CalicoPenn

Seriously? There is a Council out there that has made a rule about when you can start selling popcorn? I'd be laughing in the face of the DE, telling him/her to cram it, stop selling popcorn, and tell them not to bother coming by for a Friends of Scouting program until they got their heads out of their hind ends. I would not have packed up last night as you had permission from the hardware store owner to be there, unless the hardware store owner told you to leave and I would have told Mr. SM to go pound sand somewhere else. Any organization that raises fund by selling stuff like popcorn or cookies is just plain stupid if they hand out order forms or product and say "don't start selling until Saturday". Why would anyone not want to make their fundraising product available as long as possible? The Scout units in my area have been doing show and sells for the past three weeks already - I've already boutgh 5 tins of caramel corn from different units. (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I live in Illinois - in the top ten pork producing states in the US, we're number 2. Number 1 is our neighbor Iowa. To give you an idea just how much Iowa produces, Illinois produces about 1/3rd of what Iowa produces. Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't slouches when it comes to producing pork either. The rest of you may have a bacon shortage, but we'll be just fine in the upper mid-west as we make sure that we get our first.

"Gay marriage would herald a complete breakdown in society," Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, the head of the French Catholic Church, told Christians RFC radio last week." Ummm, Cardinal Barbarin does live in France, doesn't he? If so, he must know how ridiculous a statement that was - a breakdown in society France? Heck, Ronald McDonald sneezes and the French society breaks down.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

You can't just jump into Thunderbird Are Go - you have to work up to it, like this: 5....4....3....2....1 Thunderbirds are Go!

"For most of human history we had abstinence based cultural values, and they worked pretty well. Periodically there were efforts to promote sexual liberation, but they pretty much always failed in the ability to care for children and women and such." For most of human history, life expectancy was brutal and short - less than 30 years for the majority of folks, less than 50 for the elite. For most of human history, people didn't get "married" and for most of human history, the onset of puberty didn't mean teenager, it meant, time to breed and have kids. Romeo and Juliet are 14 in the Shakespeare's tale - in modern times, thats a teenage love story - in Shakespeare's time, that's an adult love story. For most of human history, the cultural value was breed, as often as possible to ensure the survivial of your tribe. Abstinence, as a cultural value, is less than 200 years old. One of the reasons the Puritans were persecuted in Europe was because of their promotion of abstinence, which went against the cultural norms of the time. It wasn't until the Victorian era that abstinence became something to really aspire too - and that was more of an attempt by the middle class to show how much better they were than the lower classes, where abstinence was still laughed at. As for working well? once one takes the rose-colored glasses being used to view history of the last couple of hundred years, one starts to see how laughable that concept is. The innocent 1950's? Yeah, not so much - a lot more teen girls were getting pregnant than folks think. In fact, the highest pregnancy rate of teens since the 1940's was in the mid-1950's with a rate of 96.3/1,000. From there, it steadily declined, mostly because of comprehensive sex-ed in the schools and increasing use of contraceptives except for a slight uptick in 69/70 until it started climbing again in the mid-1990's, when abstinence only education was making headway leading back up from the 40's to 61.8/1,000. In contemporary times, studies show that there is more teen pregnancy occuring in locales with abstinence only education than is locales with comprehensive sex-ed. Now, as the moralists all cry the sky is falling, the teenage pregnancy rate, as of 2010, has dropped to the lowest it's been in 70 years, 34.3/1,000 - mostly due to increased use of contraceptives and messages that its best to wait to start a family without pounding on abstinence. Sorry, Seattle, history and facts don't support your statements. And should there be any question, I support the schools giving out the "day after" pill, provided that the parents have signed off on it. If it helps drop the teenage pregnancy rate even further, which will drop the abandoned baby rate, and the abortion rate, I'm all for it.

