Beavah

Yah, in most "guy" groups, nicknames are a sign of honor, eh? "Earning" a nickname means you're a full-fledged member of the group. Think Top Gun So in many scout troops, that's da way nicknames operate. Sometimes moms and women don't get it. If yeh have a nickname troop, da youth and adult leaders do occasionally need to help redirect a poor nickname that treads on the edge, if the boy is bothered by it. There are fellow scouters who to this day I only know as "Wabbit" or "Swamp Rat". I have to work really hard at my age to remember their Christian name. They've been Wabbit or Swamp Rat since their first years as scouts. Some complaints are just not worth spendin' any time on. A simple "thanks for your thoughts" is enough. Then just move along to stuff that matters. Beavah

Yah, sigh. So SeattlePioneer, I'm just curious. I'm sure that at least one of your scouts uttered a verbal insult sometime this summer. Did you report it to the SE? I'm sure at some point in your troop or a local troop, a youth leader did somethin' that wasn't the best choice when the adults weren't nearby. Did you report it to the SE? I expect at some point in camp this summer an adult took a turned-on-phone into the restroom with him. Did you report it to the SE? I'm willin' to bet that at some point in your scoutin' career yeh had a lad "borrow" an item from another boy without asking. Did you report it to the SE? I'm willin' to bet that at some point in your scoutin' career that a lad took a poke at another lad. Did you report it to the SE? I expect that sometime in the last month a boy in your unit has misbehaved. Did you immediately inform the boy's parents? I'm sure OA ran an ordeal in the last few months in your area. Did you file a report with da SE about that "physical initiation"? All of those things and more are in da same "rules as written" that yeh are talkin' about. Did you really follow 'em as you claim, and file multiple reports with da SE in the last month, or did you instead "interpret away reporting requirements" by exercising reasonable adult judgment? Beavah

The NSC policy refers to sexual orientation. I'm unsure how you can say it does not contradict National's policy. Did yeh read it carefully? Da NSC statement is about "practices", not policy. The statement subtitle makes reference to orientation, but doesn't actually state anything. All of da rest of the statement of practices is perfectly consistent with other BSA statements and practice. ChaiAdventure, in a not-for-profit membership corporation, the corporation members (chartered organizations) serve the same essential role as stockholders. In BSA professional parlance, Chartered Organizations are called "customers". Youth participants and adult leaders are referred to as "consumers." So da members do have a say in the BSA's direction, eh? If by "members" yeh mean da true corporate members only. That is to say, the Chartered Organizations. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Do not speak out about the red wagon ban, the uniform change or any other policy or practice of the BSA or your local council with which you disagree. Stop posting here about complaints about your local camp program, or FOS practices, or changes in the MB lineup, or modifications to the Oath. Irving or your local HQ has made that decision, and it will not change. So either stop disrupting the program with your complaints, or else leave. LOL. Yah, shortridge, just like it's apparently so easy to confuse public bodies with private associations, I reckon it's just about as easy to confuse true organizational policies established democratically by da institutional members with ordinary program materials. Da membership policy is one of da first type, in case yeh were wonderin'. Da other stuff is all program materials or quality of program delivery. Complain about that all yeh like! Beavah

Yah, da correct answer to this question is that da Scout Executive works for the local council corporation and its board. He is hired by them, he can be fired by them, he is paid by them, and he owes his loyalty and fiduciary responsibility to them. Sayin' that he is a BSA employee is legally incorrect, but a common enough thing to say in a colloquial manner. Yep, da BSA sets up an unconscionable conflict of interest for all of da council level executives by makin' their long-term advancement and hiring prospects dependent on the BSA. Thus da council executives (includin' the SE) are placed in a position where their duty is to the council corporation, but their long-term prospects depend on serving da (national) BSA's interests. This would properly be considered unethical employment practice by just about anybody else. Yep, da BSA also limits new SE hires to a list generated by da BSA, albeit in consultation with da council executive board. The council can reject all the proposed candidates (and get a new group of candidates from da BSA), but can't hire from outside the BSA's employment service. See unconscionable conflict of interest above. Now, there are aspects of this that I can't comment on, but readin' da link fred8033 posted at the start I would note that nowhere does it actually indicate that NSC repudiates or otherwise differs from da national policy. They've spun the national policy, sure. But there's not a lick there that actually contradicts it. However, if there were actually a dispute, the dispute would be between da NSC executive board and the national council. Da SE should properly represent the views of da NSC executive board, and da BSA should address the board's behavior directly, in a manner similar to what was done in Chicago over a different matter and in various other councils. Beavah

