% definitive. It's a case by case thing. There is room to argue, wiggle and perhaps options. Also note that most every example presented is written within "COULD", not a definitive "would". Here's an okay summary I had found. Plus a great quote: "... frequently results in illegal private benefit. However, the IRS has stopped short of strictly prohibiting IFAs." That's the issue. There is some room to argue you can do scout accounts. It's a thing of interpretting insubstatial, benefit, necessary, and many other words. http://www.parentbooster.org/Default.aspx?pageId=521265 ================================ In my previous message, I provided my reasoning. Here's my reasoning to agree with you. - 2011-06-27 IRS memo - http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/booster_club_field_directive_6-27.pdf (requiring volunteering or charging more for not doing it is private benefit) - 2008-06-11 All Experts web page - http://en.allexperts.com/q/Nonprofit-Law-2266/2008/6/credit-hours-worked.htm - 2001 EO CPE http://www.boosterrules.sebengriffin.com/docs/eotopich01.pdf Here's a few cases of big penalties. Three penalties, $61,000, $30,000 and $9,000. Booster clubs raised $6.8 million from 2000 to 2005. WOW !!!! - 2008-12-16 Kentucky - http://www.kentucky.com/2008/12/16/628251/audits-trouble-bryan-station-high.html - 2008-08-10 Kentucky - http://www.kentucky.com/2008/08/10/485490/fund-raising-takes-a-hit.html - 2009-01-14 Follow-up http://homeschoolcpa.com/update-on-the-irs-and-booster-club-fundraising/ Another way to avoid IRS audits, don't have millions going thru your checking accounts. ================================ Beavah's discussion of earning PackToken's is interesting. I could see benefit to it. Just don't allow paying $$$$ as an alternative. Waive the tokens in justifiable cases ... fine. BUT don't let families buy their way out. If you do that, the pack tokens become a way to avoid a financial cost. That's the one that's clear cut illegal. Plus now you open the pack up to questions of employment relationships and taxes, etc. ================================ I'm just saying this is not a 100% clear cut.

It's not that clear cut. I'm not saying your wrong. I'm not saying your giving bad advice. Your giving the play-it-safe answer which is always a good choice. I'm just saying it's not 100% clear. The following 2002 IRS article explains my reasoning. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/02-0041.pdf I had read the 1993 article you quoted. That same 1993 document you quote also says: "As indicated in GCM 39862, the inurement proscription is aimed at preventing dividend-like distributions of charitable assets or expenditures to benefit a private interest" The 1993 article example has a gymnastics booster club. But there are significant differences between the scouters and the example booster club "A". ---- Booster club "A" supervisory board included gym X owners (i.e. insiders) who directly financially benefit (i.e. dividend) ---- Booster club "A" purchased equipment that was installed at gym X giving the owners commercial benefit. ---- Booster club "A" gymnastics were 100% taught by gym X paid staff. ---- Booster club "A" did not work work with the broader class of gymnasts. They worked with gymnasts training at for-profit gym X. The article hits at organizations that want tax exempt status, but were created more for the profit of those involved than for a public good. A good number of the IRS articles talk about physician partnerships that go after non-profit status. That's why I think this is all clear as mud. Scout groups are created for strong public good and don't have the direct dividend type of ownership or of fundraising. There is no cash draw and the money pays for that which is directly part of the public good. As for scout accounts, the 2002 IRS article raises key points. A few more key parts are these - Popcorn sales have a 1/3 of sales go to the local councils and benefits the larger scout population. Without scouts earning credit, many scouts wouldn't sell. That would directly affect money available to pay for camps. - The funds spent directly hit at the public benefit. Educational Preventing delinquency. Public good. It is also a personal benedit, but it greatly benefits the public. Many service hours donated. Better strong citizens. I wish I could find a 2011 or 2012 article. Your advice is good. I'm just saying it's not 100% clear and very very much depends on the nuances of the specific situation.

Gunny2862 - Nice comments. Beavah wrote "For da Citizenship badge, the purpose of the service is to help 'em see how a particular organization contributes to their local community, and a bit of how organizations like that rely on folks in the community steppin' up as volunteers. The point is to build connections to their community, eh? And understandin'. Not to tick off 8 hours with their head down not payin' a lick of attention or cross-countin' hours unrelated to da purpose of the badge." That's exactly the view the Citz of Community MB counselor. That's what he should communicate. That's how he should evaluate the requirement. Nice work.