DeanRx

sorry douplicate post(This message has been edited by deanrx)

I think we are missing a vary valid point here. How many scout scholarships are there? How many professional scouters making millions of dollars per year? None.

My thought is, scouts doesn't potentially pay for college or turn into a lucritive pro career, thus it takes a back seat to those activities that have the big payday potential. No matter how realistic or unrealistic that potential nght be.

Band and sports, heck even theatre can payoff in scholarship $$ and for a select few, turn into a high paying career w/ fame. I don't see that happening with scouting.

Dean

AZMIke-

You may be correct about Planned Parenthood... I don't have enough interaction to make an educated judgement on their policies and procedures. However, in the very limited times in my professional life I've been involved in a mandatory report (about 3 total in 15 years - one of which involved suspected sexual abuse), the cops didn't even send someone out the same day. When they did send out a deputy (or social services worker in one case), it was standard interview... who was it, their address (which may or may not be legit), and other contact info, and WHY we suspected abuse was being done. No follow up, no arrest, certainly nothing that seemed urgent on the part of the report taker. I've had more input / feedback and urgency from the local sheriff's deputy when they were taking a report on cars being broken into in my neighborhood.

Now, if a youth (or anyone for that matter), "victim makes an outcry" - then I would never hesitate to act. I just don't see this as being a realistic senerio in real life. I do not work in the ER, maybe then I would see more of this type of thing. I'm certain most hospitals and urgent care clinics have protocols on how to respond to that type of reporting.

I just don't think its fair to lay the blame or paint others outside the abusive relationship at fault for lack of action. If someone wants help, you intervene. If they are not willing to report, you are really wasting the limited resources we all have in our professions. Guess we just see the issue from two different sides of the coin.

The state I live and practice in has chosen to have the age of consent for reproductive services placed at age 13, not that I agree with all these laws. This means that once 13, a girl can be referred for abortion services without parental notification, STD treatment, birth control, etc... mom and dad do not have to be told unless the youth agrees to it. Heck, they can get an Rx for PlanB without parent notice at age 13, and ANYONE can buy it over the counter if they show proof of ID over age 18 - no prescription needed.

The pimp just needs to stroll into the local WalMart pharmacy and plunk down their $50 for the PlanB pill. They can be male and are not required to make any declaration as to who the intended end user is (obviously not for themselves). Not sure how the abused is even in a position to make an outcry for help at that point?

I agree that society would rather sweep this type of social ill under the rug, just like many other ugly realities of life that "polite" society doesn't really have a solution for. Much easier to pretend it doesn't exist / happen than develop solutions to deal with the issue.

Dean

Sentinel- No problem, I appreciate your question, and might I add - for being 19, you post some very well thoughtout ideas...so here goes...

If I see a crime being committed - YES, I would call 911.

If I see a stranger in the street in need of help - YES, I would help.

As for the vinette about an underage girl being prostituted... well - IF the gal is willing to make a statement or cry for help - then yes you help. 99% of the time, foklks in abusive situations (this type, elder, spousal abuse, etc...) not only do not say anyting, they defend and stick up for their attackers. Its not a pretty thing and I hope no one mistakes my personal stance on reporting as a casual attitude towards any type of abuse! My point is, people who work in prfessions that come across this type of human behavoir on a rather routine basis have come to understand that intervention is a very tricky situation. You risk loosing the patient to follow up (i.e. they will no longer seek care when needed, or be forced by their abuser to not seek care when needed), they or their abuser may retailiate against you, or you might be way off base on your "hunch" of abuse.

I stand by my statement that you can counsel, you can provide an opportunity to escape, you can refer to social services, but if the individual is not ready to take that lifeline, then there is little else one can do to help.

AZMike - while idealistic, is very misinformed about how the system really works when / if you report. Unless the report is from an ER doc involving severe bodily injury... you're lucky to get a cop or social worker to come do an indterview within 72hrs of the report being filed. By that time, the perp and victim have already moved on (if they suspect anything) and you've wasted your valuable time doing a report and interview that will likely go nowhere when you could have been using your time to treat other patients who value what you do for them. That is a sad, but very true fact of life.

We have mandatory reporting laws, we have to report out on narcotic prescriptions monthly, we have to screen for over the counter Sudafed and dextromethorphan purchases. If we fail to do so as a healthcare provider, the "system" (law enforcement and licensing agencies) can come in and fine me or take away my license to preactice. This hurts myself (unable to earn a living) and the community I serve (unable to provide care). They make the "good guy" into the "bad guy" because its easier to catch and prosecute the healthcare professional than it is to bust the drug dealer or pimp on the street!

