Marcheck

I suppose by now everyone knows that due to the unsavory findings of an independent audit, the SE in Atlanta, GA, has resigned. My concern is that this problem may be more widespread than any of us would like to acknowledge. What can be done to root out of the professional Scouting culture the notion that it is okay to exaggerate and or falsify numbers of Scouts and Scout Units? I think that as long as every Dec. 31 each DE is judged primarily on numbers of kids, this will go on. What do you think?

This is all over the news now, too.

Choice Point was hacked in October and the story is just breaking this morning on all the news outlets. This firm handles all of BSA's background checks on adult leaders. Scouters should be aware that this could lead to identity theft.

Choice Point, the company which handles BSA's background checks, was "hacked" back in October, and the company is just now letting their customers know. Scouters should be aware of this, as their information may be used by the hackers for identlty theft purposes.

Choice Point, the company which handles BSA's background checks, was "hacked" backed in October, and the company is just now letting their customers know. Scouters should be aware of this as their information may be used by those who hacked Choice Point's database.

I am confused by a step in the nominating committee process: Why does the outgoing chairman have a say in the process at all? In my experience, that has proved disasterous, as those Chairmen who exercise that right the most are the ones who the Council/District wants to get rid of the most. They simply use their input on the process to derail things out of spite and/or stubborness. Ideally it would provide a smoother transition, but I just haven't seen any of that.

Right... And these kids in the Crews are learning about firefighting. That's it. No "high adventure" stuff. So shouldn't the Council, in all due fairness to the Exploring Program, see to it that they are converted into Posts?

Here's a thought as to why most professional leave (and a darn good Asst. SE told me this): poor management. I the firm I worked for, being a top seller didn't meant you got more money, and maybe a promotion, but not necessarily a promotion to a management position. This was for a good reason: not everyone know, or ever will know, how to manage. Unfortunately, Scouting does not feel this way. The DE's in my area are great, but they report to the most inept FD I have ever known. How did he get to this management job: simple, he "produced" in his previous roles as a DE and Finance Director. Making the sale is great, but it does not qualify him to manage people.

We have a great Exploring Exec. who, as you can imagine, is in the business of staring Posts at local Fire Companies where kids can learn about firefighting. Unfortunately, his sevice area only covers a portion of our Council, with the more sparsley populated areas leaving Exploring up to the local tradistional DE to handle. Here is the rub: in those more sparsley populated areas, the DE's are staring Crews at Fire Halls and the kids are doing exactly the same things they would in a Post. Now, some of those fire depts. are wondering why they were only told about the Venturing Program,a not Exploring. The reason is that the FD in the more sparsley poulated are "encouraged" his DE's to get more traditional units, ie crews. This seems somewhat disengenuos to me. If the kids are there to learn firefighting, should all these units be posts, not crews? Thoughts please....

This discussion is great. I am learning all kinds of new things. What about Jehovah's Witnesses? Someone told me they found the term "Scoutmaster" objectionable because "no man can serve two masters" and that they think that making the Scout oath is blashemous and that the US flag on the uniform is a false idol. This sounds like a lot to swallow, but I have not been able to confirm any of it (namely because I know no Jehovah's Witnesses) (and I have heard that there are rumblings among Unitarians over Scouting's leadership standards; does anyone have any info on that?) Thanks

I know that there are a number of organizations that "officiall" endorse Scouting, and encourage all of their brancehs to charter a unit (ex. The VFW, Catholic Church, LDS Church, etc. etc.) I was wondering if there are any organizations which, at their national level, officially discourage their branches to charter Scout units. Does anyone know if there are? And if so, what are theY?

I feel as though some of you haven't actually thought about my analogies or the historical context in which the uniform was initially adopted. Rather, you are immediately seeing red and crying heretic. This should not be a matter of "my country love it or leave it". Can't we accept that the uniforma was created to attract boys in the first place. And at the time it was created, the military look appealed to kids in days gone by. So, as volunteers, lets generate a healthy discussion of what attracts kids in this day and age. There will be no easy answer, but I can tell you this: most professsionals I speak to are in far greater agreeement on this with me than most of you seem to be. Its the package, not the wrapping that is critical to our success.

But.... The CO is ASKING the Council to remove the person. No one is in disagreement that the guy has to go. But the CO wants Council to say "you're outta here". If the Council can't do that, then, guess what, you have a CO that thinks that Council is useless, the CO will not act (and maybe dump the whole program), and Mr. No-Good-Leader laughs it up with his buddies about how "no one can touch him" and "they're all afraid of me."

Ha Ha. Seriously, the same kids who won't think twice about wearing a sports uniform cringe at the thought of wearing their Scout uniform. Can anyone deny that most kids shy away from wearing their Scout uniform in public. They are not embarrassed by the fun program and the things they learn, or camping, or even being called a Scout. But the reality is that the times have moved beyond the uniform. This shouldn't be heresy. There was a time when the Cub oath said "to be square" instead of "to help other people". Why do you think that changed? Because in cultural parlance, the term "square" went form meaning "honest" to "dorky", (just as "aweful" went from meaning "something that inspres awe" to "terrible") Our uniform, like language, must evolve. I love Scouting. I want kids to say "hey, wow, look at them" no "ha ha, look at them".

Sorry to disagree, but I do. I know for a fact that the SE has stated that he thinks that this volunteer is "trouble" and has told each successive DE to "get rid of him". But this apparently means convincing the charter partnet to get rid of him. And all the talk in the world about charter agreements doesn't help the Dist. Chair, Dist. Commissioner, or DE when the IH looks them right in the face and says "but this is a SCOUT program and you are the SCOUT people, so what are you dumping this in my lap. Most charter partners have scouting more as a courtesy to the community and a sense of doing something nice for the town. When a new IH arrives in town, he or she inherits the Scout Unit already at their institution. They suffer it, as it were, to exist. If it goes, what loss is it to them. But to Scouting, its a serious blow. Scouting is the organization with the most to lose here, so Scouting should act. And we are not talking about petty disagreements among leaders. We are talking about a history of repeated wrongdoings by one individual. In such a case, isn't that the time to say "the Council, for the long term good of this program, is stepping in".