NJCubScouter

2 hours ago, David CO said:

Deadbolts would be a violation of the school fire codes. The odds of a fire are much greater than a school shooting. 

The first hit on a Google search confirms this.  https://northeastsecuritysolutions.com/why-security-professionals-oppose-classroom-door-barricades/ "As the NFPA safety code stands now, classroom levers must always open from the inside without a key. Classroom doors cannot have a separately operated deadbolt on them either, because in the case of a fire occupants may struggle with a lock."

On 7/21/2019 at 6:26 AM, qwazse said:

I'd be a fool if I thought that I can now tell the difference.

Which is really one of the main points on which BSA YP training/guidelines are based.  You just can't know for sure.

One time when I was a school board member (this would have been about 15 years ago), I was having a discussion with one of my fellow board members about the idea of adopting what amounted to a "no one-on-one" rule for teachers and students.  She said something like "If we can't trust a teacher to be alone with a student, society is in big trouble."  Now this was a highly educated and intelligent person.  I look at her in disbelief, before saying something like, "well, society is in big trouble then."  Obviously she had not had any version of YP-like training.  But I had.

I agree.  While "Class B" is not an official BSA term, the fact is that the BSA licenses a company named ClassB.com that makes Scouting t-shirts.  So if someone says "Class B" I don't think it is something worth getting agitated over. (And over the years, some people in this forum have gotten VERY agitated about it.  One time one of the "class" terms did sneak its way into an official BSA online publication, and one of the (long-gone) members of this forum became very indignant about it, and wrote to the BSA and actually got them to change it.  And yet, both then and now, you can buy troop t-shirts from ClassB.com and the BSA is very happy about it as long as they get their checks from the company.)

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

This is the guy who sold a "poncho" a garbage bag with holes in it, for a dollar at summer camp one year. 

Sounds like a very reasonable price if the rain is like it was here yesterday.  (Horizontally flying walls of water.)

23 hours ago, David CO said:

That seems like a lot of bother when there is a much simpler solution. Have your Chartered Organization do your fundraiser, under its own umbrella, and donate the proceeds to the unit. Takes the council out of the equation entirely.

It does, but depending on what the CO is and where you are, selling on behalf of the CO may have a drastic impact on sales.  If the CO is, to pick a common one out of the air, the local Methodist church, and a Scout is standing at the door of a homeowner who is not a Methodist, it may be a tough sell.  The person may think, why should I support a different church (or religion or denomination or whatever)?  They may have been much more likely to make the purchase if it was to support the local Scout troop.

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

...

The council may also be planning to ask for a large donation from a donor in the community. I know my council was getting ready to ask a donor for money to buy canoes and kayaks for a new sea base program. A local troop  went ahead and asked the donor directly for the money, and got it for themselves instead.

...

51 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Here's a sticky point.   Scout units may not ask for "donations",  only the National or Local Councils may solicit outright donations. Scouts are specifically required (?) to EARN their way, thru selling products or work. That has been my understanding for a long time. Am I wrong?  

Now, if the donee gives something without being asked, if the need (watercraft?) is somehow sensed...…. 

All of this is true, but before this thread goes too far off on the tangent of units seeking donations, that is not what the question was about.  It was about fundraisers, in which the unit is seeking to sell a product.  

Interesting article on the grappling-hooks.  I doubt that an article today would deal with death quite so head-on like that.

An indoor Wood Badge course is pretty bad.  An indoor Wood Badge course AT A HIGH ADVENTURE BASE is just nuts.  What's the adventure, trying to avoid getting a splinter from the seat?

2 hours ago, MattR said:

Well, a bit cynical but I always thought it was the councils that get to profit on training. 

Sharing the wealth, apparently. 

On 5/19/2019 at 2:50 PM, cocomax said:

"Another issue to consider is if BSA is offering its services to girls, can it also use the term GIRL in connection with SCOUT, SCOUTS or SCOUTING?"

Is that question in that article, I don't see it.  If it is your question I would ask you, is that something the BSA is doing, or planning to do?  It seems doubtful that they would do that.  Based on what it says in that article, for the BSA to do that would undermine (and probably destroy) its legal argument in the pending case.

On 7/9/2019 at 10:49 AM, Eagledad said:

But, your experience doesn't reflect all UCs.

I understand that.  But on what is really a legal matter, and one that can implicate the council and/or BSA if not handled properly, I would have a tendency to go to the pros anyway.  Not necessarily because a 22-year-old DE knows the answer, but because he can walk down the hall and talk with the person whose desk it is ultimately going to end up on.

Walk in the Woods, personally I believe that if you have an explicitly Christian organization and require adult leaders to be Christian (and not only Christian, but believers in the Trinity which excludes some people who call themselves Christian), the fact that the organization says it is open to youth of all faiths seems meaningless to me.

I don't think I had seen this thread before, or at least in my semi-active status here recently, I did not notice it enough to respond to it.  Obviously if they give tours to, specifically, BSA units, they also must give tours to Trail Life units.  Both organizations discriminate on the basis of religion:  The BSA against non-believers, and Trail Life against all non-Christians.  But it seems to me that the First Liberty Institute and Independence Law Center (neither of which I have ever heard of) are somewhat selective in their battle against discrimination on the basis of religion.  For example, I don't see them fighting against the BSA's ban on non-believers.  Of course they have the right to fight or not fight as they choose, but they should be seen for what they are.

