NJCubScouter

Well, they need to be registered and approved as MB counselors (which includes YP training) but they do not need to hold any other position to be a MB counselor. There also is no fee if you are only registered as an MB counselor (in our council at least.)

Welcome to the forum DGS! Why is it $80 per person? In our council I believe it is $33 per adult ($24 to National and $9 to council.) Of course the National fee is going up to $33 (which I suppose is a coincidence) so, assuming council doesn't increase ITS fee, it will be $42 per adult. (I believe Scouts are $55 each including council fees.) If your fees are $80 per adult, that means the council is tacking on $56 in fees. That seems like a lot. Of course even $33 or $42 times 30 is significant, but $80 times 30 is... well, it's unacceptable, not that it's up to me to accept it. Each year we go through the list of adults on the charter and cross off names of people who are completely inactive, and then we have a discussion of people who just show up for a meeting here and there and don't really do anything, or college students who are registered as ASM's but aren't really around. In the past, adults who were on the charter but inactive were given the opportunity to pay their own fees if they wanted to stay on the charter, but I am not sure that is done anymore. As for JosephMD's comment about having all adults pay their own fees, I know some units do that and some adults in our troop (at least in the past) have voluntarily paid their own fees, but I guess our attitude is that volunteers should not have to pay any more for the privilege of volunteering than we already do.

I find that interesting because about 20 years ago, New Jersey amended its constitution to say just the opposite: If the state mandates that local governments (including school boards) provide a particular program, the state must pay for that program. Enforcing that requirement has sometimes been easier said than done, and it does not apply to federally mandated programs, or to state mandates that were already in effect, and there are some exceptions, but at least it reflects a policy that the state should not load up local governments with mandatory programs without providing funding.

I tried to find an article about what happened last year, but there are so many articles from so many different times of the year about Governor Scott vetoing, threatening to veto or talking about vetoing various budget bills, and the legislature considering overrides of vetoes, that I don't even know where to look. Florida's budgeting process makes New Jersey's budgeting process look simple and straightforward, which is a difficult feat to accomplish.

I don't understand why that would be the case. I thought this was about the education budget and the governor's proposal to eliminate funding for the in-school character education materials and teacher training provided by LFL. Why would that funding cut affect the Fire Explorer program? Is the Fire Explorer program delivered through the state's education budget? Or are you saying that the revenues from the in-school programs are used to fund the Fire Explorers? (I would think the financing of Fire Explorers would come from the membership fees paid by the Fire Exploring participants.) If these questions sound ignorant, that is entirely possible, I have never been involved in either LFL or Exploring and have never quite understood the relationship between the two. Added note: I guess I should clarify that last sentence. I do know that Exploring is "part of" LFL, or a "program of" LFL, or a "subsidiary of" LFL, depending on which publication you are reading. But I also know that "Learning for Life", in addition to being an organization, is also the name of the in-school program run by "Learning for Life", with Exploring being a separate program within Learning For Life. Actually, I do not "know" any of this with certainty, it is just what I have picked up along the way.

I think you are correct, and I think there was a thread about last year's budget controversy (and the involvement of LFL) but I cannot find it. I'm guessing that the LFL funding was restored last year, or it most likely would not be an issue this year.

You can. I don't think there would be anything wrong with telling the other volunteers that this really isn't what you thought you were signing up for, and that you are going to volunteer with a troop. That way, you are not interfering with the church's efforts to form a new unit (not counting the fact that you yourself will not be there) and you are volunteering to help Scouts in a way that you think will be productive. As for the pack being able to charter, it is probably true that at least five volunteers would be required: A cubmaster, committee chair (who can also be the COR), two other committee members and a Webelos den leader (assuming all the boys are Webelos.) If the church really wants to get a charter for a unit, the pastor, or whoever, would have to recruit one more person if you step aside.

This sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe it was a different state that had this issue in the past.

Anything is possible, but the quote in the article from the council spokesperson says they are "evaluating" the matter - which suggests that they have reached no conclusion and it also suggests that the council was not consulted in advance. If they had already reached a conclusion (either before or after the action was actually taken) it is more likely that they would have said something like "The council has investigated the matter and we have no further comment." As long as we're speaking hypothetically.

Welcome to the forum Dave!

As you say, it is permitted by the rules, leaving each unit to decide what it is comfortable with. I personally think that people are going to perceive the Scouts being there as some sort of endorsement regardless of when the Scouts leave, so I think it is a situation that is best avoided.

TT: That's why I asked.

I generally agree with that, but I think it is also true that CSE Surbaugh contradicted himself on the timing of the implementation of the changes. In the May video he says that the admission of girls into Cub Scouts would NOT take place until the program for girls 11 and up was ready to go. He also said "We are not in a rush" or words to that effect. In the October video the change for Cub Scouts will be implemented for the "2018 program year" while the details of the 11-and-up program are still being worked out, and it did sound like they are suddenly in kind of in a rush to sign up girls for Cub Scouts. So I guess this is kind of the other side of the coin of what I said earlier: National is not responsible for differences between what they announce and what people thought was going to be announced, or what they think actually was announced, but they ARE responsible for differences between what they say they are going to do, and what they actually do.

Um... which part?

