David CO

Yes, but imagine the possibilities if your council headquarters was in Las Vegas. All of the COR's would show for that annual meeting. "Sorry dear...but I'm doing it all for the kids."

I think the opposite is true. National has too much control over the SE. You're right about the SE control over the nominating process. Since national controls the SE, and the SE controls the nominating process, national ends up controlling the nomination of officers of the councils. This shouldn't be. In Chicago, after the COR's twice refused to vote in the SE's hand-picked slate of officers, national stepped in and threatened to revoke the council's charter. I think this proved to everyone involved who really picks these slates.

Absolutely. If your unit's favorite campground is in another council, why shouldn't you be allowed to join that council and give them your money and support. I think a unit would actually be less of a free loader that way. Support the camp you use. I don't know why we should even have councils in urban areas. Let the councils reside on or near their camps. It would make the logistics of managing campgrounds much easier. Almost everything is done online now, anyway. Who cares where the office is located? I was a Lone Scout, so I naturally like the idea of free agents, but I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of free agent units. I think we should have separate Lone Scout councils. Boy Scout councils don't support Lone Scouting, and they often refuse to register boys as Lone Scouts. Personally, I would never consider volunteering for a Boy Scout council position. I don't like Boy Scout councils. But I would give some serious consideration to offering my time and money to a Lone Scout council.

OK. I think councils should not have a monopoly over a territory. Units should not be forced to register in a bad council (which is most of them). Units don't have a monopoly on a territory. Why should bad councils have a monopoly on a territory? Make councils compete for units. Let the bad ones go bankrupt.

Please be more specific. Are you asking how many are employed, or how many work?

It's a fair question to ask, but I would ask the scout. If the scout is truthful, he will give you a straight answer.

Do you really not see the disconnect here? You told us that many units choose non-participation. Then you go on about what a swell council it is. Something doesn't match up. This is a perfect example of how councils ignore the feedback they get from the units. They look at themselves through rose colored glasses and simply dismiss any contrary responses they get from the units. This is about accountability. We need to be able to hold our councils accountable. By eliminating the financial incentive, the councils will finally be free to totally ignore the needs of the units.

The Matrix.

Once again, you are putting the cart before the horse. You talk as if the units exist to serve the council, rather than the other way around. If a large number of units don't want the services your council wants to provide them, then perhaps it is your council who should change its attitude. Non-participation does not need to become a thing of the past. It is the most effective way to educate the council to the fact that it is not serving the needs and wants of the units. If this attitude continues, the councils should go under. Maybe some better council will rise up from its ashes with a true desire to serve the units.

If the councils were fulfilling their end of the charter agreement, I might agree with you. As it is, I can't see how we can expect the COR's to keep wasting their time, year after year, by attending the council meetings to simply rubber stamp the predetermined outcomes. Let the Chartered Organizations and their COR's exercise their proper roles, and I would be the first to say that they all need to step up to make the necessary reforms happen.

Yes, but we can't spell it.

Exactly. The Chartered Organization can provide great stability to a unit. To do that, the Chartered Organization needs to have its people directly responsible for, and actively engaged in, the unit. The unit needs to acknowledge and support the ownership role of the Chartered Organization.

You will not get a better line of communication until you restore the role of the Chartered Organization. Otherwise, there is really nothing to talk about.

Voting members of the council should be made up entirely of COR's, who are appointed by the Chartered Organizations. The execs should not be allowed to stack the boards with their hand-picked supporters, who are not appointed by the Chartered Organizations. The slate of council/district officers should not be selected by a nominating committee chosen by the execs. Nominations should have to come from the Chartered Organizations or their representatives. The officers of the councils/district should have oversight authority over the execs. They should not be directly or indirectly selected by the execs. They should not be beholden to the execs for their positions.

The most positive change the councils could make would be to restore the role of the Chartered Organizations.

I disagree. Councils should be financed through the voluntary contributions of their supporters. Units should not be taxed. A unit that doesn't like its council, and chooses to not participate in council activities, council run camps, or council fundraisers is not a freeloader. It is unfair to charge a tax to units that don't want council involvement. Charging a tax to units does not improve councils. It does the exact opposite. It frees the council from the need to please its customers. The councils will have even less incentive to serve the units.

I have. If it is a life threatening emergency, take him immediately to the ER. If not, follow the directions of the parents.

Gee, that would make a great Star Trek episode.

That not the way things work in the States. We have a winner-take-all sort of system. It permeates both our politics and our social activities. If you don't win, you lose. There is no compromise. If the atheists win, the religious people lose. Religion will be banned from scouting, just like prayer was banned from school. If we don't ban them, they will ban us. That's the way it is.

Correct.

We can't. It will eventually have to be all of one thing or all of the other.

It is specific enough. For a hundred years, scouts have understood its meaning. It is only recently that people have labored to distort its meaning. When people are determined to distort the clear meaning of words, no words can be sufficient to convey the meaning of the scout law.

It says, "We believe Scouting is a force more powerful than one person or one religion." I find this statement to be both arrogant and offensive. Scouting is not a more powerful force than my religion. I think this quote just goes to prove Barry's point.

Poor definition.

Reverent.