CalicoPenn

 

 

What I find interesting is they referred to the survey of non-Scout families about their thoughts, desires and motivations regarding the BSA. 

What about the findings of the survey of existing membership asking about THEIR  thoughts, desires and motivations in being members? Oh, you mean there wasn't one?

 

 

First - there were internal surveys done.  If they were overwhelmingly against, this decision might have been different - if they were anywhere in the 50/50 to 60/40 range, it probably wouldn't have changed anything.

The BSA is a business - it may be non-profit - but it is a business.  National's interest is NOT the same as individual unit's interests - it hasn't been for decades.  Its biggest motivator is membership - that's why you see so many statistics about membership numbers.  Without members, the organization will sputter out and eventually die.  Any organization that does not change eventually suffers from entropy and withers away.  I've been repeating this every since I've been here - like all businesses, the BSA has to adapt in order to remain relevant - not to its current customers but to attract new customers.  What is happening here is very much like what happens with commercial businesses all the time.  Think of it like this - you have a favorite restaurant and you have a favorite menu item.  The restaurant never changes its menu and over time, fewer and fewer people go to the restaurant - so the restaurant changes a bunch of menu items - keeping some of the old menu items but eliminating a bunch of others.  Let's say they eliminate your favorite menu item so you decide to stop going.  You're now thinking that the restaurant is kind of stupid because they're now losing customers except the restaurant, though wishing you would stay, is also betting that for every customer that leaves because of the menu changes, they gain 2 or 3 or more new customers who like the new menu.

The BSA is betting that they'll gain more members than they lose.  Is that a wise bet?  Only time will tell - but the BSA has to try something - the current configuration isn't sustainable in the long term for the changes that society is going through. 

If you can't see the difference between a fully developed emotional mind of an adult US Army Cadet, and the still in progress developing minds and bodies of boys and girls... I don't know what to tell you. 

You're kidding, right?  You do know that West Point Cadets are just colege students with uniforms and enforced discipline, right?  There has been a lot more study into the human brain since Freud and Jung.  Its pretty much accepted in the field that humans don't have fully developed emotional minds until at least 25 - and that pretty much leaves out traditionally aged college students, including West Point cadets.

I think that's a BRILLIANT idea - I vote go for it

I mentioned that I would get to Scout Accounts - I didn't do that - so - there is a caveat to everything I wrote - if the funds used to purchase the teepees come from the Scouts "Scout Accounts" and is from fund raising shares and not from money they personally deposited in their scout accounts to save money for summer camp or whatever, then the teepees belong to the unit and problem solved that way.  Scouts cannot personally gain from funds raised for scouting so they can't purchase a tangible item like a teepee that has value beyond their scouting lives.  (Technically, they can't use fundraised funds to pay for summer camps but if a Troop wanted to provide "camperships" with the funds they raise, they can do that.

If I read this right, Patrol A has a teepee that the boys purchased together by pooling their own funds.  I'm assuming that it was personal funds and not "Scout Account" funds (get to that in a bit).  The Scouts that purchased it are all still together.

Patrol B had a teepee that the boys purchased by pooling their own funds (and not "Scout Account" funds) - but three of the boys have aged out.

The patrols have been storing their "Patrol Owned" (which in reality is personal owned) teepees with the Troops gear.

Ok - if that's correct then this is my take:

The Troop has no claim to the teepees - just because you stored it, doesn't make it yours.  Just because 3 members have "abandoned them" doesn't mean that the Troop owns them - you need to send them notice and give them the opportunity to get their property back

The boys of Patrol A who contributed money own their teepee.  The boys of Patrol B who contributed money own their own teepee.  The boys who aged out of Patrol B still have ownership interest in their teepee - they didn't give that up by aging out.

The collective owners (Patrol A being one collective and Patrol B being one collective) make the decisions together about what to do with the teepees.  If the Patrol B owners decide together that they will let Patrol C use the teepee, that is up to them.   This is the key here - it is up to them.  Not the Troop, not Patrol C, not Patrol A, not the parents - it is up to them.

