gumbymaster

@@HelpfulTracks

Mods, is there any way to un-downvote or change a vote?

Ignoring, for the moment, if this is a good thing or not for the BOYS ...

One of the things I really do like about the Girl Scout approach (and I understand that specifics are very leader dependent), is that it really is focused to try and encourage the Girls to believe that they can do anything they want to, including areas that at one time were not traditionally women's areas or roles.  It is because of this, that I accept their reluctance for male leader role models to be involved in their program (as it may reinforce that a man has to teach me how to do this, rather than a woman teaching the same thing).

In practice, it still means (again very leader dependent) that the girl scouts to activities that appeal to their leaders (mothers), and thus at the unit level there is still a strong 'traditional role' focus, at the service area levels there do tend to be more STEM and other women empowering activities.  At least this is my experience with my Daughter's troop and others in this area.

Opening up the BSA programs to girls gives the girls more choice, lets the girls (and their families) decide what they want to do.  It is, by definition allowing the girls to do the same things that boys can do.  This should also be a very empowering message for them. 

Clearly the GSUSA feels threatened, and they should.  I don't think the BSA would take huge portions of their membership.  Most of the Girl Scouts like the activities they do there.  I would be surprised if even as much as 10% of current girl scouts moved over, and I expect that most of those that did, would likely already have BSA members in their family.  That's not an insignificant loss to the GSUSA, and not an insignificant (potential) bump to the BSA membership.

With a proper marketing spin by the BSA (yeah I know, fat chance), it would be hard for the GSUSA to make a public case that the BSA has to stay boys only and that only they can serve the like minded girls.  The only real avenue for their attack, which appears to be the current approach, is to discredit the motivation - it's only for membership numbers, not because of the girls, etc.

On the moral high ground front, I think the GSUSA already lost this argument when they began to admit the transgendered boys living as girls (I am not sure of the PC terms).  They have, in essence already said that if GSUSA program is a better fit for them, come on and join.  Likewise, with the BSA policy on transgender girls living as boys being able to join the BSA - it's probably just better all the way round for both organizations to drop pretense and accept all who think that their respective program is the better fit for the youth member's personality.

My daughter has already said that given the opportunity, she would rather do the types of things her brother does.  She doesn't dislike the girl scouts, and she has many friends there, she just likes the other types of activities more (or at least thinks she does based on her exposure so far).

I dislike that the GSUSA has used terms like "sneek" and what not in their comments.  Assuming that the decision has not already been made and that the solicitation for comments is sincere, then they have been fairly open about the process.  Even if the decision has been made, looking for how the best implement it, how to make it work, and what to do (particularly for the 11-13 girls), has been relatively public for anyone paying attention.  No, it hasn't been a press release, etc., but that wouldn't normally be the case until a transition plan had been developed.

Is this whole process even necessary?  That's a harder one.  I like that the BSA currently has a place for boys to be boys (so to speak), but I also like the thought that my Daughter could get exposed to youth-run activities rather than adult leader run activities.  I personally like that the BSA is being more inclusive, and removing opportunities for obvious progressive/SJW and similar attacks.  The religion/atheist thing is still out there, and no doubt the next target.

When adapting the requirements, that applies to the Rank, not to Merit Badges; and @@scoutldr is right the District/Council Committee must approve the changes.

If a scout has a disability that prevents them from, say, camping overnight; the committee can approve alternate requirements for Tenderfoot through first class and can approve an alternative merit badge to replace earning the camping merit badge.  They cannot change the requirements of the camping merit badge for the boy.

A (trained) merit badge counselor should know that these are the rules, and work with the parent to either spend the extra necessary time that the scout can complete the requirements (as written), or point the family to the district or council resources to identify the alternative merit badge(s) that they can complete the requirements as written.  A counselor should not be just signing the card because the parents are making a stink, and they are not empowered to change the requirements, even if that's what would work for the scout.  A counselor who does not follow the rules can be reported to the district/council advancement committee or merit badge coordinator and be de-certified as a counselor.

