qwazse

Depends on how he/she made the money and how much it was part of the plan. As far as the troop gaining from both acquisition and deposition. In my day we collected paper and glass bottles (with the occasional contribution), bound the papers and broke the bottles down by color and arranged a truck to take them to sell to the recycling center. I'm sure other troops do similar fundraisers. Frankly as a consumer, were I foolish enough to own beachfront, I'd rather pay a scout for this than for a dozen boxes of popcorn.

Most every case that is being made against the BSA is depicting the organization as acting to perpetuate the problem. The older the case, the more likely the institution(s) refrained from taking action, often out of deference to the victims privacy or the suggestions of law enforcement or so as to avoid informing the scout executive. (Note that this article refers to the Council President -- it's possible that the abuser somehow guided his vetting process away from the SE. The notorious ones are that cleaver.) And it is in every plaintiff's interest to paint that deference as the organization's very structure is such that it perpetuates abuse. They have money until they don't. Then schools start shuttering, etc ... More than BSA? Depends on the church, and LDS probably is better than most. There's a reason why Catholic bishops were on the block first. Sure some of it does have to do with a culture of misplaced authority. But it also has to do with how few cases one would need to bring in order to achieve a large pay-out. And that, is a function size of the organization and meticulous record keeping. The better the records, the more efficient the supoena process. The smaller/more compartmentalized the organization and the worse the records, the more likely serial abusers will persist. They just don't get documented. The case is harder to prove. The overarching organization avoids being targeted OR doesn't make national news. It's perverse on multiple levels.

Unfortunately for us all, your phrase "more insidious and pernicious in LDS troops" is pure speculation. BSA's files are still undergoing analysis by a sociologist, who has not put forward an analysis to determine if troops sponsored by any particular organization or class of organization (church, school, VFD/PD, military base) were more likely to harbor serial abusers. It might take years before a full analysis is forthcoming. Even then, the results might be held in question. The very identification of a group with the highest rate of victims per membership will put them next-in-line for an ambulance chasing lawyer.

Our camp: the boy's shower was harboring our ner-do-wells. Although, your "poor English Roses" had some especially flowery speech echoing through their house. Ambient temperature water has been known to do that.

A couple of folks at WSJ made inspiring two-pole hammock rigs from a pair of the 8 the split 8' two-by-fours and spare stakes issued each troop. Some used four-poles. Same principle as shared above. However, the impacted clay of an old strip mine holds far better than beach dunes. I would suggest using 6 poles, and two half-poles for stakes. Lash two triangles, dig parallel trenches reasonably apart, bury one side if each triangle in the sand, and using a single line connecting both peaks slightly further apart than the bases and extending out sufficiently in either direction, anchor them in opposing directions. You might not need six poles per scout. With long enough line and adding mid poles, you could probably hang multiple hammocks in a line. The rig could also double as a beach volleyball net.

Yes. This was an issue that my church brought up when deciding if it should sponsor a pack. Atheists often visit for extended periods, and their their kids would no doubt participate in this activity. As much as they would want folks to convert, they utterly despise the notion of bestowing membership, honors, and awards for such conversion. This wasn't necessarily the deciding factor why they did not become a CO. But it was part of the discussion. And they take zero public funds. The school in your situation does and is rightly concerned. The CO's decision is not to the final one in determining who should be a leader or who gets awarded Eagle. BSA has revoked membership of atheists in spite of the CO's wishes. Some of the members of this forum have been directly or indirectly affected by those decisions. On account of BSA's stance, some of them have taken part in suing public organizations for sponsoring troops.

At World Jamboree, we had several conversations with leaders about "Safe from Harm" (YP by another name). One SM -- from a country particularly notorious about following rules -- asked our troop's SM and I, "We've already been away from home for two weeks. What if my scout needs a hug?" We leaned in, as if we were wearing trench coats and selling stolen watches, and said, "Hug the scout!" We had another issue about bad behavior in one of the youth shower houses, because adults were not "allowed" to enter them. One of the leaders ask me how to we could possibly address it. We made up a plan on the spot that we would pound on the walls and say, "Everybody out! Camp emergency!" Then we would go in and check for vandalism. Never had to implement it ... but the relief on his face when he knew that we were willing to work around the rules to help him was priceless.

Correction, Bill Hilcourt called SMC's personal growth conferences in his 7th edition handbook, as I referenced one year ago. (I can't seem to remember my own quotes!) Boards of Reviews were always called just that. Those with older handbooks, please expound. It's also worth noting that he called Star, Life, Eagle, and Palms awards not ranks. Again, folks with the full text of earlier and later versions may wish to give us more details.

... in my old Boy Scout Handbook, boards of review were called personal growth conferences. That should give us some sense of what is intended by the method.

Well ... I actually didn't look in the tents to see how cots were arranged. When I camped in similarly sized tents at a youth conference "just a few" years ago, we guys+1 counselor were put in similarly sized tents with next to no space between cots. The counselor was on the top of a double bunk. So, maybe my estimate was based on a warped sense of history. The GS tents also had electric outlets and a light. Sadly, I think the one camp in particular was sold in the recent consolidations.

@RememberSchiff the title of Chief Scout is honorific. It has no specific working responsibility. (Although Bear has worked quite well in it.)

Our Cubs sleep two to a tent ... either with their parent or their buddy. Do yours? The GS camps that I've visited sleep dozens to a tent.

