yknot

Don't know if Reuters link will work but if interested you can Google direct. Didn't see it posted here.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-insurers-say-246-bln-settlement-inflated-by-bogus-claims-2022-11-08/

29 minutes ago, Scouterlockport said:

I think something us in the working class or middle class lose is that even if the SE is making 200k-400k a year he is still the poorest man in the executive board meeting. While too much of the pay is still based on when we had 3x the scouts. The scouts executives are not overpay when you think about how big of regional territory they really are in charge of.

I've been in positions where I was technically in charge of the whole US region. My salary wasn't high six figures. It has nothing to do with size of territory and everything to do with performance and results. Competent people can certainly get stuck in bad situations particularly in a moribund organization like this one, but trying to blanket defend large salaries by claiming they are less than for profit means that every other nonprofit out there should also be mismanaged and failing -- and they are not. I would also argue that a lot of these people would be unemployable at even their current salaries in the private sector. Scout management, from what've experienced at the council and national levels, is ten years behind comparable outside corporate environments. They certainly don't speak the same language. So I am skeptical on multiple levels of the "we're getting a bargain so we should be grateful and complacent" line of thinking. 

17 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

I'm just not a fan of the idea that everybody gets credit for everything and everybody succeeds.   I believe that jf a candidate for anything is allowed to progress no matter how hard or little they work, or claim completion for tasks that were compled by someone else (ie. mom or dad) they don't deserve to progress.  If they are allowed they lessen the value of the accomplishment for everyone else.

 I couldn't agree more. I just don't think that's the role of the BOR in scouting. It's not like school or sports. The BOR is not your report or the final score. It's uniquely scouting. The progression is interwoven with program, and the BOR is not the provider nor the arbiter of that. It is not a retest. It has a formal aspect in confirming that all sign offs are in place and that the lengths of any terms of service have in fact been met and a BOR can and should be paused if those things are in question. Those are within its purview. Other than that it is a discussion by adults with the scout to assess the effectiveness of the program -- it is not an assessment of the individual scout. It is more like getting a passport than a driver's license. The problem with everyone getting credit for everything is a program problem that needs to be addressed by the committee with the SM and the program leadership team right down to any SPLs or senior scouts who may also be doing signoffs. 

13 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

 Frankly, the board and key professionals should be generating the bulk of the needed income through various fund raising efforts. Mergers and cutting staff positions are part of the membership problem today. Less staffing equals fewer support services for the volunteers. If each staffer represented 800 to 1000 volunteers and you go from 8 to 6 staff then you will probably see the number of volunteers, units and youth start to decline. The BSA at council levels is far smaller (professionally) now than it was 20, 30 or even 50 years ago. It is a problem... 

 

I think the old models don't work. I don't think the council should be so focused on generating income any more. That is how they have become so detached from what units need to survive and it's killing program, recruitment, retention, membership, and volunteer sustainability. Councils ought to be rebuilt around serving the units. Fundraising has also completely changed. The mix for scouting has to change to allow local units to directly solicit local businesses. The local businesses that are left do not want to give to a council that they perceive as having no connection to their community. They will, however, give to their local organizations or to people they interact with in the community. 

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

page 52 of the Guide to Advancement states:  "[BOR's] purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled. If so, the board not only approves the Scout’s advancement but also provides encouragement to continue the quest for the next rank. (emphasis added)"

Later on Page 52 it states that it is possible to fail a BOR. While a BOR must be granted whenever the Scout requests it,  "In a case where there is concern that the requirements for a rank as written have not been fulfilled, it is appropriate to advise the Scout that he or she might not pass the board and to make suggestions about what might be done to improve the chances for success."  Page 54 states 'If a board does not approve, the candidate must be so informed and told what can be done to improve.  If it is thought that a Scout, before his or her 18th birthday, can benefit from an opportunity to properly complete the requirements, the board may adjourn and reconvene at a later date. If the candidate agrees to this, then if possible, the same members should reassemble. If the candidate does not agree, then the board must make its decision at that point. In any case, a follow-up letter must be promptly sent to a Scout who is turned down. A copy of the letter should also be sent to the council’s designated appeals coordinator, council advancement chair, and advancement staff advisor. The letter must include actions advised that may lead to advancement, and also an explanation of appeal procedures."

