Beavah

Yah, they like da mountains Den6Pack51Mom, eh? I take it they're goin' over by Skykomish and farther, eh? I think we all need to take a breath. Campin' in that part of Washington State durin' the winter might be pretty wet for the little guys. Or perhaps for the parents! Lots more rain and damp on that side of the mountains. If yeh go over the range to the east, yeh tend to get much more cub-friendly and family-friendly weather. But those passes need to be driven carefully, and that might well mean leavin' early or returnin' late. Den6, I think yeh just have to make the call based on what the pack program is like overall and what it offers your son. For a lad who does well in school, there can be lots of merit in a good outdoors/alternative education program... and even more sometimes for a lad who doesn't do well in school. Hard to say. I admit this seems more than a bit "out there", but then I don't know all the circumstances. Look at things overall, though, before makin' a snap judgment. School is important, but I bet in your area athletes get released early when they have long drives for meets or games. Family is important, but how often do we make reasonable choices to sacrifice family time to offer some opportunity to one child? I'd particularly consider if there's a lot of friendship/school ties for your son with this pack, eh? Bein' socially comfortable in school has big positive effects on learnin' (or vice versa), and that might affect your decision too. All things in balance, eh? My guess, though, is that yeh will achieve the best balance by findin' a pack that's more in keeping with your expectations. Beavah

Yah, before this becomes another thread about BobWhite, let's go back to the original question. Except I don't understand the original question. Brotherhood, are yeh suggesting that the SM should have vetoed the PLC decision made durin' the annual planning meeting? That doesn't seem to match your youth led comment. Or do I have that backward and the SM pushed the boys into having movie nights when the boy leaders didn't want to (perhaps so they could fulfill some of the requirements for MBs that use movies)? Or is the issue that the SM didn't bring the annual plan to da committee for approval before they published it? Or is there somethin' else goin' on? Seems like yeh have some issues with the SM that you aren't sharin'. Is he/she new to the job? What are those issues? Just movie nights once a month, especially movies that tie into scoutin', doesn't seem like a hill for anybody to die on, eh? Or even shout about too much. Just depends what's goin' on in the troop in other ways overall. Beavah

There is a big difference between a 501©(3) corporation like your local BSA Council soliciting funds and products and your local BSA unit which has no exempt tax status on it's own. Plenty of units have individual determination letters as 501©(3) organizations. Yah, and da the vast majority of Chartered Organizations which own and operate the units have such status. I reckon most cub packs fall underneath the limits so that obtainin' a formal determination letter is not required by the IRS anyways. Can't see where it makes much of a difference in any event, as long as people are bein' honest. Da values we espouse are to help others, especially kids. With our time, our talent, and our treasure. It's not the exemption which causes most scouters to pay for so much out of pocket, eh? Nor some odd view that a lad must pay his own way. Volunteers give because they care about kids. Same with donors. And carin' about kids is somethin' to be celebrated and encouraged. Beavah

Yah, I'm goin' to refrain from commenting on the vagaries of criminal law with respect to alcohol. Suffice to say some folks are still livin' in da Prohibition Era mindset, and some legislators occasionally listen to their shrieking without givin' thought to what they're writin' into law. I think jblake and scoutldr have the right of this. Sorry, eh, but an Eagle Court of Honor is a unit scouting function. If yeh pick up your scoutin' literature, you will see that it is to be planned by the unit committee and run by the unit. It is most emphatically not a parent-run event. Nor should it be! The youth and his parents should be guests of honor, not wedding reception workers. Plus makin' that clear saves yeh from all kinds of grief, whether it's alcohol or tobacco or firearms. Or just the unfortunate silliness of parents competin' with each other to throw da biggest bash for their kid. Yah, yah, I know. In lots of units around the country there has developed a tradition of the parents planning & runnin' the ECOH for their son. It works OK some of the time if everyone's on the same page, and it saves the youth leaders and scouters from the work. Maybe it even gets parents who never volunteered before to finally do somethin' . As a technique, it has its attractions, like a siren song. It can work OK. I just wouldn't recommend it, eh? There's a raft of good reasons the BSA literature keeps the ECOH as a unit activity. ScoutDad2001 is unfortunately learnin' one of 'em. Beavah

