InquisitiveScouter

On 1/27/2023 at 11:29 PM, awanatech said:

The state giving a tax break to religious institutions is far from the state "establishing a religion". There are many different religions and even more denominations broken down within those religions. They can each have very different, sometimes opposing, views on matters of religion. How would be the state be establishing a religion by recognizing so many different ideologies? If the state were to establish a religion, it would give preferential treatment to that particular religion over the over non-established religions. It would not be treating them all the same, regardless of beliefs. Recognizing a religion is very different than establishing one.

Define religion... you could make a statement that Boy Scouts is your religion, and that you worship Lord B-P.  If the state gives tax breaks to a "religion" but not to other non-profits, then that is a state "establishing a religion"...

6 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

The longer this goes on, the more I wonder how many survivors will be gone by the time there is resolution. 

Average life expectancy is in the mid-70's and many of us were abused 50-60 years ago.  Not getting any younger, I'm at the unfortunate point of having to document my "memories" so my wife can tell my story, should my ticket run out.  And that goes for my fellow scouts (as potential witnesses) who were present at camp but not abused.  In my case, several were specifically aware of my abuser's history before I was.  

Does anyone have input into how to best document for this possibility?

 

 

Could you enter this in a will?  Disposition of a settlement in your favor, that is?

We offer an orientation to parents, and spend a great deal of time on "How do we keep your kids safe?"

Removing adults without children in the program is a recipe for failure.  They're the ones with the "bandwidth" available to make such an admittedly complex program as Scouting work (well).

We encourage our new parents to camp with us.  We require YPT, and background checks (usually free) per our state law in PA.

We did have a parent wish to camp, without sufficient time to complete the above.  We allowed it, but said they must, at all times, be with one of our registered adults.  They were allowed NO supervisory role, including driving Scouts to the outing (other than their own), per our state law for volunteer clearance requirements.

It is a mixed bag here.  Our experience is that there is safety in numbers... of adults that is.  It is unusual for us to have fewer than four adults on a trip.  We are often in the 8-10 range.  Makes for a nice adult Patrol

2 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Unpopular take: This is 2023. Grown men without children in the unit should not participate in overnight activities.

I'm fully aware this would exclude many terrific volunteers from participating in a key aspect of the program. By all means, they are welcome to volunteer in other capacities (staffing a day camp or training parent volunteers, for example). As a 30-something parent, I'd be highly skeptical of a male volunteering at the unit level if that person wasn't also a parent and I'm certain my wife shares my skepticism. And we all know moms drive the big household decisions (like whether kids get to participate in Scouting).

When we disguise our feelings as thought, we make all nonsense possible.

19 hours ago, curious_scouter said:

What's your takes on MB counselors?  My understanding is G2SS does not say the registered adult leaders have to be leaders in your unit.  So for example, a Den Leader from the Pack or a MB Counselor are both registered leaders with BSA.  As long as they were YPT and did not present a concern to me about having enough qualified supervision - I would be able to leverage either should I ever need to fill 2-up for our Troop.

FWIW, I am generally happy to allow any interested adult to come camping.  Camping is fun, they should get to enjoy it - with the adult Patrol.  My ask as SM is that any non-ASM who wishes to attend consult with me before committing.  It's important to me to set expectations on how to conduct oneself as an adult on a Scouts BSA outing.  I need them to understand "the way" and ensure they will let the Scouts do. 

In the end, we are required to allow parents to observe any aspect of the program they wish.  Noone can really say a parent is not allowed to come camping as far as I understand.  They must be permitted if they insist.  "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders."

You are correct: the G2SS states "registered leaders" versus registered unit leaders.  I asked this same question regarding MB counselors to our council three years ago, and got conflicting answers through DE and FD, and was asked by our FD to ask the YP folks at national (which he later denied --- wished I'd had that one in writing, as in our conversations he relayed he had spoken to SE about it 😜 )  YP national folks generated a somewhat scathing response, delivered by Michael Johnson himself, that I should just listen to council and stop trying to circumvent their registration policies.  LOL.

The letter of the law answer is ambiguous, at best.  From national, 'MB counselors do not qualify, but clarify with your council.'  From our local council, 'just don't get us in trouble, and have you made your FOS contribution yet?'

