fred8033

I would have let them attend too. ... BUT ... Pack registration and BSA/council registration are often different. Most packs do their finances school year to school year. So the cub might have been good with the council, but not the pack. I've seen this before where the people are overly watching where their money goes. So, they try to save a few bucks by waiting to register thru the troop or registering early with the troop. ... It saves the family a few bucks. ... BUT, it shorts the pack and the family knew that's how the pack finances the events. It's very self-serving to save themselves cost at the expense of how the pack has been financing things. IMHO, it's not scout like, but people behave weird when money is involved. Perhaps the real answer is the pack should never charge a 5th grade scout any funds to be active that year. Instead, the cost should be fully covered by the previous years. Then, there is no question about transitional years and everyone gets treated the same. ... BUT, this is really a rare, one-off, situation where a family messed with the finances for their own benefit. Do you re-design all the pack finances for a one-off problem that occurred one year? IMHO, pack should swallow it's pride and move on. FYI ... I am making many assumptions. This is based on what I've seen before.

@skeptic Wishing you the best. It's not easy. I fall on both sides of this. A lone scout has access to council camps and activities. If they were previously a concern, how does the council not know they will be a concern again. My heart goes out to these scouts.

Absolutely. I'd highly suggest you sit down with the CC and SM to have coffee. You might be the COR, but they see the day-to-day issue. Build relationships. Let them do their jobs. If they can't, then it's not just a member of committee issue.

Love hearing your giving it a second chance. I've often described it as needing the magic mix to make scouting great. When that magic mix happens (people, events, experiences), scouting can really shine.

Because it's wrong to use race and gender to claim more knowledge, rights and privileges than others. Go figure. It's fundamental to the political hypocrisy of these issues --> Using the differences of race and gender to justify why the other person is less informed.

Won't get skipped over by people who think they know better? Any merit badge can be subverted easily. I often think the Family Life MB where many of the requirements are often subverted. This badge is controversial. Quality might be better now while we have strong focus, but over time it will be subverted because many simply believe the content is political. That's your scout. Few scouts would ever list any Citizenship MB as a favorite. This may be only best judged in hindsight. Twenty years from now ... after focus, intensity and politics reduce ... will this badge exist? Was it effective? Will it be quality?

Very real comments.

Sensitivity is important. Not offensive is important. Being kind and considerate is important. My issue is the yet-another badge that should have been covered in at least one of the Citz of community, Citz of nation, Citz of world or Family Life (Citizen of the family).

I agree with most if not all of what you write. Franchise agreement liability is not clear. Legal sources have argued there is strong separation due to land ownership, taxes filing, etc that has been historically done. But then again, courts often find a nuanced decision. I would not be surprised on any final result.

Agreed, but not all state laws are the same and not every LC had the same number of incidents. A good number of LCs could survive and/or go thru chapter 11 also. ... and then chapter 7 if needed.

Don't be that sure that chapter 7 would kill BSA. LCs could form an alliance to purchase the BSA national trademarks, property, etc and re-open BSA. LC's have a business relationship with BSA national; not a suicide pact. Very similar to a franchise. If the franchise corporation bankrupts, that does not automatically doom the franchise members or transfer franchise corporation debts to the individual franchise members. The one thing Chapter 7 guarantees is re-starting the abuse lawsuits; new massive legal costs; and, years and years to resolve NEW legal questions. We could be looking at a decade of new legal issues with chapter 7.

I am not sure it's that cut and clear. I agree on PBGC priority over lawsuits. To what extent LCs are pulled in, I'm not sure. To what extent that forces LC finances, I'm not sure. It is clear, Chapter 7 would be a massive shift / delay / new cost / etc.

The council vetting has continued to improve. At this point, I'm not sure national even does a review beyond what is done at the council level. In fact, is the council level check done by a registrar, who is a national employee and makes it effectively a national check? If a scout is cleared for an EBOR, pretty much all the national checks have been done. There is very, very, very little that would block the scout.