None of the above is at all in conflict with anything I have said. If there is a claim that a sign off might be invalid or missing, or the scout's registration or completion of any relevant terms of service are in question based on recorded dates, then the BOR clearly follows the above procedures. If the advancements person is involved in BORs or their scheduling, most of those items are generally checked before the BOR is scheduled. I have been part of a BOR that followed the above process and was rightfully suspended because a scout had lost his part of his handbook. In recreating the missing pages he had not realized that he had parts of both an old and revised handbook and they had not been properly collated. The BOR was paused while he found someone who was able to give him a needed signoff. Had he not been able to do so that night, it would have been suspended to another day. I have been involved in other BORs where suspension was threatened because there were adult arguments over whether a scout had fully completed a leadership requirement. Unacceptable. You can question the objective validity of recorded dates at the BOR and then proceed as above as necessary but you can't question the subjective aspect of how well you thought the scout "led". It's been signed off already so it can't be "retested".  Any discussion about that should have been held during the scout's term of service. That is also noted in GTA.    

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

If a Scout is not responsive to questions, how can the BOR confirm the requirements were actually fulfilled, per the GTA cited above? 

By the sign offs, unless you have reason to question them. But again, those powers, if you follow GTA, are much more limited than many scouters like to accept which leads to a lot of unnecessary stress and angst for scouts.  The Scoutmaster -- and I use that term as representative for the program and the entire team that implements it -- is responsible for ensuring education and testing are taking place. The BOR is not the judiciary in this situation. If the BOR reports to the Troop Committee that it has program concerns, it is the Committee's job to discuss with the Scoutmaster and program team. The scouts are not supposed to be in the middle of this. 

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

Are you playing Devil’s advocate? 

No it's what I think.  GTA makes a point of saying there should be no retesting -- that if a Scoutmaster has cleared a scout for a BOR then in his or her eyes, the youth has proven themselves ready. If youth are arriving at BORs with issues, that is a Scoutmaster and program problem, not a scout problem to be solved on the back of the scout during a high stress event. In this instance, I think it's odd that the BOR's reaction was punitive toward the scout rather than introspective about themselves. A BOR is essentially confirming rank completion in a scout who has been presented by the scoutmaster. It's not an oral presentation or morals test -- or even a uniform fashion show -- for an extra pass/fail grade. GTA makes that clear, or at least to me. 

32 minutes ago, jcousino said:

thanks for the up date

looks like i was wrong based on 8.0.1.5

After the Review
If a board does not approve, the candidate must be so
informed and told what can be done to improve. Most
Scouts accept responsibility for their behavior or for not
completing requirements properly. 

I am still having a little trouble with that

• once a merit badge is sign off it has been earned even if the dad signed. if they were approved  listed councilor
• ( advance chairmen needs to limit badge through the committee or district)
• Scouts are not held back because of errors of adults 
• Scoutmaster signed scoutmaster conference off so it was completed

back to my original point what does the BOR have the power to do.

Maybe this is just an other place scouting guideline and rules conflict.

If i need to go outside the troop that tells a bigger story i will be joining the second troop

 

Ps just an off the wall question i know a scout can be a member of difference groups( ie troop and and a crew) and work on scout level ranks with the crew

can a scout be a member in two troops?

 

I don't think there is that big of a conflict because I think GTA makes it pretty clear that you are very limited in what a BOR can fail a scout for but if you do, you have to outline the steps they need to take, which would either be fix it or appeal. Units sometimes come up with their own requirements for things like minimum attendance, which they are allowed to do within reason, but generally they don't hold up on appeal or even make it out of the building because of all the other exemptions that are also outlined in GTA. 

12 hours ago, jcousino said:

i have always been told the BOR was for the troop committee to judge the heath and life in the troop through the scout's perspective.

Not to judge the scouts worthiness for the rank

BOR  cannot retest, what is signed is done its not up for debate.