In the meantime, you're stuck in the middle - your job now is to get the Troop completely out of it.  My suggestion - you write a formal letter to each "ownership" group - one to the 5 people who own Teepee A and one to the 5 people who own Teepee B (presumably, you still have the home addresses of the 3 lads that have aged out).  In it you explain that the Troop can no longer store personal equipment and that each group needs to make arrangements amongst themselves on who is going to store their teepee.  In the letter, you give them a firm deadline (30-days?) to pick-up their teepees.  You make clear that they are responsible for all decisions regarding the teepees.  LET THEM WORK IT OUT.  Let them know they are still welcome to use their teepees on select outings but that they are responsible for getting it to and from the campsite.   In a final line/paragraph, you tell them that if all five members agree - in writing (with signatures on the same page from all 5) to donate their teepee to the unit, with no compensation from the unit, that the unit would be glad to accept them. 

That is my take on it

I'm curious on how the council can be pressuring your unit if no professional from Council has come to visit.  Are they sending out volunteers from your district?  Are they sending you letters that may be ham-handedly worded?  Calling the unit leaders over and over again?  I only ask because I have seen unit leaders read a form letter from Council suggesting funding levels from units for FOS contributions as demands and not requests, and have seen district Scouters come across as demanding when they give FOS presentations. 

Yes, you can just say no - they can "demand" but you don't have to respond.  Just because the Council has suggested/demanded certain funding levels doesn't mean you have to give them.  It certainly seems unreasonable to me for a unit of about 8 Scouts to give a minimum of $1,000 to Council FOS.

You aren't under any obligation to give to FOS so you can feel free to ignore these requests/demands.  The worst thing that Council can do is cancel your charter and terminate your unit - and I've yet to see a Council actually do that to a unit that has not responded to FOS - plus, the unit is already on the verge of disbanding over this so would it really matter if they did?

All of us have felt at one time or another that Councils go overboard on their FOS requests - a lot depends on the temperament of the Scout Executive/District Executives running these campaigns - one Scout Exec may try a soft-shoe approach, another goes a bit more hard core.  We see the same thing happening with volunteers - some are really good at it and some are folks you want to grab by the scruff of the neck and escort them out of your meetings. 

My recommendation is to ignore the tone, get everyone calmed down, and just ignore the "demands".  Then, once everyone has taken their deep breaths, look at your program - are you utilizing any of the Council facilities?  Summer Camp?  Local campgrounds?  If so, figure out the value to you and donate that.  Is it worth $25 a Scout?  If you aren't using Council facilities at all, maybe the value is $0 a Scout.  Ignore the Council amounts and donate what you feel is best, or don't donate at all - then move on and keep delivering the program.

I readily admit I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the Halo answer but I stand by the point behind it - that its up to each of us to decide what Duty to God means to us. 

Brian,

I think you just need to figure out what Duty to God means to you. 

I've had a lot of Scouts ask me this same question - what does it mean - and there is a presumption that it is easier for a Scout who goes to church on a regular basis to answer (Personally, I'm of the opinion that if the answer is "I attend church every Sunday", then this isn't really sufficient but I wouldn't hold a Scout back for it - too many people I think believe it's enough - now if they talk about volunteering with their church youth group, or working in the church food pantry, or served as an altar boy - or some thing a bit more active that sitting in a pew for an hour a week - that's an automatic win).

For my non-church going Scouts, I ask a bit about what does the Bible suggest man should be doing on earth - trying to get to things like serving their fellow man or being good stewards of the planet.  Those two alone are all you need to turn "I worked with the Nature Conservancy last weekend to remove buckthorn from one of their preserves" to fulfilling a duty to God by being a good steward on the land, or "I volunteer at a Soup Kitchen every Thursday night" to fulfilling a Duty to God by serving ones fellow man.

They key here though is to define what it means to you.  If it means sitting around on your butt all weekend playing HALO and you can somehow justify that in your mind, then as long as you believe it, that should be good enough for your Scoutmaster.

