Prairie_Scouter

It seems pretty clear that we're not going to be able to resolve this (if there is anything that needs to be resolved). We've got two opposing views of the transaction, and sets of facts that appear to contradict each other. It's always unfortunate when a Scout camp is shut down and sold. I tend to look at these a couple of ways. Camps are usually shut down because they aren't being used effectively. Most of the time, that's due to decreased attendance. Times and usage can change, tho. If the owner of the property is financially sound and has patience, they can hold the property and hope that the next generation of Scouts starts to use it again. If the owner of the property is not financially sound, tho, sometimes you have to forego the future and deal with the present. Whether the financial problems are due to mismanagement or bad luck is kind of irrelevent, really, at that point. Bills need to be paid. I say "owner of the property" because it's unclear that the Council owns the property. If it reverts back to the Kilworth heirs, it could be that they never actually deeded the property to the Council, but instead arranged some sort of usage plan where the Council maintained the property until such time that they chose to stop using it. For one, it sounds like the property is not being maintained. That could be why there's comments about working a deal for the Council to get some of the sale proceeds. But, if the Kilworth family isn't agreeable, then the Council gets nothing and they've basically given away a campground that they could have used. I don't know which it is for lack of information.

Whew! Sounds like quite a challenge. A couple of thoughts.... Even tho 1st nights are usually not as smooth as some might like, they usually aren't that bad. Sounds like no planning was done, and that's the CMs job. As far as "jobs" go, the reality is that people take multiple jobs all the time, but a few really can't be shared from a registration perspective. Aside from the "rules" about positions, the BSA registration software can't handle people holding multiple positions. So, you might be the treasurer and be a den leader in the reality of your pack, but in the eyes of the BSA registration software, you can only be one thing. From a practical standpoint, tho, having the same person be the CM and CC is not a good idea. For one thing, your registration won't be accepted. For another, you have no "balance of power" in your pack. And, not that BSA training is the cure all for all problems, but you really ought to get your leaders trained. I can't believe that they are given what you've written. As far as what you can do..... Two possibilities, I think. One is to convince the CM that he can only take one job, hope he takes the CC job, and move in as the CM yourself. Sounds like from a pack needs perspective, that might be the ideal situation. The CC is more of a behind the scenes job, and the CM determines what the pack "looks like" to the world. Things can improve, but your CM has to realize that if he's going to be the CM, he can't point to "the lady in the corner" for what goes on at pack night. That's his job.

It sounded more like they were worried about accepting liability for the trailer, not that they didn't want the troop to have one. Well, I think the deal is that since your CO effectively owns the troop and its assets, you have a couple of options.... One. Talk with your Council office and see what insurance protection is extended to the CO through the BSA. Could be there isn't any in regards to the trailer, but you'd want to understand that. If the BSA insurance covers the CO in regards to liability, you want to make sure the CO understands that. Could be the CO's own insurance would cover the trailer in case of theft, for example. Two. As others mentioned, you could arrange for someone else to own the trailer, but then you have to figure out what happens if the trailer is in an accident, or is stolen. Or, you could form your own non-profit to CO the troop, but you'd have to figure that out as well. And find meeting places, etc. First step, I think, is to talk to your Council office and find out what the BSA insurance covers, if anything, in regards to the trailer.

I believe that BW, earlier in the thread, commented that those who don't like the popcorn sale are usually those who aren't successful at it, and was looking for an example of a pack that sold popcorn but was unhappy with the sale. Well, here's one. Our pack sells popcorn. We are pretty successful at it. But, every year, the prices go up and sales become more difficult. We see, every year, increasing resistance at site sales, where we make a lot of our money, because we have little to offer to the impulse buyer. We sell zero high priced product at the site sale, and very, very few at the door-to-door sales. Our sales are made up primarily of higher volume of lower priced items. As we see increased resistance as those higher priced items continue to increase in price, our fear is that sometime soon, especially with our troubled economy, our sales will see a dramatic drop. We KNOW we can sell the lower priced items; people are happy to buy them, but we have fewer and fewer items that everyday folk are going to buy. I agree that we should try and support our Councils and Districts with these sales, but they make it more and more difficult by giving us items that are increasingly hard to sell. We have our own bills to pay as well, and at some point, we may have to make a change in our fundraising plans to make sure that we cover our own expenses.

