Oak Tree

Every SM I have talked to says he strongly favors boy-led. And they all have very different versions of what that means. How much failure will he tolerate? How does he favor doing an annual plan? What tasks does he want to give to the ASMs? How does he go about coaching the SPL and other youth? What kind of camping does he favor? How does he view risk-management? How will he handle parents? What is his philosophy on advancement? Who all will he allow to sign off on stuff? The idea that you just need someone who will let the boys lead is an idea that will lead to terrible choices for Scoutmasters. I think Lisa's initial list pretty much has the pros and cons correct. If you can develop a solid program where new SMs just keep it going, then you have a good situation for rotation. Prevents all the drama about trying to decide how to tell a Scoutmaster that he should move on. Gets some new perspective. And yet, with all that, you hate to force out a good SM, because you know that there is some chance that the next one won't be good. Wood Badge rotates leaders every year. They do it by developing a very strong bench. I like that model, since it prevents the course from becoming an old boys' club. Most troops don't have the ability to develop a bench in that fashion, so I'm somewhere in the middle on the rotation idea. I think it might work well for some troops, and others would find it problematic. If I were to suggest doing it, I think I'd go for a three-year tour of duty.

It's been several years since we reviewed the canonical list of reasons to follow the rules vs. reasons to use your judgment. So for any new people to the forum, here is a summary of the arguments for and against rules. Reasons to follow the rules: R1. Obeying rules set by legitimate authorities is a moral imperative in itself. R2. Rules are set by persons with greater knowledge and experience and thus should be followed. R3. It's important to show respect for rules in order to set a good example for others. R4. Breaking small rules will lead to less respect for more important rules. R5. If you agreed to follow the rules, you are obligated to follow them. R6. If everybody picked and chose what rules to follow, there would be chaos, and dumb people would ignore the wrong rules. R7. If you violate the rule, you may be punished. R8. Once you've decided you can break one rule, what's to stop you from breaking any and all rules? If its ok to break a rule, its ok to break all rules. You either obey rules, or you dont. R9. If it's ok to break a rule, people will break rules just to do what's best for them. R10. Rules allow for consistency from time to time and place to place. It allows you to know what behavior is expected, to predict how others will behave, and how to interpret some results (e.g. what earning a rank represents.) R11. Not following the rule makes you more likely to be sued. R12. Following the rule is not a big deal. R13. If you voluntarily join a group, you should voluntarily want to go along with their rules. R14. Rules that come from God are good and should be obeyed by definition. R15. An imperfect rule is better than no rule. R16. Following the rules builds character. A key part of maturing is realizing that the motto "If it feels good, do it" is not a good way to live. Reasons to use your judgement: J1. The rule is unjust. (Favorite example - failing to turn over Jews to the Nazis and lying about it). J2. The purpose for the rule clearly does not apply to the particular situation. (Scoutmaster wants to talk to waterfront director but doesn't have a buddy with him to enter the waterfront. Another simple one might be the requirement to "take a number" when there is nobody else waiting.) J3. The rule is routinely violated and rarely enforced. (This is probably the true reason most people speed a few mph over the limit.) J4. The rule is silly. (Tot'n Chip is not supposed to be worn on the pocket flap of the uniform, although it is shaped like a pocket flap.) J5. The rule is inconsequential, and the consequences of violating it are too small to matter. (This is in the eye of the beholder, of course--perhaps wearing green socks that are identical to Scout socks, but without the red stripe, under long pants.) J6. The rule is inconvenient. Following it would cause negative impact for one or many people, and the benefits of the rule are not enough to outweigh this. (Your one BALOO trained leader can't make the pack camping trip.) J7. You just think you know better than the people who make the rules. (Taking Scouts to play laser tag or paintball, maybe.) J8. You really do know better than the rulemaker, because of unique personal expertise, or insufficient time/attention paid by the rulemaker. J9. Following the rule will cause one person to be singled out/embarrassed. J10. There will be substantial negative consequences to following the rule (maybe, in Cub Scouts, one family's tent collapses during a rainstorm in the middle of the night, and they move in with another family who has a large tent.) J11. It's the spirit of the rule that matters, not the letter of the rule (maybe allowing a couple who has been together for 15 years, but isn't technically married, to share the same tent) J12. There is an overriding reason of a health or safety emergency (often comes up in these discussions, but is non-controversial in reality, as everyone tends to agree it's ok to break a rule to save a life - assuming that you know that breaking the rule really will save the life) J13. The rules suck all the fun out of the activity. (maybe the rule is you have to listen to a one-hour safety lecture before firing a bb-gun. Or, at a local camp-o-ree, the local rules appear to have been thought up by someone who seemed to have no experience with actual Scouts) J14. The rules, as written, appear to be bizarrely complex. J15. The rulemaker exceeded his authority in making the rule. J16. The rules are in service to a greater principle, and the greater principle is what matters (e.g. service to the kids) J17. The rule is very general and does not (and can not) take into account all of the specific situations it may apply to. The situation may allow the rules intent to be achieved through alternate means. J18. People in authority indicate the rules are flexible. J19. Freedom is a moral imperative in and of itself. Its best to give people as much leeway as possible in interpreting how rules apply to their lives. J20. The rule is utterly impractical (e.g. no driving after dark). J21. Other general principles or rules override the rule in question. (e.g. brothers and sisters can share a tent on a Cub family campout even though the G2SS says male and female youth may not share the same sleeping facility). J22. Autonomy is an important motivator for people. It can keep them involved and it can empower them. (Some people seem to intentionally violate a rule for this reason - wearing non-standard socks solely because they want to violate a rule.) J23. It's important to teach people not to blindly follow authority.

