Krampus

I have to disagree with Fred.  "Do Your Best" is the Cub scout motto.  In Boy Scouting it is "do the requirement"...no more, no less.

But the GTA allows for accommodations for scouts with disabilities, so "do the requirement" allows the definition of "requirement" to be changed. There is no uniform definition of what that changed requirement is. That is left to the SM and the MBC.

All scouts we have used accommodations for have required only slight modifications. In nearly all cases, they completed 96% of the program the other scouts did. In some cases, the modified requirements were done so painstakingly that it actually exceed what the other scouts have done.

Example: One autistic scout was having problems with the basic scout knots. For some reason the half hitch and taughtline were throwing him for a loop. We substituted any other knots he wanted to pick from a book we had (Scout knot book). He learned TEN additional knots: all climbing knots and hitches (Dad said he would not put the book down). Even taught the new scouts the trucker's hitch.

@@SlowDerbyRacer, interesting topic.

In my area (Dallas area) packs are assigned to an elementary school. However, like @@meyerc13, the schools basically distanced themselves from all civic groups though some are still allowed to meet and recruit at these schools. Most charter orgs are churches, though there are some "Friends of" and civic group COs.

Your "territory" is seen as your school and around your CO. With the drop in overall BSA membership, policy changes, demographic changes, etc., packs have been forced to look beyond "their schools" and to recruit elsewhere. We are just now seeing multiple packs recruiting at the same schools. The district tried to get involved and tell packs they could only recruit at their home school. A few leaders (lawyers) asked to see the BSA policy limiting pack recruiting to their schools. The DE crawled back in to his hole, and the packs worked cordially to divide up new "territory".

I have no doubt it will be a shoot out next fall too.

I miss "Skill Awards". 

Our unit invites our flag program sponsor every Veteran's Day to discuss the role of being a US Citizen. This is done to address a few requirements for various ranks and badges, but more so to honor the veterans group which sponsors our program. These kids definitely know what 11/11 is about and the vets that come and talk love the opportunity to remind them that freedom is not free.

@@Hedgehog your perspective is appreciated. However, it conflicts with what my unit understands based on a six month effort by a pro bono tax attorney's advice. My cousin's unit went directly to the IRS (and we did as well after I got the contact info) to have them review our approach and get their approval. If they come at us after the fact -- and we were trying to play by the rules -- imagine the field day they'd have with other units that continue to violate the law blindly.

Krampus, I am not an expert in the subject, but I think you are talking about a different church organization than the one that is the subject of this thread. A church that was in the United Church of Christ would not be likely to drop BSA units due to the 2013 policy change. Just the opposite, though apparently they decided to wait until the policy was changed for adults as well.

Hard to tell. This is like that Monty Python movie. Too many religious organizations with similar names.

We had a pack in the district that had to move because of the 2013 membership policy change and the CoC deciding to drop all units. In fact a troop had to leave too. From what I hear from those units, the CO was not really involved in the scout program all those years; treated the units like renters rather than as any part of the CO. I doubt this deal will affect these churches in my area. They generally do not charter units and I doubt those who left would go back now.

@@Krampus - maybe the participation or attendance of the event hinges on his attendance and participation at the fundraising.

 

No participation at the fundraiser = no participation at the event.

 

It would really boil down to the parents' attitude.

Agreed, but imagine the vein on the DE's neck exploding when these denied members start calling. BSA will not back such an action, so we settled on participate, get = share of money. Our inquiries to the IRS and tax attorneys have settled this issue for us and our COR. We consider it a done deal. Trust me, there was a lot of time and effort (pro bono) spent to resolve this issue to everyone's (IRS, CO and unit) satisfaction.

As much as I hate Krampus's icon, he has the right view.  

 

Again with icon hate? What's with you guys? The people complaining are so darn liberal about other peoples' feelings and rights, yet when someone has an icon (of all things) that is based on a cultural icon (pardon the pun) based on centuries of cultural practice it begs offense from these same people? C'Mon!

You don't see me (or others) saying one word about anybody else's icon for Pete's sake. Give it a rest.

