David CO

That is where the Chartered Organization is supposed to step up.

BSA has always suggested that boys do small fundraising projects like collecting recyclables, mowing lawns, raking leaves, shoveling sidewalks, washing cars, etc.. This is what I meant by boys planning and running their own fundraisers. These small fundraisers are not at all inconsistent with the scouting ideal of pay your own way. So it is not really a question of "which is it".

No it isn't. The boys are supposed to pay their own way.

The SM is supposed to supervise the ASM, not the other way around.

Do you really not see the problem here?

This is not good news. The boys should be planning and running the fundraisers.

How about having a group of COR's in each region oversee the polling. We could call it the Chartered Organization Representatives Regional Unit Polling Team. Now, if only I could think of an acronym.

Why should OA conduct the voting?

I don't think anyone said the den leaders weren't showing up. This would be a very different issue if they weren't showing up.

Then why didn't you ask them? When I was an IH, I would have never approved an arrangement whereby the unit is run by a defacto leadership different from the one I appointed and listed on the recharter papers.

If I were the IH of this cub scout unit, I would be irate. First, I would ban your troop from my building. Second, I would raise all sorts of "Cain" with the council. Those den leaders were appointed by their Chartered Organization. You weren't. The fact that you consider this unit to be your "feeder" unit doesn't give you ownership or authority to make any changes in its leadership or programs.

Scouting was started by adults. Your unit was chartered by adults. I think you are going just a bit too far when you suggest that adults stepped in and took over scouting. The role of adults in a boy scout troop is to provide oversight, guidance, and supervision. It is not to run the activities. Scouting is a game for boys. Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance of the proper role that adults play in scouting. Yes, you can and should speak out when you see adults stepping outside of their assigned roles and getting involved in playing a boys' game. Just don't confuse that with the actions of adults who are simply carrying out their proper duties. I had to laugh at the notion that old people like myself in scouting are trying to relive our youth. We are very well aware of the fact that it is not possible. Youth and childhood are fond and distant memories now. My parents, aunts and uncles, teachers, coaches, and scout leaders are all gone now. All the adults from my childhood have passed on. I don't miss being a boy scout and playing boy scout games. I miss my leaders. I loved them, and I do sorely miss them.

No kidding. I didn't know that. We only had one unit, and it never occurred to me to ask.

On the other hand, he is going to have to live with the consequences a lot longer.

It speaks very highly for your son that he is able to be pleasant even when he is not having a good time. A scout is cheerful. They say that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. People give in to the kids who act out. It is often the cheerful, respectful, well-behaved boys who are forced to stick it out in an activity they don't enjoy.

Pay to play is basically the system we have right now. Codifying it in this way, giving it a veil of legitimacy, would be a terrible idea. A scout unit already has a lot of skin in the game.

It has long been a tradition of scouting that we vote as a unit. One unit, one vote. I don't think the problem is with scouts not having a direct individual vote. The real problem is that the unit votes don't count for anything anymore. In an ideal poll, the voices of the scouts would be reflected in their units' votes.

No, I won't stop this. The execs can stomp all over us on their home turf, but they can't do it here. Scouters need a place like this where we can speak out and tell the truth without fear of retaliation.

BSA does have a clear revenue stream. They can close a hundred small campgrounds to pay for their luxurious mountaintop retreat for their top execs and billionaire boy scouts.

I've always thought of the Summit as a luxury lodge for the senior execs, much like the exclusive retreat for generals in The Dirty Dozen. My unit has never gone to any of these places. They are way beyond our budget. I don't much like the idea of national raising our fees to pay for other peoples extravagances. I like even less the idea that national might have changed the membership policies in order to pay for it.

What difference does it make? A rubber stamp is a rubber stamp.

Considering the huge divide based on political party affiliation, it would seem that the BSA national leadership is skewed towards one political party.

In my case, they are absolutely right. I am hostile towards the people who are ruining BSA. I am very hostile, and I will freely admit it. I will agree to tone down my language, in an effort to have a more civil discourse, but that will not alter my hostility. If some people on the forum can still sense my hostility through my use of punctuation marks, I can only applaud them for their insight.

Fair enough. I'll tone it down a bit.

What is the next form of "segregation" in which you will see correlations to bigotry? Religion? Is religion the next thing on your agenda?