packsaddle

scoutldr, I'm just sorry I didn't think of it first. That's a GREAT idea! Is there anyone who does NOT think customers and users should pay for goods and services rendered? Of course they should! 'Pay-as-you-go' is a great way to bring the free market to the program and could also serve as a working example for the boys. It would work best if completely open to competition, though, with individuals and groups free to choose (based on value/cost) the vendor of the meeting rooms, etc. But those are details, the idea is a sound one and, I think, very innovative. It would also serve to introduce market forces into all aspects of council functions, and I think that would be a good thing. The question, "Who is the customer?", could require a little clarification, though. Next time the district held a roundtable at XYZ church, for example, they may need to do a little market analysis first to get the best deal. When the district rents the room and charges an admission fee (like those advertised real-estate seminars, for example), the customers (we volunteers) will be able to decide with a voice that WILL be heard. By choosing to pay or not, we will be able to state decisively whether or not we are getting a product worth paying for. And THAT would put at least some of the decision-making capacity right where it belongs.

Exactly! Fortunately, for some reason the merit badge 'college' idea has been a dismal failure in this area for a few years now (at the district level, it hasn't been tried any other way that I know of). I have no idea why but the boys seem to have no interest in participating in those 'colleges'.

stlscouter, And I always thought 'Rebel Yell' was an brand of bourbon. http://www.rebelyellwhiskey.com/ but a mediocre one, in my view. Anyway, I'm not sure that I understand your point..I evidently am missing the irony you mention (and I do so love ironies).

I think one element that is not being discussed...but nevertheless important to this topic is the customer [but Prairie_Scouter just touched on it in the post before this one]. We can play all the games we want with margins but if a customer doesn't buy, there is no profit. Period. Also, I would like to know how the $13 popcorn average price was established. Are the prices less expensive in other areas of the country? They sure are higher than that around here. To establish a fair average, the actual sales need to be known. The individual sales forms I have seen indicate that people are mostly buying the higher$$$ items, just fewer of them. The margin IS important but also the volume. I sympathize with the candy bar idea. These days, a person will pay $1 for a similar candy bar at any convenience store and perhaps get a product inferior to the fundraiser bar for the same money (at least for the fundraising bars I have seen and purchased, and which taste very good, I might add). And these days, $1 is closer to a trivial expense than $18-20 for a tin of cat litter, I mean popcorn (oops, sorry, my bias on popcorn is showing). Especially when an equivalent product can be purchased, IF NEEDED, for much less (about 60-68% less) at the grocery store. This differential may indeed translate into greater volume of sales for the small-cost item. And that may compensate for any differences in margin, differences that, after all, may be...marginal. Edited part: I must have been typing when Prairie_Scouter posted, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Anarchist, unlike the real-world situation where $3 popcorn is selling for $15, I need to bring attention to the myth of the overpriced hammer. Here's a site that explains the phenomenon: http://www.govexec.com/gpp/0299media.htm There are other sources as well that give a similar answer. This does not really detract from what I think was your point, however. If a person wakes up and decides they want to buy the 'super deluxe popcorn' for $15, if it is that simple, then it is a straight-forward honest transaction - fully conforming to FScouter's characterization. However, if they reluctantly decide to do the same thing, regardless of the source of their reluctance, it is possible that FScouter's characterization is not as simple as it seems. There may be more to the decision than appears on the surface and if an outside observer can't see below the surface, FScouter's approach might still appear to be appropriate. However, if the seller knowingly exploits some advantage over some weakness in the buyer, you may be correct in your concern. The problem is getting everything to the surface. In a perfect market, competition with the $3 popcorn should force a correction if, indeed, the $15 popcorn is truly equal in quality. I think you are arguing that because the $15 price continues to stand, perhaps there is a non-competitive aspect to this sale that needs to be re-examined. So, how am I doing here? Is that about right or do I have things badly confused?