My tangent - Already discussed probably over a year ago. Chapter 7 now is a path that few would "financially" want as it makes all the money spent to-date on chapter 11 mostly wasted and restarts another legal spending spree with many, many new complexities. Different priority sequence for debt holders. Chapter 11 negotiated third party (insurers, BSA councils, churches) releases that provided a lot of cash become new independent litigation. "I think" (my opinion) is that Chapter 7 would reduce the amount injured parties receive and delay the payments for years.

Yes. One person can be both COR and a MBC. COR is a unit/charter org position. MBC is a council position; not a unit position. They do not overlap.

This is ideal / program design versus what a troop might need to do to succeed. The design and ideal is the COR is above CC/SM/ASMs/MCs. When problems occur, there needs to be a clear chain of command and a clear separation of responsibilities. Similar, the SM is above the ASMs. The SM guides how the program is implemented, guides the ASMs and is the final say in interactions with the scouts. CC guides the MCs and is the final say for the committee. As the COR effectively selects the leaders, it is delicate then for the SM and other ASMs whether the COR is honestly acting as just another ASM or using his COR voice. This is very similar to the former SM stepping down to just be an ASM. It can work. Troops benefits from lots of experience. BUT, it also often causes issues for the next SM as leaders and scouts still look to the previous SM for guidance. Also, the former SM can easily overstep the boundary of an ASM.

I'm a huge advocate of using the paper handbook. Scouts should always have their paper handbook; campouts, meetings, etc. The online scout book is a nice view, but I am always concerned that is the entry being made by the scout or an overly zealous parent. I'm concerned about expecting to use expensive tech on camp outs. I'm concerned about the handbook narratives being there when needed. Also, scouts should focus on being active. I really have a problem expecting scouts to double enter the data from the paper handbook into the online scout book.

The issue is coordination with the SM. Similar to too many cooks ruin the soup. The MC/ASM needs to follow the vision / guidance / coordination of the SM; not the CC. Too many troops end up with a quirky program because "everyone" thinks they can just step in. So if "works like an ASM" means the MC is asking the SM "how can I help" and "how should I handle XXX", then great. Once the MC/ASM is up to speed with SM vision, then that MC/ASM can more easily "step in". It's the whole reason for adults to declare on their registration. Are you an ASM or a MC?

@Alec27 .... The related question is SHOULD they be camping with you AND what is their ROLE when camping? IMHO, rules are to cover guide to safe scouting. The "should" and "role" is always my main concern. Committee members are administrative; not scout-facing. Too often committee members work like ASMs. That's not "preferred". Sometimes it's necessary due to number of registered adults. So on camp outs ... just like troop meetings, etc ... scouts work with scouts first; then with SM and the ASMs. Ideally, scouts don't work with committee members.

Agree. I'd take a scout / troop doing fun things any day over an advancement driven program. Advancement should come more naturally.

"Insta-palms" are not an issue to me one way or another. IMHO, reward the scout for doing the extra MBs. But, it's not a big issue to me and definitely does not affect the scouts much. Big issues are kids / families getting burnt out in cub scouts. The program is way too long with too little value. Should have remained as a program that starts in 3rd grade or 2nd grade. 1st grade is way too early. Kindergarten is ridiculously early.

Hmmm ... @Cburkhardt --> Cup half full @Eagle1993 --> Cup half empty ... and cup is broken ... while house is on fire ... during a massive flood.

That act itself would be morally wrong and legally dangerous. If the bank account was opened with the charter org's non-profit number and you acted against their explicit direction and effectively disposed of the funds before handing them over, it could get ugly. Would legal charges happen? Depends on if you are talking $2,000 or $20,000 or $50,000. I know our pack checking account had $15,000+ at times depending on fundraising cycle. You would absolutely be burning any relationship and reputation and cause a long-term schism in the community. Unit leaders represent the CO and need to work in good faith.

Agree. It's nice to have the patch on the scout shirt, but it just doesn't matter.

I'd avoid talking too much about who's money it is or who owns what. Getting a clean "legal" answer is not what you need and you might not like the answer. Troops work mostly on Gentleman's Agreements between groups and individuals. Most people at a charter and unit understand what that means and it works. When those agreements are violated, people get upset; relationships are broken; and, people leave both the unit and the charter (usually a church). No one wants that, usually.