eisely

It has been awhile since I was involved in rechartering, but if memory serves me correctly there is another position in the chartered organization of whom you should be aware. This is the "chartered organization head." This person actually signs the rechartering document each year. This person might be a catholic pastor, protestant minister, rabbi, elected president of a Rotary Club, etc., depending upon the nature of the chartered organization. This person could also serve as the COR, but does not need to do so. I hadn't thought about the possibility of multiple CORs if a CO sponsors more than one unit, but it makes sense that the COR has to be the same person in such situations. Otherwise that CO has multiple votes at the council level.

Relating to the health & safety issues, the committee has the obligation to come up with qualified adult leadership for the outings. This may mean arranging for training, or re-arranging the calendar to fit the calendars of the adults on hand. The lead time issue raised in an earlier post is critical. The boys have to gain the maturity to think in lead times of months, not days or weeks. Just as with Philmont, some destinations are so popular that there is a narrow window for getting the necessary reservations. For example, a popular destination here is Pt. Reyes National Seashore. The window opens for camp site reservations 90 days ahead of the desired date. If you call in on day 88, you probably won't get in.

I like a beer and other alcoholic beverages from time to time as well. Nevertheless the BSA policy is the right one for a variety of reasons and scoutmom did the right thing.

The idea of setting a threshold where committee approval is required is a sound one. One could carry it a step further and say that the SM is limited to one such check per month or some such, assuming the committee meets monthly. The observation that the SM and treasurer should be from separate households is also sound. The guidelines recommend, but do not require, a dual signature checking account. I advise that dual signatures be required on all checks. If you have a dual signature account, then you really need three people on the signature card, the treasurer and most likely the SM and the CC. I am glad that ScouterPaul has found the idea of a petty cash fund to be useful. This is a matter of local preference. I have never been in a unit that used a petty cash fund.

I am not disagreeing with Bob, since his citations are correct. I don't see that a well functioning committee needs to approve every check when a reasonable budgeting procedure is in place. I can't think of any organization, private or governmental, where the management committee, board of directors, or legislature approves every check once a budget is established. The kinds of procedures I have described are consistent with the guidelines Bob cites. They are merely elaborations to facilitate action. Scouter Paul, There is no over riding requirement that I can think of that requires outings to be funded in any particular way. The steps you describe are consistent with outings being self funding. There also is no requirement that a petty cash fund be established, although the guidelines envision that as a possibility. Personally I would recommend against a petty cash fund, unless the scoutmaster has a lot of ongoing expenses. Accounting for petty cash properly is another accounting exercise that can be avoided if there is not petty cash fund. I do recommend that all outing funds be passed through the troop treasury. This imposes an additional accounting burden on the treasurer, but I think it goes with the territory. When you have multiple outings with different adults and scouts involved, having all funds paid into and disbursed back by the treasurer adds an additional layer of responsibility. In those threads where questions of financial controls came up as an issue, all the money was always under the control of a single individual. Control of money represents power and some people get on power trips. Better to establish reasonable simple procedures to avoid all suspicion of chicanery or mismanagement.

I am not aware of a great deal of specific guidance about who approves disbursements. Here is my take on things. Budgets and expenses for specific outings are the joint responsibility of the PLC and the adults in charge of the outing, if the outing is supposed to be self supporting. Units ideally should have an annual budgeting process that estimates revenues from various sources and disbursements for various needs. Committees are obliged to review budgets and approve expenditures. It probably is not feasible for committees to review and approve every expense or check to be written. In my mind the most effective way to operate is to set limits on overall expense within a category and possibly the size of individual checks requiring committee approval. For example, if a unit has an equipment purchase budget, once that is established, the Quartermaster (scout) and Equipment Coordinator (adult on committee) should have the latitude to expend funds with no further approval. If the QM and EC want to spend significant funds for something outside the budget, they should come back for approval. Likewise the SM and CC should probably have separate budgets for purely administrative expenses such as postage and reproduction. It doesn't make sense to have the SM come back for approval for every postage stamp. Our troop chooses to fund all training expenses except mileage to and from training events. The committee approves individuals going to different training events and the rest is automatic. Receipts for all outlays should be routinely required for all reimbursements, even if they are within budget. So, to answer the question more broadly, if a unit has a sensible budgeting process in place, individual reimbursements should not normally come to the attention of the committee, but should be handled routinely by the treasurer.

One way to approach the fire issue is to go beyond the basic requirements of BSA and train your scouts on local procedures, restrictions, permits etc. Needless to say, there is a lot of variation across the United States, and properly so.

