qwazse

With the troop, it varies. At summer camp, adults take rotation as guests at each patrol. On backpacking trips we often have our separate mess kits. And, boys will split the meal with whoever wants to share the same thing. Sometimes that's an adult. Other times, when I really want to show how it's done, I organize the old-fart's patrol into a culinary masterpiece. With the crew, we're all a team and when my most talented youth are cooking, you ain't keeping me from eating with them.

Yep. We run the gammut. From D/O, to grill, to kit, to cup, to nuthun but coals (I can still taste the steak/fish). The boys are responsible for choosing the kit(s) they will use for a particular activity.

There's no business like show business ...

In general, we're suckers. If we know there's an extra seat we'll fit 'em in. It's up to the patrols how to figure out meals, but we usually buy a little extra. Parents, BTW, should not have to pay attention. I agree that it is disruptive, and if it was the same family every time, we would have a serious discussion. Worst case scenario (this happens with our Crew a lot): if not enough folks sign up, the event gets canceled. It's really depressing when you get a bunch of calls two days later with close to the minimums you needed! I'm usually pretty blunt and say "If only you had been more responsible and called in saying you were thinking about signing up."

Yes, you can be multiple registered and wear a different hat in each unit. No extra cost (except the paperwork) to do so. Sounds like you have a good plan. Thanks for your service and enjoy the boys.

If the boy is enthused about a unit, and the unit is enthused about the boy, let him join it. The other alternative, that folks are ignoring here, is to simply quit scouting for a year. We recruit the occasional boy who was fed up with cub scouts. They do well. The occasional boy who didn't like cub scouts but was forced to participate, then forced to crossover ... he doesn't do so well. Now, regarding the young crossover who I knew, it's not like he was engaged in the troop continuously. Around age 14 he begged off scouting for about a year. He claimed that was because of maturity issues, but I don't think it was from issues that stemmed from him crossing over young. That is, had he crossed over a year older, he would have hit the same "rut" at high school age.

Agreed. Birdhouse is not an option. Do encourage the scout to consider fish and wildlife MB if he still want's to build the nesting box. The main reason is so boys learn to follow instructions with some degree of precision.

Since when is there a copyright on fire starting? Also, religious recognitions are not a requirement of BSA, a distinctive of the "Trail to Freedom." Were I to advise a TL group; however, I would encourage the boys to demonstrate that they have mastered most of the skill related requirements before requesting sign-off on the respective advancement.

Well, BSA goes around touting that the unit should be considered an extension of the church's youth ministry. Lots of us, myself included consider scouting to be an excersise in "practical Christianity." In this charged political atmosphere, when folks are being forced to choose sides, like children in a nasty divorce, what do you do expect a Christains with sincere convictions on the other side of the cultural divide to do?

So, loose 100,000 members ... that's about 2 million in income from registration fees alone. Disney's contributions were only in proportion to its employees who donated to BSA. If 1 in 12 who were donating to BSA left, it's unlikely they would apply for matching funds anyway. Since most corporation contributions operate via matching funds without prejudice as to the groups their employers support, nationwide, membership decline will has a greater long-term direct impact on corporate donations nationwide.

Guess to recoup those $$, BSA needs to build a better mousetrap.

This is a more articulate description of venturing as the "Un-Cola" of scouting. It also makes the point that all the changes are likely "window dressing." Still, it ignores the economic issues in venturing and does not recognize the CO as the true customer base.

Well, they are volunteers, so acting professional won't get them a raise. This is a common story in small packs. Look around for another Pack with the accountability you think you deserve.

Which membership fee? The 2010 one?

In our troop, we don't excuse genetics.

One scout in Son#1's den was 10 when he crossed over with his buddies. No problems.

