eisely

I always understood that once a boy was registered in a troop and clearly out of cub scouts he was no longer eligible for cub or webelos awards of any kind. I could easily be wrong about this, but that is my understanding.

Bob, Thanx for refreshing my recollection. Nevertheless there have got to be some rules of thumb behind all this. What is financial strength? How is it measured? What is the maximum population in an ideal district? Aside from headcount, what other demographic characteristics do people think about? When I read some of the posts on other issues from other forum members in rural areas, I can see the difficulties some of these folks have getting district level support. Does BSA have some notion of maximum geographic area to be encompassed by a district?

ASM1 The previous response is correct. No member of the chartered organization has to have any prior connection to scouting, and only the COR has to register as an adult volunteer and member of scouting. If you are serious about forming a new troop and have a potential sponsor in mind, call the DE as soon as possible. Assisting in creating new units is one of the DE's principal duties and he or she should be able to answer all your questions.

ASM1 - glad to hear the atmosphere is improving somewhat and that you have support where you need it. Coming back to the technicalities of removal from membership, while I have enormous respect for Bob White's knowledge, I am not quite sure that he has got this right. It is my understanding that the SM has disciplinary authority over youth members, with a vague role for the committee in this function. Essentially the SM should not take any adverse action without at least talking to the committee. The committee does not appear to have any authority to initiate an action against a youth member on its own. With respect to adult members, I agree with Bob White that the CO and the COR are responsible for this. Certainly the SM has no direct role here. Obviously any SM, as with any other parent or member, is free to raise issues with the COR about any adult member, but the SM has no authority to remove an adult. Your input Bob?

Thinking about eagle requirments g and J as described in the original post; if a scout earns swimming does that mean that cycling can't even be counted as an elective merit badge? What about the other mutually exclusive merit badges? I don't think this is the intent of the requirement.

This is inspired by a post on the other thread where the poster was faced with a district consolidation. Our council subdivided districts about two years ago, any many are still adjusting. How are these decisions made? Is there an optimal size district? What are the considerations besides space and population? Are there any national guidelines?

I never heard of this one. More information please.

Every unit committee in which I have participated operated by consensus without formal votes. In twelve years as an adult volunteer I have seen only one formal vote taken and that was to resolve real differences of opinion. For the narrow issues that a unit committee normally deals with, treating the committee less formally will be more efficient.

As others have observed, the real focus at this moment should be your son's future in scouting. Finishing his eagle is too important. If there are other units available, then an immediate transfer might be the best solution for all. Chartering a new unit might also be a solution. You and your wife are entitled to be very angry and very hurt, but you need to set your personal grievance aside in the interest of your son. From your most recent posts it sounds like you have resources and relationships that you can draw on. You are not alone.

I might add that people always use the excuse, "I had no choice" Sounds like "I was just following orders." The CC does have a choice. She should convene a meeting of the full committee to fully and fairly air the matter. She is not obligated to do anything, particularly this drastic, just because the SM says he wants it done. If that were true there would be no need of a committee or a chair at all.

While the SM has wide latitude in disciplinary matters, removal is an extreme action that needs support of the troop committee. I suggest getting on the telephone to all the other committee members. The CC and SM also owe you a direct conversation as to the reasons for the action. It sounds to me like the new SM is one needing to be removed.

I agree with LeVoyageur that using bladder hydration systems strapped to your back over a PFD is a dumb idea. Presumably if one went into the water wearing such an arrangement, most of the apparatus would be below water and hence mostly neutral in buouancy. I would think as a general principle no hydration system should be used that might interfere with the activity at hand.

This is a tough situation. If I were in your shoes I know I would be very deeply hurt. I cannot blame you for wanting to walk away, but I hope you can find some other way to stay a part of scouting now and in the future.

This came up about a month ago and I tried to paste in article at that time. As I understand this position any person of faith whose religion characterized homosexuality as immoral would also be precluded from being a judge. The boy scouts are just more visible on this issue.

Have you tried your local Historical Society? How about old newspapers from that era? Your state Historical Society may have a collection of these.

As a general principle the youth leadership in a non cub unit can sign off on advancement requirements, except for merit badges. I am not aware of any minimum standard, perhaps Bob White can contribute here. In our troop we generally limit this authority to elected leaders (SPL, ASPL, PL), instructors and troop guides. In my mind a JASM can also sign off on requirements, although we currently do not have such people in our unit.

While adult participation should not be arbitrarily limited, rather encouraged, I have occasionally found that large numbers of adults create different hazards. The adults end up having so much fun that the duty of observing what the boys are doing is completely forgotten. This is matter of creating a little discipline among the adults as to what their purpose really is.

The original post by maddoro seems to suggest that the current scoutmaster and committee chair might have some sort of veto over a transfer. This is not correct. As long as there is another unit willing to accept a scout, there is no restriction on transferring of which I am aware.

Just because the military asks or orders one to do something that is dangerous to one's self scarcely creates a conflict with duty to God. Being in the military can be construed as unusually dangerous. They use really big guns and fireworks. But viewed simply as acceptance of an occupational risk, then nobody should do anything. Some occupations are more dangerous than others and duty to God does not mean take no risks. What about the firemen of FDNY on 9/11? They faced a high liklihood of death yet did their duty anyway. In doing this duty did they offend their duty to God to preserve themselves? I think not.

Your point is well taken Mike. Actually the two incidents I have in mind in the fairly distant past involve younger sisters on outings, one a canoe expedition and the other rock climbing. Nobody was hurt in either case, but there were safety issues that came up. As long as everybody follows rules such as you describe there should be no problem, but I am still interested if anybody has any other stories to tell.

This thread is inspired by the thread about adults on outings. How many people out there have been involved in outings where siblings were present, with or without permission of the unit leadership/committee? What problems arose? How were problems handled? Has anybody encountered problems with legal liabilities involving siblings?

I am not aware of any situation in the units with which I have been affiliated where participation by adults was restricted. More often the opposite problem of inadequate adult supervision has arisen. We have discussed limiting adult participation only where total headcount limits were in place, such as for Philmont, or various back country permits.

Way to go.

This is somewhat off the subject, but since shop lifting was mentioned, I want to tell a story about myself. This one of those incidents from early childhood that stands out in one's memory. When I was extremely young, probably just pre-kindergarten, I was out with my father on some shopping errands on a Saturday. One of our stops took us to a hardware store. I became fascinated with some lead fishing weights, and truly not knowing any better, I put some in my pocket. When we got home I proudly showed my father what I had acquired. My father did not yell or get angry, but realizing that I simply did not know better, sat down and patiently explained the difference between shopping and theft. We then went back to the hardware store and my father had me return the weights to the manager and apologize. My apology was accepted. My father was a very wise man. Clearly anybody of scout age already knows the difference between shopping and shoplifting. But I wonder if this might have been a more effective way of dealing with the infraction?

Going back to the original question - there is no requirement for the scoutmaster to be present. Other posts have wisely stated that when they participate, they do so as a worker bee. Presumably a tour permit is required for an eagle project, although in some areas this may not be true. If a tour permit is filed, then two adults have to be named, but their role should be limited to that of worker bees, and adults responsible for safety. Going to the most recent post, it is very difficult to deal with these kinds of situations. If the eagle project is properly signed off by all the required parties as properly submitted and processed, and satsifactorily executed, I don't see many grounds for turning down an eagle applicant at the BOR. It seems to me that, if the situation is blatant enough to be public knowledge and widely viewed as contradictory to the intent of the requirement, it should be dealt with by the district advancement officials before it gets to a BOR.