NJCubScouter

Um... Bob, did your post "jump threads" somehow? It would have made sense in response to "Saitou," the Scout (apparently) who wants to oust his Scoutmaster. It does not quite fit in this thread in response to bluegoose, who wishes only that we all vote (and who, coincidently, answers your question in his "profile," but I don't think it's him who you were trying to ask.)

Ron, why ask him/her anything? If you want to contribute to the BSA through United Way, you can just designate your funds accordingly. It's my understanding that all United Ways permit that, even ones (like the one in my county) that have "disqualified" the local BSA council from receiving any "discretionary" funding. Or you can always do as fotoscout suggests and contribute directly, though I understand there are employers who may put pressure on their employees to participate in United Way, so that may be a factor in the other direction. As for fotoscout's general statement about what the United Way takes out of your contribution for its own operations, I don't know whether they take too much or not, but I do know that they provide an "economy of scale" that each individual recipient organization may not have. At the level we are talking about, fund-raising costs money. Each organization has to decide whether it could raise the amount of money it gets from United Way (plus the United Way's "cut"), at an equal or lower cost than the United Way takes out of the contributions. In most cases, the answer is probably no. (Some of the larger BSA councils might be able to do it, and they might do it now, for all I know. However, I am sure a lot of smaller organizations could not do it.)

If some of you want to believe it is a coincidence that a rulemaking process that started in 2002 took exactly long enough that the Department of Education could issue a regulation implementing the "Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act" exactly 20 days before the presidential election, go right ahead. ProudEagle, maybe it is getting no play in the press, but we know about it, don't we? It's the magic of the Internet. Someone found out about it, and posted it, and now a group of Scouters know about a government action to "support" the Boy Scouts right before a presidential election. Maybe the same thing is happening in other Scouting-related forums. The "press" is gradually becoming less and less important, as we all have a "mass medium" at our fingertips now. Bob asks, As far as its proximity to the election, what do we do, shut down every step of the legislative process for 2 months prior to any election so that nobody can call foul? First of all, it's not the "legislative process," that's Congress. This is the administrative regulatory process. Second of all, no, we don't shut it down, but I think we all need to realize that NOTHING comes out of any federal government agency at the policy-making levels this close to a presidential election without having a political calculation attached to it. I don't think a Cabinet official takes a drink of water at this point without an analysis of how it will affect the election. That goes for both parties. As for the rest of your post, Bob, I do love it when you try to lecture me about the law. As a matter of fact, your statements (in both your posts in this thread so far) about what these regulations are, and what they represent, are partly correct and partly incorrect. I don't have time to educate you right now, but I will point out in response to your second post, these regulations do a lot more than "determine the penalty for violation of the law." (In fact, they don't seem to do that, they just cross-reference compliance procedures elsewhere in the Code of Federal Regulations.) The very first paragraph of this notice says that sections of the federal regulations are being added and amended "to implement the previsions of the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act." The implication is that while the law has been on the books since January 2002, there has been no mechanism in place to enforce it, some terms were left undefined, and some things apparently were not clear enough, and these regs take care of all that. As for the regulation itself, Fgoodwin, I have no plans to submit any comments, so my postings here are not slowing the forward march of the administrative process. I have mixed feelings about this whole issue about use of public facilities. If it turns out that the BSA's constitutional rights extend to being able to use public facilities on an equal basis even though they violate state or local anti-discrimination rules governing the use of the facilities, so be it. As far as I know, no such decision has been made and I am not sure one is pending. Short of that, I do have an issue with the federal government using its funding hammer to tell a state or local government that it cannot apply its public policy prohibiting discrimination by users of public facilities, if the state has such a public policy. (In the area of sexual orientation, some states do, some don't. Mine does, that is why the Dale case exists in the first place.) But my bottom line is, I don't want to see a Boy Scout unit made to meet in a place that does not make sense for its members, or to use its hard-earned funds to pay for facilities rather than program. That is not because I like what the BSA has done on the issue of sexual orientation. It is because I don't think the boys should suffer because of the incredibly poor and un-Scoutlike decision that has been made by a bunch of so-called adults at BSA national headquarters.