I'm so sorry for this bad news. Our best friends had two kids with a genetic hearing loss and we saw them go through incredible challenges. Our kids never had to deal with disabilities while scouting, but they had friends who did. Every disability is unique. So nobody - even someone with your son's exact problem - can tell you how resilient your boy will be. In general, boys are very resilient. Patrols adapt much better than do dens or packs. Plus there is a lot of growing that Webelos do. The size of the den is a big deal. The more they are closer to patrol size, the better everyone can learn to adjust.

Huzzah! I can only hope that Venturing's precipitous decline will cease so that in 4 years and there'll be a crew waiting for him!

Most folks I know don't find that "shock" all that bothersome. But, I agree with you. There is no point in a Christian walling him/herself off from the rest of the world. Kinda flies in the face of the Great Commission. On the other hand TL & AHG aren't isolationists, they are betting that a large part of the population are hungry for leadership who is overtly Christian (evangelical/orthodox/catholic) and defensive of heterosexual unions in terms of models for their youth. They are also figuring that many non-Christian parents would prefer that to a movement that is decidedly non-sectarian or purely secular. They may be right.

Shoe boxes are wonderful things. But for display? Sounds like you could mount them on dowels, wire, or maybe string, stretched between a wooden frame.

What if uniforms, backpacks, etc ... are purchased with ISA's with the understanding that they will be handed down to future scouts? One could argue that all uniforming does is make the troop look sharp and make it easier for unit leader to ID his kids. Troop benefit all the way.

as someone who admittedly struggles with accounting, Im not grasping how NOT having ISAs works. I get that all the money goes into one fund...what I dont get is come time for camp payments how do you know how much Johnny raised and how much Tommy still needs? And once you have that figured out, if a boy needs to "borrow" against the troop, by what calculation do you determine that he has worked off that debt so to speak? It seems to me that if you know how much a boy has contributed or how much he still needs to contribute, somehow you are still going thru the motions of an ISA but just not calling it that. of course, this is why I wont be a treasurer, cuz clearly it works for some people out there but I just dont get it P.S. - Our troop has not weaned away from ISA's, but this is basically how our crew works.

as someone who admittedly struggles with accounting, Im not grasping how NOT having ISAs works. I get that all the money goes into one fund...what I dont get is come time for camp payments how do you know how much Johnny raised and how much Tommy still needs? And once you have that figured out, if a boy needs to "borrow" against the troop, by what calculation do you determine that he has worked off that debt so to speak? It seems to me that if you know how much a boy has contributed or how much he still needs to contribute, somehow you are still going thru the motions of an ISA but just not calling it that. of course, this is why I wont be a treasurer, cuz clearly it works for some people out there but I just dont get it I kinda get what's being suggested. The lion share of fundraising goes into lowering the cost uniformly for every participant. So, net $3000, and maybe $2500 goes to offsetting the cost of planned activities, equipment, etc ... Perhaps in a small patrol that means each boy pays $100 instead of $350 for camp. The rest goes into a general/discretionary fund because you may have a boy who still can't afford that last $100 or you may have to replace a flag, whatever. In our troop, if it involves helping out an individual scout, we leave the approval between the SM, CC, and Treasurer. (At committee meetings, the name of the boy is not mentioned. -- only the expense.) That keeps things sufficiently confidential.

d.f., no point in being mean. You'd be better off pointing out that there are two sides to every equation. Executives of non-profits justify their compensation relative to certain benchmarks. For example: # of million $ donors solicited per year, # of staff managed, how much more could they get doing the same job in the private sector, how popular they are with their constituents (and make no mistake, Bob M is very popular with the boys who've met him), etc ... One could argue that Garibay's pittance represents the "glass cieling" to which many female execs are relegated. Or, it could be a long-awaited revolution in executive compensation that will allow here organization to out-compete similar groups for the hearts and minds of Americas youth. Only time will tell.

Now you're starting to sound like a credit card company. The closer you get to a a commission per sale, the more it looks like taxable income. How bout this incentive: the more you sell, the more you help pay a buddy's dues?