dkurtenbach

Oh, my.

When someone wants to conduct a business or other enterprise, they will often determine that a "corporation" is the best legal form for that business. In order to form a corporation, they must file the necessary paperwork and receive a certificate of incorporation from the state. At that point, the corporation is subject to state law concerning what activities it may lawfully engage in, and its duties, responsibilities, and obligations.

A federal charter is similar. Like a state certificate of incorporation, it provides the fundamental legal authority for the organization to exist and operate. Like state corporation law, it spells out the organization's fundamental duties, responsibilities, and obligations. The principal differences between an organization with such a charter and an organization incorporated under state law is that the federal charter gives the organization authorities and protections specific to that organization under federal law. In short, a federal charter is much more than an Elvis stamp.

Let's take a look at some of the provisions of BSA's federal charter _other than_ the "Purposes":

------------------------------------------

30901. Organization

(a)Federal Charter.Boy Scouts of America (in this chapter, the corporation) is a body corporate and politic of the District of Columbia.

(b)Domicile.The domicile of the corporation is the District of Columbia.

©Perpetual Existence.Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.

30904. Powers

(a)General.The corporation may

(1)adopt and amend bylaws and regulations, including regulations for the election of associates and successors;

(2)adopt and alter a corporate seal;

(3)have offices and conduct its activities in the District of Columbia and the States, territories, and possessions of the United States;

(4)acquire and own property as necessary to carry out the purposes of the corporation;

(5)sue and be sued within the jurisdiction of the United States; and

(6)do any other act necessary to carry out this chapter and promote the purpose of the corporation.

(b)Limitations on Exercising Certain Powers.

(1)The corporation may execute mortgages and liens on the property of the corporation only if approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire executive board at a meeting called for that purpose.

(2)The corporation may dispose in any manner of the whole property of the corporation only with the written consent and affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the corporation.

30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words

The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

30906. Restrictions

(a)Profit.The corporation may not operate for pecuniary profit to its members.

(b)Stocks and Dividends.The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.

30908. Annual report

Not later than April 1 of each year, the corporation shall submit a report to Congress on the activities of the corporation during the prior calendar year.

-----------------------------------------

I have discussed the "Purposes" section in detail elsewhere; in summary, it is clear from the text that the "methods" in common use by Boy Scouts in 1916 refers to "promote," "train," and "teach" -- that is, the unique educational methods developed (or popularized) by B-P. It is not a requirement to freeze everything about Scouting in its 1916 form. Rather, it is a requirement to continue using the 1916 principles for training and teaching Scouts -- and I don't think that anyone can seriously object to that.

Dan K.(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

20 activity badges + Webelos badge requirements + Arrow of Light requirements + day camp/resident camp + pack activities + countless BSA awards = far more Webelos programming than can reasonably be accomplished in 18 months.

Dan K.

desertrat77 wrote: "Hyperbole is the right word, though, to describe how some LNT faithful deliver their program. Disagree with a tenet, and one is lectured like a Tent Trencher, or a Bough Cutter."

Yeah, I know a couple of those. LNT is a religion, and if you question anything about it, you're a heretic and should be burned at the stake -- but only in an established fire ring with sticks from the ground that can be broken by hand. Even an innocent question like, "If LNT is an 'ethic,' why is it written in the form of rules?" means that you need to be sent to an LNT re-education camp. These folks do not serve the cause well.

I agree that we already had the 'ethic' in Scouting, but LNT wasn't developed specifically for Scouting. What Scouting needed was not the ethic but a set of techniques that took us from our old style of _using_ and enjoying nature's resources (and then cleaning up after ourselves) to enjoying nature without using many of its resources and without having to do much cleaning up. LNT's value to Scouting is in providing those techniques.

That's not to say that LNT techniques and suggestions are perfect, but we do need something more than just the 'ethic' to guide our actions. Long before LNT, we had specific ways of doing things -- just look at an old Boy Scout Handbook. Many of those old ways are 'out' and LNT techniques are 'in.' It doesn't really matter (despite the views of the LNT apostles) whether LNT is better or worse than the old ways; LNT techniques fit the long-term Boy Scout conservation ethic and are what today's society and land managers want.