"Furthermore, Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, funneling money to Al Qaeda and other anti American groups. Iraq also had a large stockpile of chemical weapons, which Saddam used on the Kurds." Except that Iraq didn't funnel money to Al Qaeda - the Saddam regime hated Al Qaeda and was the reason Al Qaeda wasn't able to get a foothold in Iraq. I know it was one reason put forth by the administration and was trumpted on front pages but when the administration backed off and admitted it wasn't true, the corrections were on the back pages, where a lot of folks missed it. That's not to say that Saddam wasn't supporting terrorism, we know, by his own admission, that he was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who "martyred" themselves. We also know he had - key word had - chemical weapons - yet none were used during the second war with Iraq and no stockpiles were found. Lest us also forget, that as the drums of war were getting louder, Iraq let the UN inspection teams in and they were finding nothing to support the administrations weapons contentions - in fact, they were finding the opposite, and asked for more time but Bush had made up his mind and nothing was going to stop him from having his little temper tantrum and play out his oedipal complex (and I do still believe it was a temper tantrum (they allegedly tried to kill his daddy) and that he was going to show his mommy that he could be stronger than daddy by finishing what his daddy allegedly didn't).

We're Boy Scouts, can't we just bypass the whole Kool Aid/Flavor Aid stuff and call it what it really is? Bug Juice!

First - stop making it personal by attacking Merlyn - he's usually more right than wrong and just because he doesn't agree with what you think the world should be like, doesn't mean he's wrong about what the world really is like. If Merlyn feels he's been insulted, he's been insulted. The personal attacks against Merlyn just drag the threads to places that they don't need to go. Second, AZMike - you missed the point - it doesn't matter who ANERA is working with - what is comparable is to the BSA's relationship with Intel is the relationship between Intel and ANERA - as long as ANERA is following Intel's policy, they can get a grant. The rest isn't comparable at all. Third - not going to buy from Intel? Well, most of us will never buy directly from Intel - and Intel is the largest semi-conductor company in the world - you have a better than 50/50 chance that any piece of electronic equipment you buy, from PCs and Mac, to I-pads and I-phones, to Smart Phones, to Flat Screen TVs to Car Radios, to your toaster, will have an Intel semiconductor ship inside - and the equipment may even have a mix of Intel and other companies chips inside, so good luck not buying indirectly from Intel.

"Romney is a good guy. He's pragmatic" "He's an honest, honorable guy" Are we talking about the guy that bullied a high school classmate then said it never happened? Are we talking about the guy that his sons tell "endearing" stories about family events, like tripping a daughter-in-law to win a race (Honorable? Really??) or mashing whip cream into a grandchilds face because it's fun? Are we talking about the guy who wonders why we can't roll down airplane windows for fresh air (Pragmatic? Really??)? Are we taking about a guy who drew criticism from his own party for his remarks after the Ambassador to Libya was killed? Pack - tell me you're yanking our chains here.

""Please state similar examples of power control by Democratic leadership.." Why? Will similar examples change your mind? A person sincerely wanting to know of such examples will research the matter themselves rather than entrusting the task (simple though it may be) to a character who writes "jibberish." Callooh! Callay! posts may occasionally illuminate things some wish weren't so. But this isn't a research service. The curious ought find sources written in a register they comprehend. Then, minds fortified with information on par with their vituperation, with reading practice and careful study, confusion could give way to clarity and their reading comprehension might improve such that these posts will no longer read as gibberish." Translation for the rest of us: "Ummm, I can't prove the BS I'm spouting so I'm going to continue to claim I'm right without providing any proof and demanding that you do my work for me". Typical tea bagger nonsense. Oh, and Bob Dole does the best Bob Dole there is - you're clearly an inferior copy.

I think folks are missing a key word here. Ohana didn't say he got contacted by A committee chair - he said he got contacted by MY committee chair. That leads me to suspect that Ohana is an MBC for a troop. If it was a random CC, I'd invite him not to send any lads from his troop my way. From my unit? I'd tell the CC that I would drop the merit badges immediately, even in the middle of counseling scouts, if the CC even thinks about attempting to force me to water down the requirements, and doesn't back me up 100%.

