eisely

Here is one I just got in an email that I had not heard before. I have cleaned it up by substituting one word for a string of words. This is a family oriented forum.

_______________________

A biker walks into a yuppie bar spoiling for a fight. He looks around, notices the suits and ties, and shouts, "ALL LAWYERS ARE JERKS!!!!," at the top of his lungs. Sure enough a big beefy 300 pound guy walks up and taps him on the shoulderand says, "Hey buddy, I think you better take that back."

The biker says, "Why...you a lawyer?"

Beefy guy says, "No, I'm a jerk."

Replying to one of BW's earlier points:

Towns and other political subdivisions are creatures of the state government. Since political entities actually exercise sovereignty, political entities have to be defined on geography among other things. There is no compelling reason that council functions have to be organized geographically as exclusive franchises from BSA national. It is just one way of organizing things.

One other thing I see left out of this discussion is who deals with the chartered organizations? It seems to me that scouting depends very highly on the interest and resources of chartered organizations, even though many of us experience frequent frustration with our COs. Assuming that there will continue to be such things as chartered organizations, who deals with that? Right now that is the responsibility of the council. There likely is much that goes on in the background that unit level volunteers never see. Would all unit charters also flow from national?

I would think that going to the county level would be way too small. If I am not mistaken BSA has been consolidating councils for several years now.

It is my observation that councils and districts do follow political boundaries. In our council in a mostly suburban area some districts are based on municipal boundaries.

To elaborate a bit about my core suggestion, what I would have in mind is that a unit could periodically, upon re chartering, choose to charter with a different council, most likely a council adjoining the unit's current council. A unit would have to choose carefully because it would have to live with its decision for a period of years, maybe five years. There would have to be some kind process established and a unit might be required to lay out the reasons for its choice.

To a certain extent, units already avail themeselves of opportunities that are "out of council" such as summer camp. I know that we routinely get scouters from nearby councils showing up at our district training events.

Last year the people in charge of our district camporee scheduled it for the weekend of Mother's Day. Our troop, among many others, went "out of district" for camporee and the boys want to do the same thing this year.

Maybe allowing units to change councils should be combined with a prohibition against going "out of council" for various things.

BW,

To respond to your point, questions are allowed. To answer your earlier question as to how this would benefit BSA, the goal behind the idea is to make councils more effective. I think we all agree that the program is mostly delivered at the unit level. Councils have a variety of responsibilities in structuring and delivering the program. Would making councils compete for units push councils to become more effective? It certainly would force councils to listen more closely to the volunteers at the unit level.

I make no apologies to anyone for suggesting a wild idea. It is just that and nothing more. An idea that deserves discussion. I am not even sure that I am personally in favor of the idea. And there is no doubt that implementation would be complicated and difficult. The idea originated in the number of complaints one sees on this forum about poor service and support from councils and districts. If one made the whole scheme more competitive in some way, service and programs are bound to improve.

Right now BSA is pretty rigid about where a unit gets its charter. Council boundaries are established by BSA national and those boundaries tell you where you get your charter.

What would happen if this restriction were lifted and councils had to compete for units? Competition is messy and chaotic but the end result, at least in that part of our lives governed by purely economic considerations, is fundamentally better than a tightly controlled system will provide. Should this logic be extended to scouting?

Points well taken Beavah.

Since this is a family oriented forum, I will not post the lawyer jokes that come to mind.

BW:

Just to be clear, I am not disputing the YP policies of BSA or suggesting that anyone do anything else other than adhere to those policies. One of the benefits to adults of the YP policies is that the policies make it very difficult to sustain false accusations if those policies are followed.

The broader point is that there is an implicit cost/benefit calculation in any social policy, even if no one has examined it or articulated it. The present atmosphere encourages intentionally false abuse reports. This is increasingly common in ugly divorce situations.

Consider also the mass hysteria encouraged by local prosecutors in the pre school alleged abuse cases of the 80's. Numerous people were sent to jail on the flimsiest allegations and evidence. The major case here in California was the McMartin Preschool case in Manhatten Beach. When the case reached the jury the jury needed very little time to acquit on all charges.

One of Beavah's points is that sweeping policies often result in the real problems not getting the right amount of attention.

As an example, consider Proposition 60 here in California. Several years ago a group of environmental activists qualified a proposition for the ballot requiring businesses to notify employees and visitors to their premises that cancer causing chemicals were being used on the premises with unpredictable health consequences. The proposition passed.

The proposition also allowed businesses to essentially "opt out" of the notification requirement by posting a "prop 60" warning that such substances might be in use on the premises, but we don't really know. The list of substances was so broad and included substances that nobody really knew anything about, that every business took the signage option. Every place you go in California you will see these warnings. Nothing has changed. The businesses that may in fact be endangering people are still doing so. The only people that benefited were the people who made the signs.

This topic of what it takes to be a chartered organization has come up before. I always assumed that the chartered organization had to be some kind of identifiable "legal personality" if that is the correct term. I don't know how one opens up a unit bank account or acquires property for a unit without some kind of legal entity.

What BW is hinting at is the all too common practice of putting some individual's social security number on the unit bank account just to keep the bank happy (and comply with the law). Bad idea. Very very bad idea.