@@Hedgehog, and if someone going on the event says he does not want to participate in fund raising. How do you compel him to? BSA won't let you preclude him from attending if he's a paying member. So he gets the money you allocate to everyone else. There's nothing to compel him to participate.

@@Hedgehog, so if my troop raises $2000 that money has to go to ALL members, even those not going on the event for which the money was raised, as well as those who did not participate at all? 

Again, why would ANYONE raise money if that were the case? No one is going to participate if there's a free lunch. My troop has experienced this once and we eventually stopped the fund raising.

As long as we have a piece of paper for the IRS saying we are good, we're good.

In twenty years I have yet to see a MB college or midway or whatever you want to call it, live up to the scouts' expectations. My son refuses to attend them. He calls them a waste of time; that he'd learn more watching the Discovery Channel.

That should tell you something.

 

What you say about fundraising for a specific event (i.e. send the scout's to Philmont) is allowed but the benefit cannot be targeted just to the scouts who raise those funds, but must be targeted to all scouts participating in the activity.  What you said is not spelled out in the Internal Revenue Code (the relevant portion was reproduced in my post on page 2), the IRS's regulations (again, I reproduced what was relevant on page 2) or in IRS Rulings (the only one requested on ISAs declined to rule and the other rulings don't address the "shared equally among the participants").

So where exactly does it say that if Tom, Bob, Bill and Fred raise $1200 for Philmont that Zach -- who didn't sell anything, but is going to Philmont -- must get an equal share of that money?

According to our inquiry to the IRS, as long as Tom, Bob, Bill and Fred get *equal* shares of the money raised it is not a private benefit and Zach is out of luck. Otherwise, Stosh -- who is neither going to Philmont nor raised any money -- would be due an equal share of the $1200 just like Zach, and that just defeats the purpose of enticing Scouts to raise money. Who is going to bust their hump selling if they can sit back and have others do it?

@@skyfiiire that's an example of the Nanny State in action. Somewhere they forgot the Constitution and that, when you reach 18, you're an adult and can make your own decisions.

 

Which takes me back to the original comments being made.  The Wilderness First Aid needs to be replaced with Wilderness ACC"IDENT PREVENTION training...then I would consider taking the training.

 

I hope and pray that you wasted your money and you never have to use that training.    If you do have to use it.  I hope it works for you and your boys.

@@Stosh, we don't disagree much but I will here.

I think WFA does cover some great scenarios; mostly those are are very dangerous but maybe not as critical as the example you use. I would agree in those scenarios (heart attack, severe bleeding, intense venomous snake bite, etc) the vic has even less chance of making it in the back country. I would also agree that prevention is a key training too. But overall WFA does help with triage and situational awareness. It helps with less critical situations or events that could get worse if not treated fast.

Does it have a place in BSA training? Sure. Is it going to save lives? Possibly. But in very critical cases its not going to give the vic any more chance than he would have elsewhere. It is merely a way to *try* to save someone given the option of do nothing or do something.

@@MattR we have the same issue with shooting sports. Some parents just can't let go. We invite them to come and see everything in action. Oddly enough, a few of these parents are the ones that let their kids play near busy, 45 mph streets where their kids wear headphones and skate down the street with traffic. 

Presumably that is in response to the original question, not the tangent this thread has taken. (Hmm, an ON-topic post, are those allowed here?) While a wide variety of things may be barbecued (or, if you are in the South, barbecue), ice cream would not seem to be one of them.

Yes, it was an answer to the original post. However, I will say that you *can* BBQ ice cream. In Texas we even fry it.

On the subject of BBQ (not barbecued or barbecue), as a Texan I tend not to get involved when people "talk through their hat" about this subject. Y'all may have your ways you *think* are real BBQ, but its just a fancy way to say your grilling something. As far as sauce goes, that's just something you put on bad BBQ to allow you to choke it down.

Come to Texas and we will be happy to show you what "low and slow" means. No self-respecting pit master would cook ANYTHING with "high heat".   We brine, dry it, rub it, smoke it, let it set, chop it (or slice it, sometimes pull it) and eat it. We don't inject it, cover it with sauce, cook it on high heat or anything else unnatural. 