"Now I'm confused, I thought Beavah was a liberal." Nahh, Beavah is an old fashioned conservative, they kind of conservative that made up the mainstream of your father's GOP. The kind of conservative that the tea party and right wingers think is liberal. The kind of conservative that, as the party has been pulled to the right, pulling the Democratic Party to the right as well so that centrists are now liberal Democrats and liberals are now called the far left by the ignorant right, are now thought of by the GOP as being Democrats. "I note that the Intel Corporation actively supports the Gaza Islamic University" Actually, the Intel Foundation is supporting ANERA - a US 501c3 organization - in support of an educational program in Palestine. Unlike the Boy Scouts of America, ANERA doesn't have a policy of discrimination based on sexual orgainzation. The countries they work with may have laws against homosexuality, and folks in the Islamic religion may interpret the Koran to mean that homosexuality is a sin, just like folks in the Christian and Judean interpret the Bible and the Torah in that way, but granting organizations generally don't require that their recipients only work in areas where there is no discrimination - official or otherwise. They only require that their grantees follow their policies. To do otherwise would mean that no one would ever get funding. Intel would have to make sure that none of their grantees does work in states like Arizona, or Utah. I know you want to paint Intel as being somehow hypocritical, but it's really not. Intel may have announced that they will no longer fund grants and matching funds (which are a form of grant) directly to the Boy Scouts but they didn't announce that they would stop funding organizations that work with the Boy Scouts. They may not give money to the Scouts but they'll still give money to, for example, nature centers that bring Boy Scout units through for programs. That's how the ANERA grant works too.

Part of my job entails writing grant proposals. Every Foundation I am aware of (and we have a huge book full of Foundations and their granting policies and procedures) has rules that need to be followed, and that "discriminate" for and against certain types of funding. Most commonly, the discrimination is in what they choose to fund. A Foundation could limit itself to health then limit itself further to mental health, or pre-natal health, or cardiac health, or name a type of care here. Sometimes, they fund only research, sometimes they fund home visit programs, sometimes they fund doctors (a foundation might fund the salary, benefits and needed equipment for a cardiac doctor in a rural hospital without such a doctor), sometimes they fund equipment, sometimes its education. A lot of foundations fund only the arts - and it might be a broad "any form of art" or it might be opera only, or dance, or sculpture. They might fund artists directly, or a local theater company. They might specialize in art appreciation for schools, or local art series in rural or urban settings. There are grants for environmental causes only, or for anti-war activities, or for scientific research. Watch PBS and you can get a sense of what some of those foundations want to emphasise based on what they sponsor - if it's Masterpiece, then they likely want to sponsor arts, if its Nova, then science education. Frontline? Political education. I don't think most of us would see this as an insidious form of discrimination. Foundations can also fund very specific groups. The most common, one that even the largest foundations often have, is that they don't fund programs for youth (for instance, a PBS funder might fund Masterpiece but not Sesame Street so don't ask), or that they prefer to fund programs for youth and not adults, or that they fund programs for senior citizens but not anyone under the age of 60. A lot of foundations fund locally, regionally or a borader sense of where one lives. They might only fund urban programs, or only rural and farm programs (its rare to see a foundation fund only suburban programs unless its tied to a specific locality). There are foundations that fund only programs in the Great Lakes - sorry Iowa, we know you border three Great Lakes States, but you aren't so no. Or they may fund programs along the Mississippi River, or the Pacific Coast, or the Southwest. There are foundations that fund only programs in Chicago, or New York City, or Texas. Look hard enough and you might find a small foundation that only funds programs for just your town, no matter how small it is. These are often set up by folks that grew up in that town, or have lived there all their lives, and want to improve the town on an ongoing basis rather than with a one-time donation. There are foundations that fund just one college, or one park district, or one library. There are alos foundations that can be very specific - at this level, some folks start to question if these foundations are negatively discriminatory - these are foundations that will fund only Catholic or Jewish or Muslim programs. They're foundations that will fund only programs for caucasions, or blacks, or asians, or hispanics. They're foundations that will fund only straights, or gays. Nothing prevents these foundations from doing so - it is their money after all, and even though a Lutheran might not be able to apply for a grant that funds only Catholics, there is still a sense that the community as a whole will still benefit. But there is something most of these foundations have in common - although they may be discriminating on a broad basis (with the exception of the last group), they often have policies preventing their grantees from discriminating on an individual basis - and they most often follow federal or state human rights laws. A foundation that only funds the arts may give funds to your community theater but if you won't cast black actors, or refuse to sell tickets to hispanics, then you will lose the grant because you are now violating their anti-discrimination clause. Most company based foundations, like the Intel Foundation, follow the same anti-discrimination policies as their companies and they require their grantees to follow those same anti-discrimination policies as well. It really doesn't matter if its an employee match grant or a grant in kind, or a direct grant - if you violate their anti-discrimination policies, you don't qualify. Is that unfair to the employees in an employee match program? No - because the company is not obligated to support any organization it's policies would prevent it from funding just because an employee is active and funding that program. Intel's rules are pretty standard amongst corporate foundations. It's a same that the local units and councils are now going to lose out, but since the Intel Foundation has an announced policy, they have to follow it, or face questions about why it funds one discriminatory agency and not another. This all kind of leads to the larger issue that's been hiding like an elephant in the center of the room - society has changed - the big corporations are reflective of that societal change - once the big corporations start reflecting that change, sitting around hoping that society will go back to "traditional values" is an exercise in futility. Unfortunately, it puts the Boy Scouts in between a rock and a hard place - they can either change their policy so that corporate dollars won't be withdrawn, or they can keep their policy to prevent their feared loss of membership numbers.