A cynic might suggest that it could be be considered political pandering for the current administration to come out with these proposed regulations three weeks before the presidential election. (I realize the election is next week, but the date on the linked article is October 13, 2004.) Especially considering that the purpose of the regulations is to enforce a statute that was signed into law in January 2002. In other words, after making a big show of supporting the Boy Scouts, the administration left the statute sitting there with no enforcement mechanism for almost three years (33 months to be more precise), until it could make another big show of supporting the Boy Scouts right before the election. Now, in order to make sure that I (oops, I mean, a hypothetical cynic) was being fair, I looked at the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this regulation (which you can get to from the link above) to see if, perhaps, the regulations are so lengthy and complicated that they really would take somewhere close to 33 months to write. Well, I don't think so. The document (which includes the entire regulation, as well as explanatory material) is eight pages long -- and the first page is a cover sheet, and in scrolling through it, it looked like at least 2 full pages are standard boilerplate language copied from other regulations, so there are maybe 5 pages of actual original material there. It took them 33 months to write 5 pages? Being generous, allowing for a very meticulous writing process, a LOT of proofreading and numerous coffee breaks -- these are, after all, federal government employees -- plus reviewing and editing by 10 or 11 levels of bureacracy, I would have given it, say, 6 months, tops. (Considering that I myself wrote about 12 pages of stuff today at work, I'd say 6 months for 5 pages is giving them the benefit of the doubt.) Unless, of course, the goal was to come out with this right before the election. Of course, that is what a cynic might suggest. It's a good thing I'm not one of those.

FYI, I use the term 'homo' quite often - applied as the genus, Homo (as in Homo sapiens). Sorry, I just can't help it. I seek absolution. Everybody's a comedian.

Hunt says: Again, some folks seem to have trouble distinguishing pedophilia from homosexuality. I'd say that's the understatement of the year. But I guess it's not too surprising. If you call gay people "homos" as TrailPounder does, I guess one can't expect you to make fine distinctions between the groups of people that you don't like. (I think the last time I heard someone use the term "homo," other than in this forum, was when I was in the seventh grade.) I am sure the BSA is very proud to have that kind of rhetoric used to support its policies. (The preceding sentence was sarcasm. Actually the BSA has, in its literature, disclaimed any connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse of children. I say "has" because there used to be a sentence in the Youth Protection Guidelines stating that homosexuals are no more likely to be abusers than anyone else. That sentence has mysteriously vanished. I suspect the reason is not that the BSA doesn't believe it anymore, but just that they don't want to say it anymore.)

Very well said, Hunt.

'ankh! 'ankh! (It's the sound a British car horn makes.)

Funny, Acco, though I have to say your parody hits a bit too close to home for me. Some of the more colorful imagery does not apply to me, but if overeating is the sin, I have to admit that I have -- what's that you said? "Fallen pray to its lure." Too funny.

There was a time when I thought that WHEELER was FOG. Heh heh. That one never would have occurred to me. Wheeler was (presumably still is, wherever he is) about 100 times more "scholarly" than FOG, although Wheeler may have taken some of what he has read a bit too seriously. Ok, ok, he definitely has taken most of what he has read way too seriously. FOG, on the other hand, probably thinks Ayn Rand was Packsaddle's assistant principal in high school. I crack myself up sometimes.

Due to a cut-and-pasting error and my computer's inexplicable inability to edit posts in this forum, a paragraph appeared in my last post that should not have been there. It starts "Now, Rooster..." It was in a previous post of mine and was not supposed to be repeated. Everything else was supposed to be there. Or, as my favorite radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh would say, the opinions expressed in this post are absolutely correct.