My Camp did this 25+ years ago.

All members (usually) and especially those who were not already registered with a Troop or Post (both youth and adults - including our Military "volunteers") at the time were registered in a specific Explorer Post whose mission was support of the Camp.  Technically, however, I do  not think the Council was the Chartering Org for that post, a Church or Volunteer FD (near the camp) were the technical charter.  The council may have paid the registration fee for those not dual registered.

As for payment (to the staff), I don't think it creates an issue any more that paying any other member of a troop or post to be a member of the staff - it just happens that all of them were "members" of the same unit.

While there are (as demonstrated above) many answers to the question,

I think one of the larger answers (from the Scout's perspective) is more than just having fun, but looking at what other options are there.  If they don't play sports, and they don't have a neighborhood with lots of other kids their age; then just being able to socialize may be a big part of what keeps them there.

When my son first joined his troop, I think they all would have been happy if they could just get together once a week, and hang out and play magic the gathering or some such.  Camping just gave them a reason to get together, and get rid of the electronic (and less social) distractions.  It let them stay up late without parents hovering.  For the first couple of months he was in the troop (the critical time period for long term retention), I think most of them were the same way.  It just happened that some scouting got done along the way.

Thank you for the more elaborate background to the situation.

Personally, I am bothered that the SE would agree with a non-advancement punishment, that person should know better.  A more common punishment for the scout (which may or may not have a similar effect) would be an TBD month suspension from Troop activities.

Based on your SM's policies of what is allowable service hours (again, this is against the rules of the Guide to Advancement), this further reinforces my opinion that the SM is a petty dictator looking to have control regardless of rules.

Even if not removed from authority, I still would have expected at least some rebuke of how the SM handled the situation.  Anything less will just reinforce to the SM that their actions were appropriate and justified.

Unfortunately, for better or worse, if the CSE was involved, then you technically had your review of the situation, and the resolution did not go your way.  Within scouting, there is not much more that can be done - unless an outside report from law enforcement or child welfare (or a lawsuit or the press - which I do NOT recommend) forces them to address the issue more formally.

Keep in mind that CSEs have very little restrictions on their power and authority.  They too can be petty, and it is within their power to deny Scouting membership (in ANY troop) to you and both your sons if you raise too much grief for them - especially for a buddy.  I have seen this done to other Scouters before.  A Scout is BRAVE and should do the right thing, but although not a scout law, a Scout should also not be stupid and charge off without understanding potential consequences of their fight.  Your children and their well being come first, but don't join the Don Quixote patrol unnecessarily.

A new troop is probably your best option, but if your council or district manages the Eagle boards of review, then look carefully at the makeup of that board for potential conflicts of interests (other "buddies" of the SM or CSE) as your boys advance to that point.

Voting with your feet (and whoever goes with you) will probably be the most effective way to express your position that this is a poorly operated troop.  If there were enough other parents, you could try to load the troop committee, but in reality the SM serves at the privilege of the the Chartered Organization, not the Troop Committee.  If the Chartered Org. doesn't see a problem, nothing will change.

As to the report with the Sheriff ... Even knowing that nothing will be done about it, since you have already talked with them, it may be best to at least have the report filed.  It will create an official document, which may not help you, but may help the next family when a similar instance occurs in the future (and by all sounds of it, that will eventually happen).

We all understand tired scouts, and scouts who are bitter or angry about perceived unfairness. It is easy to armchair quarterback, but I expect that a more appropriate response would have been for the SM to tell the Scout that they can either go to where he was asked to go, or he can explain to his parents why they had to come and pick him up from the event; the SM could also have warned that an additional consequence would be a period of time suspension from troop activities to your son, to better consider his choices.  Everything else (both the incident and the post incident response) does not sound like the spirit of the scout oath and laws or the conduct guidance of the BSA were followed.

Best wishes, best of luck.

Keep in mind, as with all these types of disputes, we are only getting one side of the story.

