Stosh

Holding a payment account is not the same as having an individual income account funded by troop fundraisers. Collecting up summer camp fees from the individual scouts and keeping track of who paid is not part of the CO's money and probably should be kept in a separate account. Fundraiser money used for troop equipment, tents, scholarships, and other program activities is altogether different. THAT is what people contribute money to a troop to do, not pad some kid's "personal" bank account and buy him sleeping bags, and other personal gear that doesn't belong to the CO. That is income and notification to the IRS needs to be done for tax purposes. I have seen troops use these personal accounts to buy just about anything along the way even if it does't even pertain to scouting and then when the boy Eagles and ages out, a check is written as the troop's gift to him at his ECOH. That is about as unethical as it gets with this good-old-boy, back-room financing of money laundering. If I knew a troop did that kind of bookkeeping, I would never financially support them with even a penny. And just because the IRS may not come after such petty practices does not make it ethically correct and the lesson being taught is not one I want my boys to learn. Too many Scout Laws being broken to justify the practice in any form. Just because one doesn't get caught doesn't make it ethical.

Ever wonder why BSA after all these years has used, "...duty to God and my country", rather than "...duty to god(s) and my country"? Remember, People, under the brave new BSA world, this is where you take a long deep breath and skip over this part. It's become not all that important anyway.

I don't see any ethics violation for a CO to switch from BSA to TLUSA and keep THEIR money and equipment in the process. If the BSA boys wish to leave they leave under the same umbrella of "their" money accounts don't go with them. IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY! This is the problem a lot of BSA units get into when they start these individual accounts. Somehow parents and scouts get the idea that that money is theirs. Well, that just isn't the case and the troop leadership that promotes that is unethical in my opinion. The DE has no authority over other people's money and to move in on a CO's program money constitutes theft.

And if the unit collapses, all those funds become useless to the unit anyway. They aren't going to go to Philmont, NYLT, summer camp, or BWCA, and all the money saved is going to go to someone else. Of course if the boys have their own accounts in their own bank and they shovel walks, mow lawns and have part time jobs, they can quit scouts and still have their money in the bank. It's part of the Scout Law called "THRIFTY". That's how I got through when I was a scout. I still say the finances of the unit need to be better budgeted and if the boys have to do an emergency car wash or two to make ends meet at the end of the year, plan better next year that's what a good committee is supposed to be doing anyway. I can see having a lot tied up in physical assets in a unit, but the rainy day hoarding of financial assets means the boys are being cheated out of money they earned for program. And I for one don't believe it is ethical to fund raise money under false pretenses. People (including the IRS) believe individual accounts for the financial gain of individuals raised under the pretense of it being a troop fundraiser is unethical in my estimation. That might be partly because of my background in the Christian community where such practices are not allowed.

I was well into my high school years before I was exposed to a flush toilet at a campground and then it was at a provincial park in Ontario Canada. Most of the commercial campgrounds have them today because people won't camp there unless they do, (along with the pool, game room and convenience store). However, the best camps still have the pit toilets! My favorite camp are the DNR camps of northern Wisconsin where they have pit toilets and one still has to hand pump the well.

I don't believe that this "policy" is any different than any other religion either. The government have their laws and the religions have theirs. It is only when one tries to mix the two are there problems. The SCOTUS can say anything it wishes when it comes to marriage, but just because it says so, doesn't make it a reality for the populace. With the aging of our society and all the legal hassles of inheritances, Social Security, financial trusts, etc. there are an increasing number of couples getting a religious marriage only and foregoing the civil part of it. On the other hand doing a civil only marriage is still common and can be done by any two people. That's what SCOTUS said. So it makes no never mind what the government does and what the religious community does. We have a separation between the two that the government simply hasn't figured out after 200+ years. When the government tries to force a religious community to do a religious marriage for someone they do not deem appropriate is where the government needs to seriously mind it's own business and butt out. The separation between Church and State is meant to protect both sides, not just the State. Maybe BSA ought to pay attention to this so they will learn something about how this works as well.

And who's going to go to court over a old trailer full of musty tents and rusty Coleman stoves? Any troop that saves up thousands of dollars over the years has basically cheated the boys out of a ton of programming along the way. If a troop has a few hundred dollars left over every year, that's pushing it, they should be better stewards of their funds. There is no excuse for thousands of dollars in the bank!