"Agreed. Looking at the photo jpg properties,I was unable to determine owner and note there is no CNN copyright specified. I wonder if the photo came from Council/BSA??" Looking at the photo on the web, alongside it is attribution to Getty Images. Getty Images is a stock photo shop - they have an extensive catalog of stock imagery available to the press. Getty buys photos and all the rights from photographers to put into their catalog. "A question, did this scout check Yes under Talent Release Agreement, Part B, of the "idiotic" (IMO) Annual BSA Health and Medical Record?" Probably irrelevant - unless the BSA is in the habit of selling photos to stock houses like Getty, it was likely a photo taken at an event in a public place. In most of the US and Europe, photographers are free to take and sell photographs of people in public places and at events open to the public without the need for a talent release, a model release, or any permission or acknowledgment. Unfortunately, that pretty much leaves this Scout SOL if CNN doesn't respond.

"If a parent is not a leader, for what ever reason, the Scout can still participate and excel in Scouting!" Except there is a really big difference if you got to make that choice for yourself or if that choice was made for you by people you don't know and who don't know you.

I'm still seeing a lot of "W" stickers on cars out in the Chicago burbs. I do see more Obama stickers than Romney stickers, by about a 3 to 1 margin.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I believe I mentioned that this time around, the issue has a bigger media impact because now the BSA isn't just slamming the door shut on single folks being leaders, now they're slamming the door shut on parents. So why should that make a difference because, as SMT says, they can still be Scout Parents? Here's how - Because being a Scout Leader creates a different dynamic with their sons than being just a Scout Parent - and for most leaders, that dynamic is an important part of the whole experience that they want for their sons. Think about why you became a Scout Leader - think about how important that was to either or both you and your son. How many Cub Scout leaders became leaders because their Cubs asked them to? Ask around at roundtable and other district events and I believe you'll find a lot of leaders answering yes, that's exactly why they became leaders, because their sons asked. Yeah, sure, some might argue that its because another leader asked them, but in my experience, the ones who are quick to say yes are the ones that already were thinking about it because Joey asked first and they were just waiting for an opportunity. Now, we have a new set of parents coming in, and as much as some would like to turn back time that set of parents will be around for a long time to come. I saw the writing on the wall 7 years ago when there was a spate of stories about gay couples adopting infants - eventually, those infants would be Scout age, and the BSA was going to face exactly this dilemma. To call parents that want to serve as leaders for their sons selfish, and having temper tantrums, because they refuse to stand back and let the Boy Scouts of America treat them like second class citizens, to say on the one hand "your son is welcome' while on the other hand "but you aren't" is despicable. No wonder Scouts are hearing snide comments while selling popcorn. Who is really being selfish here, and throwing the temper tantrums? In my opinion, it's those who refuse to accept that times have changed, and are trying to keep other parents from serving in the same way they did for their children. Indeed, to answer those who insist that the Boy Scouts continue to discriminate because they don't like the other people: Guess what? Its not about you! Its about your son!" So what if you no longer have an exclusive right to be a Scout leader! "Big deal! Who cares? Get over it!! You can still be an active parent! Your son can still be a Boy Scout and experience all Scouting has to offer. And you can be there to help him do it! The bottom line is that Scouting is about your son experiencing the outdoors with his friends, learning to be a leader through failure in a safe environment, and becoming a self reliant man through a program that can be found nowhere else!! Stop being a baby and grow up! Its not about you! Sacrifice a bit of your all mighty pride and think about your son and what he really needs to become a real man!" Its not the end of the world if there are gay leaders! "Stop whining and think about someone else besides yourself! You had a kid, now deal with it! Take care of him & put his needs first! Scouting is about him, not you!

