Beavah

Yah, I just had to shake my head at the wet tent comment. Silly Californian. Most of us in the rest of the land only camp in the rain. It seems to follow us around like a stray mutt. I also wonder a bit about cancelling on Wednesday. Around these parts, a 2-3 day forecast is about as accurate as readin' pigs entrails for a sign. My real question, though, is "What did your youth leaders think?" I'm not sure why you were makin' the cancellation decision. That's the stuff that the SPL or the lads who planned the trip should be making. How else are they goin' to learn those important lessons of character and judgment? Now if the boys decided that the troop wasn't up to a particular set of conditions (because of age or experience or gear or just how bad the conditions were), then I reckon the next question I'd have for 'em was where we were going instead? The preferred choice in most cases should be to divert to an alternative, not to cancel. Only you and your lads know the area, the conditions, your gear, and the experience level of your troop, so I wouldn't presume to second-guess your "no-go" call from afar on the merits. The only leaders worth respectin' are the ones that can make a no-go call when they need to. Beavah

Yah, Mr. Boyce, I agree completely with your sentiment, eh? But I'm curious as to why yeh think President Obama is a Democratic Party extremist. I hear that from folks occasionally, and I just don't get it. I can see that claim being made of Nancy Pelosi, and I would agree. But President Obama? The left wing of the Democratic party is very disappointed in him. On foreign policy, he's kept Guantanamo in place, supported Israel despite almost insane intransigence on the part of the Israeli leadership, is aggressively containing Iran, followed Reagan into bombing Libya, is conducting special ops and drone strikes even across borders in ways that Nixon and Bush were reluctant to do, all while asserting unitary executive theory a la Bush. On the environment, he's expanded offshore drilling despite a colossal disaster caused by poor offshore drilling practices, and has made no substantive move on global warming. On the domestic side, he's doubled-down on accountability and testing in schools, and worked aggressively to expand charter schools despite strong union opposition. He hasn't increased taxes, and in fact has reduced them for much of his presidency. Even his signature "Obamacare" plan is something that originated in the Heritage Foundation before the modern republicans lost their collective minds and their conservative values. Yah, he's havin' it out with the Catholic hierarchy over contraception coverage, and I think he's wrong on that on religious freedom grounds. But in the end, it's just contraception. Only the true nutters believe that's really an "extremist" issue. So I really just don't get the Obama's an extremist hysteria. I disagree with the man on a number of positions, and agree that he's to the left of me on the scale of things. But if I'm being honest, he's governed as more of a moderate than Clinton. And unlike Clinton (or some of the Republican candidates) by every account he remains a loyal husband and a good father. Beavah

Yah, Engineer61, I'm not sure I see what da problem is, eh? The river is small, dam controlled, and runnin' at levels far below what it can sustain. Even at levels 8 times higher than what yeh report it's known as an easy paddle/float for inexperienced folks of all ages. An inch of rain isn't goin' to change it much, eh? If yeh look at the historical streamflows it's been very consistent. At some point, when yeh get on a commercial airline, yeh have to just trust that the pilot knows what he's doin'. Yeh can make yourself nuts by listenin' to ATIS and turbulence reports along your route, worryin' that his examiner was a bit "loose" about his last check ride and all the rest. Same thing here. Not one of us as parents can be or do all the things our kids need to grow up healthy and happy. Our kids need teachers, and coaches, and scout leaders, and band leaders, and grandparents and friends and all the rest. And every friend our kids make, and every adult they learn from, and every new challenge or experience they face makes us worry a tad. But that's just our psychotic need for control talkin'. Our love for our kids is what allows us to let 'em go, because we know that in the end, overall, kids need more than we can provide on our own. So let him go, mate. Almost all of us in Scouting have dealt with boys who are weak swimmers time and again. I'm sure your son's troop has. Honestly, the lads are pretty easy to handle, eh? It's the adults I worry about most of the time. Beavah