I think the Exploring split was pretty hastily done at a time when the BSA was about to lose all contact with Public Schools.  The BSA's policies were conflicting with the Public Schools duty to follow state and federal government non-discrimination laws so they set up Learning for Life without the BSA policies that were conflicting and moved the Exploring program - minus the high adventure posts - to LFL so both the Boy Scouts and the various public schools could have a win.

With STEM - they were able to plan better.  They knew that for the STEM Scouts to succeed, they would need access to public school laboratories if this was going to work so they created a Non-Discrimination Policy that everyone must abide by (as opposed to the DRP apparently) that works for school districts as well and it appears that they decided to add the Scout Oath and Law by making a conscious decision not to engage in the debates of what the Oath means when it says Duty to God (presumably, Athiests, etc. can just not say those words) or what it means when it says morally straight.

My first thought is to start building patrols.  45 people is pretty hard for one Scout to lead - 85 people?  You bet it will become adult led at those kinds of numbers.  You have enough people for 4 to 6 patrols.  I'd get them up and running so when you do have another 40 people showing up, you can model it for the new Scouts correctly instead of trying to invent it when they get there.

Have you asked the former SPLs why they asked the SM to take a more active role in program planning?  I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it's because you don't really have a functioning PLC (kind of hard to have one if you don't really use Patrols) and that the SPLs were just overwhelmed with all the responsibilities.  Solution?  Not wanting to sound like a broken record but form Patrols and get some other boy leaders involved in the planning - if the work researching and setting up things to do and places to go can be delegated down to the Patrol level (you have 12 months a year - if you have 5 patrols, each can be responsible for researching and putting forth 3-4 activities that the PLC can choose from and then responsible for helping to plan for two of those activities per year - the other two months?  Presumably one is Summer Camp - and the second could be SPL's choice (hmmm - I like that as a reward - the SPL gets to choose a place HE wants to go to).

Ok - so far, my suggestions are to put together Patrols and to put together Patrols.  Hmmmm - I'm seeing a pattern.  I think once the SM can actually SEE the Patrol Method and PLC working, it becomes easier for him to let some things go. 

You're right - this IS a good problem to have.

I've built bonfires for the end of camp campfire before - it takes 2 people, 3 at the most - any more than 3 and you're in each other's way.  It should take those 2 people (3 at the most) no more than 30 minutes to build the structure of the fire. 

You never raise your voice at a Scout unless its to prevent imminent harm.  It is far more effective to speak quietly to the individual. 

In this particular case, the adults were in the wrong right from the start by volunteering the Troop to do a task without any input from the youth - and I would say that about the PLC making such a decision without getting input from their Scouts.

If the Scouts have chosen to do this "service project" (it's not - building a bonfire is just not a service project - it may be a service to the camp staff who now don't need to spend the time they're paid for to build the bonfire, but it is not a service project.  Painting the boathouse is a service project, removing obstacles from a trail is a service project - building a bonfire that's going to burn for 90 minutes is not), then the only folks I would excuse from it are Scouts who need to finish up a little work for their merit badges because that's actually a major part of the reason that parents spend their money to send their sons to Boy Scout Summer Camp.

As for anyone who feels that yelling at Scouts as a disciplinary tool is just peachy, I'd suggest you spend some time looking inward to try to find out why you feel so powerless that yelling at boys is one of the ways you get to feel powerful.

He gets the palm.  He earned the extra merit badges before his BOR for Eagle Scout.  Since his BOR was after August 1, and the rule is he gets credit for all merit badges before his BOR - he gets credit for the extra and gets the palm.

Age has nothing to do with it - he didn't schedule the BOR for after his birthday, the Council did.

I can only assume by comments our SM has made in the past, that his biggest fear is being held responsible for something bad happening to a scout.  I think he's a little paranoid but I'm sure most of you veteran scouters have at least one story of something bad happened to a scout and having to tell the parents.  I agree that the scouts need freedom and need trust that they will do the right thing.  How do you balance the need of the scouts with parents that won't be happy when their scout comes home with a broken ankle or worse?  I don't think many parents would be as understanding as I am if they found out no leader was present when their son was injured, no matter the reason why.  I don't think it matters how many times you explain things in a meeting or email, they'll still be upset.  It's not just an angry parent but other headaches that could result from that.