It's really a problem training the boys to flush with those darn things.

If one doesn't believe in any, what make one think there are more than one?

Love the Flambeau. so so on the outhouses.

When doing the Oath/Promise, just skip the part where you pledge your honor to one's duty towards God. Just take a big breath there and when the time comes to do the morally straight part, take another long breath. That way one doesn't need to answer to God why one would need to participate in a program that really doesn't take those things as seriously as you do. I'm thinking that just might work for me.

Like I would like to be the one sharing files based on innuendos, rumors and hearsay..... It's a PR nightmare the way they do it now, having the world in general know about this wouldn't be a really smart move on the BSA's part.

Nope, making the hole bigger is a really stupid idea, @. Everyone in the BSA knows that you simply make another hole on the other side of the canoe so the water can run out.

There are those on this forum who would find direct quotes from the Bible offensive as would others who would find the writings of other religions offensive. It goes with the territory. Whereas this is a faith based discussion, one cannot show evidence of the basis of one's faith for fear of ithe ntolerance of others. On the other hand BSA accepts the faith teachings of those who do adhere to that which would be banned on this forum.

I would also assume that TLUSA feels that homosexual leadership may minister these same troubled youth away from the faith standards they are maintaining. Parents thus would have no say in the mentoring of their youth in the BSA program, but would in the TLUSA program.

Where's that written?

Everyone discriminates. It's just that some are more selective than others.

Who said bishops are any less a sinner than anyone else? Or a prophet either?

God seeks the repentant sinner, the one who turns from their sinful ways. He is not looking for those who embrace sin and teach others such sin is acceptable to God. There are those who have homosexual tendencies who never act on them. We are all tempted in many different and diverse ways. But with each person's struggle of faith, those who walk in the ways of the Lord are blessed and those that don't aren't. I have known some very caring excellent pastors (non-Catholic) who maintained a celibate lifestyle who may have been struggling with this. It made no difference to me. But I have also met others who have given into their temptations and now want me to validate their choice. Sorry, but my faith doesn't allow me to do that. So, now the question is, does anyone respect my choice or unlike them, I don't get one?

Not my 2-cents worth, BSA's decision has polarized a lot of faith-based CO's. If one is going to look at this in a mature manner, one needs to see both sides of the issue and "A Scout is Reverent" honor the beliefs of both sides. Otherwise, one is most likely going to go off half-cocked emotionally with no forethought on what it does to others and their beliefs. And it is common knowledge that the American branch of Catholicism has set its own agenda when it comes to birth control and marriage irregardless of what the faith policy of the Holy See has indicated. So as a devoted and God-fearing person, one had better fully understand what Holy Scripture says and take an inventory of how devoted and God-fearing one really is before lashing out at another's faith.

You realize I'm retired, right? (Every day is Friday except when the big paper shows up, then go to church.)

Or he reacted Biblically rather than emotionally with 8 years of seminary education to back him up and as a prophet of God rather than an agent of political agendas and posturing did the right thing for this congregations.