Dan K.

I would agree with the view that an apology need not be an admission that the person apologizing was wrong in some way, or even "sincere" in the sense that the apologizing party feels bad about what happened. Rather, an apology is an acknowledgement that something has been broken -- a relationship, the peace, an expectation of how things should be done -- and that the apologizing person has chosen (for whatever reason) to attempt to repair what was broken. In that sense, an apology is an act of bravery and a commitment for the future.

In Barry's story, the entire troop bore the responsibility, and so it was appropriate to ask (or even to compel) all of the Scouts -- even the innocent -- to apologize as part of their shared responsibility to and for the troop. I think that is a different case than an individual being compelled to apologize for his or her own acts. Unless it is being done for training purposes (these are the kinds of situations in which you apologize, and this is how you do it), I think in most cases a compelled apology is either just a form of punishment or a substitute for an apology from the person requiring it: "I'm sorry my parenting skills failed and my kid is such a jack___," "I'm sorry I didn't keep an eye on those two even though I knew they were troublemakers."

Dan K.

You always hear about people demanding an apology, particularly when some celebrity or politician makes a public gaffe. An offended person demanding an apology isn't about reconciliation, it is about winning the argument -- an apology in that context is not really an apology, but an admission of guilt or a surrender.

Yes, we have to teach our young people that when they have done something wrong, an apology, together with making things right, is appropriate. But the point of an apology is a personal reaching out to the other party, not an element of punishment.

Dan K.

Thanks for spinning off this topic. On the question of "change" versus "innovation," I think of innovation as a new thing or a new way of doing an old thing, with "new" meaning something like _we_ have not done it or anything like it before, or if we have, very few remember it.

In that sense, I personally see most of the items on your list as "changes" -- just a repackaging or rearrangement of things we're already doing or have previously done. I would also put Venturing in that category.

I think Leave No Trace is an "innovation" -- a break from Scouting's perspective in its first 50 or 60 years of _using_ the resources of the land and nature to make camping and other activities comfortable and fun. I would agree that implementation has been less than ideal.

Adoption of nylon zip-off pants as an official uniform item is an innovation I welcomed. They are comfortable, quick-drying, and suitable for many outdoor activities; a nice change from the heavy, uncomfortable perma-creased old style pants.

Adoption of technology for administrative tasks -- Internet Rechartering, Internet Advancement, electronic tour permits, and the Unit Visit Tracking System -- is a great innovation for Scouting, in my view. A lot of the old "paperwork" tasks can be done faster and more accurately. However, implementation has been slow and messy (if not disastrous).

Finally, I would call adoption of online training to be a needed innovation. There are some areas where you just need to transfer information -- facts and procedures with few options and few nuances and no experience required -- and online training works well for that. There are other areas where a "live" training course is best, and others where "on-the-job" training is best, but online training has a role.

Dan K.(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

Adults participate when it is fun for them.

Every person has different things that they find fun. You can't make something fun for someone else unless they are already inclined to enjoy that activity.

That's why I never require parents to take on some role, perform a service for the troop, or otherwise participate. Those who want to will volunteer, and we'll all be happier without annoyed, grumpy, or unenthusiastic adults around.

At the same time, for the folks who are inclined to enjoy themselves doing Scouting, it is easier to draw them in and keep them in if you take care to make it as much fun as possible for them. One of my fondest Scouting memories is how much fun we had at pack committee meetings in my first pack. We had a great group of people who really had fun AND got things done, laughing all the way, and I know of similar environments in other units. Friendship and camaraderie are a big part of it.

Dan K.

I am often asked why I am still active in Scouting when my sons are grown and gone. I don't have any profound or altruistic answer; I just say, "Scouting is my hobby." Yes, it is a great program for youth, but I (and many other Scouters, I'm sure) don't stay involved because of Scouting's educational and character-building aspects. I stay involved because it is fun. It is fun working with the boys. It is fun going camping and hiking. It is fun hanging out with a bunch of great Scouters. It is fun being on forums like this. And when it is no longer fun, no longer a hobby, I'll leave.

Dan K.