If yeh aren't going to be in the same campsite on a joint outing, I can see where you'd be uncomfortable with it, eh? I think you are right to say "no." Yeh made a prior commitment, and you should stick with it and not try to split your time and attention. Often in such cases a commissioner or another adult from the district or event planning team can step forward to serve as a second adult for your old ship. If they take the time to ask. B

Yah, FScouter, those words are written for children in a manual for children, eh? It's fine to encourage lads to do work for those reasons. But in adult society, we have different values, eh? We believe that scoutin' is worthwhile for society, and so we solicit funds for FOS. We take advantage of tax breaks and incentives as an organization, usin' our exempt status, rather than earning our own way and supportin' our nation with a corporate income tax. We provide camps and camperships, soliciting dollars and materials so that lads who would not be able to afford it can experience a full-featured camp. We run Scoutreach units, so that families who can't support scouting and scout volunteers can experience scouting. Fact is, we as adults believe strongly that da proper role of an adult in society is to give back generously, to provide future generations with opportunity. From public schooling to free and reduced lunch programs to laws limiting child labor, our values as a society are to provide for children, and through tithing or taxation to give to support the development of youth, not to make them earn their own way. What would be odd is an adult society that didn't promote such values, or take such actions to provide for kids. Beavah

Yah, the term of course is "unauthorized", not "prohibited." And I reckon there's all kinds of unauthorized activities that aren't in G2SS. Like all the discussion on the Fundraisin' and Donations thread, eh? The national executive board has determined that there are activities that while some may see as fun, do not reflect the character of the program. Do yeh have any evidence to suggest that was a N.E.B. decision for that reason, BobWhite? Everybody I've talked to always gets cagey about it's source, but it always seemed the rule originated in Health & Safety. Da Risk Management Advisory Committee lifted the laser tag restriction, and then mysteriously got reversed. IMO, the LaserTag and Paintball hobby industry would have a decent defamation case against the BSA, because it's always been portrayed as a safety issue. Even now that's true on scouting.org. The pointing of firearms bit is also a red herring, given historical re-enactment being authorized. Practically speakin', puttin' such stuff in G2SS only weakens the document, eh? Philosophically, fallin' into the ultra-liberal anti-toy-gun lobby also doesn't seem to sit well with most of da BSA's membership. Just a poor approach overall. Hopefully somethin' the new chief will address in the comin' year. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Holy Smoke! Involvin' law enforcement??! Zero tolerance??! Take a deep breath people! Once as a younger man dealin' with a problem client I typed the rough equivalent of "WHEREAS, the plaintiff is an XXXX..." late at night in a moment of pique. My supervisor happily proofread the document and came by to let me know that while what I wrote was probably true, it really didn't make the best argument . I think yeh apply the Golden Rule here, eh? How many times has each of us messed up and made a comment that wasn't received well by its audience? A joke that got interpreted as off-color or demeaning? A choice of words that in a different context might be considered harassment by someone who had a "zero tolerance" mentality? Mutterin' under our breath about our mothers-in-law and bein' accidentally overheard? Start by assumin' this was a comment that someone just forgot to delete before sendin' the document. Continue by assumin' this was teenage humor. There's a reason we call such things "sophomoric" eh? If yeh know the kid, and knowing the kid you've allowed him to be a scout in your troop who you approved for Life rank and is ready to go for Eagle, then to my mind there is just no way you can come to an "involve law enforcement" choice as square one. If yeh thought the kid was a problem, yeh should have been actin' way before this. If you didn't act because you've never thought the kid was that kind of a problem, this ain't enough to bust the threshold. Wait 'til you've calmed down. Talk to the AC and get his take on it. Talk to a few other adults in your unit and get their perspective, since they know the lad better than us internet folk. Then have a SM conference, let him know your disappointment, see what he says. After that make a reasonable decision accordin' to the Golden Rule. Along the way, give da parents a heads-up. For everyone else, involvin' law enforcement is not a way to help a boy or a family. By and large it's a step yeh take when it's necessary to protect others at the expense of the boy and the family. You are goin' to cause them serious grief and expense. If your interest is in gettin' help for a lad, there are lots of better ways of goin' about it, beginning with havin' a sit-down with parents, helpin' 'em with a referral to counselors or child psychologists/psychiatric help, etc. If yeh don't know how to make those referral contacts yourself, do your duty and go talk to someone who does. Beavah