Rooster says: Yet, all sin separates us from God. First of all, what if I disagree that something is a "sin"? What if 10 percent within the BSA disagree? 20 percent? 50 percent? What if (pick a percentage) of CO's are religious organizations that not only don't believe something is a sin, but believe that excluding people on that basis is a sin? Or at least, wrong? What if some of these religious organizations are so far from believing homosexuality is a sin that they have openly gay clergy? Or perform the equivalent of marriage ceremonies between gay people? Now, of course, Rooster, you think they are wrong. But you and those who think like you are not the entire BSA. At what point does an organization say, you know, there is enough disagreement about this issue within our organization that the principle in question really is no longer a "value" of the organization. It's really a value of some members and some CO's and those CO's can enforce that value, while those with competing values can go with theirs. Just like some believe it is right to have a female Scoutmaster and some believe it is wrong. I don't know what the right percentage or number is, if there is one. Maybe it is more of a sense of a "divided organization." Or maybe when a subsection of the organization as large as a council dissents, it is time to evaluate whether a real disagreement exists, and to my knowledge there are at least nine such councils. However you measure when the "point" has been reached, I think it has been reached with regard to requiring all units to exclude gay leaders. Murder or rape or any other crime do not fall into this category. Whether a Scout should be brave or courteous or clean does not either. There is no room for honest disagreement about these issues. There is room for honest disagreement about whether a gay person, or someone who may have had a drinking problem, or a one-time petty thief, or for that matter a woman, is fit to be a leader. (No offense to female leaders in that last remark, but I think it is safe to say that is the BSA's policy in light of the fact that they permit the largest CO (in terms of numbers of units) to exclude women from leadership positions.) Now, Rooster, I know you think that "clean" and "reverent" and "morally straight" prohibit homosexuality just as clearly as "He treats others as he wants to be treated" and "He obeys the laws..." prohibit murder and rape and armed robbery (and for that matter, shoplifting and securities fraud and assault.) Second of all, the part about what "separates us from God" once again points out that what is really driving the exclusion of gays is religion, not some "universal morality" that can be separated from religion. The BSA says it is non-sectarian, but when it enforces the belief of your religion and violates the beliefs of others, it is being sectarian. So why muddy the waters by falsely accusing me of not being able to make distinctions between acts of violence and acts of sexual perversion and/or lust. Rooster, maybe you should ask yourself that question. When I re-read your post from yesterday at 2:28:18 p.m., the first post in this exchange about "murder," it is really you who accused me of that first, by "supposing" what you "supposed." Everybody can go back and read it and see for themselves.

::Composing myself:: OK. I'm OK now. Whew. But it was nice to see Ayn Rand, that famous lunatic and cult leader, make a brief return to the forums.

Rooster, I understand that you cannot see a moral distinction between committing a violent crime (like murder or rape) and being gay, but a lot of people can. There probably isn't too much point in arguing about it. After all, does the Scout Law say anything about murder? How about rape? Yes, it does. It says something about all acts that harm others (by incorporating the "golden rule," see below), and it also says something about all crimes. It doesn't need to single out murder and rape, which are both crimes and both acts that harm others. (But it does also single out "killing.") Conveniently enough for me, the two sections in which it does all this are consecutive in the Scout Law, so I only had to cut-and-paste once, though the time I saved was then spent in putting some sentences in italics: "A Scout is Kind. A Scout knows there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. Without good reason, he does not harm or kill any living thing. A Scout is Obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them." Now, Rooster, I know you think that "clean" and "reverent" and "morally straight" prohibit homosexuality just as clearly as "He treats others as he wants to be treated" and "He obeys the laws..." prohibit murder and rape and armed robbery (and for that matter, shoplifting and securities fraud and assault.) As I've said in the past, I do not write my posts in an effort to convince you otherwise. I know that will never happen. I write, in part, so that other people willing to consider both sides of the issues can see them presented, and make up their own minds.