BTW, @@Stosh, when you drive through Big D stop at Meshack BBQ in Garland. The neighborhood will scare you a bit but the BBQ is top shelf.

... but mostly the MBC as it seems to me is there to verify that the boy did the work.

Again, they're not really "teaching" anything.  

Do I have that all wrong?

According to BSA the role of the MBC can be found on slides 22-24 here. I think you have it partially right, in that the boys should be doing some reading and research. I think in the last 20 years or so the way scouting has been implemented has been more adult-to-scout than scout-to-adult. Meaning: We seem to be laying things out for kids more than we did in the past.

Here's one my son found. Made him a rock star with his patrol. Imagine being in Texas in the summer and conjuring up ice cream...on a camp out...in a Dutch oven no less.

Besides helicopter parents; those who hover waiting to swoop in to save, there are also velcro parents who are attached to their childs hip for all activities. They have a difficult time separating their childs activities from their own.

I usually send the SPL or PL over and have them invite the parent to go back to the adult area and enjoy the adult activities. After having that done 2-3 times during their first or second camp out they get the idea. I have only had one parent not take the hint. They left the troop because, and I quote, "The boys were just too hands on for their own good." I am not sure what that means, but I think it means we were doing something right.

I have never understood the "pack for the boys" concept.  I have two sons (now Eagles), and I have never packed their packs since Webelos (I may have when they were Tigers, wolves, bears).  I have told them to remember certain things, but I have no idea what they have packed for any particular campout. 

I did the same. I taught him to pack as a Tiger. Checked during Wolf and Bear years (think old fashioned shake down). After Bear I left him to it. He's got his packing list, he uses it. I have not checked in well over 8 years. Now 17 and almost Eagle, he's better at packing than I am. Had to borrow his lip balm on the trail...he has yet to let me live that down. 

@@Exibar, Section 10.2.0.0 (Advancement Flexibility Allowed) in the GTA spells it out. Just like everything we do in Scouting we should have the boy strive to reach beyond his grasp. Our unit usually meets with the parents to determine how we are going to proceed for each rank. We set goals and boundaries, identify how we will evaluate the scout and move forward. We remain flexible.

We will have another scout with autism get his Eagle this spring. We only made a few accommodations for him during his 7 years in the troop. I will stack him up against any Eagle I know. 

We only sign off on cards where we know the counselor. If someone comes to us with a new MBC our coordinator contacts them to find out who they are, how they will teach the class, etc. We then send an educated parent (try to find someone with that interest or background) to "audit" the course while one of our scouts takes it. If they are good, they go on our list. If they are not, we don't use them again.

I think I may have discovered a new type of parent: Drone Parents.

These are parents that pay lip-service to wanting their son to have all the learning experiences of boy-led, but are secretly in the background doing everything they can to help him with nearly every aspect of scouting (e.g. packing for them, researching MBs, etc.).

 

The bottom line is that any reduction in cost to a particular scout based on the amount of funds they raise for the unit is a personal benefit.  

 

If that were true than fund raising itself would not be allowed given your definition. Private benefit is defined in the code. Non-profits are allowed to raise funds for a particular event. They are allowed to target those funds -- as long as they are applied evenly -- to all scouts who raised funds. This is spelled out in the code.

Okay, I'm game to learn more about this but I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out to avoid private benefits and some other things and still have an individual account based on their efforts.  I.e. a salesman gets paid by what he sells, and others get paid for the time they work.  Isn't this nothing more than compensation for participation in the fundraiser?  Sorry for being thick on this, but isn't this the rationale for the problems the booster clubs were getting into?

My advice would be to talk to a tax attorney because I am sure I am glossing over the details. What I understood from our meeting with ours I posted here. What was clear was that you could not hold a generic fund raiser and deposit what the boys sold into their ISAs. You could have a generic fund raiser and put all money in the general account and then split equally among all scouts. You could also have a fund raiser for all scouts going to [insert activity] and all participating scouts should have an equal share of those proceeds put in their ISAs while excluding those scouts who did not participate. While this looked like a private benefit, our guy noted a few IRS guidelines that negated the appearance of private benefit for that scenario.

It's convoluted as you would expect from tax code and guidelines, that's why we hired an expert.