jwest09

You know, you're shutting down a conversation among Scouters with differing views, and replacing it with a question which no one here has the answer to. Is there something wrong with exploring why military academies (historically male-only institutions that have fairly recently gone co-ed) do or do not offer pertinent insight as to how the BSA may approach the same kind of problem?

My high school debate coach would call this a straw man argument.

How would you characterize my position as disrespectful? I'm sure Latin Scout and lots of folks don't agree with the change, but have contributed heavily to the program in the past. And most continue to do so. Heck, about half of my Scouting friends and peers could be described this way. Its certainly not a lack of respect for contribution to the program. I am taking issue with the argument that "the program is dead!" The glib "Ha!" and dismissal of those of us who commit to continue to deliver the highest quality program we can. I find that attitude to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you've already written off the program as a failure, then, by your own definition, none of us can ever make it successful. I don't agree, I think that's wrong. And I don't know what response you'd want from me, other than a commitment to continue to deliver the Scouting program to the best of my ability. Is that not respectful?

I'm not talking. I'm actually doing. I'm doing my part to deliver the program. If it does die, it will not be because of those of us who remain committed to making the program run. I would suggest that if you're seeing things the rest of the world isn't seeing... Maybe the problem isn't the rest of the world.

I'm sorry that you feel so grief stricken. Please know that, many many of us are still here, toiling away at delivering the same amazing program to all who wish to participate - along with millions of our brothers and sisters across the worldwide Scouting movement. Some may - that is their choice. Obviously they don't feel very strongly about their position if they fold so easily. I've seen plenty of cases where frivolous legal threats were dismissed rapidly and without concern - as it should be. Its a shame that "legal bullying" is viewed by some as an acceptable in our country.

How do you figure? There's plenty of legal precedent confirming the validity of the local option.

The "International Day of the Girl" seems to be a holiday observed mostly on Facebook, and few other places. I doubt the timing has any practical impact on the business of delivering the Scouting program.

Everything you've mentioned here (including the parts you deleted after editing your post) have been well thought out. There's a lot of folks who'd be happy to offer advice, guidance and suggestions to alleviate your concerns. This forum has more than a decade's worth of history on the topic.

"Whether You Think You Can…Or Whether You Think You Can’t…You’re Right!" -- Attributed to Henry Ford If you want to find a way to deliver the Scouting program to those who wish to participate, you'll find a way. If you don't want to, you'll find an excuse for not doing so. Same as it's always been.

I don't understand why it would be difficult to implement this. You offer and deliver the program to those who want to participate. Same as you always have.

Take a step back from all the legalese and what not. Wouldn't this lesson be much more powerful if the boys learned this on their own? Rather than having the adult leadership step in and arbitrarily prohibit it?

The compromise I've struck is that, once a year, I'll pass along their FOS material to the parents in our unit. If or how much the parents choose to donate is up to them. The unit and the CO do not make separate donations. I think it is important for strong units to contribute back to the larger Scouting world in some capacity. FOS is one way to do that, but far from the only way.

I disagree with some of the prevailing wisdom here. A patrol is the basic unit of Boy Scouting - a group of boys participating in the program together. I see no reason why they shouldn't be permitted to purchase their own gear. They are, in theory, a group of friends deciding what they wish to spend their own money on. They wish to spend it on gear which they will use to participate in the Scouting program. I can't possibly see how the troop can arbitrarily decide that the troop now owns that gear - any more than the troop could claim that they somehow own my own personal tent, hiking boots, water bottle, or other equipment. The fact that the boys happened to use their gear while camping with the troop does not somehow magically make the troop own that gear. The fact that the troop allowed them to store their personal gear in the troop's storage isn't relevant to me. If the troop wanted to require them to donate the gear to the troop as a condition of storing it with the troop's gear, then that should have been discussed before the troop granted permission to store their gear. It's their troop, but its not their gear. You can't just retroactively claim that you own someone else's personal property. There's zero reason to involve the PLC in this debate. The PLC's job is troop leadership and program. This is neither a program nor a leadership issue. If I were in your shoes, I'd approach this not as a troop issue, but as a personal issue. I'd offer to act as a mediator between the boys involved in the dispute, if the involved parties wanted my help. My approach would be as I previously laid out: encourage all of the boys (including those not currently in the troop - it's still their gear!) to reach a consensus on how to proceed. If a consensus can't be reached, I'd recommend a vote with a simple majority deciding the outcome. If you want a policy prohibiting storing personal gear in the troop storage area, that might be OK, but I don't think it would prevent you from having this situation come up in the future.

I'd consider the property to be jointly owned by the boys who pitched in to purchase it originally. I'd ask the boys in question simply what they want to do with it. Ideally the boys would reach a consensus, and that would be a decision. If there was disagreement, I'd probably encourage a vote with a simple majority deciding the outcome. If some of the boys have left the troop, or just don't care, they can abstain from discussion and voting. I disagree with presenting this specific case to the PLC - it's not their equipment, they have no say in what gets done with equipment that does not belong to them. In terms of having a policy going forward - I wouldn't agree that you need one. These kinds of situations aren't particularly common, and what tends to happen is, you do end up limiting and punishing a bunch of reasonable people because you had the misfortune of encountering a couple unreasonable people. I personally think its a fine idea for patrols to have some ownership of patrol equipment, and I wouldn't want to see that get unnecessarily limited just because this one dad made a stink about something.

What I would have liked, and what I actually needed, are two different things. If you asked me at the time - yes, I'd have loved if another more experienced adult Scouters could have explained things on my behalf, told my SM the "right" way to do things, and "run interference" so that I could do it my way. But that's not the right thing to do, is it?