Yah, I agree wholeheartedly with Eagle92's modification! And with everyone who simply can't stand when some adult bellows "SIGN'S UP!!". Darned if that bad habit isn't hard to eliminate, eh? Even seen good troops go to a camp or a camporee and suddenly that "SIGN'S UP!" thing starts poppin' up because they saw some other unit do it. I have considered waterboardin' the perpetrators. Beavah

It is extrordinary the way you twist things Beavah, The fact that you saw these events published does not mean that they did not have permission from the council first as I posted they would need. Yah, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again!" Accusin' others of twisting things, even as yeh ignore the printed text. What I said was that despite the guidance text on the back of the Unit Money-Earning Application, all of these things were officially authorized by the BSA, whether at the council or regional level. I can't be much clearer for yeh. Of course, applyin' simple common sense would suggest that even Greg Shields on his worst day would not tell a unit it couldn't obtain a special wheelchair to help a handicapped scout participate, eh? The medical equipment provider was happy to be asked, the boy benefited from bein' served, and the BSA earned nothing but goodwill and public accolades. The medical equipment provider also went on in future years to make substantive donations to FOS, just because of the goodwill generated by that initial relationship to a unit. That's why we should avoid gummin' things up, and leave speakin' for the BSA's rules in the hands of those authorized to speak for the BSA. Personally, I don't feel there's anything wrong with selling overpriced popcorn, soliciting camperships, funding ScoutReach and other units with donations, havin' the church mens' group give to the church's troop or any of that, eh? As BobWhite mentions, the key is that the purchasers/donors are fully aware of what their money or property is goin' for, so there is no fraud, misrepresentation, or trademark dilution. A purchaser or donor should not be led to think they are givin' to Scouting if they're really giving to a lad's family for medical expenses or to our men and women in uniform overseas. As long as that's fully honest, there just isn't a problem. The law, the ethics, the Scout Oath and good PR all align quite nicely. It's only when yeh get the occasional volunteer who gets a bit too energized by "A Scout Pays his own Way" or some other program material like the back of a form that we generate confusion. I have always wished they'd come up with somethin' more distinct and of better value than popcorn, though. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm not sure I could be more clear about all of da things I mentioned being officially authorized by the BSA, eh? IIRC, one of 'em was featured in one of the magazines at one point. All of 'em do contradict the unit fundraisin' form, however. At least if yeh don't know how to read and interpret it, eh? Which is why if you're not a BSA spokesman, it's best to refrain from makin' declarative statements I reckon. You're makin' the mistake of applyin' your own experience in marketing for commercial entities with da application by the BSA of its own policies. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, shortridge, plenty of units out there takin' that line of approach, eh? One of the reasons I wish they'd get it together and drop those restrictions. Paintball and laser tag are both safer than Scouting is, so all the prohibition does is encourage people to play fast and loose with everything. My memory of the monkey bridge restrictions is that they came about after a summer camp incident involvin' a bridge failure. Too much of G2SS these days is that sort of knee-jerk reaction to individual incidents. Last year we got a prohibition against water-drinkin' contests after that dumb non-scouting radio show thing out west and some Philmont reports. Year before that we got rules about cannons and artillery after an accident at an Oregon camp. Nobody was thinkin' that the new rule would mess up historical reenactment crews, but happily most are blissfully unaware of it. Year before that I think it was an incident that earned a ban on "technical tree climbing." So now lads can climb trees only without a safety line. Beavah

