Stosh

Once again, fun is sapped out of the program because of adult programming and adult rules. If my boys want to head back to camp because the camporee program is bad, then whether I like the program or not, we're heading back to camp. A SM has a responsibility to be courteous to his boys as well, after all if they are boy-led, they're making the decisions. This is not a hill I want to die on. In my troop rule #3 out of 3 is HAVE FUN. If they aren't having fun, they're breaking troop rules. They trump council program rules any day. By the way, Old Goat music from the 80's and 90's???? OMG, I must like really Old Goat music, because I would agree with the kids, the stuff that came out of the 80's and 90's is really bad. Stosh

Gotta love the "Second Set of Books" accounting system going on here. It still sounds like the boys get paid for participating in fundraising and thus a 1099 is in order. Stosh

Go back to Scouting in the 1910's and read some of the literature promoted for boys by the BSA. This was the pre-radio, pre-tv, pre-computer, pre-cell phone era. They encouraged boys to actually read books, good books. Well the point is that the terminology for back then for the boys that weren't in the program for the right reasons was "Parlor Scouts". I guess the bullying has been going for nigh on 100 years now. Even then that was back when helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful and brave actually meant something, too. The term used for the opposite of a Parlor Scout was a Real Scout. I vividly remember Westy Martin meeting up with a young man who was noted for his skills as an Indian Scout for the US Army out west. He was excited about meeting him and when he finally did, concluded that he was no more a Real Scout than some of the Parlor Scouts back home. This was definitely written prior to the politically correct era as well. I am also led to believe a negative description bestowed on someone by someone else is bullying. Someone who lives and demonstrates a negative description bestowed by oneself is not. Stosh

Hmmm, with all the video games out there, sports are taking a hit in attendance, too. Not a problem for me, that means just that much more wilderness out there for me to enjoy by myself. Stosh

One and the same. Just because I have a SM patch on my shirt doesn't make me a real leader any more than a boy wearing an Eagle rank makes him a real leader. Stosh

You can say that about any of the products coming out of China these days. Stosh

"If the SPL needs some guidance." What if he needs more than guidance? What if just flat out doesn't care? If he's the one that started the idea of going to the mall and is adamant about it. Maybe he just wants to push your buttons. Further, the rest of the troop goes along with it just to see what happens. Then will you replace the SPL? (and I assume this is after trying repeatedly to get him understand what's going on.) If you would, and the boy knows it, then in essence you could step in and tell him what to do. An SPL can be replaced as easily as a PL. If the SPL isn't taking care of the PL's then it's time to replace him. I don't think the tenure of the SPL is a troop concern, it's a PLC concern. If he's not doing his job, a new SPL is selected from the PLC or troop if the boy has experience to do so. As far as pushing buttons, this is always a fun game to play. I don't let on that my buttons are pushed. I react in ways that they do not expect. Once they realize that they aren't going to get the results they want, they'll stop. If the boys want to go to the mall, more power to them, have a fun outing, but it won't be a sanctioned BSA/Troop event. Be sure to have the boys let the parents know it's not a troop/patrol outing because you will be following up with them. Nothing in the boy-led, patrol-method approach that says the SM isn't to maintain communication with the parents. If the boys want to hang out together outside of Scouting, there is nothing one can do to stop it. 99% of the stuff they try harms them more than it harms me. Unless they break one of the three troop rules, no adult steps in. 1) Safety First, 2) Look and act like a scout, and 3) have fun. ​If the 11 year olds can do what they wish then what happens when they don't want to wash dishes? Then the SPL has a responsibility to discuss with the PL concerns regarding attracting animals in the area, and viruses and bacteria growth that will speed up the patrol member's digestive tracks to the point where they prefer staying in the KYBO all day. I ask them all the time. They rarely want to change anything. It's frustrating. Lead by example. If the boys don't want to go somewhere, as an adult, go anyway. Take lots of pictures and share around all the fun you had and how unfortunate it was that they couldn't go. I do it all the time. It goes a long way to promote new ideas as to places to go. If you get a few of the boys to go along even better. Then there's the menu issue. Every time the adults cook, make it a feast. Nothing but the best recipes and the more aromatic the better. The smell has to drift 300' to be effective. Always decline the invitations for a patrol meal because what the adults are eating is better. Make sure they know that. Otherwise, have a small portion to be polite and then excuse yourself to eat the better food with the adults. Make sure they know what's going on with that, too. At summer camp they have the big wall tents. Most boys don't know how to use them effectively. On hot days, roll open both doors and roll up the sides to expose the Taj Mahal you have created in your space. The cot, mosquito netting, camp chair, lashed table with table lamp, rug, everything laid out all neat as if it were to be #1 on the inspection list, etc. Same applies to the adult dining fly area. Spotless! Of course except for the SPL and invited guests, no one is allowed in that area to mess it up. Once each week, the SPL and PL's are invited over to the adult table for dinner so as to show how the other half lives. They sit at the table so as to watch their patrol in action. The food from the commissary is the same as what they boys have, but the care and diligence the adults put into it should show the difference. Change will come, maybe slowly, but it will come. Just remember, one cannot MAKE them to anything. Even their parents know that much. To try and force the issue is nothing more than an example of management tyranny. I find that punishment seldom works and often times fosters resentment down the road. Better to spend time finding the good things they do and giving recognition for that instead. It's a lot easier on everyone that way. For sure, every one of my PL's and troop leaders get a compliment each day. Sometimes that's hard to do, but worth the effort. Stosh