@mrkstvns, this "modern scouting culture" that you speak of ... what membership increases has it yielded? Here's the mentality that is "where it's at.:" First Class First Year is a lie. The skills therein are difficult to master. I say it to everyone who'll listen. As a result, the boys in my troop have SMs who aim for skills, not bling, plus a committee who stand behind them.

Yeah, when I think of "Top Scout" I don't think of extra bling. I do not consider earning 1st Class Rank and living up to everything that is implied in that oval as "just getting by." We scouters really need to have that mentality. Sure, obtaining Star, Life, Eagle, or more should be in the cards for some scouts. But, if we treat 1st Class seriously, then we are showing the world a "finished product." From there we get the helpers of old ladies across the street, the builders, the rescuers, the honor guards, the public speakers, the (borrowing from another thread) truly epic scouts ... some of whom obtain further awards and recognition.

Looks like the marketing doublespeak will continue: Can we please get a CSE/CEO who will plainly say that what 21st century BSA did was 1) end the interstate witch-hunt of homosexuals, 2) said "Yes, but safely" to the girls who wanted to work our programs, 3) remove previously sanctioned independent youth meetings and activities -- including 18-20 year olds ASMs as "2nd adults" -- for the sake of stricter youth protection. There is no "US family." There were American families. They never fit one mold. But for the longest time, the majority of our fellow citizens found a particular nuclear structure wed to a particular location essential to assuring their offspring's future. We have a rapidly evolving post-modern nomadic generation. BSA turned its back on families who hewed rigorously to a narrow set of patterns in order accommodate what they hope will be a burgeoning majority of post-modern nomadic families. We can debate the soundness of that bet, but the whole "changing to reach the rapidly changing US family" is, to use Mosby's words, "aspirational" at best.

I guess it's a bit of a marketing gimmick to impress scouters like @mashmaster before they become all jaded. Fact is, we already have top scouts: they are called "1st Class." Period. Which gave me an idea. It would be awesome if the SE personally wrote every scout who is awarded 1st Class within a month of them completing their board of review. In return the SE could ask that scout for "one small favor." Perhaps to sign a thank-you card to a local FOS donor. The troop's UC could run point on this. Imagine the impact of a letter from council office like this: "Dear Sir/Madame, My name is ___. I have been a scout for ___ years, and recently earned 1st Class Rank. I was recently informed by our council scout executive, Mr./Ms. ___, that you contributed to Friends of Scouting. I wanted to thank you for helping scouts like me get the most of what our BSA has to offer through ___ Council. Sincerely, ___"

You must, if not for your sake then for those of us who no longer have Momma to talk to about such things.

Our boys and my daughter also liked to be four to a tent. They started using smaller tents as they got older once they realized that they could manage quiet hours if it was just one buddy or just themselves. The real goal was to separate the owls (late nighters) from the larks (early risers). Nothing ruins a decent coffee more than some scout walking the 100 yards to your campsite just to complain about their bunk mate keeping them up all night or leaving the door to the tent open early in the morning.

In other words, "Yes, but safely." The gist of the flight plan seems to require three things: A credentialed pilot. A credentialed aircraft. Insurance. The key is to recognize valid credentials. (The FAA has specific certifications of flight-worthiness. I found this for fixed-wing sailplanes: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/22059 . From a consumer perspective I can't make heads nor tails of it.). The BSA Flight Plan is basically putting it on you to check certifications. Not necessarily a bad thing, but obviously a challenge.

I've been on the recipient side, so I might not have the perspective that you need. But my impression is that the biggest challenge for our committees was getting the nominations in the first place. We scouters on the ground don't always take the time to nominate good candidates, so a point system seems like overkill. Maybe your culture is different than ours. Are you all are getting more candidates for awards than you actually have awards to offer?

Congratulations, you are a victim of your success. There are basically two considerations: Will you perform well and enjoy he position? Would you enjoy working with whoever takes the position if you pass on it? As to communicating your concerns, be plain spoken. Say what you think your fellow scouter should be doing less of and what you think he should be doing more of. As RT commish, you could encourage your team to do a 360 evaluation.

Not sure if it's any different than a small engine plane ride. Have you given the Guide to Safe Scouting a once-over?

And that's the crux of the matter. The G2SS claims to lower the olds of abuse ("barriers" is a slight misnomer) based on the most general of observations. It hasn't seen your camping conditions nor does it know your youth. For example, I can imagine pairs of 13 year old boys who if I can help it will be assigned different camps, let alone tents. And I can imagine a half dozen 10-11 year olds would benefit from being in the same room as a couple of scouts two years older. I think the G2SS gives you the latitude in this case to make arrangements that will best serve your scouts.

Lean on the "modifications may be made" bit. When we had one female adult with a troop in one cabin, she'd have a bunk with a tarp hung for privacy ... adults on one wall, boys on the opposite wall. (I actually, slung my hammock outside that night, and that's what I'd likely do if I were the sole male in this situation.) All the youth will be fine in their yurt. The tenting scenario applies to the more typical situation where you have 2-man or 3-man tents. Basically, abusive situations seem to be more likely when pairs or triples are too far apart in age. That said, be prepared with a spare tent.

Of course that's not enough said! I'd have this conversation with the scout: Me [in my sternest stop-wasting-matches voice]: Scout, did some of my money that I spent on your popcorn actually go to some old folks so they could party up at Christmas? Scout: Sir, yes sir. It did. But that was before strangers on the internet accused me for misappropriation ... Me: Keep it up. And double my order for next year.