 

I agree and I think you're right

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

From the Guide to Advancement page 52:

8.0.0.1 Purpose and Timeliness of Boards of Review After a Scout has completed the requirements for any rank (except Scout rank), he or she appears before a board of review. A board of review must be a personal and individual experience. Its purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled. (emphasis added) 

I read this as you confirm all appropriate signoffs are in the record and that any other associated requirements, like registration or length of service, have been met. On page 20, GTSS states once something has been signed off on, it's been met and can't be retested. On page 22, it states scout spirit is to be assessed by how a scout lives daily life, something that would be known to the SM and not a BOR composed of committee members who may never encounter the scout except in passing. If the unit leader -- SM -- has cleared the scout for a BOR, the GTA indicates that requirement has been met. Nowhere in the GTA does is state that a BOR can fail a scout for being nonresponsive in the actual room out of fear of someone on the BOR or stage fright.   

On 10/5/2022 at 6:26 PM, DuctTape said:

 I believe this is what makes scouting unique compared to all other youth activities except perhaps 4-H (although I am not sure how intentional it is within their history and structure as it is with Scouting.)

In 4-H I think it's pretty close although from my experience, and much as it is in scouting, it is very much driven by the individual youth and how they utilize the program. There are any number of growth opportunities in 4-H, not just specific to your club or interest, but also within the organization as a whole. There are all sorts of opportunities for youth leaders and development of leadership skills all the way up to National 4-H Congress occurring next month. 

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

The charters were extended too. So, they continued to be a unit and count in the numbers. The drop will likely Jan 1 of this year. 

Yes. I think that's what I said? -- Charters extended and registrations collected. There will probably be a grace period but that should mostly sort out by March of next year.

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I’m not so sure. The way I understood it, at least in my council, the people still had to “reup” or not. It was only the $75 (now $100) charter that was extended. So, they dropped or not already. At least in my council. 

The fees/registrations are being collected but if the charters fail, they have no home unless a new charter can be found. There are plenty of units collecting registrations without knowing who their charter will be after the December extension runs out, or are just now learning there is an issue. 

14 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

My.scouting has that. What they are showing is, for example, say 10/25/22 compared to 10/31/21 to see how the end of October compares to month to date. Are we on track to where we were at this time last year. Then they have the end of the year 12/31/21 to show how far we were max to max if you will. That is, are we on track tend wise to how we ended 2021. It doesn’t show say 10/25 to 10/25 as the exact day is irrelevant. Month totals tell a lot more. 

That would normally be the case but what muddles this is the fate of the paused UMC units. Those extensions started in 2021 and now are extending fully through 2022. The real membership numbers won't be known until some time after December 31, 2022 when we are able to compare last quarter 2021 to first quarter 2023. What's also not clear is how "transferred" scouts are being captured in this. I don't think there's much solidity to be found in any numbers until this spring. 

6 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

You've got a capable young lady who loves Scouting - ordinarily, that wouldn't be a problem, except your Troop is experiencing some growing pains. In theory, a Troop exists with Scouts ages 11-17 in perfect harmony, but in practice, kids have different needs and interests. While I'd encourage older Scouts to take an interest in the development of their younger peers, it's unfair to charge them with that responsibility (no matter what the Handbook says). 

So, yes - it's normal. Even the best, most-involved Scouts follow a fairly typical evolution:

• Ages 11-14: Troop Life is the core of their Scouting experience. They earn their Life Rank and nearly all required merit badges within 3 years. The capstone of this phase is them serving as ASPL or SPL at age 13 or 14.
• Ages 15-17: They scale back their involvement in the Troop because their high school experience is more demanding and they've already been through the Troop Calendar 3 or 4 times. They connect and bond with other older Scouts through Camp Staff, OA, or High Adventure activities. Ideally, they return to the Troop to finish their Eagle requirements and provide support as a Troop Guide, Instructor, or JASM, but they should not be counted on as primary youth leaders.
• Ages 18-21: They still might make great seasonal employees for the BSA. Hold the door open for them if they ever want to volunteer or finish up any Venturing requirements, but it's time for them to shine outside of Scouting.

Those groupings match the progression I've seen. 

It's good to keep in mind not every kid likes or is good at working with younger kids. In fact a lot of them don't and frankly, that describes a lot of adults in scouting and even roles like teaching. I don't think you should necessarily see that as a negative, especially since she's good at other things. An older scout who has awareness of and relationships outside and beyond your troop is a huge asset. She may not be fulfilling some of the aspects of the SPL role but she is still showing leadership if she is interested in participating in inter unit activities and showing younger scouts what is available in scouting beyond the troop. She just has a different leadership focus maybe than her adult handlers. It certainly doesn't sound like she is just being lazy or a no show. 

