Beavah

Population does not drive growth.

Yah, I reckon yeh can choose to disagree with every economist in da known universe about a fundamental principle of macroeconomics, but odds are they're the ones who are right, eh?

The market is still decidin' salaries and benefits, eh?  Not sure why yeh think otherwise.   There's no requirement for a full-time or salaried employee to get a benefits package, eh?   That's just market forces acting.  Same with the desire to avoid employee turnover in key positions by makin' 'em full time.   That's the market.  The law doesn't affect any of that.

All the law does is try to stop bad actors from exploitin' ordinary workers by pretending they're "executives".  

Right now we have high unemployment, eh?  More than that, we have a lot of hidden unemployment in da form of the long-term jobless.   We're also automating jobs away like mad.  I don't reckon that preventin' employers from callin' a fellow who makes $23K a year a no-overtime "executive" will send us off into da realm of an inflationary spiral anytime soon.  Da economic risk right now continues to be in the other direction. 

Beavah

This does not drive growth. This does not drive economic stability. It increases the cost to delivery a service (constant retraining and rehiring) and it devalues the role of the worker. This does the opposite of what the government says it wants to do.

Yah, hmmm...

Of course it doesn't drive growth or economic stability.  Not sure why it would, eh?  Growth is driven by population, productivity, and innovation.  Economic stability is driven by lots more than that. Yah, and of course growth and economic stability are opposite things, eh?

Treatin' workers fairly does help with social stability, of course. Da McDonald's "manager" is still flippin' burgers and fillin' shake cups after all. 

Like I said, this is really just gettin' us back to da level we were at in previous decades, eh?  A bit less, actually.  It's an ordinary adjustment for inflation, not somethin' unusual or nefarious.  As such it shouldn't really affect scout councils if they've been livin' up to da Oath and Law right along.

Beavah

Yah, sad case.  Hug your kids, eh?   Havin' helped a few troops through loss of a parent on a trip (never a youth, thank the Great Scoutmaster), I know these can be really hard.   Seems like from other accounts the other leader on the trip did a good job takin' care of the man's son on the worst day of the lad's life.  Scout salute to him.

Beavah

As for canoe camping, I do not know what happened last year as I was not on the trip. From the stories I heard, some of the Scouts could not steer their canoes, and it took twice as long to do the trip. Again, it was decreed that only 1/2 the troop will be able to go, those who can demonstrate proper canoeing skills.

 

 

Yah, hmmm.....

Who is doin' the "decreeing", I wonder?  That strikes me as an odd thing to decree.  Seems like da decree should be "we're goin' to get everybody up to snuff to go canoeing!" and then do that.

Bein' a furry water critter, canoein' is a fun thing, eh?  Young lads learn fast, and on most water it's pretty easy to pair up novice paddlers with more experienced lads.  It really shouldn't take yeh too many times out for the boys to get pretty decent.  

Now if yeh have a few lads who aren't swimmers and are also sorta afraid of the water, then it might be best to leave 'em off the roster for the trip, dependin' on where you're goin'.   Otherwise, yeh don't start with a notion that half the troop can't come, yeh start with a notion that half the troop's not quite ready so we're goin' to work hard to get 'em ready!

Beavah

Yah, hmmm...

The way to do this sort of thing well is for da ASM to mention the problem offhandedly to da SPL, eh?  Let the SPL then work with da PLC to make any changes.   Same with you and the council calendar changes or November schedule or whatnot.   "Hey, heads up SPL, did you see this?"   If it's minor, the SPL may just handle it himself, eh?  Or he may call a PLC meetin'.  Or he may just text all da PLC and figure it out.

All your adults seem to be frettin' a bit too much about this sort of small stuff, eh?   Seems like if yeh can't trust the lads yet yeh should set up some training and chances for 'em to learn so that y'all feel better about gettin' out of the way.

I assume there's a lad who is leadin' the backpackin' planning.   I'd just feed that boy a comment about how bookbag backpacks will mean all your little guys will be really uncomfortable.   And a link to somewhere that rents small packs or an email for a troop that has some!  Either way, they might also help with other backpack friendly gear, eh?