In contrast, the Girl Scouts of Kentuckiana said they are more inclusive as a secular organization and do not have a sexual orientation policy like the Boy Scouts, which is based on Christian values.So the Girl Scouts made the statement that the BSA is based on Christian values, and the reporter let it stand. Interesting, because it is exactly the opposite of the stated BSA policy, The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. So why do they think the BSA is based on Christian values? My guess, because it is. Even if not explicitly, the BSA clearly comes out of a Christian tradition.

it is unlikely that IBM had anything to do with the decision as far as sponsorship. It may be that the $$ weren't the issue, but the negative publicity of the whole thing wasn't helpful. I can imagine the leaders getting together and saying "Do we want this to be the story every year?" and also "Do we really want to exclude the CEO of our biggest sponsor?" Just too much negative publicity, and not a lot of reason to stick with the policy. Same thing that will eventually get the BSA to change. I think this is a fine on-topic post from Merlyn.

We do a separate meeting in October that chooses the activities for the next calendar year. We've varied which Scouts get invited - I think at the moment we are going with those in positions of responsibility. Scoutmaster and a few ASMs are there. We do it at someone's house, there are snacks. It usually takes a few hours. According to the BSA process, the committee should be presented the list and could veto items. We usually just do an informal thing where I email the proposed calendar to the CC and he says "fine."

If you aren't feeling welcome, maybe you should just ask. Why do they want to run a Scouting program? If they don't really want to run it, then find someone who does. Keeping a Scoutmaster can be contentious, but firing one can be even more contentious. I would definitely recommend talking to the Pastor outside of the committee meeting. Does the entire committee agree the Scoutmaster should leave? Do all of the parents feel that way too? Is there a good candidate for a replacement? If so, someone might need to have a conversation with the Scoutmaster about whether or not he can really do the job well, and if he agrees he is being stretched thin, how it is therefore maybe time to move on. There is a lot of drama here. Or at least, there is according to your description. It doesn't sound like the Pastor thinks things are all that broken, and the SM doesn't appear to think so. If others don't think there is a problem, or at least there isn't enough of one to cause any action, then I'd suggest you either decide to live with it, or move on. Lots of complaining about things that aren't going to change isn't going to help anyone.

In our council, you can just buy the archery and BB belt loops. What I did with a similar situation was to ask the parent - "Do you believe your Scout has completed this requirement?" I wouldn't cave. I'd just politely say "We pretty much try to award things to Scouts only when they complete the requirements." (Is that polite, or a little bit snarky? I do try to inject some humor even in tense situations.) I'd also offer up "I don't make the requirements. You can read them yourself. I'm sure they have this rule because they don't want to encourage Cub Scouts to go work on this on their own." Don't even offer up a hint of an idea that it would be even possible for you to provide the belt loop. I'm with VV - with reasonable parents you have discussions. With unreasonable parents you sometimes have to take a hard line. I like SSScout's suggested dialogue as well.