Yah, MIB. There's somethin' nice about feelin' that someone recognizes your experience and talent and wants you to be Scoutmaster. There's somethin' in every Eagle Scout that wants to give back to Scouting, and is willing to step up to do the hard jobs. That's a credit to you. Havin' said that, I'd ask yeh to trust us somewhat older, furrier folks when we tell you that this is not the place for you to contribute. The job of being SM is a hard one, and while I'm a big proponent of young folks like yourself being Scoutmaster, that tends to only work if there's a COR/CC that is strongly supportive. It has nothing to do with you, eh? It has to do with parents not always trusting young people who don't have kids of their own. Yeh won't have fun or be the kind of SM yeh want to be without the CC truly being on the same page and "having your back", and if you come into things without that, you'll only add to the adult misbehavior which I promise you will sink the troop. On top of all that, you're describing a program that's in need of serious change, and yeh want to make rapid changes. Changing a troop is a hard process, eh? You will always lose some boys and families when yeh make changes. After all, they joined (and got used to) the "old" troop. It takes time, and a lot of buildin' relationships, and a lot of support. Without that support, it just won't work. They've sent yeh a pretty clear message that they don't value you, and are not ready to support you. The mature, professional, wise, adult thing to do is to decline their offer and not look back. Go be an active ASM in a program that you can support and that will support you. You'll do more good, and it will be better for everybody. And maybe, as someone suggested, you'll see a few of those lads come over to your troop within the year. Beavah

Yah, I reckon that even with Kudu's magical separation of 100 yards or more, there are issues. If yeh have two patrols of six and an adult ratio of 1:1, if an adult just happens to "wander by" the youth campsites once in two hours, that means the boys are being interrupted by an adult every 10 minutes. Near constant adult presence. It takes a lot of effort and buildin' an independent adult culture to keep a large number of adults from mixin' with the boys, or driving a campout to what they want to do or are interested in. A lot of that influence is subtle and hard to control. Generally speakin' I prefer to see fewer adults on trips. No more than one adult per car full of kids. Beavah

As it is, what I got was that I am a maniac, that I am some sort of modified Nazi-type (talk about jumping the shark, whenever Hitler or his minions are brought in, the Fonz always makes that jump) Yah, hmmmm.... So, I just searched the entire thread for the terms "nazi" and "Hitler". The only person who has used either of those two terms is camilam42. I invoke Godwin's Law. The discussion is over, and camilam42 loses. Beavah

Yah, sounds like they're doin' the stretch below Horseshoe Reservoir? At 200 cfs that would be very tame by all reports, though I personally have never paddled it. Even at higher flows up to 1000 cfs it's considered a beginner's float, accessible to paddlers of all ages and abilities. A 200 cfs river is not goin' to be very large, eh? We're talkin' a wade in most areas, or a few strokes to make it to shore. Somebody else on the forums who has real local knowledge might chime in with more detail, but from what you're describin' I reckon the adult leaders in your son's troop know what they're doin'. B

