SiouxRanger

I am not giving up on a failure of Plan 5 and the TCC having its say at the table with the added clout of a failed vote on National's Plan. I am not sure I understand how the LC's have a say in the amount of their contribution, considering: 1. Scout Executives are beholden to National for their career advancement, not to the local council, so Scout Executives have little reason not to toe the line with National's demands. 2. If National collapses and liquidates, of what benefit is it to a local council to decline to pay what National dictates if that refusal leads to the lost of its parent?

I have long maintained that the Scouting is in the entertainment business. It provides fun and challenging times (shooting, swimming, playing with fire (safely), knives,) learning new things, and comradeship with their friends, while those devious adults slip leadership, assuming responsibility, planning, ethics, morals, into the program to be absorbed seamlessly (perhaps with a bit of suggestion now and then).

"If common sense were so common, it would not be so valuable." -Ronald Rotunda (And almost certainly quoted by him from somewhere, but from him I heard it first.)

(Must have "clicked off) and lost a part of a sentence.) No one from the council ever became involved in the transition of tangible assets to my troop. All fo the stuff my troop received was of marginal value. We pretty much just took whatever was offered and much of it was useless, and disposed of.

I just throw this out there... @scoutldr's comment just has an interesting perspective to me. And that perspective relates to the DE being involved in negotiating the disposition of a CO's (troop) assets if the CO is is bowing out of the business of scouting. And this is not to counter @scoutldr's post, for I believe that many councils function along the lines he/she has experienced. In, and from, my experience, in my council, council staff have no interest in anything controversial at unit level. (And I have witnessed doozies.) Nor, would I, with my experience over 25 years at various levels of a council, even think, in my council, to engage a DE to resolve issues on the disposition of a troop's assets. With respect to my council, I do not think the staff could contribute anything useful. I have come to believe that councils have markedly different methods of operation, support for units by professional staff, toxic, supportive, assistive, etc. environments... Units in my council which have shut down have simply "passed on" their assets (tangible) to other units. Not quite sure what has happened to bank account/cash assets. Were my Troop to have to move to another Chartering Organization, I'd contact the Chartering Organization leadership, advise them of the Troop's move and ask it to sign off relinquishing ownership of all of the assets, tangible and financial. Frankly, I doubt there would be any objection. All Troop funds were raised from troop participants, youth and adult, for the purpose of operating the troop. I'd like to think that most chartering organizations would recognize that and waive any interest in them. As a practical matter, most troops' tangible property has no market value, and the cash/bank accounts are a few thousand dollars and just insignificant to most Chartering Organizations. Not to mention the "black eye" a chartering organization would receive if it bullied a scout troop. My troop has been the beneficiary of cook kits, dutch ovens, and such from disbanding units. No one from

Bingo. Double BINGO!! That is precisely the problem, and as I can't afford the time to follow this micron by micron, maybe someone in the case has raised the issue, but as near as I can tell, no one seems to care (Judge, U.S. Trustee...) At its simplest case, any attorney who represents a client from a state with an open statute of limitations and a client from a closed state who does not have a legally enforceable claim, is in an inherent and obvious conflict of interest. An irreconcilable, ethically fatal conflict of interest. Period.