When is a "rule" a commandement and when is it merely guidance for a leader to consider? Rules are almost always just guidance. Some rules have a lot of weight behind them and you'd need a really good reason to break the rule. There are some rules that are so important that the BSA won't let you break them, but these are pretty few. The vast, vast majority of rules are guidelines that serve as the default approach to a situation, but that people will use their judgment to decide when they apply. Disagreement often comes over where to draw the line, but some rules can become so ridiculous that no one follows them in certain situations.

Our troop has not had anyone who was primarily a Spanish speaker. We have had Scouts whose primary languages were various Indian languages and one Israeli who primarily spoke Hebrew. The form is really, really cluttered. I can deal with any health form, so it's not a major issue, but I would rate this change as "awful". This is just surprisingly, astonishingly bad. How many Hispanic Scouts do we have where the parents and/or doctors don't speak enough English to fill out the basic form? This is some corporate philosophy run amok.

the rest of the employees fall into line, and for the ones who don't fall into line, they leave. It is the reality of working in a corporate environment. Bwa-ha-ha-ha. Oh, yes, every employee follows every company policy exactly as written, never improvises, never recognizes times when the rule doesn't make sense. No employee ever installs an unauthorized software program on their company computer. Our company used to have a sign up saying "any cameras brought onto the premises need to be registered." It made no allowance for cell phone cameras. It was really out of date. Employees ignored the rule. They didn't leave the company. There are all kinds of reasons for deciding that certain rules don't apply in certain situations. But it doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" policy. Generally, my policy is to follow the rules unless there is some reason why it doesn't make sense. As Beavah alludes to, we used to have these conversations all the time on this forum. To the point where I generated a canonical list of reasons you should follow the rules and reasons you should use your judgment. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Abel - you do seem very frustrated by people who don't follow the rules. Are there things that you do enjoy about Scouts and people that you do like to work with?

If the concern has to do with what the building supply business thinks, just ask them. Do they care what is done with the materials that they provided the discount on? My guess is that they'll say that they don't care, and he can then with free conscience donate the materials to Habitat or to whomever. He certainly would be entirely entitled to keep any materials consistent with the amount of money that he put in. If he put in more money than the supplies are worth, then he can do anything he wants with them.

Oh yuck. No, they shouldn't do both. No, they can't be unbiased. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest. They should definitely recuse themselves - or, if they don't, then the person bringing the issue should take the issue to someone else.

Yeah, what everyone else said. The CO owns the unit, and to varying degrees a CO will actually use this control. The majority exercise very little, or no control. Some COs, like the LDS, typically exercise a lot more. The CO can do anything as long as it's within BSA guidelines, and those guidelines are pretty broad. Most of the program is described in recommendations, not requirements. There are all kinds of ways the CO could ask the committee to operate. In practice, if you are getting into a conflict over who has the right to do what, then you are not likely to be headed for success, no matter what answer we give you. The hope is that everyone is working together for the benefit of the program. Usually the CO just gives some very broad operating guidelines, but they can be more specific if they want to be. Always helpful to do what you can to get everyone on the same page. What do your IH and COR want out of the program? Can you help them see how they can achieve that?

We don't directly specify it anywhere in our troop materials, but the BSA clearly lists the process and the Scout does the calling. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/GuideforMeritBadgeCounselors/IntroToMeritBadges.aspx

In a way, I think it would be ok if the BSA had to pay property taxes on the stadium. I would guess the rent would more than cover the taxes. I would think that most venues like this do in fact pay property taxes.

http://www.marshall.edu/cber/research/NonProfitSurveyResults.pdf This review of what non-profit property is taxable provides what I would consider a bizarre result. They asked all of the county assessors about nine different scenarios and whether the building would be taxable. In no case did all of the assessors agree, and they were frequently very split on the topics. For example, a church rents spaces in its parking lot during the week to workers at nearby jobs. On Sunday it's used for worship. Is the parking lot tax-exempt? 55% Yes, 45% No.