2 hours is WAY to long for any BOR. There's something wrong with the process is it's taking that long, IMO. Also, a Scout shouldn't just "fail" a BOR. The Board has a responsibility to tell the Scout WHY he was not being passed on, suggest corrective action, and set up a follow-up meeting to re-assess.

I think that the districts have to get the idea that you have to have at least one small item that people can grab on a whim at site sales. Instead, we've gotten more and more expensive items. We have one item that costs $40. I believe our cheapest is $8. We've talked with the folks who run the sales, and it sounds like they're kind of stuck with what's being provided by their vendor. An $8 dollar item might be ok for the door to door sale, but it's getting to the point that it's much more costly than just going to the store and buying a box of Orville Redenbacher or something. People like to support Scouts, but I think they're starting to feel like they're just getting ripped off. People have been known to ask our Scouts if they know anything about what the economy is like these days. That's why we think having one small item, say $5, would be a big seller.

Interestingly, Ed, there are 4 circuit courts that had a 100% reversal rate in the last session, easily beating out the 9th circuits measly 75%

I can safely say that with the several years of experience I have in BSA, I am perfectly happy trusting the BSA leadership when it comes to matters of program. I'm equally sure that I have no trust whatsoever in BSA's actions in matters of social policy. They give every impression, to me at least, of swaying in the direction of whatever religious organization has the most clout with them. That isn't the way an organization like BSA should be run, and I think everyone in the organization, professional or volunteer alike, has a responsibility to try to correct the situation in any way they can if they don't agree. While posters like BW may consider these discussions as "whining", what I consider whining is trying to avoid the issues by just falling back on the tired old "BSA is a private club, they can do what they want". That's legally true to some extent, but that doesn't make what they do right. I think the people who REALLY care about BSA aren't the ones who blindly follow their dictates without a second thought, but those who are willing and think it's necessary for the health of the organization to bring issues to light and let them see the light of day. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that and volunteers shouldn't be forced out simply for being vocal.

Unfortunately, "loyal and obedient", in some circles, has come to be interpreted as "blind loyalty". I would expect that anyone who belongs to any organization and believes in the overall goals of that organization has an obligation to bring up areas where they think that that organization has strayed from its goals. And, if "going through normal channels" doesn't work, you may have the fortitude to work outside normal channels in an attempt to enact change. There are some who question some of BSA's policies and actions. By any reasonable measure, these issues that are brought up represent a small fraction of what otherwise is a good organization with great goals. And yet, those who bring up these significant, yet small number of problems are regularly attacked here as "trying to destroy Scouting" or some such thing. This is just nonsense. If these people didn't care about Scouting; they would just quit. But, they don't quit, because they have hopes that Scouting can change to reflect what is seen by some as a "better" set of values, in some cases, than what were seen as "proper" in the past. By no stretch of the imagination should this be seen as an effort to "destroy Scouting", because it is clearly not. More to the point, I sincerely doubt that the values of anyone in these discussions are really that different than anyone else here. How those values might be expressed in practice is something else. So, I don't think that it's so much that our values might be different than BSA's, but more how those values are expressed.

BrentAllen, Consider a parent who doesn't consider your paper to be "liberal rag", but tries to see things objectively. Why bother getting their children involved in an organization that is perceived as having problems? If you think that the local paper is falsifying information, your Council should sue them for liable to protect their good name, don't you think? Main point is that bad publicity DOES affect your local unit, even tho you may not see it directly. I'm glad to hear that things may not be as bad as the media may be portraying it, but the trick is to figure out how to overcome that bad press.

Our pack has had bank accounts for years and has never had to file a tax return for them. Not sure where you think the problem might be.

So, I suppose one might ask, "what if the people protesting against some BSA policies are right in that the current leaders of BSA's National office are supporting policies that ultimately damage the organization?" These protesters may be acting "in the shadows", as it were, because they feel that there is no mechanism within BSA that they feel would allow an open airing of the policies. An open discussion, not a discussion that some might feel is being done by hand-picked representatives that represent the status quo. Just for sake of discussion.

Well, sounds like what we've got now are two opposing views, both of whom seem to have credible sources. I suppose there's a good chance we'll never really see all the details of what was going on. If nothing else, BSA needs to come up with a better auditing system than they currently have in place. Didn't they turn down an opportunity to have outside auditors come in and try to figure out what was going on?

Coincidentally, I was just at our Scout Shop on Friday looking for the JLT package. They said that it's no longer available because the package is currently being updated. According to our Scout Shop, there isn't a date yet as to when it will be available. Until then, you might be able to borrow the information from your Council office. Ours had the tape, but unfortunately didn't have the supporting documentation.