OK, I'm confused. To whom are you addressing your remarks, Bob White? Edited part: Answered...by EagleInKy, thanks. This is getting close to cyber-gridlock. Good answer, by the way.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

This has been a long-standing concern of mine, but not for camping MB. For that one, the boys in this unit have usually met the requirements easily before they get too far into the badge at camp. My concern is for those MBs that require, for example, a 500-word essay or a one-week project. I know that the counselors are signing off on these requirements when the boys have not actually completed them. Actually it seems to be common knowledge because the boys discuss this among themselves and organize to 'target' those badges for summer camp. (Not exactly the type of 'leadership' I would like them to develop) I have taken my concerns up the line. They do nothing but smile and promise to address the concern. And then more of the same, nothing happens to address the problem. However, if an approved counselor has signed off on the requirements, that is that. Down the road, in the past a couple of boys have come to me and admitted shame at having 'run a scam' and gotten their awards without doing all the work. I commend them for their conscience and inform them that they have learned a lesson more valuable than they might have by actually earning the award. And to use this lesson to do better in the future. But it continues to this day. I'll probably see it again this summer.

We have so many of them that we couldn't, under most circumstances, ever have one that long. In this unit the BOR actually 'reviews' what the boy did and gets his take on it as well. On most of the occasions, the adults already know the boy well and it doesn't take much time - although I couldn't give a typical length, certainly less than 30 minutes for most of the BORs even for high rank. The exceptions are usually associated with the boy and the adults digressing into a pleasant bull session (the board decision is usually established before this, however) and then only the last boy in line. Two hours would be very difficult to justify. Edited part: This trick sometimes works to limit the length of an academic defense - have an abundant supply of fresh coffee and chips. Maybe that will help 'move' things along. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Wow, Onehour good luck. I sure hope you and your family stay safely out of harm's way. Just checked weather.com and things don't seem to have changed much.

Trevorum, I guess I'm taking my chances but councils often have great email resouces. Otetiana Council, for example, offers this utility: http://www.otetiana.org/phonedirectory.php in which you merely click on a name to pop up an email window. Slick! It doesn't actually give you the address but you can make contact electronically. If they respond, you'll have their address.

Some of the parents in this unit have the cynical notion that we are expoiting the boys' sympathetic appearance to 'persuade' customers to pay too much for the product. They think the custormers agree to do it for two reaons: the customer wants to maintain some nebulous standing in the community and they don't want to risk that standing for a few bucks, AND they know, a priori, that most of their payment goes, in reality, to BSA and the local unit. When confronted with this argument, after having chaired the popcorn effort for years in the past, I sometimes forget my counterargument. But even I hestitated when I saw the new prices this year. And I'm sure many people will glance at their wallet, then at the gas pumps, then at the popcorn....I went ahead and ordered popcorn again (even though I still hate the stuff) for gifts - but I didn't order as much. Edited part: SueM, This council also left negative incentives for dissent. Some of the boys really like to compete for the prizes, though, so we continue. Other units, as I understand, have the attitude that they are participating under duress.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

molscouter, I certainly agree. I have some bad personal experiences regarding similar issues and those memories influence my decision to remain anonymous.

Fling1, That is absolutely beautiful. There are so many delicious ironies there that I may overdose on them. On April 12, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard probably had no idea the far-reaching consequences of that first shot. Eeeeee-haaaaaa!

molscouter, In fairness, I think I see a flaw in your example. What you describe may be false arrest and I believe that is illegal most places. If the officer's radar was not operating correctly, it can be contested in court. If the officer knew no law had been broken but did it anyway, that is another matter. Edited part: Sorry, forgot to add something. I do see your point, though. In each case the authority (the officer or BSA) uses position rather than merit to force a particular situation on persons not allowed to respond. The flaw I see has to do with legality. The officer may have committed a crime while BSA is within their legal right. However, both use position - and nothing else - to subordinate a weaker party. Some (but evidently not all) people would conclude that is unethical.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hunt, good point. I agree. This may be merely a distraction while the important questions remain unresolved.