FC is required, everything beyond that is nice. Stosh

That's what the Scribe is for. If he has to run around at the last minute collecting statutory signatures, so be it, it is part of his POR responsibilities. An adult should never do what a scout is capable of doing. Unless one doesn't trust the scout to do his job and that's a whole different discussion. I had a 13 year old ADD boy handle all the popcorn sales one year. He couldn't sign for the popcorn when it was delivered, so his mom did. He handled everything else. It was the best popcorn sale event ever for the troop. I usually attend the activities as SM because BSA says I have to. With properly trained boys, there is really no other "need" for me to be there. Every time the SPL "steps in the manage" they are taking away any trust, authority and opportunity to lead from the PL. The boys selected/elected a PL to run their patrol, not the SPL. If the SPL would like to mentor the PL, that's okay in my book, but taking over doesn't wash with the program. I like your word "manage" too, it shows that management is more important than leadership in that situation. The task at hand is more important than the people. I don't worry about tasks, things get done, people are more important than things. As far as managing other positions as well, that means he's usurping the leadership out of all the POR's. Pass out patches and then tell the SPL he runs the troop. The rest of the boys all get a free ride. Not in my book. Under that scenario, the only thing the SPL is going to do is possibly manage to survive for his tenured 6 months. Same for my troops. Stosh

My new troop decided on red/red regardless of the uniform. Most of my boys wear the old mule-eared pants with the red piping on them because they are cheaper on Ebay than those offered by the council store. Some of my boys over the years have worn the old green uniform shirt and there are no epaulets to even worry about. Stosh

The only hassle I have ever had over the years was never around a campfire, nor a charcoal grill, or even a butane stove, but I have seen flare-ups on Colman stoves that will raise your eyebrows and remove them all at the same time. I simply don't trust them any further than I can throw them and throwing them in the woods isn't a really good idea. Stosh

I have a camp popcorn popper made out of metal screening. Works like an air popper over the fire, works great and no oil needed, not even for heat transfer. By the way, that popper's been in my family since I was a kid and after 50+ years still pops over the fire. Stosh

It's good to keep the camp at full capacity, but again I would be concerned about liability and the inability of the non-scout group to function adequately within the program offered. They have no experience of what is expected and could either be a pain in the butt or needing babysitting for the week. Possibly an off-summer camp weekend shakedown by the group would give the camp the heads up as to what to expect prior to their arrival. Better to say no at that point and not embarrass anyone by kicking them out mid-week. Stosh

