frznpch

Hi Vicki and NeilLup. First of all, thanks for your kind offer of camp space. That is the attitude I expect from a good Scout! We have however, found a camp. To answer your questions, we gave up on the old Charter Organization doing anything effective, and went out on our own to find a camp. We have this one incredible parent/sponser, who paid the bill, although I still hold out some slight hope that the old CO will see it's way clear to repaying at least some of it. And really, I know it is my side of things and all, but the bad behavior here is on the part of adults in the original troop. When told by their CO that they would have to allow our boys to go to camp, they wrote a letter stating that the boys could come, but none of our leaders. Well, after they have written threatening letters, approached boys to tell them that they wouldn't be going to camp if they were in the new troop, accused the new troop of theft (demonstrably not true, and proven false), told parents the new troop was not "legal," etc., none of the parents who had left the old troop would consent to send the boys to camp without our own leadership. The upshot is that they have spent around $8000.00 to send three boys and six or seven adults to two camps this summer. All we wanted was for our boys to go to camp, and that is happening, so we are happy. However, parents have questioned some of our leaders about the "Boy Scouts," behaving this way. Most parents don't understand that this is about a few bad apples, not the whole bunch, and so we are doing some rehab on the BSA's reputation as a whole. Sadly, this kind of behavior can give Scouting a "black eye," and the notion that the CO is in control of the sitution seems ridiculous, since most people don't even know who that is. Our boys are wearing Boy Scout uniforms, not Elks Club insignia, company logos, or church emblems. So, I would think that the BSA would be more concerned about what happens, but that is just my two cents. Also, I love your saying about the monkey (or jerk) in a Scout uniform. Too true!

Scoutnuts idea about going ahead and just paying for camp was the one I tried last week. We were told by the Council that we couldn't do that yet, because the decision was on the DE's desk. When we called him, he said he didn't know a thing about that. But, your idea about trying other councils is a good one. I agree that the important thing here is to get the boys to camp. However, that said, this is the second time in three years that something similar has happened within this same troop, and I agree with Lisabob that the DE should be making sure that the CO knows their responsibilities. In this case, they were pretty unaware of what they were supposed to be doing, which has been part of the problem. The COR didn't attend meetings, and wasn't encouraged to do so until the new people (the ones who have now split off) came along and pushed for CO representation at meetings, etc. When confronted by the problems, the CO board basically said "we don't have anything to do with it." It had to be explained to them and documented, and now the whole board has to sort of "mull it over." So I will try this week to find another camp for the boys, and hope that there is one available outside of our council, because our council won't take our money until the DE makes a decision he claims to be unaware he is to make. I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but it seems like a game of "hot potato" that is never going to end.

The first troop is under the auspices of a civic organization, the second under a local corporation. We have about a month until camp. We have eighteen boys, including the former Webelos, all of whom joined the new troop after their crossover ceremony. As you can see, we don't have a lot of time to fix this.

It works just that way Scoutldr, or at least I think it does. We called the camp and asked if we could just pay for the boys who transferred, and were told that the whole thing had been "frozen," because it was on the DE's desk to decide. Then the DE says no, he doesn't know anything about it! We have a donor who would at this point pay for the whole thing, even another camp, but finding slots at a Camp might be difficult at this late date. The sad thing is that all but three boys from the original troop transferred out to the new (it really is a bad situation there), but the old troop seems to be looking for boys to send to camp wherever they can find them, to try to fill up the slots alloted (again, it has gotten vindictive). The boys who worked to go to camp are paying the price for some grownup bad feelings.

The issue here is that the camp has already been paid for for these boys. Also, as far as fund-raising, kids and parents are told that they work a required number of hours in the county fair food booth "to pay for camp." So the boys worked the time, but now the leaders want to withdraw the money. At this point it really is all about spite, as this is not the only problem ongoing, just the one I've told you about. This is the only issue that we of the group who left care about, because the boys deserve to get what they were promised. The families even have to pay to get into the county fair to work in the booth! At this point, the DE has kicked the problem back to our Charter, which is dithering, and can't seem to make a decision. I have been very disappointed in Scout heirarchy here.

Note: When your argument devolves into 'you can't spell,' and words like 'clueless' and 'repulsive,' you've lost your argument. If someone is on the fence on an issue (and believe it or not, some people are on this issue) or you want to change minds (again, BION, I've done it and seen it done), then a reasoned intelligent debate is the only way to go. I really enjoy thoughtful disagreement, but completely ignore the name-callers.

Okay, my take on the whole gay marriage issue...The problem is that the main objections to gay marriage are based in religious philosophy, and our country's laws and priviledges are supposed to be "religion neutral." Therefore, gay people feel that they should have the same rights granted by marriage (i.e. insurance coverage, control in emergency situations, etc). The main problem I see is that our social security system is failing already, without the added burden of a instant new class of beneficiaries (non-working spouses of gay retirees). But, as I see the Constitution, it IS discriminatory not to allow gay people the same rights given to the heterosexual couple. My feeling is that it should work this way: any "couple" should be allowed civil marriage, that is, marriage by Justice of the Peace, but no church should be forced to perform or sanction such a marriage, or to allow the couples to be members of their churches, because they are not government organizations. Further, no private organization (such as BSA) should be made to acknowledge or accept such couples as leaders or whatever, because they are not government. Our government was founded on some religious principles, but I don't think any of them trumps the basic idea of religious freedom (including the right not to believe at all.

Thanks SSScout for the excellent suggestion re: the mediator. Sounds like a good idea, given the history here, the connections, etc. I will pass it along. Also, thanks for the laugh; I haven't laughed about this situation for days, but your quotes are great! And I never knew we could credit Deep Throat for "follow the money." P.S. Am sensing the addiction potential here...

Hello again. Well, whoever said that this one wasn't finished was too right! I have just been stunned with the news that at a jointly-held Eagle Scout Ceremony held this week, one of the scouts that went to the new troop was approached by a leader from the original troop, and told that if he was in the new troop he was "not going to summer camp!" This was said to a boy! Not to over-emphasize, but, gosh, isn't that contrary to basically everything Scouts? Bad enough to approach the parents, but isn't this crossing some line? To be honest, I find this behavior frightening.

I just want to say that I'm glad I decided to join this forum, because it makes me feel better to read that so many of you feel, as I do, that the most important thing here is that the boys get to camp. This experience has been quite disheartening, watching a group of adults lose it's priorities. I found out today that the decision regarding the camp is in the hands of the Scout Exec, and I hope that a good solution comes of it. One of the hardest parts of this has been the waiting around. Camp is coming up and we're in a sort of limbo. I'll just be glad when it's over!

Hi again. Thanks to all of you for your replies. I feel just like Vicki does, but there ARE some personalities involved, and control of the money seems to be very important. Maybe it is just my Mom perpective, but I think that the boys going to camp IS the only goal. So, I will let you know how it turns out. At this point, a letter has been sent to the parents of the boys who left, telling them that unless they are active in the original Troop, the camp funds will be withdrawn, so we'll see.

Hi, all. Please bear with me, as I am new to this whole process, but I have a question that I really need answered. Our Troop has recently had some real problems, and as a result, one group has split off into a new Troop. While with the original Troop, the families worked to raise funds for this year's summer camp, which has been pre-paid. Now the original Troop says that the boys who have left can't go to camp on the money they earned, and that this is "BSA policy." Does anyone know if this is correct? The original Troop does include this in their by-laws, but no one really sees those much. Thanks.