Beavah

Yah, hmmm...

Folks have to remember that da BSA program materials are a one-size-fits-all attempt put together by Really Big Committees and very few capable editors .   Don't get too caught up with da details, eh?

Fact is there are a lot of troops that are only da size of one patrol.  There are some troops that use mixed-age patrols, and some that use same-age patrols and some that use NSP and some that don't.  There are plenty of "troop method" troops that do fine things, and some strong patrol method troops.   All those different permutations mean different things for PORs, eh?

Da point of a POR is to give a lad an opportunity for growing through takin' on leadership and responsibility.   So in your troop, whatever it's structure is, yeh should give lads credit for work that involves genuine commitment and responsibility and leadership in their role, eh?   One that leads to real growth in the boy.  

In mixed-age, patrol-method troops yeh often find APLs and PLs who function more as co-PLs.   The same way in youth run troops yeh tend to get SPLs and ASPLs that are more collaborative than subordinate.   If that's the case and an APL is takin' on responsibility and growin' a lot through da role, give the boy credit.   If your troop does a lot of water sports and so yeh have a Chief Water Poohbah who trains his fellows in Lifesaving and who leads setup on water activities, give the lad credit for a POR.

At the same time, if your troop doesn't have a library or da role of a scribe doesn't really amount to the same sort of responsibility and growth for that boy as you'd expect of a PL or such, then don't give POR credit for those positions, eh?   Or if a NSP PL really doesn't have any responsibility because da work all gets done by the TG and ASM-NSP, don't give credit for PL.  

It's all about the boys, eh?   And where your unit is at in terms of its own structure and maturity.   There aren't any program police, and one size doesn't fit all, eh?

Yah, @@Adamcp, thanks for takin' the time to give us an update, eh?

You're tryin' to change a troop culture, and that does require some adult guidance and settin' up of structure, eh?   The Senior Patrol / Old Scout Retirement Home is a structure, eh?  One that teaches lads that the most involved and capable youth should aspire to doin' nothin'.   That's not what we want to teach.  Older and more experienced scouts should be challengin' themselves by leadin' and teachin' and taking the troop to new heights.

So it's just fine if you choose to abolish that structure as Scoutmaster.   Explain your reasons, inspire 'em to take real leadership, tell 'em they need the time for POR requirements anyways.

Similarly it's just fine to give "The Speech" prior to elections like @@TAHAWK says.  In fact, I strongly encourage it.    I think it's also fine to think about alternatives to elections, eh?  If you're just beginnin' to build a new troop culture, havin' popularity contest elections can set yeh back a whole year or more sometimes.   That's not good for Scoutin', and it's not good for the boys.    So sometimes yeh impose other requirements, like PLs must have done JLT/TLT/whatever it's called now, or must be First Class, or must get da signatures of 3 adult leaders to appear on the ballot, or whatever.

Another thing to consider is that PLs in a lot of ways should be the natural "gang leaders" of da group.   Boys don't find their natural gang leaders by talkin' and votin', eh?  They find their natural gang leaders by doin' stuff together, which lets the natural leaders emerge... naturally!   Don't hold elections at a meetin'.  Hold 'em at the end of a week of summer camp or a long weekend outing where the boys are workin' as patrols and doin' hard stuff together and da natural leaders have a chance to emerge.   Don't let 'em give speeches either.   Just give a short version of The Speech and let 'em pick based on da experience that's fresh in their mind.

For me, I also prefer da outcomes when da SPL is chosen by and from among the PLs, eh?  It's the PLs who have seen who on da PLC has been doin' the most (and best) work and who they want to help coordinate among the PLs.    Da rest of the troop doesn't see all that, so they're more prone to joke candidates and electioneering and such.... or just votin' for their own PL because that's who they know, eh?

Once you've got a troop culture that's up and functioning, then yeh can fade off on some of da support and the lads will maintain the culture themselves.  So hands-off youth run is da end goal, eh?  It's not what yeh start with, and it requires a lot of effort settin' up structures and teachin' and trainin' the lads and lettin' 'em develop experience first.