Now is the time for the SENIOR PL to step in and clarify to the lazy PL one's duty to their patrol members. If a PL is not taking care of his boys, then he needs to be replaced with someone who will. That's the basic assumption for true servant leadership. Here is a clear example of lost opportunity on the part of the PL to functionally lead his boys. If the PL is lazy and blows off an event, then the APL has an opportunity and obligation to step up to the plate and take a leadership role. If he does, one has a prime candidate for the lazy PL's replacement. If the APL is best bud's to the PL, then replace them both and get a boy in there that wants an opportunity to really lead. Opportunities for leadership appear all the time and what better recommendation for leadership consideration than the boy who has proven he can and will do what it takes to make it happen for this patrol? Don't even need a pre-vote speech for that one. Everyone knows and recognizes servant leadership and will naturally follow those who take care of them. I don't, but my SPL's responsibility means he steps up and clarifies the purpose of scouting to the PLC. If the SPL needs some guidance on how that is to be addressed, a SMC can be held for this specific issue. Remember the PLC doesn't dictate to the PL's and so the 11 year-olds can do what they wish. If they want to camp and forego the mall, more power to them, they show more scout spirit than the older boys who are looking for an excuse to do something other than scouting. The older boys will need to reconsider their advancement on scout spirit if they basically don't have any. I wouldn't be talking to the PL in the first place, but my SPL would. If approached by my SPL on this issue, I would suggest he have a visit with the troop Instructor who can step in and assist any boy(s) who need advancement. The Instructor is there for just that purpose. That's why he wears the POR as Instructor. Again I would suggest to the SPL a visit with the PL on his attitude and scout spirit as he fails to take care of his boys. None of these issues are new to me. I see them all the time especially with boys who HAVE to be in scouting because their parents push them. They can and do make changes. You hit the nail on the head with your last comment. "So how do you know if they really like it the way it is or just don't think they can really make a change?" Ask them! Most scouts want opportunities for growth and change. They are in the experimental stage of development and want to break out of the being a kid. Many of them don't think the adults will actually let them grow and develop, but if one makes it clear, this is the place to try and one has the authority to make it happen, great things can happen. I make it clear to all my new scouts that the day will come when they blurt out to someone in authority, "When are you going to start treating me like an adult?" The standard answer is, "When you start acting like one." BUT who teaches them how to act like one???? To me this is what scouting is all about. I teach them that the buddy system in Tenderfoot #9 has very little to do with hanging out in two's when one is in the woods and/or at the swimming hole. It's the dynamics of getting along with another person, i.e. marriage. I teach them that as time progresses and they become PL, it has very little to do with running the show, but has a lot to do with taking care of a small group of people and meeting their needs as they grow. This is what family is all about. The there's the troop as a whole and the lessons learned are not just for scouting, but show how they relate in their communities and on the job. I end the lesson by giving the example of: You're married and have a couple of kids. One day your little one comes to you and says, "Daddy, I want to go to Disney World." and the only thing you can say is: "Sorry, it's too expensive (A scout is thrifty), I don't know where Disney World is (map and compass), I don't know how to plan out meals along the way (T-FC), and I don't know where we would even stay if we went (camp if you have to, Disney World does have a campground!). Basically, the scouting program, at least to me, is giving these boys the opportunity to learn how to be adults rather than waiting until they are 18 and dumping them on society totally unprepared. I think Be Prepared is hidden somewhere in the Scouting program. I give my boys the opportunity to grow up, and by in large, they do to varying degrees. But remember, one has to let them grow up, too. That's why a lot of adults can't trust them to do on their own and have to be directed every step of the way. Sorry, I don't buy that and have seem some 13 and 14 year-olds with more maturity than some adults I have met. Stosh

Had the parents hovered more this whole thing could have been avoided as well. I'm thinking that keeping the kid out of scouts could have saved his life as well. If he had been at home doing video games, he'd be alive today. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Well, kids do stupid things. That's just the way it is. Most of the time they get away with it, occasionally they don't. It offers a ton more options to a bad situation than no first aid. After 15 years of EMT experience, I can assure you, that knowing something to do is better than not knowing anything. Having a medical understanding, even if very basic can handle any medical emergency, including, don't panic, call 911, and don't touch the person or have anyone else touch the person who doesn't know what they are doing. If there's bleeding put pressure bandage on it. Keep them warm if possible. Basic first aid can handle any medical emergency and can hopefully buy enough time for emergency professional to get on site. I can sue you for anything I wish, at any time. I can even sue you for divorce. I can't win, but it's going to cost you $$ to defend yourself anyway. Take it from me, former EMT.... Good Samaritan Laws? Nothing but a joke. Just ask any doctor today how much malpractice insurance they carry. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them. Every war criminal uses this as a defense, I was only following orders. This is what happens when everyone is a follower and no one is a leader. As far as RULES are concerned, why do they call it the "GUIDE to Safe Scouting"? Kinda makes one wonder, doesn't it? Take a look at GBB's patrol method training. Everyone has leadership roles in the patrol, not just the PL and APL. Some of my best leaders didn't wear POR patches. As a matter of fact, in my last troop only the Chaplain's Aide did because he had been operating as such for over a year. As I mentioned in other posts, my boys accumulated 6 months POR as they wished by functioning in that role. It could be for 1-2 weeks or as much as a year or more. My Chaplain's Aide did it that way as well as one of my Den Chiefs. My current PL in my new troop volunteered for the position, no one objected and so he bought the patch and sewed it on at his own initiative. That shows leadership and willingness to take on tough challenges. After all he's running the show as much as a newbie scout can handle. As far as I'm concerned, he can stay in that position until he's 18. Not every leader is a PL. TG's are leaders, QM can be excellent leaders, Instructors? CA? DC? sure.... Don't limit the concept of leadership to just the guy running the show. In my troop "We are an educational program for ALL boys, We do not look to have only the SPL/ASPL's, PL/APL's take the tests." and we all know how well politics work in society today. Everyone gets a vote and with the majority of people in a scout unit are boys, they hold the majority and that's the whole point of why I as an adult help them to have a positive impact on society. I do not run my troops as a dictator or landed gentry of the priviledged few. The boys are responsible for making it happen and they have the authority to do something about. At least my boys function and accomplish a ton of things. Yeah, they make mistakes, often times pretty big ones, but they all learn and all get multiple chances to fall on their face again, but they learn. I wish I had a nickel ever time I told a boy, "I bet you never do that again." Stosh