39 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Preferred?  It's actually not.  Handguns first.  Second is an AR-15 styled riffle.  The AK47 riffle is an outlier ... from what I've read.   Depending on "mass shooting" definition, you will see it's one use every several years to less used.  As of May 2022, this noted a previous use from 2019.  Rest were handguns or AR-15 styled.   https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-05-27/mass-shooters-exploited-gun-laws-loopholes-before-carnage ...

Perhaps, it's better said that "assault styled" weapons are the preferred firearm.   But that is not useful either as it's way, way overly broad as it can include many handguns today too.    

Not used in competitions and practices?  ... From what I've read ... it's because the AK-47 is not known for accuracy.  Marksmanship and competitions would not use an AK-47 gun.

If the teaching moment is awareness of styles of guns, teh AK-47 seems appropriate.  World-wide the AK-47 is more common than AR-15 ... from what I've read.  

I don't know what the point is of how far up or down on the list these rifles fall. They have all been used in mass shootings. They have a connotation because of that to the general public that they are the preferred weapons of choice of mass shooters. They are not what the general public envisions in a scout's hand at a scout shooting range and most do not understand distinctions of use they just see the acronyms. 

To clarify, at many youth competitions and practices, you do not see guns like AK47s or AR15s or whatever other acronym I am not including. I am not selecting a list, I am discussing context and connotation for the general public who may not be fully aware of what the BSA shooting program entails.  

7 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'd like to see numerical comparison (seriously).  Almost every scout that goes to summer camp experiences the shooting sports programs.   I'm not aware of 4-H having shooting ranges or a broadly offered program.  

I appreciate your post.  Thank you.

4-H teaches, according to them, about 500,000 youth per year. My local experience with it is that it is generally run out of local recreation and gun clubs that run programs all year long and have competitive shooting teams. From what I've seen, it is on a higher level and more closely managed than what I've seen at scout camps. It's a 4-H club with volunteer leaders, but it is generally overseen or run in consultation with professionals. 

5 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Only, it isn't.  Preferred firearm for mass shootings? Handguns

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GY7acnqEfiwJ:https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And this wasn't a mass shooting...

And most people probably wouldn't know what an AK47 looks like.  

You're missing my point. You're arguing with me about what an Ak47 is or isn't. I'm talking about transparency -- there is no reason not to include what type of rifle was involved. I also noted what the connotations for the AK47 are in the press, which really aren't debatable. It doesn't matter what you or I think or if it's number one used or number ten, it is still one of the preferred firearms that have been involved in high profile cases. I'm noting that its presence at a scouting event will likely be news to the general public, and even more so if it becomes clear that it wasn't an aberrance. And maybe I'm wrong, no one will care. But if this story gets much more pickup by national media, we will find out what the public reactions will be. Most members of the general public do not think of scouts or youth marksmen as utilizing or having access to AK47s. Even among shooting families, you can go all the way to the Olympics in  youth marksmanship and never encounter one. They are not used. I've had any number of parents emphatically clarifying that their youth use different weapons for their competitions and practices.  

3 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Yes, the actual news report itself is fearmongering, or, at a minimum, sensationalizing.

Take this one:

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/10/20/court-orders-police-turn-over-records-related-accidental-shooting-death-boy-scout/

"Carvalho was accidentally shot and killed when another child picked up an AK-47 at the shooting range on the Boy Scouts campsite near Honokaa."

Would the story be any different if it said "Carvalho was accidentally shot and killed when another child picked up an unsecured rifle at the shooting range on the Boy Scouts campsite near Honokaa."

Here's another one:

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/10/18/criminal-investigation-into-deadly-shooting-big-island-boy-scouts-camp-hits-roadblock/

"Carvalho was shot when another boy, who police said was unsupervised, picked up a loaded AK-47 semi automatic rifle at the range. When the boy set the gun back down, it went off and the bullet struck Carvalho in the head."

Substantially different if it was reported this way??: "Carvalho was shot when another boy, who police said was unsupervised, picked up a loaded AK-47 semi automatic rifle at the range. When the boy set the gun back down, it went off and the bullet struck Carvalho in the head."

