School SafeRides program continues without gods

[LongHaul 10]

Ed,

What about the part two of my example? The one where they serve 25,000 LFL youth and those 25,000 served youth have no need for a summer camp so they can justify selling it. The fact that "served" when referring to LFL means that BSA receives a per student fee for leasing the LFL material to a school for use. BSA has no direct involvement, checks and balance, or oversight of delivered program. Considering those 25,000 as "youth served" when considering whether traditional BSA programing is cost effective IMO is a perfect example of what Merlyn was talking about. Trust me Ed, we'd nail these #@&*% to the wall under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act but National has told "us" that if we take the board to back court again National will dissolve the council.

 

LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[Trevorum 24]

oooh, Merlyn, that sounds like a dare to me!

[evmori 11]

What does SOX have to do with Scouting?

 

The whole argument is hinged upon numbers stated by someone in Scouting that you disagree with LongHaul! That doesn't mean the BSA is talking out of both sides of it's mouth! It actually means nothing except you disagree with the stated numbers. Do you have any proof these numbers are wrong?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[LongHaul 10]

Ed,

I'm sorry that you can seem to understand what I'm trying to say. If you read my last post and have to ask if I have proof that the numbers are wrong then I'm sorry I can't explain it to you. I can ask if you ever took a class or studied statistics?

LongHaul

[Beavah 205]

The fact that "served" when referring to LFL means that BSA receives a per student fee for leasing the LFL material to a school for use. BSA has no direct involvement, checks and balance, or oversight of delivered program.

 

Yah, but LongHaul, that's exactly the same for traditional Scouting, eh? The BSA receives a per-scout fee for licensing the program material to a chartering partner to use. BSA has no direct involvement, checks and balance, or oversight of the delivered program. They just provide training and resources.

 

Now, beyond that, I agree with you. I think it's fraudulent to not be completely honest with donors about how their money will be used. And whether UW or BSA does it, showing one thing but spending completely on another just ain't kosher. And there is a distinction between "members" and "participants" because of the separate incorporation of LFL.

 

Beavah

 

[LongHaul 10]

Beavah, With all the posts you've made about involving the SE, DE, DD all the posts you've made about what National really means when they say.... how can you say they have NO checks and balances, oversight or involvement? Why all the posts about Eagle apps if it's all handled in house? Why all the talk about letters of expulsion. Please defend the system all you want but recognize that at times National, Regional, Council are duplicitous.  Comparing LFL and traditional units as being "youth served" on the same plane is ludicrous.

LongHaul

[evmori 11]

No LongHaual, I don't understand what you are trying to say! SOX has nothing to do with Scouting!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[LongHaul 10]

Ed, I have no intention of tackling SOX if I can't even seem to explain the numbers aspect. You keep demanding proof of something that is not in dispute. The numbers are fine it's how they are being applied that is problem.

 LongHaul

[evmori 11]

Forget the numbers, LongHaul. The BSA is a private organization. SOX has nothing to do with private organizations!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[LongHaul 10]

Ed, This whole interaction between us started over "the numbers" or have you forgotten?

LongHaul

[evmori 11]

I remember LongHaul! SOX has nothing to do with Scouting!

[GernBlansten 10]

I'm an excellent driver.

 

Dad lets me drive slow on the driveway every Saturday. 'Course the seats were originally brown leather now they're a pitiful red.

 

Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Gern, ....you're starting to scare me a little.

[Hunt 11]

Sorry to bring this back, but I wanted to respond to Packsaddle''s question below:

 

"Hunt, I''m not sure I understand your argument but you seem to be saying that the ''customers'' for LFL are the persons enrolled in the program, and that they are equivalent to the needy persons who are the ''customers'' for Scouting for Food - and that, as customers, neither should be required to pass the DRP test. If I got that wrong I apologize. But if I''ve correctly interpreted your thoughts, why then do we not apply this approach to the ''customers'' of the other BSA programs as well?"

 

To me, the distinction between "members" and "participants" is pretty significant. If the "participants" in LFL are essentially recipients of a program provided to them, I think that''s pretty different from BSA''s membership program. I don''t know too much about LFL, but my understanding is that it''s mostly a classroom-based program. So are the "participants" more like Boy Scouts, or are they more like food recipients, or safe ride recipients, or maybe somebody who takes some kind of safety course offered by the Boy Scouts? If your question, then, is why does BSA require the DRP for members, but not LFL participants? The answer is that BSA thinks that the DRP is important, but is still willing to provide some kinds of charitable services to those who can''t be asked to sign it.

 

[evmori 11]

I''m still waiting to here what SOX has to do with Scouting?