I do not get any type of payment for all this reporting I must do. I have to hire additional staff to meet all the reporting requirements to keep my and my employees heads out of these legal nooses, thus costing me more to run my business. Yet with all these safeguards, we still have physical, psychological, sexual, and drug abuse in our society!

Less than 100 years ago, there were little to no laws governing the use and prescribing of all medications, to include opiates and such. Drug use was a problem then... its still just as large a problem now. If people want to abuse drugs, they will find a way to do it.

The current regulatory and reporting requirements do little to curtail illegal drug use and abuse. They do a LOT to prohibit legitimate prescribing and inconvience countless citizens that are attempting to access care for a legitimate medical need! They do a LOT to set up a system in which the healthcare provider must not only think about what is best for their patient, but also what their prescribing habits might look like to the state DoJ. It does a LOT to increase the cost of healthcare for everyone by increasing MY cost to conduct a legal business!

All this has happened because law enforcement (lobbist mostly) have been successful in getting more and more legislation passed for the "good of society".

Thats why I say I do what is required and not much else to aid law enforcement... you can argue I have an ethical and moral obligation and maybe I do. But, I spent my life educating myself so that I can practice medicine, NOT criminal justice. I fail to see WHY it is my job to do the job of the cops. They don't do mine for me free of charge. I'm not going to be able to save someone who doesn't even want to save themselves... I spend my limited time and energy with patients that WANT to do what's best for their own care.

Same reason I no longer lecture my fat patients about how their diet is killing them, causing their high blood pressure, and high cholesterol... I mention it, they know the truth, I offer help if they want it - then I move on to managing their BP, cholesterol, or diabetes. If I harp on them everytime they show up in my office, I am wasting both my and their time, and most likely they will get tired of hearing it and go to the doc down the street instead (or stop coming to the doc at all). That's a loose / loose situation for everyone involved.

Dean

I find it quite disturbing that folks can't agree to disagree on the corporal punishment issue... unless you are beating the crap out of a child, I don't see the point. There are plenty of parents that inflict untold psychological abuse on their children... they do it long into adulthood. We don't scream for them to stop or remove the child from the situation. The honest truth is until we remove parents from parenting and raise ALL youth on state mandated communes, there will be HUGE differences in parenting styles and tactics. Just the way it is. Some are right, some are wrong. You are not a bad parent if you once in a while use the rod and more than you are a poor parent if you spare the rod no matter the infraction.

As for the abused girl at an abortion clinic... some of you have a very simplistic view of how life outside of the suburbs really is. First, you are assuming you could get the girl to cooperate and make an accusation. Without this, you are beating a dead horse and most certainly placing the youth at risk, and likey yourself. You are lucky if all you get is a vandalized car.

I know a provider who once reported. He had to deal with the pimp showing up at his daughter's high school and threatening to forcibly "recruit" her. That's how the intimidation in the human traffic gangs really works folks. Didn't change his high ideals, but sure changed the way he went about reporting in the future! I see drug seekers and drug pushers everyday in my practice. If I acted on it, I would not get anything else done and I would drive all my clients away. At the end of the day, if the ailment is legit, you are leggaly bound to treat - even if you KNOW they are abusing drugs. You can counsel, you can give them resources, but if they don't want help... it does very little good to cut them off. They either go down the street to someone else - or they change in their prescription abuse for street drug abuse, and they're lost to follow up... tell me how that "helps" an addict?

As for firearms regulation...

"Where on the planet do you find that? Certainly not in the USA. Firearms are the most heavily regulated industry in the nation. (What other legal product requires Federal permission BEFORE every retail purchase?)"

Sorry, medical care has you trumped in spades. Almost everything I do, from assesment to prescription to ordering supplies and drugs for the office, are ALL regulated at the federal, state, and local level. Shoot - you got to put folk's ID into a database to sell them Sudafed and cough syrup! All legal retail purchases... all heavily regulated.

Until the cops start helping me do MY job free of charge - I'm not inclined to do much of their work for them pro-bono anymore.

Dean

JoeBob-

Terrible, terrible, terrible idea with the health forms !!!

As I am in healthcare and my next door neighbor does IT risk management and risk mitigation for several major insurance compaines, I urge you to do the following:

1) Have the FAMILY keep the health form.

2) The scout MUST turn it in to the driver of the vehicle they are riding in (along with the permission slip) when you leave on an outing.

3) When you get back from an outing - GIVE THE HEALTH FORM BACK to the SCOUT !!

