CalicoPenn

There is an assumption being made that the Charter being referred to in the Bylaws refer to the Federal (Congressional) Charter. I'm going to toss in this monkey-wrench - do with it what you will. The BSA also has Articles of Incorporation on file with the State of Texas. Articles of Incorporation are often referred to as a Corporate Charter. Most Bylaws will typically be subordinate to an organizations corporate charter or articles of incorporation so the BSA Bylaws could be referring to the corporate charter and not the federal charter. I know about the statement the BSA said about it being a violation of their charter. Considering the low level of trust folks have of National, would you consider it far fetched that they might refer to the federal charter on one hand and then refer to the Texas charter on the other hand? Would it be unbelievable that they could have changed the language of their state charter after the last statement about girls being a violation of the charter? Its not that difficult to file amended Articles of Incorporation.

The Congressional Charter is largely honorific - a recognition by Congress that "you're ok and we like you". While it ostensibly protects the BSA from anti-trust laws and protects their logos, etc., its mostly something the BSA can brag about having. Trademark and copyright laws protect the BSAs logos, badges, uniforms, etc. far better than the federal charter. The Congressional charters started when companies wanted to be registered in the District of Columbia (this would be about 1791). Eventually Congress decided they had more important things to do so they finally gave the District of Columbia the power to charter businesses but Congress decided it would honor patriotic organizations with what are now known as Title 36 Charters. The BSA has a Title 36 Charter. The Congressional Charter is not a substitute for a business charter though - the BSA is still registered in the State of Texas as a corporate entity, and in fact is required by Texas state law to renew their charter each year. Congress stopped issuing Title 36 charters in 1992 (though a few more were granted after this date, those were mostly in the works already).

Sure - things like trenching tents, first aid for runaway carriages, Indian sign language, sock garters, that odd, loping Scout walk/run thing (Scout Pace), the Shaeffer prone-pressure method of artificial respiration. Let's just say that not every change has been bad.

All well and good for 1910 but in the year 2017, Federal Charters are more honorary than actual, the BSA is currently a body corporate and domiciled in the State of Texas, not the District of Columbia and the BSA hasn't used methods in common use on June 15, 1916 in many many decades.

No - the nominating committee selects them and the COs vote on the slate.

I'm sorry but no - I was going to quote from DavidCO's post on this but this one seems even more natural to do. What DavidCO said happened in Chicago did not happen in the way that he is relating it. The Chicago Council nominating committee put forth a slate that was rejected by the COs. The opposition put forth an alternative slate that was ignored. The Council Exec and Board President declared their slate board members anyway. This led to a lawsuit that the Council was not following their bylaws and that the slate was installed illegally. The court ruled against the Council. It was this lawsuit that got the interest of National (they had a couple of observers in the courtroom - National never filed a "friend of court" brief which one would think they would do if they had a vested interest in the slate being seated). The Council held another vote - and tried to prevent opponents from coming to the meeting. It didn't work and the slate lost again. At this point, National came in and said if a slate couldn't be elected, National would suspend the charter and would appoint a caretaker board. At no point did National say they preferred that slate. They didn't really care who was on the slate, they just wanted a slate elected. The third time was not the charm - the slate was again rejected. At this point, National suspended the charter and appointed a caretaker board. No one on the slate of candidates was appointed to that board. No one from the opposition was appointed to that board. National looked mostly outside the Council to neighboring councils, choosing past Presidents of those councils to serve as the caretaker board. The Chicago Council was now being run by members of Northeast Illinois Council, Northwest Suburban Council, Thatcher Woods Council and others. The primary goal of National was to get a slate of candidates together that would be acceptable to the COs. They didn't care who was on the slates - they only cared that the Council could get back to regular order. There were elections held every year but it took about 9 years for things to settle down enough that a slate was actually elected. During that time, National continued to appoint board members from the local communities, the appointed Board cleaned up the financial mess the Council was in, taking it into and out of receivership. The slates were not handpicked by National - they were put together by the appointed boards with input from the members of the Chicago Council that had an interest in these things. As soon as the Council elected their own slate of candidates again, National restored the charter. National is not selecting Council Board Members - National's only interest is that Councils can run themselves and follow the regular order of their rules. Anything said otherwise is just pure speculative conspiracy theory.