I had to turn in a copy of my BSHB with everything signed off to correct the council's records. Yah, at da risk of continuin' to be considered a heathen by the multipart form crowd... Is there really any reason why council/national/ScoutNet should bother loggin' rank advancement in the first place? As close as I can tell, da error rate is somethin' like 10 to 20%. So there's no reason to log it in order to improve unit or scout record-keepin'. Council and national records are usually worse. Da cost in personnel time pretty much eats up one or two staff positions and a bunch of volunteers. For what? None of that time actually improves program for the boys. Think of what else yeh could do each year with that volunteer time. Think about what else yeh might do with those salary and benefit dollars. Is loggin' advancement paperwork and keypunching really worth not givin' 100 kids camperships for camp? Just wonderin'. Beavah

Aw, yeh can't post that in a new thread! They need it over in da other thread in order to keep it goin' to a new page count record! B

Yah, WasE61, this thread is about a lad havin' one or more pornographic photos on his phone, eh? That's not a legally reportable offense in any jurisdiction. I'll humbly suggest that yeh don't have enough knowledge or experience to reach da conclusions yeh seem desperate to reach. I'd suggest yeh: Talk to a licensed insurance agent in your state. Talk to competent legal counsel in your state who are experienced in this area. Have your COR go sit with your council president and business manager and get da straight scoop. Call da national office of the BSA. Review da actual case history for da BSA in your state. Or pursue any other course of action that will lead yeh to a better understandin' than what yeh seem to have at present. Or, in da alternative, cite at least one case in your state where an appellate court rulin' has established what yeh seem to be claiming. I assure yeh that such a novel interpretation of insurance contract language would be litigated to at least that level. Alternately, continue to believe in da boogeyman. Just don't expect anybody else to take yeh seriously. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