I wonder how much he might fear being responsible for something bad a Scout or group of Scouts do on their own at a state park.  Lets face it, as much as the Scouts have a generally positive reputation with the public, the reputation of Boy Scouts is often lower among park personnel and people who camp at state parks.

That said, as long as expectations and boundaries are well communicated, Scouts should be allowed to explore on their own (with buddies or as patrols) - give them maps, make sure they are well-versed in the rules - and that you've pointed out things they are not allowed to do - and then trust them to go off on their own.

Here's what I would do:

Step 1:  Recruit a head cook - he can recruit his own staff.

Step 2:  Determine how many staff will need to be fed.

Step 3:  Determine your budget for staff food.

Step 4:  Tell the head cook how many people and what the budget is and let him/her do the rest (menu planning, making sure they have the equipment they need, food procurement, etc.).

Seems to me the hardest part for you is recruiting a head cook.

I do have a couple of suggestions:

1.  Don't prepare sack lunches at breakfast - Cook and crew have enought to do with making and serving breakfast.  You can still have sandwhiches for lunch if you want but get together in the "dining hall" and have lunch together - Cook and crew will have plenty of time to put a spread together by lunch.

2.  If you don't have a tradition of a cracker barrel on Friday Nights - start one - Cook and crew can put together a cheese, cracker, snack spread about 8 pm or so for staff - a good way to get together before the hard work of the next day.  Invite Scoutmasters and other adults down too if you want.  At our camporees, camp announcements for SPLs and Scoutmasters is Friday night - we do that with a cracker barrel with staff, SPLs and Scoutmasters all partaking.  It really seems to set the tone.

3.  (I know, I said a couple - so I can't count) - consider doing a post campfire/callout (in my District, OA callouts are held as the camp-wide campfire in spring) cracker barrel just for the staff - it can use up any leftovers from the night before.

 

 

Multiple packs getting together on there own also isn't a part of the program outside of Council / District organized events.  

 

Can you please quote chapter and verse the rules that say Cub Scout Packs can't get together on their own to share resources and hold activities together unless it is organized by Council/District.

The BSA is self-insured. That's the reason for this proposed increase: the insurance fund is depleting.

 

Here is the text of what our council sent out regarding this proposed increase:

 

This increase is due to the number and the size of claims made against the General Liability Insurance Plan (GLIP). As a movement we are self-insured, so every time there is claim or litigation the GLIP takes a hit.

Thanks - good to know.

 

This is the most "official" message I've seen, so far. https://www.facebook.com/CommissionersOfTheBoyScoutsOfAmerica/?hc_ref=ARS7UnPtgmsiMVjgzkPmke6C8ZqWfDJVmjhOEtY-ZwGGJZBnI2cCkQ3qC2DIkDJ59m8&fref=gs&hc_location=group

 

While I think Scouts is still a good value, could someone please enlighten me on what exactly registration fees go towards?  Am I correct that NONE of this money is retained by council?  

 

I found this article on the previous increase to $24 which lists out some benefits funded by our fees (with my comments in red).  Please help me understand this. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2013/09/03/bsa-membership-fee-increased-to-24-what-does-your-24-get-you/

 