Needless to say, I agree with the views of the previous posters, and some of us have disagreed on other topics. As Kahuna mentioned, criticism can be a healthy thing. There are few things I want less - than to be wrong about something if I can know better. If I don't have the benefit of honest criticism by Kahuna and others, I may be more likely to let my beliefs become prejudices. I depend on my friends to reel me in when I have gone out too far. It is a healthy response and part of a healthy community. I do the same for them. Bob White, the key to avoiding such prejudice is to remain open to the possibility that we might be wrong - and to remain open to honest criticism that might show us how to correct the situation. BSA is not above criticism. However, IF they try to stifle internal criticism, I consider that to be intellectually bankrupt. I have seen this before in churches and other venues and it is often associated with prejudice. As Ed noted, no one here (including me) rejects the values of scouting. Some of us ARE critical of BSA policies regarding membership. To me, setting aside membership policies, an important issue IS the apparent attempt by BSA to stifle internal criticism. I see this as unhealthy and I reject it as a bankrupt approach and a self-deception on the part of BSA. I see it as an artificial (and false) mechanism to 'protect' any policy that otherwise (if it was subjected to open criticism) might not stand. The question Hunt has asked repeatedly (and you have repeatedly left unanswered) relates to BSA's response to that criticism. I also agree with Prairie_Scouter's trust in BSA regarding matters of the program. I think that BSA is trustworthy regarding the program. And (speaking for the locals, now) when they are mistaken, they ARE receptive. BSA evidently is NOT receptive, however, regarding policies that have little direct relevance to the program. I merely respond accordingly. But I think we all would like to know the truth about BSA's response...which takes us back to Hunt's good question. Bob White, do you truly not understand these things?

There are excellent plant taxonomists at the Illinois Natural History Survey. http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/maps.html They would be the '500 lb gorillas', perhaps overkill for this job, but they'd be able to tell you complete histories and other facts about all the plants. Also, your extension service will have free literature and expertise to help. There should be an office in every county, each with multiple agents: http://www.extension.uiuc.edu/ In my area I use the extension literature to supplement numerous merit badges. It's free and many people don't know the resource is available.

"loyal and obedient"? I have to admit this was somewhat of a letdown...I was anticipating the gom jabar. This falls into a long-standing category of judgements by people unqualified to make them. For example, as for 'obedient'...my wife is well-qualified to make that one and she'd probably relish the opportunity, but Bob White, you have absolutely no basis for it..or else you would have provided your reasoning. You didn't. Just the opinion, as if that makes it so. And for 'loyal', if you presented that to this community you would be laughed out of the building. You had the chance for your reasoning on that as well and you gave us nothing. As if that makes it so. I gave you the opportunity to lay it all on the table. And you didn't. Hunt has repeatedly asked a direct question for which you could give a yes-or-no answer and you haven't. Your evasive response has been that you've already answered it, as if that makes it so. OK Bob White, which thread? What date? Prove it. I have encountered this situation before and I note a pattern. Prejudice has no rational basis and when asked, none can be given. And none has. I offer this advice constructively. Bob White, you DO have something to contribute. You ARE knowledgeable of the printed material. However, if you want to be taken seriously, your opinion alone will not carry the day. If you want to be taken seriously, you must bring some substance to the table. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. (Ever hear that before?) Take a deep breath and give it a try. It will make you feel better.

"No one says..." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. As for the rest, I'm curious. What do you think the values are, that I don't share? You evidently have them in mind. Please list the ones that you think I don't share. It would also be helpful if you would explain for each, how you came to that conclusion.