Clemlaw wrote: "But starting in about 5th grade, we don't have something for everyone. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. If a former Cub Scout is a good member of the baseball team, or football team, or marching band, or whatever, then I would say that we did a successful job with that kid. He probably never would have been a Boy Scout anyway. I wouldn't worry too much if he doesn't spend his entire youth under the umbrella of the BSA brand name."

I agree, absolutely. But BSA still has the goal and mindset of retaining every boy, even if we don't have a suitable program for all of them. There is not a willingness to just shrug off 50, 60, or 70 percent of Webelos dropping out of Scouting. Imagine standing up at Roundtable or at Webelos Den Leader training and saying, "Look, don't worry about transitioning boys from Webelos to Boy Scouting. Just promote Boy Scouting for what it is, encourage the outdoorsy kids to join a troop, and wish the other ones well." How would that go over?

Dan K.

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

I suspect that most folks who look at this see the "June 15, 1916" date and immediately dismiss the Charter as irrelevant. But it is clear that the Charter is NOT talking about Scoutcraft as it existed in 1916, nor about the uniform as it was then, nor about any particular book, tool, or other item. Reduced to its essence, the actions commanded by the Charter are:

"[T]o promote . . . to train . . . and to teach . . . using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

The _method_ of promoting, training, and teaching developed and pulled together by Baden-Powell is the essence of Boy Scouting and always has been. This should be no surprise to anyone. What would be surprising is the suggestion that the Boy Scout method of promoting, training, and teaching developed by Baden-Powell is outdated and irrelevant.

Of course, the Charter also tells us _what_ it is we are supposed to promote, train, and teach:

"promote . . . the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others"

"train them in scoutcraft"

"teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues"

How do we find out what methods for promoting, training, and teaching were in common use by Boy Scouts in 1916? Well, Baden-Powell himself has left us a wealth of material. That's a good place to start learning how to do the promoting, training, and teaching. And those are areas where no innovation is needed, and in any case innovation there is foreclosed by the Charter.

The "ability of boys to do things for themselves and others" needs no explanation (I hope). "[P]atriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues" are -- ahem -- "timeless" and in any event are reflected in the Scout Oath and Law. "Scoutcraft" is not pegged to any particular time period, and therefore properly consists of whatever current -- and innovative -- skills and techniques constitute the outdoorsmanship and other elements we think of as "Scoutcraft."

The concern that many of us have is that Scouting has been going "soft" on training boys in Scoutcraft. The outdoorsmanship advancement requirements are too few, and those that remain are too easy. There is too much emphasis on "innovating" in a way that minimizes Scoutcraft training (and thereby violates the Charter) for the sake of membership numbers.

Dan K.

It's worth the emphasis.

Basementdweller wrote: "I am hearing a lot of excuses here. Den Chiefs, program, webelos, wolf and bear years, sports, competing activities. But ultimately doesn't it fall to the Den Leader."

Of course. An enthusiastic den leader can overcome all of the issues we've discussed. Without an enthusiastic den leader, the program is mediocre at best, and boys leave. In the program as it exists today, the burden is all on the den leader. So all we have to do is figure out how to get more den leaders who are ethusiastic about the program and stay that way (that is, don't burn out) for longer periods of time.

Dan K.

Clemlaw wrote: "Personally, I think we should worry less about it. We can do a good program for little kids (Lion-Tiger), followed by a good program for the middle grades (Wolf-Bear), followed by a good program for older elementary kids (Webelos), followed by a good program for middle school (Boy Scouts through First Class or so), followed by a good program for high school (Venturing, higher boy scout ranks, leadership in a troop, OA, etc.) I'm not sure where they exact cutoffs should be, but you get the idea--Tiger Cubs is very different from Order of the Arrow."

Agreed. However, I think the biggest obstacle to this approach is our structure of three distinct programs (Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Venturing), each with their own distinctive elements and traditions. Until we can have just one program with multiple internal levels (like a youth baseball league, for instance), it will be difficult to tweak the program progression. And of course the three programs are represented by separate units, which are sponsored by a wide variety of chartered organizations. Some COs sponsor all three types of units, some more than one unit of the same type, some just one unit. Making the structure fit the program could be a mess.