That is what I mean by fearmongering (and now sensationalizing.)  Again, the type of firearm was irrelevant.

The first article in the thread is a good piece of objective reporting:

https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2022/08/child-killed-in-shooting-accident-at-hawaii-boy-scout-camp/

OK. I see it more as an issue of transparency. I think the public, and any parents considering a scout shooting program for their child, have a right to know what type of rifle was involved in this and in any other incident. Information by itself is never bad and I don't see where the mere citing of that detail alone t in these media reports is by itself sensationalistic. It would have been sensationalizing the incident if they had included a paragraph on how the AK47 has become one of the preferred weapons of choice in mass shootings.  

5 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The type of firearm is irrelevant.  And the mention of it, I equate to fearmongering.  This death could have occurred with a .22 single shot rifle, or even a pellet gun (.177)

Here is someone else's perspective I am evaluating, but do not currently agree with:

https://www.kake.com/story/47530873/opinion-why-im-rethinking-boy-scouts-for-my-son

What are you saying is fear mongering? The actual news reports that mention the weapon involved was an AK47 or noting this will be news to many parents and members of the general public? 

Interesting opinion piece. I'm not anti firearms for youth but I no longer think BSA has the organizational competence, consistently delivered across the board, to oversee a youth shooting sports program -- along with a few other things. 

Most of the general public, even those neutral or casually supportive of youth shooting sports and probably a lot of scout parents, are unaware that an AK47 could be at a scout range. This particular tragedy is about adult negligence and the apparent failure of training programs but on the macro level it may lead people to wonder what an AK47 is doing anywhere near a scout. The public facing side of scout shooting sports has been gun safety, marksmanship, and hunting as a component of outdoor sportsmanship. An AK47 does not fit into that picture. 

11 hours ago, Icheeka said:

Thank you!

Thank you so much for this info, wow! Such a big help! As for your questions, I do not have solid answers.

 

-I think the charter is offering a one time funding.

-Our town is not financially well off, so a lot of scouts are on registered assistance. We're about to bring up the discussion of class A's with the families at the next pack meeting.

-I'm sorry, I don't understand the leader support question. Can you reword this for me? If you mean registered adults with their scouts....we have it so each scout pays $200 and that also covers their parent.

-We just talked about wreaths last night, I didn't know it was too late! Darn it! It'll have to be candy, and I will be asking the legion to partner with us for a pancake breakfast as well. I suggested Christmas tree disposal but since the kids are so young that was thrown out.

 

Honestly, after looking at all of the breakdowns I'm sure this is why the pack folded in the first place. But if we can really get a great fundraising team, I'm sure we'll succeed!

-

A number of units have chartered with American Legions this year and have reported a similar process: The AL pays to get them started for one year but that's it. 

If money is a hardship for your families they do not need class As. Many cash strapped packs will just use a class B t shirt or a neckerchief, etc.  You can always switch to class As later if your fundraising kicks in. A uniform is not required and should not be a barrier to scouting for any child. 

It's not too late for wreaths if you have a local supplier. If you can find a local garden center or nursery to work with you, you could still do it. One of our local farm stands sold us wreaths at wholesale one year. We got various donations of bows and did pretty well. I seem to remember it all got organized last minute in October with sales in early to mid November. 

47 minutes ago, FireStone said:

If I make any kind of deal with him about it, I think I'd like it to be that he completes a full year before making any decisions. Even if he decides to take a break or leave it completely, I'd like him to make that decision based on having experienced more of what it's all about.

I think that's a good plan and then you can monitor the social stuff. I don't know if your kid is in a public school system or not but they get heavy character education that if you're not an upstander you are a bystander and that's bad. He may not yet be comfortable in calling out bad behavior, particularly among older kids, but he also may not want to risk being thought of as being a party to it as a bystander. The 12 year old solution is to lose enthusiasm for scouts and drop out. "Good" kids who are not confrontational or good at self advocating really don't know what to do when confronted with bad behavior by other kids. It can seem scary and out of control in settings where adults don't intercede or seem aware. They don't want to get in any trouble by association so they try to get away from the situation. That's hard to do in scouts where you are continually thrown in with the patrol or troop so they quit. If he's comfortable with finishing out the year or at least giving it another few months, maturity may inform his views. 