You are aggravated and have disrespect for the nitpicker type of leaders, but I respect them even in their misleadership because they really are trying to do the best they can with what little they know. Maybe a little respected guidance would help these adults get a little more realistic perspective. Yah, lots of times, Eagledad. Folks grow at their own individual rates, and it does take some years for fellows to get beyond superficial application of the Methods to understand the deeper purpose in character-buildin'. Sometimes maybe they get it from an older scouter makin' a few observations. Sometimes maybe a lad or group of lads that they cared about teaches 'em the hard way by dropping out, or by bullying a younger lad who hasn't turned out in the proper clothing this week. Most often, the ones who are goin' to learn learn by being close to the boys and reflecting on the outcomes they see. I think, though, in many ways adults are pretty set in their ways. The adults who don't listen well to kids, they don't usually improve that much over many years, eh? The limited amount of time we have in training isn't ever goin' to change attitudes and skills as deep as that, and a visiting commish is fairly easy to dismiss. Folks who invest their self-worth on the novice-level superficial things and biblical-like quotes from children's books don't often move past that on their own. Baden Powell had it right, IMHO, that the most practical thing for units to do is look for Scouters of the "right sort" who bring a set of skills and attitudes with 'em to the role. Those are the folks who over the course of a few years figure out how to use the BSA methods properly, but not because of training. It's because they come with attitudes of caring for young people, and the outdoors, and servant leadership. The fellows who go in for the superficial stuff often do a lot of damage along the way, by teachin' the wrong lessons, or driving kids or good adult leaders away. Nobody worth a lick in youth work wants to spend time with folks who spend a big amount of energy worrying about other people's clothing. Honestly, I think that sort of stuff costs us far more members than the political/culture war issues. I reckon that's why leaders of the "right sort" get a bit frustrated by it from time to time. It's destroyed many a troop and district. On forums like this one, I don't reckon the participants are goin' to change their minds, eh? Though yeh can always hope that a seed will be watered and germinate down the road a ways. But the audience is much larger than the participants, and in those folks both the seeds and the weeds have a good chance of finding fertile soil. For that reason, poor practice is worth respondin' to a bit, lest some other well-intentioned folks walk away with the wrong lesson just because that was the only perspective which got voiced. Debates between folks of good will aren't a bad thing, and they allow others to see the character and the issues in new light, so as to make their own decisions. Beavah

Yah, what about Barney the Dinosaur? A cartoon representation of an extinct animal? I reckon that would be a favorite target! This PC stuff really does get silly, though. It begs all kinds of questions like whether yeh can shoot at Darth Maul? Or perhaps at Jabba the Hut? At a Harry Potter Giant Spider? Now, if cartoon humans really aren't allowed for the lads, perhaps as a supplemental activity during a WB course we could have adults take aim at smiling Tonka Joe and his safety sandwiches. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, we adults are funny critters, eh? We seem to have an obsession over bureaucratic paperwork. Troopmaster this and handbook that. What is "official" paperwork vs. "unofficial" paperwork. It's all a bunch of balderdash. The BSA doesn't define anything as official paperwork other than internet advancement/advancement report forms. A troop can use the handbook to record requirements, or not. Frankly, the books are a bit of a pain to haul around into the field all the time where most requirement signoffs would occur, and the pages tend to fall out a lot. A troop can use it's own record keeping, issue colored beads, use an iPhone, rely on the patrol scribe, whatever. Heck, a troop can even dispense with the whole paperwork game and just have a weekend rank test and if the lad completes everything that weekend he gets the rank right away with no need for a paperwork bureaucracy at all. If we spend any more time on decidin' what's official paperwork than we spend meetin' the real needs of the boy in front of us, we're doin' it wrong. Beavah

Yah, if I remember correctly you're in AZ Engineer61. Can yeh tell us what river? Safety decisions for water activities depend so much on the knowledge of the river at its current flow rate, and the experience of the group. In this case, I disagree with da BSA's approach, because generally speaking the fellow in the boat with you isn't going' to be the one rescuing you. So it doesn't matter a whole lot who is in the boat with you as long as they're good enough not to need help themselves. Support is goin' to come from da folks in other boats. There are lots of rivers and lots of groups where I'd have no qualms at all about takin' a weak swimmer. There are lots of rivers where I'd never take a weak swimmer. Yeh have to trust the folks that know the local conditions and the group. B

Yah, yeh all do realize that the bank doesn't actually check signatures on any check these days, right? So the two signatures bit is really in the "no help whatsoever" category. I agree with Eagledad. Select your treasurer, don't take volunteers. Choose someone who is professional and honest. As important, choose someone who is relatively well-off - someone for whom the amount of money flowin' through the scout bank account will not pose a real temptation. After that, the additional check of having statements go to someone else is a good one, but make sure that person is close enough to the operational side of the program to be able to recognize issues - stuff like there shouldn't have been two separate payments for canoe gear. Lots of times, regular committee folk might not be able to recognize some of the "tricks". And if yeh are buildin' a larger capital reserve that's gettin' up in the 5 figures, it might be time to offload that into a custodial account held by the chartered organization. Yeh might get better interest, for one, but it will also prevent unauthorized big-dollar withdrawals. Beavah Beavah