The spirit of the law answer is: get approval from your COR to take them with your unit

One final thought... G2SS now says "Adult program participants must register as adults and follow Youth Protection policies."  I interpret this to mean adults (parents) may observe our program just fine.  But if an adult wishes to participate in the program (like camping overnight), then they "must register as adults."  NOTE:  it does not delimit which positions qualify as a "registered adult"  So, MB counselors would fit into the criteria of that wording.

Bottom Line:  If you really want an answer to your question, you must get your SE's read on it, if you can 😜  In general, any time there is ambiguity in policy (and it is written in there intentionally, I often think...) then National will defer to your Scout Executive's ruling.  

As some here are fond of saying (paraphrasing)... Never ask for a rule: you won't like the answer you get.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

@Alec27 ....  The related question is SHOULD they be camping with you AND what is their ROLE when camping?  

IMHO, rules are to cover guide to safe scouting.  The "should" and "role" is always my main concern.  Committee members are administrative; not scout-facing.  Too often committee members work like ASMs.  That's not "preferred".   Sometimes it's necessary due to number of registered adults.    So on camp outs ... just like troop meetings, etc ... scouts work with scouts first; then with SM and the ASMs.  Ideally, scouts don't work with committee members.

Committee Members ought to go camping (or visit an overnight camping trip) to observe the performance of the SM Corps.  It is not the ideal that MCs would be there as the required adult supervision.

Totally concur with @fred8033... except one point...

Scouts should ideally work with Committee Members for their Positions of Responsibility, where appropriate.

e.g., Scribe, Webmaster, Librarian, Chaplains Aide, Historian, etc. etc., as these are administrative in nature.

For other PORs, it is ONLY appropriate to be under the mentorship of someone in the SM Corps...

e.g., SPL with SM, OA Rep with ASM OA Advisor, Troop Guide with ASMs, etc. etc.

IMHO, and in a perfect world, each Scout in a POR would have an adult (or older Scout) mentor to help them develop and execute SMART goals for their POR.  We hit that mark about 25- 30% of the time. 

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Biggest complaint has been the council level pros for some time. . We are large geographically, but an economically poor region. BUT the folks with money usually were involved in Scouting as youth, knew the need, and gave of both their time for their children, and treasure to help others. Usually those folks would serve in district and/or council roles. Who knows the community better than the ones living in it?

Well you got pros coming in, wanting things done their way. No amount of explaining that the things they want done were tried before and were failures will get through their heads. You keep questioning them, you get removed from the district/council level.

Membership stats look off. You start questioning them, you get removed from the district/council level.

You running an activity and councils starts interfering by adding additional activities at the same location the same weekend.  When you attempt to discsuss the matter, you are yelled at. You decide it's no longer worth volunteering at the district/council level.

Or you run an event, and the pros do not order the supplies you need. So you get the supplies last minute, which costs more, and go into the "emergency " portion of your budget.

Or they do not order the quantities you requested, causing you to make last minute purchases, going into the "emergency " portion of your budget. Or maybe they need to make a second order for patches, causing the event to go over budget

Or when you ask for support for the event, you are completely left alone and left to your own devices. No support whatsoever. Now a district level event can be done like that. Heck my current district operate like that now. But a council level one?

But that is better than being yelled and cursed out at. I cannot tell you how many volunteers that has happened too. Heck one pro cursed out a key district volunteer via text.

Which is why my district is in the shape it is. And apparently it was not just my old district. These things were occuring in all the old districts that now comprise the current one. Very few folks want to get involved because of the way they and their friends have been treated.

And  it still continues. Had a new pro plan an Cub Scout event with 3 weeks notice. Had to cancel one week out when no one  volunteered for the event, and no registration since the even was planned after 95% of the packs stopped meeting for the summer. The email blamed volunteers for the cancellation, and the tone of the email further alienated volunteers.

And when you alienate volunteers, will they give donations?

Recruiting has been another issue. We got kicked out of the schools a decade ago. since that time we lost 6 packs, 3 troops any 3 troops on the verge of dying. We have begged the pros to help us with getting back into the schools and with recruiting. No luck with them.

