ToKindle96

AwakeEnergy: I grant that your Pack clearly violated a Scout is Obedient. I remember learning something to the effect of "A Scout is obedient. A scout follows the rules of his family, school, troop, community, and country. If he deems a rule to be unfair or unjust, he tries to have them changed in orderly fashion rather than disobeying them." So, yes, your Pack violated Obedient--perhaps with sound rationale, but a violation nonetheless. Maybe we can add that to the list of the things the BSA should crack down on! I chose to emphasize Scout is Trustworthy because the ease at which people

A Scout is Trustworthy. Full stop. That's my agenda--I'm not being secretive about it. I love the tortured logic to arrive at your conclusion though.

Since you mentioned "Do I really spell out why that's contrary to the Scout Law?"... can you help me understand how a Pack "ignoring the separate dens by gender rule" isn't contrary to the Scout Law? Does that teach our Scouts that a Scout is Trustworthy? Ignoring rules that don't fit our agenda ("my scouts' ability to scout together") and then making reference to the Scout Law is rich.

I'm pretty sure those parents wouldn't be able to attend anyway... at least as of 9/1... unless they are registered. The exception is for cubs but I don't believe there are exceptions for Scouts BSA.

Does that COR still have a say at all? He is representing the Charter Org that is no longer going to sponsor a scouting unit. Wouldn't a new COR come with a new charter org?

I don't see similar instruments as an option. I see bugle, trumpet, or cornet. Does the word "may" imply "must" given the options presented?

Of course not!!! Evaluating decisions and their impact on overall org health and its survival is fair game though.

Many faults but... It is hard to believe that more than doubling the viable target market yet experiencing a decline in membership of more than half could be viewed as a net positive from a survival standpoint. Granted, there are multiple confounding factors, but If I'm evaluating a balanced scorecard of those decisions, the lead indicator (membership) doesn't a bright scorecard make.

"here's your chance to be official." I remain dismayed at the ease with which scouters ignore the rules and everyone knows about it and looks away. Until this pilot there were no mixed gender dens, yet many units had them anyway. I know... leadership challenges, efficiency, made sense for families, scouts wanted it that way, etc. but rules are rules. Pretty hard to instill the scout law in scouts when we flagrantly disregard the first point of it. What kind of example is that for the youth?

I have trouble with the ease with which some in Scouting "wink wink" about operating a mixed gender troop already. What does that say about the first point of the Scout Law if we openly flaunt the rules and look the other way?