A second structural issue is that both Cub Scouting and Venturing are broad-based programs with possible activities in many different areas -- not just outdoors (see the Webelos activity badges, for example, and the Venturing Sports, Arts & Hobbies, and Religious Life Bronze awards). The program in the middle, Boy Scouting, is far more limited: it is an outdoor program. Other areas of interest are represented only by merit badges, which are pursued by individual Scouts (for the most part) rather than being a unit program activity. Boys who enjoy non-outdoor activities can do a lot of things in Cub Scouts, but when they hit 5th grade, BSA no longer has anything for them -- unless they want to come back in a few years and join a non-outdoor crew.

Dan K.

I see this as another sign that BSA has been getting the message: re-emphasize the outdoors, re-emphasize adventure. I've seen an increased promotion of Cub Scout camping in the last couple of years, and there is the building of the new high adventure base in West Virginia. Now, if this re-emphasis would filter down into the actual Boy Scout advancement requirements in addition to these "non-core" awards and programs . . .

Dan K.

Shortridge asked: "Other than the helmet issue (previously mentioned), what are these out-of-synch rules?"

Things like age limits for shooting (I understand NRA doesn't have them), BSA Lifeguard (rather than simply accepting Red Cross Lifeguard/Waterfront Lifeguard), and Safe Swim Defense rules still being applicable (with certain exceptions) at licensed public swimming pools.

I see the Charter as an ideal incubator for innovation.

You see, there is no "only" in the Congressional Charter. As long as BSA carries out those purposes, there is no reason BSA can't do other things (like Cub Scouting and Venturing) as long as those other things don't conflict with the statutory purposes. The only real issue with the Charter is what the word "methods" means in the phrase "using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." That's a topic for another conversation, but personally I think it leaves plenty of room around the edges for innovation. (If I didn't, I wouldn't be moderating a course on Innovation!)

Dan K.

Kudu, I think that the Congressional Charter for BSA -- expressing the statutory purposes for BSA -- is old enough and ignored enough that most folks would consider it a new idea:

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

United States Code Title 36, section 30902. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it would fail under all three of Barry's principles of successful innovation. It would fail under the first principle because it will require more volunteers to train Cub Scouts and some Venturers in Scoutcraft. The second principle calls for simplicity, and adding both a Scoutcraft requirement and unfamiliar methods from 1916 would make Scouting more complicated. And of course, an emphasis on Scoutcraft and the type of challenging requirements boys had to complete in 1916 would gum up the advancement system something awful, as well as adversely affecting the business of bakeries and tube floating outfitters along lazy rivers nationwide. Sorry, dude.

Dan K.

Barry, nice summary of guidelines for successful innovation. The really difficult one, I think, is number 3: "The innovation must fit within the BSA program so it doesnt corrupt other parts of the program." Many suggestions for new programs, or new ways of running the old programs, involve blowing up the problematic current feature or process and installing the new thing -- without giving much thought to how that will affect things upstream and downstream of the problem area.

Dan K.

Musings:

The premise of the "Where did they go?" is that we care that boys leave Scouting; not just on the personal level (did I do something wrong?) or unit level (what is wrong with out program?), but on the BSA "mission" level. We want a boy to join Scouting in first grade (or kindergarten, in Councils where they are running the Lion pilot program), and stay until he is twenty-one and ages out of Venturing. In that sense Scouting is like a religion -- our mission is to improve human beings, and we can only do that as long as they keep coming. Fundamentally, we agonize over kids who leave and kids who never join because we believe that Scouting programs have something to offer every youth.

(And I think in part we agonize because we aren't living up to our own history -- BSA is only half as big as it was at its peak 40 years ago, while the population of the United States has grown considerably.)

Youth sports leagues, on the other hand, operate on a different principle: they have something to offer every youth _who wants to play that sport_. They aren't trying to change lives, just give kids a fun and worthwhile three month season. On the "mission" level, they don't really care if a kid doesn't come back to play another season -- they exist for the kids who already want to play, not to try to convince kids that they _should_ play. There is no guilt involved on either side.

