David CO

If there is a choice to be made that necessitates that I side with the councils/execs or the units/Chartered Organizations, I will choose the units and CO's every time.

Two excellent outcomes.

Unfortunately, scouting has become an alternative lifestyle.

Ignored? This attitude is what got us into this bankruptcy mess in the first place. BSA should not have ignored the child abuse. It was a big mistake that should never be repeated.

I think it is wrong for people to alter a quote. You should not have put in the ...... bla, bla, bla. Just quote him correctly and add your comments outside the quote box. Doing so might make you a better role model.

I'm not sure BSA actually has exclusive rights to all of the IP. It certainly doesn't have the international rights. There are many other countries who use the same IP in their boy scout programs. BSA only has exclusive rights within the USA. A smart lawyer could argue that BSA is leasing the IP from the WOSM, and cannot transfer the IP to another entity without WOSM consent. It could also be argued that the federal charter protection does not apply to IP that is "owned" by WOSM.

I agree. The board would have to vote to replace itself in whole (rather than one at a time). As I said, they would never do it, even if it were necessary to save scouting. It will never happen.

I was thinking the same thing. 1640 posts. Am I having a senior moment? I don't remember the name.

I disagree. BSA could be sold/merged if a potential buyer would be allowed to completely replace the board/staff and institute necessary reforms. Of course, this will never happen. The board/staff will protect their positions at all costs, right to the very end.

I have a few thoughts about this. I have always been aware of the fact that there are many families out there who practice a greater degree of modesty in the home than what I was brought up with. I have no problem with this. To each their own. I do have a problem with the idea that BSA might try to impose a YP rule regarding modesty that they would apply to scouters and their families in their own homes. This idea that BSA's YP rules should apply to scouters at all times and in all places is absurd.

I think the exact opposite is true. If the council tells you not to camp, the council is violating the charter agreement.

My religion does not impose any rules about not having appropriate one-on-one interactions outside of church functions. Nor does it impose two-deep adult leadership outside of church. I don't know of any religion or organization, other than BSA, that does this. I do think BSA is unique in this regard. I could be wrong, but I don't know of any.

This topic has been about interactions outside of scouting. I think you are making the same mistake as BSA when you confuse the two things. There is a big difference between regulating activities at a unit campout and trying to control people's interactions outside of scouting.

Right. Stop there. There is no point in looking any further for exceptions or loopholes. Those are the rules. Trying to conscientiously follow the BSA rules is like trying to never squash an ant. You can never walk in the grass. You can never drive a car. You must always keep an eye on the sidewalk every step of the way. It may be theoretically possible to do it, but it will ruin your life. It will ruin your kid's life.

Don't fall for it. The council doesn't have the authority. The council can't force a Chartered Organization to accept anyone in their unit. If the parent doesn't like your unit, invite them to go elsewhere.

Yes. Really. No one-on-one contact. That is about as clear a line as can be drawn. Now, in order to more fully answer your question, I have to venture into the area of opinion, which you asked me not to do. BSA intentionally made YP rules knowing that the adult leaders could not and would not follow them. The rules were made to be broken. No scouters in their right minds would forbid their son from ever having his friends over to the house to play. Does it violate the YP rules? Yes. Do it anyway. Will BSA ever say it's ok for your son to have his friends over to the house?

If you're not fishing for opinions, I think you already know the answer. The BSA rules are very clear and well documented.

True. I disagree with those who say we are a systemically racist country, but I do think we have become a systemically elitist country. IMO, that's almost as bad.

There is definitely a feeling of aristocracy amongst the crowd that sits on most of these boards. They feel entitled. I think this is part of the reason why the millennials don't like joining service clubs. They are more than willing to help out, for a good cause, but they aren't willing to put up with all of this elitism nonsense.

Only for the sort of guy who thinks that profiteering off of kids is nice work.

There is no published price, of course. I've been told the price for a seat on the board starts at around $10,000. I'm not sure if that is a one-time gift or an annual donation. Either way, it is way beyond my means.

Only the wealthy volunteers.

If that is the case, BSA should lose its tax exemption.

Sorry. Any defense of national is too much.

Very close. The early guys (including Boyce) had always intended for scouting to have a broad appeal that reached beyond social and economic classes. The charter reflects this attitude. The first scout executive (West) pulled off a palace coup, and drove out most of the organization's founders (including Boyce). He then transformed BSA into a money-making operation, eliminated the competition, and secured an astronomical salary for himself. This would make a great TV miniseries. I'm surprised it has never been done.