• Provide liability insurance to registered adult members, local councils, chartered organizations and the national organization (Ok, insurance, but seems like an organization as large as BSA could self-insure.)  The BSA could self-insure but that would be a fools errand.  The majority of claims against the BSA is small scale stuff - a few thousand here, a few thousand there - but enough to add up to significant money.  When there is a claim, of any size, the insurance company takes over - they evaluate the claims, the decide if the claims have enough merit to offer a settlement, they negotiate the settlement terms.  If they decide to deny the claim, they are the ones that go to court if neccessary.  As part of that process, they incur all the costs to evaluate, settle and litigate.  Only in very large losses is it likely that the BSA would have to pony up additional cash.  Most will come from the insurance company whose goal is to keep the payments and expenses on claims lower than the amount of the premiums they've collected.  If the BSA were to self insure, then the BSA is going to have to hire people who have the expertise that the insurance company has to process, settle, negotiate, litigate, etc.  The BSA will have to pay all the settlement amounts out of their operating cash.  Do you really think the BSA could reduce their fees if they self-managed?  They'll still be charging those same fees for insurance - just keeping it so that they can administer it on their own without a loss to operating expenses.
• Provide technological platforms for the Scouting movement (BSA & Technology aren't usually spoken together in the same sentence   The BSA has a number of web sites - but more importantly, it does training online as well - just about everyone on this board has done at least the online youth protection training.  Perhaps you're still laboring under the assumption that the BSA is still maintaining it's registrations in paper ledgers?  Maybe you're under the impression that the BSA is still doing their banking the old fashioned way?  Ok - maybe you don;t like the tech platforms that you are seeing (and a lot of folks are 20/20 hindsight tech gurus in here it seems) but this is a modern world, and the BSA is part of that - what you see is just the tip of the iceberg that is technological platforms.
• Provide local councils with program as well as tools for camp and office planning and evaluation, extensive financial counseling, planned giving and fundraising information, and professional personnel support (My mandatory registration fee is used to teach fund raising?  Nothing better for fundraising than mandatory fees)  I have no problem with National training people in the local councils how to do their jobs - including fundraising - do you think a DE right out of college has any real clue how to ask a philnthropist for money?  How to write a grant?  Heck, half of them can barely ask parents effectively for money at FOS presentations.
• Coordinate a communications network through magazines and literature (handbooks, merit badge pamphlets, brochures, training materials, and professional development training) (We pay directly for handbooks, MB pamphlets, & UofScouting materials, etc..  Why do they need separate fees?)  To keep the costs of the books lower by sharing staff instead of having a separate publishing arm. 
• Make available uniforms, equipment, and program supplies (Again, we purchase uniforms & equipment.  Why a fee to "make them available"?)  Same again - to keep the costs down by sharing staff as much as possible - we already complain about the high cost of uniforms - do you want them to be even higher?
• Develop and maintain year-round national high-adventure bases and execute national events (jamborees, National Eagle Scout Association and Order of the Arrow conferences, and National Council meetings) (High-adventure bases, jamborees, and summits that Scouts pay thousands of dollars to attend?)  The biggest reason that Councils aer closing Boy Scout Camps - because they don;t have the money to both operate and maintain the camps.  A summer camp season may barely break even, let alone raise enough money to maintain the camp for an additional 10 months.  The same goes for the high adventure bases - think the costs are out of control now?  Imagine what they woul be if they to into account the annual maintenance budget.
• Maintain communication with chartered organizations that use the Scouting program (religious institutions, civic organizations, labor unions, professional organizations, business, and industry) (Completely comical.  I know of zero instances where National has communicated with a CO.)   National is rarely going to communicate with local CO's - thats one of the jobs of Councils.  But they are going to be communicating with the national organizations.  They don't talk to individual VFW posts, they talk with the national VFW guys.  When they say they are in talks with the Mormons, that means they are talking to the national leadership in SLC, not the Stake President of Boise.
• Maintain liaison with Scouting associations in other countries as a member of the World Scout Conference (Sure, but how much exactly does that really cost?)  Fair enough question - I imagine it fluctuates depending on what's on the radar - with the BSA sponsoring an International Jamboree, I imagine its going to be much more than it has the past few years.
• Set and maintain program standards (e.g., Advancement, health and safety, etc.) to ensure consistency of the brand throughout councils across the country.  (Uh, ok...finally our last bullet actually deals with program development)

 

Could the BSA be more transparent? Sure - I'd especially like it if they would make it easier to find their annual report. 

 

For me, the biggest flag here is that LDS units are exempt.  Why?  Why should they be exempt from the increase? 