Well, this is always interesting, because you're treading a narrow line. I'd counsel the SPL that he really needs to get the guys quieted down so that they understand what he's talking about. Have him try putting the sign up and waiting, just like you would do yourself. If that doesn't work, I'd quietly remind the Scouts that the SPL has the sign up and wants their attention. Always, I think, you want to term things in ways that point to the SPL and not yourself. Not an uncommon problem, I think.

Not that I'd want to ruin a perfect string of not agreeing with anything that BW or FScouter have to say (not really, just seems that way ), but I have to go with their thoughts on this. If your committee was trained, they'd see that most things on your list are already covered in BSA guidelines. Not really any need to write them down again. Seems like a lot of nitpicking. Do you have lawyers on your committee? You want all of the troop leaders to act as a team, but when it comes down to it, you, the SM, are in charge of administering the program. The Committee is there to support you in doing that. As far as I know, there is no requirement that the Troop committee approve all outings and their objective. It's nice to all be on the same page, of course, but I guess I'd ask "why wouldn't they agree?". Within some common sense limits, of course. Not too many campouts to Bora Bora, things like that . All that stuff about permission slips and dates and planning and shopping? Ditch all that stuff. You need to do it all, but it's all covered elsewhere in the detail that you need. My advice, in all seriousness, would be to get back to them and say that this all appears to be covered very well in available Scout materials. Rather than re-invent the wheel, invite them to attend training, and re-convene the discussion at that time if needed.

Barry, >>You need to stick with coloring within the lines of liberalism. You obviously don't know history, at least not in these areas. What does having liberal views in some areas have to do with this? As far as my knowing history, I know it well enough. Regardless of whether Hitler personally hated the Jews, there is absolutely no doubt of his perceived threat, by them, to his political agenda. Now, whether he concocted the notion of the Jewish threat, or whether it actually existed, is immaterial. They were, in fact, treated as a threat, and dealt with accordingly. The same is true of the U.S. treatment of the Native Americans in the 19th century. Were they truly a threat? Immaterial, really. They were treated as a threat, and acted against accordingly. So, by your thinking, because the Europeans had superior technology, it was ok for them to invade North America? It's sort of expected, and if the Natives couldn't keep up, too bad for them? My, what an enlightened view of the American psyche. Couldn't we have developed treaties with them to figure out a way to live together? Oops, I forgot, we did have treaties. We tended to lie about what our intentions really were. Now, did the Native American nations war with each other before the Europeans arrived? Sure, they did. Did some go to the point of wiping out their enemies when given the chance? Yes, on occasion. They were not a perfect people. But was it their "tradition"? Nope. So, Barry, if you want to be so aggressive as to say that I "obviously" don't know my history, and somehow attach that to my liberal views on some issues, as if that has some relevence, you go right ahead. But when your done entertaining yourself, you might want to pull out a couple of history books yourself. You also might want to take off those rose colored glasses you're viewing the country with. We have had our moments of greatness, but we've also had our not so great moments, too. They're all part of our history.

Trail, Why would I have a problem with the McCarthy hearings? Well, for one, they did more damage than good. At a time when there really was a concern over spies infiltrating the government, McCarthy's attacks ended up causing more paranoia than good detective work to root out enemies. At one point, he held up a list of over 200 people who he said were Communists working in the State Department. In the end, he produced not a single bit of evidence supporting those claims. He attacked the entertainment industry, destroying the careers of many people who had done no wrong. He attacked Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson; the list goes on. The hearings were so ineffectual that the Senate ended up censuring McCarthy at the end of 1954 in an effort to rebuild its integrity. Most historians consider the McCarthy era to be a black mark in American history, marked by abuse of power, and conviction by rumor.

"wars to secure North America"?? I think you'll find that North American was secure and doing just fine and dandy under the thriving Native American nations that populated the area. It only became "insecure" when the Europeans decided to invade it. Since Hitler was the leader of Germany at the time, his seeing the Jews as a threat would seem to be enough, don't you think? Germany's leaders saw the Jews as a threat to their goals at the time, and took action to eliminate the threat. The U.S. government saw the Native Americans as a threat to their expansion goals, and took action to eliminate the threat. I don't think it gets any clearer than that. If you don't like the term "genocide" and prefer something nice and sterile like "depopulate", then that's fine. The Natives are just as dead and the actions by the government at the time just as unconscionable.