Bottom line, Beavah....YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO WHAT I'VE SAID. Yah, hmmm... well, I reckon that's possible, though I have been trying. I think I have been listening to what you've said, and I just disagree. Every scouter everywhere claims that his is a boy-run troop, uses patrol method, etc. One of the things yeh have to live through whenever scouters get together for the first time is a round of chest-thumping about each unit's great program. And naturally they all truly believe that, eh? A group of enthusiastic parents comin' out of cubs and running a Webelos 3 program will brag about being boy-run more than some truly boy run units. So one of the things yeh start to pick up on over the years is not what people say, exactly, but how they say it. When you say things like "my troop is not Adult Run. It isn't. It is Adult Led. That is part of the Adult Assocication method", that suggests that, perhaps, in the wide scheme of Youth Leadership Method, yeh aren't quite where yeh think yeh are. Because the Method is Youth Leadership, eh? Not "adult-led". And Adult Association is somethin' that's very different from being "Adult Led." Now I'm just a fellow at the other end of an internet connection measurin' your words and the nature of your responses, eh? I can't "see" your troop, so you'll just have to forgive me if I'm totally out to lunch. What I have seen are troops of other folks who make the same sort of claims and use the same expressed approach as you are here, and those units I can say from direct observation are more adult-led than the average, in ways that lead to different outcomes with the boys. For example, if yeh read other threads, a substantial majority of experienced scouters here would tell yeh that there really is no place for "troop bylaws" of the sort yeh mention in a youth-led unit. I'll admit to being in the minority in this case, but would gently suggest that what you're calling "bylaws" are nowhere near what real civic organization bylaws are or should be, and in that way would be a poor example to the boys. I reckon that we can all do a better job for our boys, and some words from other experienced hands might make us stop and think. But of course, if yeh are already perfect, feel free to ignore this old fellow. Now, let me just comment for a brief moment on your whole bit about judgin' people for being poor parents if they use a cup of coffee to get through the late shift at work. I'm willing to respect the position of the LDS with regard to "drugs" including caffeine, but I think yeh step quite a ways over the line when yeh jump to equating a cup o' joe with poor parenting. It does seem part and parcel with your approach more generally, but here again I reckon there's a deeper meaning to "Reverent" or "Kind" that yeh might be missing. As to the rest, each example that I used was a real life example from my own personal experience, not somethin' I made up. I think you have been blessed with livin' a relatively sheltered life, and should thank the Great Scoutmaster for your blessings. Lots of troops do not have a whole lot of personal gear (sleeping bags, hiking boots, etc.) available for boys to use; in fact many scrape by tryin' to have enough tents and cook gear. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Discussing a trip incident like this one IMO is a better adult learning experience than watching a cartoon character (Tonka Joe?) build a sandwich. Yah, Amen to that. Havin' watched that idiotic cartoon now more times than I care to count, I've been wonderin' about whether I could print up big posters of the fellow for use at the camp rifle range. Or maybe put miniature versions of his face on sporting clays. Is it against da rules to use representations of cartoon humans as targets? Beavah

Yah, I reckon that's a might simplistic there, camilam42. The fellow who is workin' two jobs just so his family can get by may be usin' that cup of coffee just so he can stay alert durin' his shift. I think we should be a might careful, or at least kind, about judging folks for their financial choices. That $180 can be used for a uniform, or it can be used to fully outfit a lad in the camping gear he needs to participate in the outdoor program - sleeping bag, pad, rain gear, hiking boots. Or it might be needed to repair the refrigerator that just broke down. B