Now, given that, the ONLY reason to man-handle a youth in any way is for the immediate health and safety of that youth or others.  Willful disobeying a directive (with good reason or not) is not such a reason.  That said, the alternative option available to the SM would have been to call you to pick up your son from camp because he will not follow adult leader directions.

As described, this is at least a Physical Assault (the pickup and carry - harm, if any, is irrelevant to the charge) and likely verbal abuse (with other scout/staff witnesses), and potentially bullying behavior.  As per the YPT, such behavior should be reported to and discussed with the Council's Scout Executive directly.  I am less sure on involving law enforcement ... with no harm, they are unlikely to prosecute, but it may be something that you at least want an official report taken, that will also force the council to address it.

Escalating this situation has much more consequence to the SM.  If he is a doctor, an assault charge on his record (if law enforcement is involved) could endanger his medical license.

As you have already discovered, it is very difficult to report and get traction on the wrongdoings of prominent or well liked people.

Now having finished with hardball options...

Have you had a frank discussion with the SM? Why did he feel the need to act in this way, in retrospect does he really feel that your son's actions rose to a magnitude where this was necessary? 

Further discuss with him, that the Guide to Advancement (GTA) provides NO option for him to categorically delay your son's advancement.  He can dismiss your son from the troop outright however.  He can also use the SM conference and the "show scout spirit" requirement as a means to interfere with advancement, but as others have said, the GTA provides a mechanism for disputed circumstances (it is not unusual for an SM and scout to have a standing conflict).  A good SM might recognize their own bias and assign an ASM to conduct the conference.

Now, days or weeks later, and with cooler heads, maybe the SM and your son can work out the differences, maybe not.

Small towns don't usually have many options for other Troops, but it sounds like you are looking into that.  If there are enough unhappy parents, are they willing to step up, join the committee and oust the guy? - is there a willing replacement?  Another option may be to start a new troop with the other disaffected scouts and parents.

Best of luck, and please keep us updated on how it all eventually works out.  (We need the closure to the story).

The Marriott Family are supporters of the Scouting Movement, with at least some of their family having been very involved as youth members.

Ross Perot was a scout (before wealth), I am not sure if his sons were.

I agree with eliminating the BOR - for most units, it's hard enough to schedule a BOR for regular ranks, let alone Palms.  Lets remember the main purpose of a BOR - it's not to test Scouts, its to see how the Scout is doing, what they like about the Troop, what they like about the Program.  While all that can be learned in a good Scoutmaster Conference, the BOR is the committees opportunity to hear it first hand.  By the time a Scout is an Eagle Scout, the committee is already going to have a pretty good idea of what a particular Scout enjoys and doesn't enjoy, and how a particular Scout thinks.  Is there really any more value to hearing from them every three months thereafter?  A Scoutmaster Conference should be more than sufficient for Palms.

While I generally agree that the BOR requirement in this case was more of an impediment, slowing down scouts who wanted to earn the palms, I think I disagree with your reasoning here. 

If, as a committee member, I want to get a good idea of how well the unit program is functioning, the two people I want to hear from the most are:

• the newest scout who just joined (having fun, learning what you need to, understand the process, etc), and
• the most experienced scouts (i.e. Eagles that stay), because they have a good idea of how the program has evolved (better/worse), are effectively beyond politics and personality conflicts because they already have their eagle and can be more honest in their assessments, and they can tell me if the troop program is able to keep and retain the interest of the older boys that we need to keep to teach the younger ones, and if not, what might be done about it.

Now, given that, I really don't have to wait for a BOR to have that discussion with the Scout, so I'm still good.

When my son earned his karate black belt, he had reached his goal, but he decided to stay in the program until he completed his first degree.  He wanted to demonstrate that he was in it for more than just that initial goal.  Most people, when you say black belt, don't really care or understand about what goes into degrees after that.

