Gone

Silly question, but didn't the rocket scientists in your council requiring this training give you guys the reason you should use matches and not lighters? One would think that would have been the main idea of the course, if in fact that was the key safety issue they wanted to address.

We have all leaders set objectives for their leadership role. They must follow the role description and they must meet those objectives during their tenure or they don't get credit. Also, if during that time they don't "live the Oath and Law" we document that too. If at any point during that timeframe they are at risk of not getting credit we have an SMC to warn them. They either step up or don't, so it's up to them. This sounds like a problem (moving too fast) that should have been handled long ago. One thing I will tell you, making Eagle before high school is not looked on as much of an ac

No doubt, but they won't. The lawyers got involved a while ago and I don't see BSA backing down and letting boys be boys. My Venture Crew has planned a great overnight hike in to the mountains, planned every detail. But BSA rules require two adults with all this training, tour permits, med forms, etc. So until we get the adults to free up time to go the Crew is in limbo.

I have one of those home theater popcorn poppers. The ratio it uses is 1/4 cup of oil to 8 oz of popcorn.

Dutch oven popcorn.

Just to be clear, no one here actually knows for certain (e.g., is a tax lawyer) what is, is not allowed, right? Point being, I see a bunch of opinions logdge here...which is great...but nothing that is a clear directive of what is/is not allowed under the law.

Ah, what? With the the tour plans and insurance stuff that needs to be filled out, filed and kept on hand, by all means an adult has to be there...two actually. And they need to have the training, etc., as required for the event. I get the premise: That adults should be seen and not heard except when needed. As to the SPL and his role, he most certainly can be the go to person without PLs. We certainly want the PLs managing their Patrols, but there will be situations when the SPL needs to step in and manage. We agree that PLs manage their Patrols and the SPL manages the PLs, but the SPL a

Honeysuckle eradication? The Visigoth! Them's good eats.

Agree. I keep trying to tell my candidates it is not about the project, it is about how you demonstrate the leadership on the project. Poor planning, communication and execution of a big, building project may lead to you having to redo things, versus a well-planned smaller project where nothing at all is made. Saw a food drive one time that was more successful than the Districts Scouting for Food.

You and another leader, of course.

Just saw this in Scouting. Am not a big fan of helping Life Scouts too much...especially my own. If he makes it, he makes it. If he doesn't, it is not the end of the world. Beyond the quarterly or semi-annual email asking "How's it going?" I'd rather the Scout drive his advancement. Not in favor of too many reminders or too much management. My goal is to get those interested in making Eagle to Eagle, not making sure as many guys who have Life make Eagle. http://scoutingmagazine.org/2014/04/game-life-eagle-helping-scouts-reach-finish-line/

I get you. But if Council and District both say our fund-raising does not meet the personal benefit litmus test, who am I to argue? We asked for an official position and got one. We even requested they contact National to confirm. It is not like we are talking thousands of dollars here. The response was "you're good, keep doing it". What would be really worthwhile is if National stood up and took a position on this and gave guidance. They seem to be able to do that on other controversial issues, why can't they simply hire a tax lawyer to develop a position paper to aid their volunteers?

\ You'd think that would be the case (calming down) but with the meds and the RB it went the other way. In fact, I texted the mom and she nearly flipped when she heard her son had a RB and skittles. Did not blame the adults but asked we keep him from the trading post. I simply told the kid no more and he obliged. Even spoke to the TP clerk and she said he was very honest and did not try to buy it again. Reported same to mom. I cannot find a BSA policy on it, so I suspect it was a camp thing. I just found the irony very funny watching guys sucking down RB and Monster in the dining

I always tell people I work for the SPL. Have a shirt that says it too. If I could sell them at summer camp to other SMs I'd make a million. Which I would immediately put in my ISA. [see how I tied two threads together? ]

Love the evil twin comment. We kicked the issue up the chain to have them on record. We are a small troop and cannot afford a tax lawyer to give us advice. If council and district tell us to keep doing what we are doing after having asked for official clarification from them. If the IRS want to come after our measly budget and Tommy's $34 dollars they are welcome to it. One would think they could go after the many IRS employees who owe taxes but are getting raises despite having violated tax law.

So sorry for the tangent, but I found this funny. A few years ago we went to a Council summer camp. One of our boys wanted coffee but was told he could not have any because of the caffeine. Later I took a trip to the trading post and you'll never guess what they sold there. Monster, Red Bull, Mountain Dew, etc. I asked the camp director about the logic of denying coffee to Scouts but allowing them to buys stuff with 3-4x the amount of caffeine of coffee. His reply? The "visual" of a Scout drinking coffee was worse than that of one drinking Red Bull or Monster. Never went back to that camp.

But you will pay 100% for an adult to go to WB? I don't think that's what folks had in mind when they gave money either. I agree, donars think they are helping the unit, perhaps even the individual. That's the Holy Grail. Few Scouts these days are going to fund-raise if there is no benefit to them directly. Just look at band or sports fund-raisers. It is usually only a few people who sell all the stuff. My daugther got ticked off last fall when she sold the most candy bars for her school but all the kids in the band got the benefit of a movie even though 3/4 of them sold nothin

I had a bunch of parents with similar anxiety when we had our pre-Philmont talk. When we mentioned bear protocol literally half the moms wanted to pull their kids. Don't know what their expectation was about being in the backcountry wilderness of Philmont, but they seemed genuinely surprised Philmont was not surrounded by a ten foot border fence keeping all bad things out. We then discussed mountain lions, rattle snakes, copperheads, etc., and noted we faces these on EVERY camp out. I had to chuckle that they were still aghast at the amount of "danger" they were sending their kids to every mon

Care to share them?

Now, you see, why thow this out there? Resonable people can disagree and have a responsible discussion. You mentioned that 50% of the nation supported your stance and I questions the source. Why stoop to such statements as above just because someone disagrees? Dillutes your credibility.

By looking at both sides of the debate, taking their best and worst-case numbers, and applying observation and common sense. The statistical samplings using larger pools have shown roughly a third support it, a third against it and a third undecided. I suspect the final third feel the NIMBY syndrome. They are likely in favor of it if it were a friend or relative but against it if it affected their kids. But this last part is just an educated guess.