(I've mentioned goings and doing with respect my Troop's Catholic Diocese in the past-which thread I have forgotten.) Ever thus, an update: Despite my several inquires of my Troop's Diocesan Scouting liaisons, one never responded and Diocesan legal counsel referred my other inquiry to the head insurance person whose response made no sense whatsoever. (And I am in the business of making legal sense of legal things.) So, some month or more later after my inquiries, the Parish pastor having signed the traditional chartering agreement contacted the Troop Chartered Organization Representative and asked that nothing be submitted to recharter the troop-as the Pastor was awaiting Diocesan direction. (Be Prepared, in this case means STOP, the unprepared are still unprepared.) So, my inquiries started in mid-September are still not answered in early December. Meanwhile, just tonight, an adult scouter associated with my Troop and serving as a Unit Commissioner (with whom I spoke for 2 hours and have known for over 20 years) said that the word from the DE, for our District, was that our Council was NOT willing to charter units. And so, our Troop is likely an orphan, by all appearances. (And, by extension, so would be all Catholic sponsored units in our Diocese.) (Space here Moderator, new topic follows-thanks). All of which raises the question of which entity owns the Troop's $4,000 checking account balance and the Troop trailer, and the tents, dutch ovens, fire pails, and such? TROOP REMAINS OPERATIONAL BUT CHANGES CHARTERED ORGANIZATION. 1. Troop remains operational but moves to a new Chartering Organization. One line of thinking is that the Chartering Organization owns the Troop's assets. And, at that, even if the Troop (being all the people, scouts and adults) leaves for another Chartering Organization, the original Chartering Organization can retain all of the Troop's Assets. (If it wants.) 2. A second line of thinking is that the "Troop" owns/controls the assets and can move them with the Troop and that the initial Chartering Organization has no claim to them. I don't know what the rules are. I would expect that most Chartered Organizations would acquiesce with whatever the Troop leadership desired. (Even if there are rules to the contrary.) Another issue is if a Troop completely ceases operation. There will likely be some bank account balance and tangible equipment (tents, dutch ovens, stove, etc.) In my experience, those troops have simply donated the tangible assets to other troops. What happened to bank account balances, I have no knowledge. I believe that National's approach is that if a unit ceases operation, its assets revert to its Council, and if a Council ceases operation, its assets revert to National. Just some thoughts, and if anyone has comments, I'd be interested in their experiences or analysis.

Thank you @yknot. And, your last point "that bears repeating" does truly bear repeating. Loud and boisterous fools and idiots can cause a world of pointless, expensive, and damaging rampage. My totally unscientific, statistically unsupported analysis, (having Aced my 300 level statistics course) is that the typical spread of forum registered folks compared to unregistered folks on the forum is about 5 to 130, so about 90% to 94% of the folks viewing the posts on this forum are not registered (and that is fine). And so I say again, chat and discussions among registered posters is not a MOVEMENT. If this forum does not create a political force which affects National bankruptcy, then why have we all bothered? 95%± of the folks who view this forum do not comment and their views are unknown, and I encourage them to register and let us know what they think. (And @Mrjohns2 and @qwaze, perhaps you might consider stating the basis of your downvotes, to which I will respond. And please mention the law school of your J.D. Degrees and state of license, mine being the University of Illinois, College of Law, Champaign, Illinois, licensed in Illinois since 1977.)

@mzzgwenef-- Welcome to the forum. Let the moderators help you get your message out.

Gee, a downvote for merely stating the "blackletter" (default, basic) rules of law pertaining to the formation of not-for-profits, related tax issues, and the liability protections and risks. No opinion. No position taken or advocated. Just the mechanics of it all. Like a downvote on a YouTube video explaining how to replace an oil filter on a truck. Hmmm. Never been a legislator, so don 't blame me for the rules.

By way of background: States issue corporate charters to folks who want to incorporate not-for-profit corporations. It is analogous to a birth certificate-it establishes the legal existence of the not-for-profit corporation. There are state fees to incorporate. Check with your state's secretary of state's office for the amount. There will be an annual renewal fee, also. Factor that cost in to the annual budget. Corporations, including not-for-profits, should have written By-Laws (about 30 pages of rules governing the corporation's operations-generally only prepared once at the time of incorporation) setting forth the rules of operation: election of directors, election of officers, establishment of bank account(s), corporate meeting schedule, etc. "Housekeeping" stuff. The By-Laws should be in conformity with the state's not-for-profit statute. Those statutes can be different from state to state. Not-for-profit corporations should hold corporate meetings, and should keep corporate records of those corporate meetings which would include recording any major corporate actions taken by the Board of Directors, elections of officers and such. It is important that those meetings be held, minutes kept, written up and entered in the corporate minute book. Failure to observe the "corporate formalities" could result in a court finding that the corporation existed only in name and not in fact, meaning that a claimant suing the not-for-profit might be able to "pierce the corporate veil," and hold the directors personally liable for the legal obligations of the corporation. This result is precisely NOT what folks want when incorporating a not-for-profit to serve as the chartering organization of a scout unit. Applying for a tax exempt status, 501(c)(3) status, is a Federal income tax issue and separate and apart from incorporating. It is a separate form of some length because everyone would like to be tax exempt-the form is long to ensure that tax exempt status is warranted. The cost of all of these initial steps, were an attorney and accountant to be hired to do the work, along with the state's incorporation fees could exceed several thousand dollars. Some folks do their own incorporations without professional help. That is fine if doing it solely for themselves because if not done correctly, only they suffer the consequences. But, if done for others, aside from practicing a profession without a license, if not done correctly, and others who would have been protected had it been done right, have no protection because done inexpertly, the person who undertook the work may be held liable for the damages suffered by the person who would have been protected. Typically, when someone undertakes to perform professional services but is unlicensed is held to the standard of performance of someone who holds the proper license. Some states may provide some statutory protection for directors of not-for-profits. It may depend on whether the director is uncompensated for their service, or the type of not-for-profit. Exemption from liability for officers of the not-for-profit is another legal issue to investigate. Generally, statutory exemptions from liability extent only to negligent acts. Intentional acts or willful and wanton acts are not exempt from liability. Another huge problem is that a person is generally liable for their own actions. So, someone signing off on an adult application of an adult who they know is suspect, runs the risk of being held accountable, even if they are also a director who may have an exemption from liability for other actions taken in their capacity as a director. This a practical issue with respect to scout units because active adults generally hold several positions simultaneously. The issue then becomes was signing off on a suspect adult application their act as a director (which may afford protection), or as a unit leader (which does not afford protection)? And further, is it an intentional or willful and wanton action that is not entitled to any protection at all? Finally, there is the question of a unit obtaining errors and omissions insurance for as many adults and positions as possible. Even, to the extent available, such insurance may not afford blanket protection. As plaintiffs' attorneys' mantra is: "Sue everyone with even a remote possibility of being held liable and let the judge sort it out," means if you hold a position and there is a claim, you will be named a defendant will become entangled in a lawsuit. If you are a named insured of a policy affording coverage for the claimed loss, you likely have coverage for the cost of your defense-your attorney's fees. If no errors and omissions coverage, your attorney's fees are your expense.