Beavah

Yah, hmmmm....

"You only have to put down names" seems like da sort of sophistry that's just about the opposite of what we want to teach our scouts in terms of character, eh?   I'd like to think a lad who is an Eagle Scout is capable of askin' folks for reference letters the same way he does for college applications. 

In my experience, letters from parents often tend to be da most critical, eh?     Parents usually see teenagers at their worst, while they're doin' fine with everyone else.   Parent letters give a board insight into things that they might not be aware of.  Challenges at home that kept the lad away from scoutin' for a bit, personal struggles he's overcome, progress in Family Life and such.  

The letter from the employer offers a different perspective, eh?  There's one lad I remember where his employer, a local retailer, wrote "he's the only young person who hasn't tried to steal from me - if it weren't for him I'd never employ another teenager again".  Seems there was a police sting where they caught other employees throwin' merchandise out in da dumpster then comin' back after hours and pickin' it up.   Even if da "employer" is the old lady he mows a lawn for, it's nice to see how a scout pays his own way, eh?

School references are da ones I find the most generic and useless. 

Peer references I try to encourage.   Friends see the character of a lad when no adults are watchin'.   They're almost always valuable parts of da conversation when a scout chooses to provide 'em.

Religious references are hit or miss.  I like the ones where it's someone like a youth minister who really knows the lad, eh?  It shows a different part of his life and character.   Da parent religious references and other generic fluff ones I don't find valuable.  If it were a church of da flyin' spaghetti monster reference, I'd probably ask the lad if he really felt it was reverent to satirize other folks' faiths.  

All these, though, are just part of da conversation, eh?   Sometimes they make for good questions, or comments in praise of the lad.   "Your youth minister wrote some really nice things about you, and has been very impressed with how you've taken leadership as an instructor at Bible Camp.  Are you planning to continue that work in the comin' years?"   It gives the lad confidence to hear such things, and an opportunity to speak about somethin' he cares about to the BOR, and it helps us reinforce our lessons of character and encourage further growth, eh?  

All the things a BOR should be doin'.  

Beavah

Yah, the parents can write this, eh?

Personally, I don't prefer that since the parents already are contributin' a reference of their own.

So I'd suggest the lad ask for a reference from someone who knows him well in terms of his spiritual life, eh?   Could be a peer, could be another relative, could be da troop chaplain.

Another good option is to have him talk with a pastor or youth minister of his choice from one of the churches he's been visitin', or from the CO.   I know quite a few CO pastors who'd be delighted to spend an hour talkin' with one of their church's scouts even if he's not from their denomination and then write an appropriate letter.   Good experience for the boy, and good relationship buildin' with the Chartered Org., eh?

The point of reference letters is that an Eagle is supposed to show scout spirit in his everyday life.  Everyday life includes home life (parents) and work life (employer) and school life (educational), and religious life (religious).   It also includes behavior with friends (peer), and perhaps sports (coach) or other extracurricular (band director, newspaper advisor, etc.).  Of course it also includes Scoutin', which is what da Scoutmaster and Committee signoffs are for.

I always like it when folks in da unit let a lad choose the areas of his everyday life and the people in those areas that matter the most to him, eh?   Sometimes it's friends or employers that speak most eloquently to a boy's Reverence.

Beavah

Behold, I will bring to them health and healing, and I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security.  - Jeremiah 33:6

May God hold them and all your scouts in the hollow of his hand.

Beavah

OP here.

 

I really appreciate these thoughtful replies. You have given me a lot to think about.

 

At the Troop meeting last night, one of the Assistant SMs, who I know well from our Cub pack, asked me about some of the issues from last weekend. Apparently he had heard that things had gotten a bit out of hand at the Camporee. We talked a bit about some of the chronic challenges a few of these boys had posed, and he is planning to get the parents involved, and give notice that their behavior won't be tolerated any more.