Go ahead and poo-poo me if you wish, but HIPPA does NOT absolve volunteers from unautorized discloser of Private Health Information (PHI). You loose that flash drive, or e-mail it to the wrong e-mail address, etc... God forbid somebody inside or outside the unit gets an e-copy and posts it on the internet... PHI includes not only medical information, but the insurance info, and demographic info too. You let an unauthorized entity know that little Johnny has Blue Cross - you just violated HIPPA. I've seen big time trouble / litigation with MD's e-mailing info to the wrong address, lost laptops with patient data, etc...

A missing flash drive with 40-50 scout's personal health info on it is a nightmare.

Fines start at 25K and go up from there!

Keep it paper, keep it local, and keep it in the hands of the scout and parent(s) as much as possible!

Shred any old or outdated health forms you might have... just trouble sitting in a box.

Dean

"It all stops when you can't make the house payment or put food on the table"...

Na, it doesn't even stop then. We now have government programs to bail you out of your house payment and EBT / debit cards issued by the state so you can continue to buy groceries because you spent all your "disposable" income on the latest iPhone, tattoos, and cigarettes.

Its gotten so bad, we have members of both political parties that openly espouse that you are a bad American if you fail to continue to consume... because to spend money means you are helping stimulate the economy!

It used to be if you didn't have the money, you waited until you EARNED it to buy the thing you want. Then came store credit and credit cards, now you get it now... try to pay for it later. That has morphed into, already got it, its value has depriciated, I have yet to start paying on it and I can't afford to, so I default on the bank, and the bank goes to the government for a handout to cover that loss because they are "too big to fail"... all is forgiven and written off, so the lesson is never learned and the cycle begins anew.

That's pretty much where I see our economy and country headed at this very moment.

Not to politicize the comment, but much was made about Romney's 47% comment in the election. Well, it might not be 47% - but there IS a growing faction within the US that not only views the government's role as one to help you when you fall on hard times by no fault of your own, but also when an individual makes poor personal choices that place them in dire straights! Our current administration would have you believe that the majority of folks in the red in this country are there because of no fault of their own... the economy is to blame, and of course, their and the government's spending and borrowing habits had NO effect on the state of the economy! The lack of accountabilty at both the personal and regional / national governmental levels is staggering and very scary to me. I'm not a big history buff, but the fall of the Roman empire comes to mind when I look at the US and western society as a whole. Unabashed consumerism can only be sustained for so long, before that society fails. Are we at that point as a nation? I don't know. I know if we were Rome, we'd be expanding the empire and subjugating those we conquer (see Iraq / Afganistan / middle east in general) and exploiting their riches (i.e. oil) to sustain the need of the empire to consume. We're not even doing an effective job of that!

Eamonn - kudos to the mom in your OP, for at least being willing to work the OT to afford the overexpendature she is incurring. If, God forbid, she looses her job, she would no doubt be one of those in the red, "through no fault of their own..." looking for Uncle Sam to step up tot he plate and help he get out of the hole she's dug for herself and her family.

But at least her daughters will not have felt cheated... at least not until they reach working age and get their first job / paycheck and find the tax bracket they are in to attempt to pay down the debt their mother's generation bestowed upon them.

Its been going on in this country since the end of WWII. The greatest generation passed the debt to the flower children, they have passed it on to generation X, the gen x'ers will give it to the millinums... and so it goes. Maybe we just raise the debt ceiling, keep borrowing (assuming some country our there will still loan to us) and keep the status quo going? I don't know?

I have huge faith in this country and in my fellow man. However, one of my largest fears in life is that my children's(and more so my grandchildren's) generation will be virtually sold into endentured service to China in order to payback all the debt this country contimues to accumulate, with no plan or path to pay down. Eventually, those notes will come due... and the US is NOT too big to fail.

My grandfather, before he died, told me his generation's greatest fear was having to fight a war with China - because they would overwhelm and control us with shear numbers of people. Well, my fear is that China will take us over without firing a shot. They will just buy us out over time and get the last parts at the fire sale as the US goes out of business.

Some of the coolest snow shoes I've seen...

PVC pipe for the frames, then 550-cord for the laces, and an old truck inner-tube cut out for the "webbing". The rubber webbing was reinforced with punch-through metal gommets (like for tarp corners) and laced onto the PVC frame with the 550 cord.

The troop I saw drilled holes in the PVC tubes to anchor the 550-cord in place on the frame.

Looked like they worked pretty darn well and rather cheap in the materials department.

Dean

I still stand by my comment on fundraising... even if you can overcome the volume of scouts and difference in leadership, HOW do you overcome infighting over funds?

