Col. Flagg

1 hour ago, Redman said:

I am new to scouting and the committee.  I have recently found out that our Committee Chair has our pack trailer registered and titled only in her name.  She has threatened to leave the pack.  If this is the case where does the trailer go?  She bought it with pack money but she has been in control of the finances for 14 years and our last audit was done 11 years ago.  In short is it safe to assume she owns the trailer since her name is the only one on it and the pack will not be able to get it unless she is willing to sign it over?  Who should the pack trailer be registered, titled, and insured by?

The charter organization owns all Pack assets, so if she leaves and takes the trailer she is breaking the law.

Of course, unless there is a way to prove the Pack paid for the trailer (or was with Pack money) you might just be pointing fingers. There are a few lawyers around here who might be coerced in to providing their thoughts.

While this is a very cool experience, there are still dangers at base camp. I've seen rattlers and bear in camp, and bear protocol in base camp is required as a result. I think it was 2016 they had to put down 3-4 bear that year, one of which was a repeat offender (I think it was the old 3-legged bear) that kept coming in to base camp looking for freebies.

I would hope that the families get the same training (and adhere to the rules) that the visiting crews do. Otherwise I think I just heard BSA's insurance rates going up.

5 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

If people leaving an adult book store bought a lot of cookies would it still be appropriate for a Girl Scout to be there? I believe the zoning separations from schools, etc are probably similar. I would argue it goes beyond 'what is legal' to 'what is appropriate'. 

Yes, you said it quite well. I guess I thought that was evident in my post but you spell it out more succinctly.

17 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

In response to your previous post about Scouts doing things "against federal law":  Nothing she is doing violates any law, state or federal.  She is selling cookies, presumably not the kind of cookies they may sell inside.  At most she might have been violating some rule of the GSUSA, but the story seems to indicate that she wasn't even doing that.

Giving away clean needles, condoms or breathalyzers aren't breaking any laws either. HOWEVER, they are within arms length of people violating state and/or federal law. So assuming your litmus test is that they're not doing anything illegal, then the options I put forward would be equally as ethical and ok for Scouts to do. 

The issue is about exposing kids to potential illegal activity, or benefiting from said activity.

1 minute ago, NJCubScouter said:

I understand that, and yet, there they are.

I don't know.  Maybe they could violate the Emoluments Clause, that doesn't seem to be enforced either. 

So just because the Federal and state law enforcement groups are at loggerheads, doesn't mean that an organization that prides itself on character should be making money off of the controversy. In fact, they should be staying as far away from this type of controversy as possible.

What's next? Handing out clean needles to addict as a service project? Condoms outside of seedy hotel? Breathalizer tests outside bars? 

Common sense would tell most rational parents that being around such places is not something to expose young children to.

6 minutes ago, MattR said:

Rather than have a troop create a venturing crew for older scouts (which I know, does not work) how about a venturing crew create a troop just to handle the younger scouts until they're old enough for venturing?

Like the LDS did? 

Your points on Venturing are somewhat true. Girls tend to have less experience outdoors and with general leadership, whereas the boys tend to have more leadership and stronger outdoor skills. In my experience (and this will get @Stosh happy) the girls tend to be better at management, rather than leadership. So managing the Crew tends to get picked up by the girls pretty well. Leadership, during the activities and events, tends to be more the boys area.

I agree in lowering the age. I would have much rather seen Venturing be the program to bring coed Scouting to a larger age group, rather than girls in Boy Scouts.

3 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

I don't see any U.S. Marshals there padlocking the door and confiscating what's inside.

No, but you have seen Sessions act on this issue rescinding the Obama era attempt to legitimize it. Fact is, it is still illegal under Federal law. Good primer on it here.

So what other things against Federal law should Girl and Boy Scouts be allowed to do?

4 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

If girls in Boy Scouts was as popular as National keeps telling us, there should be a surplus of fresh volunteers ready to carry the flag for this historic change.  

More like...