So what if the MBC doe not have internet or a computer??????? He or she uses a phone. Now, if we actually believed national's IT folks could find a cowpie in a field of Guernseys without da help of a 6-year-old, a nice digital solution would give each MBC a login, and they could just log da completion of the badge directly. Scout's profile updates instantly, troop SM/AC get notified with an opportunity to rescind. Yeh could even tie it into a unit custodial account and have da badge shipped automatically. No reason to wait for national, either. Any troop could do this with online tools, includin' a few commercial products that are currently available. Everything automatically backed up, too. Honestly, though, a phone call or email works just fine. "Hi, Nancy, this is Steve. I'm with Tommy and Freddy, and they both just finished Citizenship in the Community." Amazin' what yeh can do without a multi-part form. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hullo WasE61. Welcome to da discussion. If yeh have questions about particulars of Arizona jurisprudence, yeh need to talk with a fellow who specializes in that area in da state of Arizona. All I can say is that yeh can't just pull a random statement like that, or a random read of a statute, and come to a simplistic conclusion. Many of da words and phrases are terms of art or have statutory or case law definitions that aren't intuitive, and other laws like da laws and regulations governin' insurance in a given state might take precedence. No insurance policy anywhere covers for intentional or criminal acts, eh? That would be payin' somebody to commit a crime. But those words have very specific meanings, eh? Running a red light is an "intentional" act and at least a civil infraction, but your auto insurance will still cover you. Da issue is intending harm to the person who was injured, or committing a crime against da person who was injured or which caused the injury. Like sexual battery. There's no insurance coverage for the molester. Then there are other definitions that matter, like what actually constitutes child abuse, eh? In most jurisdictions, child abuse can only be committed by a parent or guardian. Da special laws and reportin' requirements with respect to child abuse are there specifically to counteract da special privileges accorded to parents by the law. They aren't there for general crimes against children, because da folks who perpetrate those crimes don't have the same special legal protections that parents have. Even when yeh wade through all that, then there are matters of equity, eh? Then there's da issue that almost all state laws are vigorous in how they address "bad faith" insurers, and da penalties that can be leveled against bad faith by insurers are severe. That's before we get to resolvin' any issues of genuine negligence, where non-reportin' would not be considered a proximate cause, or issues of volunteer immunity, or other stuff. Or, alternately, yeh can just look at da record of recent cases to discover how things are actually applied and interpreted. Nobody can stop folks who choose to be ludicrous and fearful about this stuff from makin' believe that there are monsters and demons hangin' out in their closet waitin' to eat 'em, eh? No amount of evidence or rationality ever seems to satisfy folks who believe in da boogeyman. All da rest of us can do is try to be honest so that ordinary scouters and COs can go about their business in peace. Of course nuthin' yeh read from anonymous furry internet critters should be considered a legal opinion or advice, especially when it's bein' read in 50 or more jurisdictions. Such guidance and speculation only allows yeh to help inform your own judgment or opinion, in concert with competent legal counsel in your area. Until individuals do that, though, or follow-up in one of da other ways that have been suggested, it's probably not honest to keep tellin' folks stuff that likely isn't true, eh? Beavah

Nah, bnelon44, don't make stuff so complimicated. All that's needed is a secure and reliable way for a MBC to know the SM approved the lad for the MB work, and for da MBC to transmit completion back to the unit. That can be as easy as an email. There's no need to generate all kinds of forms and bureaucracy because we like pretendin' we're the IRS. B

This happens when people start thinking the program is too easy on the scouts. Or that scouts are gaming the system. That's just bad attitude. Yep, Scouts gamin' da system does show bad attitude on their part. Helpin' 'em to focus on real achievement and understandin' instead of just checkin' boxes is how we're all expected to teach character. For da Citizenship badge, the purpose of the service is to help 'em see how a particular organization contributes to their local community, and a bit of how organizations like that rely on folks in the community steppin' up as volunteers. The point is to build connections to their community, eh? And understandin'. Not to tick off 8 hours with their head down not payin' a lick of attention or cross-countin' hours unrelated to da purpose of the badge. Eight hours is trivial. If a lad really needs to double-count those hours, then I reckon there's an issue with Scout Spirit that really takes precedence, eh? So I'd set aside da MB work or the rank stuff and instead work with the boy on spirit and attitude. The award will still be around to continue with after he's worked through da issue of character which is more important. Beavah

Usin' da blue card doesn't facilitate anything. It's a completely antiquated and annoyin' system, which is why fewer troops and camps use it every year. Da only folks who seem to love da thing are us old codgers who have designated ourselves as da keepers of Scouting bureaucracy. It's just a record-keepin' option, and a poor one. Da fact that apparently there is broad ranging discussion about addin' one line to da silly thing shows how much volunteer time we waste on trivial nonsense instead of spendin' it on program and kids. B

Yep, I too would say "no". To all of fred8033's examples as well. In, fact, in at least some of those examples I think there's an official "no" (and I might not be remembering an official "yes" somewhere, in which case I'd go with that). For da case in question, there's a difference in da purpose of the service hours. So in doin' the service and discussin' it afterward, the boy is being asked to look at different things. That means yeh want him to do those hours separately. Like everyone else, I'm not fond of "mandatory" service, but that's not what's goin' on in Scouting unless the adults don't understand how to use advancement as inspiration and recognition instead of as an Aim or requirement. Like everyone else, I agree that in any good program with a First Class scout or above, the lad should be doin' so much more service than the requirement that it isn't really worth keepin' track of. Just like camping nights. Beavah

