David CO

Chicken or the egg? I am a little surprised to hear this level of anger directed at the CO. I can't help but wonder. Is this anger the result of the CO dropping a unit, or the cause of it? My Brother Knight, Eagle 92, is absolutely right. Most relationships with parochial schools and Knights of Columbus councils are more than amicable. I might add that these relationships are not accidental. They are carefully forged and nurtured. I wish that the relationships between CO's and their Scout units could always be so amicable. But Catholic schools do not have the volunteers for their basketball teams threatening to shop for another school and take the team name, mascot, colors, uniforms, "history", trophies, and equipment with them. Even if, in the worst case, if the team ceases to exist, the school retains these things. It is not just the team's history, it's the school's history. Scout leaders can be very unusual in this regard. They KNOW that the CO owns the unit. They KNOW that a Scout unit is a program of the CO and not a seperate entity. But they often FEEL otherwise. Scout leaders express these FEELINGS to the CO. The CO doesn't like it. The CO drops the unit. Chicken or the egg?

ScoutNut, The Knight of Columbus is Catholic, but it is not owned by the Catholic Church, it's dioceses, parishes, or schools. This is a common misunderstanding. And please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that it was simply a transfer from one parish organization to another. I can't even imagine myself ever saying something so foolish. I don't think it is at all silly that the owner of a unit has the final say.

ScoutNut, Yes, I have actually seen this happen. Much of my involvement in Scouting has been through my membership and offices held in the Knights of Columbus. I was an active participant in the transfer of a unit from a parish school to the KC's. The final decision was made by the two CO's. Unit leadership and participants were consulted, but not given a veto. This was not CO shopping.

The question was, "Who should be finding the new CO?" My answer is...the old CO. It is their unit to keep, close, or give away. If the IH chooses to deligate this authority, so be it. What EXACTLY am I suggesting? I am suggesting that you show the CO and IH some respect.

ScoutNut, In your example, where the CO closes, I would totally agree. It would benifit the boys, and it would not devalue the role of the CO. Both are important considerations. I am not suggesting that a unit should throw itself upon the CO's funeral pyre.

Having a CO that elects a new IH every year can pose some real challenges. No doubt about it. But take my word for it. It's no picnic for the IH, either. CO shopping isn't the answer.

I respectfully disagree with this idea of shopping for a CO. The CO owns the unit. It's their unit. If the CO chooses to close the unit, then the unit should close. Shopping for a new CO devalues the role of the CO, and that of any remaining CO of the council, to that of a mere sponsor.

Whoa, back up the boat! Is this true? Does Sea Base use a different set of safety rules? Does BSA have one set of rules for activities they run, and a more restrictive set of rules for Chartered Organizations? I ask because I never saw anything like that in the chartering agreement.

Our school has a healthy snack policy. Fruit roll-ups are fine. Chocolate chip cookies are not. Little Joey's teacher thinks it is UNBELIEVABLE that a parent might endanger their child with an unapproved snack, and, in the process, provide a bad example to... other peoples children! Oh, the humanity! Some parents object on principle, "The school has no right to tell me what to feed my child." Some parents object based on the situation, "I ran out of fruit roll-ups." Some parents object on expense, "I can't afford fruit roll-ups." The vast majority of the parents at our school are good, decent people who who want their children to grow up respectful of teachers and observant of school rules. But as the rules expand and intrude, many of us who used to be rule followers, have become rule breakers.

Yesterday, a Scout was selling popcorn outside my local Walgreens, and for the first time, I didn't buy any. I felt a little bad about not supporting the Scout and his Troop, but I will not support the Chicago Area Council.

ASM, you didn't say if the Scouter has a son in the unit. If so, the Scout lost his grandfather.

Beavah, even if his relationship with the man had been "good enough" to approach him, I doubt that it would remain so.

At this point, I don't think Gold Winger is for real. He's just yanking on our chains.

OGE, I honestly don't know.

Kind of makes you wonder how secure our personal info, SSN's and the like, really are?

Like many of my generation, I enjoyed and learned lessons from the morality dramas and sitcoms of the early 60's, Spin and Marty, Leave It To Beaver, Gunsmoke, etc. Perhaps my ethical development was not so much situational as it was situational comedy. One of my favorite shows was the Andy Griffith Show. I am very pleased that this, and a few others of my cherished oldies have gained popularity with the kids and grandkids. On the show, Andy and Barney were both law officers and they were both good, decent, and ethical people. But of the two, Andy was the better officer. Sure, Barney was the one who wore the uniform correctly. Barney could quote the manual from front to back. Barney was truly and honestly dedicated to his work. But even as a child, I "got it", and the grandkids still "get it". Barney used the rules to compensate for his lack of genuine competence and social skills.

Yes, OGE, you have the concept down, and it is silly.

The restrictive covenants are legally unenforceable and have no effect. Thank you. My city officials told me the same thing. Ethics is a different question, and ethics is a topic of this thread. I believe myself to be acting in a perfectly ethical manner when I disregard these restrictive covenants. Some might even say that ethics requires me to disregard them.

One of the covenants prohibited Cub Scouts/Girl Scouts (and other types of meetings).

Not everything I put my signature to is legally or ethically binding. My signature does not always not always convey a "promise" or "giving my word". It often does, but not always. When we purchased our last home, the deed included covenants that were not legally or ethically binding. Did I sign it? Yes. Was I legally or ethically bound by these covenants? No.

When buying a mini cooper converable, the customer is asked to sign an agreement promising to drive with the top down, whenever climate and conditions allow. It's a sales gimmic. It's a joke. I think it's funny, but I don't consider it legally or ethically binding. I suppose a person who thinks of ethics in very rigid and inflexable terms might feel otherwise. Now, chartering agreements and membership applications are not sales gimmics, and they're not jokes. We should give them all the ethical consideration they deserve, but only what they deserve. BSA is a corporation. While many of us would like to think of our relationship to BSA as being more than it is, we are, in fact, merely customers of a corporation. Our ethical obligations to BSA is that of a customer to a corporation. In the participation of Scouting activities, we develop bonds, friendships, and obligations to others. I would never seek to diminish the value of these relationships, or the social and ethical obligations that come with them. The ethical coniderations we extend to other customers of BSA should not, and do not, extend to BSA itself. It bears repeating. Our relationship to BSA is that of a customer to a corporation. We should act accordingly. I suppose a Scouting zealot who believes the planets and the stars all revolve around Irving, Texas, might feel otherwise.

What is it called now? It used to be "Chartered Partner" and "Chartered Partner Organization."

This is my first post to this site. I usually just lurk, but this topic caught my eye. Have you ever been a CO? I have, and I'd like to say it's not such an easy job. It is important to understand that people who head a CO are often elected to that position for a short, specified time. I don't consider it either negligent or irresponsible for a CO to listen to and heed good advice from more experienced Scout leaders.