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I agree with the above. I may have read the other comment incorrectly but I did not see volunteers state that they wanted the separate but equal program.  At all of my District and “family scouting” meetings there were questions on where the volunteers would come from given the proposal.  There were questions from COs in how this would logistically work.  The opinions were either fully implement coed or stay away.  I didn’t see much (or any) support of separate Troops. It appears that national is now realizing this.

Right. For those of us on the ground we see the issues with recruiting and keeping volunteers. Now BSA wants COs wishing to roll out Coed Scouting to have *TWO* units with two leadership teams? Or were they thinking that the already overburdened Boy Scout leaders would simply sign up to run the girl's unit too? Who knows.

36 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

The same draw that exists now for boys and girls, yet more existing boy scout girls will have an awareness of it?

I don't assume to know what will happen but my hypothesis is that having more girls in BSA is probably better for girls in Venturing than having no girls in BSA.

Why would you assume that? BSA has just created a competing product. So when we have been recruiting this year so far, all my Crew has been hearing from girls is either 1) No thanks, or 2) I am going to join Scouts to work on Eagle. That's what's really happening, as opposed to what BSA thinks will happen.

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This was exactly the opposite of what I have heard at our meetings.  Most have voiced support of fully coed and rejected this proposal as there were not enough volunteers to implement.

It was pretty clearly noted here (in the forum and in the media) that the implementation was to be "separate but equal" with regard to Boy Scouts and the implementation of coed. If this message is being changed now it may be that BSA has heard what many of us were saying originally, that the building a totally separate coed program put too much of a strain on already strained unit resources. I wonder how long it will be before they realize they are cannibalizing Venturing crews too?

However, it is 180 degrees from what they were trumpeting this summer in order to sell this to the opposing rank and file.

19 hours ago, SpEdScouter said:

Just like the title says, we are going to be staying for 3 days in a state park. Can we stay in a camper like a pop up instead of using tents?

I would imagine that the use of a camper is similar to the use of a cabin. There'd likely have to be a clear adults area and a clear kids area, with all the requisite YPT considerations thrown in. As pointed out, it would not count toward OA or Camping MB or TFC.

2 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Let's not jump to conclusions by calling people liars.

Their intent may indeed be and have been to keep them completely separate but upon further examination of the plans for implementation, they may end up determining that the final result has to be different. That doesn't make them liars. I often tell my kids we are going to do this or the other but sometimes life happens and we have to change our plans.

Right. I makes them poor planners and leaders, but not liars.

3 minutes ago, qwazse said:

So, my larger concern for BSA4G -- at least in early years -- is not girls "outleading" boys. It is adults willing to provide girls the controlled chaos that our boys have grown comfortable with.

Which is a problem all boy troops struggle with today with the helicopter gunship parents & leaders.

14 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Oh baloney.  We are going to our library's wine tasting party next month and sponsoring a table.  (It's not very expensive to do so.)   A local liquor store and their vendors donate all the wine and spirits, and local restaurants donate all the food, and it's a wonderful event, and the names of the donors are on the tables.  It's a great way to do fundraising.  Some charitable giving is quiet, other giving is not quiet.  Neither is wrong.

First, no one is saying it is wrong. What I am saying is that true philanthropic giving does not come with the expectation of receiving anything in return.

Second, and several have pointed this out already, knots are for achievements. When you allow someone to buy a knot you really do water down what they are supposed to mean. Imagine a Scout being allowed to buy an Eagle palm or World Conservation Award through a charitable donation. If BSA wants to recognize folks for giving, then why not a pin or plaque or patch that is distinguishable from those earned through achievement? Their very own West program provides for this. Give a patch that says "1910 Society" or something which is worn in the temporary patch location; not a knot.

Lastly, let's not obfuscate the issue by comparing donations from commercial venues to charitable events. This is done by these businesses to promote their business in hopes of increasing profits while at the same time giving them a tax write off. This is the OPPOSITE of philanthropic giving. So if you truly want "baloney", that's where you'll find it.

