HashTagScouts

I agree with you that in true practice, most CO's are pretty much hands off as to program, but do understand they have some stake of the use of their facilities. In the BSA's eyes, they tend to operate as though that is not the case. Districts/councils should be concerned at least from the perspective of liability. If an injury occurred at a troop meeting in the church basement, for example, you can bet that the BSA insurance is not going to pay if another third party has coverage that could pay (the church) under a subrogation clause.

The stress here is obviously real, and I understand you are wanting to just make sure you dot your i's and cross your t's, but council has nothing to do here. Bottom line, this person is refusing to sign the application, and has thus not gone through any channel to be approved as of yet by council, so they have no dog in this fight at the moment. And do not let a unit commissioner tell you otherwise, they have no authority over you. As this individual has not submitted an application, and has not gone through background check etc. they cannot be a leader until they do so. I'm with @SSScout that the mother of this child may not be such a great choice, as I could very well see the scenario of this man being on every activity and defacto assuming the role as ACM (also would add stress to whomever is serving in the CM role during this "transition time" that they have to deal with him being around, and clearly he has no respect for authority). I know I have seen threads on this forum before (as well as "real life" experience) of statements that the ACM or ADL doesn't really have to go through the registration process, which is plain wrong. I would never want to be the person who has to explain to a parent why their child was physically/mentally/sexually abused because I tried to save someone a few bucks and not register them.

According to the school spokesperson, it was a pre-arranged gathering point. The youth broke into multiple groups to site-see for the day, and that was the location they were to meet at before boarding buses for their return trip home.

Itemizing lunch menus is not at all significant or necessary. Use a rough estimated value ( large pizza is $12 and has 8 slices- if I expect each person to have 3 slices, how many pizzas will I need) and get an estimated total figure. The scout can later input the actual hard figure spent, and include a photocopy of the receipt. That is hardly worth the SM spending more than 60 seconds explaining to a scout during the draft phase. I wish I had that kind of time to spend on any aspect of scouting with a single youth in a week- yeesh.

Your PLC should set a standard for what it means to be considered "active in your troop" - and clear expectation is that is the measuring stick that will be used for rank advancement criteria that stipulate this as a requirement. For example, STAR requirement #1: "Be active in your troop for at least four months as a First Class Scout." For example, 50% (60%, 75%, etc.) of all troop activities must be attended during that 4 months. Discuss with the PLC, and especially the SPL, are there times where it may be acceptable to have less than that percentage? If a child is from a split home, and one parent does not allow their child to "do scouting" on their weekend, should we bend? If Scout X has a soccer finalist tournament 4 hours away? I think that is reasonable, but if you give them logical scenarios it is helpful, and to me make it more acceptable to the other scouts that there is an expectation and it is up to them to decide what they will attend. As far as what events the PLC is planning- yeah, that is probably where the main focus should be at. Are these older scouts not part of the PLC? If they are in PORs, I would say they should be there and influence the events being chosen. A trap that I see far too often is adults set the parameters too tightly on what the PLC can select. If they chose a campout 3 hours away that will be a canoe trip, yet the adults don't want to do that activity, they steer the youth away from doing it. Or, the adults may think they are doing the "right thing" by having the campouts be activities that even the brand new 11 year scout has to be able to participate in every time. Some 11 year olds have developed differently than others, or even are just more general interest towards the more arduous outdoor activities than their peers, so don't get so hyper-inclusive minded that in turn you are turning away the older youth. Of course, I would be sure to tell the older youth "we planned these with you in mind, so I would like to believe I can expect you are going to participate".

If this person refused to sign the items you indicate, the application cannot be sent on to council to process. Thus, as your COR states, he is not an approved leader. For the sake of the youth, he should not be allowed to preside over the meeting and present himself as the CM. The COR has all right to block him from even attending, if they so chose to. As far as your DE, it isn't up to them- at all. This is a CO issue. The DE could be there to be only a voice lent to the COR as the COR is asking this person to leave or explaining why they are not approving them to be their unit leader, but really the De can only say just that the COR made the decision. It is not council/national that are rejecting them, it is your CO, so the DE is under no obligation to have to be involved.