So then no one is allowed to be a member? Yah, that was my reaction as well. I've never been too good at da purity of mind thing. Mostly Mrs. Beavah makes sure about my relative purity of deeds (she can shoot at least as well as I can;)). Beavah

Once again you have discovered the limits of making claims based on your authority as an anonymous person posting on an internet discussion board. LOL! Yah, for sure SeattlePioneer. I always find authority arguments funny, eh? Da information on how general liability insurance works is available from any insurance agent. Yeh can go to any of da state regulator sites and learn, too. Folks can send their COR to talk with da council business manager, call RichardB at national, consult with a local attorney or look up any of the many dozens of cases and settlements around da country in order to confirm what I've said. In other words, yeh just have to be mentally awake and willin' to learn, then yeh don't need "authority" or furry Internet critters. You've improved your own knowledge and judgment. Remember a few years back da case of da Utah forest fire that was started by unsupervised youth during the burn ban? I think we had all da Great Insurance Myth folks comin' down on a many-page thread and saying how it was a G2SS and National Camp School rules violation and insurance wouldn't cover, yada yada. Of course insurance did cover, and in the actual court papers both the BSA and the Court agreed that da G2SS and other internal BSA documents do not establish a standard of care for liability purposes. Anybody can look that thread and those documents up too. No need for furry critters with authority. I reckon this stuff gets under my tail a bit just because of da poor example it can set for the scouts, eh? I want da boys to learn to think for themselves, not just trust some random "authority.". Or some random myth! They should understand that expert opinion is valuable and worth listenin' to, but that just because someone has expertise at runnin' a scout council doesn't mean they have expertise in other areas like insurance and law. Keepin' mentally awake is important. Mostly, though, it annoys me because I've lost or nearly lost units and good scouters because folks repeated da Great Insurance Myth to them, and they decided as a result that da BSA wasn't trustworthy on its insurance agreements and pulled out. Spreadin' false myths hurts real kids. Da Scout Oath and Law are aspirational statements, eh? They are things we all try to get better and better at over time, not things we achieve perfectly. Da only true failures in livin' up to da Oath and Law are when we stop tryin' to do better. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BSA24, that was a hoot, eh? Liberals don't even understand da meaning of their own buzzword. Diversity is only about labels? It's not about includin' people of different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, ethnicities, genders, etc.? You do recognize that folks of different backgrounds and cultures behave differently, right? Beavah

Yah, hmmmmm... I'll certainly agree with yeh that da UUA took a principled stand in accord with their beliefs. I'll also agree with yeh that da BSA handled da issue in a ham-handed manner, as is their wont. Da BSA recognizes religious awards, eh? Nuthin' more. BSA recognition implies endorsement. Yeh get to wear the award on your uniform alongside your scoutin' awards and such. It's considered a "part of" scoutin'. The BSA choosin' not to endorse a particular religious award is also an act of free speech, eh? It says that what this religious award teaches and espouses is not endorsed by the BSA. It's not "part of" scoutin' as we see it. That's just being honest, eh? When da Catholics choose to recognize Lutheran baptism but not recognize LDS baptism, that's just bein' honest about their beliefs and position as Catholics, eh? It's not an effort to "harm a number of youth who had never done anything to deserve it." It's not an "act of cowardice or bullying". It's just a statement of their own belief and position. When that came out, if I recall correctly, da LDS authorities in Salt Lake said, in essence, "yep, that's fine, we have no problem with it." So here we have da BSA as an organization takin' a traditional moral stand based on da beliefs of a large majority of its corporate members, and da UUA takin' a different stand based on their own beliefs. Why would the UUA expect da BSA to endorse their position? Why would they want it to? That would just be askin' the BSA to be dishonest about its own beliefs, and da UUA respects diversity of thought. I know quite a few UUA families and scouts and scouters, eh? They don't seem to have a particular issue with it, and da BSA still welcomes 'em as members. They're good folks. But just as da BSA welcomes 'em as members without expectin' 'em to endorse da BSA's position, it seems like mutual courtesy and respect should allow for da reverse, eh? They shouldn't expect da BSA to endorse their position. You know. Diversity. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