Scouting doesn't have "seasons" (indeed, we try to promote year-'round programs for Scouting units), but it does have guilt. When a youth joins, we assume a continuing commitment by that youth (and family) until age 21 (or 18, for the Boy Scout-centric). When that doesn't work out, we feel bad. We want to know why the youth isn't coming back (or transitioning). The parents apologize and/or make excuses. We urge them to return. We consider a Webelos den leader who doesn't transition most of the boys to Boy Scouting to have failed or be burned out have a flaw of some kind.

Perhaps there is an incompatability between the notion of youth-long Scouting and a structure that consists of three fundamentally different programs (Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Venturing) and that is not only program-centric, but is heavily weighted toward just one of those programs (Boy Scouting). (This Boy Scout centricity can be seen, as pointed out earlier, in the volunteer heirarchy. It is also plainly illustrated in the structure of a Wood Badge training course.) Perhaps there is an incompatibility between the notion of signing up for a life-changing program of 15 years duration and the desire to just have a good, fun Scouting experience _this_ year.

Kudu, are you available to sit on the panel?

Great ideas! Would love to hear more.

Just a reminder that I am not defending these restrictions in any way. The "we don't want our image to be of an organization that allows boys to point toy guns at each other" is particularly offensive, it seems to me. I'm just suggesting that in the bigger picture, these particular restrictions on certain activities (including the hoops we have to jump through to do certain _allowed_ activities) are largely irrelevant.

Even if we could do all of those things (or do them easily), we'd still simply be competing with all of the other organizations that do those things. Do we really think that Scouting could automatically do those things "better" than those other organizations? And if we're doing the same things as the other organizations, how does that provide a "hook" for Scouting? And if a boy chooses Scouting, he's still free to do those other things with his friends and family on his own time.

We still go hiking, camping, swimming, canoeing, climbing, caving, cycling, rafting, sailing, snowshoeing, shooting, and backpacking. We still build fires, cook meals, practice first aid, work with map and compass, and tie knots and lashings. All without too much fuss and bother.

Yes, nonsensical restrictions and requirements are annoying, and can make us look like morons from time to time. And yes, we need to protest silliness and be vigilant that the program isn't gutted by spineless bureaucrats. But with tens of thousands of young people going to Philmont Scout Ranch every summer, and tens of thousands more going on other high adventure trips each year, and tens of thousands more doing various high adventure activities every weekend, I don't think Scouting is anywhere close to being in mamby-pamby land.

I agree that many restrictions seem silly in light of what kids can do at commercial facilities, non-Scout camps, and at activities affiliated with other organizations -- particularly when there really is no substantial safety issue, or when BSA's rules differ from those of governing associations or recognized authorities for the particular activity.

At the same time, I can't think of any such restricted activities that, if allowed, would make any real contribution to the Scouting program. And we'd just be offering the same activities as those other providers.

If we want to stand out as a distinctive program in the marketplace of youth activities, I think it would make sense to focus on the activities that other providers _don't_ regularly offer or that otherwise aren't readily available to youth.

Just my two cents.

Dan K.

I don't see any major problem with the program content of the Cub Scouting program. The issues I see are really about how that content is delivered, and the structure of the program. Program delivery issues are things like the overly large (I think) proportion of tell/explain/discuss requirements in relation to hands-on activities, and things like what the program asks den leaders to do, and what BSA wants den leaders to know and when it wants them to know it. Structural issues are things like how many years the program covers, what years are covered, and critically (I think) the organizational relationship with Boy Scouting.

Since Cub Scouting is by far the largest of BSA's traditional program -- nearly twice the membership of Boy Scouting -- something good is happening there. Indeed, I can't help but think that part of the "why do they go?" problem stems from a failure of BSA to understand that Cub Scouting should be considered on its own merits as a self-contained program with its own goals and outcomes, and not in relation to the Boy Scouting program. If we had no expectation that Boy Scouts come from Cub Scouts, how would that change how we think about both programs?

No, no, no. The point is to make it easier for more adult leaders to be enthusiastic, and to continue to be enthusiastic for a longer period of time -- not to use unenthusiastic leaders. And certainly not to give adult leaders the job of simply reading to the Scouts from a book.

In simplest terms, we need to make Cub Scouting more fun for adult leaders. KISMIF applies to adult participants too.

Dan K.