Oh thank goodness, we didn't need another furry creature with buck teeth hanging about

"Just another example of how intolerant those who demand tolerance can be." Right, because people should be more tolerant of bigotry and prejudice (rolls eyes). This kind of statement is as laughable as the use of the term 'political correct' in trying to defend ones right to be an ignorant bigot.

You say "Thanks anyway, have a nice day" and move on and be grateful that they actually acknowledged you and said something, and not just looked through you and don't acknowledge your presence like a lot of people do. Around here, it's the folks that just walk right on past without even so much as a grunt that generates the most negative feedback from the sales folks. Onf of the things you teach the lads is that folks do have a right to free speech, that the BSA made a statement that's pretty controversial to a lot of people, and they might just get some folks making comments. Then, as your anger is building up, you might reflect on how well you treated the last few telemarketers that called you - were you polite and said "no, thanks" or did you swear a blue streak at them before you hung up. Then you take another deep breath and remember that most folks have short memories and unless the BSA doubles down next year, it won't be fresh in people's minds when next year's popcorn sales roll around.

The degree of my reaction would depend on a number of factors: First, was the leader withholding so it would be a surprise to the Scouts - it would still be poor judgment but the thinking might be understandable. Second, is there a pattern of infromation being withheld from parents - that's an instant red flag to me. Third, would I have sent my son on the trip if I knew what the real activity was. Fourth, how badly was my trust in the leaders damaged. That said, in this hypothetical, my son would no longer be part of that Troop, and not necessarily because of the change in plans but because there was no certified climbing instructor. No matter that the event took place without a hitch, you'd never convince me that the boys safety was the number one priority when leaving out the one person whose number one job was to ensure the boys safety in climbing.

