NJCubScouter

I don't think the real issue is whether this is "free labor" or not. As SSScout said, any service project could be viewed as "free labor." Even in an Eagle project, the candidate himself is providing much more than "free labor", but the Scouts (and often adults) who are working on the project aren't. I think the real distinction is, is the work benefiting the community or a charitable or religious or governmental organization, or is it only benefiting a for-profit business by cutting down on the amount of paid labor the guy has to hire to do the job customers are paying him for?

The district is only involved if this an Eagle project. Right? I had the impression that this was just some boys getting service hours for "lower" ranks. In no way could this possibly qualify as an Eagle project. As for who can approve it, we don't know what the OP's position is in the troop. If he is SM, and it is for non-Eagle ranks, he can approve it or not approve it. I agree, I do not think this is appropriate as service hours for any rank since it is unpaid labor for a profit-making business. At one point we had a discussion about a business that wanted to have Scouts put on a flag ceremony, but that's different. That business did not make its profit from flag ceremonies, it is just something they wanted to do for the community. This is a guy who is using Scouts to do the work he gets paid for. Beyond just not having the service hours count, if I were an SM I would tell this guy "No thank you." and not even pass along the request to the Scouts.

I think RememberSchiff's question is a good one, but in my opinion the next thing you should do about this is report this incident to the council office, if you have not done so already. That does not necessarily mean I think you will be compensated, because I don't know the answer. But any delay in reporting it may jeopardize whatever chances you may have.

Sounds like yet another example of "No good deed goes unpunished".

What kind of organization (or person) are the requests coming from? And when you say the requesting person is getting paid, paid for what?

Facebook tells me, "Sorry, this content isn't available right now."

The event described in the original post is not what I have ever heard described as a "camporall". As I said before, to my knowledge "camporall" is just another word for "camporee", which means (to me) a district-wide or council-wide camping event, sometimes with skills instruction and sometimes with skill competitions. I remember one with a trebuchet-building contest. Eagledad mentioned "Scout-o-Rama", this is more like that because of the "show" aspect and the fact that outside people are providing the activities for the Scouts to participate in. Or maybe in this case its more of a "STEM-o-Rama". P.S. Somewhere in my memorabilia collection is a neckerchief slide from a "Scout-Air-Rama" from about 1970, the "Air" was because it was held at Newark Airport. I know I was there, but I don't remember any details.

I think "camporee" vs. "camporall" is just a matter of local usage. I remember my father talking about "camporalls" in reference to the troop he was SM of before I was old enough to join the Cub Scouts, so that was more than 50 years ago.

Very sorry to hear about this tragedy. My thoughts are with the family and troop.

The registered Scout from another troop is fine. I believe the 14-year-old brother is also fine if there is a possibility that he will join the troop. The 14-year-old sister cannot join the troop.

One pay phone is required in each exchange area? Does the State of Ohio provide this service itself, or does it compel someone else to do so? And if so, how?

I don't think Scouting is "failing".

I did some googling and found this which mentions Neighborhood Patrols, if I am interpreting this correctly they seem to have been part of something called "Rural Scouting." http://chestofbooks.com/outdoors/scouts/Rural-Boys/Rural-Reading-Program-Region-IX-Fine-Example-Under-Regional-Leadership.html#neighborhood_patrol It says no CO or committee was required, just a Scoutmaster who would be approved by three "fathers" (presumably fathers of boys who are participating in the patrol, though it doesn't actually say that, and it doesn't say "parents", just "fathers".) The only date I see in this document is 1938, as the year one of the photos was taken, so this document is probably either from then or shortly after that.

That link didn't work, I think you have an extra space or two at the end. This worked: http://www.scoutstuff4sale.com/1969-national-charter-for-a-neighborhood-patrol/ I have never heard of a charter for a patrol, nor do I recall hearing the term "neighborhood patrol", as opposed to just a "patrol". I notice the document doesn't actually say the word "charter". It says the patrol "has duly qualified and is registered with" the BSA. I am not sure what that means and it does not say anything else of substance. It seems to be a certificate that was given out in addition to a troop charter, because I know troops have had charters going back to the beginning.

@@TAHAWK, when were patrols registered as units?

You may not be cynical, but I am. Even so, I am not necessarily convinced that this is a done deal. I seem to recall another Major Decision a few years ago when National floated a proposal and then after an uproar and a bunch of surveys, made a different decision. Maybe they are planning surveys for this one too. We shall see.

I do know that. I chose that phrase intentionally.

It seems the BSA is being pretty silent on the whole issue as well. The only reports that I have seen about the presentation(s) on this subject at the annual meeting are posts in various places on the Internet by people who attended the meeting, or their friends, friends of friends, etc. These reports are not completely consistent. One talks about a task force, while others make it look like National has already done some studying of this subject, so I am not sure what the role of the task force would be. It does not appear that the BSA has issued any press releases or made any official statements about this, and you would think that they would, or should. They must know that people are discussing it all over the place, and it would make sense to make a clear statement of what is going on and what the process will be for making decisions. Maybe they will in the next few days, since in fairness, the end of the conference was followed by a holiday weekend.

Well, first, even if they could collect registration fees for "only" the 5 years of Cub Scouting, from youths who were not previously eligible (i.e. girls), if the number of members is large enough I doubt the BSA would see that as "self-defeating." That's potentially a large chunk of revenue that they are not getting now. Second, let's look back at what was reported earlier in the thread about the potential options at the Boy Scout level: And all of this (both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts) would be a matter of local (CO) option. So even if there is a Cub Scout pack in a given area that admits girls, either as an all-girl pack or a coed pack, there is no way of knowing whether there will be either an all-girl troop or a coed troop anywhere within a convenient distance for the Webelos girls to cross over to. In other words, they can make all these new options available to CO's, but there is no way of knowing whether existing or new CO's in a given area will decide to offer all of them, some of them or none of them. So the idea of getting the Boy Scout portion established before the Cub Scout portion may not work.

No, it depends on the circumstances.

It appears they are following a typical litigation strategy which is of course lawyer-driven and probably also insurance-company-driven, rather than public-image-driven. In the case of the New York legislation, passage of that bill will allow people to sue whose deadlines had previously passed, and the BSA is taking a somewhat reflexive approach based on the idea that fewer lawsuits means fewer payments to claimants. It makes sense from a short-term financial point of view but again, does not improve the BSA's public image. I am not sure what you mean by "get on the side of the child in legal proceedings". In most cases the claimant will have sued both the alleged abuser as well as the BSA and possibly the council as well. "Getting on the side of the child" would most likely involve settling with the claimant and then going after the alleged abuser. But that person may very well have nothing that the BSA could recover. He may already have been convicted of a crime for the same abuse, in which case he may have "lost everything", assuming he ever had anything. The BSA's alternative is to take the case to trial, in which event they might win and pay nothing. So the question would be, how much does the BSA end up paying for the possibility of improving its public image?

Yes, or at the very least, that the kid will be able to get a free ride to college. I have seen a number of kids quit Scouting because their parents were pushing them to prioritize sports.

Are these people leaders in the troop or just unregistered parents? Have they taken YP training? As has been discussed in this forum many times, leaders on a trip whose son is also on the trip should be acting as leaders, not as parents. Has that been explained to them?

That may be true in some parts of the country, but AHG has barely made a dent in other areas. According to the unit locator on their website, the closest of their units to my town is about 30 miles away and the next closest is about 50 miles away. If I am reading this correctly there are five units in my entire state. Meanwhile almost every little town has a Cub Scout pack.

This thread is being moved to Issues and Politics.