Yah, what an interestin' thread to be resurrected! I confess to likin' jdsherlock's historical-reenactment campin' style. There is a certain romanticism in such things which can appeal to boys. I think usin' more primitive equipment in a car-campin' troop is a fine way to up the interest and challenge for boys. Not sure the boxes are necessary for that. Maybe canvas packs and bedrolls would be more in the nature of a true Voyageur. (Yeh out there, le Voyageur?) On the flip side, classic gear is a relic from before we became Leave No Trace outdoorsmen in da BSA. When I'm campin' on my own, I confess I always dread a trailer-towin' troop pulling in with a mess of patrol boxes and gear and such. Tend to trample everything, stay up late, and perform poorly in bad weather. I'm always friendly, but it's a hit or miss experience. When a troop pulls in with just packs and lightweight gear, though, I've yet to have a bad experience. Those lads really know how to live and travel properly in the outdoors. When folks ask me this question, I always point 'em at a few different troops to compare. Mostly, though, I've been won over by the thrifty versatility of lightweight LNT camping instead of patrol boxes. Beavah

Yah, Chippewa29, I think uniformin' is the least of your problems, eh? A symptom rather than a cause. That havin' been said, with the new uniform out yeh have a chance to go back to the committee and see if yeh can get 'em to buy into the higher-quality new uniform pants as part of a scout's required outdoor gear. Use that opportunity to address da small uniform issue you've got, but then yeh have to address your real issues. I'm left wonderin' why recruitin' has been so weak, since that seems to be one of the roots of your problems, eh? Is there somethin' you've been doin' that isn't attractive to boys or families who are lookin' at you? Was there a bullyin' issue yeh weren't aware of, or a lot of weak communication? Do the adults reach out enough to parents and lads so that each boy feels a special connection to the program? That last one's important, eh? Adult Association method, da least well-described and least discussed of Scouting's Methods is way, way, way more important than uniformin'. When I see a unit with a real shrink in numbers, it's almost always an Adult Association issue. Whether the adults are gettin' tired, or spread too thin, or some new adults don't have the knack for buildin' relationships with kids, that's usually the root of it. Older boys that are disengaged but still showin' up are boys that care enough about scoutin' to show up, eh? But it takes adults to listen to 'em and respect 'em and engage 'em in real challenges for their age level. High adventure, and teachin' the younger guys, and servin' alongside adults they respect. Weaker adult association also ties into discipline, eh? Lads don't behave because there are rules. Lads behave because they value relationships with the adults and each other, and those relationships come with certain expectations. BrentAllen's notion of SM conferences and such is a good one, eh? Re-establish positive contact with each lad, recall why the boy is there and what his interests/needs are now, and encourage some goal-setting or new levels of responsibility. "Joey, you're into soccer and are a great athlete. I want you to be the guy who organizes our high adventure trip next summer. You can do it off meeting nights, I'll help. But I want it to be tough, somethin' that challenges even the strong scouts like yourself." Or "Yeh clearly are a natural leader and the younger guys respect you a lot. I need yeh to do Tenderfoot fitness and Personal Fitness MB stuff with 'em. Let's get all these guys up to really bein' able to do some hard biking and backpackin'". I might be off my rocker, of course. Just feels like Adult Relationships to me. If not, I'd look to how you're doin' on some of the other methods of scoutin'. I'd look especially at ones that affect recruitin' more than the Uniform Method does, since recruitin' seems like a strong symptom of your struggle. Goin' forward, I'd look at Patrol Method as BrentAllen suggests as well, eh? Units that get up to 20-some boys and then drop back down are often ones that have a hard time transitioning to full use of Patrol Method. Idle older boys can also be a symptom of that, eh? Nobody to lead, right when they've reached an age where they want and need to lead. Unfortunately, at 13 lads with 50% attendance, you're almost back to a single patrol right now, and that won't change 'til yeh get some more kids. But be thinkin' about it! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, good observations, GaHillBilly. I think there's all kinds of reasons for it, but the biggest is that personal experience is so much richer, eh? Personal experience offers sight, sound, taste, feel... and most especially, feedback! Dat's why I reckon Merit Badge Mills are such a plague, eh? They give a whole generation of future leaders the wrong set of experience and feedback. Trainin' and materials, by contrast, are flat. Very little feedback, eh? And each person readin' or listenin' has to fill in the sight, sound, taste, feel, etc. from their own experience in order to try to understand what da words mean. So lots of folks read the materials differently or have different visions comin' out of trainin' because they brought different experiences into trainin'. Most good parents and coaches, for example, bring in their own experience of child-rearin', includin' havin' strict rules and adult control to keep things from bein' chaotic or dangerous. They go to trainin' and hear "boy led" as meaning "let the boys choose their patrol name" not "let the patrol camp on its own." We all know that it takes a lot of feedback in the field - of grabbin' parents and pulling 'em away from the lads - before the real lesson sinks in. Trainin' and materials don't offer all that feedback. Yah, I agree pretty strongly with BobWhite here, eh? I think for a program to be successful, it has to be pretty darn careful selectin' people up front. Yeh have to recruit Scouters of the "right sort" as B-P suggested, ones who come with the right personal experience and nature already built in. Those are da ones who will move quickly to level 2 and then level 1 as Eagledad suggests. If yeh select poorly and don't correct the selection fast, no amount of BSA materials or trainin' will do a lick of good. To change those folks, yeh have to give 'em a few years of new experiences to build from, and lots and lots of hands-on feedback. IMO event that only gets 'em up to mediocre most of da time. I don't think BobWhite's right, though, that those who don't do Scoutin' well only stay around a few years. I think there are a lot like GaHillBilly or Eagledad mention who find some success (or even a lot of "success" in a 200-person troop) and are with us for da long haul. My observations are that some of those folks have a lot of "ego need" that they get filled in scoutin'. Tryin' to change 'em just runs into the underlyin' fragile egos and gets yeh in trouble. In some places, there's a lot of district folks that fit this bill. Most of 'em, though, do a fine job of runnin' their vision of scouting. A troop of 200, even if it's a badge mill, must have some fine points that attract and keep kids. Perhaps they did select the right person, for the kind of scoutin' program they needed or wanted. If da older lads are becomin' good people, I don't argue the details. Scoutin' is a big, diverse program, with a lot of flexibility so that units and COs can achieve their own goals. Beavah