Hiya Second Class! Despite the fact that we adults seem to love playin' paperwork games (probably because we've gotten too slow to play real games ), that's not what scouting is about, eh? Yeh follow the Golden Rule, and yeh treat him the way you'd want to be treated in such a case. Yeh hold the Board of Review, and if you're satisfied he has developed the skills and character appropriate for the rank, you congratulate him and give him his patch. Beavah

What exactly is the source of all these accusations that units that set a high standard for uniforming are always on the brink of failure and destruction? Yah, I don't think anybody is sayin' that KC9DDI. All I suggested was that in my experience strictly uniformed troops are typically the most adult-run. Yeh can see that in camilam42's comments, eh? Like the bit about the PLC adopting the long BP-quote as part of their charter and bylaws. First, boys don't naturally go hog-wild about adopting and ratifying charters and bylaws over and over again without a lot of adult driving. Second, there isn't a group of red-blooded boys anywhere that wouldn't read da first two sentences and point out that (1) the BSA uniform doesn't make yeh look like a "backwoodsman" at all and (2) that the BSA uniform doesn't cover up differences in country the way old B-P's uniform did, it identifies yeh as American. Boys have a keen sense for that sort of thing, eh? So to get to that full spit-and-polished thing, yeh have to do the stuff that camilam42 suggests. Adults "calling out" boys on their uniform. Adults quotin' longwinded boldfaced uniform apologetics. That's no different from some other methods, eh? Yeh can get to full spit-and-polished outdoors method if the adults handle all the gear and the adults plan & run the outings. It will look sharp and well-organized. It will seem exciting and proper... to the adults. They can quote B-P passages on outdoorsmanship and such. Yeh can get to full spit-and-polished advancement method in the same way, with full T-2-1 curriculum progression documents and the like, and long quotes from the G2A. Yeh can even claim that the PLC "ratified" that full T-2-1 curriculum progression and the lecture series on required merit badges. It just depends on your goals, eh? If your goals as a unit are to look sharp, well, then I reckon that's the fastest, straight-line path to the goal. If your goals have more to do with developin' character and skill in the lads, then that depends on the boys being able to make choices. On an adult-run outing, boys learn how to be good tourists, following their guide. Tourism can be fun. But if yeh want boys to really learn to be outdoorsmen, they have to make choices, and mistakes, and guide themselves. In adult-run advancement, boys learn how to be good classroom students and test-takers. School can be fun, passing tests for awards can be fun. But if yeh want boys to really become self-motivated learners who pursue deeper interests on their own, then they have to make choices, and mistakes, and learn to guide themselves. Same with adult-run uniforming. Dressing sharp can be fun, at least occasionally. But if yeh want boys to really develop character internally, more than the external trappings, they have to make choices, and mistakes, and guide themselves. Good uniform method in scouting is all about the youth self-identifying with the movement, eh? It doesn't happen when they ratify B-P's words or look sharp in a photograph. It happens when they proudly exchange neckers with another troop, using their own words to describe their necker and the scouting identity it symbolizes. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

But I am going to call my Scouts out when they don't employ that method; precisely because they passed that method as being a standard. Yah, hmmmm... Not to be beatin' a dead horse, camilam, but Youth Leadership is a method, eh? And as a method, don't yeh feel that it also should be supported "to the fullest extent possible" in your troop? I might humbly suggest that full use of the Youth Leadership method would have the youth leaders who set the standard being responsible for helping their fellow scouts to live up to it, rather than having adults do it. I might gently encourage yeh to also consider whether "calling Scouts out" is consistent with the Ideals method where we pledge ourselves to be helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind. As a commish, I might try to model a bit how Adult Relationships method can be used to help lads engage with ideas and thinkin' about things so that they make good choices about uniforming themselves, rather than acting as an adult authority to enforce uniforming standards. We build character in lads by helpin' 'em engage with issues and make good choices on their own, not by enforcing compliance or an external "look." I think that's the gentle or not-so-gentle advice some here are offering. By and large, the folks who run the spit-and-polished full-uniform troops are the folks who do the poorest job with some of the other Methods of Scouting. It's similar to those who overemphasize Advancement, eh? They typically lose sight of patrol method and youth leadership and such, and in the end they miss the whole point of Advancement to boot. The same thing happens to those who overemphasize Uniforming. Uniforming is not about the uniform, the way advancement is not about the badge. They're both about the kid. Beavah

