Prairie_Scouter

I can't speak to all of jk's assertions, but the Chicago press was pretty clear in it's coverage that the vote to sell Owasippe by the CAC was done in a way that seemed quite a bit out of the norm. The vote was done by phone, covering the minimum numbers of voters to carry the vote, with a large number of other voters not contacted.

The author has certainly done us all a service. The next time a topic comes up talking about the baseless drivel created by the "liberal media", we'll be able to pull this out as a counterpoint. Mostly what I was thinking when I read this was "I need a bigger shovel". What a pile of nonsense.

OGE, Just don't do it on a Scout outing. Too much paperwork. "Scouter kills self with Scout pocket knife. Nearby leader heard to say,"if that guy had a Whittlin' Chit, I'd be cutting a corner off of it RIGHT NOW".

Ok, Ok, we all know that you guys only have one season, summer. I'll have you know that here in the Midwest, we have two, count'em, 2 seasons, Winter and Road Construction. Welcome to the forums!

Frankly, I don't think that this thread has anything to do with the amount of money this person makes. I could care less, really, so the whole idea of "salary envy" is baseless. This thread is about "transparency". The point being that it's difficult to make a judgement about the merit of a particular salary if you can't see all of it. Put it all out there, and then let people judge based on the results that are being seen, recognizing that some salaries have little to do with results. And, actually, I have reason to have a pretty good idea what the responsibilities of the chief executive of a non-profit are, as well as corporate executives, so try not to make assumptions in that area.

Regardless of the semantic struggle, it's clear that there are problems in the ways that the military, public schools, and some funding agencies relate to BSA. How exactly that should be worded to be technically correct, I'll leave to someone else. Membership is down, and has been down for several years; read into that what you want. >" Something is causing youth to opt out of Scouting;" >You mean like the quality of the individual unit program? Like you say, Bob, "in some cases". But, the fact that many don't even consider BSA means that they're never seeing whether the local program is good or not. That happens "in some cases", too. >"responsibility for the health of the national organization lies at the top." >So why not let them deal with it and you do the job YOU are responsible for? Because I'm not willing to stick my head in the sand. When I see a bunch of people walking towards the edge of cliff, I'm more likely to try and steer them differently than just step out of the way. >"In the big picture, how can you say that this doesn't affect all of us at some level? " >Easily, because you have zero evidence that it does. And since you seem to have no evidence that it doesn't, does that make it a tie? I would suggest that every time the National Office is involved in some scandal at a Council that rolls up to them, it rolls right back down to us. The press involved in those incidents makes it more difficult for us to raise funds and grow membership. The point is that actions taken by BSA, the National office, affect us, and we have a stake in that. If you're right that our stake is really just at the local unit, then that would seem to argue in favor of the "local option" that's been mentioned in these forums several times. If that's where the stake is, then maybe BSA should give us control at that level. I think that we need to look at the health of the entire organization, and pitch in whereever we can to help and make things right.

>"The GSUSA has huge money contributor in the cookie sales. Our popcorn sales can't even come >close." >Another great example of replacing facts with opinion. Bob, you must not have bought any GS cookies recently. The prices would lead ANYONE to believe that it's a huge money contributor. But, in the wonderful, wacky world of Girl Scouts, you can drive a little bit and find a Council that's selling cookies for a half a buck less a box. Of course, with some popcorn products going for 40 bucks now, we can't really complain.

>"The effect on us all, tho, is that as the National office goes along on it's way, what it >does, does have an effect on us. As they marginalize Scouting, funding is affected, >participation is affected, and we all have a stake in that." >There is no proof of that. Are you sure of that? BSA in court cases of the past decade has taken a very public stance on some of its social policies. As a result, funding organizations, such as United Way, has pulled funding in some cases. The military is no longer allowed to support Scout units. Public schools can no longer sponsor Scout units. Membership is down, and this decrease can't be explained by a general drop in available youth population. Something is causing youth to opt out of Scouting; responsibility for the health of the national organization lies at the top. While regional differences may occur (we are fortunate to have been able to maintain our membership rates over the past couple of years), nonetheless, the membership level across the nation is down. In the big picture, how can you say that this doesn't affect all of us at some level? Before Sears was bought out by Kmart, they had many stores that were doing very well; unfortunately, they had many more that weren't doing very well at all. This ultimately led to an overall weakness that made them an acquisition target. Adverse conditions and errant business strategy don't necessarily affect an organization equally across the board. If your strategy damages enough of your business "branches", it's possible for the entire organization to collapse, even while some branches are still making profits. So, while we may not all be suffering (which is not what I said in my post), we do all have a stake in what is happening (which *is* what I said in my post).