There is no reason for a unit to not be able to plan a program and budget expenses without soliciting donations. Yah, tell that to all da ScoutReach units out there, eh? Infoscouter quoted a form. The form is a tool. The form is not "the program." The form is not "the rules". The Rules are da Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America as applied and interpreted by its designated representatives, within the norms and limits of public law and ethical practice. So nuthin' has to do with my memory, eh? It has to do with what the real rules are, and who da real representatives of the BSA are, and what the real law and ethics of a situation are. I can only imagine that if you were really an authorized representative of da BSA, you would revoke the charter or membership of folks who did the things I suggested: raise money for the family of a fellow cub scout with cancer, solicit donations for care packages for our troops overseas, asking for the loan or donation of a special wheelchair so a handicapped scout could participate, setting up discounts for scout programs with local merchants and the like. Probably why you're not an official BSA spokesman, eh? Because all of da things I mentioned were officially authorized by the BSA. Beavah

these warm and fuzzy stories are the same thing i hear from obama supporters after he speaks. that nice warm and fuzzy feeling... it is good at separating our hearts from our heads. Yah, no question, eh? Long on schmaltz, short on policy depth. Not that anyone would ever accuse a GWB speech of bein' long on policy depth either, eh? At least it's Obama's own speechifyin' that's makin' folks warm and fuzzy, though. Better than these rewrite history bits done and delivered anonymously. Just another version of Hillary takin' sniper fire, IMO. Beavah