100% of your Friends of Scouting donations go to your local council. Let me repeat that for all of you folks blinded by your rage against National for this decision. 100% of your Friends of Scouting donations go to your LOCAL COUNCIL. For most local councils, Friends of Scouting donations fund about 40% of a council's budget. Where does that money go? Staff salaries, insurance, program costs, scout shop costs, service center costs, physical costs to maintain scout camps, camp program and supply expenses, volunteer recognition, camp ranger salaries, etc. You're mad at National and are deciding to take it out on your Council. Maybe your Council isn't important enough to you - maybe you don't see value in it. But you know what happens when Councils raise fewer dollars while costs increase? They start cutting budgets. A lot of councils used to open up their service centers and scout shops on Saturday mornings to make it more convenient for people with busy weekday jobs to be able to pick up advancement awards and file paperwork. A lot of councils have closed up shop on Saturdays as they've cut budgets as a consequence of lower FOS donations coming in which is making things more difficult for units. Take a look around camp someday - has the camp gone from having 30 canoes available at the waterfront to 20? Has your summer camp made a decision in the past 10-15 years to stop supplying platform tents with cots and mattresses and are having units bring their own tents to camp? Maybe they've even gotten rid of the platforms themselves - do you really think it's because Council wants to be "truer" to the program or is it because its a good place to cut the camp equipment budget? It typically costs a council more to operate a summer camp than they get from fees collected. As FOS donations go down, Councils start to raise fees. They also start to sell off camps. Go ahead and tear up those FOS donation requests because you're mad at National - but just remember that when you do so, you aren't affecting National at all - you're affecting your local Council and hurting the Scouts in your area and your unit.

That is a very good point Qwazse - thanks for making it. I was speaking more that it could be done this way rather than it should be done this way.

Since it is the PTO that is chartering the unit, the IH would be the president of the PTO, not the school principal (unless the principal is the president of the PTO). Depending on how the PTO is structured, the IH may appoint the COR with either notification to the PTO board, or approval of the PTO board, or the PTO board may approve the COR. Sometimes the IH will appoint themselves as the COR if they have a particular interest. "So that is the IH and COR, together, can change policy?" - Neither can change the policies of the BSA. BUT - they can change the "policies/bylaws" of the unit. And they don't need to do it together. Ideally the COR has the best interests of the chartering organization in mind when working with the unit and would be in sync with the IH so a decision of the COR is usually enough - the only one that can reverse a COR decision (as long as it is not a change of BSA policy) is the IH. The COR cannot reverse the decision of the IH. Want to get rid of the bylaws? Easiest way is to become the COR then contact the Committee Chair and tell them that the units bylaws are no more and that the unit will operate under BSA policies. Second easiest way? Convince the existing COR and/or IH that the bylaws need to go. There is no votes needed by the unit - the IH/COR speaks - it's done.

I just figure if someone is making a personal attack, it means they can't deny the truth about what is being said.

Even if they make it clear, we'll have a lot of threads in here trying to figure out what it all means. Remember when we had an earnest discussion of whether a Scout that did 1 and a half pull-ups a month after doing one pull-up met the improved over a month requirement? I'm pretty sure if I looked hard enough, I could find a discussion on what it means to swim one mile for the mile swim. While you're not betting a lot of money that National will properly inform the field, I'm not betting a lot of money that the field will understand what National is releasing - even if they bullet point it, write it at the "See Spot Run" level, with illustrations of the Teletubbies modeling what it means.

Thanks - I appear to have been misinformed

We already have family camping in the Cub Scouts. There has never been any indication from National that they are going to add Family Camping to the Boy Scouts. I've asked before where people got that idea and the only answer was Boy's Life had some articles on Family Camping (I'd like to know when - I looked through the last two years of Boys Life at my local library and didn't find much in the way at all on "Family Camping"), Even if Boys Life was encouraging Scouts to go family camping with their families, I don't see how people can think it means that the Boy Scouts is going to have family camping as an official part of the program. My summer camp in the 1970's had an entire section of camp for "family camping" - for mothers and non-Scout children to camp (in cabins!) while their sons and husbands were off camping at summer camp. They even had their own waterfront. My mother and youngest brother were there two summers in a row - how many times did I see them? Once - I think - as I was swimming a second mile of a mile swim (I just kept going after completing the first mile, which was a triangle between east, west and family camps) - I got in to a zone - and my poor Scoutmaster, who was in the row boat following me couldn't keep up). At least I think they were out there cheering me on. There is nothing in the rules that says a Troop can't plan a family camping trip right now if they wanted - it isn't encouraged - but there's no rule against it. I think people are reading way too much in to the word Family than is meant. I think that we often have a blind spot when we ponder about how to recruit more boys, how do we get more Webelos to cross over, how do reduce the number of crossovers leaving the Scouts after a few months. That blind spot is family. Yes - we're putting together the program for the boys - but if we aren't "recruiting" the parents (and I don't mean in to leadership roles - I mean in to recognizing the value of Scouting to their sons), then we're just going to continue to lose. I think National understands that - finally.

