Jump to content

elitts

Members
  • Content Count

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

elitts last won the day on September 3

elitts had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

121 Excellent

About elitts

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan
  • Occupation
    Assessor

Recent Profile Visitors

1278 profile views
  1. I agree that a "discussion about porn" isn't related; however, I will argue (just one time) that the existence of porn IS related by virtue of it being a potential factor in YPT. I mean, my troop can't be the only one where there has been a scout caught watching inappropriate material on a cell phone. So when that happens, is it just a teen/tween being a standard kid or is that scout now a possible sexual abuse victim (because someone exposed them to it or allowed them to be exposed to it) that the Scoutmaster needs to report to Council and possibly the Police/Child Services? That said, I won't belabor the point as I have no further comments to make on the issue.
  2. The pack I was Cubmaster of had the rule that each scout had to have a "responsible adult" that remained on site. That didn't mean that I didn't occasionally offer to be that "responsible adult" for someone's kid who had to leave, but that was my choice at any given time. We didn't allow kids to just be randomly dropped off the way we do in Scouts.
  3. Yeah, I've seen that one too... Great! Lets water down the concept and criminalize more people at the same time. I can already picture the headline. Some 14-year old gets found looking at a porn site and between an outraged parent and a DA looking to get re-elected using a "tough on crime" platform, suddenly the classmate he/she got the link from is on trial for a sex crime. And since I want to be crystal clear, there is a clear and significant distinction between an adult exposing a youth to porn as a grooming tool and kids talking about and sharing that stuff among themselves.
  4. Another factor for any non-profit board of an organization that seeks grant funding is that many (if not most) major grants want to know if all of the Board members are donors. In some cases you aren't eligible or may receive lesser consideration if your Board donation rate isn't 100%. Of course, this can be accomplished by requiring a minimum $1.00 donation or a minimum $1000 donation.
  5. I do have to say here that the crudely phrased "Seat for sale" concept is going to be true in just about any non-profit Board of Directors. Not so much because someone willing to donate 10k or 20k is really that big a value to the organization, but because anyone able and willing to cough up that much money will probably know plenty of other people who can also cough up that much money. Most Boards of Directors will have a certain number of seats that can be used for members that may not be "workers" but who provide special access or connections the organization finds valuable.
  6. Any council that did approve a merger with another council that hadn't gone through bankruptcy first would be exhibiting a practically criminal level of fiscal irresponsibility and negligence.
  7. I agree about the council fee being more tolerable. But that's If (and only if), they use those more stable funds to actually provide competent administrative and record-keeping services. No more submitting MBC applications 3 or 4 times before they get processed. No more taking 2-3 months between MBC list updates. No more losing our Scouter's award requests or Insert other media taking 6 months to get them signed by the appropriate parties. Paying $60 now vs $12 before and getting the same sort of shoddy service they've been providing would be intolerable. If they could do their annual budgets based upon like 85%-90% of those expected council fees (with the rest going into either a rainy day fund). Then any funds still collected via FoS could be used for capital improvements and repairs to the reservations. (NOT council buildings, which is where ours decided to dump a bunch of cash)
  8. I don't know if the issue of someone trying to just walk away from their responsibilities has ever come up, but in my troop, once you commit, you are committed to covering any costs associated with your commitment. So if we book a spot to Philmont for you and you pay the deposit to sign up, you are responsible for the whole thing. However, if someone has ever become unable to go, we would also search far and wide for someone else to fill the spot and get them reimbursed. As far as I can recall, this has always been possible when someone has had to back out, though I think one time they ended up finding someone in another troop because no one in our troop was interested. We had eaten a couple of Summer Camp registrations over the years, so now the troop only submits the deposit. Everything else must be paid directly by the family to the council.
  9. In the post where someone mentioned their troop doing a car wash, they were explicitly doing the washes for "your donation" not "for $5 but we'll take whatever you give". There is something of a difference in intention and definitely a difference in the effect. I've worked for organizations that try this both ways for event programs. If you sell the event programs for $1, you will often make significantly less money than if you advertise it as "Please make a donation". Because while many people in the second scenario will just take a program and walk away, the average donation from the people who choose to pay was usually $5 or more. Personally, the only aspect of the issue that bothers me is the fact that the Popcorn sale actually violates the BSA's own standard for an "acceptable" fundraiser. That's certainly within their rights, but it still bothers me.
  10. Pretty much every news comments section I've ever read starts out with complaints about how "the Liberals this" or "the Conservatives that" and then devolves from there. Particularly when anonymous comments are allowed. It's usually a little better if comments are only permitted by people with active (and in particular, paid) memberships. It can also be a little better if people are required to sign up under their own names. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the subject of the article is political. There's always at least one troll out there just waiting to chum the comments with something like "Only a Trump-tard Lemming would be interested in that" or "There we go again with Hillary's socialists trying to waste money". (Those are actual statements I've seen used in local news comments)
  11. I feel like the core of the problem here is that you asked the "wrong" question and, as bureaucrats and customer service folks are wont to do, they answered the question as asked without anyone thinking "I wonder if there is another way to get this done". If the important issue here is getting the scout his Eagle Board of Review, I think PACAN is correct in his approach. If the scout can prove 6 "non-contiguous" months of active scouting, I could easily see the Advancement Committee granting a BOR even without a SM conference in these circumstances. But if your desire is to be publicly acknowledged as correct with instructions telling the SM he is wrong and must concede, you are only going to end up being disappointed. Council staff are notoriously unwilling to exert any significant pressure on units unless the unit is ignoring an utterly black and white rule, and doing it publicly.
  12. Except that when we were selling the popcorn in the 80s, it was only "pretty expensive". The popcorn has gotten progressively more overpriced as time has passed. In the late 80s/early 90s, the box of microwave popcorn was something like 50% more expensive than the popcorn in the store. Now the markup is more like 400+% higher on virtually everything. AND, I'd argue that the quality has fallen somewhat at the same time. (I remember it actually tasting better than most of what was available in the stores, but I'll admit that could have just been inexperienced taste buds.)
  13. Particularly when all the advice on selling from BSA is that you shouldn't be marketing the product, you should be "Selling Scouting".
  14. I'm seriously surprised that more councils didn't do this as soon as regular litigation started popping up in the news. Transfer the camps to 3rd party non-profits with charters that forbid them selling the property and requiring them to be maintained as camps for youth activity and then lease them back to BSA. There's a good reason why places like hospitals have technically separate corporate entities to hold title to property and conduct fund-raising and endowment building activities.
  15. The US Marshals Service is not "the police"; and while I know there are idiots out there advocating the elimination of every law enforcement agency, that's not what most people chanting that phrase are talking about. They are clearly talking about the local police forces they interact with on a regular basis. Not that I think "defund the police" is a reasonable idea, but misrepresenting things doesn't help anyone. I mean, considering the motivations of a crime has always been involved in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Someone who steals $100 of diapers and baby formula is pretty much always going to be treated differently than someone who stole a $100 pair of headphones; this DA is simply making the policy formal instead of leaving it up to the discretion of individual ADAs. I'll grant you that this announcement being made publicly is purely a PR move, but it's not like policies of this sort are somehow an abnormal or absurd action for a DA to take.
×
×
  • Create New...