As with all of the "legal paperwork" relating to National and the local councils, it is a mess. Either intentional or by neglect. Had folks donating property for the use of Scouting truly wanted to limit the use of their donation to that as a scout camp and no other. And to prevent the sale of their donation, the legal path to do so is ridiculously simple, but apparently rarely used. The deed of conveyance of the donated property to the local council should have contained all of the restrictions desired by the donors. It also should have included was is called a "right of reverter," that is, which essentially provides that "if the property ceases to be used for the restricted purpose, title 'revert' to the donors (or their heirs)." Then, that deed is recorded in the public record and thereby puts the whole world on notice (actual, or constructive = presumed notice). Any prospective purchaser of the restricted property would have a title search conducted, find the deed of conveyance with restrictions and the right of reverter appear in the title commitment (a title company's written list of the documents adversely affecting title to the property), and require the local council to produce a document terminating the right of reverter before purchasing. (As a practical note, the more time which has passed after the original donation, the greater the number of heirs, in the usual course of life, and the greater the number of folks from whom the local council will have to obtain consent. Some may waive their rights, some may demand compensation, and other may outright refuse.) No buyer in their right mind would buy a property subject to a right of reverter without that right having been fully terminated, because, if not terminated, the heirs could file suit and seek a declaratory judgment that the heirs are the owners due to the operation of the right of reverter. The heirs would not have to pay any compensation to the buyer. That is a bad result for buyer. So, that there are "restricted" properties that are being sold without such adverse consequences to buyers (at least none mentioned so far in this forum), indicates that either: 1. all the heirs agreed to terminate the right of reverter, or, 2. the "restrictions" were a non-public agreement between the original donor and the local council (the buyer had no notice of them at the time of purchase) leaving the legal battle between the heirs and the local council. The buyer is in the clear, or, 3. the buyer had legal notice of the right of reverter, and is just taking a gamble that the heirs never show up to complain. (This is a horrible idea, as the deed from the council to the buyer is a public record available to anyone who wants to see and copy it. It will be public forever-and pretty clear evidence the local council violated its private agreement with the original donors.) And, for all of that, a legal structure much more protective of the donor's interests is to create a trust, transfer title to the trust, provide that the local council can use the property for so long as used as a scout camp, and that the local council's rights END when it is no longer being used as such. The heirs of the original donors would be the "remainder beneficiaries" of the trust and would be entitled to direct the trustee to do with the property as they see fit. In this scenario, title to the property would NEVER be held by the local council, and thereby, the local council would have nothing to sell. A title search would show that the trust owns the property and any buyer would require a deed signed by the trustee who will not do so without express, written direction of all of the remainder beneficiaries.