Do you have any proof of this or is this just based on the 10 or so people you asked in your Troop?

It's been a few weeks since the original announcement - the BSA will have gotten a lot of feedback from people. Back when they made this statement, that was their intention. Did you give any thought to the probability that their position on this might change after a few weeks of feedback before you accused them of blatantly lying? If you asked me for a loan of $100 4 weeks ago and I said I didn't have the money and you asked me again today and I did have the money, would you say my earlier statement was a blatant lie? Circumstances change - they change all the time. Changing ones mind or approach due to changing circumstances or additional information does not make a previous statement a lie - it makes it obsolete. I fully expect that the position will change a few more times before its finally implemented. We get it, you don't like this change - but accusing them of lying when their intentions evolve is just not Scout-like.

I think this is an unfair comparison - your keys words here are "Funded by school district". Let me make that even clearer - funded by taxpayers. This puts the school district at an unfair advantage, wouldn't you say? The school district just simply spends taxpayer dollars on these trips. No need for fundraising if you can just collect taxes from everyone and spend it as you see fit. In the meantime, the Boy Scouts have to go out and fundraise - even for a "much leaner and meaner outdoor leadership and adventure experience". They can't just tax entire towns to pay for this. How do you propose that the BSA become leaner and meaner? What is the lesson they should be learning? What can they do to lower the costs of Scouting? How can they compete with a school district that can collect taxes?

Isn't this just a little misleading? There is a huge difference between a Scout with special needs and a Scout that doesn't have strength or stamina. Special Needs is a pretty specific set of circumstances - lets not try to apply it to the non-special needs young Scout who hasn't been able to complete more than 1 pull-up yet because they don't have the strength. I would expect that the flexibility given to special needs boys would extend to girls with special needs. I would not expect these requirement adaptations to extend to the non-special needs girls who can't do more than one pull-up.

Oh, you mean societal misfits, criminals on the run from the law, binge drinkers and buggerers (Brokeback Mountain wasn't all imagination).

I like what Tampa Turtle had to say about what manly should mean - and its easily tweak-able to accommodate women: To protect the weak, stand for your beliefs, respect women everyone, seek adventure, be self-sufficient, and take charge when needed. Respect and civility toward the other. Showing leadership when it is needed. Doing the right thing even if it is the tough thing. Knowing enough self-sufficient skills so you can help your self and others in an emergency. Being adaptable. Learning to work in a band of brothers diverse group of people. Do my changes weaken the proposition? I don't think so. If this is what it means to develop the best kind of citizen - then why can't it apply equally to boys and girls? Everything else is just speculation based on internal fears and innate sexism. I haven't seen anything from the BSA suggesting that they will be tweaking advancement requirements - that is just us insisting that there must be changes coming because, well, reasons (like physical strength, stamina, etc.). I challenge all of you to go through the current rank requirements and tell us one - just one - that you think will need to be changed - and be specific - none of this "girls don't have the strength so the BSA will have to change requirements" non-answer either. Tell us specifically what advancement requirement a girl won't be able to do because of lack of strength or stamina. I can't find a single one. Instead of fearing that the BSA will make requirements easier, why not prepare to bombard National with messages if they do try to make a requirement easier by shaming them by pointing out how sexist they are for assuming girls can;t do what boys can do.