Hi DPWatson! Welcome to da forums, eh? And thank you for your service to your 60-strong Boy Scouts! While the theory of the program is that a CO owns and operates a scout unit, the reality on the ground is often different. I think it happens mostly because church-based CO's tend to focus their attention only on those activities for which they hire staff and spend money. That, of course, and the fact that the core ministry staff are fully time-involved with their direct ministry. Since scout units tend to be self-runnin' and self-supportin', and the folks in the units tend to be spendin' all their effort on makin' the program go, it's pretty easy for the two to just drift apart. Classic warnin' sign of this is when a unit starts getting complaints about their use of the building space. I think you reachin' out to the church is a fine thing. Just like rebuildin' a troop, rebuildin' a CO relationship should be thought of as a multi-year project. Don't go in with a UC on day 1 and tell the rector she and the church are legally responsible for all the activities of the unit and its leadership. Or at least not that boldly, since it's somethin' she needs to know. Here's some other thoughts: Reach out to the local Episcopal Scouting Relationships Committee in your council. Especially if you're not a church member, they can come with yeh and help "speak the local language." I believe there's also a national Episcopal scoutin' email list, which I think fgoodwin here might be associated with. Sign up and post questions there, eh? A few Scouter.Com threads have suggested a bunch of ways to help rebuild CO relationships. Check the archives! If yeh don't have one already, make it a priority to get a real COR, someone who is well known to the pastor and church staff, who can help with this effort. A CC from the parish would also be a big plus. Post announcements or recaps of activities in church newsletters and on church bulletin boards, deliver an annual report to the staff and the vestry, etc. Folks will disagree with me, but I feel CO's need to have some financial skin in the game. Ask 'em to pay your recharter fees, at least for adult leaders and families who are in need. Expect 'em to support a few camperships. It doesn't matter if you then turn around and make donations to the church that offset or even are larger but yeh want to be "on their books and on their mind." Be ready to defer to them in some things, eh? It's their unit, not yours. Sometimes a particular pastor or group of people just have it in for scoutin' for one reason or another. That can be hard to work with, and if those folks are long-termers at the parish, it can lead to a parting of the ways. If yeh get to that point, you go meet with your DE who has a list of likely and interested CO's in your area, and can help with da process of shifting. But to my mind you're a ways from that, eh? Put in the effort to rebuild da relationship before yeh even start lookin' down that road. Beavah

