Beavah

Problem is, the government does not see things that way, and the Catholic Hospitals should have been wide eyed to that fact when they started taking govenment funding.. Now if they dug themselves a hole where they can not live without the Gov't funding, well shame on them.. Yah, but if the government controls most of health care funding, what choice do they have? Especially if they feel they have a mission to servin' the poor. That's the part that yeh seem to miss, moosetracker. I don't know what line of work you're in, but imagine if the government started subsidizing half of your clientele who were buying your services. Would yeh turn 'em all away? Could you survive with only half of your business? Then they expanded the subsidy, so now it was coverin' 70% of your business. Would yeh be willing to try to turn your formerly open business into a boutique shop catering just to the wealthiest 30%? Would your business survive? Then the government says that to continue to do your work, yeh are required to dump toxic sludge into a neighborhood playground, if anyone asks you to dispose of their toxic sludge. But oh, no, we're not discriminatin' based on your religion or values! This is freedom! People should be able to hire you to dump toxic sludge if they want. If yeh don't like it, yeh should just find another line of work that the government hasn't (yet) gotten into. As JoeBob says, those of us who don't ignore the science of biology and the moral teaching of millenia truly believe that human life starts way before any surgical abortion procedure can occur. It's straight up manslaughter at least. Every bit as bad as dumpin' toxic waste in a playground. Worse, in fact. What the ACLU is askin' in these regulatory actions is quite simple when all is said and done, eh? They want the government to prohibit practicing Christians from being employable health care workers. Remember, we just expanded da scope of government health insurance mandates to cover everyone eh? Beavah

Yah, lots of times these things become part of settlement terms, eh? Family of lad who is killed in alcohol foolishness (I even think it was from a med kit, not a stove) wants some assurance that "something will be done" to protect other boys. Makes 'em feel better, settle lower. Gives more meaning than dollars, and oft as not reduces the dollars quite a bit. Just speculation on my part, of course. You'll note also that Hazardous Weather Training came about after settlements on a few weather-related deaths too, eh? Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... Must be a bunch of old fellows like me hangin' out on these forums. Had a young scouter tell me at last month's RT that phone calling was rude for anything other than an emergency. His reasonin' was that the caller is making an assumption that it's OK to interrupt someone else whatever they happen to be doin'. Because that's what a phone call is, an outsider who is interrupting people in the middle of whatever they happen to be doin'. I have to admit, especially in these days of cell phones, the man has a point. If one of our boys in person were to run up in the middle of a conversation between two adults, ring a bell and say "listen to me! listen to me!!" we'd be havin' a sit-down about "A Scout is Courteous" unless he was lettin' us know that one of his patrol-mates was on fire. Beavah

Some activities are better at developing character than others because of the number of opportunities that provides choices Yah, I think this is the essence of it, though I don't see it quite da same way as Eagledad in terms of "change". Changing habits is da hard thing for us old people. For young, growing people, it's more about developing than changing to my mind. So I think the essence of a character buildin' program is something like this: 1) the participant's ability to make choices 2) natural, holistic feedback provided on those choices 3) motivation to persevere and struggle with those choices Generally speakin', yeh need some strong program structure because the structure helps provide choices. "Wide open" is too much for most kids (and adults); to actually see options and choose between 'em, things have to be narrowed a bit. The less mature/experienced a person, the more structure is required so that they see choices rather than just bein' lost. Too much structure, however, curtails a person's choices and reduces character-building. Generally speakin', program activity provides most of da feedback, and some programs are much more natural and responsive about feedback than others. Generally speakin', motivation to persevere comes in part from da personal interest of mentors and support of peers, and in part from da program features. So yah, there are differences between programs. Da best programs provide a structure which allows for difference in experience/maturity in its participants, and where the structure changes with time and personal growth. Scoutin' is better at that than sports, for example. The structure a Patrol Leader experiences is different than that of a younger scout, where a tight end is pretty much doin' the same thing he did last year. Da best programs are set up so that the participants get natural, timely feedback from their choices of all kinds. In this way, Scoutin' is better than band or Civil war re-enactors, because the range of choices is so large and the program provides natural feedback for most of 'em in a timely manner. Don't clean the pot, have annoyed patrol mates and a harder job in the morning. Da best programs offer real challenges and require some real motivational support. Here, I think it's mostly quality of mentoring and quality of peers, and every program can offer (or fail to offer) those things. Programs that have high standards and push hard seem to do best for boys, though - so havin' hurdles to overcome and some external recognitions like badges and ranks or competitions and trophies seems to help. In this case scoutin' is weaker than some. Sports in particular is better because the rewards (winning the game, having your friends high-five yeh) are so immediate, but not guaranteed. Scoutin' awards tend to be more remote, and in many troops are "guaranteed." Video games, of course, beat 'em all. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... Moosetracker's thread got me to thinkin'. With all the developments in communication (many of which are still goin' on), what really is the best way to communicate different messages to different people. I think the norms are changin' in a lot of ways. It used to be that when yeh got a physical letter, yeh responded. That was just common courtesy. A letter takes time to write and money to mail. It meant someone spent effort on you, and yeh owed 'em the same courtesy. Now, of course, somethin' like 80% of the USPS mail is junk mail, so a letter feels a bit like just another piece of junk from random people payin' to interrupt your time. And if yeh get a bazillion emails, then yeh simply can't respond to all of 'em, especially if the response takes some time and thought. Easy to set 'em aside for later and then forget. So what are the best modern ways to communicate, for different groups and different tasks? What have you found that works for Scouts? for Young Adults? for Scout Parents? for Adult Leaders? for older adults? for informational items (like outing details)? for requests for assistance or setting up a meeting? for invitations with RSVP? for group or event coordination? I suspect a big piece is figurin' out how each individual person you're trying to communicate with behaves, but have folks found any general trends / best practices? Beavah