Part of my Wood Badge ticket was to improve my troop's opening ceremony, and I added the Outdoor Code to the ceremony, and some years in, it is still being recited.

I too have zero tolerance for role playing, games, and such. I really don't need that to motivate me. But, nearing the end of my scouting career, the wife of a great, life-long scouting friend of mine-both of them are strong Wood Badge folks, (4 leaders:) looked at me at a scouting dinner and asked, "Why haven't you taken Wood Badge?" Well, I have a lot of Scouting experience and just didn't think it would help me or that I would fit in. I said, "I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DISAPPOINTING MRS. XXX, (her) I SAID I'D GO." And, I just resolved to go along with the 2 weekends and then the Ticket. The weekends were a bit corny, definitely very high energy, and tolerable to fun. Made some great contacts. But the critical value was the Ticket. I have posted earlier, that the purpose of the Ticket was not made very clear but I finally figured it out. You need to complete 5 Ticket Items. Put 8 or 10 in your Ticket. If one or more becomes impossible, and they can, you have others you can do. Your Ticket items should be things you'd love to see implemented in the level of Scouting where you volunteer. I am largely at Troop level, so I had Ticket Items regarding improving Troop Meeting agendas, and campfire programs.. The kids loved it. The Big Question is "What Can I FIX?" Then make those items Ticket Items. And on the other side of the equation, most of my adult career has dealt with ugly, so 6 days of "corny," well a break. I had a good time. And trying a Wood Badge course in a different Council is also a viable idea.

I find Mr. Johnson's appearance on the stage of this situation to be a bit problematic. I posted early on asking if anyone had any idea what was his motivation. I don't recall any replies. I can see the arguments on both sides. That he was laid off or fired, is not very persuasive to me. Organizations tend to lay off or fire senior, knowledgeable managers who come to conclusions contrary to the company's preferred line. "Hire an expert for expert advice, and when the expert contradicts the company's, the amateurs look for another expert." "We can't let AAA continue as head of BBB, as AAA's conclusions will embarrass the company." And heads roll. I also have mixed emotions about whether the typical laid off/fired employee is likely to take to the national stage to vent. Frankly, most people are cowards. And not unjustifiably so. Most live closely tied to their paycheck and benefits and pension and are highly reluctant to take any action that would jeopardize their employment and income. They have families to support and careers to nourish. And, most folks are not inclined to make a sacraficial example of themselves for a cause that will not feed them or their family. Surely, it has crossed Mr. Johnson's mind that if he comes forward about the BSA scandal, his prospects for employment with other employers is dramatically diminished as employers are not looking for trouble makers or whistleblowers, but compliant, silent employees who do as they are told. And yet Mr. Johnson came forward and spoke. Why? He might be financially stable for retirement, not looking for another job, and can afford to speak his mind. Very few people are in that position. Many posters here, as one suggested are "old" and probably retired, and with the anonymity afforded by this forum have two levels of insulation from the brutal social media retaliation seen so often in the news. Mr. Johnson, however, stood up, put his name and face on the stage. I just can't summon the path for Mr. Johnson to convert his forthrightness into profit. Will anyone escape from National's bankruptcy with financial gain? Well, the claimants' attorneys at 40%, the TCC attorneys who I think are compensated on an hourly basis, with a voluntary contribution to the settlement, Claimants-something, but how much is unclear. But Mr. Johnson? Surely no big movie deal about this mess. Can't think that a few minutes of interview in a documentary about the collapse of BSA National pays well. A book? Who would read it? That Mr. Johnson reportedly declined to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is significant in my book. Essential an NDA is an agreement offered to a laid off/fired employee wherein the employee is agreeing to accept a sum of money, continuation of benefits, whatever, for their agreement not to disclose information about the employer, the employer's business, or the employee's work for the employer. It is a bribe. "You shut up, we pay." And a threat: "You don't sign and take the bribe, we may sue you-oh, and you won't have the bribe money to pay your lawyer to defend you." Strangely, employers rarely seem to obtain Non Disclosure Agreements when an employee is hired. And when a new employee would likely sign without an after thought. NDA's are generally offered after the employer wants to dispose of the employee-but then the employer finds itself at a significant bargaining disadvantage. I know an individual whom I greatly respect who declined to sign a council non disclosure agreement. A person of calibre. Two more points: FIRST. Many employment agreements, just guessing but highly suspecting, that Mr. Johnson signed before employment, provides that upon termination of employment all documents, records, memoranda, books. pamphlets, computer data, (you get the drift) are to be returned to BSA National, the employer. The point is that Mr. Johnson was contractually obligated to return EVERYTHING he received, saw, produced, or touched to BSA and if not he would be in breach of his employment agreement with BSA, and perhaps liable to a charge of criminal theft. So, were Mr. Johnson to do a "data dump" after his employment was terminated, BSA could not only brand him as a "disgruntled, non-performing, inadequate" employee, but also as a thief. There is a book in this: "The Art of the Smear." SECOND. My second point is that Mr. Johnson walked away from some amount of money by refusing to sign the Non Disclosure Agreement offered to him. Almost no one does that, my good friend excepted. And it was probably a significant amount of money. Probably more than $100,000 just judging from his position at National and could have been much more than that. So, most of my comment is pro Johnson, but I still wonder about the bona fides of the roll out of his appearance. If he is at the top of the food chain in his life, he can afford to speak out, but if not, then there are other considerations involved. And I do not know that they are.