I'm not sure whether the answer to this question appears in any BSA publications, but it does not seem logical to me that a Den Leader would be able to remove a Cub Scout from his den. A den is a subdivision of the pack, and the Den Leader is appointed by the PACK (officially, the CO) to lead the den. A pack can decide to increase or decrease the number of dens at a particular level, and reassign the boys accordingly. So I think the removal of a Cub Scout from a den is something that would have to be done at the pack level, not unilaterally by the Den Leader. Regardless of who does it, and regardless of whether the council eventually sides with the Den Leader or the Cub Scout, I think this sends a very bad message to these young people in whom the BSA is trying to instill the values of citizenship. I am not exactly sure where you draw the line between a question that is "pointed" and one that is "disrespectful" but I do not think these questions cross that line. Nobody should be surprised when a politician is asked tough questions.

I don't normally find myself in the position of defending National, but I don't really think it's their fault that a lot of people (including people in this forum) jumped to all kinds of conclusions about what National was going to do, which did not match up with what was coming out of National. The video of the CSE from the May meeting did NOT say there would be coed Boy Scout troops, in fact he specifically said there would not be. Based on what I have read in this forum, I think that some council/district professionals gave out some incorrect and/or misleading information before the actual decision, which has not helped.

"Your winnings, sir."

Well, talking to him later was certainly better than if the adult had berated the SPL in front of everybody. But, based on the facts we have been given, it sounds like the adult leader's advice was incorrect. He was telling the youth leader not to do something that is clearly part of the youth leader's job. Adults can be wrong sometimes. I see adults being wrong about something almost every day - mostly outside the Scouting context. Fortunately, the other adults in my troop seem to do the right thing the large majority of the time, but not always. Of course, 15-year-olds can be wrong sometimes, too.

One issue that I have with this particular question, especially at this early stage, is whether the person answering the question - and for that matter the person asking the question - actually understands what has been decided. There are a lot of misconceptions floating around about what has been decided, and differing opinions about what will actually happen as a result of the decision, apart from what has actually been decided. We see it in this forum. I saw it at a roundtable last night. And you can't tell someone that they are mistaken, because this is what they "heard", and they're sticking to it. My answer, if I were a Scout in that position, would be something like "I'd like to wait for all of the details to be announced before I give an opinion." That is not evading the question. That is responsible citizenship.

I just want to focus on the second sentence of what you were told. I assume you were told this by an adult leader. Assuming that is the case, I think the adult leader was confusing his role as an adult leader with your role as a youth leader. (And I am leaving aside the issue of whether you were actually playing the role of an SPL or a PL; the fact is that you were the youth leader in charge of those Scouts at that time.) Adult leaders are supposed to take a mostly hands-off approach when Scouts are engaged in an activity, as long as they are engaging in that activity in a safe manner. It is not the role of the adult leader to make sure each individual Scout is doing their "job" in the activity or is exactly where they are supposed to be. That is the job of the youth leader, which was you, and that is what you were doing.

Well... the fact that something is difficult or challenging, or that you aren't the best at something, doesn't mean you can't do it. I have two daughters and a son, all now adults, but they were all 14 once. It was not my wife's sole job to "parent" our daughters and it was not my sole job to "parent" our son, even though I had never been a 14-year-old girl and my wife had never been a 14-year-old boy. It was both of our jobs to be parents to all of them. Maybe I wasn't as good a parent to our daughters as my wife was, but it was still my job to do it.

I have been on about 12-15 EBOR's and I have never seen it happen. Nor has it happened while I have been with the troop (going on 15 years) whether I was on the board or not. However, it apparently does happen. About two years ago the DAC changed the practice for EBOR's from the district representative "chairing" the board to one of the troop committee members signing as chairman. I asked why this was (since it doesn't seem to matter who signs as chairman) and was told that in the event the Scout does not "pass" the BOR, they want it to be "on" the troop rather than the district. I told him I have never heard of anyone "failing" and he said it does happen, including in our district. (I think the reasoning is nonsensical anyway - it is the same 3 or 4 people sitting around the table and voting on the candidate regardless of who signs on what line.)

Hmm. I almost always ask a question or two that is "forward-looking" rather than simply "reviewing" what has happened in the past. The main one (asked at all BOR's, not just EBOR's) is either "What is the one thing you would like to change or improve about our troop? (and why)" or "What are your favorite and least-favorite things about our troop" (ands why)"? At EBOR's, assuming the Scout is a senior in high school (which most of our Eagles are), I will also ask about their future plans. (I guess that one sort of falls into a different category since future plans are something they have to write about anyway before even getting to the EBOR, so nobody should have a problem with asking about those.) There is no "wrong" answer to any of these. Personally I see no reason to ask any "opinion" questions (other than the one about the troop) but I am not convinced that they are illegitimate questions - but again, this assumes that the outcome of the BOR is not going to be affected by whether the questioner agrees with the answer or not. Some questions are asked primarily for the purpose of having the Scout engage in a thoughtful conversation. What they actually think about a particular subject is irrelevant. I remember one Eagle candidate who was vocal about his support for Republicans and was also a big Mets fan. I didn't hold either one against him.

It seems very unlikely to me that the BSA would make this change and then say that coed packs cannot camp. Separate sleeping arrangements, adult leadership of both genders, sure.

I don't plan to ask about it at EBOR's (or any other BOR's), at least not until there is a specific program in place at the Boy Scout-age level to ask about. I suppose it is probably a legitimate question for someone else who chooses to ask it, as long as there is no "wrong" answer. I think there are very few questions the answer to which has the potential to endanger the Scout's ability to make Eagle (or any rank), and this is not one of them.