DuctTape

"should" being the key word. We must also remember that many Scouters are little more than "tenderfoots" themselves.

Sadly in my area there is zero verification of competency/qualifications.

Den leaders not being committed sounds like a major issue. I see a parallel here to a troop where the SPL is trying to do too much b/c the PLs aren't. If the cubs arent getting a good scouting experience due to uncommitted den leaders, I am not sure a pack meeting can really bridge the gap. I am sure it is better than nothing. The den meetings are the bread&butter of the cub program. But wow! If this is the reality I feel badly for the cubs and the cubmaster. I also agree that cubs is wayyy too long. However I have seen the age for cubs moving into a troop as too young in many cases. IMO the age/grade exception for AOL should not be there.

wow. seems like a lot of pack meetings to me. no surprise then the amount of questions/issues from cubmasters I see here. I wonder if one solution is to extremely lessen the number of pack meetings, move more to the den level.

Question for all you Cub Leaders... how many pack meetings a year do you have? I recall 3 per year, the rest of cubs was den meetings or pack campouts.

and to continue with T2Eagles ?s, Can you describe a typical troop meeting... agenda, roles, etc...

This discussion reminds me of the history of the Talmud, the written Torah and the Oral (Mishnah). If the Rabbis of antiquity needed a compendium of interpretations and discussions to apply the Torah to everyday life, then I accept that us mere scouting volunteers will have difficulty following the GTSS as it manifests in the complexities of everyday life.

That was my initial thought reaction as well.

I know that every survey I have completed over the years I have brought up the "Eagle as the goal" issue. Perhaps someone has been reading my survey responses?. . . . . . . nah!

question... do other secured creditors "unrelated" to the survivors claims also vote on the bankruptcy provisions, or do these creditors vote on their separate piece? If the latter, how does the bankruptcy balance these since both parties are in effect in conflict?

I do not disagree.

Not much upside for us volunteers either. One might argue the COs have more upside than us mere volunteers as they can use their "sponsorship" of BSA as a marketing tool. Others might argue that giving back to the community by being a CO is (part of) the COs mission. Part of me is smh at even stepping into this discussion as I do not view everything as transactional; I do things without expectation of something in return. I would hope that the BSA slogan and other values are not isolated to the bsa but other individuals and organizations also do good things without reward or gain. Doing a good thing is its own reward.

I get postcards from them almost monthly asking me to join/update my info. I always viewed them as a "Whos Who" type directory, where you just pay them to be on a list and get certificates, etc... Other than these solicitation postcards, I know nothing about them.

A Co-ed troop can still operate with single gender patrols. For camping purposes it might be better anyway as it eliminates some of the issues stated.

...and they could get signed off for 3 ranks (tenderfoot, 2nd, and 1st) for completing a single activity.

adding to #6, except for mBs, all rank requirements must be completed "as a ____ scout".

Lately the continuum of behavior is far too often lumped together and called bullying. Not every interaction is bullying; I see parts of the continuum this way: rude-mean-bullying-harrassment-assault-battery How to deal with the situation depends on where on the continuum the situation lies. Bullying (IMO) is at the cusp of a criminal act. Bullying gone to far can be harassment which in my non-legal-training understanding is a crime in almost every state. Certainly if violence occurs, the situation has clearly crossed into the criminal. Earlier it was mentioned to call the police if indeed the behavior warrants it.

My guess is most of them are "honorary" and serve no real purpose except to "vote". The executive board is where all the decions are truly made and their recommendations are rubber stamped by the full board (those actually in attendance). I could be totally wrong here having not read the actual bylaws, nor witnessed any E-Comm or Board meetings. But my guess tracks with how other (large) Boards with an Exec-Comm operate.

Certified guides are NOT required in the Adirondacks.

A lot in the Adirondacks. Backpacking and/or canoeing. Can also do hybrids. There are 6 million acres. Some areas (extremely high use) have restrictions like no fires. Most areas fires are still allowed. All areas have group size restrictions for camping (maximum 9 people). What mileage are you looking to do each day? Also what other activities; fishing, paddling, off-trail bushwhacking, etc...

I hear you, and in general agree. Where I draw the line is when it targets other members here.

Attributing motive to others or describing them in prejudicial terms when they have differing opinions or are making decisions one doesn't agree with is wholly unfair IMO. I understand principals in the case have personal and passionate attachments to the outcomes which can lead to personal and emotional attributions of motive etc... of the other side and of others not involved. This But this is a negotiation of a legal case. As stated by Aristotle, "the law is reason, free from from passion." Of course this has the result of fueling the attribution of others by those passionate folks who are personally affected.

The reset is per event.

Source?

Years ago one of my scouts, in uniform, was at a restaurant with his father before our meeting. An elderly gentleman as he was leaving said "If you can recite the Outdoor Code, I will pay for your dinner" The scout stood up and proudly recited the OC. It has been part of the opening in the troop for generations.