virtualjim

Source (provided again): http://www.scoutingnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mou_bsa_ahg_bw.pdf Looks pretty clear to me that national wants to do more than put some window dressing on a press release; as has been suggested. If they've not communicated this effectively through to the council level, then that needs to be addressed separately, but fact remains that folks in the upper seats have made agreements and are communicating a desire to "assist one another in areas of mutual objectives". I like Mooseman's approach the best so far. If it's not a drain on resources AND another organization can avoid reinventing the wheel, then why would anyone be opposed to this? Rather ironically, his approach lines up very well to the concepts of Helpful and Courteous. Does AHG deserve a free ride, nope. No one does, it takes money to make these things happen and all should be paying their share. Speaking as someone with a load of scouting in my history, what I find disturbing is the "us vs. them" mentality on display so far here. Yes, AHG should be able to stand as an organization. Great. Why the hostility and bristling when a partnership is mentioned? This isn't a question of organizational survival, it's a question about whether the hundred year old organization is mature enough to help the whippersnapper. When bringing up tenderfoots, I never once told them, "now you need to leave the Star and Life scouts alone, they don't have resources or time for you." We strive so hard to find sponsors, donors, champions, and volunteers for our efforts. If a partnership is possible, does it not stand to reason that another scouting organization might just bring some of those things to the table?