Actually, exhorbitant executive salaries, including such things as deferred compensation, are part of a laundry list of corporate problems that have led the Feds to begin demanding more independence in corporate boards and more liability on their part. In the past and in the present, to some extent, corporate boards at many companies were merely "yes" stamps for the chief executive. These problems extended to non-profits as well. To that end, companies are becoming more and more transparent in their dealings and in reporting of compensation. It is becoming more the norm to report an exective's salary as not just his or her "base", but including deferred compensation as well in whatever form that might exist. Interestingly, when looking at BSA Annual Reports, there is virtually no mention of financials. Perhaps there is some other publicly available document that has this, but it's unusual for a corporation or non-profit to issue an annual report that doesn't include any information on their financial position. This is usually the beginning point for any financial audit. I think that if I was on the board of a company that appeared to have a solid balance sheet, but was losing customers steadily for several years, I'd be concerned and wonder how successful the lead executives actually were. If I then heard that the branch offices of the corporation were knowingly reporting inaccurate customer numbers, I would be that much more concerned. Ultimate responsibility lies at the top. Reporting a concern about a company's financial activity isn't "salary envy", it's expression of a legitimate concern. Applying various unsavory labels to individuals who would question the motives and policy of an organization is something I would expect of political operatives who have a vested interest in sustaining the status quo. The most common response in politics when your position is attacked is to attack the attacker, and not respond to the attack itself.

Bob, When you start playing semantic games over whether something is "illegal" or simply "unethical", it's very easy infer from such a discussion that because somebody was caught doing something illegal on their own time, you'd think that that was ok in the sense that you think it has nothing to do with Scouting. Not meant to be insulting, only what I saw as a legitimate interpretation of what you said. I didn't say that you said that; I said it was suggested by your comments. I honestly don't think that you think that way, but I do think that you underestimate the potential damage these kinds of things can do. The problem is, these situations DO affect Scouting. If you were to re-read my post, you'd see that what I was talking about was not any sort of legal liability for BSA, but clearly, the visibility problem that it causes BSA because this person was closely related to BSA. This is bound to be played up in the press, and was. Like it or not, the actions of those associated with BSA affect the public persona of BSA, and that does affect us. Whether it should or shouldn't is kind of irrelevent; the fact is that it does, and BSA has to deal with that effectively. Hey if you live that close by, maybe we should get together and "eat some crow" sometime. I'm sure that there's plenty to go around

Packsaddle, I know people who are approaching Scouting exactly like that, that is, working within the local unit doing the best they can, and ignoring the National office as much as they are able. The effect on us all, tho, is that as the National office goes along on it's way, what it does, does have an effect on us. As they marginalize Scouting, funding is affected, participation is affected, and we all have a stake in that.

Unfortunately, Bob, the tone of your posts seems to indicate that you're willing to turn a blind eye to everything That's being reported in the press. To play a semantic game of whether something is "illegal" or simply "unethical" seems to be exactly the wrong thing to do. To suggest that it's ok that a person closely connected to Scouting was caught with child pornography because he was on his own time just, I don't know, makes it seem that you're oblivious to the obvious visibility problems it causes for Scouting, justifed or not. As the defender of all things good in Scouting, Bob, I'd think that you would be infuriated by these people who have falsified Scout numbers and done other things that have soiled the Scout image. But, that just doesn't seem to be there.

So, are you wondering if we're spending our time re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? (old joke) Most things in Scouting ARE done very well. But, errors are being made in areas that affect the credibility of the whole organization. Nobody cares that we do a bang up job of teaching boys how to tie square knots when they're hearing that some Councils cheat on their membership figures. When you want to be the organization that everyone looks up to, you have to make sure that you are absolutely squeaky clean.

Don't know for sure. My brother and his daughter are involved in Indian Princesses, so I think it still exists in some form, anyway. You could just as easily include things like Pop Warner football and other sports-related groups, but I think that they are more regional, and don't have the national reach, so they may not be a good comparison.

Corporate P&Ls are notorious for the creative ways you can hide things within them. Getting all the detail needed to really understand it for BSA in total would probably be very difficult, but would be interesting to see.

