NJCubScouter

Well, not really "led", it sounds like Cubmaster is just hovering around his son's patrol, which I'm guessing is mostly a misguided effort to make sure his son is happy. And along the way, expressing his juvenile resentment of the fact that someone else is PL, in the form of snarky comments directed at a 10 year old, brand-new Scout/brand-new PL. It also sounds, from the original post, like the actual adult leaders of the troop are TRYING to have their New Scout Patrol NOT be "Webelos III", but they are being undermined by this parent.

I forgot one very important thing: When the dishes are washed and dried and put away and everything is in order, and there is nothing specific scheduled for that moment, then everybody GO PLAY CATCH! Or whatever. Downtime is important too.

Well, let's go back to your original theory: I assume the word "they" refers to the CO. And well they might. But if they do, the BSA provides a method for the CO to express that "authority" and bring it to the attention of other leaders and Scouts. That method is to appoint the person to a position in the other unit - in this case, to appoint the CM to be an ASM as well, and have the person be registered in both positions. It's the only method for doing so that I am aware of. If you are aware of another method, please state the BSA publication and page number on which it appears.

First of all, if the Cubmaster is not registered as a leader with the troop, he is not a leader in the troop. It doesn't matter whether his pack shares a CO with the troop. If he is going to have any "authority" in the troop (and let's leave aside exactly what that means), he is an ASM. Otherwise he is an unregistered parent in the troop. If the CM had a problem with something he saw (other than a safety issue), he should tell the SM and let the SM deal with it. Which brings me to this: Leaving the CM issue aside, if I were the SM (or the SPL) and I saw a PL (particularly the br

Right, because heaven forbid everybody should know what is going on. (That is directed at National, not you.)

Where do you get that from?

Unlike our current U.N. ambassador, I get confused sometimes, and I am confused now. Are we talking about who can/must be a LEADER (as in, registered leader), or what combination of adults must be present on outdoor activities, or both? Coed Venture crews have always been required to have at least one adult of each gender present on outings, right? What would be new? That at least one woman would have to be registered as Associate Adviser (or Adviser)?

(Fixed typo in thread title)

My council's web site says there is a person with the title "Vice President, Family Scouting." I would think that would be the person who is supposed to be "championing" all aspects of (what the BSA unfortunately calls) "Family Scouting" (when that's not really what it is), in my council. I suspect that at least some other councils have someone similar. Of course, how much "unit assistance" a council-wide volunteer can really accomplish is another issue.

I know. In this forum there is no way not to derail the discussion.

Well, there's a surprise. You sure that isn't the version of the web site from 1962 or something? Maybe it's what they call a "loss leader." You get on the web site for that and end up paying $6 for some patch that it cost them 30 cents to make in Bangladesh.

Not to derail the discussion, but I assume you are being "figurative" with the price there. I don't believe that the BSA currently sells ANYTHING for 19 cents - or anything under a dollar, for that matter.

Well, that's sort of where I am going with this, and I do not think the "gender correlation" is anywhere near 100% - or more to the point, is not likely to be anywhere near 100% with the girls who are going to join the Cub Scouts or the Whatever (11-17) Scouts. Boys (and girls) are already pretty different just within their own genders. Some are much more athletic than others (and everything in between.) Same thing with their enthusiasm for different parts of the program. (I have seen boys who actually liked the Eagle-required "homework-badges", and liked camping and hiking and backpacking

I would have a real problem if I took offense at every jab against lawyers in this forum - or in real life.

Can you give an example or two of how the content might be tailored?

Mine does. Most of the moms do not want to go camping. When my son was in the troop, there was one mom (who was also a committee member and advancement chair) who regularly went camping with the troop, but its "regularly" with an asterisk. She is the mother of the Scout I have mentioned before who had cerebral palsy and was in a wheelchair. He could not attend to his "personal needs" without help, and under YP (and common sense) that help could only be provided by a family member, and apparently she was the designated family member. The Scout and his mother went to summer camp and, at mos

I have never heard of a school district taking over a PTO like this. As some others have said, it kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing. I completely understand their frustration at not being able to manage their own finances, especially while a Scout unit that THEY own is able to have its own bank account. The PTO presumably was a "legal entity" (a corporation or something similar) at some point, and legally it may still be, but it is not being permitted to operate as one. But as others have also said, the issue of whether this PTO qualifies to be a CO is really for the council/d

I will assume that that is sarcasm. But yes, I think Lone Scouting is sub-optimal. Scouting is a group activity. Doing it without a group should be a last resort. I think the BSA agrees with me.

I already know what the response is going to be, but I think that on #2 and #3A, it is reasonable to cancel just for the girls; same for #3 but you see whether the camp has a solution first. Unfair? I mean, any more unfair than life itself? Well, consider that if the units were NOT going to the same place, but Boys Troop is going to one camp and the Girls Troop is going to another, and Girls Troop does not have sufficient leadership, the boys would still go and the girls would not. (And that works in reverse, if it is the girls who have sufficient leadership and the boys don't, the gir

Yes, if I think the person is suited for the role. We have gotten several new committee members that way.

Lone Scouting? Not optimal, but better than nothing, at least at the beginning.

Yes, and we don’t know that they haven’t.

FaithfulScouter, a (non-Eagle) BOR is supposed to be composed of between three and six troop committee members, so it's not just a matter of the same three responding to the emails first. If anybody else is volunteering, up to a total of six, they should be participating as well. (Personally I think six is too many, certainly at the lower ranks, but I don't make the rules.) In my troop the Advancement Coordinator (currently me) chairs all BOR's unless he cannot be there, and the AC others to serve. I do rotate the BOR spots around among the committee members who have expressed interest

Cyber Chip is part of requirement 4 for Scout rank as well. Both were included in the 2016 revisions to the requirements.

That comment will probably find its way into some email leaked from National... again.