Rooster says: Personally, I think there should be a local option on Brave. Through your facetiousness, you actually help make my point. If you actually did believe there should be "local option" on any of the actual points of the Scout Law, then one might wonder where one could really draw the line. But I am pretty sure you don't believe that. The line is between the "values" that are universally held within the BSA and those that are held merely by a majority of people within the BSA. The first category (which includes the 12 points of Scout Law) are "values of the BSA" and are not eligible for "local option." The second category are NOT "values of the BSA" and should be eligible for local option. Whether a leader should have to uphold the "value" of heterosexuality is in the second category.

Since Merlyn says he posted the link to the "prisoner Boy Scout troop" article in response to my comment about "criminals," I guess I should respond. First of all, I thought it was clear in the context of my original comment that I was talking about adult leaders. That is always a problem when we talk about "membership criteria" because while many of the considerations are the same regardless of whether we are talking about adults or youth, some are slightly different. I don't know if it is still on the BSA web site, but at one point there is an explanation of how an "openly gay" youth should be dealt with and it was NOT exactly the same as the policy on openly gay adult leaders. Second of all, in reading the comment that Merlyn was responding to, I have to admit that I was using the word "criminals" somewhat loosely. We have had discussions here before about the circumstances under which someone once convicted of a crime might still be acceptable as a leader, such as someone who committed a "minor" non-violent crime many years ago and has apparently "reformed." Perhaps to be more clear I should have said "persons convicted of crimes that indicate a likelihood of causing harm to youth." But even that may not be clear enough; I am not just talking about sexual abusers or persons who actually committed crimes against children. For example, in my view (and no doubt the BSA's) someone just released from prison after a conviction for armed robbery, with only adult victims, is more than enough of a risk to require exclusion. But as for the person arrested for possessing a small amount of pot 25 years ago, or the person with one DWI conviction (a "crime" in some states but not others), I think the BSA leaves this up to the unit, or at least it used to. With the advent of "uniform" criminal background checks, it may be that there is now one criteria, and that the report comes back "qualified" or "unqualified." I don't know. But all of this is a nuance, in my opinion. Generally speaking, "criminals" do not get to be adult leaders in the BSA. The article that Merlyn posted does not change any of this, in my opinion. This is a special program and many of the same considerations that apply to a "regular" Boy Scout troop do not apply. The people involved in the program are being considered "youth members" because their "mental age" is less than 18. The risk of "exposing" a youth to an adult leader who is a criminal does not really exist because all of the youth members in this situation have committed crimes and are under the "control" of the state. The existence of this unit does not mean "criminals can join a Boy Scout troop." It is really stretching things for the BSA to call this a Boy Scout troop at all. I agree with some who have said that the inmates can benefit from a program that includes the values of the BSA, and I think it is good for the BSA to have such a program. However, using the designation "Boy Scout troop" as a vehicle for such a program seems highly questionable to me. It should probably fall somewhere under the heading Learning for Life, where things can be a bit more "flexible."