If the weekend was just families, who mostly (or even all) happen to be cub scouts but it wasn't actually a pack or den planned weekend, then absolutely no. it would be like counting your sons nights if it was just your own family that went camping at the state park. If these kids were there and did anything to show leadership- even if it was helping the cubs to start their campfire, teach a knot, etc. I would approve myself. As others point out, you have the final say on whether the scout has meet the 20 night requirement or not, no one from your lodge is going to ask for records, so trust your own gut on this. The "standards of the Boy Scouts of America" only applies to the long-term camping requirement- that's to say we wouldn't count the nights a kid spent at the private Camp Lackawanda that is more like a resort than a BSA summer camp.

I agree- I have never met an Eagle candidate that didn't have to make adjustments to their plan once they started the project. Having them take a stab at it beforehand can be the best tool to mentor them on what may become an issue, if done as is, when they begin work.

I appreciate your opinions. For me, as long as we are absolutely committed and preaching respect, I have no issues with the ceremonies. I take more objection of using names like "redskins", which is a total racial slur, or "fighting Sioux" (both the implication that NA are merely savage warriors, and that the term Sioux was appropriated from another NA group and used to refer to the Dakota/Lakota/Nakota peoples as snakes). I've been fortunate to make connections to a number of NA peoples in my lifetime, many are like me that they have exceptionally mixed ancestry, but also quite a few that are fully Native American/Native Alaskan. Generally I have found that few take offense to using true NA terms to name campsites or camps. And for those who I have explained what the OA is and what it borrows from Lenni-Lenape lore, I've never really heard anything negative about it. Many still see the BSA as wholesome and striving to do good in the world (the "what are you, some kind of Boy Scout?" type of thing), so that helps so long as we continue to stay true to that.

I don't think your SM is trying to be an obstacle. The explanation I can offer that is probably what he is getting at, but possibly not explaining explicitly- there is a lot of issue that can arise when two scouts are working on projects concurrently at the same location. If scout #1 is say building a handicap ramp as an element of his project, and scout #2 is pouring footings and building the deck/landing that the ramp from scout #1 is going to connect to, the ultimate question is who is really providing the planning and/or leadership? In other words, there is the perception that scout #2 is doing something that is necessary and intrinsically linked to scout #1's project, so therefore scout #2 was doing something that scout #1 should have done. Remember, those who are going to be on the EBOR probably know little to nothing about the youth, nor the beneficiary, and are relying on the scouts to explain what happened and how they performed. My son and another scout from his troop did projects that were for our church. The other scout had started his over a year before my son, and part of his project was rebuilding a ramp on the parish hall. Part of my sons project was rebuilding a set of stairs on the parish hall. Both the ramp and the stairs were attached to different sides of a stonework landing that neither were doing any work to. When my son went to the district advisor to present his project plan, he was explicitly asked if the stairs physically was attached to the ramp- and that if the answer was yes, then my son either had to wait until the other scout had completely finished his project and come back and present again, or find something else to do for the reasoning in my example above.

Having NA ancestry, I can understand the sensitivity (and I am thankful for it really) on the history of treatment towards Native Americans. Bringing awareness of it should be a part of any presentation of anything NA. I very much appreciate @qwazse stating "There is a difference between making money off someone's history and legends, and inspiring greatness through honoring someone's history and legend." and I am very enthusiastic towards anyone, OA or not, to take the time to seek out local NA groups and learn about their culture and history. For many NA groups today, they are challenged to educate their youth to keep traditions and language alive, and most are very welcoming to non-NA individuals to share their knowledge with them. However, let's keep in mind one very important thing- the OA is representing the story of Lenni-Lenape traditions. Yes, it is subjective on who gave the telling of those traditions, and how they were interpreted into what became the ceremonies that the OA uses- however, the only formal establishment that is continually needed as to whether the OA, in whatever part of the world it exists today, should continue to use the Lenni-Lenape traditions is up to the Lenni-Lenape. If you are a lodge in say Kansas, your interpretation of the ceremony should still be through the lens of the Lenni-Lenape, not the NA group in your area. Even the regalia used should be based on Lenni-Lenape. I appreciate the sensitivity towards other NA groups, and it would seem very un-scoutlike if we weren't considerate of their feelings. I wish I knew how much effort and discussion was going on between the OA and the modern Lenni-Lenape descendant groups, and how they truly feel (or how much they could help us to be more true and honorable to this story). Personally, I think it should be required after the Ordeal ceremony for every new member to hear the legend told in a sit-down, here's what it means way, sans regalia and the dramatic element just such that the context of it, that it is an interpretation of one specific NA group, is soundly understood. The whirlwind that is the Ordeal weekend today, from my experiences, doesn't truly do that, and most of the younger scouts remember little of the ceremony other than "there were some Indians" (which, yes, I cringe about and will do my best to get them to listen to the legend of it, but I probably get 1 out 5 to actually be willing to take the time to listen, which is why I feel it needs to be mandatory). Sorry, I realize this is a great deviation away from the topic of this thread, but I feel it is so important that we have discussion on keeping the OA relevant, while also keeping its traditions relevant as well (that is in the obligation, after all)- and if anyone from the Exec Board actually reads these threads, I am happy to be part of whatever group is assembled to engage the Lenape to sit with them and discuss how we can continue to honor them in a way that does not offend (even if that means stopping the OA ceremonies).