I fear the governor's red phone will be ringing off the hook to dispatch the National Guard. Yah, I'm sure it would, eh? But I reckon that's just because of our modern neuroses, living as we do in the Home of the Terrified, despite what we sing in the National Anthem. Now I'm not sure what state the lads were in, eh? It sounded to me like they had camping gear with 'em in the boats, but that's just my guess. Certainly, they weren't in any real danger in this case, what with temperatures up here being unusually mild. But we toned out a half dozen or more agencies and a whole gaggle of volunteers. While we had 6 local fire departments, two state agencies, two county sheriff's services and others out, those fire departments weren't available for rapid response to an auto accident where someone's child might be in danger. They weren't available for the fire that might claim the life of a family breadwinner. They might not make it in time for the young girl who is choking to death at the local McDonalds. When we put dozens of people on boats and ATVs in thick forest in the dark, we put those volunteers and rescuers at risk as well, eh? They suffer the real chance of being seriously injured or worse. When yeh fly a helicopter at low altitude in the dark over unlighted areas, that ain't risk-free either. This SAR could have gotten people injured or worse. Da notion that the "government" is there with massive resources to swoop in and rescue us because we went a couple miles in the wrong direction and call 911 is fundamentally a selfish one, eh? Because it's far from cost-free. That's also da sheriff's message. The unspoken subtext was "this was dangerous and expensive, and could have been resolved with much less resource use if we'd had location information." Now before everyone goes off da reservation, I'm not suggesting that folks don't call for help when it's needed. If yeh think yeh need help, then call. I'm just suggesting that if your boys really know how to camp and know what to do when lost, and if your lads are properly equipped, and if the rest of your troop has some procedures for handling meet-ups when yeh get separated, then perhaps we don't have to be in the papers. But if yeh aren't goin' to teach your boys all that, well, then, give 'em a darned phone or locator beacon so that at least we aren't imposing on the rest of the public any more than the average clueless tourist when we wander astray. Beavah

IOLS is not required to take boys camping. IOLS may be required by your individual council to register as unit leader or assistant unit leader. The real "requirement" is that yeh should have folks who know what they're doin', eh? And who are at least decent at working with age group of kids in question. Alternately, that the boys really know what they're doin', and that they are properly prepared to manage and assist the adults in question! Beavah

The real problem was that the group should never have left the portage until the whole group was accounted for. Yah, gotta agree with perdidochas here. I do worry a bit that the pervasive availability of cell phones starts to become a standard of care, eh? As more and more parents/citizens expect kids to be electronically tethered to them, that developing community norm becomes the standard by which scouters are judged to be responsible (or negligent). An interestin' question to my mind is also when to call for outside help. Four well-equipped and experienced scouts being out for a night perhaps doesn't constitute an emergency, eh? At least not one that requires the diversion of thousands of dollars of resources, hundreds of hours of professional rescuer time, and the attendant risks associated with a high-stakes nighttime SAR operation. Beavah

