David CO

Can you see the problem here? You are talking about hiring district employees to do the unit volunteer's job.

I disagree with the top down approach to scouting. Anyone who takes a top down approach, I disagree with. Let's start at the beginning. A group of boys want to go camping. They belong to an organization. So, that organization charters a boy scout troop. Members of the Chartered Organization volunteer their time to the troop because they love and support the kids. This is good. Let's look at something else. A council employee gets evaluated based on the number of kids who sign up. His job depends on numbers. So, he pushes to charter new troops and new scouts. Many of the scouts and scout leaders don't really want to go camping. They have other motives for joining. But they boost the employee's numbers, so he's fine with it. He even encourages it. This is bad. I am one of the people who love and support the kids. I don't care about the numbers. I have no great desire to promote scouting. I want to help the kids to go camping and have fun. A game with a purpose. No other motive here.

No! No! No! I was joking. The one time people agree with me here, and I was joking. Aaargh.

Ya think! I can't think of anything that would be more indicative of a top down perspective in scouting than paying kids to be scouts.

Of course I'm being sarcastic.

As long as we are heading down this slippery slope, why don't we just pay the older scouts to remain in the units? Make it a job instead of a POR. This would create a lot of jobs in a market where teenage employment opportunities are becoming increasingly scarce. If the adults aren't willing to volunteer their time, why should the teenagers be asked to do it for free?

I think it is clear that the powers that be will never step down from their control of BSA. Positive council changes can only occur if a bankruptcy process forces them out. I hope it happens soon.

I think it's the main reason. Nobody likes to waste their time attending meetings to just rubber stamp stuff.

Yes. Having the executives in charge doesn't work.

I think you are overstating it a bit. Scouting doesn't really have all that much of an impact.

No, we just don't want the SE's guy as an officer. You can't have proper oversight of employees if they get to select at-large members of the board. Board members should never be beholden to the SE for their office. I was an IH. It would have never even occurred to me to push for "my guy" to be a council officer. My Chartered Organization was simply not that interested in BSA.

District can't hurt me, so I just ignore it.

Ideally, It would be the Chartered Organizations. The CO's should appoint the COR's, and the COR's should select the council officers from within their own ranks. With all of the talented people that exist inside the various Chartered Organizations in a council, they really shouldn't have to search very far to find good people.

It sounds as if you are contradicting your previous statement.

I agree. We should not do either.

Sure it can hurt. It can hurt a lot. To start with, it can hurt to the tune of a tax for another $60 per year per scout. It can hurt by doubling the annual dues. It can hurt by charging exorbitant prices for uniforms. The list of hurts goes on and on. One thing is clear. The wealthy don't care about the poor. Put them on a board, and you will not end up with good programs and modest scout camps. You end up with the summit. The wealthy board members have a quid pro quo arrangement with the scout executives. The SE appoints them to the boards. They return the favor by giving the SE job security. Neither of them give a fig for the Chartered Organizations, the units, or the scouts. This is council.

If you have been following the college admissions scandal, there is something you can take away from it. People are sick and tired of having wealthy people buy their way into positions that, by all rights, ought to be earned. People who bypass the admissions process and buy their kids way into college can go to jail. Now, I am not a socialist. It is no business of mine how much money somebody else makes, how big a house he lives in, or how nice a car he drives. But unlike houses and cars, some things should not be for sale. When my kid tries out for a baseball team, he should have the same consideration as the kid from the wealthiest family in town. When he goes to college, he should be judged by his grades and not by his parents' bank account. Everyone should come into scouting on an equal basis. The idea that awards and positions should be gotten based on money and social status is morally repugnant.

This is exactly what I am against, and why I dislike councils so much.

The unit number was probably the least of my concerns when I first chartered my unit. I don't understand why some scouters put so much importance in a number. We picked the same number as our post office box.

… giving the SE the ability to stack 1/3 of the board with his hand-picked minions.

Not a good idea. If you have the unit key three all voting and representing the Chartered Organization at council, CO's might insist that all three positions be held by active members of the Chartered Organization. It is often hard enough for a Chartered Organization to find a good COR from within its membership.

It sounds to me like you want scouting to be controlled by wealthy elites. No thank you.

Me too. I have the kids do it. They love online shopping.

I'm glad you didn't say a retired school Athletic Director. I might have thought you were trying to flatter me.

Many of the first generation of scouting professionals came from the ranks of the YMCA. YMCA had two colleges that trained coaches, camp counselors, and administrators for YMCA work. YMCA trained personnel were considered to be highly desirable by Boy Scout councils. I agree. There is absolutely no reason why a council should not be allowed to hire a highly competent, college educated, recreation major instead of a national council approved hack.