I know some (if not most) LDS units already operate like this. However, do most of these have mandatory funding via the church members? If not - how does the funding work for the LDS units?

My hunch would be in a one-unit program... the program with the most adults on the committee would drive both the program and the funding. If committee members have mostly cubs... lots of $ spend on pinewood and entry level camping, older boys high adventure gets the shaft. Or, if the committee leadership is the other way, cubs never camp and everything the unit does is for 14 y/o on up.

Never seen it in action, so maybe a one-unit would work. But, I my expirience, its difficult to balance the program between 1st graders and 5th graders for cubbies... not sure how you do that effectively when you stretch the age from 6 y/o to 18 y/o all in the same unit.

Somebody's program needs are going to get short changed, IMHO.

Dean

yeah, I understand there is a certain subset of folks out there that view anyone who wants to stick around without a youth in the program as being creepy... we can have a whole thread on the reasons why, but some of these folks are the best leaders, some are the worst... kind of like the adults WITH youth in the program.

I agree that a self-imposed "term limit" with secession planning is the best way to go. Then if a CC, SM, or CM... go find something else to do to serve BSA.

Two reasons I say this:

1) Even if the "old" leader steps out of the role, but stays with the unit... scouts and adults alike will still turn to them instead of the "new" leader for direction. This is especially true of adults, if they question or donot understand WHY the new leader is doing something a certain way. Happened to me as CM. I stepped down in my son's last year in cubs to be the ACM, while the new CM got his feet wet. I had to tell multiple folks, "Go ask / speak to XXX, I'm not in charge anymore." for a whole year. The new CM wasn't really a CM until I was gone. We have a similar issue in the Troop with an ex-SM still being in an active leadership role. The current SM gets second guessed, gets a ,"well, I'll go see if Mr.X see it the same way." when a youth might not like the response from the current SM, etc... If you've been around for 10 years, understand EVERYONE is going to expect you to be the subject matter expert, and you're opinion will likely hold more weight than it should.

2) No one will step up and volunteer, so long as someone else is still in the position doing a good or adequate job.

Transition planning is key, but set a date and stick to it. You can always be a phone call or e-mail away for the new leader, but by showing up at every meeting and outing, you are likely preventing the "new" leader from leading - even if you are not trying to do so and if your intent is not to take over as leader... by de facto and tenure... you ARE the leader.

Kinda like Clinton upstaging Obama at a join public appearance...

My 2 cents worth,

Dean

I see benefits and dowsides to a one-unit approach...

1) would it mean you MUST have a troop for your pack? Or can multiple packs still feed a given troop? The attrition issue cited would be cause for concern.

2) If you have a well run pack and a poorly run troop, or vice versa... do you have a chance to opt out? to another unit? I wouldn't want to be a CM forced into feeding boys into a failing troop, or a SM trying to pull cubs from a lethargic pack.

3) I don't think this would make unit volunteer positions any easier to fill. You either have an awards chair for 40-50 boys, or you have one for the 100+ combined unit. You either need co-chairs or face burnout problems at that point.

4) Same issue for fundraising. Do the younger and older sections do their own and operate their own budgets? If not, WHO gets to decide if unit $$ goes towards funding the new pinewood derby track, or a Philmont Trek for the older boys? I see HUGE opportunity for unit infighting with regards to funds for program.

5) Not sure if the "Boy Scout" (older) scouts would want to lead mentor the younger guys. We (as an overall organization) have a hard time getting older scouts to teach younger scouts and also to serve as Den Chiefs for cub packs. I don't see this changing if you throw them all in one unit. Maybe I'm off base on this, but my gut tells me otherwise.

The pro's - you get continuity in the program, you can utilize good leaders and volunteers at multiple levels of the program simultaneously.

The con's - more leader burn-out as jobs are the same, just more kids on the roster to keep track of. Potential for infighting with regards to fundraising and appropriations for program.

Dean

Did I miss something, or did the OP mention in one of his follow on posts that the DE (or someone from the district) refused to let them recruit at schools without the district's permission?

Hmmm, that strikes me a very odd.

The DE's salary is directly affected by membership numbers. So, unless you were recruiting OUTSIDE your assigned district, I cannot imagine a DE turning their nose up at recruitment!

If this is the case, my next stop would be the SE's office to ask him WHY you DE is undercutting your attmepts to bring more youth into the program.

Dean

Not much call for it here in SoCal, but as a lad in the midwest... we would camp once a month, weather be damned.

In the winter, we used sleds to haul our gear into camp.