Unless I have misunderstood the situation, for a leader who wants to serve the troop and the boys - and conforms to the written rules, but nevertheless disagrees with one of BSA's policies, the ONLY place BSA allows such criticism, on threat of dismissal, IS "the dark." BSA's darkness, by BSA's choice. "If I come home and find you in my house...". WHERE do you come up with this stuff? You said something like this once before, is this some kind of obsession? No one is in YOUR house. BSA is not your home. No one is attacking your son. "If you are volunteer at the zoo..." If the zoo has a policy that, say, excludes avowed gays and dismisses any volunteer who, although conforming to written regulations, nevertheless disagrees publicly, I submit that the remaining volunteers will quickly learn to be very quiet and careful about what they say. Nice place by the way! "If you came to chuch..." but you thought that black people, or gay people, ought to be allowed to attend, I think the ethical thing IS to be critical of the exclusionary policy. Been there, done that, guilty as charged. The only written requirements for adult membership are those stated on the application. There is no wording that states that the applicant must be uncritical of BSA policy, only that they conform to those same written requirements. If there is an unwritten policy of dismissal for public criticism, then the effect is to ADD an additional requirement beyond that which is written. Are you saying that is an acceptable approach? H'mmm? The honest approach for BSA, if this is the case, would be to state this additional requirement explicitly, on the application. But there is an ethical element to the situation. For BSA to relegate criticism to "the dark" for persons who are honestly trying to address something with which they disagree, I think is unethical. Moreover, it risks harm to the program. Any idea that has merit should be able to withstand criticism. In fact such criticism can actually strengthen ideas. This approach has been abundantly successful in science, for example. If the idea can't stand up to criticism, perhaps it should be abandoned. Stifling criticism won't diminish its weakness. A policy that has the effect of avoiding or repressing criticism leads in two parallel directions: an implicit admission of the potential weakness of the idea, while perpetuating a potentially weak idea artificially - neither of which is desirable.

Bob White, I did take my concerns to BSA at the council level. I tried to engage them in a dialogue. Their response was that they were not open to discussions on these subjects. I add that they had a similar response to issues not related to policies on gays or atheists. As I said before, I don't know if this is a pattern for BSA, but it is my own experience. On the other hand, your admitted lack of understanding is your problem, not mine. Just as I can't bring the council to an open, objective discussion of certain issues, I can't open your mind for you, either. I can live with the council's denial and with persons who disagree with me but are unable to rise past their own prejudices, (they make it easier in some ways, actually) by devoting my time and attention to the troop and the boys. No problem.

"I cannot fathom why..." That, at least, is clear. I'm carefully following the rules, written and unwritten, that BSA has laid before me. Just the way you do. BSA made the rules and I follow them. BSA is responsible for this situation. And, just as you admit you "cannot fathom why..." I admit that I'm obviously not capable of bringing you enlightenment. Hypothetically, if someone "can't stand", is annoyed by, or dislikes this situation, that person needs to learn how to adjust to disappointment, and perhaps develop some coping skills. Until BSA changes the rules, I will continue to follow them as they are. And that will be that until I decide differently. Until then, tough luck.

OK, how does one get these? Sounds like a great joke. I would try Klingon but it just hurts my throat. Perhaps Ferengi?

Bob White, I am honest about what I think, here and elsewhere. I just don't write critical editorials in the newspaper or air criticisms on camera. And I am very careful what I write in emails or on websites if my identity is known. The other leaders know my thoughts quite well (many agree). If the SE or anyone else at the council asks me, I tell them what I think and that's the end of it. The limitations I observe, as it has been explained to me, are the conditions set by BSA (council, at least) not by me. You are correct that membership is a privilege and I have chosen to conform to the unwritten 'policy' on free speech in order not to jeopardize my membership. The effect of repression of speech is to drive criticism away from public view but BSA can't make it go away. Refusal to engage openly in honest, critical examination of ideas is sometimes an indication of the weakness of the ideas, or the ability to defend them. Too bad, it tends to propagate needless confusion and misinformation in the public arena, and BSA has NO control over that arena. In the past you asked me directly why I continue, and I answered directly.

If you saw me you'd know how wrong you are about that beret ...way too geeky-looking. My head is adorned by a really beat-up brown leather western style with lots of dust and sweat inside and out. Virtually assures that it will never be stolen...nor accidentally eaten. Bon apetite - enjoy the feast.