I find it quite interesting that my experiences and insights into those experiences seem to be imaginary and straw man to you. I would seem that there are those that think there is but one way, and for the most part they aren't going to change their minds no matter what anyone else says. That's fine, especially if their troops are running well and meeting the boy's expectations. But I don't hear much of that with the concerns expressed on the forum. I have worked with a lot of different programs throughout the past 40 years and find that Scouting offers the best opportunity for leadership/character development. On paper it looks good, but when translated into program reality things tend to fall apart. First of all lets go with boy-led. No leadership can develop when boys are not given the opportunity to really lead. Sure, it's idealism at its finest. but when applied it works. If adults insist on retaining control over the program, the collateral damage is to the boys. It's not their program and it will never be. SM's with big egos seem to produce a lot of Eagles to brag about, but then there's the whole discussion surrounding paper Eagles. SM's that stick to the book and all of its rules and regulations run a tight ship, but the boys tend to go overboard rather quickly once they realize the sports coach is doing the same thing and the rules of the game are clear and don't change on a regular basis. Then there's the patrol-method. 6-8 scouts is about all a fledgling leader can handle without burning out with overload. I see too many SPL's get their POR and then run like mad for the exits or focus on their personal attainment of Eagle then run like mad for the exit. A lot of good talent goes along with it. I see SPL burn out with mid-sized troops, I can't imagine the pressure placed on an SPL in a big troop. And I don't see many taking on SPL after they have served once. I think a lot of troops have JASM so that the boys hang around rather than trying to be SPL when they know it's a lousy job. I spend an enormous amount of time listening, especially to boys and every boy that leaves the program leave for a reason. If one listens carefully and wades through the excuses, the reasons are often times very consistent and unfortunately very valid. Just listen to the adults when they say, "How do I get my boys to...." and then fill in the blank with whatever. Does anyone ever ask them why they don't want to do it? Not very often. It's a good exercise for adults and maybe should be part of the training. I do not enjoy, but have worked with church, civic and social youth groups and none of them have the focus that Scouting does. When done right, it works great and the boys accomplish some pretty impressive things. I was ASM for a adult-led, troop-method program for 15 years hoping things would change. Finally after 20 years, it did, they kicked out the Silver Beaver, WB trained, FOS Council Chair, SM. No big deal, I've been booted for just the opposite reason, too much boy-led with too much leadership training for the boys. 40 years ago I read a book by Robert Greenleaf titled: "Servant Leadership". Sure it was pie in the sky but I understood what he was getting at. I've applied it to my leadership development with youth over the past 40 years. BSA has now even picked up on it because it's popular in the leadership development world. And lo and behold the multi-billion dollar, global industry I work for is spending big bucks teaching their managers that there is a difference between management and leadership. They have contracted with the only college in America that offers a masters degree in servant leadership just so their personnel will benefit from it. Yet every day I see the same dynamics going on in the department as I see with SM's and troops. People still have a difficult time understanding that letting go is an option and a pretty darn good one. BUT you have to be able to trust and therein comes the rub. So now go back and read my first paragraph. It works if one trusts the system, idealistic as it may be. I've been there and done that and it works and there's nothing made of straw anywhere I look. There's a lot of swimming upstream in the process and there's a ton of resistance to it because for the most part, most people don't trust it will work. One might think my comments are imaginary scenarios made up of straw man insights, but I've seen and experienced it working. It's hard to duplicate in varying situations, but once everyone gets on the same page, it works really well. Stosh