I kind of look at the (old method) eagle palms like that.  If I saw someone with Eagle palms, I knew that they didn't just get their Eagle and immediately leave.  They stuck around and presumably gave back to their unit.  With the new method, I wouldn't be sure - I guess I'll just have to talk to them.

In all seriousness, I do like that it rewards scouts who really did more than the minimum, and we've had that discussion on this forum before.  Even if they were a late bloomer and didn't get the Eagle until close to their 18th, they are recognized for the additional work they did.  What I don't like is that it reduces the motivation to stay in the unit and continue to contribute.

Either way, that's the policy, and that's what we'll do.

From the perspective of ownership of the name of the prior council.  If the Council's merged, then the new Council (if a new name was formed) or the surviving Council (if the old council was just absorbed), would "own" the name of the old council (all assets including intellectual property such as names, historic artwork, etc.).

This can probably help get you started.

https://www.ncacbsa.org/council-committees/membership/lions/

(for some reason, the resources links don't seem to be working)

https://newbirthoffreedom.org/lion-guide-and-parent-orientation-video/

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/ppt/LionGuide_ParentOrientation.pptx

In general, the Lion scouts will only attend a couple of the pack meetings, not all of them.

The most important thing is to have an experienced Scouter serve as a Lion Guide (not Den Leader) to help the parents coordinate activities and taking turns leading Lion meetings.

Question 1. Did you ever fill out an adult leader application, and if you did, was it ever turned in and processed.

If so, you should be able to inquire with the Council office or your District Executive what your "official role" in the unit is.

If the Cubmaster made you the Church Liasion, as Stosh says, this may mean you were registered as the Chartering Organization Representative (COR).  If so, this could be good news for you, depending on who much work you want to do.

As COR, you have the authority to "fire" the cubmaster, the committee chair, or any other adult leader in the unit, you do not have to even have a reason to do so.  You should also have the authority to go to the bank and have the Cubmaster's authority to use the account removed immediately.

Work with the Church to determine if you want to try to recover the inappropriately spent funds (police report and/or small claims court).

If you can do these things, it is, unfortunately, now also your job to put the unit back together and "hire" new leaders for the critical positions.  Your District Executive and Unit Commissioner can help you do this.  If you do not know these people, call your Council Office.

If you are not officially the COR, there is not a lot you can do, sorry.

Best of Luck.  People on this forum will generally help you as much as we can through a keyboard.

Concerned by the way I expressed my distate for the silly rules? WHATTTTTT???? Dismiss it entirely????? WHATTTTT????? Disregard the rule???? WHATTTT???? You need to look up those words in the dictionary! First, there is zero disregarding! That would suggest that I am ignoring the rule and wearing my Eagle Scout patch and I am 45 years old and not active in a troop etc. So there is zero disregarding of rules! Second, advocate for a policy change is NOT up to me, nor do I care to involve myself in such matters. Dismiss? Again, look up the word in the dictionary! To dismiss the rule would mean that I am ignoring policy and are committing the terrible act of wearing an Eagle Rank patch past 18 years of age! I would never think about committing such a terrible crime, which is up there with treason and breaking speed limit rules! Finally, silly rules? It is not silly rules, it is a rule I disagree with and that's my opinion and I stated it! The problem with snow flakes is that when anyone disagrees with them, they act like the other person is dismissing and disregarding and doing hate speech! In closing, the Boy Scouts have rules such as no adults wearing rank badges and yet let homosexuals in the BSA! So much for "Morally straight!"

Clearly, you don't know me, and I don't know you.  That is one of the greatest limitations with communicating over a method like this forum vs. had we been able to meet in person.  In fact, this is one of the general issues with communication in the modern era, is the lack to nuance a response or to adapt the vehemence of the response to the body language of the intended recipient.

If I read your message correctly, and after my read of the last one I grant that I may not be, but you may be the first person to ever imply that I was a snowflake, or that I was dismissing your argument because it was contrary to my own.  Come visit over and I&P and you will find that I have quite a few disagreements on the 'how' with other scouters, but I do not think that I would normally have been accused of outright dismissing the other's points simply because they are a contrary view.

