What is "Active" in Troop vs. Crew for Eagle Requirement?

[Beavah]

Yeh can call me out all yeh like, CalicoPenn. I don't mind. . But I'll stand by what I said.

 

The fact is the task force is not transparent, eh? Yeh found one member. Can you name the lot? Or find it anywhere, with contact information? Can you point to an agenda of an upcoming meeting? Minutes of a past meeting? If not, then how exactly are the IHs and CORs and Scoutmasters and council officers and other stakeholders supposed to express their position? We all know that council and higher appointees get there largely by donation dollars, eh?

 

Now I do in fact know a few; used to know more when I wore different color should loops. So I think I'm in a better place to make an honest evaluation than you are. But unlike you, I think folks who are good individuals can still be part of groups that make bad institutional choices, eh? Sometimes because they don't have the skill for that work, sometimes because the structure of the system gets in the way, lots of reasons.

 

The policy of the BSA, though, is set by the national executive board through the Rules and Regulations, not by the task force on this, that, or the other thing. The various BSA offices and committees help develop program materials, they don't set policy. Nor should they claim to, because that's just dishonest. And if yeh work on one of the various committees, yeh have to start with the R&R and da organizational mission, otherwise yeh do everyone a disservice.

 

Beavah

[shortridge]

If not publishing a agendas and minutes and a list of members makes a body legitimate, then the National Executive Board should shut down, too. You can find a calendar of its meetings online, but not what it's going to discuss or what action it's taken.

[Beavah]

Yah, shortridge, I sorta agree with you, eh?

 

One can argue, though, that many acts of actual corporate governance by the private board even of a NFP should properly be limited in distribution. For example, if national is considerin' buying property around The Summit, being open about that might cause speculation on the price.

 

There's a difference, though, when you're talkin' about program committees and working groups like the Advancement folks. That's just materials development, not corporate governance. There's no reason to keep that "closed", especially in the BSA where there isn't any competitive pressure because of its monopoly status. In fact one would expect that the members of those bodies would be actively soliciting opinions from the people they represent, don't yeh think?

 

Of course aside from perhaps being good practice, there's nuthin' that compels 'em to be open. They should, however, be compelled to align what they do with the Mission, Values, Rules & Regulations of the BSA.

 

Beavah