Beavah, my daughter can do 'drama queen' far better than you. Why don't you leave the hyperbole to her and instead try to make a reasoned argument? LOL. Right back at yeh, Mr. Kettle. No hyperbole, packsaddle. Da ACLU is currently pursuing two requests for regulatory action against Catholic hospitals: one to force them to do abortions, and one to force them to issue and cover contraception. Whether or not da government chooses to act on such requests is irrelevant, eh? The point is that it could. It could interpret da Medicare/Medicaid regulations in that way, and withhold funding from the entire Catholic hospital system. Right now that's impractical and politically untenable. But down the road? Or if instead of such a big denomination it's one of us smaller denominations? Do yeh really trust the majority (or, more properly, the monied minority with lobbying clout) to do the right thing all the time? Same is true when the government has a near-monopoly on education, eh? So that only the very well-off can afford to escape it. Whether you're concerned that the government may mandate the teachin' of Creationism or you're concerned that the government will tell your child that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, yeh have to admit that both have been (and are) being advocated for and even tried. There is a risk of allowing any one entity to have that much economic control, eh? Even if they put their shingle out, as is being suggested, and declare their curriculum explicitly, there's nowhere else to go for most people. The point is that an economically large government can repress religion/viewpoints without usin' its police powers. It can do it usin' power of the purse. Or "access restrictions". Whether you're liberal or conservative, that should concern you. I submit, though, that da proper way to deal with it is not what is goin' on currently - that each American try to defend their position with ever more aggressive lobbying dollars and political polarization. Da solution is smaller government. And where there is legitimate need for pooling community resources to achieve a common purpose, strict neutrality by government. Vouchers for education, for everyone. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Of all the griefs there are in Scoutin', I don't reckon a one of 'em matches up to the tears that come when we lose one of "our" kids. And no grief in da world is greater than that of a parent who loses a child. But I reckon the reason for that is our capacity to love, eh? To care so genuinely and deeply for the young men we take into God's hills and valleys, and with whom we share some of life's hills and valleys. Grief is perhaps the deepest, most genuine form of love. Thank you and your son for caring so deeply about a fellow scout and his family. In the months ahead, I hope that care and kindness brings some solace to the boy's parents, and to you. And may the Great Scoutmaster of all such great scouts be with you and all of your former troop, and hold yeh all deeply in His embrace. Good night, and farewell to our fellow He has called home. B