In my defense, the term "silly rules" was yours.  I did not adequately address that you expressing that you wanted the rules to be different verses you were (or advocating for) breaking the rules, I grant that my response did not communicate that well.  I also should have better fully interpreted that balance as you described it in your post.  For this lack of adequate communication on my part, I apologize.

That said, my concern was truly with the way your position was expressed.  I am all for your advocating for a change in the policy and I would personally take no position in favor or against it should I be asked.  I can understand, I lived, on both sides of the issue.  But clearly, this forum is good for feedback, but we are a very narrow selection of the Scouting community.  We tend to always have those that are passionate about a position (regardless of the subject) and are often on opposing sides of the issue.  Those in the middle of most issues, but the ones that in numbers are most effected, don't tend to gravitate to places like here.

If you think the policy should change, if you have not already does so, start advocating the process.  Start talking to the key three of your Council to convince them, because only they are in a decent position to really bring the issue up to the national level.

Finally, please leave the throwbacks to membership decisions of the BSA off this thread of the forum, lest the entire conversation find itself in I&P.  It had nothing to do with either your original post or my original response.

I left this response public, because you deserved a public apology for my reading more into your comments that I probably should have when I made my public post.  Anything more on this is probably best addressed in PMs which you are welcome to send.

Other than some self-appointed individuals, there are no "uniform police" in Scouting.

I will admit that I kept my eagle badge on some of my my uniforms until I was no longer serving a Summer Camp Staff, at about 23.  While I am sure my attitude was I earned it, I should be able to display it, I also justified it as helping to inspire the Scouts I was teaching at Camp.  At the same time, I was in a co-ed explorer post, and on that uniform I never put on the eagle badge and instead went to the knot when I was 18, because I did not consider it fair to be so in their face to the women in the unit who were at least as skilled as I was, but could not earn the eagle.

When I came back to a leadership role as a Scouter/Parent, I removed the badges that were still on some old uniforms and replaced with with the knots.  One of our other Den leaders still had his eagle badge on his uniform, and even as a cub master, I felt that was his decision to make.  Again, I justified my not joining the uniform police force as that the parents and boys in his den would much more readily identify with the badge than a knot, and it provided a sense of he knows what he is doing.

Now, all that said ...

@The Black Eagle, I am concerned that the way you have expressed your distaste with the "silly rules" and all.  You are right that it does not rise to the magnitude of a speeding ticket, or anything else with the risk of life or injury to self or others.  But is an award bestowed by the BSA, and it is their right to dictate the proper way to wear it, or not, as the case may be.  Think about the intent of the rule before you dismiss it entirely.  Advocate for a policy change if you think that is appropriate.  To simply disregard the rule because you think it is silly or don't like that it diminishes your ability to tout your achievement goes against much of what that award represents.

Is anyone aware of a (ideally) scout sponsored patch/award for backpacking/hiking the trail and/or for completing various state segments of the trail?

I wanted to revive this thread, particularly this part highlighted.

 

I just heard from a new district advancement rep that he wants all Eagles to have the Outdoor Code memorized. I cannot recall anywhere, besides the Outdoor Ethics (Action/Awareness) Award where memorizing the code was "required". I get testing a candidate on the Oath, Law, Slogan, Motto. However, the Outdoor Code was never a rank requirements, so testing them on that should be informational at best.

 

Thoughts? Comments?

On the one hand, since this scout is well past this point and the BSA is a one and done organization, I agree that is should not be technically required .

That said, :

requirement 1e of the Scout rank is to repeat from memory the Outdoor Code and in your own words explain what it means.

Tenderfoot 1c is to tell how you practiced the Outdoor code on a campout or outing.

Second class 1b is to explain leave no trace and to describe how that has been practiced on a different outing from tenderfoot 1c.

First class 1b is similar for the Tread Lightly concept.

Life requirement 4 is that at least three service hours must be on a conservation related project.