There was talk at one meeting about starting new units. I stated that national does not predict any growth until 2025 according o court documents, so instead of trying to start new units, could they focus on existing, struggling units. Told no, we are on our own.

If we are on our own, why should we donate to the council when the money would be better served helping struggling units survive?

Sorry for the rant, But I needed to get this off the chest.

Yeah I know. The few district level things I've done have been because my Scouts have asked me to do them. I try to stay out of the BS and focus on my troop. But it is hard. As I said, I spent a long time and treasure on Scouting, and this area in particular. It is both frustrating and depressing seeing what is happening. I had more active units and scouts in one county back in the day, than my multicounty districy has today.

24 minutes ago, Alec27 said:

Wow...that's an awesome amount of info (in a good way) and Thank You so very much for the feedback.  It definitely clarified a lot for me, for sure, and I guess my only other question is.....per the GSS verbiage of "2 Adult Leaders" and in some cases in the GSS verbiage of "2 TRAINED Adult Leaders", does the word "Leader" mean to say a registered, YPT certified adult who currently holds a leadership position in the troop?  And can a "Leader" be one that is not IOLS "Trained" ?  

Thank You Again.  You All Are Awesome !

Yes.  You will not find specific direction to have IOLS to take youth camping.

CAVEAT:  Your council may invoke stricter requirements that the G2SS!!!  Check your council's unit leader training policy.  If your Council says you have to have IOLS, then you must.

Read through the entire G2SS.  Depending on the activity, different levels of training are required...

For example, under the Camping section, ONE leader must have Hazardous Weather Training:

Supervision of camping activities must include qualified, registered, adult leadership. [no specifications for "qualified" other than the verbiage that follows]

• At a minimum, one leader present is current in Hazardous Weather
  Training for all unit types. It is recommended that all leaders complete
  this training every two years.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss03/

And for Swimming:

Adult leaders supervising a swimming activity must have completed Safe Swim Defense training within the previous two years.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss02/

And for Snorkeling:

In addition to Safe Swim Defense training and the 21-year-old minimum age, the supervisor must be an experienced snorkeler. At a minimum, the supervisor must possess skills and knowledge matching the Snorkeling BSA Award and have experience with environments similar to those of the planned activity.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss02/

And for "boating" activities ( " All activity afloat..."):

At least one leader must be trained in first aid including CPR.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss02/

etc., etc., etc.

4 hours ago, nolesrule said:

The point of being registered is that they have had the background check and they have done their YPT certification. 

This, but the primary point is that those adults are approved by your CO to be registered in their Scout program.

The CO approves and has authority over ALL adult leaders in their chartered Scouting program.  If the CO doesn't want someone involved in their Scouting program, they (through the COR) can direct them to leave. The only reason council would intervene is if the adult does not meet BSA Membership Standards (usually revealed in criminal background check).

This is why two units are not to intermix activities without council approval...  Council would ask if the CO's approve the inter-unit activity and "accept" each others leaders.  If the two CO's approve of the inter-unit activity, council really doesn't have a dog in the fight.  If council pushed it, then the way around council?  Each units' leaders and youth would multiple-register in the other unit... (for free and can be done by the members/units themselves now on my.scouting.org  ... no need to involve the registrar) 😜

And BTW, all that background info on the Adult Application ?  That is for the CO!!  Read the fine print on the CO approval:

"APPROVALS FOR UNIT ADULTS: I have reviewed this application and the responses to any questions answered “Yes,” and have made any follow-up inquiries necessary to be satisfied that the applicant possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities to be an adult leader in the BSA"

Notice the slightly different wording above the Council approval:

"APPROVAL FOR COUNCIL AND DISTRICT ADULTS: I have reviewed this application and have made any follow-up inquiries necessary to be satisfied that the applicant possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities to be an adult leader in the BSA."

Yes, Committee Members can serve as adult supervision on outings. 

If BSA required them to be registered as SM or SA, then they would say that. 

Now, two registered and fully trained SM / SA types are the best scenario...

22 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Funny thing one parent that visited us recently and told us how our troop is more active and scouts are better prepared, but the wife wants his son in the new troop because he is now advancing.

That is so sad.  Form without substance...  The lesson for that son is that the outward man is more important than the inward.  We will all suffer from the fruits of that mentality.