I don't see this.. The glorous thing about the seperating church & state is the goverment rarely can force changes to religions, that is why it is so hard to shut down cults that are clearly breaking laws.. The government can't force changes to religions directly, eh? Da thing of it is, this sort of thing comes as an indirect assault. Yeh can have your religion if yeh want, but if yeh actually adhere to your religion we will take away your livelihood. Religion is fine as long as it is confined to a compound out in the woods somewhere. So if a Catholic hospital refuses to perform abortions, folks want laws to force them to, eh? Or lose all Medicare or state insurance funding. Yeh can have your religion in private, just don't let it affect how you behave in public or we will destroy you financially. It doesn't have to be even that overt, eh? The government (national, state, and local) controls about a third of GDP. So by government just choosing where to spend the dollars it has collected, it can wipe out the livelihood of folks who disagree with it. What business can afford to lose a third of its income/clients (on average)? Yah, yah, there will be some who are in businesses that can weather it, but many who can't. Add that to a government near-monopoly on educating the young, and yeh can certainly see that the government can seriously harm any religion or viewpoint without ever crossing the Constitutional line as it is currently drawn. Rightly or wrongly, it is da perception of many Christians that some special interests are doing exactly this - using public schools to indoctrinate, using government to repress their views. And there are certainly plenty of examples of exactly that, though they're always passed off as local aberrations. So if a reception hall owner doesn't want to host a gay commitment ceremony, is it OK to destroy him financially because of his beliefs? How about a Christian wedding chapel not affiliated with any single religion? I reckon most of us would try to find a balance like Scoutfish's, but clearly some here would not. Just as some would rather destroy the entire Catholic charity hospital system rather than let them refuse to perform abortions or other reproductive services contrary to their religion. "Those people", yeh see, can't be allowed to run hospitals or be an OB/GYN. They should go live on a compound in the woods. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I like to encourage this among units. It's great to build up a sense of scoutin', and each unit gets to learn a bit from the other. Da thing is, yeh have to be a bit alert to unit dynamics, and pair up units that have similar cultures. If yeh get in a situation where there's a largely parent-run unit and a youth-led unit, for example, that can cause some real friction. Similarly if yeh have a unit that's pretty "loose" behavior-wise and one that isn't. It helps a fair bit if there's a sense that one unit is the "host" and the other is the "guest", since that sets up a bit more genteel set of expectations in terms of being a good guest, etc. Beavah

Yah, I think everyone is still feelin' their way through this. I like the new direction myself, the old thing had become such an exercise in bureaucracy that it really need to be blown up. But it will take a while for people to relax their grip a bit. In the old way, I think the essence of the thing is that we were sending lads out to do the project on their own, and so there needed to be greater planning detail. In the new way, we're treatin' the project more like it's a regular troop event, where there are adults around and such. So the way I'm tellin' people to think about it is that they should go through the same planning process they do with regular troop outings. When the PLC comes up with an outing (or annual plan of outings) and the committee approves it, what are the expectations for the level of planning that the youth leaders have in place? That's what you've been training the boy in for years, eh? That's what he's familiar with, and that's what the expectations should be for Eagle projects. Most committees approve the calendar or outings with an outline of participants, budget, proper training in place, that sort of thing. Then, the SPL and PLs and such work out the detail specifics - food plan, agenda, transportation and gear specifics, exact purchases, etc. Da process should be the same for Eagle. We should approve the plan with at the same point that we would approve an outing for the calendar, with the same level of detail. After that, the Eagle candidate will be working on details, consulting with people as he needs to. That's part of leadership. If yeh find that a lad isn't puttin' together everything yeh need to make a "go" decision on an Eagle project, then the proper place to look is how your unit is handling outing planning, eh? By the time a lad hits Eagle he was likely involved on the PLC for quite a few outing plans, so that's where he should have been learnin' your expectations. The Eagle project expectations should not be somethin' different or special. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... This is why I think Eagle stuff should mostly be done at the unit level with a district rep. Less confusing, less conflict, more likely that the people involved share values and expectations and know the boy. Still, if I were sittin' on a jury in a state where comparative negligence is the norm, then I'd say more than 50% of the fault in this case lies with the scout. His screw up with the original project, his puttin' together a project that seems to be designed to be a "quickie" that didn't pass muster, his leavin' it to when there was some delay for a project approval when he knew the group met only monthly. Generally speakin', the standard for extensions is that they only apply for things that are truly beyond the scout's control. In this case, that doesn't seem to apply. Readin' between the lines, the issue comes down to what the group felt was enough of an effort for the boy to show leadership, and they didn't feel that this was enough. Even if yeh were to say that the board was bein' a bunch of old coots and really was just arbitrarily clingin' to a 100-hours rule, part of planning is leaving time for contingencies like havin' to deal with such things (as packsaddle suggests). At best, the lad may merit a couple weeks' extension. In the past, though, the national office has not been willing to grant extensions in such circumstances, particularly without council endorsement. But yeh never know these days. So I expect this lad's quest is done, and it's best to prepare him for that. I reckon the adults should all take a step back and stop the bickering, and then sit down and decide around the district what they all really want to support as being the expectations. There's no set time amount, so is one hour enough? I agree with the district folks, people generally want and need guidance about size, at least in a ballpark way. When should yeh allow for someone comin' in below the guidance? How much below? Talk through these things as friends, recognizing that any expectation yeh set you'll have lads take a run at testing the lower limits, eh? So no matter what expectations yeh have, you'll occasionally being saying "no" and pissing someone off. Unless yeh don't have any expectations at all, in which case yeh shouldn't be takin' up the lad's time. Once yeh get all the adults back on the same page, then yeh revisit the lad's case in that fresh light. If it seems fair, then yeh let it stand. If not, then the district group endorses the extension request and the boy gets another two weeks to see if he can finish. Beavah