TP says: Tell that to the Israeli's in Haifa and Tel Aviv who were on the reciveing end of several dozen SCUD missles a couple years ago. I don't recall the Saudis, Syrians, or Iranians firing SCUDS at Israel? Well, not Scuds, but I do seem to recall that Syria invaded Israel a few times. (I do realize the last time was 31 years ago, this month in fact, but if they had any hope of winning they would do it again in a minute.) As I recall, Israel has managed to keep both its military and civilian casualties in these wars fairly light, but the toll has still been greater than in Saddam's Scud attacks of 1990-91. And much more recently (and at a much greater cost in terms of civilian lives), Syria and Iran (the governments, not just the people) have sponsored, equipped, trained and "launched" terrorist groups whose "suicide bombings" and other attacks have killed far more Israelis (and visitors, including Americans) than Saddam's Scud missiles. As for Saudi Arabia, I don't personally know the level of involvement of the government itself in sponsoring terrorism. I do know there is at least one book written in the past year that details the connections of the government, not just "fanatical citizens," to terrorism. I have not read it. (And it's not Michael Moore's book that I'm talking about.) But I do think the facts show that Saudi Arabia (which I believe ALSO has funnelled money to Palestinian terrorist groups) is a bigger source of terrorism than Iraq ever was. I also have no doubt that if 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers had been citizens of Iraq (rather than citizens of Saudi Arabia), the U.S. bombers, missiles, troop transports and everything else we've got would have been in the air the next day, without a lot of detailed study of the precise relationship between those specific citizens and their government. Look, I am not nominating Saddam Hussein for any peace prizes here. I'm glad he's gone, and his sons and his entire government with him. What I am talking about is a matter of priorities. (And this part is in response to OGE as well.) While we have been expending our resources on Iraq, due in part to a concern that he might someday develop nuclear weapons, has Iran acquired enough nuclear material and technology to develop nuclear weapons NOW? What about North Korea? I guess we'll find out. And is Saddam Hussein any more dangerous than Iran or North Korea? I don't see how. As for UN resolutions, I don't put much stock in the UN. (By the way, if you are wondering, if NJCubScouter believes all that, which of the two major presidential candidates does he agree with about Iraq? The answer to which would be, neither, exactly.) And none of this explains why we are there NOW, involved in Iraq's civil war. If we are making Iraq "safe for democracy," then once again this means that to be consistent, we have to invade almost all of its neighbors, as well. None of them (excluding Israel) are democracies.

TP says: I tend to think, Iraq is it. Once the Iraqis take over for themselves, our anti-terrorists people will be conducting raids wherever those butchers raise their collective heads. But, there are no other countries who spent 12 years violating the un resolutions and firing at our planes in the no-fly zone. Saddam put a target on his own forehead. It is really your second sentence I am responding to, but I wanted to leave it in context. I am pretty sure, but not positive, that by "wherever" you mean wherever in the world, not just wherever in Iraq. But that is my whole problem with believing the administration's justification for the war in the first place. There are governments in that region that have done, and are doing, much more to sponsor, assist and harbor terrorists -- and I mean terrorists aimed at us (U.S.) and at our allies in Israel -- than Saddam Hussein ever did. I am talking primarily about Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. (Afghanistan would be first on the list, of course, but we took care of that government already.) Some might add Egypt, Lebanon and others to the list, but I think the primary problems are the 3 I mentioned. Our government knows this. So why did we choose Iraq first? (I won't give my answer at this point; I think I have already, in posts back when the war began. Bottom line is, I don't think the reasons were good reasons.) I am not saying we should go to war anywhere else. I am however saying that the "logic" that compelled us into war with Iraq would lead us into several more wars as well. I am not confident that the policies of the current administration would not lead to the need for a draft at some point.

BSA Bugler says: God is a Supreme Being who is responsible for The Natural Order of the Universe, or Natural Law. All things must conform to that Law or become extinct. How many homosexual animals exist as a species, none. They would be unable to reproduce, so the trait of same sex mating deviates from Natural Law, i.e., those who do so are deviants. I think this is faulty logic. The term "natural law" is a tricky thing and I have seen it used to justify or to try to prohibit all kinds of things. Here you are trying to take the natural drive of our species to reproduce and calling it a "law," and then saying that if you engage in conduct that does not lead to reproduction, you are "breaking the law" and therefore being a deviant and therefore immoral. I don't buy it. There is no doubt that we are "designed" to reproduce and that male-female activity is how it gets done. As a species, we seem to do a very good job at reproducing, unhindered by the fact that the population always contains some small percentage (say 5 percent) of gay people. So the presence of gay people does NOT prevent our species from doing what it needs to do to perpetuate itself. But it goes beyond that, because not all heterosexuals reproduce, either. Some can't. Some don't want to. Their "lines" will die out, but the species goes on just fine. If people in these categories nevertheless engage in sexual activity, are they "deviants" as well? Or is that term just reserved for gays? And the point really is, there is no consensus in our society that homosexuality is immoral, as there used to be. The immorality of homosexuality is a religious belief of some, but not of others. The BSA has taken sides on a matter of religious doctrine, contrary to its own principles.