@ThenNow having captured (been imposed upon) the position of Forum Dunce, so I'll just claim "stupid." I'll even answer to ":stupid and clueless." So, as I understand it, we have a volunteer who has spent 2 full weekends, at their expense, and perhaps 18 MONTHS WORKING THEIR TICKET to improve scouting at their level of involvement, and y'all are debating whether their beading ceremony should take 30 to 60 SECONDS, but GRACIOUSLY allow them 2 or 5 minutes? And, as one poster suggests, if the scouts, in the ideal "boy led troop" does not invite the beading ceremony into its COH, it should not be allowed (apparently as that would be some primal violation of that which is "Scouting.") Am I missing something? I guess we would not want an adult leader, Wood Badge awardee near recipient, to be honored before the scouts who look up to her or him. Why give scouts another reason to respect a mentor? (And as to the "boy led troop," concept, the "boys" are children and need A LOT of guidance in "their" leadership of their troop. And boys who are not guided by adults, things resort to William Golding's Lord of the Flies.)

When a young attorney realizes that they need to speak tautologically (at some point in the future) about something, they learn to THINK tautologically during their research, so that they can speak tautologically about it later. Not just a big word, but THE difference between a hack and a master attorney. And a master attorney is one among thousands or tens of thousands. They are rare.

I want to comment on this sentiment, having watched at least 3 TCC town hall Zoom meetings at which Mr. Stang and Mr. Lucas were speakers. There is this realization that comes to every young lawyer serious about his/her craft of the necessity of learning to speak "tautologically," that is, that every statement they make is true no matter what the circumstances it is applied to. This is not easy to do, nor easy to learn, but it is a must to practice law at the highest levels, and with the greatest precision of analysis, and clarity of argument. The ability to do so is the mark of a master legal craftsperson. When a lawyer hears a question, looks away into the distance for a moment to form his or her thoughts, and then speaks, THAT lawyer has learned the skill to speak "tautologically." Mr. Stang and Mr. Lucas have this skill down. From what I have seen, the TCC could not be better represented. (Being 45 years in myself.)

The goal is to get kids in the door, turn them into Scouts, with trained adult leaders, and teach them while they are having fun, learning life skills, and building relationships, in a safe environment. Any rules that get in the way of that, are obstructions.

On the other hand, if National allows someone to register for 5 positions, is that not an implied recognition of that person's right to earn the recognitions applicable to each of those positions? And on another front, Tom, multi registered, works himself silly, completes the recognition requirements for 3 of his 5 registered positions, though awarding them all would violate some rule(s), nevertheless, receives all 3 recognition awards. A lawyer's first question will be, "So what is the damage?" And a wholly insufficient answer is, "Well, he violated rules, though he works harder now as a volunteer than ever." There is no damage. So, even if a rule violation, there is no remedy. And the purpose of lawsuits (litigation) is to determine breaches of some standard, the amount of $$$ damages caused by the violation, and award $$$ damages to the injured party. A non-monetary remedy is an injunction. "We don't want Tom to hold 5 jobs simultaneously-yeah, he does fine-but cut him back to 1 job." We really want to discourage volunteers?