With a combination of better PL selection by the boys, no terms or term limits for the boys, and a good mentoring SPL, the quality of PL's will increase. If a PL doesn't do the job after a few weeks because he got selected/elected by popularity, then he's out. Kinda like a parliamentary vote of confidence. The next guy tries it until they get a functional PL. Then the SPL directly supports development of his leadership. A lot of anti-patrol-method comes from the need by adults to control everything and the SPL gets stuck in the tenuous position of follow out those control expectations. (Thus the numerous discussions on discipline on the forum, and the subsequent by-law/rules "solutions" to those problems.) These are SM's that have no intention of ever trusting his boys to develop leadership on their own. Maybe on the SM's terms, but never on their own. In the past when I had a large enough troop for a valid SPL, I tried working with him to focus on PL's, but the SM always insisted on diluting his focus on "the whole troop". Basically the PL's did nothing and the SPL was swamped, but the SM retained full control of the troop. The troop produced a lot of Eagles, but the collateral damage of lost boys along the way was HUGE. Gotta trust the patrol-method system and the boys that run it. It's surprising how many boys will step up and lead when they have real ownership of the process. Right now I have 5 boys in a new troop. One boy has stepped up and volunteered to be PL. Nobody objected so that was that. Last week was his first ever - go it alone meeting. It went far better than I expected from a boy that was a Webelos II 3 months ago. They worked on advancement, planned an activity and had a good time. Couldn't expect much more than that. No rules, no by-laws, no SM expectations, no adult interference, no problems. Stosh

http://www.eidebailly.com/industries/non-profit/irs-highlights-private-benefit-concerns-in-use-of-fundraising-accounts/ http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501%28c%29%283%29-Organizations Remember, it's not the unit or the council holding the 501©(3), it's the chartering organization that will take the hit from the IRS. Stosh

I'm kinda with dcsimmons on this. Wood and charcoal work just fine for outdoors and there's no stoves to drag in, no fuel to buy/bring and one can use a Bic lighter (or worse case scenario, a match) to start it without any council hassle. I own a back pack stove which I've used maybe 3-4 times and a 2 burner Colman which my wife uses. Otherwise it's charcoal and wood. Maybe if councils make it difficult enough, the boys will go back to campfire cooking using free fuel from the woods. Oh, you say the place you camp doesn't allow it? Well find a place that does. To-date I have yet to start a forest fire on a sandbar. Stosh

If one were to stop and think about it. Heat pops popcorn. I have found that air poppers don't need oil! Duh! But those that do use oil use just enough to cover the bottom of the pan to keep the popped popcorn from sticking and burning on the sides. Otherwise, let the heat do the work, just like an air popper. I have one of those home hand crank models and put maybe a table spoon of oil in, 1/3 cup of kernels and crank away. I've never tried it, but I'm thinking the microwave stuff has enough oil already in the package to just dump directly into the popper. I'll have to give it a try, but with my crank model, I don't ever buy microwave stuff. I wouldn't put the microwave stuff in an air popper. Stosh

TAHAWK, I understand your concern/need to have adults present for safety reasons, but even then it's pretty much a non-issue. Take for example the recent thread on the 12 year-old that was killed by the rolling log. 10 Scouts/4 Adults. That's twice the adults I normally have at any scout activity. The father of the boy was a Navy physician who would have had more medical training than the average adult, or even a paramedic. And the boy was killed anyway. Of what value were the adults in this situation? None. One must always be vigilant in what goes on, but in this case a good PL would be as helpful as any adult because there was nothing that could be done anyway. However, a well trained PL would have handled the situation had it been only an injury and not a death. As one who stresses Safety First (#1 rule in my troop) first aid and emergency contingencies are always a high priority and after a boy attains FC, they pretty much are able to handle any medical emergency. To me that's a vital part of the program and is part of the leadership development (thinking on one's feet) that applies to these kinds of situations. So if the boys are trained to do what they can, of what purpose are the adults? Adults without first aid training will just stand around and any scout on an outing can call 911 or go for help, which in this case they did. A well trained patrol, out on an activity by themselves should have the wherewithall to handle these kinds of situations without the need of helicopter adults who don't really add any value to the mix anyway. If the boys are not trained well enough to handle this, they should be or all that first aid training is pretty much a waste of time. If they are well trained and proficient in leadership, what's the real NEED for adults? For the most part, I see adult intervention in the troop as a mentoring resource, and not much more. Am I needed by the troop to be present? No, not as much as BSA needs me to be present for insurance purposes. Stosh

