BadenP

SP How about two animatronic figures one of Kudu and one of Mazzucca in an all out cage match, throwing scouting program opinions back and forth at each other, in full uniform of course. Just kidding Kudu.

"The COR USUALLY rubberstamps it" - Beav That statement is a slippery slope Beav especially if the COR takes his responsibility seriously. You have no reports that support your claim other than some personal experience from a couple of units many years ago, in other words you are making a huge ASSUMPTION based on very little data. As I and others have stated here and in the COR training the COR & IH have final approval or disapproval of all unit volunteers a committee wants to bring in or let go. Dem are the facts, and if a unit committee is not following those well established policies they themselves could be dismissed by the COR/IH, and I have personally witnessed that happen in a unit whose committee acted a little too big for their britches. Anyway Beav I am not going to lose any sleep over this issue, lol.

Moose No not really, Beav is talking about what sometimes happens in the field when the COR and IH are nothing more than signatures on paper, but the committee can only recomend action to the COR not fire anyone themselves, according to the regulations of the BSA.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

Kudu Interesting defense of West, but your statement of not really caring much for Seton and Beard and their methods I read about as well. Glad to hear he was pro BP even though I also read he wanted the BSA not to be a carbon copy BP's program either. In any case it is true that West made sure to insure that National had complete control of the entire program in the field. GBB in a manner of speaking seemed to be used by the BSA, but never really appreciated for all his work for them.

Maybe it is the fact that National had to bring GBB out of retirement to fix the fiasco that had created with the urban scouting that is a huge embarrassment to them and why they excluded him from the museum. After all we all know National never does anything wrong, lol. I am sure James West is honored even though from what I read he was a pompous and arrogant CSE who almost ruined the early BSA. In any case this is truly a slap in the face of GBB who devoted his entire life to scouting and making it the exciting program it once was.

Beav Why it may work that way in some or even many units, a committee better make sure they are doing it by the book when getting rid of a CC otherwise there could be all kinds of legal and liability hassles against the unit and CO. Then you watch the COR and IH get involved and deliver some frontier justice. I saw something similiar to this case happen to unit when I was a DE and the COR and IH dismissed all the committee and closed the unit, what a mess.

Beav Come on now you know better. A committee can appoint someone to a position, but the COR or IH has to approve it and sign the adult application or they can tell the committee to find someone else, so who has the true authority?

momof2 IH= Institutional Head, who ever is the top person in the chartering organization, president, pastor, head of the lodge, or what ever is used in that particular organization. They basically are the ones who can commit the CO's property usage and finances, and sign the charter agreement with the council.

Eagle92 You can go to the website, lacountylifeguards.org, and get a pretty good breakdown of the program. It is considered to be one of the toughest in the country.

moose It is like scoutfish said, think of it this way, the COR and IH are the only ones who can approve any unit leader, approve the adults application, and sign the charter agreement, NO ONE ELSE. So in essence only they can hire and fire any adult leader. There are NO special circumstances in any BSA policy that allows a committee or gives them the authority to remove anyone. The only exception is if your CC is also your COR then they can approve a committee request to remove an adult, but it is the COR who signs off or approves the action. The CC/COR is the only unit dual registration allowed and those are my current positions in my crew.

moose Just to clarify your comment, the committee does NOT have the authority to remove any volunteer on their own, that power rests solely with the COR or IH. Thats why it is a good idea, if your unit is having problems, to make sure the COR is present at your committee meetings to resolve these issues.

CC Yea, what 'nut and 'fish both said is correct. As a CC/COR myself you also handle problems among the unit leaders, as well as work with the CM if there are problems with parents or unruly scouts. Basically you make sure your unit has what it needs in place to deliver a great program. You are like the business manager of a small company handling all the paperwork and making sure your CM and den leaders are doing their jobs the right way. Good Luck.

OGE and Frank Both of you have said much much worse in this forum over the years so don't give me your holier than thou attitudes because you both lack any real credibility. I put that statement in quotes for a reason, I was quoting someone else and I thought it fit in this instance. Now you both can go back to watching Leave it to Beaver and thinking of the good old days, lol. What a couple of hypocrites.

Eagle92 Look I received my BSA Lifeguard certification in 1970, I even still have my patch, so I know how hard it was in the "good old days" while it was more difficult then then today the teens in my crew were LA County Lifeguards and their training was much more intense than the BSA training ever was. Having an ex Navy seal is also a big bonus, he has given advanced water rescue and CPR training to the entire crew, and IMHO most any of them would leave a BSA Lifeguard in the dust. So if I wear my old BSA Lifeguard patch on my swimming trunks does that still make me qualified, lol, just kidding. OGE, That remark in quotes from my prior post was and still is a very commonly used phrase in many walks of life, in fact one of the people I first heard use it a while back was a catholic priest, Pax.

