David CO

That should be our new motto.

I am a Health teacher. My degree is in Health Education, which includes Safety Education. I like to think I know a thing or two about safety. I teach moderation. In my nutrition unit, for example, I recommend eating a sensible, steady diet. No binging. No crash diets. No fad diets. Just eat all the food groups in moderation. I have very similar views on safety. It doesn't make sense to practice total safety in one environment, like scouting or school, and then practice very little safety at home or at sports/recreational activities. It makes more sense to have the same reasonable level of safety everywhere. The standard of safety used to be what a reasonable person would do. We need to go back to that standard, and stop bubble wrapping our kids at the command of the lawyers and bean counters.

Because the lawyers and bean-counters don't trust anybody. Scouts included.

I don't see how the kids are better off with the restrictions. They only benefit the institution.

But are the kids better off.

The titles of President and CEO sound a lot more businesslike than Chief Scout Executive. Coming from a business background, he probably just prefers that title. I wouldn't be surprised if we see title changes for everyone else, too. I have always thought it very odd that we call the lowest paid, least experienced, entry level positions "District Executive". We all know they're not executives.

The kids know that G2SS isn't there to protect them. It exists to protect BSA bank accounts. It exists to protect executive payrolls. You can't expect the kids to care about any of that.

I would have liked to hear him speak about the relationship between BSA and the Chartered Organizations. He talked about BSA. He talked about families. He talked about a changing world. But he didn't talk about the Chartered Organizations. Perhaps this indicates a viewpoint that the Chartered Organization has an insignificant role in the future of scouting.

Some donate 30 grand to do that... others $10, 000...others $3,000.

They donate money. Like the awards, the prestige positions go mostly to those who have big bucks.

Shhhh. We don't want national to hear this and impose (in addition to age and sex) height and weight divisions.

Try 666.

Imagine the difference it would make to my bank account.

Yes, you can do that. But be prepared for him to tell you that a bunch of people on the internet approved his merit badge. Turnabout is fair play.

That's nonsense. Most boys join scouting just to have fun. They neither know about or care about the details of the scouting program. It's only the most die-hard scouters (who eat, breath, and sleep scouting) who care to scrutinize and religiously adhere to every nit-picking detail of the program, making scouting activities boring and tedious for the rest of us.

My thoughts the other day (in another thread) about having unit-only merit badge counselors doesn't sound so bad now, does it?

Correct. I would also add the fact that the people giving the grant money did not intend for it to go to the council. You should use it for the purpose the grant was intended. It would be dishonest to do otherwise.

Speaking for Scoutmasters everywhere, I am pleased to hear an ASM finally admit it. (I am watching the impeachment trial. Taking people's words out of context is apparently allowed this week.)

I certainly wouldn't phrase it as an accusation. I would simply tell them that certain questions are bound to be raised when the scout is up for eagle, and it would be better to organize the answers now, rather than putting them off until the review. Be Prepared.

My Chartered Organization would not normally approve of having a scout from our unit left at camp with people from a different unit. We would want the scout to remain in our camp site. But this was an extraordinary circumstance, and allowances must be made for extraordinary circumstances.

BSA cannot always compel a non-member to leave a place that is not owned or controlled by BSA. It is indeed a free society, and the unit can leave, if they have a mind to do so, but they cannot always compel someone else to leave, or to follow their rules.

It depends on where the event is being held. If it is on BSA owned property, then BSA can control the event. If it is not on BSA property, BSA has little to no control over non-volunteers who happen to be at the event. At my school, many school events are open to the public. All attendees must have a ticket, even if the event is free. On the back of the ticket is a statement that attendees agree to abide the rules and regulations for the event. The rules are posted at the entrance. Presenting the ticket for admission constitutes an acceptance of the agreement. We live in a free country. People are not bound to obey anything other than the law (and the agreements they voluntarily accept). Perhaps BSA should have some sort of ticket to their events, spelling out the rules and policies they agree to as a condition of attendance. In any case, I don't think scout leaders should try to enforce any rule or policy on non-members unless they have first established rock-solid grounds for doing so. This would help us to avoid arguments and confrontations with non-member attendees who may not otherwise feel bound by rules they have never agreed to obey.

The YP rules do not apply to non-members. BSA has no authority over them.

I think we need to assume that those adult attendees (who choose to not register as unit leaders) don't want to be unit leaders. They don't want to supervise the youth at scouting events. They don't want to actively observe other adults and note YP violations. They don't want to study the rules. They just want to show up at the event to show their love and support for their kid. We leaders should not depend on non-volunteers to do our jobs. Let them just attend, and thank them for their support.

Yes we are. I am not surprised that you equate obedience with military discipline. Many people do. I get that all the time in school. When we tell kids to obey their teacher, they respond with a statement that they are not in the military. We have somehow developed this attitude that obedience belongs only in the military. If you teach obedience, you're being militaristic. BSA used to understand that a scout needs to be a good subordinate before he can learn to be a good leader.