You know, I have the liability discussion every year with our CO. Every year their attorneys bring it up, and every year we trot out the DE to talk to them. Same people, same questions, every year. I think it's just the nature of our overly litiguous society to be worried about every possibility of liability. If you follow BSA rules, BSA insurance should/will protect you. From a pragmatic standpoint, the people litigating would rather go after BSA because they have the "deeper pockets" unless a Scouter is really, really well off.

Hi Greg, And welcome to the forums. Without rehashing all of what appears in this thread, all I can say is that not everyone in Scouting agrees with the policies on gays, and we hope that, with time, the BSA will see fit to alter its policy. I commend you for your actions. It's unfortunate that you were "outed" by your ex-wife to the BSA. Kind of gives you the same "warm and fuzzy" feeling people must have had about the McCarthy Hearings. As our future Chief Justice has said in his hearings, people to have an inherent right to privacy; it's unfortunate that yours was violated and that BSA implicitely agreed with it by accepting the information.

I happen to think that the comparison is apt and applicable for the time it happened. And it was disgusting. Any American should be ashamed of that period in our history, as much as we take pride in others. I'd be a lot more disgusted with someone who'd apply a clinical term like "depopulation" to the virtual extermination of the natives of this land. Oh, the U.S. military didn't kill off whole villages of Native American men, women and children in the West; we just "depopulated" the area. How polite. We become a great nation by learning from our failings, not be ignoring or making them less than they are.

Not sure what this has to do with this thread, but what the heck, that's never stopped us before... Now, being given these rights by God is a nice idea and all. Problem is, the US in its history have done a pretty good job of fiddling with the idea of just who "all men" refers to. Didn't stop us much from committing genocide against the great Native American nations that unfortunately happened to be living happily here when the Europeans showed up with a desire for freedom so strong that having to wipe out the current residents was just sort of a nuisance. And, there was the little detail of granting women the right to vote, and allowing Africans to live free from the threat of slavery (hey, only took white folk another 100 years or so after the Civil War to finally figure it out). So, we can get all uppity about saying 2 little words in the Pledge, but guys, if we're under the watchful eye of a God, I have to think he may not be all that impressed by what he sees. Maybe we should be a little less worried about what we say, and a little more worried about what we do.

In answer to the original question, I'd have to say a qualified "no". There's always difficulty in getting enough qualifed (meaning "trained" and "capable") leaders, at all levels of Scouting. Those units that have a lot of active parents are truly fortunate. Part of the reason that a "normal" sized troop is usually defined as 25-30 boys is because you need about that many for the patrol system to work well, but also because once you have that many Scouts, you also have enough parents to be able to expect to fill all of the positions that need filling. Smaller troops have a hard time finding enough bodies to fill the spots because they're just aren't that many bodies. Finding a willing adult and getting them trained doesn't make them a leader, tho. The program is good, and the training can be good, but if a Scouter doesn't have an aptitude for working with young boys and young men, they still shouldn't be a Scout leader. There may be a home for them on the Committee perhaps, if, of course , they can get along with adults instead. I'll go out on a bit of limb, for this forum, and say that training is of limited value in developing Scout leaders, as essential as training is. It's a bit like a quarterback in football. There are personal qualities that make a person a good quarterback, besides the requisite physical ability. If a quarterback has those personal qualities, he can join another team, and because he has those leadership skills/qualities, he is already a leader; all he has to do is learn and understand the playbook. Now, he can't play if he doesn't understand the playbook, but if his only quarterback quality is that he's memorized all the plays, he won't be able to lead his team; they won't believe in him or his abilities. I think the same is true of the Scout leader who deals with youth. You can't lead Scouts if you don't know and understand the program (the playbook), but just knowing the leader materials doesn't make you an effective Scout leader. So, I think it's possible that you can have a leader that is following the program TO THE LETTER, and still not be successful because he doesn't have the youth leadership skills. Some of that can be learned but some if it is just "inside" the person, or not.

It seems to me that not every outing our Scouts go on has to be a Scout learning experience. Every once in awhile, I think it's just fine to have an outing just for the fun of it. We recently took out Scouts to see a stock car race. Part of it, to be sure, was to witness the event and the teamwork involved; I personally find watching the pit crews to be as least as interesting as the race itself. But, mostly it was just a lot of FUN. I don't see anything wrong with that as a part of a Scout's experience.