 

He quizzed me about what happened on the trip, so I gave him some examples. I told him I didn't want to come off as the new guy who was telling him how to run his troop, but he encouraged me to share my observations because a fresh perspective was sometimes useful. So I gave him my thoughts, which were that it seems these boys have gotten reprimanded so many times, but with no consequences attached, that they have learned they can get away with just about anything and risk only a scolding. That if there were real consequences, like missing the next Troop activity, it might be a real wake-up call. He got a look on his face which seemed to say, "Wow, why didn't we think of that".

 

He and a couple of the other leaders went and had a little pow-wow to discuss the situation, which, apparently, they had all been concerned about. The ASM who is my friend said he is going to talk to all the parents of the usual suspects about the situation, and before the next campout will present them with letters spelling out exactly what is expected, along with maps to the campout so the parent can come retrieve their son if there's a problem.

 

We have a few special needs boys in our troop, and they do great. Everyone understands their challenges and works with them and any special behavior quirks. It is also tragic when kids come from abusive or neglectful homes, and act out or are socially confused because of it. These are harder to identify. Other kids may have mental or emotional problems. Again, these situations may be hard to identify. And some kids are just plain mean bullies. So it's not easy.

 

For instance, one kid at the Camporee was this real nice, friendly kid, but he was a bit of a handful to manage. Often didn't follow instructions, and would wander around at times doing his own thing. It turns out he is autistic. It's the mean ones that worry me.

 

Thanks, again, for the suggestions and ideas.

Yah, @@Grubdad, thanks for the update, eh?

Sounds like a good temporary resolution, and I like your approach of deferin' to the current leaders while givin' 'em information.

Da question will be how the follow-up looks, eh?   The problem with written statements and "contracts" and all the rest is that they're just threats, eh?  Threats wrapped up in adult legal-schmeagle nonsense, but really just threats.   I'm not a fan of such things.  For kids to learn yeh just need consequences.  Put your hand on a hot stove, it gets burnt.   There's no need for the stove to make threats, and the learnin' happens pretty fast.    Behavioral consequences need to be similar, eh? 

Whenever a troop is tryin' to change an existing culture that isn't workin', yeh almost always need to act once, eh?   Someone needs to be sent home, and the principle explained to all the boys after he's gone.  The trick will be not gettin' itchy trigger finger.   Goin' home for terrorizin' a new scout?  Yah, absolutely.  "The role of older scouts is to protect and support younger scouts, because that's what real men do" is an easy principle to explain.  If yeh are a scout, yeh have to behave like a man, and if yeh can't do that, yeh go home with the little kids.

Goin' home for bein' inattentive peein' on the side of a trail?   That's more somethin' that an older PL can handle by pullin' a lad aside.  It doesn't work for a big consequence.  Goin' home because an adult is tallyin' up all the little things you've done wrong over the past months or years?   That's an adult doin' somethin' to you, rather than a natural consequence.  It doesn't work to teach the boys principles.  In fact, there's a good chance the rest of the boys will feel it's the adult bein' unfair and learn the wrong lesson.

Hopefully, da SM will get this right, or close enough.   He's got to get the ASM dad of Troublemaker #1 on board too, eh?  Everyone has to be pullin' together or things will pull apart.

@@Eagledad, I hear yeh on the lads being afraid about peein'.   I recall once when a new scout took a dump just a little ways outside of his tent in the middle of the night because he was afraid to go into da stinky latrine in the dark.   Someone else who was an early riser discovered it by the "steppin' in it" method .   Could have been one of those "make a Big Deal out of bad behavior" moments, eh?  Happily the PL told the silly Beavah fellow to shut up and go clean off his shoes, and then took the lad aside and handled it like a champ.  

Beavah

Yah, welcome @@wendibyrd!

Yeh gotta love district folks who make pronouncements, eh?

In real life, I reckon there are as many ways packs get organized and run as there are groups that run packs.   What yeh have to figure out is what works best for your pack.