22 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Agree 110%. But as stated above, more and more parents want "high speed, low drag" advancement instead of the Scouts having fun and learning "...as naturally as a suntan...."

See above...

I'll channel Jefferson:

Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens [Scouters] to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

National actually praised a council giving  over 10,000 in their online MBUs.

YGBKM!!!

7 minutes ago, nolesrule said:

Some of what you write about seems to stem from a fear of change rather than an actual issue.

No, I can attest to these issues as well...  but I am not undecided on the issue of Insta-palms.

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

It is actually 15, not 20. I wonder why they sent 20? Additionally the long-term counts for five, but only five,  of the 15.

They are conflating that with Camping MB requirements.

On 1/19/2023 at 12:10 PM, fred8033 said:

That act itself would be morally wrong and legally dangerous.

You are wrong on both accounts.

On 1/19/2023 at 2:35 PM, Jameson76 said:

In our council unless you are raising money, they could care less.  No marketing, no support to new or old units.  Remember, Scouting is about the cash and keeping the pros paid.  As long as they can keep cashing in on the cache and history of BSA, they are happy

Character matters 😜

15 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

This includes two decades of extreme dispute over membership standards, ten years of high-profile civil litigation against BSA councils over youth abuse, formation of a competitor organization that presents an ongoing public relations and membership campaign targeted to discourage boys and men from joining the BSA, departure of our largest national chartered organization (and disgruntlement of some other national chartered organizations) and a multi-year existential youth abuse bankruptcy and public relations crises focused on sexual abuse claims from 85,000 former boy members.  Pile on top of that bankruptcy-related sales of many of our camps, generalized distrust by today’s parents of organized youth activities, more-effective competition from youth sports and two years of a worldwide pandemic that shut-down much of our operations for an extended period. 

Character matters 😜

57 minutes ago, SSScout said:

"It depends".

Schedule several practice  camps  for your slid together Troop.  The Scouts probably won't know each other to begin with.  Work with your SM.  This is a NEW Troop at a NEW  Jamboree, since COVID etc.   Scout led.  EXPECT alot from your Scouts, they will not disappoint you. 

Your tents will be given you, your cot will be given you, you will still be living out of a duffle . I would think no real room for a trunk. .  

Walk everywhere.  Get your hiking shoes worked in.  Rain shoes, serious hiking boots....  Summit is just that, up and down, alot.    Rain gear.  Door mat for outside the tent.  Maybe a campchair or old beach chair or two.   Paper plates, duct tape, markers for signage.  Make sure what Camp Gate they will allow you to make and set up.  Some Troops brought spectacular scenic gates, some more modest, lash together.   There are NO TREES to cut down, bring your own lash ups.   Read the manuals about what they plan/allow for cooking/sanitation, etc.    cellphones?  Handhelds?   Read the guidelines ("aye, they be more like...")  Plugs will be at a premium, "Yeah, I'm up to 68 percent"..... unless things have changed alot....  

Do not allow your Scouts to sit around reading tiktok.      Make sure they have a daily connection with the events.  Teach them how important it is to DEPEND on each other.   Scavenger hunt?  Patch for awards?  Security in your campsite needs consideration.  Despite the Scout Promise and Law,  it isa GOOD idea to have someone in your campsite  AWAKE   at all times...... 

Thirteenth  Scout Law?   Be careful of  food laying around, in tents.  Still might be critters around....

Have fun.  Keep it Scouty....  

 

All good advice!

If you choose to participate in some activities, plan on waiting in line for some of the most popular ones (ala Disney).  Bring something to occupy your time while waiting (or make friends and chat!)

Get two portable batteries for your cell phone.  Fully charged before departure.  (Make sure you have a charging cord to connect portable battery to phone, and a spare cord, too!  Would be best if all your connections used the same type cord... make that investment.)

Take lots of pictures.

Camp security is no joke... A Scout is Trustworthy.  50,000 ARE NOT!  I have had items stolen at Jamboree.  

Make sure you know what the emergency plan is, and where to get to for lightning (or other) safety. 

Have a blast!

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

And the SE can do whatever they want. Overrule  the elected lodge officers, overrule the lodge membership voting results, move designated funds from whatever the lodge and/or chapter designated them for to the general operating fund, remove advisers who question them, etc.