So, I've made this argument before. So, as I understand the issue is that we have an individual who has taken on TWO jobs as scouting volunteer, done one (perhaps both) well and is going to be DENIED performance recognition because of being double (triple, quadruple…) registered? Seriously? Who thinks up this trash? Being DESPERATE for volunteers, Scouting has rules to insult them? There are folks who can perform 2 or 3 or 4 Scouting unit, district, and council positions simultaneously in great form. I personally know many. I have held so many positions, at so many levels, for so long, many overlapping, and I have no interest in applying for whatever knots I might qualify for. I don't need any such motivation. (Anyone here getting a knot for the untold hours of reading and replying to posts on this forum? Yet we do it. No knot needed.) But, recognition is important to some to encourage their continued leadership. But, instead there are rules to defeat recognizing them for their efforts. Hmmmm.

I would note that I have been counseling distressed individuals and families for 45 years. And giving folks a bit of leeway, consideration, and forgiveness can work wonders. And that every injured soul appreciates a kind word. And a kind word costs nothing.

Another poster made a comment about this ending with "And now we return to your regular programming." I agree with his sentiment. Benjamin Franklin is attributed as saying, "We must all hang together or most assuredly, we will all hang separately." Long interpreted as "we all have to stand together." From that I take, in these difficult circumstances, we all need to make a special effort to cooperate for the greater good. There is a measure of patience (always underestimated in its significance by those who have the luxury of never having to demonstrate any), and humility (not easy either but I have several times upon the presentation of superior evidence by posters on this forum and learned thereby) to "stand together" for the greater good. There is a saying in the law: "Disagree without being disagreeable." (Well, perhaps, "Good Luck."). I have not seen the actual post which included the allegedly offensive contact information, and exhortation to contact the attorney. But, under the ancient concept of "demurrer," which means "we agree that all that is alleged is true, but that is insignificant." So, from my memory, I recall several occasions of posts of Mr. Kosnoff regarding all manner of issues and comments. Twitters (tweets?") and maybe other social media posts. I do not recall any objections by Moderators with regard to any of them. And, I think that there is a significant difference between a post which says: "Hey, have you seen this Tweet:" and one which says: "Hey, look at this Tweet, he has his act together, call…" It does not seem to me that @ThenNowwas endorsing Mr. Kosnoff. But even if so, I stand with @ThenNow as myself being something of a dunce on the rules. But I want to be PERFECT.Y CLEAR that @RememberSchiff has been a steady and sensible voice of moderation during my entire membership. And he would not be a moderator if not so. And I have absolute confidence in @RememberSchiff. I am not sure where the fault, if any, or issue lays. To move on, perhaps a modification of the rules on what can be quoted, and identifying the required redactions of phone numbers and email addresses.

This is a huge topic, but I agree that a complete review is required. My bio, resume, or whatever it is, on my profile, many positions held for 5 to 15 years simultaneously, I have had extensive experience as a scout, camp and Philmont Ranger Staff (one year responsible for the training of the entire Ranger staff), observing, teaching, and mentoring scouts, my three sons included. I have noted a tremendous diminution in the outdoor skills learned, or that are required to be learned, by scouts. And that few to none have actually mastered them. There is much to be said for requiring scouts to be organized in their thinking and in the expression of that thinking (written, spreadsheets), but adding that to the program to the extent that it has been, seems to have diminished and out-paced the former focus on outdoor skills. Scouting seems much more like school than development through outdoor education. Scouting today is not what is was when I was forming to become a fossil. But, I can save a life (Lifesaving was required in my day-I have), build a fire in a pouring rain, select a campsite on high ground devoid of widow makers, navigate, make shelter, signal searchers, select edible plants, and TIE MY KNOTS. And schools teach (perhaps) spreadsheets, but not fire-building or knots. Or Lifesaving… There is some balance to be struck, but what we have now, I do not think is it. I have seen many Eagle Scouts-ALL of them to be exact-who could not build a fire. Even in ideal conditions. So, some of it is the result of technology. Tents are all clips-no knots. Some sort of snap together, so "step back as it assembles itself." Who needs to build a fire, learn their wood types, make coals, tend the fire, and cook dinner? Nobody-we've got stoves! At Philmont in the 1970's, breakfast and dinner were cooked over wood fires. Just think of the time that that took. And crews still made it to program at the next camp. Today, with cold breakfasts and lunches, crews struggle to make it to the next camp for program (well, not all of them). Just some perspective on how Scouting has changed. Limiting Scouts to a mere 7 elective merit badges and the rest being heavily bookish, seems unbalanced to me.

Who?