Yah, BobWhite, there's no need for anybody to use da search feature, eh? We can do it from memory, starting from this thread where yeh claimed to know what the BSA program IS (emphasis yours). We all can read BSA materials on our own, eh? I reckon all of us here are literate, even if some of us talk funny. Few of us need yeh to provide random quotes. What yeh seem not to understand is the difference between materials, the program, and when you are makin' a personal interpretation of the program. In your writin', it gets all muddled together. Returnin' to the subject of this thread, there is a tool, the Unit Money-Earning Application, which has some guidance on the back of the form. One tool, though, isn't the whole program. The actual relationships are more complex, which is why folks who have served in professional positions in the BSA keep tryin' to back you away from your seemingly definitive and extreme statements. So, generally speakin', it's fine for a youth member working an Eagle Scout project to solicit funds for the project. It's OK for a unit like Pack283's to take advantage of somethin' like the WalMart or larger grocery chain local grants program by solicitin' those entities, because it doesn't conflict with FOS and improves the quality of Scouting in an area. It's fine for Chartered Organizations to solicit their own membership to support their scouting program, and nobody in the world would object to a unit solicitin' necessary equipment to help a handicapped scout participate. Almost every unit takes advantage of scouting and youth program discounts from vendors, special treatment at campgrounds, etc., and most aren't afraid to ask if such is available or would be considered. And most of us shed a tear and crack a proud smile at times when it's just fine for boys to solicit help for a lad in their troop who has cancer, or care packages for our troops overseas. Someone readin' the Unit Money Earning Application might think differently. Someone readin' other materials that talk about a scout payin' his own way might think that Camperships and ScoutReach are not allowed. Someone readin' materials talking about people receivin' fair value for fundraisin' might believe sellin' popcorn or too-expensive-candy or first aid kits aren't permitted. But really only certain things run afoul of the rules, and merit a conversation with the unit leadership. Those folks who represent the BSA make those decisions in their area. In doin' so, they also define the program and how its applied, not just the printed materials. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Me, I'm a Republican. A traditional Republican, eh? The patriotic, responsible kind that believes in small government, fiscal responsibility, environmental responsibility, Constitutionally protected liberty guaranteed by a balance of powers, support for men and women in uniform that goes beyond lip service and a salute, respect for the opposition party and all that. I also have these silly notions like thinkin' kidnapping, torture, and spyin' on citizens is somethin' that only despots engage in. Which means I'm not a "modern" Republican. Sometimes a party changes or loses its way. Stays in power too long and gets fat and stupid. As I hope we all tell the scouts, patriotism and civic responsibility means that each and every time we vote we do our homework on each candidate and issue, and understand what our choice will mean for the bigger picture and da welfare of the whole country. This year, I reckon that means I need to vote to remove those "modern" Republicans, eh? That might make me a Democrat this go-round, but I figure it's the only way I can remain a patriot. If an official that represents me gets put in the same position, I expect him or her to oppose the party leadership, and to change affiliation if necessary. Better a strong person who adheres to their own principles in office than one of these yes-men toadies who always votes the line of the party leadership. Beavah

It is just that sometimes I find documentally differencesbetween what some post and what the BSa program IS. Aye, and there's da rub, eh? You have no right or authority to say what the BSA program IS. You aren't a spokesman for the BSA, nor primary author of any of their materials. To claim to do so is just dishonest, IMO, and does no real service to Scouting. Fact is, in the BSA, the closest thing we ever had to someone who legitimately had the authority to do what you claim was Bill Hillcourt, back when he was the primary author of the BSA core materials and held official positions. Bill was more humble, though. In the modern BSA, there's no longer a primary author to materials. It's more a collaboration, eh? Even those who used to be in program division positions couldn't always speak authoritatively to the meanin' of individual documents written or edited by others, and many of our authors of materials don't necessarily agree 100% with the Irving Office interpretation of "the program" on individual points. So yeh can imagine my wonderment that you can claim authority on the materials that no one else has, eh? I understand that there's comfort in strictly regimented document-driven notions of what to do. Wash your hands this way, fill out this form that way, and all will be right. I just figure that the timeless values of the Pharisees aren't da ones the BSA was talkin' about, eh? Or, since yeh prefer Shakespeare, "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." Anyone who's been around any length of time knows that the BSA itself has said on many occasions "we followed the program and it did not work!" Most recently, in the words of Bob M. and the sacking of the various program divisions at HQ. Beavah