Well, I guess you better be generating a good deal of income if you're going to be paying someone $455,000. Once again, I have chosen the wrong career

I've always thought the point of the exercise was (1) to see if the Scout was comfortable letting his head go below the surface, and (2) to see if the Scout can initiate forward motion, ie, swimming, without relying on a push from the bottom of the pool. I've seen swim tests done in pools that weren't quite deep enough for a few of the taller scouts, and they were simply told to keep their knees bent so that they don't touch the bottom before they start swimming. Maybe it's a stretch, but sometimes you have to make do with what you've got available. The point has been made to me by some Scouts that putting your face in isn't that important because you're actually taught in lifesaving to swim in a "face out of the water" position so that you can control the rescue better and see what you're doing.

Well, I think the question asked directly as some are suggesting could be taken as being offensive. I think if asked in that way, it would be appropriate for an astute Scout to repond with something to the effect of, "My Scout application and speaking of the Scout oath each week would seem to answer that question. If you have to ask that question, then I have to assume that you think I'm lying. Why do you think that?" If you want the answer to that question, you should just go look at their application. There are other, better ways to cover that topic that would probably get a more meaningful response, as others have suggested.

Our pack is also about 40 years old, and we've done what sst did. Brought it out first at a B&G dinner. It inspired a lot of "wows" when people saw how far back the ribbons went.

Recently, there have been several stories about a small number of Councils across the states that have been caught cheating on their membership numbers. Where these numbers are used to calculate funding, this amounts to fraud. There have been stories about Scouters being accused of, to say the least, "unScoutlike" behavior. BSA's entry into the political arena with stances that are arguably going "against the tide" has sometimes given it the image of a group becoming increasingly marginalized. All in all, these have tarnished the Boy Scout persona and damaged the status of Scouting as an all-American institution. I wonder if these things are unique to Scouting, tho. Are other youth groups having problems with membership, and reacting with the same sort of illegal actions some Scouters have used? Are other youth groups aligning themselves along particular political/religious lines? There are other high profile youth groups in the U.S. like Scouting, such as Girl Scouts, YMCA, Indian Guides, Indian Princesses, etc. You'd think if similar things were going on there, we'd be hearing about it in the press. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

jkhny, You can expect that some of the posters here are already warming up their flamethrowers, so you can expect some interesting responses Thanks, tho. A very interesting post. Legally, I suppose that BSA is a "private club" and as such, they can do what they want, including things that would get corporate executives in a good deal of trouble in many states. That includes appointing board members that make sure the status quo is protected, if they so wish. But, as a group that markets itself as being "all American", I'd think that they would want to be above reproach. That begins by being transparent in their dealings, and I have to think that they, at least at the National level, are anything but that. And I think that that is unfortunate. Using the corporate analogy, they have created effective means of stifling dissent; if you don't think what they are doing is right, you are shown the door. BSA at the local level does a lot of good work. I continue to believe that that's where Scouting really is. The National office seems to be, well, somewhere else.

Ed I'm sorry, but the story doesn't sound like that at all to me. The headline was "rescue", not "tragedy averted", and the story itself covered the event fairly well without providing any comment on the situation. There wasn't any opinion on whether they were prepared or anything like that. Not every press story is yellow journalism.

Another tragedy in a year where Scout tragedies seem to be making the news more often than in previous years. Whether that means there have been more accidents this year, I don't know. Having spent a good deal of time in the high country, I can say that this kind of occurance is a fact of life up there. Depending on exactly where they were in regards to the peaks, they may not have had much time to react, and almost certainly wouldn't have had time to retreat. There isn't enough information to know whether the Scouts acted appropriately or not, but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt. Anytime you choose to live with Nature, you take the chance that Nature may strike out at you through random happenstance. Sometimes, things just happen.

Welcome to the party!

I agree with Anarchist on most of this. In regards to the CM, as someone else said, the dynamics of this kind of depend on the size of the troop. In most cases, the committee members are not part of the "program" group that deals with the Scouts. That is the SM and ASMs. In this case, it probably would have been most appropriate for the CM to bring the behavior to the attention of one of the Scout leaders. Since he took matters into his own hands, and you think otherwise, you should feel free to contact the mother yourself and let her know that, "yes, there was a problem behavior there, but you should also know that, etc", if you think some balance is needed. Regards the hat, as others said, I'd let it go, unless you thought his actions were disrespectful of your position. Regardless of your relative ages, you are still a leader, and he has no right to treat you any less respectfully than any other leader. If such was the case, I'd probably still let it go, but be wary of his continuing to treat you that way.