These may not be exactly what you were using, but you perhaps could modify them to your needs: http://trax.boy-scouts.net/scoutttrax.htm

Good assessments. How many times have we seen scouts (or even adults for that matter) wearing a sash at a non-OA event, because they think that the sash is the penultimate of what the OA is? There is, and should be, so much more to the OA than just the workday aspect. Convincing youth of that is a hard thing- and, if the other aspects such as fellowship weekends are not full of fun, or even fun-based learning events, then there is the challenge of getting the youth to chose to go to that over a troop event (let alone anything non-scouting related they could do). Our lodge, IMO, suffering a lot from the "we can have the OA run a trading post" at X council activity. Conclave has traditionally been a pretty fun event in our section- I would say my son was not entirely engaged to the OA until he got to experience Conclave. The expense of it can be prohibitive though. Our council charges above the per attendee fees set by the Section, which drives me crazy. Personally, I think that our council wants the OA doing all this work, but also wants the operation of the lodge to be budget neutral, so we soak the members for every event. Hardly makes anyone feel like they are part of any special group. Paying $30 to go and do a weekend full of work, not sure many would see that as a good experience or value. I am curious to how members from other lodges view the relationship of their councils in relation to the OA and costs. Does your council supplement the OA from a budget perspective?

Use his words against him as part of your "have a nice day" dismissal: Mr. Jones, we understand you have concerns and that you feel strongly about those concerns. While we do absolutely take safety seriously, the very intent of the scouting program is to empower scouts to run THEIR program, not ours. If you believe that we are not the right fit for your child, we can respect that and feel it is best that we part amicably, and sincerely hope that you are able to find another unit that aligns to your vision of what is "the right troop".

Unfortunately, this post above all else is the issue for me. We cannot preach it is OK to only follow 7 points, 8 points, or 11 points of the Scout Law. It is all. Do we give an automatic boot? I would say no, but that does not mean advancement to the highest levels are possible for that youth. From Life, requirement #2: As a Star Scout, demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life.

Option B, but don’t wait, do it now. Offer them that the troop will transfer 100% of their fees to a new troop now so they can fully charter for 2019.

You folks all hit some good marks, and my observations from the past 5 years being back in Scouting with my son generally fall in line with your perceptions. I also began to really talk to “older scouts” (as well those who were 18+ that still came around the Lodge events. Personally, yes National got very skittish on “the secret society” concerns, and the directive today on Ordeal is basically if the candidate shows up, and stays through the induction ceremony, that is all that is required. You can’t make them do the challenges, and anyone who wants to know all what goes on during the weekend (parent), you can’t ignore their request. The cub ceremonies are a loss, but in my own view, they were not doing much to actually motivate youth getting guns ho on being outdoorsman in recent years. Arguably, the new scripts are an attempt by National to get scouts interested in high adventure, though in a very cornball way that I don’t see will be impactful. Overall, I just see less and less interest by scouts to do high adventure. Even just weekend canoe or backcountry backpacking weekends are a struggle to get them interested. Couple with the number of adult leaders that have zero interest, and it is not a good recipe. My honest suggestion to our Lodge/Section youth leaders has been to rethink their model. Having a “fellowship weekend” once or twice a year, where board games, Magic card games, movies and and flashlight tag at the council camp is a huge opportunity wasted. You aren’t going to get the 14+ year old Paul Bunyan type Scouts to waste their time (or money) on it. Plan a weekend that involves going out and doing something that requires using scoutcraft skills might just get the scout who is bored with his troops’ car camping, adult planned weekends to come and be with other scouts from other units that are in the same boat. Let OA be an avenue for delivering scouting in a way that many troops are lacking. It may not draw back the scouts or troops that have drawn themselves away from council camporees/Klondike derby, etc. (IMO many of those units withdrew because they didn’t see those events giving their scouts a challenge), but it gives the OA the opportunity to be special to the scouts who want to be involved in something that is more mature, without just harping the $1,000+ high adventure base opportunities or NOAC.