Your CubMaster is givin' yeh feedback as a gift, eh?   He feels the way you're set up now devalues da Cubmaster role.   So if yeh want to keep him as Cubmaster, yeh need to take that to heart.   I agree with the group here, eh?  Generally speakin' in effective packs, the Cubmaster leads and the Committee supports, eh?   The committee should take the tasks he doesn't like or want to do, but let him play conductor.

Beavah

A bit different I think @@Beavah. As a 501 ©(3) association, BSA is the parent association to which councils belong. They too are non-profits, much like the AMA is the head medical association to which all their state associations belong...each being also a non-profit.

 

HOWEVER -- and this is where my knowledge gets foggy -- AMA does not "charter" sub-organizations to belong to their state organizations, like units are part of BSA. That's where things get funky I think.

Nah, no different, eh?   Local council corporations are incorporated in their own state, and also have IRS 501©(3) determinations.   Da BSA charters councils to service local scouting programs the same way councils charter organizations to run local units.  A chartered organization can authorize another corporation to administer its scoutin' program, too.   Just not sure why that makes any sense when all yeh want is a bank account.     What's more common is to have a separate corporation hold major assets to protect 'em from greedy COs and Councils.

In da case of Associations like da AMA, yeh see all different kinds of permutations, eh?  Includin' just not bein' incorporated at all and remainin' an unincorporated association.  Like da ABA.  

Yah, hmmm....   I reckon this is what folks are talkin' about when they complain about too much regulation, eh?   The money-launderin' and other rules are muckin' up a lot of industries at the moment.

Seems like what you're stickin' on is the bank's requirement that da federal EIN name match a state registry name of some sort.

Many states allow yeh to register unincorporated NFP associations with da Secretary of State for that state. This is typically free or very low-cost, and usually not as involved as incorporating.  Then yeh get the EIN for the Association, but yeh still list the parish on the EIN as described.  I reckon this would be the easiest way to get yeh around the last hurdle.

Thanks for bringin' this to our attention, eh?  Most existin' units aren't runnin' into it, but now I'm curious about how this is playin' out.  Yeh might also try a different (smaller, more local) bank, too.  Sometimes da big corporate banks have idiot global "rules" that don't take into account all da nuances.

Anyone have contacts with da National Catholic Committee on Scoutin' who can raise the issue with them?   Might be easier for folks if there were some guidance local parishes could use.

Beavah

I am sure an attorney would know the issues. It just sounds funny having a non-profit entity that is part of another non-profit charter organization. 

Yah, what do yeh think BSA councils are, eh?

Isn't this the same as forming a "Friends of" organization?

 

I would think there's a problem forming your unit in to a non-profit being already an entity of your CO. I would think there's issues there. It would be like the youth ministry forming their own non-profit but being under the charter of the church.

 

There are enough lawyers here (@@CalicoPenn?) to weigh in on this subject.

Nah, no particular issues, @@Krampus.   The most common thing is to have a separate charitable corporation that holds the assets of the group, eh?   Sea Scout Ships did a lot of this, with separate corporations that held the boats.  That way neither the chartered organization nor the BSA could get ideas about makin' a bunch of quick dollars by shuttin' down the unit and sellin' off the assets.    NFPs can also have subsidiary separately incorporated NFPs, too. 

That the same thing as a "Friends of" organization, eh?  "Friends of" organizations are actually the chartered partner, and they're very rarely incorporated or have a separate tax status.  I think "Friends of" organizations are not a great idea.  I've found 'em to be pretty unstable.   Dependin' on da state, they can leave the parents fairly exposed to financial and other liabilities. 

Beavah

Yah, hmmmm...

Da bankin' regulations keep gettin' more complimicated because of the efforts to curtail money laundering, eh?  And Dodd-Frank, and other things.   Makes doin' normal stuff hard.

@@blw2, Catholic Church organizations that are not religious orders have a funny legal structure, eh?   They are usually set up as somethin' called a "Corporation Sole" directed by the bishop.   Da actual structure of that sometimes varies by state.  What that means is that from a legal perspective the only entity is the diocese, eh?  Parish's don't exist legally, they're just administrative subdivisions of the diocese corporation.   Of course the diocese doesn't want to be givin' out its EIN willy-nilly (though yeh can look it up ).   So what happens is that there are accounts on accounts, eh?  Sometimes with parishes, sometimes with ladies' groups and mens' groups and other things.   I had a colleague who was once involved in tryin' to audit a Catholic diocese.  He said "byzantine" didn't even begin to describe it.

