David CO

I do.

Thank you for your support of teachers. I am actually quite satisfied with my Catholic school salary. Naturally, I could think of a few things that I would like to have if I made a little more money. But if that extra money comes at the cost of abandoning our values, lowering our standards, or serving fewer lower-income students, it would hardly be worth it.

There are many incredibly talented people who take lower paying (or free) positions because of their commitment to institutional ideals rather than personal gain. Take Mitt Romney for example. He didn't take over the Salt Lake City Olympic Games to pad his pocketbook or boost his prestige. He did it to save the city and the nation from a humiliating debacle. Personally, I wish he had stepped in as CSE instead. I don't fault Mitt, or anybody else, for being successful in business. But when they step into church work, charities, or NPO's like scouting, they should be doing it out of commitment, not for career advancement and personal gain. Of course, it would be nearly impossible to get top-tier talent to take a position for less money if the organization doesn't promote the sort of morals and values that would attract them to the job in the first place. When you don't have morals and values, all you have left to offer is money.

We get a failing organization with drastically declining membership and morally bankrupt leadership. We should pay extra for this?

Yes, these numbers are crazy. Randall Stevenson made 1000 times what I made as a teacher. So what? This is the problem we have when they pick Fortune 500 types to sit on our boards. They have no concept of reality. They will pay a half-million to a scout exec and spend a billion dollars on a mountain top retreat. It is crazy.

OK, I guess you are serious, so I will give you a serious answer. No jokes this time. Instead of driving the LDS out of scouting, why don't we ask them to share with us their institutional knowledge and experience (which has made it possible for them to run a large, global, and well funded religious institution without paying enormous salaries)?

Are you kidding? You don't think there are millions of people who would like to take the job for less than $700,000? If there aren't, I would be more than happy to volunteer for the job myself. I'll even settle for a measly half-mill. I know that it is a big sacrifice, and a big drop from my usual teacher's salary, but I'm willing to bite the bullet if it will help out the scouting movement.

Brian, If you feel there is a problem, or if you don't feel safe, then you should forward all of your communications to your parents. Problem solved. Just don't expect or demand that the adults do it. They are not registered with BSA and it's not their responsibility.

Same answer. BSA has no authority over them.

Who cares? BSA has no authority over them.

I think the policy applies only to scouters.

That might explain how they could get a majority vote in favor of the changes. It doesn't explain how the vote could be unanimous.

And yet, the SE still publicly supports the BSA decisions. I thought he was being incredibly dishonest. He was appealing for local financial support by saying that the council is a franchisee, and not responsible for the recent decisions of BSA. This is utter nonsense. His remarks in the interview prove it. What franchisee would continue to publicly support the franchiser after it makes a decision that will cost the franchisee 80% of its customers? Nobody would do that. They would be screaming their heads off. They might even take the franchiser to court. This SE obviously works for BSA. He is beholden to BSA for his job, and he must publicly support BSA decisions in order to keep his job. He must praise BSA even when it is acting against the best interests of his council. I hope he loses his job.

Well said!

True. If their council voted for the recent changes in BSA policy, then they deserve to face the consequences.

It won't. It might prevent misunderstandings.

I'm not hearing that. The comments you refer to have mostly been about BSA, not the kids.

This is another argument that has become very popular among the liberals. Anyone who disagrees with them are haters.

Who said they aren't? This "human being" argument has become very popular lately. Liberals have been using it on a wide variety of issues. I think it is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard.

I can't argue with that. The thing about vehicles is that they can be used for either good or bad.

It's hard to understand their motivations. It was a unanimous vote. In an open and honest system, you never get a unanimous vote.

I think we are forgetting that BP served much of his military career under the rule of a queen. Apparently they felt that a woman was responsible enough to be the sovereign of their country.

Nice use of apropos. I know that is it French. Is it derived from Latin? That would be very apropos coming from The Latin Scot.

25 years from now, kids may be surprised that children were allowed to venture out into the woods.

They execs are prospering. That's all they really care about.