ScouterPaul's story raises a point about the reported fire in Utah. If the alledged incident in Utah was at an established scout camp, and that camp was a piece of real estate owned outright by BSA at some level, the scouts may not have been as restricted in their use of fire as they would have been in other situations. The camp here in California that our troop regularly attends is owned by the Greater San Francisco Bay Area Council (name may not be totally correct), and there are fire rings in most camp sites. Since there is a large dining hall used for all meals, these fire rings are not used for cooking. This is not to excuse any misconduct by scouts in any environment, but restrictions may differ within the same state or physical environment, depending on who owns the land. For the record, I don't think any of our boys have cooked anything over an open fire other than charcoal. We have had plenty of campfires for entertainment purposes, but we use stoves for almost all cooking.

Sounds like a good outcome. You mentioned a third scout in process about whom you were worried. Wouldn't it make sense to start checking his, yours, and council's records now before it gets out of hand?

This course is designed to be an overnighter. The first time we ran it, we did two nights. The second time we did Saturday night only, and ran a little later into Sunday afternoon. This seemed to work better for everyone, trainees and trainers alike.

A further comment about the published syllabus. I found the portion of the syllabus for which I was responsible (map & compass and related skills) utterly lacking in detail as to what was to be covered and how to teach it. We have made lots of decisions about what skills to cover and what not to cover. We try to jam as much in as we can in the time allowed, but some lesser topics, such as measuring height and distance get short shrift. It is more important to teach the basics of map reading and compass use to help people find their way. There is also an issue regarding teaching the skill itself and teaching how to teach the skill. While our emphasis has been on teaching the skill, we also try to include suggestions on how to teach.

I have been ignoring Yaworski for some time now and plan to continue to do so. I suggest that those who take offense at Yaworski's posts ignore him. The nice thing about the internet is that you can pretend that some one is not there and get away with it. Why debate with this guy? If everyone boycotts his posts and does not respond, he will get bored and hopefully go away or clean up his act. Yaworski, do not expect a response to your next post. You won't get one from me.

A thoughtful post Bob.

Having served as an instructor twice now, I can tell you that you need to stay on schedule and keep it simple. You really don't have time to go much beyond the First Class stuff. We ran a very fast paced course and the participants really appreciated it. Do everything you can to maximize the hands on experience.

While nobody can add to or subtract from rank requirements units have leeway in establishing criteria for leadership positions. If the committee wants to make training a prerequisite for serving in an elected leadership position, the committee can do that. Of course this really should come from the boys.

I agree with the others that there is more to this than meets the eye. The state has a right and a duty to set uniforming standards for its uniformed personnel. This guy was out of line.

I have seen this approach to SPL selection used in some units, and it has much to recommend it.

Are we talking about corporal punishment here? Verbal abuse? Need more information.

If a child is truly ADD, the impact of medication will be noticed almost immediately. I didn't like the way the public school bureaucracy dealt with me when I was a kid, and I don't like it any better now. Teaching should be an honored profession, and most teachers do make a positive difference in kids' lives. Sometimes it seems that the least competent and least caring teachers are the ones they promote to administrative positions.

I experienced a similar incident several years ago. One of the other adults at summer camp was an olympic class snorer. The first night in camp one of the kids woke up screaming there was a bear in the camp. Sorry--it's only Mr. S.

Based on additional information it appears that this boy was warned fairly about his future conduct. Maybe it is time to remove him altogether. What has been the total impact of his behavior over time on the rest of the troop?

Congratulations to you and your wife. Now the fun really begins.

rlculver415, You are absolutely correct. I have been amazed at the lack of civility on the part of some participants in this forum. Of course, by internet standards (a nice oxymoron that) this forum is really quite tame. That does not excuse some of the poor conduct by people who supposedly hold themselves to higher standards. We can engage in spirited exchanges and learn from each other while still disagreeing on many points. Why do some feel they have to engage in personal invective? Even where I might agree with the substance of a particular post, I am put off by the behavior of some forum participants and less inclined to take their views seriously.

I have never used a Eureka product so I can't comment on those. Of those tents that I have used, my favorite is the REI half dome. This is a fairly high profile tent, but it has lines to help secure it in windy conditions. I have used it in 30 knot gusts without a problem. My biggest complaint about it is that it is actually stuffy in hot weather. However this drawback really is not an issue most of the time for us. This brings up a broader point. What is the climate where it will be used most of the time? I certainly would advise against a four season tent unless your son is going to do a lot of serious winter camping. The extra weight and cost are disadvantages in most situations.

Adolescents do stupid things. The problem with a zero tolerance approach to these kinds of incidents is that too high a cost is imposed for transient stupidity. From B's willingness to admit what he did, I do not infer that he is even a latent pedophile, much less a confirmed pedophile. I could see sending the boy home, but I question the way it was handled after an initial delay. If the original judgment of the adult leadership on the scene was that the event was inconsequential, I am willing to respect that judgment, lacking more information. I want to go back and take another look at what YP has to say about this before I comment further.