No reason for yeh to get all caught up in that, eh?  Yeh just do what everybody else did to create "byzantine" and yeh create your own account.

Some options for yeh.

1. Take the parish up on da offer and let 'em handle the bookkeeping and put stuff in their accounts.  Advantage is yeh can earn interest in the accounts without creatin' headaches.   Yeh also get oversight and internal auditing for free, eh?   It can be a good way to go, and I know several troops that do this.
2. Use the parish EIN to set up the scout account if it has one.   Not every parish does, it depends a lot on how da diocese corporation chooses to byzantine things.      I know several troops who do this, eh?  It's a good way to go because if someone goes off da rails or things run downhill and then the treasurer kicks the bucket, yeh still have an identified (pseudo-)entity that can re-establish people on the account. 
3. File for your own EIN for the troop in the way you suggest.  In this case, I recommend yeh don't get an interest-bearing account, since that could then make da tax situation a bit more complicated in terms of hoops yeh have to jump through.   As a first choice, I'd use da parish address and the parish business manager as contacts, eh?   Better than puttin' anybody else down because it creates headaches changin' address with turnover.  I don't know anybody doin' this.
4. The bank should have an account class for small community organizations, eh?  Things like unincorporated community associations and the like.  In this case, yeh have to use personal SSNs.   That's fine, eh?  Just get a non-interest-bearing account to avoid the tax headache.  Put at least 4 people on the account to allow for turnover, and if possible get someone from da parish as a signatory as well.   If yeh can't use parish staff, yeh might be able to get someone from their mens' group if they do work with kids.  I know lots of troops who go this route.

Yeh don't want to try to separately incorporate your unit, eh?  That gets way too complicated and generally becomes too much work for a typical unit.  Sometimes if you're somethin' like a Sea Scout Ship where yeh have major assets (like big boats) or folks are makin' major gifts it might make sense to do that, but not for a regular troop.

Of course this is just da off-da-cuff advice of someone on the internet who looks like a furry long-toothed critter with big teeth.   If yeh want genuine legal, tax, or bankin' advice, I reckon there's reasons why yeh have professionals in your area, eh?

Beavah

Yah, Hmmmm....

@@Grubdad, we're all tryin' to figure out what's goin' on in your program from afar, eh?  As you keep sharin' information, we keep updatin' our own thoughts and offerin' new suggestions.  Yeh get to take 'em or leave 'em or stew on 'em.

Yeh seem like a fellow who has some vision and leadership ability, who might make a fine Scoutmaster in a few years.   With that in mind, let me illustrate how I read your last post (droppin' all the I'm mad at Beavah parts).   Feedback can be a gift, eh?

Last fall our Cubs camped with this troop as visitors. Troublemaker #1 and his toadie went next door to a private campground

I've never in my life seen an adult who was good at workin' with youth call a boy a "toadie", eh?   That's just not what good scouters do, no matter what a boy has done.  So when yeh did this, the message I took from it was that you aren't really used to workin' with a range of youth of this age yet. 

in broad daylight and urinated in the middle of it to annoy the families there, which they did. He then lay down on the center line of the adjoining highway to show off.

What I notice is that you are inserting motives - "to annoy the families there", "to show off".  I reckon if we're honest, we really don't know the lad's motives, eh?  The actual actions were that boys peed in a field and a boy laid down on a road.   Given your first bit, I'm not sure how much is the boys' behavior and how much is your view of their behavior because they're Troublemaker #1 and Toadie in your mind, eh?  It's missing context, and the context matters.  After all, I've laid down on roads and peed in fields.

So my question is whether the lads' Patrol Leader knew, and what he thought about it?  The SPL?  Other adult leaders who weren't visitors?