I would say MUCH worse.

I have seen all the above...

Years ago, in the dim ages.... we had an SE that directed the OA lodge to staff and run a council camporee, on pretty short notice.  The LEC discussed it, voted on it, and decided no, we cannot do that.

SE said, (paraphrasing)  Look at at the glossary of names in your OA Handbook.  See the one that says "Netami Gegeyjumhet"?  That means Supreme Chief of the Fire.  That's me. And, you must always remember, the Supreme Chief of the Fire can put the fire out!"

We staffed the camporee... and it was pretty good, too 😜

https://oa-bsa.org/article/ask-chairman-role-supreme-chief-fire

https://oa-bsa.org/uploads/publications/GOA-202208.pdf

Within the council, the Scout executive is the final authority over the Order of the Arrow and, for this reason, holds the title of Supreme Chief of the Fire. It is the Scout executive’s job to see that the lodge adheres to national policy. Each year the Scout executive appoints an adult volunteer to serve as the lodge adviser. As Deputy Supreme Chief of the Fire, the lodge adviser acts on behalf of the Scout executive in guiding the day-to-day affairs of the lodge. This person normally serves as a member of the council’s camping or program committee and is frequently selected to serve on the council executive board. In some councils, the Scout executive serves as the lodge staff adviser, but in most cases appoints a member of the professional staff to that position. The staff adviser, as Chief of the Fire, acts on behalf of the Scout executive in giving guidance to the lodge adviser and the lodge leadership. With support and counsel from the Scout executive, it is the staff adviser's role to see that the lodge adheres to national policy.

That looks exactly like the first backpack I bought from Sky City department store (1979), using money I'd earned mowing grass over the summer!

The program has change immensely, but enjoy!!

On 1/17/2023 at 3:28 AM, GrammaScout said:

 First off:  it is NOT the Church's money !! 

LOL, yes it is 😜  Technically, only "entities" can "own" property, including money.  Unless you incorporate your unit, it cannot "own" anything.  If our COR ever wants a financial statement, we would subtract out of the bank account balance any monies paid by Scouts or parents into Scout accounts.  Any monies fundraised belong to the COR.  All property and gear belong to the COR.

Now, they cannot just "take" your funds and put it in their general account.  If your unit has a bank account, only the signatories on that account can dispose of the funds. 

If our COR demanded our cash, we would pay back all monies deposited by parents and Scouts, and equally distribute all remaining monies and pay tuition for Summer Camp (which should just about wipe out the fund), and start looking for a new COR that we'd go to after Summer Camp.  Since the monies are used for the purposes of Scouting, they'd have no recourse...

19 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I'd avoid talking too much about who's money it is or who owns what.  Getting a clean "legal" answer is not what you need and you might not like the answer. 

Avoiding a question does not answer it...  See answer above...

On 1/17/2023 at 3:28 AM, GrammaScout said:

the thought being that there would be people voting on something about which they knew nothing....making them ineligible voters

 Sounds like most of the voters in our country 😜

You will not find a clear cut answer to the question.  And the question is really, "When does the Cub Scout program end?"

Here are various answers you could find supporting arguments for in the literature:

A.  11 Years old.  The reasoning is this:  There are three criteria for joining Scouts (you must meet one to join): " 1)  ...at least 10 years old, currently in the fifth grade and register on or after March 1st:  2) OR have earned the Arrow of Light Award and are at least 10 years old,  3) OR are age 11 but have not reached age 18."   Although the criteria do not specifically say it, you could interpret the intent that 11 year olds (who were never in Cubs) get vectored to Scouts.    https://www.scouting.org/about/faq/question1/   

Couple with that the verbiage from Guide to Advancement 4.1.1.0, "In situations like those found in home-schooling or nontraditional education, where youth are working at grade levels that may not correspond to their ages, Cub Scouts should work on the rank that relates to their age, rather than their grade. When doing so, take the joining requirements for Scouts BSA into consideration to avoid completing the Arrow of Light too long before meeting the minimum age requirement for Scouts BSA. Cub Scouts do not “go back” and work on ranks designed for earlier grade levels, even if missed due to their time of joining. Likewise, Cub Scouts do not “move ahead” to work on the next rank until the completion of the current school year (or until their next birthday if they are transitioning by age), with the exception of those who earned the Webelos rank in the fourth grade." https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf  

B.  February-ish.  Chart from BSA site at https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/CubScoutMeetingGuide/PDF/Appendix/511-807.pdf  says "Fifth-grade Webelos Scouts graduate in February and begin meeting with a Troop in March."