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

You hit the nail on the head in that many of use will continue to focus only on our units.  As one who is a former professional (lasted a couple of years, way too much Sustaining Membership and numbers while not near enough program), former district volunteer, etc etc now focus is my unit.  

Sadly I am torn.  I know the value that scouting brings, I can see challenges within the district, but do I want to put up with the hassle and group think to try and change it?  We have two district scout events, attendance is OK, but they really need to be revamped and brought up to date, be more engaging.

I will add that our PLC runs a gear drive once a year to collect gentle used Scout uniform items and gear, which we donate to the district to disperse to disadvantaged units (cannot recall the official name BSA uses for this effort). District does not have an official (working) program of such. Neither does council...at least not one that is readily discernible from anything I have seen or heard.

We also have an outreach program, run by our Guides, Den Chiefs and a few ASMs, that help local packs with anything they might need. Guys get service hours for this and the packs get Scout help. Again, nothing I have seen the district or council do really.

16 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

This seems more appropriate:

Consider these Girl Scout cookie and beer pairings

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/02/06/girl-scout-cookie-beer-pairings/311103002/

Yeah, we have you already beat at this game. Cookies -n- adult malt beverages and doughnuts -n- adult malt beverages.

Coincides with unofficial "folks who like adult malt beverages and just happen to be assistant scoutmaster night"

2 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

Uh oh, she is really going to get it for this:

Started selling before the official start of the sale. What does BSA do when they catch someone selling popcorn before the official start date?

Make them council popcorn chairman. 

14 minutes ago, Rock Doc said:

This might just work! Adding details like this can make a relatively simple action quite impressive and highly memorable - and what soon-to-be Boy Scout isn't going to love fire raging at the sound of his name!

I will add then, that our troop sent our OA ceremony team (in regalia) to cross the Scouts over...even those not coming to our troop.

8 minutes ago, Rock Doc said:

I've seen fires lit this way, and given enough "liquid encouragement" the effect can be "illuminating"!

In our instance though, we could have upwards of a dozen AOLs, so I guess mulitple zip lines might work. Thanks!

We had four zip lines coming in from the cardinal points. Dads on ladders with multiple arrows per zip line (12 kids, 4 lines, 3 arrows each). Name called, arrow let fly.

Oh, one dad was able to rig a small blower in the back of the fire place. When the arrow made contact with the fire the blower let out a little "puff" which, aimed upward, cause the fire to roar. Cheap special effect but it was pretty cool.

Arrow on a zip line in to the fire. Still used by many council camps so if they can do it, why not a unit?

32 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

What they do -- they send three uniformed adults to the Librarian's house to go through the library with the librarian.   

My husband was one of the ones to go and I grilled him a little before giving up -- why does it take three adults to do this? Why couldn't the kid just do it himself with a little instruction and review?

I would hope that trained adults would push back on the SM and MEET with the Scout instead of being so hands on. This is where I think we fail the boys. If we know better, why even go to the Librarian's house UNLESS you are going to walk him through what to do?

It's okay for adults to say "No" to the SM and tell him why this is a bad idea.

9 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

Awful news, RIP Simon :-(

IMHO, I don't know how having the parent there would have helped prevent this accident.

Who knows. Maybe they didn't know the activity was going on. Maybe they would have said no.

The point is that having the parents there helps to cover the leaders since their presence makes them complicit in any activities their child participates in.

How 'bout them values, huh? 

2 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

SM was complicit.

[snip]

But here is the thing, there are NO PLC meetings. In the past 2 years, I can count on one hand how many occurred. The Scouts are not being counseled on the side, instead they are being interrupted and adults taking over. There is so much stuff not being done, and when things are attempted there is resistance from the adults on it. Yet now the adults want lesson plans, Scouts teaching adults prior to meetings, etc.

Very sorry to hear that.

I amend my previous statement: I would advise my guys to leave for another troop. This one is clearly adult-led and has not plans on changing in the near term. I'd want my boys to be able to learn, fail and succeed. Sounds like you want that for your kids and everyone else. Sorry your good efforts are falling on deaf ears.

The boys will appreciate your efforts as they get older.