We built igloos and even snow caves to sleep in. Had an ASM who's farm we used to camp on. He'd bring out a few bales of hay and each two man snow cave team got a plastic sheet (as ground cloth on the snow) and a bale to break open as a heat layer. Put your zero degree bag on top of that and spend the night in your snow cave... most of the time, I was peeling off layers in the middle of the night from being too warm!

nldscout... as for the 2am nature calls... that's why God created empty Gatorade bottles Just don't drink the yellow ones...

I understand the arguement of, "Not all the older boys WANT to interact with the younger ones...."

However, there is a big different in WANT TO and SHOULD.

Sometimes as an adult leader, I don't WANT to put up with an older scout's attitude, but I do. Sometimes I don't WANT to hand hold a younger scout who should have already mastered a skill, but I do. Most of the time, I don't WANT to have a discussion with a helicopter parent about letting Johnny figure it out on his own and that failure is also a teaching method, but I do.

Why? Beacuse I am a leader.

If good citizens and LEADERS are what we are trying to make out of our scouts, then we do a HUGE disservice to the elder scouts in a unit, who for either selfish or immaturity reasons, do not WANT to lead and mentor younger scouts. IMHO, it is a critical job of adult leaders to mentor and incent these older scouts to do their duty to their unit. A good part of that duty, as a scout gets older, is to provide leadership and support to the guys behind him. This to me is one of the last and most important lessons in scouting... pay-it-forward.

Yes, its easier to let an older scout slide and in some cases the program is better for the younger scouts if they only have to take instruction from folks who really want to be doing it. However, the development of the older scout as a true leader is just as important as the development of scout skills in the 1st, 2nd year scouts.

Seen too many times that a senior scout marks time in an upper POR to check the box for their Life or Eagle rank. As Scoutmasters, we should be holding them to the standard of that POR. One of the main acheivements of a POR like SPL, ASPL, PL, or Troop Trainer is to mentor and guide those who do not yet have the skills. If the older boys refuse to do this, then they need to revisit WHY they are in the POR. If that means a delay in achieving the rank, then that is part of the learning curve.

An Eagle scout is not one who is just self sufficent and self reliant. That is the goal of the 1st class rank. Above that, the ranks of Star, Life, Eagle are really a matter of merit badges, service hours, and LEADING OTHERS. If a senior scout only does the first two, but refuses to lead... then are they really earning their upper ranks?

Dean

While I agree that we are a values based organization, I disagree that you can disconnect those values from other issues such as membership, funding, and corporate branding.

BSA is a business... its a non-profit business, but a business just the same. If it fails as a business, then you can discuss values all you want, but you will no longer have a program to deliver said values.

A business thrives by responding to market demands. It gains and retains customers by understanding those customer's needs. The battleground for BSA seems to be WHO are the customers they are wanting to serve? Is it the existing BSA membership? Is it the overwhelmingly conservative values based organizations that charter the majority of their units? or is it broader society as a whole?

Because, from what I see, those three entities have some overlaping "needs", but also some very divergent "needs" as customers of the BSA. Some would even argue that certain "needs" are mutually exclusive.

Now, I'm all for scouting at the local level only. But, those local scouts still need a place to camp, do scout-craft, have 'adventure', and learn the values the program is trying to teach! Without proper funding, these camps cease to exist. BSA has already LOST prefered status with many state and federal park facilities over its membership policies. This varries from not being able to get discounted group rates, to in some cases outright land use bans by the governing agencies.

I happen to reside in a council that is in the process of loosing its council camp site in Balboa Park because of BSA's membership issues. The council leadership (in its wisdom) has a capital improvement plan to buy / build an OFFICE BUILDING !!! to replace the council office and land use area it is loosing !!! They didn't go seek out a undeveloped land area (not that there is much left in San Diego county) to buy and replace the Camp Balboa site... they went 21st century Wood Badge and are going to get an office building.

So, the funding and the business and the policy of BSA national does DIRECTLY EFFECT the scouting program at the local level. That is why its not a dead horse, and WHY the local vols should be concerned and engaged in how BSA manages its corporate brand to the public.

I wonder if "John Smith family" conference room in the new council offices has the same ring to it as "John Smith family" dining hall does?

Dean

Yeah Barry makes a pretty darn good point there...

The idea of age based patrols is really NOT a boy-led troop. You must have age integration to have any type of youth-led unit.

A couple things that might help:

1) Put the challenge to the PLC... see what solutions they come up with.