Yah, camilam, I'm not tryin' to be argumentative or simply to call out individual lines in your response, eh? I'm just tryin' to offer some gentle feedback and reflection. When yeh say things like "This is about being Adult led", to my mind it begs the question of what yeh think the Youth LEADERSHIP Method of scouting is all about? It suggests that rather than being a full Youth Leadership Method troop, you are a T-shirts or at least a blue-jeans and shirts troop when it comes to Youth Leadership. I also get that when you say "The Scouters hold the Scouts accountable for it". In a "full Youth Leadership" troop, the scouts would hold each other accountable for it. I'd have similar comments on how yeh seem to view Adult Relationships method. Yeh seem to be the blue jeans and T-shirts version of that as well. Now there's nothing wrong with that, eh? Just like I don't let myself get too upset about blue jeans and shirts for Uniform Method, I try not to get too down on partial implementation of Youth Leadership Method. Every chartered organization has to decide on its goals for the youth in its programs, and the unit must reflect the goals of the CO in how it uses Scouting's Methods. So if your CO really sees comportment and dress as fundamental goal that's more important than youth leadership and such, then what you're doing is right and proper, and an excellent way to use the BSA materials. Certainly you seem comfortable with it, and yeh suggest that at least the adults in your unit are good with it. So I'd support yeh on that, and even say "good job." As a scouting commish comin' at it from the BSA side, though, I might gently encourage yeh to think more deeply about how to use some of the other methods better, if that fit in with your CO's goals. Yeh can use uniform method really well without compromising on youth leadership or other methods if yeh approach it a bit differently. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think it's a bit hard to imagine a troop with that kind of cash position, let alone it disappearing without folks knowing about it for a bit. Still, if yeh think of a bigger, active troop... Particularly goin' into the summer, yeh might have deposits for summer camp that could amount to $20K or more; deposits for a high adventure trip that could be about the same, money set aside for trailer repair/replacement, other money in scout accounts. Active big troops need to keep a fair bit of cash on hand just to manage cash flow. Still, $73K is staggering unless they're a Sea Scout unit with a big boat or 3, or perhaps a troop with a bus that they are saving up to replace. B

Non-church NFPs have to file annual report forms with da IRS, and those are public record available through several sites. They aren't really accounting statements, though. Of course, the silly nonsense momof2cubs got isn't an accounting statement either. Momof2cubs, yeh need your COR to take this up on your behalf. As just a "consumer" of BSA materials, yeh aren't entitled to corporate financials. But your COR as a member of the corporation is, eh? I've found some councils over the years to be unconscionably shoddy about their financial statements. Yeh would think that any real professional would die of shame if he ever presented annual financial statements that weren't in compliance with GAAP, but I don't see 'em keeling over. Now mind, that's not altogether unheard of in the smaller NFP enterprises, but councils are big enough and public enough that you'd think a higher standard would apply. Yep, momof2cubs, trust but verify. If the COR can't get good, audited or reviewed annual financial reports, then the CO should say "no" to popcorn or any FOS solicitation of their membership, and the COR should raise the issue at the council annual meeting, perhaps with a "no" vote on the council board. Beavah

Eagle_23, you're working under a misconception that because you think your time is worth something then it IS worth something. I maintain that if you give it away for no pay, it is worth exactly what you were paid for it. That IS the American economic system and it is the way the volunteers are viewed by the professionals. Yah, that may be the way some volunteers are treated by (poor) professionals, but it's back to Econ 101 for you, Mr. Packsaddle. The economic worth of the time invested is the value-added economically by the effort. In your own field of education there have been several studies of late computin' the economic value-added of teachers, in terms of mean earnings or productivity gains produced. It's quite high, I believe. Considerably higher than what they're paid. Now, in terms of markets, yeh often see items inefficiently priced, despite what those tom-fool nitwit "efficient market theorists" claim. That's because there's friction to information flow, so that not everyone has access to full information or time to process it. Even more, though, it's because individual value functions are different, eh? Decisions are made more on an emotional basis than on an efficient market basis, as every advertising firm is aware. Most importantly, it's because of structural effects that get in the way of a free market, like government-run education monopolies and teacher's unions and worker (lack of) mobility. So I think da economic value of a scouter's volunteer time is equal to the net value added. For the BSA, it's whatever fraction of that amount that accrues back to the BSA. Let's face it, the BSA's donor base by and large is the alumni that valued their days in the program, and to a lesser extent parents who valued their son's time in the program or community members who have had positive contact with kids in the program. And all of those depend on the volunteer scouters, not the paid professionals. Beavah