Amusin', Herms. A bit of a stretch in some places, though, eh? Washington was selected as Commander in Chief by a Continental Congress that was already at war, eh? There was no need for him to lobby Congress; he was dispatched immediately to Boston to take command of a body that Congress had already commissioned as the Continental Army. In fact, Washington was humble and reluctant to take up such a charge, accordin' to his writings. So all that bit about needin' a leader to convince them, congressional resistance and all that is just a bunch of palaver. Washington never lobbied foreign governments support either, eh? That was Congress's job, with Ben Franklin bein' the most notable success. There was no substantive talk in Congress of surrender in 1777, eh? In fact, the Americans achieved several successes that summer, and the Articles of Confederation were drafted and sent to the states for approval, cementing Congress' intention of permanent independence. To imply that it was Washington who alone held his resolve is to slander those many honorable men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause, and lived up to their pledge. These George W. "mythic personality" pieces that roam the internet are amusin' that way. Make us feel all warm and patriotic about Washington and try to project that feelin' on a completely different and much less honorable and capable fellow. Comparin' Washington to George W. in some muddle-headed fictional account of da role of Commander in Chief is really quite odd, IMO. Washington, a real military commander who served in two wars during many major combat engagements would have mopped the floor with Bush who never served in war and avoided combat duty. Washington, of course, was also humble and smart enough to entrust governance to Congress and the people, eh? Even when he disagreed with Congress, he supported their authority. The honor of a real military man, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, mate, you're just another stranger on an internet forum who has an opinion about Scoutin', eh? Like most other folks, yeh have a perspective based on your personal experiences as a volunteer in a small midwestern council. That's a worthwhile perspective to share. Might resonate for some folks, and help a few. Wish you'd share it more. But you're not a BSA spokesman, and have no special ability to speak on behalf of da BSA or to tell people what the BSA materials mean or the "program" includes. In fact, there's a few other contributors here who have or had yellow-tab and professional roles who I reckon are closer to the sources, meanin' and application of those materials, eh . And others who have professional backgrounds who can share insights into the BSA materials drawn from their areas of expertise. Still others are successful Scouters and parents, who share great insights into how they've used BSA materials in different ways to help kids. All those voices are good ones, eh? Yours is a fine one, too. But it's not a privileged one. To quote a good man the boys say I'm old enough to have known in person, "Blessed are the meek and humble, they shall inherit the earth." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

LOL! Yah, I don't reckon there's a philosophy there, BobWhite, beyond bein' a bit humble so as not to always be tellin' other people what they should be doin'. Beavah

Yah, I agree with infoscouter's central point, eh? Business "sponsorship" of a unit in the way that term is generally used is somethin' that shouldn't be pursued by most units. Just not the way we do business. I think we should also be a bit careful about overstatin' things, though. Boys don't really pay their own way in Scouting, especially in cubs. Councils solicit money from donors for facilities, activities, camperships, and ScoutReach. Kids of cub age can't legally earn money on their own except for what their parents give 'em, so cub pack costs are comin' from the family. Not all families can afford those costs, especially single-parent families or families where a parent has lost a job or whatnot. We do care for those kids and families, so solicitin' funds on their behalf is just fine, eh? It is an act of charity, of being Loyal and Kind and Helpin' other people at all times. So it's best we don't get too boisterous about trumpetin' "pay your own way" or "fundraisers must offer value" or "not trade off the Scout name". Anybody looked at da cost of popcorn lately? . It's fine and right and good Scoutin' for a unit to recruit resources from the CO and community to provide a Scouting program to families who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. Such things also increase the positive connections between Scoutin' and the community when done right. People are proud of their contributions and connections to Scoutin', and that's what we want as an organization. Units should just be mindful of propriety and treadin' on the council's turf, eh? I wouldn't get my shorts in a bundle over "implied" endorsements either, eh? That to my mind is a bit of a red herring. FOS takes donations from almost all comers, and sends them various thank you notes or invites 'em to banquets and such. We don't vet or run investigatory checks on our donors in the BSA. If it later turns out they're a front for the mob, we're just another customer or community member that got surprised. The Unit Money Earnin' Application is like any legal or pseudo-legal document, eh? It's written to grab as much power, authority, and money as it can for its author, to "protect its interests" when there is a dispute. Reality on the ground is often a lot more balanced and less draconian. Kids solicit funds for other organizations all the time for Eagle Scout service projects and other things. Businesses and units often establish partnerships and workin' relationships. And Scouts almost never truly pay their own way . The BSA really can't stop a CO from solicitin' funds for its youth programs, nor would it want to. Strong units and good working relationships between Scouting and the community are in our long-term best interest. That's what really generates goodwill, name recognition, and FOS donations. Bein' mindful of a few pitfalls so as to avoid 'em is a good thing. But best not to get too tied up by the language on a form which is meant to be a helpful service. Beavah