2) Mentor the older scouts with ASM's and the SM. Make the idea of being a 'trainer' to a younger scout the best thing a scout can be. Gently remind them that others taught them scout skills, so now its their turn to pay-it-forward... that's what true servant leadership is all about. If we fail to do that, we fail as scouters - period.

3) Have a few "older scouts only" activities built it with your regular troop activities. Maybe have a campout where you all camp at a base camp the first night, then on Sat morning, the older boys get to go off on a high adventure "backpacking" overnighter, while a couple older scouts and ASMs stay at base camp and cover things like Tottin Chip and lashings for the younger guys. Then on the next campout, the older scout "trainers" that stayed in base camp last time go out on the backpacking and a couple other trainers hang with the younger scouts teaching scout skills. It gives the older scouts the freedom and challenge of higher adventure, but still holds them accountable in their leadership role to mentor those coming up behind them.

The balance between letting buddies all stick together and having a good mix of ages is not a simple fix. One way to address the issue is to allow patrol re-allignments, say every 6 months. Give the PLC some guidance (i.e. we need a minimum of 2-3 scouts rank star and above, 2-3 second or first class, and 4 scout-tenderfoot per patrol). Let the SCOUTS figure out WHO goes in each patrol. Then they OWN the decision. An older scout can at least get one or two good friends in his patrol, but still live up to the challenge of mentoring the younger boys. If someone is really unahppy about the patrol assignments, remind them that its not permanent and they can change when the term expires.

I haven't been doing this too long, but in my short expirience - you get less pushback when the SCOUTS are the ones who made the choice, instead of being told how its going to be. Second, scout at about age 14, need to be reminded that being a leader is more than about getting to boss other scouts around. Its about teaching, mentorship, being a resource to those you are in charge of. That's a hard thing for a lot of adults to grasp, so its no wonder its a difficult task with teenaged boys.

It will be messy, and will not be perfect, but it will be THEIR program, not one mandated by a group of adults. A reminder that being boss does not just mean being bossy goes a long way.

The adult leaders mentor the youth leaders, so the youth leaders mentor the younger scouts.

Dean

As a post script...

If you or a DL speaks with the families and they state their son is still going to be active... do NOT float them at recharter time. We (I) made this mistake the 1st year I was involved with recharter and we had 3 families that had yet to pay, but all said yes they were still going to be active and would pay at the next month pack meeting.

Well, unit paid for the boy's registration and Boy's Life subscription to the tune of $25 per boy (if I remember correctly), the next month, all three stated they were not going to be in scouts anymore and stopped showing up... so, my trust cost the unit $75 of our funds. Lesson learned.

You want to think the best of people, but if their actions up til this point tell you otherwise, go with what history has shown you and NOT what their words tell you, until you have the $$ in the treasury.

Dean

Sorry, I don't have a form letter, but unfortunately have delt with this issue in the past as well...

A short, certified letter stating:

Mr. / Ms. XXXX,

The Cub Scout Pack ### has tried multiple times to engage you regarding your son's, XXXX, dues for scouting activities. Our correspondence has been ignored up until this point. We are in the process of unit recharter and must have payment of $xxx.xx no later than (date), or the committee will have no choice but to suspend your son's scouting account and activities with the unit.

If you would like to apply for a scout scholarship due to financial hardship, we can work with you and the committee will refer you to the appropriate office at the council. (if such a thing exists for your unit)

Otherwise, if payment is not received by (date), your son's active status in the unit will be changed to inactive and he will not be able to participate or receive awards until all back dues are paid in full.

Sincerely,

(get it signed by as many committee members as possible)

This is not your doing, and you should have the support of the committee behind you. It is a sad reality, but scouting is not a free ride and the activities and awards the unit engages in cost money. A scout should be prepared to pay his own way, and it sounds like your unit has given ample opportunity for fundraising and time for these families to make arrangements with the unit. Be kind and compassionate, but be professional and steadfast in your dealings and you have nothing to worry about.

Scouting is easy when everyone does their part. The hard part is when someone does not live up to their obligation(s), then a member of the committee has to be the "bad guy" and hold them accountable.

Dean

OGE-

I think the thought is because the single longest lasting impact a president can make is the appointment of a federal judge, then term limits might provide some type of regulator on the situation. I'm not sure that is the case.

Both parties have and will continue to appoint right or left leaning judges based upon which party is in power at the time of the appointments. I'm not sure how you go about fixing that, especially when the appointment is ratified by the senate and in recent history, the same party has held sway in both the senate and the white hosue. It makes confirmation hearings more of a rubber stamp than a true vetting process.