JD says: What about . . . "WHEREAS, the national officers reaffirm that, as a national organization whose very reason for existence is to instill and reinforce values in youth, the BSA's values cannot be subject to local option choices, but must be the same in every unit; and ..." What about it, JD? They said it. I don't agree with it. I think it's regrettable that they said it, because local option represented a great opportunity for the BSA to get past this issue and go on doing what it does best, without the distractions (losses of funding, lawsuits over use of facilities, etc.) that continue to exist. As for the statement you quote, what it really gets down to is, what are the "BSA's values"? (Man, this must be about the 100th time I have said this, or something similar. That is why it took me awhile to get into this thread once it was revived. It does get tiresome saying the same things. And, along those lines, welcome back, TJ.) Where was I? Oh yeah, the important thing is, what really are the BSA's values? Because if something really is part of the "BSA's values," I agree, there can be no local option. You can't have a Scoutmaster who says to the boys, "it's not important to be trustworthy, and don't worry about your duty to your country, we're going to leave those out when we recite the Law and Oath." But heterosexuality is not a value of the BSA. It is what most of us are. Some in Scouting (probably a majority) DO have a "value" that one must be heterosexual in order to be "moral," but others do not have that belief. It is a value of many in Scouting, but not of Scouting itself. And that is why each CO should be able to decide for itself, just as they can on so many other issues.

JD says: "As I understand it, units can ban female leaders, can require that all members belong to a particular religion, etc." Hunt's off base isn't he???????? These choices DO NOT exist on the local level, do they??? They absolutely do. OGE gives one example (the only one I am aware of) of a CO that consistently uses both of these options nationwide. There may be other CO's that do so, and I know there are units that in effect exclude female leaders or limit the positions in which they can serve, without having a formal or announced policy, simply by who they choose to appoint to positions. As for members of a certain religion, yes, for example a Catholic church that is a CO may say that you must be Catholic, or even that you must be a member of the specific parish (in other words that you must be a member of the CO to join the troop.) Whether any Catholic churches or any other religious bodies actually do so, I do not know. (There are communities here and there where, literally, everyone is of the same religion, and I would not be surprised if all the members of Scout units in those communities happen to be of that religion.) There are many other characteristics on which units can decide to include or exclude leaders, and I have listed some others in the past. The fact is, local option in selecting leaders is the rule, not the exception. The list of characteristics that may not be used to EXCLUDE a leader is very short, in fact to my knowledge it contains either one item (race) or two (race and ethnicity.) The list of characteristics that REQUIRE exclusion also is very short; the only ones I can think of right now are (1) criminals (including those who have committed crimes against children; and (2) gays. Does anyone know of any others?

I think there are 2 different things at work here; one is the current round of rumors that there will have to be a draft, and the other was the proposal by Rep. Rangel to reinstate the draft as a means of spreading the "burden of military service" to all of the economic classes. The latter was really an attempt to make a point against the War in Iraq, on the theory of, would the decision-makers in this country support the war if it were THEIR sons, nephews, etc. marching off to war rather than some nameless folks of the "working class" who joined the military for its educational and career opportunities? (I understand that this was an oversimplification, I'm just repeating the argument.) Apparently, yesterday, the first phenomenon crashed into the second. The front page of my newspaper today reported that House Republican leaders, upset at the persistent pre-election draft rumors, called up Rep. Rangel's otherwise-moribund draft bill for a vote. The House then voted it down in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, something like 2 yes to 400 no. Rep. Rangel himself voted against his own bill and urged others to do so, saying that it was a Republican stunt to bring it up. (Which it was; of course, his introduction of the bill in the first place was also a stunt, though a stunt that I thought that had some merit. But that's politics, huh?) So, political gyrations aside, do we need a draft? (I mean, to fulfill military requirements. TP is talking about something else: Compulsory service as a way to build a sense of discipline and community and sacrifice in a generation of young people that has been taught by the "political culture" (both parties) that this sort of thing is unnecessary. It might not be a bad idea, though the details are always the trick. But that's not what KS was talking about.) I think that if you look just at the wars we are involved in now, the answer is pretty clearly no, we don't need a draft. However, how many wars are on the horizon? If the president is re-elected, and the line about attacking terrorists wherever they are was really true, and not just part of the web of excuses for invading a relatively weak Iraq, what's next? There are some countries in that region and elsewhere that represent (and have represented, going back before 9/11/01) a much greater source of terrorism than Iraq. Are we going to invade Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? North Korea? China? What's next? If the policy that led us into Iraq is to be followed consistently all over the world, won't we be at war constantly, in multiple places at a time? At that point, might we not need a draft? Oh, and speaking of checking math: TP, where do you get 562 members of Congress? There are 535 (536 if you count the official non-voting House delegate from D.C., 538 if you also count the unofficial "honorary Senators" from D.C.) Or was that just a rough estimate?