SP A council scout camp is an entirely different situation from a unit outing to a river, etc., National explicitly states in its pubs a lifeguard is recommended NOT REQUIRED. moxies council can NOT deny a tour permit on this basis since it conflicts with Nationals published one. Besides as I already stated my crew has 2 former county lifeguards, and one of the adults is an ex Navy seal, the BSA lifeguard training is a mere "piss in the ocean" by comparision, lol.

moxieman It sure looks like your council is reinterpreting the rules National has put out in print, no the lifeguard is NOT required. My crew has done rafting and canoeing and kayaking for years now and we have never had a lifeguard present, besides there are several teens and adults in the crew that are better trained in aquatic activities than what the BSA Lifeguard gets trained in. Fight this all the way cuz your council is just plain WRONG.

skeptic You can not seriously believe that EBay gives a hoot about BSA restrictions, they make their money on sales not discouraging them. There are several outside sources for scout badges, military awards, even the Medal of Honor that go on every day, whether we like it or not. It is not irony but the reality of todays world.

The council shop near me is actually a National store and they don't really check for paperwork to purchase badges. They have allowed me to buy Eagle presentation sets, Star, Life ,Venturing Silver awards, Ranger, Trust and Quest awards for my crew and they never once asked for an advancement sheet, I guess I just have an honest face, lol. The centennial advancement awards like the historic merit badges are part of scouting history and should be open to collectors, on a limited basis.

UC & SP How about "Commishecus Extinctus"- A journey through the bygone days of Scoutings Past. Now I am just kidding but it seems to follow the sentiment of many unit scouters towards the position resulting in rapid turnovers in many councils due to the hostility and thanklessness of the job. Still if you think it could help you guys I am all for it.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

SP Of those 80 commissioners who attended how many are really still active or are in name only. Also Seattle is a very large council so 80 isn't really all that many considering the size of the area being served. At a recent U of Scouting in my council there were a number of grizzled old scouters with comissioner patches, but as one Dist Commish told me most of them were inactive and these old timers with their horror stories "tend to scare off most of the new recruits we get each year."

This topic has taken a swing towards the unreal. Eamonn's post highlighted some very real and serious problems in the BSA today and yet most volunteers are content to let a small select group in your council set all the policies and make all the determinations of how contributions will be used. That is a receipe for disaster and why so many councils are going under or shrinking in size. SP if the Seattle council doesn't allow volunteers into the decision making process then it is time for a new SE. In fact in the mid nineties the former SE of Seattle was assigned to my old council, where I had been a DE, after being transferred for some mishandling of council funds for personal purposes. In less than two years at his new assignment that council went under as insolvent after 80 years of service. National protects their incompetent SE's much like the Catholic Church defends their bad priests and just keeps transferring to new locations. My point is if the volunteers/ COR's etc, are not being allowed to be actively involved in the decision making process you are just asking for trouble. Case in point SP, your own council recently took possession of ALL scout huts and their property within their council borders and sold them all off for commercial development, to make up for severe budget shortfalls. These cabins had been built and maintained by volunteers in some cases for over 75 years, with the understanding that they were there for their use until perpetuity. Port Townsend and North Bend are two examples whose stories I followed very closely in this regard. Scout units fail for two reasons uncommitted leaders and councils that offer little to no support. Every unit needs to make sure every volunteer is fully trained with a high quality training program. Every unit needs to make sure their COR goes to every council executive board meeting and votes to protect the scouting program and properties in their council. Not allowing an overambitious SE ,looking to make a name for himself and be promoted to National, to jeopardize the financial stability of the council, or create his own pet projects that the council can not afford. Anything less is a receipe for disaster as history has shown.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

UCEagle This is one time I have to go along with Twocub the position of Commissioner is almost an extinct entity. Most districts have few if any functioning commish's, and those few that do they are so overworked they burn out within a year. The whole purpose and function of a Commissioner needs to be totally re-evaluated and changed or National should just let it die its inevitable death. A special forum for Commisioners, as requested in another thread, will not change the situation, you can only beat a dead horse for so long.

Scoutnut National has and is granting special charters to units serving a special need among the youth, this is not new or all that unusual anymore. Even when I was a DE years ago, before Venturing, I had an Explorer post in one of my districts that was a coed martial arts unit specifically to work with at risk youth, but they were open to any youth. Last year on a visit to my former district I was happy to see that unit was still in exsistence, had significantly grown in size. The unit also uses the martial arts philosophy in teaching the kids self discipline and anger control. So this AZ unit sounds like they have found a special need in their community youth which they are trying to fill. The BSA could shut down this unit anytime it wants to, time will tell.

Frank Simple answer is because it is a lie, hoax, and a sham. A scout is Trustworthy, what these guys are doing is feeding their own egos, pretending to be true scouters so they can wear all their uniforms and awards is just so dishonest it is sickening. They could always donate directly to the council to support scouting, but then they could not go on living in their fantasy scout world. Frank the idea you see nothing wrong with it causes me to even question your own integrity.

For an overall viewpoint of ALL online training: 1)It lacks any real substance or concrete ideas to properly prepare a new scout leader to deliver a high quality program to the youth. 2) Its generic approach to all topics falls way short of answers to specific program questions and needs. 3) A lack of interchange between instructors and class members leaves a real serious gap in the learning process. 4)Proponents of online training over traditional training really don't want to bother to make a full committment to the position they are holding. This results in undertrained leaders, dull programs, higher dropout rates, and more units in trouble than ever before. But it is more convienent for leaders who think they are too busy to bother with traditional training. If that was really true then they should not be volunteering in the first place. 5) All online training as the PRIMARY training of scouters is basically WORTHLESS!!!