As I mentioned earlier - the Catholic Committee on Scouting is DIRECTLY tied to the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA. BSA is even a part of it's symbol. It is NOT a Girl Scout ministry - at all. Yah, hmmm... This does not seem to always be the case, as CalicoPenn pointed out. For example, the Archdiocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul says: The Archdiocesan Catholic Committee on Scouting (ACCS) is dedicated to promoting Duty to God in all scouting programs. The ACCS is a committee of the Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis and is affiliated with the National Catholic Committee on Scouting (NCCS), an advisory to the Boy Scouts of America. However, the Diocese of Madison, WI Catholic Committee on Scouting says: The website is intended to assist those who are using the Boy Scouting and Girl Scouting programs as Catholic youth ministry in the Diocese of Madison, WI... The DMCCS operates programs and activities for youth in Girl Scouting, Boy Scouting and their adult Scout leaders, and promotes the programs and activities of the NCCS and NCCGSCF, And the diocese of Lansing, MI says: The Mission and Purpose of the Diocese of Lansing Catholic Committee on Scouting (DOLCCS) is to give guidance, vitality and leadership in the spiritual phase of Scouting to all Catholic Scouts and Scouters of the Diocese. The DOLCCS sees as its mission the constructive use of the program of the Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts USA, Camp Fire USA, and the American Heritage Girls as a viable form of youth ministry with the Catholic youth of our Diocese. So just pickin' three state capitol cities across da upper Central Region, yeh see several different permutations. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Really? You would not have a problem if an organization you belonged to told you that you were REQUIRED to take your children out of one youth group and register them in another? Yah, but it wouldn't play that way, eh? Instead it would be an announcement that in keepin' with da Church's mission and da Catholic character of the school, the school was no longer goin' to subsidize access to GSUSA programs. Parents are of course free to enroll their kids in whatever activities they want, but da GSUSA units would no longer meet at the school. Quietly, da school administration would no longer provide GSUSA access for recruiting or other school recognition. Instead, da school would announce a new charter with AHG, and AHG would meet at the school, and would be provided access for recruiting. In fact, Mrs. Jones, a well-liked 7th grade teacher would be da initial leader for the new AHG program, and here's the calendar of their activities for da coming year. Now, how long do yeh think the GSUSA unit would continue to exist? I agree with yeh, though, that as close as I can tell at present this is nuthin' more than a sense of quiet dissatisfaction over GSUSA in some of da more conservative Catholic hierarchy and congregations. It's not yet a big issue, and if GSUSA continues to tread softly and be accommodatin', there's no reason for it ever to become one. Beavah

Nah, the irony is liberals selective devotion to "diversity". And their inability to distinguish between government and private entities. Get it now? B

Yah, shortridge, there's no "spin", legal or otherwise. I was simply makin' a distinction that you were (accidentally or deliberately) ignorin'. And for da record that was my first post on this thread, so please don't lump me in with da group. Da issue within a private organization is not the citizenship issue, eh? It's the courtesy issue. Much as I disagree with much of what nldscout has written in the thread, I think he got his last post right, eh? Would it be OK as a fundamentalist Christian to join an LGBT support group, and then every week agitate that da support group should be open to all straight people? And then, when they said "No", they preferred it remain an LGBT support group because they felt it was important to have a safe environment where people would be comfortable discussin' those personal issues, da Christian brings it up again? And again? And again the next week? And posts how da organization is bigoted and exclusive? And then da LGBT group sets a bunch of its members to consider the issue, and they come back and say "No" again. So da fundamentalist Christian brings it up again, and again, and again, week after week? I think we'd all agree that would be obnoxious. So from my perspective, da citizenship issue here is courtesy to our fellow citizens with whom we disagree. You join your club, I'll join mine, and we can live in harmony without tryin' to undermine each other's organizations. The BSA is tryin' to do that, eh? We haven't called for de-funding LGBT programs, or limiting LGBT access to public lands, or joined LGBT groups in the hope and intention of changin' their policies to embrace monogamous heterosexuality. We've just quietly said "this is our position and we respect yours". A good citizen would extend da same courtesy in return, don't yeh think? Beavah