You can freely choose whom to do business with, except for a few specific instances. You are not allowed to discriminate on certain criteria, race being the primary example. If you are turning your facility into a 'public accommodation' then you have to abide by your state's rules on that. If you were in NJ, that would include not discriminating based on sexual preference. Here's a quote on the tax-exempt thing...the State Supreme Court has ruled that nonprofit organizations can forfeit their tax-exempt status for property taxes if they lease out their facilities to noncharitable organizations for even a single day (Kabler 2010).

What type of program changes would you like to see? You're right, a year is enough time that you should see something, but really, the biggest thing I want out of my SE is not to screw up my unit program. I'm not even really sure what a council program should consist of.

Non-profits rent things all the time. This is regularly presumed in the IRS publications. Churches and religious organizations, like other tax exempt organizations, may engage in income-producing activities unrelated to their tax-exempt purposes, as long as the unrelated activities are not a substantial part of the organizations activities.I'm curious about what part of the WV constitution would jeopardize this. The IRS says that an organization can jeopardize its tax-exempt status, and that there are several requirements to maintain it.must not operate for the primary purpose of conducting a trade or business that is not related to its exempt purpose, such as a school's operation of a factoryRenting out your building is something that churches do all the time. Any WV legal scholars out there?

Troopmaster is OK software ... but it has its quirks... 1) Only one user can have the database open at a time, (it is stored in the cloud) so sharing the AC position is really NOT an option. Only one user at a time can lock the database, but we do have lots of different people who make updates. Lock it, make the changes, unlock it. I'd like to see some finer-grained locking, but this one hasn't been a big problem for us, even in a big troop. 2) If you crash while the database is open, you can have a lockout situation. True, but it's easy to unlock it. 3) For large troops, it takes a lot of time to maintain all the data...especially for active troops. There are weeks where she would log 40 or more hours. True, but I expect this would be true for pretty much any program. There is lots of data to maintain. 4) It has a few quirks when setting it up...getting the multiple passwords and some firewall issues came up. Boy, ain't that the truth. The password thing is crazy. We had to create a step-by-step document for how to install TroopMaster. Once you have all the passwords entered into the right places, everything works great, but it is not an immediately intuitive process.

Tim, Thanks for the reminder. Of course, I, and I'm sure most of the other posters, will immediately think "thanks for reminding all those other posters to be nicer." As you note, any internet forum suffers from the anonymity of the participants. It's hard to moderate the behavior of the users, but notes like this from the community are a good reminder. Not everyone views themselves as a keeper of the flame here - some people aren't focused on how they come across to all of the other posters, the lurkers, the general public. They just want to make their point. Welcome to the forums, though! And believe it or not, the forums are better than they used to be.

"Tent ants"? I had a whole bunch of those at summer camp. I mean, a lot. They were the big black ones.

"don't ask" may have always been the de facto national policy, but can you point to some place where that policy is specifically stated? Since the Green Mountain Council has had this policy for a long time, there is nothing new, other than the media is now noticing that their policy is intentionally more inclusive in its statement than the national policy is.

Teh Mohegan Council say that it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The BSA Mohegan Council, Inc. operates in compliance with all relevant laws, codes, ordinances, statutes and regulations. The council does not discriminate with respect to employment, volunteer participation or the provision of services, on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, ancestry, disability or handicapped status, veteran status, marital status, or political affiliation. The council policy forbids sexual harassment. The council has a right to exclude membership inappropriate for the defined mission and values of the council. http://www.doubleknot.com/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.aspx?LinkKey=6073 Councils can rise up, but it the end they'll have to enforce the national policies. Maybe with enough councils complaining, things might tip.

They have some more discussion on their web site. The way I read it, they are clearly painting the existing policy as negative. http://www.scoutingvermont.org/News/BSANonDiscriminationPolicy They don't argue for the national policy. They pretty take it as a problem that they don't agree with. The policy is only portrayed as a drag on membership. "If however, they [parents] feel that the values, life lessons, fun and outdoor excitement and education outweigh this current policy, then they may choose to continue to stay active with their son and receive the full benefits of Scouting." Their full policy statement, from 2001 : http://www.scoutingvermont.org/files/d/usr/76/GMC%20-%20Non%20Discrimination%20Policy.pdf While clearly a reiteration of don't-ask-don't-tell, the policy also appears to be the most a council could do to indicate that it didn't like the current policy. The real question is, what do you do when you are told?