So again, technically, if the Scout is already Life and going for Eagle, then Outdoor code (unrelated to Scout spirit) is not something that should hold back the advancement.  Then again BORs aren't technically supposed to be about retesting anyway, but more of how that concept has been taught/embraced in the program the Scout went through.

If you're running age-based patrols (which I know are not unique to LDS) then you're not running the program as B-P envisioned it.

I don't think that's entirely true.  BP often discusses scouts being in a patrol with one's friends/peers.  The Boys who join together generally stay together, etc.  This would imply, but not codify, age based patrols.

Each method has strengths and weaknesses.  I grew up with mixed age patrols, not because that was required, but it was the culture of my troop, and led to a good distribution of leadership and skills teaching (by the youth) that seems less difficult than my son's (generally) age sorted troop.

Congratulations on her achievement.

As for how common and where, this is all a matter of the local culture. In the White Stag leadership development program (they offer a program very similar to NYLT but run by venturing posts not council), this is not at all uncommon over the last 30-50+ years.

The thing that strikes me about the Hiking MB, and probably the reason that so few Scouts in my troop earn it, is not the total of 50 miles hiking, but the requirement of a 20-mile hike in one day. That's a lot for one day. I don't think I ever did that. My recollection of my Philmont trek is more like 7-10 miles per day. I am certain that my son never hiked 20 miles in one day.  I seem to recall a 15-mile historic trail somewhere but do not recall whether that was one day or two.  But never 20 miles.

Admittedly a different animal, but I had a group of 9 cub scouts(Wolf - Webelos) (and 6 adults) do 13+ miles in a day as a part of the HOST (History of Scouting Trail) here in DC.  Yes that is urban hiking instead of outdoors, yes, there is less elevation changes and more bathrooms.  No, we didn't plan to hike that much, it had been pitched as closer to 10, but the estimate was a bit off.  It did take the whole day, so I am glad we had one of the earlier start times.

I would have to believe that a decently practiced troop of boy scouts on a well selected route could do that.  20 Miles in one day, with day packing gear (not a fully loaded Backpack) is something this old body could probably still make - with a little more warm ups - and not that I am volunteering.

In the short term, while it will be a membership hit, the Scouts who really want to are supposed to be allowed to continue in the Troop. 

This would imply that LDS units would start to have some older boys in leadership which may help and encourage more boy-led, boy taught programs at the Troop level (and I do not mean to indicate that that is not happening now, I have only limited direct experience with LDS units). 

It would also allow those troops that remain to be a little larger - I know several stakes have problems keeping up their Troop membership.

From a discipline point of view, having boys there that WANT to be there, should be another positive.

On the down side, some of the most reliable venues and best motivated, district, volunteer leadership comes from LDS units.  I would hate to see a reduction in those resources as well.

While I am so glad this is not my decision to make, I'll add a couple of my thoughts.

1. As others have stated, technically this is all rumor at the moment.  Without official confirmation of the charges, this is difficult to adjudicate within the unit.

2. Even if the charges have been made, that does not necessarily mean the act was actually committed.  We've had more than a few instances of "it look liked ..." when it really wasn't.

3. While I am sure you would like to get his side of the story, because of the way the criminal justice system works, his legal council may have said to say nothing on the subject - this does not inherently mean that he is not being trustworthy or disobedient to your inquiry.

4. It would probably be fair for you to ask him/the family if he has in fact been charged.  Do not inquire if he did it - that makes you part of the legal process.  If he admits that he has been charged, that goes a long way in my book for speaking of his honesty.

5. You still have to protect other members of the unit.  I would suggest that he might be suspended until the court proceedings conclude.  If he is found or pleads guilty to the charges, then that is cause for removal from the unit, if not the BSA.  If he is not convicted of the charges, he could make an appeal to the council for extra time (post 18th birthday) for circumstances out of his control interfering with his completion of the rank in time.

6. It would be up to you and your unit to decide if he could complete the Eagle project, under appropriate supervision, while the case winds through the court.