People often take the guidance given without questioning whether it is correct or not. Yah, but what is "correct" when we're talkin' about a kids' program? Is it the booklet put together by a random committee and some office workers in Irving? Is it the opinion of some council volunteers? Is it the program vision of the Scoutmaster who knows the boys well, and knows what each needs for his own growth in character? Is it the parent community that is lookin' for the fastest, easiest road to an award, or the parent community that might be looking for something with more substantial expectations than the bare minimum? Is it the mission and values of the chartered organization? Dependin' on what yeh see as being "correct", the answer differs. As we see time and again in da forums, eh? Quite vocally. There's no enforcement here. Just people doin' their best to achieve sometimes different things. If yeh want da parent-buys-a-project approach because that's the best fit for your family and values, yeh go down the street. If yeh want the boy-builds-the-project-himself approach, yeh go to Thomas54's program. Each family and chartered organization will get what they paid for out of Scouting, so to speak. Different expectations will yield different growth in character. Da national organization doesn't care about that stuff, eh? Their time is spent on measuring other outcomes like youth served and dollars raised, not on worryin' about the growth in kids. And the way yeh get more youth and more dollars is to make a generic, unspecified program where yeh can get away with the easy way, but where individuals and units can also expect more. Da BSA sells resources, not enforcement. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I just don't know how you can enforce telling a parent how much they can give towards their son's project. I don't think "enforcement" is the issue, eh? We're about growing kids, not about "enforcing" this, that, and the other thing. Most folks will follow the guidance given 'em, because they're part of a community where that guidance is the norm. Interestin' thoughts, Twocubdad, which is why "policy" and "enforcement" just gets silly when dealin' with this stuff. I think the basic rule is "be honest and honorable." People giving money to most Eagle projects are really giving money to help Scouting, rather than the beneficiary. So at the point when the project is done, yeh honor the intent of the donor. If you're not sure what that is, yeh ask. If yeh can't ask, then yeh do your good-faith best based on what you told them the money was being used for. If it's your own money then you are the donor, and yeh follow your own intent. And if you're a NFP educational entity who is insisting that all the project funds and such are the beneficiary's, then yeh don't pretend to exercise review and approval as a third party, eh? Because it's none of your business. Beavah

Yah, I hear where AlFansome is comin' from. The issue is tryin' to encourage follow-through on the boys' part. So much of the lives of kids these days involves adults leading them by the nose and pushing or pestering that almost no kids these days have developed the ability to choose somethin' and follow through on it on their own. It has to be scheduled. It wasn't always this bad, leastways back in the days when I rode a mastodon to work; kids tended to engage in more hobbies and such on their own. I don't think I have any great ideas on this one, AlFansome. Leastways, I haven't seen any anywhere, and I've seen several units that experience the same thing you are. One thing yeh might try is to run one "easy" badge where yeh do actually guide 'em by the nose all the way through the process so they get to "see" it and it's not unknown. Then maybe a second round where yeh do intros for a couple of 'em and they have to choose one to pursue on their own and yeh guide/cajole a bit. Get 'em a few successes to see if you can't build on 'em. That, and maybe forbid summer camp and Badge Fairs for all MBs, so that there isn't an option to just wait for when it can be spoon-fed and as easy as possible. Beavah

You guys really think there is an issue of budgeting a small percentage of a project's budget to take care of and show appreciation for the Scouts who are doing the work? I just don't get it. Yah, me either. 'Round these parts, questions would be raised durin' a project review if there weren't plans for feeding and watering the workers. Especially in outdoor projects where it can be a safety issue for da younger fellows. I don't know a council anywhere that doesn't occasionally feed its donors and volunteers. So what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, eh? I know the local parks in these parts provide snacks and drinks on volunteer work days, as well as a "volunteer appreciation" dinner at the end of the season, so it's also commonly accepted practice. Yeh do it not because the volunteers "need" it, but because a Scout is Courteous and takes care of his helpers. No different than writin' thank you letters. Beavah