The message in our council was basically identical to Circle 10, so yes, it is a boilerplate.

A photo of the scouts (with holiday season, perhaps you have that opportunity that the pack or troop is gathered and can herd them together for a quick shot) and perhaps a card signed by as many of the youth as you can is a wonderful gift. Most leaders that I have seen step away cherish the memories they made, and probably have more gear than they care to admit they built up in their years in the program

The boat sounds like something that indeed could be decisive, especially if someone is using it for personal use far more than the scouts are using it. Biggest issue here from what you have told us though, is as @SSScout and @scoutldr point out- if the church is defunct, then this former pastor is NOT the COR as there is no Charter Organization here! That means there is not really a troop, and you absolutely have right to question the spending of any money, as all that money is questionable as to who "owns" it. Troops do not actually own $, they can fundraise, but those funds all technically belong to CO of their troop. Now, you could form a group called the Friends of Scouting for XYZ township or something to be the CO, but you really need the DE or your council registrar to advise on how to do that appropriately.

Disrupting the system in place now would obviously be a very difficult challenge, and one that would probably leave many units in a scramble. The reality that a COR really has no training requirements about what the program even is leaves an obvious void on that person taking control over quality and what is actually going on in the unit. Current unit for my son is chartered by American Legion- the "COR" changes every year, as it is the newly elected Post Commander that holds that title. Fortunately, the current Post Commander has served in that role in the past, his son was a Scout (and he served as a troop committee member in those days), so he has understanding of the program and its actual workings. What do you do with the COR who won't even take the very basic My.Scouting.org training module?

You can search open DE job postings on nationals website. You won’t see a massive amount of difference in salary from one rural area to another, or one urban area to another. Whenever I hear a unit leader make a snide remark at how well paid staff is, my stomach churns. It takes a special person to leave a corporate job just to go into being a professional Scouter if they are looking at the financials. Considering our current CSE was in charge of HR for the BSA as his prior job, and there was not drastic change to comp for the DE postition on his promotion, I don’t see it happening now. I personally would love to go back to the earlier days of the BSA, where the notion of the need for paid staff was a result of challenges of too much having to go to National (the first councils were directed by volunteers, not paid SE’s, and being snail mail was the only way to get chartering done or membership applications processed, the idea was councils could do it in shorter time).

Many used to actually enforce a minimal measure of what it meant to "serve actively in your troop" in terms of leadership PORs, which by general rule of thumb from my time as a youth was 75% of all troop activities, and campouts were part of that. I see ever increasing numbers of units that have no minimum criteria, and not so coincidentally have issues of getting older scouts to actually go on campouts.

I'm sure right now National Supply has a boatload of debt with all the skorts they've ordered readying for the cub launch and all the new Scouts BSA branded merch they ordered for 2019.

Local camps are council property, and many of them are actually private or public trusts, and not actually owned by BSA or councils. Both Philmont and Summit are held in trusts as well, so not like BSA could sell that (expenses of operating thee, whole different story). I have no idea about Seabase or Northern Tier, but assume those are held in trusts or at least there are restrictions that they can't be sold. The optics of the whole thing are more the damaging part. A couple other articles: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/boy-scouts-weighs-bankruptcy https://www.scsun-news.com/story/news/local/new-mexico/2018/12/12/lawsuit-accuses-boy-scouts-negligence-new-mexico-abuse-case/2289026002/