The eagle courts I have seen or participated in over the years are very much the same for one eagle or several. The main difference is budgeting time for each new eagle to speak his piece.

Regarding immunizations, this may well be a matter of local state law. Assuming that you have always lived in the same state during the life of this son, I would think that if he has all the immunizations required for attending school, he is likely OK for summer camp. Your pediatrician should know the answers to this kind of question.

Your son is started on a great adventure. Happy trails.

Having a funeral home as a chartered organization certainly would have some advantages. First of all you don't have to worry about the business drying up.

I think that the lack of simple courtesy is the issue. The idea of the forum is to both offer and receive advice. The difficulty with online forums like this is that people are often much more vehement than they need to be, particularly when we are trying to help one another. One can offer frank opinions, facts, and advice without coming across as putting down someone else.

I too am surprised at the high estimate of the number of monotheists in the world population. How do you go about counting people in Peoples' Republic of China? As far as I know, the PRC is officially atheist, and presumably most of the people there do not practice any religion at all.(This message has been edited by eisely)

I don't know how a unit can operate without a chartered partner of some kind. The one situation of which I am personally aware several years ago involved a group of adults that wanted to organize a troop heavily oriented to bicycling. They created a non profit corporation, qualified with the IRS for tax purposes, and got a charter from the council. Not too difficult to do. One does need some legal assistance to do this.

Raisinemright,

Are you sure there is no chartered organization? I would be highly surprised if that were so.

SMeagle819,

Are you by chance the alter ego of Golum?

The only way that I can think of to limit troop size is to limit intake. The fairest way to do that is to establish clear criteria and inform all the cub leaders who contact you what the rules are. This could be as simple as first come - first served. One troop I know extends priorities to (1) siblings of current troop members, (2) active members of the sponsoring church (chartered organization), and (3) first come first served. One may think this to be ungracious and un scout like, but units have the authority to limit their total headcounts as far as I know.

I will simply pay some bills.

If memory serves me correctly the first time these rebates were tried was in 1975. It was then that some politician likened the idea to "shoveling money out of airplanes flying across the country." A good metaphor.

Changes in the tax code are most effective in they are permanent changes and seen to be permanent. One time rebates are simply gifts and will likely have little impact on the economy.

Bob,

All points well taken. Certainly I have worked with my own sons on various requirements in the past, more in the teaching mode, and not, to use the correct terminology, in the "testing" mode.

In a few instances I actually went with my sons to meet with their MB counselors because (a) my sons were not yet old enough to drive themselves, and (b) to properly honor the youth protection policies. In those meetings I simply read a book and spoke only when spoken to.

Bob,

I don't think you misread anything. However in my initial post I also pointed out that there are exceptions.

Parents who are interested and active will have numerous opportunities to share experiences with their own sons without becoming counselors for numerous merit badges. While BSA does not preclude parents from "signing off" requirements for their own sons, it does not automatically follow that such parental participation should be encouraged. What I am saying is that a reasonable policy to avoid questionable advancement, including Eagle, is to put some distance between parent sign offs and their sons.

Others have pointed out, and I concur, is that by exposing their sons to other MB counselors, the "adult association" method is enhanced.

None of this prohibits parental sign offs, but if the SM can designate who can sign off on non MB requirements, it seems reasonable for the SM to preclude parental sign offs if the SM wants to do that. Further I don't see that this runs afoul of BSA policy if that is what the local unit wants to do.

I concur that troops larger than 75 youth should be discouraged. To me somewhere between 50 and 65 is probably the right number.

When I first graduated from cub scouts to boy scouts in a time and place far far away, I joined the same mega troop my brothers were in. This troop had over 200 active scouts, and most patrols were larger than most of the other troops in town. We moved to a different town so I obvously switched membership, but I still remember that troop. The mega troop had a successful program and was blessed with a scoutmaster who was willing and able to do what needed to be done. In retrospect, I doubt that many scouters either could, or should even try, to manage such a large troop.

Useful input from Bob White as usual.

The fact that the BSA policies do not prohibit parents from counseling their own sons, does not mean that encouraging or letting parents counsel their own sons is a wise policy. I have seen and read about too many situations where parents were involved in questionable sign offs with major consequences to think that encouraging the practice is a good idea.

Putting basic controls in place removes temptation. Minimizing parents' signing off for their own sons is such a control. We are all human and vulnerable to temptation to fudge things from time to time.

In our troop we typically state that a parent cannot sign off. In our briefings for new parents we emphasize this to help them make the mental transition from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts. We also authorize designated senior youth to sign off on various requirements. That is an important part of developing youth leadership.

Having said that, situations will arise where a parent is directly involved in an advancement requirement, such as Family Life merit badge. The parents should not be the MB counselors for their own son, but the whole idea of the MB is to introduce youth to the idea that families are units with mutual duties and responsibilities.

For some specialized MBs a parent may be the only counselor around. In the past when I have participated in canoeing expeditions, I worked with the boys to learn and pass the requirements for Canoeing MB, including my own sons. I did this with the full knowledge and approval ahead of time of everybody concerned, including the District Advancement Chair.