Yah, OGE, we're showin' our age, eh? I got it right away. Boy, there are a few good Scoutmaster minutes in the wreck of the cruise ship, from the actions of the captain to the actions of most of the passengers, to the actions of a few of the passengers and the crew that stood their stations and did their duty. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... That's two people in da space of a week who are gettin' the same odd advice from a district. Eagle732, are yeh in the same district as raisninemright? If not, I wonder if some well-meaning but not very bright person somewhere has written or posted somethin' that will start another 10-year-long nationwide urban legend. Of course a good leader will take care of his workers. Water and drinks in the heat, hot drinks in the cold, food for hard labor, first aid at the ready. Be prepared. Now raisinemright, while this is another district silliness, this is your boy's fight to fight, eh? You don't have any "case" to make. Don't take the experience of handlin' bureaucratic foolishness away from your son. It's an important part of life, and a good lesson for him to learn. You trustin' him to handle it on his own in his eyes is you recognizing him as a man. You makin' his case for him in his eyes is you telling him he's not good enough to handle things himself. Offer suggestions if he asks, otherwise, let his Eagle project be truly his Eagle Project. Struggles and all. Beavah

Yah, JMHawkins, yeh put your finger on the thing that was botherin' me from the other thread. Well said. I think the goal we want (and state as our true Aim) is Citizenship, not leadership. I remember one long cycling trip with a bunch of scouts. It had been nearly a week, and the group dynamics were still "storming". Several boys tryin' to be "leader", others goin' off in odd directions. What saved the trip and the group was a young fellow who stepped up and just quietly and firmly took charge of logistics. Not leading so much as just gettin' things done. That allowed other boys to step into other support roles and the leader(s) to refocus. Was it a form of "leadership" on the lad's part? Yah, sure, in some ways I suppose. But what it really amounted to was leading by setting the example that leadership wasn't important, getting things done was. Being a sound follower/citizen. I'm perfectly happy with a lad who is an excellent scribe, and settles in to do that job well for a long haul. I think he perhaps deserves more praise than the fellow who is climbing positions to get to SPL and out.

The risk of a program where the adult picks its youth leaders is that the bad adult leaders will pick bad youth leaders. They arent trying to be unfair, they're just inept at picking and developing leaders. At least in troops where the scouts pick the leaders, each scout has a fighting chance. Yah, I reckon da risks run both ways, eh? Especially in units where there isn't yet a positive youth culture or where youth leadership doesn't have real effects/consequences, inexperienced scouts are just as inept at picking and developing leaders. Even in a few troops with pretty good unit cultures we see da "popularity contest" thing go on. Or sometimes the "pick the guy yeh don't like because it's a lot of work" or whatnot. So where I disagree with both Kudu and Eagledad is that I think good adult leaders adjust to the youth they have. They don't just "follow a program" like it's a magic talisman in the old BobWhite way, they meet the boys where they're at and adapt the program. Sometimes, and I think this is true for many troops in early stages of development/recovery, identifyin' the natural leaders and giving 'em responsibility is the right way to go. Yeh have to build the culture first. Kids need to see "right" before they're able to choose "right" on their own. Other times, it's good for da PLC to pick their replacements, when the older boys have figured it out but da younger ones haven't yet. Other times, elections or consensus of the boys is best, when yeh have a strong unit culture that the lads have gotten used to, like what Eagledad describes. Goin' back to OGE's original post, I think that our goal is really to give every boy the opportunity to contribute meaningfully. Being Quartermaster or Webmaster or Scribe is just as valuable (if not more important!) than being SPL or PL. Each boy should find da niche in the group that he is best and identifies with and makes a contribution. Puttin' boys into token leadership positions or worse "rotating" them into positions I've always felt was nonsense. A lazy man's answer to being "fair". Being fair doesn't mean giving each boy the same thing, it means giving each boy what he needs. As good mentors, we should be helpin' lads to discover and grow into their own best selves. For some, that's being PL up in front of the group. For others, it's bein' Top Chef. For others, it's bein' the quiet, thoughtful fellow who just takes care of other members of da patrol and makes sure they're OK. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