 

Here's a change that should be considered - open up OA to female venturers - their female leaders can become members, they should be able to as well

I vote no on the metric conversion - let's be honest, the only people in the US that uses the metric in a regular, non-scientific, way are running race organizers because 5km sounds better than 3.10686 miles.  Plus, 25 miles per gallon sounds a lot better than 6.6 miles per liter.

I can't imagine why there would be an objection to the merit badge sash - it's really just used on "formal" occasions (Courts-of-Honor) and is a handy place to put Merit Badges where they won't get lost.  They're perfect for letting Scouts practice their sewing skills. 

I wouldn't mind seeing a change to the uniform - something classic (no more epaulets - we aren't the French Gendarme), dump the cargo pockets on the shirt - and let's change the color from drab tan to something else - it looks like a cheap imitation of the National Park Service uniforms - just a lot less dynamic.  It's just doesn't scream out "active".  I like the darker green of the Maine Warden Service uniforms.  Dump the convertible pants with the zip-off legs and cargo pockets.  Cargo pants are so Old Navy 1990's, and the zip off legs are fine for activities in the outdoors but don't look good with the uniform shirts or at meetings and in parades.  Frankly, blue jeans look sharper.  Finally, it's way beyond time for the BSA to officially sanction an activity/Class B uniform - They could easily choose four or five standard polo-style shirt colors and develop a network of shirt providers that are licensed to use BSA imagery and can customize basic shirts to meet a unit's need (Troop numbers, community, etc.) - CINTAS is a well-respected national firm and their pricing is pretty reasonable. 

We've had celebrities front the BSA before - often in a bid to attract specific segments of society.  It became ironic after the fact but at one time George Takei, aka Star Trek's Sulu, fronted a number of ads for the BSA - mostly targeted at attracting more Asians to the BSA (and before he publicly came out - thus the irony).  Caspar the Friendly Ghost and Richie Rich were "celebrity" Scouts (Caspar a Cub Scout, Richie Rich a Boy Scout) at the height of their popularity (granted, they were comics but at the time Richie Rich sold more comics than Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man combined).  I don't think most celebrities have the kind of staying power needed to be a fronts-person for the BSA.  They're either going to be flash-in-the-pans (whatever happened to the last Spider-Man), will do something stupid that will now ensnare the BSA (see Trump), or be attractive to too narrow a group of people (one of the most popular television shows going right now is still Big Bang Theory - I don't know if any of the male stars were in Scouting but I could see how they might be able to promote STEM initiatives but not the outdoors). 

I'm wondering if the most impactful thing might not be any big change in programming or in uniforming, or advancement - but could be something much more "personal"  Now granted, there are plenty of US BSA units that are struggling, but there are also plenty that are not.  I've always felt that the BSA is, like America as a whole, a bit insular - we don't really pay attention to our brethren on the other side of our borders - how many Scouts really understand that we're hosting an International Jamboree?  This might be the perfect time to build a "Brother Scout Unit" program - it could be as simple as a "pen pal" relationship with one or more Scouting units from another country to as in depth as an "adopt a unit" model where a blessed unit in the US might adopt a unit in a poorer country and send surplus equipment, etc. over to help them out. 

Don't close the account until after you have personally talked to the COR.  The CO may not want the account closed - they may just want to take the current signatories off the account and have new ones on the account.  You should also make arrangements to turn over all the financial records to the COR.  It is their Troop, their bank account and their financial records.  If they want new signatories on the bank account, stick around long enough to follow-up to make sure they have taken you off the account.

There is no prohibition by National on a Boy Scout unit doing an activity with a Girl Scout unit.  The BSA leaves it to their chartering organizations (who often leave it to the Troops) to use their own common sense to develop their own policies on sharing activities.