C.  01 June.  Same chart above shows the program year beginning in June. So you could make the argument to extend to that...

D.  Cubs Scouts ends a the end of fifth grade.  See chart at https://pdscouting.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Required-Adventures-Chart-for-Ranks.pdf  Program upper limit is fifth grade.  this also aligns with criteria above.  Also aligns with Scout joining criteria in A.

C.  31 August.  One chart, still available from BSA at https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/26-004.pdf  shows the Cub program year beginning on 01 September.  Probably the weakest argument...

The saddest issue here is "I have a parent who really wants his son to earn the AOL."  Too much to unpack here...

The heart of the requirements issue is how to meet the requirement for participation:  "1. Be an active member of your Webelos den for at least six months since completing the fourth grade or for at least six months since becoming 10 years old."    If the Webelos den does not exist after crossover, with whom will the young man participate??  He could accomplish this (I suppose) in a few ways:  1.  Council allows him to register as Lone Cub Scout, and parent handles it all... 2.  Parent registers as a WDL, and handles it all (because parents cannot sign off requirements for AOL), including perhaps taking him to one last year of Webelos resident camp with another unit, and then the Scout fleets up to BSA after six months is done. 3. Have him work on his own requirements while hanging with the rising AOL den until complete.

22 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

In the Volenteer esentials that each council releases each year, they have had pretty consistent language from their national group. The language is much clearer.

"For this reason, councils are encouraged to avoid joint recruiting and/or joint participation in community events or activities."

"we must ensure that we take care that the activities in which girls participate are exclusive to the Girl Scout program"

 

Nuanced doublespeak...

"encouraged to avoid ... joint participation in community events or activities"  You could interpret that to mean Girl Scouts are "encouraged to avoid" placing flags on veterans graves because BSA units are there doing it at the same time.... hogwash

Or, you could interpret that to mean Girl Scouts are "encouraged to avoid" walking in the Memorial Day Parade because BSA units are doing the same.

("Encouraged to avoid" is too slippery,,, just say "prohibited" or "shall not")

Same interpretation applies to "...exclusive to the Girl Scout program"

I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts, most GSUSA units are completely ignoring this, just as they are in our neck of the woods.

It would be more clearly understood if the GSUSA put out guidance to say GSUSA units are not to participate in events "sponsored" by the BSA.... ala District or Council events, National Jamborees, HABs, etc.

3 minutes ago, qwazse said:

GS/USA tried to impose these strictures at a regional and council level in response to the advent of Scouts BSA. Memos regarding multi-organization activities began to be circulated. E.g., from https://www.gssne.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gssne/documents/GirlScout_Participation_in Activities_with_Other_Scouting_Organizations.pdf …

I believe language of the sort made it into some troop training materials. (I say “some” because I suspect many trainers knew their audience was more focused on policies that helped their girls grow strong and good, and would not countenance time wasted on admonitions to protect a corporate brand.) In light of GS/USA backing away from trademark litigation this past July, one would hope that an encouragement to “play nice,” with other scouting organizations will also be disseminated. But, I won’t hold my breath, @InquisitiveScouter, for you to post such a memo from your GS/USA council.

Thanks, but the memo cited only outlines risks.  It prohibits no interactions.

52 minutes ago, qwazse said:

@InquisitiveScouter, I once commented on discussions.scouting,org (back when they let us actually talk about administration and not just scoutbook) that an SPL in a small troop is superfluous. Boy, did I get raked! I couldn’t have drawn more fire if I spouted off about politics or religion.

So, just accept that it is not so much a PoR as it is a cult for a small troop.

Concur.  And your thoughts on COR guiding this, versus SM?

13 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

the GSUSA prohibits its volunteers and troops to work with us. 

Explicitly?  As a parent of a Girl Scout and a Boy Scout, and working as a volunteer with both units, I never heard such a prohibition.