12 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

As I and others have said, you'll want to engage your District Executive and Unit Commissioner for support, and potentially your unit's Chartered Organization Representative.

I agree with those who say the CR should be contacted, and the DE should certainly be told.  I personally would skip the UC, first of all in my almost-20 years as an adult leader, as far as I know, no UC has ever been assigned to either of the units.  Even if there is one, I would not feel confident enough that that any member of the commissioner's staff is going to know the right answer on something like this.  They probably would refer you to the DE (or straight up to the SE) anyway when a violation of the law is involved.

Well, the parents say the RSO did the wrong thing, and the camp director says the RSO did the wrong thing, so everybody seems to agree on that.  Even the RSO may agree at this point.

I am not sure what the parents are looking for at this point.  It says they are looking for "policy changes and an an apology," but then it says "Upon learning of this incident, the camp directors took action to correct the staff member, had him apologize to the Scout and his father, and offered the Scout the full opportunity to participate in target shooting while still at camp."  If that is true, the parents and the Scout already got their apology, and the Scout got a chance to participate.  It doesn't appear that any policy change is required, because the RSO was not following the policy that already exists, which would allow the Scout to participate.  Things like this are always going to happen, and the camp or employer or government or whoever can only apologize and make sure all employees understand the policy, and upon repeated violations, terminate the employee.  But that is never going to completely stop all violations of a policy.

On 6/22/2019 at 7:35 PM, jr56 said:

I remember reading in the advancement policy, that if a scout comes from another country, individual requirements can be reviewed and counted toward applicability to American requirements, but an Eagle rank would not be awarded.

That is exactly what it says.  The highest rank that a Scout can be awarded based on advancement work done is another country's Scouting program is Life, even if they have earned the other country's highest award.  I imagine that someone at National has a chart indicating what rank from what country is equivalent to what rank here.  I'm guessing that the highest award in Canada or the UK would get you Life.  It is possible that there are some countries where the Scouting program is different enough from ours that a youth earning their highest award would get a BSA rank lower than Life.

There have always been contradictions among BSA publications.  I remember one thread on here (more than 10 years ago probably) in which the issue was who appoints a JASM:  The SM, or the SPL in consultation with the SM.  The answer was, it depends (or depended) on which BSA publication you read.  Someone pointed out that the two publications came from different departments within the BSA, and basically argued that it was unreasonable to expect consistency between different departments of the BSA.  I thought that was ridiculous.  You could probably fill up many pages with contradictions just between Scouting magazine and everything else, and yes, I think someone(s) should be checking everything to make sure they are consistent.

15 minutes ago, cocomax said:

Were these directives disseminated to councils by GSUSA for each council to use and customize and post as they see fit?

Well, based on this language the policy certainly seems to be coming from GSUSA National:

Girl Scouts of the USA prohibits events co-sponsored or cobranded with the Boy Scouts.

In fact, it says that a few times.

While I do understand why the GSUSA is upset with the BSA right now, this kind of thing only hurts their own members and, as others have said, could cause some girls to say, if I can't participate in these events as a Girl Scout, I'll do it as a member of Scouts BSA.  Which presumably is not what GSUSA is aiming for.

33 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

When GM declared bankruptcy a decade back, the pre-packaged deal formed a new company that purchased the GM name, Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac brands, a bunch of factories and facilities, and some financial obligations.  A month after the filing the new company started business as General Motors and the old GM took whatever was left and ground through the process.  If the BSA is looking for a way to significantly restructure the organization it's not out of the question I suppose.

I think that gets a little tricky when you are talking about a not-for-profit corporation.  There's no stock to transfer.  There really aren't any "owners."  And even if you could figure out a way to do that, the Congressional Charter probably complicates things.  Transferring it would probably require passage of a bill by both Houses of Congress and signature by the president.  If I were the BSA, I would want to stay as far away as possible from the federal legislative process right now.

Welcome to the forum gpurlee!

I think Neal is correct, this falls under the "appropriate attire" rule.  Obviously it is right on the edge, otherwise there would be no need to talk about it.  I usually err on the side of "let's find a more appropriate alternative if we can," which in this case tells me the Scout who has been robbed should be wearing gym shorts over his underwear.  But that's me.

I don't think "show" and "demonstrate" necessarily mean different things.  The meaning of each one may be affected by the specific thing you are expected to "show" or "demonstrate" but I do not think that in any of the instances mentioned here, what the Scout is required to do would be affected by using the other word instead.  (I use both words quite often in legal writing, and I use them interchangeably, for whatever that's worth.)

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Truth is the boys are going to have to put up with this stuff for quite awhile because women are the thing these days. It's on the news, the movies, and sports.

(Bold-face provided by me.)

Seriously, Barry?  I have no question that you are deeply concerned about the impact of this change on the boys, and you are absolutely sure that you're right, and I get that. Only time will tell whether a large number of boys will leave the program.  But at the same time, I can't help but wonder whether there is also a certain amount of resentment involved, as indicated in the quotation above.

You might also want to mention the Disabilities Awareness Merit Badge and/or list the pamphlet among your resources.  It shows that the BSA is trying to build awareness among Scouts as well as Scouters.