Back when I was a Scout, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts would work together doing the Memorial Day flag ceremony.  Sometimes we marched in one giant mass of Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Brownies, Cub Scouts and Explorers in the 4th of July parade, sometimes we marched as separate units (btw - I think it was a lot more impressive to see a very large group of boys and girls in uniforms of all kinds mixing and mingling in the parade with brothers and sisters marching together - there may be nothing that melts a mother's heart more than seeing a 15 year old Boy Scout carrying his Brownie sister on his shoulders, or a 15 year old Girl Scout holding her Cub Scout brother's hand, while marching together in a parade).  The church we were sponsored by celebrated Scout Sunday for both the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts on the same day.  The Cub Scout Packs and Brownie Troops (?) would plan and operate a bicycle safety rodeo for the 1st week in May together.  If a Troop wants to plan a camping trip with a Girl Scout Troop, they can do that too.  Yes, Boy Scouting is for boys - but is that any reason to create a barrier to occasionally sharing activities with Girl scouts, 4H, FFA, Campfire, a local youth sports league, etc.?

I think your sharing the recruiting space with the local Girl Scouts is a great thing - and you can remind the Scoutmaster that in doing so, you were living the Scout Law - specifically Helpful, Friendly, Courteous and Kind.

BTW - welcome to the forum

There is no prohibition by National on a Boy Scout unit doing an activity with a Girl Scout unit.  The BSA leaves it to their chartering organizations (who often leave it to the Troops) to use their own common sense to develop their own policies on sharing activities.

Back when I was a Scout, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts would work together doing the Memorial Day flag ceremony.  Sometimes we marched in one giant mass of Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Brownies, Cub Scouts and Explorers in the 4th of July parade, sometimes we marched as separate units (btw - I think it was a lot more impressive to see a very large group of boys and girls in uniforms of all kinds mixing and mingling in the parade with brothers and sisters marching together - there may be nothing that melts a mother's heart more than seeing a 15 year old Boy Scout carrying his Brownie sister on his shoulders, or a 15 year old Girl Scout holding her Cub Scout brother's hand, while marching together in a parade).  The church we were sponsored by celebrated Scout Sunday for both the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts on the same day.  The Cub Scout Packs and Brownie Troops (?) would plan and operate a bicycle safety rodeo for the 1st week in May together.  If a Troop wants to plan a camping trip with a Girl Scout Troop, they can do that too.  Yes, Boy Scouting is for boys - but is that any reason to create a barrier to occasionally sharing activities with Girl scouts, 4H, FFA, Campfire, a local youth sports league, etc.?

I think your sharing the recruiting space with the local Girl Scouts is a great thing - and you can remind the Scoutmaster that in doing so, you were living the Scout Law - specifically Helpful, Friendly, Courteous and Kind.

BTW - welcome to the forum

Add an egg to boxed pancake mix

Worcestershire Sauce and/or nutmeg to ground beef for hamurgers or meatloaf

Crushed pineapple (drained) to pancake mix (especially good ith buckwheat pancakes)

Butter only (no milk) for mashing potatoes

Was it the Chief Scout Executive or the District Executive attending that Troop meeting.  I suspect it was the District Executive - CSE's don't generally meet with Troops for these types of issues, and they usually don't have that close of a relationship with Scoutmasters.

If it was the DE, then you need to make a phone call to the Chief Scout Executive and tell that person what you've just explained to us and ask that person point blank how one of his DE's can ignore the physical assault of a Scout by a Scoutmaster at his Summer Camp which was witnessed by multiple people, including camp staff (who, by the way, should have also reported it to the Camp Director who should have reported it to the CSE).  Do not let anyone try to shunt you on to anyone other than the CSE - if they try, tell them that you either speak with the CSE or you your next call will be to National to report that the Council is ignoring a Scoutmaster on Scout assault.

You also need to file that report with the Sheriff - even if "nothing comes of it".  You want to do that before talking to the CSE so you can tell them (without telling them that the Sheriff thinks nothing can be done) that you have filed an assault complaint against the Scoutmaster.

You should also contact the head of the institution - not the COR - let them know that you have filed an assault charge against the Scoutmaster of the unit they control for assaulting your son while at summer camp.

Let's quote sources that don't have an agenda against the guy. The NYT? Really? Why not CNN or MSNBC? C'mon guys at least try to find a credible news source, not ones that slipped Hillary the questions prior to the debates.

What could Golf Magazine (the original source) possibly have against President Trump - a man who owns major golf courses around the world?