Harsh? I didn't sense that - Incredulity? That's more what I felt was being expressed. My first (and continuing) reaction is why is the committee even being considered to have a role in all of this. And yes, Prof does actually say the proposal (its not his, we understand that) includes a role - and a fairly substantial role at that - and that would be to review these formal session scorecards and discuss amongst themselves if a Scout needs to be removed from their POR. I think folks have expressed it well - it is NOT the committees job to be involved in evaluating whether the Scouts are performing in the PORs or in setting up some kind of formal scoring plan or in discussing, and possibly deciding, whether a Scout needs to be replaced in their POR. A Committee has three major roles and one minor role: Major 1: Staff up the program side of the adult leadership (SM & ASM's) appropriately, as well as ensuring adequate staff on the committee. Major 2: Provide logistical, financial and administrative support to the Troop. Support the program the PLC plans. The committee doesn't approve the Troop program, they don't an up or down vote on the program. It is appropriate for an SPL to make a presentation of the plans for the year. It is not the committee's job to then vote on it - its the committees job to help figure out how to make it happen - lining up drivers, etc. If they have any concerns over parts of the program plan, they tell the Scoutmaster and he brings it to the SPL to bring it to the PLC for further discussion. It should be something simple like "The weekend they chose to camp in April is the same weekend as the church's men's retreat and 4 out of 5 reliable drivers won't be able to drive the Scouts" with an occasional "The CO has asked that the Troop not do that kind of event so ask the PLC to plan something else". It is not "We don't want to spend a lot of money renting canoes so cancel the June canoe trip". Major 3: Ensure that the program is being delivered properly and safely - within CO and BSA policies. They do this by evaluating the Scoutmaster and ASMs - not by evaluating the Scouts. This leads to Minor 1: Many will disagree and say this is a major responsibility but hear me out: Staff up and run Boards of Review. Yes, this is an important function, but here's why I say its a minor responsibility - because it should be very very rare for a BOR to "fail" a Scout but all to often, people who do BORs think of themselves as gatekeepers and purity squads designed to be a major hurdle for Scouts to jump over. That's not the purpose of a BOR at all - its not a re-examination, it's not a chance for Committee Members to test the Scouts. If the Scout is showing up to the BOR with a signed book, and the Scoutmasters blessing, making sure he's done the work is the least of the BORs responsibility. The work is done, the work is signed of on - a Scout is Trustworthy - use the BOR for more important things. Remember how one of the Board's major responsibilities is to ensure the program is being delivered properly and safely? The BOR is one of the tools to make that happen. This is the time to sit down with the Scouts and find out what they like and don't like about the program - what is going well, what can go better, how are the SMs/ASMs, how is the condition of the equipment (btw - imho one of the best questions you can ask of a Scout coming before the Board for the first time is to ask is "tell me about your tent at your last campout" - if you get an "it was really hard to set up, it leaked, it was missing stakes, it was missing a pole, the pole was broken, etc." answer - doesn't that tell you a lot more about what your Troop needs than "here, tie a square knot"), etc. Yes, it's a major thing for the Scout, but for the Committee? It's an evaluation tool - not of the Scout but of the Troop, and that's why I suggest its a minor responsibility - because it falls squarely under Major Role #3. My answer to Prof would be tell the committee to stick to committee stuff - its the Boys, the SPL and the SM/ASM as advice givers/mentors that are the proper people to deal with PORs and evaluating whether a Scout is doing he job or not - trust us old timers - the Scouts can be far more demanding that you will ever be. As for mentors? The only formal adult/youth mentor should be SM/SPL. The SM mentors the SPL through their term. The SPL mentors the PLs. Mentors don't have to hold PORs either. The best mentor for a quartermaster is a former quartermaster - that former quartermaster might not have a POR at the time, or may have a different one - but he's still a valuable resource to the current QM. You don't need formal adult mentors for any other position (not even for a first year Patrol - that's why we have Troop Guides) - but that's not to keep ASMs from being informal mentors to any Scout at any time.

Council's are their own legal entity - chartered under the non-profit laws of the states they are doing business in. Council property is owned by the Council, not by National. When a Council owns a camp outright (ie not in a trust), it can make the decision to sell or not to sell without any input from National. State law will dictate what happens to a Council's assets if it shuts down. As long as it merges with another council in the same state, it's generally not a problem. But if it shuts down completely with no merger, the assets would not transfer to National but would be held in trust by the State until National certified that a new council or enlarged existing council was the proper successor and should get the funds or until the deadline to form a successor passed in which case the State would be able to divvy up the assets any way they felt appropriate provided they serve the purpose under which the assets were originally funded under the theory that funds raised for youth in a state should remain in that state to serve that state's youth.

Tents? Maybe if you aren't properly prepared and clothed. Cabin camping? No windchll in the building - bring some board games in case you decide its too cold for outdoor activities.

Selling Philmont it is. The reason organizations like the BSA hires firms that do surveys and polls is because its more expensive to set it up and do it on their own. You are advocating for the BSA to create a special survey database for approximately 2 million youth members. They'll have to hire people to do so. Survey Monkey isn't going to work. They'll then have to hire people to track and interpret the results. Now we're up to about $25 per Scout. No kidding - surveying 2 million people will cost millions - multiple millions. That's why no one surveys everyone (and no, those internet snap polls don't count - they're just counters - they are meaningless) and instead surveys a limited number of people. Do you know that the unemployment number we hear about every month is based on a poll of just 66,000 people a month? Just 66,000 people to represent approximately 200 million citizens over the age of 16. That's how surveys and polls are done. And if your going to survey all youth, does that include Tiger cubs? Do you think a 7 year old has enough of a grasp on the world to make a decision? Heck, most 7-year olds don't have a grasp on whats for lunch until its lunchtime. I respect your zeal - but zeal often slams in to the roadblock called reality - and usually loses.