Whatever happens, once a final disposition has been concluded, discuss the matter with the Scouts and parents and use it as a learning lesson for consequences to one's actions and/or remaining true to the scout oath and law (boy and unit leadership) under adverse circumstances.

So this begs the question: What do we teach the Scouts when they are expected to stay in camp and "enjoy" themselves, but adults go outside camp for reasons that are, shall we say, contrived for their own personal pleasure.

 

 

 

Stosh, we don't need to list all the reasons a adult would go offsite. I think it is reasonable to assume that running errands on behalf of the boys, the troop or even the camp, are all good reasons. What would be bad reasons? For me it is when an adult leaves camp for things like golfing or to get a burger for himself or other things which demonstrated selfishness as opposed to selflessness.

When I was program director for a camp, this usually wasn't an issue.  Cell phones were rare, and the nearest gas station was nearly an hour long windy dirt road away.  People didn't leave camp, but most units had the minimum adult coverage allowed, and in several cases had to be paired up with another unit to have the minimum adult coverage between them.

Camps are designed for the enjoyment of the youth.  That's a great purpose, but we really don't want the adults hanging around, hovering over the boys.  The camp is NOT designed for the adults interests or comfort - baring the occasional super scoutmaster type.

Given a choice of not enough adults and nobody goes, to making allowances for the adults to: first, meet their other needs and obligations (work, family, etc.) and second, to have a little time to themselves for their own activity that cannot be done in camp; I choose the latter.  Minimum adult coverage at all times.  If that means I need an extra adult or two to allow the adults to cycle out of camp for brief periods, I'll take that as well.

This is certainly an issue with the on-line system.

It would not be so bad, if there were a place to at least also indicate the unit's fee structure ...

$24 to National for Registration (is it prorated for months to recharter?)

$12 (optional) for the Boy's Life Subscription

This will be collected on-line, today

Additional Fees (units could have a place to enter the information)

$XX Council Insurance Fee

$XX Unit Dues

   some dens may have additional "Den Dues < $XX/year

   some pack activities may have additional activity fees

  With your unit dues payment, the unit will provide (book, neckerchief, unit numbers, or whatever they do/don't provide).

Application Fees for accepted adult leaders will be reimbursed by the unit (if your unit does this)

These will be collected by the unit at your first meeting, please make checks payable to "Unit YYY")

----

National doesn't want to add this to their system because it is too hard to keep track of all the individual unit fee structures and they don't want to collect the money belonging to other organizations (unit/cor) and have to reimburse or write out a check for it

The Units don't want to lose the ~3% credit card processing fee that would also happen (plus any additional fee national might put on as a convenience fee).

However, until these challenges are addressed, I doubt that either the units I work with are likely to turn on the on-line registration option.

As others have said, while it may not sit right with you, this doesn't have to be your  fight.

As the Cubmaster, your job is program.  Administration (including funds) is the job of the committee including the chair and the treasurer.

I am also of the "let if go" school of thought.  If you have made the COR aware of the issue and they do not want to follow up on it, that is their decision.

Maybe, have the current treasurer document how the prior year's funds were acquired and distributed - without comment (or maybe just to indicate where an expense was officially approved, or a receipt has been included).  Put it on record, and then leave it alone.  Let others pick up the mantle of outrage if necessary.  It is a stretch, but based on how you described the use of the funds - while not fair, could be justified.  Don't make it your fight if you don't have to.

Ask the committee to put in financial controls going forward.  (i.e. two signatures on any check, no cash disbursements, receipts required for reimbursement, pre approval (in committee minutes) of any expense above a certain amount, etc.).  As the leader of the Scout program, propose your budget - how much do you need for registration, activities, supplies and awards, ask the committee to approve the budget.  If the budget exceeds the funds available, propose fundraisers, or ask the committee to investigate fundraisers, review your unit membership dues and activity fees.

Give your boys the best program you can.  Thanks for all you do for them and on their behalf.