Oh, by the way, the method is adult association, not adult control. If you have a leadership program where only adults are controlling everything, one doesn't have a Boy Scout Troop either. Boys that associate with me and my hand picked ASM staff learn leadership, to me that's the purpose of the program. Stosh

The response quote is a bit out of context, and the conclusion draw, is then more harsh than what I was stating. The original context was that the SPL would be overwhelmed by too big of a troop that's why the adults where needed. However if the SPL was NOT responsible for the whole troop and was responsible for helping PL's who are helping their patrol boys, there would be no need for adults in the process. Think in terms of Kudu's patrol activity without adults, the original format of the patrol-method. We have everyone keeping all the adults away from the boys sitting around their own campfire, cooking their own meals, and the boys are 300' away doing their thing. That indicates to me that the troop is doing well because even though the adults are present, they are not NEEDED, i.e. required attendance to lead! BSA promotes this idealized management style that states that under the control of the SM's directives, the SPL needs to run/control the troop. That might be well and good, but basically impossible for young adults with no training to be successful at. Thus they continually push for the 30 member troop as the "idealized" size. That's maybe 4 patrols. That which if there ever be a really good SPL, might just be able to pull it off if he's lucky. Unfortunately with all the discussion on the forum centered around SPL's not getting the job done, burning out, or whatever, it makes a lot of sense to think that the structure isn't working even in the small troops. If the SPL is to run the troop, there is no need for PL's other than middle management that as we all know are pretty much a waste of time. Why should the members of the patrol answer to the PL's, it's the SPL running everything anyway. So one has a POR of no or very little responsibility assigned to the PL's. Sure they get delegated tasks, but that means they learn to follow, not lead. However, if the SPL is mentoring PL's instead of running the troop, he has more time to focus his attention on the PL leadership development needs and the little stuff within the patrols is up to the PL's to deal with. That's where real leadership is developed, working at leading a small group of peers. This is why I think 3-4 patrols with one boy who's been there, done that, as their mentor backup, fare a bit better than the PL having a problem and the SPL is off tending to some troop concern such as Johnny in Patrol A wasn't around and he's on the duty roster of the patrol's supper chores. I'm think that a good SPL should be able to handle about 8 PL's just like having a "patrol" of leaders he's mentoring. Call it PLC if you wish. If the patrols are 300' apart, is it the adults running from patrol to patrol keeping an eye on things or is it the SPL as he mentors and assists the PL's? As a matter of fact, the 300' patrol model is extremely contrary to the ability of an SPL to "run the troop". Adults fight the 300' tradition because they can't control everything from that distance, nor can any SPL. If done right, the last person one would ever want the SM to see on an activity is the SPL. By the time the PL is overwhelmed and so is the SPL on an issue, the SPL's support of last resort is the SM/ASM combo. I don't have a problem with adults offering up guidance, and some kind of "vision" for the troop, but I am totally convinced that with the entrenched Old Guard, Helicopter SM's and semi, if not untrained SM's putting up their visions, the boys often don't get much of a chance to have a program of their own vision. I hear on the forum a lot of concern on discipline, assumptions the scouts are going to do something wrong, or whatever negative they can think up to entrench themselves with by-laws, rules, traditions, restrictions that basically squelch any leadership development, adventure and or fun the boys might want to incorporate into their program and once they realize it "ain't gonna change", they bail, but maybe come back and tolerate it for a few months while they wrap up their Eagle. I may come off pie-in-the-sky with some hair-brained, straw-man argument, idealized theories, but I don't have anywhere near the problems that seem to float around on the forum. As a matter of fact, most of the flack I get are from the parents and other leaders and very little if any from the boys. But then one will get that when they are trying to protect the boys from controlling adults that refuse to actually trust them with real leadership opportunities. My boys come to me for suggestions all the time, it's part of my duty to mentor them, but never, under any circumstances, do I ever do it for them. Basically, I have found out, they'd rather do it themselves anyway. I assume far more than the boys can ever reach. But about 90-95% of time the boys always perform well above any expectation I have for them. Stosh

We are putting $XX.XX amount of money in YOUR ISA because you sold X amount of popcorn. The verbiage implies that money is the scouts', when in fact it belongs to the CO. Right there I see a problem with "A Scout is Trustworthy" on the part of the adults. On the other hand, if HE put some money in his "account" with the troop. It is and always will be his money. If a troop puts money in the account at the council office so that people can purchase awards, etc. when that troop folds, the money is returned to the CO, it is and always was their money. Ever see a council giving money directly to any unit? No, but ALL units receive benefit from any council program. Stosh