Dum ta da daaaa, Here I am to save the day! Okay, a little over the top, but it's Friday. With one patrol, the PL is the de facto SPL for any meetings requiring one. Having the PL wear the SPL patch is about as over the top as my introduction at the beginning of this post. Looks pretentious. With two patrols, the SPL is still not all that necessary unless you set up your patrol structure in the traditional/formal management style. In the case described by @@KenD500 he already sees the problem where there really is in fact only one patrol. The "split" is meaningless because of the numbers he's dealing with. He's trying to make two patrols function in the place of one. If people need POR's or whatever, the temptation to do this is strong. However, it is totally unnecessary. With three patrols, maybe, and a strong maybe only, is an SPL advantageous, not necessary but advantageous. However, I run my troops differently. I run the servant leadership format rather than management format. This means the PL is the top officer in the troop. Each patrol is an entity in and of itself. When there gets to be enough PL's that an SPL is necessary to coordinate between the different PL's then it's time for the PL's to designate someone to do that and then give that person the SPL responsibilities. With one patrol (6-8 scouts) what does the SPL do? Absolutely nothing except attend SPL meetings so he can come back and tell the PL what is necessary for the troop (duh, the one patrol) to be doing. The APL could do that just as easily. This is how my one patrol troop is set up. In actuality, my strongest leader is the APL who is mentoring the new PL in his position. The new PL is the Webelos cross-over from last spring. He's mature and was elected by the members of his patrol and the old PL offered to support him as APL. It's working very well. As APL it's his job to make the PL look good and he's doing it very well. With two patrols (12-16 scouts) what does the SPL do? Not a whole lot more, now he has to notify two PL's of the information gathered at the SPL meetings. He is also responsible for the PLC which will consist of him and two PL's. Those two PLs will discuss what is necessary to coordinate between the two patrols. Well, they could have done that just as easily over the phone as at a PLC meeting. So the SPL is convening useless meetings. With 3 patrols (16-24 scouts) now maybe the SPL can actually be a bit useful in helping the three PL's coordinate their activities so there is no duplication of effort and everyone has a chance to know what the other patrols are planning on doing. It also helps with the 2 on 1 voting that could occur on a regular basis in the PLC. As the scout best qualified in the opinion of the PL's to help them, he can assist and mentor the PL's work through difficult inter-patrol issues and at time specifically support a PL, when asked, if he's having trouble in his patrol. With 4 patrols (24-32), it is definitely time for the 4 PL's to have someone they trust to guide them with their inter-patrol issues. It is at this point that many of the other POR's become troop level leadership rather than just patrol level. Out of the 4 patrol QM's the QM's select someone to coordinate the equipment of all the patrols, because the inventory is getting too large for the 4 of them to handle. Troop scribe is necessary because troop communications have gotten to the point where the individual patrols have enough to worry about just themselves. Now, with the traditional management SPL who "runs the troop", there is basically no need for anything other than figure-head PL's They just do what the SPL tells them to do and they relay the information on to their members. It take no leadership skills to be a PL in this case. Management skills on the part of the SPL are extremely important and this is where a lot of troops begin to fall apart at that level. Most boys do not have such skills and must be trained and given time to develop them. Unfortunately most troops aren't set up to do that so they rely on such things as NYLT and hope that the boy pays enough attention to be able to do an adequate job. So, with the servant leadership style, the PL works with 5-7 other boys, max! He actually must lead (serve) those boys. My training program consists of telling the PL when he gets selected, to "Take care of your boys." When they do that the patrols run very well. With the PL's being the top position in the troop, when it gets to the point where communication between patrols is strained, a person is selected by the PL's to be their #1 go to help desk person when they need to work with the other patrols. Someone who has shown they can take care of PL's. In my former troop, this person was most often selected from the pool of APL's. This person was identified as the SPL, the one who was functionally capable to helping the PL's. When that person needed help, he would be able to tap directly into the SM and his staff. The SPL did not "run the troop", he only coordinated, and facilitated the PL's through the PLC function. In reality NO ONE IN THE TROOP was responsible for more than 7 other people. Boys at this age can handle that without any hassles. Trying to "run the troop" with 40-80 scouts is impossible and any SPL who takes on such responsibility will quickly find out what abject failure is. I will never do that to a boy. It is under this dynamic that the parents of slacker boys will eventually ask you to move on because "the boys are all expected to do too much leadership." With a boy-led, patrol-method troop, that's the best way to get kicked out of a troop! I hope this helps. I have worked with the more traditional management style of troop organization and found that the tendency is to have a strong adult-led process where the SPL and PL's are pretty much figure-head anyway, but seem to garner a lot of flack for not performing up to the adult expectations along the way. Morale is kept at a very low level, but if the adults generate enough programming, the boys will all just follow along and be entertained. Oh, by the way, my current PL hasn't gotten to TF yet, but his APL has. None of my boys has ever attended NYLT on my watch and never felt the need to do so. I've also seen some really competent Eagles pass through my program of which about half of them have gone on to WB and SM positions in BSA.

This is why this issue will never end. This will be tied up for years leaving CO"s clueless as to what to do and will eventually find the wait a hassle they no longer wish to deal with. The point of the game being, BSA is going to be punished out of existence because of their stand and now that they have defaulted admission to it, they no longer have a leg to stand on.

None of these statement indicate a long term decision on what BSA has done. All of these "organizations" do NOT speak on behalf of their religious affiliation, they speak from their small corner of their world associated with scouting. Until we hear from the general assemblies of the respective religious affiliations, no directives will be given to the specific CO's. Until that happens, the JURY IS STILL OUT and no amount of statement "evidence" means anything.