mrjohns2

What are you using now?

I think that has been true for a long, long time, maybe "forever". I don't think unit dues are frowned upon. They are separate, but not frowned upon.

From the "ineligible volunteer" files that I read these were handled by the Scout Executive, region, and their appointed "review board" for the case in question. One or 2 of the cases in question were from the mid 1980's. I knew both one of Scouters on the review board and the SE at the time. I think these were kept in pretty small circles and not heard by the larger board.

Most of the alleged issues were long ago. I'd be very very surprised if anyone on the current boards or even SE positions are the same ones that were around when any coverups happened.

Are you kidding? MBCs wore a sash with MBs? Really? Crazy.

I don't want one enough to order one, but that is totally awesome. Amazing that someone is doing this.

What state requires a fingerprint? Not the state that I live in. Not even for a "real id".

The "requirement" is from national. It is too bad that the adults handled it. If Scouts would have done it, they could have explained it better. I'm not surprised of the disconnect. They could have done it a number of better ways. I think I have seen many bylaws say that all bylaws and policies must conform to national standards and policies. My daughter is on the fence about getting more involved in OA. Can she carve out a corner that is Scout led? Not sure. If she does, I will choose a different area of the lodge that isn't Scout lead, get involved, and lead the Scouts to lead. That would be very rewarding, if adults wouldn't put up a big stink and it was possible.

The National Committee is 100% Adult lead and run. Yes, a couple of youth members, but run by adults. Local lodges? As a youth, our lodge was 100% youth lead. This was early to mid ‘90’s. A different lodge, now, is as youth lead as much as youth want it to be. Not many show up and those that do, don’t take leadership roles seriously. The adults keep asking the youth for opinions, but they don’t seem to care. If I were an active advisor, I’d scale things back to the point that the youth lead.

@RememberSchiff's link shows that it is... Develop leaders with the willingness, character, spirit and ability to advance the activities of their units, our Brotherhood, Scouting, and ultimately our nation.

This is a pretty good use of the 72 hour loop hole. Good reason to not register for a few years.

We used one of these on Camp Staff to split wood. No wood splitter for us. It was awesome. I can't believe that nothing like it is available today. I looked a few years ago.

I don't believe it ever went away, it has just been changed over the years. For example: YOU NO LONGER CUT DOWN A TREE! Come on, Paul Bunyan and you don't cut down a tree? What sort of Paul Bunyan is that?

I don't believe it ever went away, it has just been changed over the years. For example: YOU NO LONGER CUT DOWN A TREE! Come on, Paul Bunyan and you don't cut down a tree? What sort of Paul Bunyan is that?

And the closer we get to school is the surest way to have them leave.

The joint fee is only for youth.

Amen.

If we had to change it would be a new flag, a web domain, and single patch unit numbers.

Only 1 out of the 6 girl troops our troop has interacted with has behaved as a co-ed troop. The rest act as though they are just lightly connected.

Our council already uses 4 digit unit numbers.

That already has been most organizations for time immemorial. Have you never heard of affinity groups? Veterans, etc.?

What leads you to suspect this? I suspect many adults would find it easier to do coed troops. Our girl troop prefers to be separate as does the 3-4 others we have interacted with. I suspect adults would find it easier to make them coed.

The same thing is true for our troop.

I’m the CC and the SM wanted all positions with 2 or more interested Scouts to be elected vs appointed to encourage a variety of Scouts and make sure everyone is happy with their positions. The SM doesn’t seem to be doing it at all for more control. Maybe to prevent hard feelings? I too want to have it match the documented program because then it is what it is. But, if it isn’t a “big mistake”, then I am inclined to let the SM decide to have every position voted on as long as the Scouts are ok with it.

If you RFM, it says elect SPL and PL. PL appoints APL. SM chooses JASM if you have one. Most / all others are appointed by SPL. As long as they can work together, I assume it is no biggie if we vote on all positions? Thoughts?