At some level, these are actions which could merit relatively strong response, so I'm wonderin' why the SM and other troop leaders chose somethin' less.  Was it that they had more information or were less concerned?  Or was it that they're conflict adverse when it comes to addressin' youth behavior of this sort?

He mouthed back to several adults including myself, and terrorized many of the kids in our den and the rest of the troop.

Yah, you were a visitor, eh?   It wasn't really your role to be talkin' to the lad, and he didn't really know you from Adam.   Now, boys shouldn't mouth off to visitin' adults either, though occasionally I've had Patrol Leaders ask an adult politely to mind his own beeswax so that he could handle it as a PL .  At the same time, if you copped some attitude with the boy, then yeh invited him to do the same.

How do you think your lad was "terrorized?"  Lads who are truly terrorized almost never return, eh?

Then, a month ago he was at an activity with another troop and he and the same accomplice did something so egregious that our SM was contacted about it by their SM, resulting in a reprimand for those two and a lecture to the rest of the troop. I don't know the offense, but it was certainly unacceptable. So I have pretty current experience.

Nah, this isn't "experience", eh?  This is hearsay.   You weren't on the outing, and you don't know the offense.  In the grand scheme of things, it's really very unusual for a new parent in a troop to be bringin' up stuff about a boy that is second hand that way.

Now, it does concern me that someone was lecturin' the whole troop about the behavior of two boys (unless da rest of the troop was in on it, too?). 

-----

So you're sendin' up some red flags, eh? 

I'm just askin' yeh to take a deep breath and reflect for a bit.

Overall, it sounds like the Scoutmaster might be a bit conflict-adverse, and not quite up to doin' what he should in terms of respondin' to the boys' behaviors.  Scoutmasters who are good at addressin' boys' behaviors tend to Praise in Public and Reprimand in Private, eh?  Not lecture da whole group. Keep in mind that there's not much yeh can do about that as a new fellow, eh?  Folks don't really change their personalities or approaches just because a new guy talks to 'em.  So yeh can give polite feedback and let him know he has your support in shiftin' more to quiet consequences and less to riot acts.    

It also seems you've got expectations that might not quite fit what troops are about, and that yeh might have it in for this one lad.  That can cause as much or more grief for a troop as a boy who behaves poorly.   So if on reflection yeh think that you've got it in for this boy a bit because of past history, then I think yeh have to step back.  Let one of the other parents who has less history with the boy meet with the Scoutmaster.   Spend your time helpin' your lad practice his knots or get his pack together for da next campout, eh?  It's much more rewardin'.

Or yeh can just ignore cute old furry critters, eh?  Da choice is always yours.

Beavah

Sorry, unit health and execution of the charter agreement is not a core component of their job? Since when?

Since forever, eh?   What you're tryin' to describe is da role of da Commissioner Corps, not da pros.

Not sure which item yeh think this falls under in da DE's job description.   Maybe Popcorn?    Yah, yah, yeh can imagine some vague connection to Chartered Org support, but did yeh actually read the expectation?  Visit da COR annually.  Make a plan to provide more support for the comin' year.   Nuthin' much more than that, and we all know that Chartered Org. visits are one of da things that DEs honor more in the breach, eh?

The connection to the professional staff is that only the SE can remove an adult leader from Scouting (usually after or in concert with da CO removin' 'em from the unit).  That's why I suggested movin' straight to the Council Commish and SE, eh?   Most UCs aren't really equipped for this sort of thing, and a lot of DCs aren't either.  Almost no DEs will have a clue.

Beavah

Right now the leadership team is:

 

SM: "Smith Family Son"

 

Crew Leader: "Smith Family "Daughter""

ACL: Someone else.

 

Person highly involved: "Smith Family Mother"

Other person highly involved: "Smith Family Father"

Yah, hmmmm...

Well, I suspected there might be a backstory, eh?

I"m curious, is the daughter the crew Advisor (adult leader)?  Or the crew President (youth leader)?