37 minutes ago, FireStone said:

Is this just a normal adjustment period in the transition from Cub Scouts to Scouts BSA? Or should I be more concerned about the idea that he's only doing this for me?

If it is just first-year Scout transitional bumps in the road, any advice for helping him with this transition?

Social issues and bullying can sometimes be the reason for this.  In some troops that have a really hands off attitude this kind of thing can fester along unnoticed and uncorrected. In those cases, it's easier for a kid to drop out than try to stick around because kids, especially younger kids, don't like to complain or talk about other kids. 

4 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Every year that would happen. For year on year growth, our council uses current to last year’s 12/31. As long as one doesn’t compare 4/1 to end of year for % growth, it shouldn’t be bad. 

I don't know about your council but the councils around here, aside from a random bump, have been in a membership decline reflective of national trends for maybe 10 years or so. It's been possible to hide the gradual declines, or make them less obvious, by playing with percentages, numbers and dates and they've done so as did National last year. We'll see what happens in 2023 because by then everything should shake out. 

55 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I found a strategic plan online from a Circle 10 discussion in late 2020.  Their goals then:

2020 - 44,000

2021 - 44,700

2022 - 46,000

2023 - 48,000

33,000 is concerning, at least vs the plan

8146795-StrategicPlan-2021-2023-1647373160710.pdf 2.6 MB · 2 downloads

If the 4% holds in January and then March depending what happens with the paused UMC recharters, I would say any positive growth is good. What I'm more concerned about, though, is that the 33,000 includes a lot of dead or soon to be dead registrations from the prior cycle. That's always been the problem with membership numbers released between now and Dec. 31 and really until March of the coming year.  Some councils might be tidier than others though. I have no idea what Circle 10's history of accuracy is. In my home councils, it's pretty much fiction until March. 

On 9/30/2022 at 1:29 PM, tc79 said:

Hi Scouters!

Have a tough situation for you and hope one of you can shed some more light on the situation.

 

We have a large Pack, roughly 55 Scouts.  (What a great problem to have!)  Our Council does not have a great Pack overnighter location for us.  We've historically made do with the closest one, about 40 minutes away.  It has some MAJOR drawbacks: totally unstaffed, no trash service, drinking water only from an industrial type sink near the flush toilets that work sometimes, and a run-down un heated lodge that maybe holds 50 people.  We have to bring EVERYTHING when we go (and pack out the trash) and program the entire trip.  The Scouts have a blast, but it's exhausting.  It also has a capacity of 100, which automatically makes us too large to fit with a parent for each Scout.

 

We're trying to find a new site that can accommodate more people, but in reviewing the Pack Overnight Campout Site Appraisal Form (vers. 2018) this campground I've just described doesn't meet 4 of the 10 criteria.  I know units "aren't allowed" to review sites on their own, but is there a maximum number of "hits" a site can take before it's not approved?  Is that up to each Council to decide or is there some sort of standard?

- T. 

Councils can interpret that form differently and may have different viewpoints on what is safe. I was CC for a large pack and on the committee for a large troop. One of my interests over the years was to identify and develop potential local camping sites and obtain COIs and fire permits for their usage as we wanted more options. Our municipality had already worked with us to develop a site that had a fire ring, non potable water source, and access to porta johns. I was able to secure two other municipal campsites and installing a campfire ring in one became an Eagle project. I was able to develop relationships with several nearby private camps, some commercial, some church connected, for free off season camping often in exchange for an hour or two of service work. Similar arrangements with some nearby, private nature centers/preserves/land trusts and some large landowners. Some research found more sites in other local municipal, county, and state parks as well as historical sites that allowed overnight camping in old barracks and soldier huts and on a farm that raised produce for food pantries. As far as trash, most everyone around here prefers pack in/out because of bears for safety. A non potable water source like a pond was required for the camp fire, but an available water source for people was often jugs brought in by the unit. Permanent bathrooms and structures are nice but not essential especially if you are local. Bad weather you just get in the car and go home. Port a johns work. Councils differ but for the couple I worked with here if there was a sensible plan and/or procedures to deal with something, a wide variety of sites were and still are acceptable. Good luck.