Yah, hmmmmm.... I'm seein' lots of delicious ironies, packsaddle. Especially since I'm quite fond of Chik-fil-A. Somethin' about da spice mix and peanut oil. Mmmmmm.... But I'm not seein' the same ironies you are. A business owner expresses his personal views on gay marriage. Clearly protected free speech. A host of "liberals" call for blocking food licensing permits or other public access to his business in various municipalities. Also free speech, but clearly an anti-diversity stance, as well as advocating unconstitutional nonsense that isn't helpful to public discourse. A handful of liberal Democratic public officials threaten or take steps toward meaningful restrictions on his business. Clearly a problem. Public officials should not threaten da livelihood of others because they happen to disagree with their personal opinion. As a result, a number of ordinary Americans respond by showin' support for the business owner. Many of 'em show support even though they personally disagree with his opinion on gay marriage. They just don't believe people should be threatened by government officials because they happen to have beliefs about marriage. So far so good. Now we enter da realm of random synaptic activity and jump to hospital procedures. A Christian church runs a hospital, and has a long memory of how abortion, sterilization, and contraception have been used around da world and in our own country to try to eliminate "undesirable" minorities or other things which it believes firmly contradict da Gospel of Christ. As a result it won't perform those procedures, nor will it collaborate with da government in paying for those procedures. It has seen what governments do with those procedures when not opposed. In our society, First Amendment religious freedom; their action is protected even though it's countercultural and edgy. Again, various liberal politicians take da anti-diversity stance, and try to use da mechanisms of the state to coerce those that disagree with 'em to comply through legal and economic pressure. As a result, a number of ordinary Americans express dismay and support da Christian church, even though they may personally disagree with that church on the issue. Still good. Now we continue da realm of random synaptic activity and shift to da UUA religious award. Note da false parallel being created. Da previous two examples involved public officials usin' the mechanisms of government in unconstitutional ways to suppress beliefs they disagreed with. This example quietly tries to pass off the BSA as being the same thing as government and BSA officials bein' the same thing as elected public officials responsible for da enforcement of laws. A private organization that tries to teach moderately traditional values decides not to recognize an award offered by another organization because that award conflicts with da values it is tryin' to teach. Once again, a liberal democrat takes the anti-diversity stance, and implies that da private organization is somehow denyin' the other organization its freedom just because it won't agree with and endorse da opinion that da liberal democrat wants it to. Seems pretty typical by now. Liberal democrats seem to have a veritable lock on irony when it comes to diversity. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ah, OK FScouter. It was just another one of your posts that's nuthin' but a personal dig at another forum member. Silly me, I thought it might actually be a rare attempt to contribute to da discussion in a meaningful way. But yeh gotta keep up your reputation I suppose. For my part, I'd say that repeatin' a myth as an authoritative statement to others when yeh know, suspect, or have been informed that da myth isn't accurate is a type of bearin' false witness. When the fellow who is doin' it is a professional who should be well-informed, it is either a lie or a form of self-servin' incompetence. Sadly, I've seen both in a few SE's, and have been involved in their removal from scouting employment. I may be old-fashioned, but I reckon it's reasonable to expect that da CEO of one of our councils should give accurate information to volunteers. As I mentioned, though, in this case I suspect that Second Class just didn't hear da fellow right, or misinterpreted what was being said. National for reasons that surpass understanding likes to play coy about this stuff with da rank and file membership, and da council folks seem to take "coy" and turn it into "bizarrely opaque". So my advice to all da victims of the Great Insurance Myth, if yeh aren't willin' to listen to folks who know better, is to have your COR go insist on a full insurance disclosure as a condition of rechartering. Or just call RichardB at National and if he gets enough annoying Great Insurance Myth calls maybe he'll finally post somethin' a bit less coy that allays the irrational fears of many of da rank and file membership. Beavah