YP does a good job of protecting youth from abuse, adults from false accusations and the corporation from liability. And the evidence for this is what, exactly? My news feed pretty much drops a scouting-related abuse case on my virtual doorstep every couple of weeks, or I get word of one through other channels. Da corporation has been hammered with liability actions and substantial judgments. There aren't any stats on false accusations, but I'm not sure da report-anything-and-everything approach hasn't led to more, rather than less. I just don't think there's any reliable evidence that YPT or any of the guidelines have actually reduced incidents. Leastways, I haven't seen any. Maybe, perhaps they've created some small barriers to abuse during unit outings, but just as with Sandusky, that's not normally where such abuse occurs. It occurs in private contact outside of scouting time. I'm not bashing the training at all. I'm all in favor of training. Education is a good thing. I reckon we could do a better job of it, but then that's true of most things. I just think we'd be nothing but fooling ourselves if we actually thought stuff like da G2SS YP rules prevented abuse. And on an important issue like this, we shouldn't fool ourselves. Beavah

Yah, I have a couple of Osprey packs. A lightweight weekender pack and one of their bigger expedition packs. Fits me well and even agrees with my old bones, where I found a few other manufactures tended to "bite" me in odd places. Build quality has been excellent, very durable. Like every pack, you'll always find a few feature choices yeh would have done slightly differently, but there aren't too many of these and I've been quite happy overall. Osprey also has a youth internal frame that I've seen some lads use, for a reasonable price. It's hard to find decent internal frame packs for the 11-year-olds. Beavah

Or is the desire to piggyback on the value of the words, phrases, and symbols built by 103 years of volunteer effort? Nah, I think the desire is for some of those same volunteers to continue da traditions of an international movement that the BSA itself "piggybacks" on, building off of materials that have long since entered the public domain in both this nation and others. The goal would be to offer scouting. Now at some point it seems likely that someone else will offer a nationwide outdoor leadership/adventure program for youth through da public schools and community organizations, built not off of the old Scouting materials but off of somethin' like Outward Bound or some other program. At that point, perhaps, the BSA and U.S. scouting become completely marginalized. After all, it's not really da kids who are clamoring for odd uniforms and patches and early 20th century goody-two-shoes slogans. Da kids will go where their friends and adventures are. B

Do you think the BSA Media Guidelines should control the content of your personal non scout web page? Why would yeh think that they do? Da media guidelines are just an attempt at tryin' to help units that are struggling with issues. Like most things in da BSA, its an effort by a corporation that publishes youth program materials to publish a helpful youth program material. Lots of units are struggling with this internet thing, and I'm sure some poor sot down in Irving has gotten too many phonecalls on the topic and so figured it would be helpful to put something out, if only to try to stop his phone from ringing. So it's not about "control", it's about tryin' to be helpful by supportin' units. No one in the BSA would claim that the media guidelines have any "control" over anything. Not personal pages, not unit/Chartered Partner pages, not pages maintained by volunteers or businesses on their own equipment like Scouter.Com. If someone is trying to mis-use the BSA media guidelines to exert "control", that's not the BSA's fault. That's the fault of some volunteer or council staff person who either doesn't have a clue or is tryin' to be a jerk. Or both. Don't blame the BSA for what is really our own problem as volunteers. We're the ones that perpetuate all da urban legends, not the BSA. These are good guidelines but are not really anything new No, they are terrible guidelines written by a few folks from my pre-internet generation who have nary a clue about either modern communication or modern youth. They're a good example of what Kudu always rails about - borrowin' something from da corporate world (where media guidelines are used to control their own messaging) that really doesn't fit da scouting world. So we can fault 'em a bit for da quality of the document, eh? And honestly, this one hit quite a low in that regard. Happily most units and volunteers don't even know they exist, and of da ones that do they almost all chuckle, roll their eyes, and ignore da thing. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I don't see a Congressional charter as having the force of law. It does in that da courts have taken it as grounds to grant the BSA a protected monopoly on Scouting in the U.S. The ethical question then is whether the BSA has lived up to the terms of that, eh? Has our conduct in accord with the charter been sufficiently exemplary to justify the people of the United States giving us a protected monopoly, so that no other citizens or groups of citizens are permitted to offer Scouting programs? B

Yah, Papadaddy, in a few past threads those of us who know a bit about such things have expressed our opinion that scout accounts are at best a grey area, but the way they are handled in most troops isn't kosher. Actually receiving goods or cash personally from a scout account is well over the line to fundraising fraud. That would include claiming a deduction for a personal donation in these circumstances, which is like receiving cash that yeh then donate and get credit for. Yeh better be sure to first declare that money as income, eh? Now, it's just fine for some Scouting fundraiser dollars to be allocated by the troop to the council FOS campaign. Heck, a third of the popcorn gross receipts from da same sale that fed the unit's fundraisin' is already goin' to the council. Da issue is just forthright and honest communication with the families. Beavah