I was a young Scouter, chair of the District's Health and Safety Committee, an EMT working on upgrading to Paramedic, and was asked to run the First Aid Meet. The format of our first aid meets were always the same - 5 problems to solve, all increasing in difficulty, all increasing in time alloted, all dealing with injuries in the woods, none dealing with illnesses, at least one with a transport on a stretcher, and the last one always dealing with 2 vicitms and multiple injuries so that the victims ended up looking like mummies. Then a 15 minute cartoon or safety film while the judges added up the scores. If you paid close attention, you'd learn that the questions started to repeat themselves - the same sets of questions were used for over 20 years, just rotating through. A lot had changed in those years but the questions never did. I made some slight modifications to the format - there would be 6 questions now, all freshly written for the meet. There was a mix of questions covering injuries one might come across at home/school/in town and on camping trips. One of the questions dealt with heat related illness. The question dealing primarily with lacerations was someone being cut in the kitchen with a knife or broken glass. There was no longer a question about a Scout tumbling off a cliff breaking an arm and a leg and some ribs and cutting themselves and banging their head and twisting an ankle and on and on and on. I tried to keep the questions grounded in likelihood rather than throwing the kitchen sink at folks. A Scout taking a tumble and breaking a leg is far more likely than a Scout taking a tumble and looking like a scarecrow at the end. None of the solutions would take longer than 10 minutes to complete (no more 20 minute marathons). But each of the teams were given 10 minutes to complete their first aid, along with 3 minutes to read and discuss the problem. Scouts were warned to listen to and read the instructions very carefully. One of the questions dealt with witnessing a car crash - no fuel leaking - with a couple of injuries. They key part of the question was "Fire Department Paramedics are less than 4 minutes away". Teams were given 10 minutes to complete. Only two teams earned full points - one was a Webelos Den (have I mentioned yet this was the first year we invited Webelos Dens to participate?) that did nothing because they were overwhelmed by the number of injuries (this would have been a final question in prior years) - the other was a team that realized Paramedics were 4 minutes away so they told the judge they would call 911 and just try to comfort folks that help was on the way. A couple of teams were given half points when they treated for shock only but the rest of the teams tried to treat as many injuries as they could in 10 minutes. In the past, we didn't share the scores with the teams before they were turned in - I changed that as well - the judges reviewed the scores so the teams would know where they did well and where they went wrong - there were a bunch of leaders already upset that I had changed the way problems were done in the first place - after all, we had done it a certain way for over 20 years - but now this question drove a lot of them over the edge. I held firm though, and by keeping a running tally of the scores, was able to announce and award 5 minutes after the last problem, as teams were still working to clean up, the winners and the ribbons. At the next roundtable, when a discussion of the first aid meet started, one of the most vocally opposed "old-timers" got up and said that after he got home and thought about it and talked it over with his Scouts, he came to the conclusion that the problems posed were the most realistic he had seen in his 20 years as a Scouter, that the question with the paramedics 4 minutes away really wasn't a trick question but a great reminder of how much has changed in the last 20 years, and how his Troop had to adapt their training a bit, and that he sure did appreciate the event running less than 2 hours instead of the usual 3 then thanked me and led a round of applause. That's the best compliment I got as a Scouter. The next year, a friend of mine hooked up an internal telephone line in a "phone booth" that would ring to another phone if the number 911 was dialed and throughout the event, teams would have to send someone to the phone to call for help - as one team finished, a runner would bring a card to the next team, right in the middle of working a solution, to send someone for help. This time, when one of the Scouters complained that I was taking team members away from working on the solution and we should do that when they teams were in the middle of squaring things away for the next problem, and I explained that in a real life situation, at least one of the members of the team would be sent to go for help (and that every team, throughout the event would lose someone for a short time during a solution and none would get an unfair advantage), the Scouter thought a second, said that makes sense, and went away with a smile on his face. That was probably the second best compliment I got.

I think people are being unfair in criticizing Thomas and his leaders for the discussion on the Eagle Scout's project with the new IH. It was the IH that brought the project up in a meeting with these leaders on other issues. Thomas has shared with us his impression that the new Commander is going to be difficult to work with. Yes - in a perfect world, the leaders could have explained to the IH that the pavilion discussion was something to be had with the Scout, and it appears they did try to do so, but my impression is that the IH wasn't at the meeting to listen and learn, he was at the meeting to demand that certain actions take place. In reality world, if you tell someone like that they have to talk to the Scout about it and not the leaders, they tend to get even more belligerant and angry. Pushing him to follow the BSA procedures (talk to the Scout not the leaders) would more likely cause the IH to just unilaterally declare the project was dead and the Troop was out. I think Thomas and his fellow leaders did the best they could in a difficult situation to allow for some time to get away and reflect and talk to the Scout about what's going on. I'm not seeing adults taking over a project here - I can't imagine where anyone else is coming up with that idea. I see a Scout who asked a qualified adult to help design a new pavilion (and I've a hunch that Thomas worked with and reviewed the plans with the Scout as they were being developed and that Thomas let the Scout know how much time he put into designing the new pavilion so the Scout could add his hours in). I see leaders ambushed by a new IH who can now have a conversation with the Scout and give him warning and time to plan what to say to the new IH. Better the leaders were ambushed than the Scout. This new IH already threatened to cancel the project if he didn't get his extra 25%. If I were a leader ambushed like that, I might consider agreeing to it as well if only to save the Eagle Scout's project and to try to start re-building a relationship. Of course, its still up to the Scout to decide if that agreement will be honored or if the project just gets dropped altogether. It's pretty clear to me based on questions in a related thread about how much fundraising the Troop has done for this Post that the Post isn't about to cough up the extra funds - maybe that's something the Troop should do if the project moves forward. I say good job in a difficult situation - and hope everything works out well - let us know.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Frank has great advice having gone through it - a lot of it is long term stuff but getting the American Legion District and Department Boy Scout honchos involved lets them have a chat with the new Commander about how important the relationship is between the American Legion and the Boy Scouts - and frankly, even though the Boy Scouts risk falling into irrelevance over their policies, the American Legion is probably a dying breed altogether - when the youngster of the Post is 67 years of age, it's pretty much a doomed post - and they can't really afford to alienate even more people (just imagine how younger veterans, already wary about the American Legion, will feel about them when they learn the American Legion is chasing away Boy Scout units). Do you have a good relationship with the former IH? Post Commander is an elected position, but its not unknown for former commanders to take the current commander aside and give him what for and straighten him out - a quiet conversation with the unit's friends in the Post could do wonders. Beyond that, once you get your Eagle Scout issue settled, I think I might be looking for a new CO anyway - you're going to need it sooner or later anyway.