Yah, fauxc, I hear yeh. And I understand your motivation better from your last post, which is worded a bit differently than your earlier posting. That perhaps merits some reflection on which yeh really mean. Da problem is, what you describe is still tax evasion under the law, and quite possibly fundraising fraud. Yeh see, if little Johnny Cub Scout goes up to someone (out of uniform) and says "Will you give me money so that I can go to Cub Scout camp?" then that isn't fraud. He's makin' it clear that he is asking for a personal gift, not a donation to a charity. Same as if he walked up to a stranger and said it was his birthday and asked da stranger to buy him a cupcake. But if he goes up to someone and says "Will you buy overpriced popcorn to benefit Cub Scouting?" and in reality the money is goin' into an account that he and his family have effective control over in order to pay for their own personal cub scout activities, then that is a problem. It's not goin' to support Cub Scouting, it's inuring to the benefit of an individual in cub scouts. Da fact that the pack is holdin' the money and doin' the accounting just makes 'em a participant in the fraud. It's problematic in terms of state fundraisin' laws (you're pretending to raise money for a cause when in fact the boy is raisin' money for himself) and sales tax statutes (yeh don't collect sales tax for da popcorn because the state considers your pack a charity, but then you're failin' to act like a charity by allowin' the proceeds to benefit individuals directly). It's also a problem for da IRS and federal taxes if your CO is a not-for-profit, because it violates the terms of their federal tax exemption. Yeh are exempted from federal tax because yeh are a NFP, and you're only a NFP if the proceeds don't inure to the benefit of any individual. Finally, it's a problem in terms of da Labor Laws, because now it looks like da kids are hocking popcorn for a form of remuneration, and therefore subject to da labor laws and payroll taxes. In short, da guidance from da BSA and from the IRS has been "don't do this", and most of us who know somethin' about the laws and structures have always advised against it. Your initial postings used words that showed exactly why this stuff is not allowed. Can yeh still do it? Of course. It's a choice. Da risk yeh run is probably low; you're not talkin' large amounts and in all likelihood you or your CO will get off with a slap on the wrist in the unlikely event someone chooses to pursue it. Whether that's good citizenship or an ethical approach is somethin' to consider with your CO and perhaps their legal counsel. IMHO, our fellow citizens give us special perqs in terms of taxes and fundraisin', and we should live up to the terms of those special privileges as a matter of honor. Others may disagree. But let's speculate for a moment on a scheme that might be more appropriate. Yeh can make a good case for the educational benefit of teaching boys about earning money and payin' their way. So let's say that for every dollar of popcorn sold, a boy gets one PackToken. Or even better, for every hour worked at popcorn sellin' events he gets 5 PackTokens. Each event that the Pack holds has a participation price of a certain number of PackTokens that the boy must pay from his supply of PackTokens. Yeh want to go on the campout? Yeh have to pay 10 PackTokens or yeh can't come. There might be other ways he can earn PackTokens, by doin' other work for the pack like sellin' hot dogs durin' the pinewood derby or helpin' set up for da raingutter regatta. The point is to make it an educational exercise that if yeh want to participate in the benefits of a group, yeh have to contribute some elbow grease to the group. That would push each boy into workin' and contributin', not just the lads who don't have well-off parents to buy out their obligation. Wouldn't that achieve your goals just as well (or better)? Plus it would have the benefit of bein' consistent with our educational mission, eh? Yeh wouldn't be entanglin' yourself and your Chartered Organization in all sorts of problems with federal and state laws and tax regulations. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)