I don't think term limits on judges fixes this problem. However, I also do not like the idea of the federal judges being in there for life, as they are untouchable. That can be a very good thing, it can be a very bad thing. If they stick to interpretation of the law and ruling on legal vs illegal status of laws, its a good thing. Once they start legislating from the bench (which again, has been done to both party's advantage) then its a very bad thing.

As I remember from Poli-Sci 101, the judical branch holds the most power in the US government. Congress can pass laws, the President can choose to sign or not sign a law.... but the Supreme Court gets to determine IF the law is LEGAL (constitutional). So, its the Supreme Court that really has the ability to define and rewrite the constitution. And those that get to make that decision are appointed for life. I'm not sure thats a good or bad thing, but I'm also not sure what one would do to improve upon the system either?

Dean

So Sentinel, the next logical question is...

How do we (volunteers at the local level) keep the issue from being a dead horse? There HAS to be some way to convey the message to national and at least have them hear what the masses are saying?

To leave it to outsiders (i.e. disgruntled ex-scouts turning in their awards, and LBGT organizations) seems like a no-win situation. These outside influences would rather see BSA destroyed than changed, and I fear they may see their efforts come to fuition.

Its an issue I struggle with almost daily. How to associate with an organization I feel does a great amount of good for both the youth and the community at large, but is very misguided in a couple of its policies at the national level.

If one was to bring the issue forward, does one risk being asked to leave BSA? No policy I know of states you can be excluded fro disagreeing with the membership policy, only if you ARE gay, then you cannot be a leader. However, I seem to think the reason only outside groups are the ones forcing the issue is there is sufficient FEAR in the ranks that if volunteers make their true feelings known, they would not be volunteers for much longer.

That is a VERY scary thought.

The EC as I understand it has served two purposes:

1) An easy way to collect the votes of one state and convey that vote to DC in a time before mass communication and rapid transit. The state elections officals would count the vote, total it, and then send the electors to Washington to cast that state's vote for the republic. Kind of out of touch with reality now since we have every major news organization calling the election results before poles close on the west coast!

2) To balance the large population states with the less populated states. Ok, I can understand this one. Not everyone is fond of CA, FL, TX, and NY being the only states with a say. However, is it any better to have states (or more likely a few counties in the states of) Ohio, South Carolina, Penn, and Colorado have the final say in the presidential election? Most in CA, TX and NY would tend to disagree. Is it really a national referendum on a leader when 90+% of the EC's are predicted PRIOR to the first ballot even being cast? I'd like to think the leader of the free world is determined by more than 3 to 5 "swing" states that are going to see billions of ad dollars and stumping dumped on them while the other 45 states and their issues are effectively ignored by the candidates (except for when they need more $$ for the campaign to go spend in the "swing" states, then they show up in CA for a weekend). It gives the candidates AND the special interest groups a rather small target demographic to push their agenda upon.

Now, what are the rationale for doing away with the EC?

1) One person = one vote. This is how the majority of our citizens envision an election in a free society works. Most folks are astonished to find out this is not the case. Why does a democrat in Texas and a Republican in California even BOTHER to cast their vote in a national election? Just go and vote the local ballot issues and leave your presidential vote blank... it doesn't count !!!

2) Along those same lines, what effect does a red living in a blue state or a blue living in a red state have on voter turn out? Does the EC not discourage certain folks from going to the poles? If I know my vote for president isn't going to count in my state, WHY show up? What effect does this then have on statewide and local election results? The EC directly affects the voter turn out and thus the input into state and local elections... its the federal government influencing state and local politics.

3) The EC makes even modest victories appear to be a landslide for the winner of the election. This has worked in both party's favor in the past. But, to the uneducated - it looks like Obama won by a huge margin, when in fact the popular vote was less than 2.5% margin. Yet, the winning party will tout their "landslide" victory as a "mandate" by the populace. Obama has done it, Bush did it... its spin doctor 101. If an election is truely as close as this past one was - it needs to be reported and respected as such. Both in the media and by BOTH political parties. A less than 1,000,000 vote win in swing states out of greater than 100 million votes cast, does not make a landslide...

4) The EC pretty much guarentees that a 3rd party candidate will never be viable in the election cycle. This keeps the power and control firmly where the dems and repubs all want it.... with the power brokers of the respective parties. Its the federal equivalent of gerymandering for your unfair share of the vote. It allows the parties to use historical data as a means to squash new ideas and to push a 3rd party candidate out of the debate forums, etc.... after all - if a 3rd party candidate can't even carry ONE EC vote, why should the major parties allow them to debate with the big boys? I find it ammusing that in our country, there are probably 50 different ways to get your hambuger at McDonalds, but we are force fed a diet of TWO predetermined candidates each election and we the people seem to be fine with that "choice". Not much of a choice, its an either / or, a yes / no.