Basement - the way I read it, the original project, planned by the Scout, was to replace the roof on an existing structure - that is the plan that got approved. In doing the work, the Scout ran into a not uncommon issue - the original work was poorly done and the posts holding up the roof collapsed meaning the original project couldn't be completed. At that point, the project gets a bit more complicated - now, the pavilion has to be replaced in it's entirety, and in order to do that, you need drawings (replacing the roof requires no drawings - you take the old roof off, replace with new materials but the roof doesn't really change, not unless you've redesigned the roof as well). The Scout appropriately asked for guidance and is fortunate to have someone who could draw up the plans for the pavilion (unless donating time, an architect could have charged quite bit for new plans - forget an added cost of $250 for the extra amount the IH wants, think another $750 or more just for plans). The Scout is still running the project, I see AN adult acting as a professional advisor at this point, an appropriate role for an adult with this kind of project. As for the scope creep - you've already had it when the original plans collapsed with the collapse of the supporting poles. I take it your replacement plan was to build a pavilion using the same foot print of the original building? Question - was the CO consulted about the new plans? Maybe not this new IH, but the old IH, or whomever originally signed off on the plans? Did they sign off on the new plans? The IH talked to you about the project during the course of another meeting - it's appropriate to let the new IH know that you'll pass that information along to the Scout and he should expect a call. Then you should let the Scout know about the conversation and ask what he thinks he should do. It might be easy to say just go do something else, but there is a complication in this instance. The pavilion was drawn up as a replacement for a pavilion that has already been knocked down - it seems there is an ethical and moral obligation to replace the pavilion that was already removed rather than just abandoning the project altogether. If the plan was to replace the entire pavilion and no physical work had already started, then walking away to find a new project might have been best - but since the Scout has already knocked down the building, it needs to be replaced. Here's the options as I see it - they will require some communications with folks from the IH and Council. The Scout replaces the knocked down pavilion with a duplicate of what was there, rather than with the new pavilion design. The IH probably won't sign off on the project being completed - and this is where you and the Scout talk to the COUNCIL advancement chair to see if this would still count for his project if the beneficiary won;t sign off because he's not happy with the Troop. The Scout replaces the knocked down pavilion with the new design, as drawn up, with no changes, The IH probably won't sign off on the project being completed - see above. The Scout adds four feet to the project and raises another $250 for it. There is still a risk that the IH still won't be happy and won't sign off. I think your first step is to contact the Council AC before you folks go any further - if the AC says without the beneficiary signature, it won't count, the Scout needs to decide whether to look for another project - pronto and then the Troop figures out a way to build a duplicate of the original pavilion. Question - what position does the person who originally signed off on the plans have with the IH now? If he's still an officer, can you bypass the IH completely on this and have him sign off as an officer? Sure, the IH will be hacked off, but it sounds like he already is.