One of da laws of human endeavor is that those who do the work control the outcome, eh?   As long as da Smiths are the only ones doin' the work, they're goin' to control things.  Even if da CO stepped in and showed 'em the door, odds are the kids and other families would be like your boy, eh?  They'd follow the Smiths out the door.

These sorts of snarls can be very difficult to unsnarl.   I'd say give a call to your Council Commissioner, eh?  Not your Unit Commissioner or even da District Commish.  Ask him or her for help.   Suggest that you can help set up a meetin' with da COR and IH.   Say you'll leave it up to him whether to include da Scout Executive or his assistant (not the DE, the Scout Executive for da council).   Lay out the situation and the concerns at the meeting.

Unit volunteers are volunteers for da Chartered Organization, not the BSA.  It's up to the Chartered Organization to make any decisions, and the BSA will back the CO.   If the CO wants to keep the unit, then it gets to keep the unit... and make decisions on who da unit leaders are.   Since da Smiths are members of the CO, there's also a pastoral role for the Church in providin' guidance to the family.

In the end, though, he who does the work controls the outcome.   Unless da COR/IH are willin' to assert their rights, the Smiths will do as they please.  Unless you are ready to step up and at a meetin' of all the parents explain that the Smiths have been removed and have a plan and the necessary volunteers to move forward, yeh won't see a change of leadership.  

So yeh have to decide what it is yeh want to do, and what yeh think is best for the boys and the program.   That's why they gave you the big bucks as CC!

[as an aside, what church are we talkin' about, and what's their position on transgendered folks?  The church may wish to make a change on that basis for its own reasons.]

Beavah

DEs are paid staff, no?

 

Why wouldn't one expect a DE to step in a situation like this which would seem very much a core component of their job? 

Because it's really not a core component of their job, eh?

If you're really a small troop then I reckon you'd be better havin' conversations, eh?  It would just be on you to make sure yeh took the time to have a conversation with everybody, rather than just da folks who are easiest to talk to.   I wouldn't do group conversations, because often folks in groups stay mum in da face of louder personalities.

For a bigger unit, doin' a survey isn't a bad thing.  It at least gives folks an outlet without disruptin' anything else.    Plus, Scoutmasters spend their time with kids and sometimes miss warnin' signs from parents.

I would encourage yeh to structure any survey in terms of positives though, eh?  Don't ask lots and lots of "what's wrong with us?" questions or yeh might just get a gripefest.  Start with things that they like most about da program, what positive things the troop can build on, what da next steps are to continue to enhance the program.  Are there boys that they feel have really helped their son? (it's always great to give a PL or older scout some positive feedback at his next BOR).  Is there some skill they'd really like to share with the troop? (look to encourage volunteerin' and productive engagement).

Suggestions for improvement will naturally out on their own, but you might miss lots of good things if yeh don't ask.   It also helps keep the tone of comments productive.

Beavah

Yah, @@SnarlyYow, let's take a step back, eh?   Generally when someone pops in with a question like that, there's a backstory that matters.

So as Paul Harvey would say, what's da rest of the story?

As a general answer to your question, though, the Chartered Organization is the owner of the troop's assets, generally speakin'.   Not just assets that were paid for by fundraisin', but all of da assets that aren't owned by individual boys or adults.

Beavah

Yah, welcome, eh!

You're right that Venturing has recently re-invented itself a bit, at least advancement-wise.   The old bronze-silver award just wasn't seein' much uptake.   Actually, advancement in Venturing often doesn't get much traction.  Kids by that age are more mature, and goin' after awards is more an elementary/middle school thing, eh?  So I'm one of da skeptics in terms of whether the new Venturing advancement stuff will get much more traction, though I do think it's better.

As @@qwazse says, Venturing is also pretty adaptable to specialties and kids' interests, and done well it feels a lot like OA.  From what yeh describe, you'd like it!  

Career Explorin' has been a separate division of Learnin' for Life for quite a while now.  Old Explorers died back when Venturing was started.   The outdoors and ministry related groups became Venturing crews, and the pre-career stuff became the new Exploring program.

Beavah