Ultimately, the largest problem I see with the EC and its causation of "swing states" and only a two candidate choice is this....

It has caused the election to be more about why you shouldn't vote for the other guy, instead of what I can do for you and your country. The negativity in political ads and the overwhelming negativity of the electorate's attitude can be associated with the phrase "the lesser of two evils". Instead of attempting to find the most viable candidate that can do the most for our country, can lead and affect change / growth, the national election becomes who can have the least amount of mudslinging stick to them? The EC encourages this type of election, it propigates it. It is the reason that every election cycle becomes more cynical and the electorate more devisive.

Look on our own boards here, or look at other political boards... Very few folks ever discuss the positive that their candiate can do or has done. Its only about what the other has either failed to do, or will fail to do if elected! Heck, even in the media post election... no one is talking about what Obama did to win, they are talking about WHY Romney lost! The EC encourages milk toast candidates... the one with the least to say or the least accomplished record wins because they have less to be attacked about! That to me is the real problem with the EC.

I'm with scoutingagain on this one...

Along with the sea of corporate donors starting to dry up, I fear whether my 11 y/o accomplishments in scouting (if he does make it to Eagle) will carry the same weight / prestige as in generations past. It seems a good amount of folks outside of scouting do NOT make the distinction between national's membership policy and the scouts in the local units.

At what point does the Eagle rank begin to be viewed by outsiders as the "top" echelon of a bigoted organization? Yeah, you may have worked hard to get to that rank, but so did the Grand Wizard of the KKK, or the ruler of the Black Panthers...

Not exactly the same - but you see the comparison.

I fear the years and hard work put into the program by the volunteers and YOUTH will hold little meaning in secular society if the trend continues. National's unwillingness to at least entertain a local option and put this issue to rest in the general public stands to not only put the organization in a dire financial situation, it also CHEAPENS the prestige of the youth's work and achievements!

Public opinion and corporate branding take a long time to develop and very little time to destroy. Ask anyone that works for a bank that took TARP funds, or an automaker that took bailout money. While the public understands the difference between a corporations actions and its employees, most still associate one with the other. Chic-fil-A is another good example. WalMart with its unfriendly corporate neighbor reputation, etc... BSA needs to take note on this and understand the long term consequences of inaction on this issue.

I wonder if it even means anything to have your Eagle rank on a college application anymore? Or if you would be encouraged to omit such a fact depending on which college you are applying to? It will be a very sad day when the youth are made to be ashamed of their association with scouting. I'm just wondering if and how soon that day might come?

Dean (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/13/ups-ends-grants-to-boy-scouts-over-discrimination/

Not sure why this is a dead horse... 85K last year from UPS...

The writings on the wall if other corporate donors follow suit.

jblake - you write that if BSA wants to be like everyone else, what is the point of continuing in scouting?

Does that mean you believe the ONLY thing that sets BSA apart from other youth camping / outdoors programs (such as Campfire, Mik-o-say, and Indian Guides) is the membership policies with regards to gays and atheists?

I'd like to think the membership policy issues (while a big issue) is not the ONLY thing that makes our organization unique.

P.S. - Appreciate the feedback, and thanks to everyone for keeping an emotionally charged issue on point. Doing a good job with the 4th point of the law...

Dean

Seattle-

I agree BSA has a constitutional right to their membership policy. What I am asking is if the outcome(s) of the elections show that the tide has turned and BSA's policy is sqaurely in the minority view now as it pertains to secular society?

Prior to Tuesday night, one could argue that gay marriage was a pretty even 50/50 split in this country with half for and half against. It had been put to the voters multiple times in multiple states and was rejected. The states that DID recognize the unions did so by judgical mandates, not the vote of the populace. CNN and other news networks are refering to this election cycle as a "watershed moment" in the gay rights area.

So, does this mean BSA's membership stance, which once held the idea that it was "right" with the moral majority, is passe? Does the moral majority now favor inclusion, or is the moral majority now the moral minority?

Does it have any bearing short term or long term on what BSA should do? I'm all for equal rights under the law, but I personally still have a hard time with a gay Scoutmaster. Not from a pedophile perspective, but that I personally do not feel they represent the core values of what scouting is trying to teach. However, I also wonder if this a shrinking viewpoint in our society. If so, what is the breakpoint when BSA will have to reverse course on its membership or risk being obsolete in American society?