I'm a little unclear how the money got out of the troop's bank account and into the hands of the hotels, gas stations, betting windows, houses of ill repute, whatever. (I was just embellishing the stated facts at the end there.) Did the CC write checks from the account and give them to the various places in payment of his expenses? (It seems doubtful, most such places generally don't take personal checks, and a check that says "Troop 503" is probably not going to be any more welcome.) Did he write troop checks to cash, or to himself? (In which case, I have to wonder a bit about possible liability of the bank that cashed them, unless he did it for $20 at a time or something like that, and/or spread the check-cashing around to different banks.) Until I know that, I won't suggest what I think about this. (Well, ok, maybe I will give just a hint, the words "theft" and "police" come to mind. The word used in the title, "embezzled," is just a fancy word for "stole." But as I say, we need more facts first.) And by the way, I thought the BSA recommended that all unit checking accounts have 2 signatures required on each check. Am I wrong about that? (Having said that, I don't think our troop requires 2 signatures. But the question comes more easily to mind where you are talking about a unit where someone actually did steal money, if that is the case.)

I'm wondering the same thing as OGE, and more generally, WHAT is a "huge mega camp" as opposed to a "local camp"? Is a "huge mega camp" a council camp, just one that is larger? I'm not aware of any of those around here, although the camp that my son's troop usually goes to is in another council (Bucks County, Pa.) and does seem to attract troops from various councils. This camp also seems to have more "resources" than our own council camp, such as a major corporation donated a science building, the dining hall is nicer, and things like that. And it seems "large" geographically but not necessarily larger than any other Scout camp I have seen. At the closing ceremony when I picked up my son, there seemed to be about 20 troops there, and supposedly the camp was "booked." That's not a "huge mega camp," is it?

Mark said: A Scout who is not elected or selected for a position of responsiblity could be the subject of a popularity contest. And Bob responded (apparently, because there is no other reference to a popularity contest in this thread, so it must be in response to Bob): Is any election NOT a popularity contest? Bob's statement is true, but it only pertains to elected positions (SPL, PL), while Mark was referring to all positions both "elected" and "selected." Mark is talking about the problem of a boy whose "unpopularity" causes him not to be appointed to any position. There is no requirement that an SPL "like" someone in order to appoint them Quartermaster, Scribe or whatever. In real life it often works that way. But I think in most (hopefully all) troops, some position or leadership project will be found for every boy First Class and above who needs one for advancement. If the boys (meaning the SPL) are not giving every boy this opportunity, the SM needs to "step in." (This is not contrary to the idea of "boy-led" -- the "job descriptions" for all the positions appointed by the SPL give the SM a "say" in the matter, I do not recall the exact terminology. Additionally there is at least one position appointed by the SM, but it is difficult to think of JASM as a "consolation prize" for someone who is not elected or appointed to something else, to the contrary, in my experience every JASM has held several previous positions, usually SPL or ASPL. And of course JASM also is age-restricted, so its usefulness in this situation is limited. I'm making a wild guess that neither Heidi's son nor the examples Mark is thinking of have reached the age of 16 yet.)