eisely

Robinton, You asked if there were any further suggestions. Wear your flak jacket and steel pot to the meeting.

Like the other responders to your post, I was somewhat puzzled by the way you characterized your post. I agree with the others that you seem to be doing many things right. I also agree that getting the boys to JLT is an excellent idea. You don't say so, but there are probably a lot of reasons why you formed this new troop and the boys did not want to go with other established troops. Insist upon support from all the parents. Get these guys camping sooner rather than later. Good luck.

I want to respond further as to why I would reach out to the troop committee in this situation. First of all I agree that decisions about overturning elections are within the authority of the scoutmaster, and, based on the facts as I understand them, if the committee would not back me up on this the committee might find itself looking for a new scoutmaster. My recommendation is based on the idea that there may be kickback from the parents of the boy involved and they might start a campaign of their own with the troop committee. I would certainly advise the committee chair and be guided in part by the response of the chair. I would begin the conversation with, "As you may know there was some unfortunate behavior in the troop election that we just held, and it is my intention to hold a new election ..." I would want to get out in front of the issue with my decision and the reasons for it before any objectors did. If the original poster is comfortable that he would get full committee support, then he may not wish to follow my suggestion.

Not to seem too jaded, but it is refreshing to see a scout candidate care enough about the position to bribe other scouts to vote for him! You are, as the saying goes, between a rock and a hard place. If you let this election stand, you send a very bad message to all the scouts. If you seek to overturn the election, you could have a different kind of uproar. As I see it, you as scoutmaster have the authority to overturn the election. This is not unlike some of the recent threads about elected positions, only it is worse. In this case dishonesty is involved. Having said that, I would not make this a unilateral action. I would reach out to the committee chair and as many members of the committee as I could reach on the telephone. You have the acknowledged facts on your side. You should be prepared to see this lad drop out of your troop, and possibly out of scouting altogether. There may be an adverse reaction from the parents. I don't know enough of the details, and I guess I don't need to know the details. I would not allow this thing to pass. If one cannot have an honest election in a boy scout troop, then we are in bigger trouble than we all realize. There is an opportunity here to teach important lessons if it is handled right. I don't think I would pursue further punishments with this scout if he apologizes to the troop for his actions. The embarrassment is punishment enough in this case. One of the lessons is letting the punishment fit the crime. The other lessons are basic adherence to the scout law, following troop policies, etc. Good luck. Let us know how it turns out.

Like most large troops we maintain our own roster of merit badge counselors. The district also has a list. Not every parent in our troop who has signed up for this wants to be on the district list, and we honor this request and do not provide those names to the district. Occasionally we will do merit badge work during regular meetings, if we have a special guest available as part of the meeting program. Most merit badge work is done outside of regular meetings. I think we presently limit counselors to five merit badges.

Many troops allow youth leadership to sign off on requirements up through the rank of first class. It depends on local unit policy. The policy needs to be clear. Consult your scoutmaster before you sign anything for another scout.

The following story mentions the boy scouts towards the end. A small thing, but little things add up. I suspect we will be hearing more stories like this out of the tri state area. From the New York Post on line. ____________________ POST READERS OPEN HEARTS FOR WTC WIDOW By HANNELE RUBIN Six weeks after losing her husband in the World Trade Center, life is a little better this week for Tracy Woodall - thanks to The Post and its generous readers. Last week, we revealed how Woodall was battling under a mountain of bills because she had been unable to get any major assistance from some of the charities handling the $1 billion in cash pledged to those affected by the Sept. 11 disaster. Woodall, who at that time had received just $450 and a groceries voucher, went into print to highlight the problems many widows in similar circumstances are beginning to face as some charities become bogged down in paperwork. Within hours, things began to happen quickly. The Red Cross sent an $18,800 check by special delivery. The United Way of Bergen County sent a "care manager" to Tracy's house to assist. Other agencies phoned with offers of help while Woodall's Oradell, N.J., neighbors started a fund for the baby she is expecting in May. Woodall said that strangers sent cards and money, politicians made calls on her behalf and the Boy Scouts offered to mow her lawn. Woodall, 31, lost her husband, Brent, who was an equities trader in the World Trade Center with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. The company is continuing to pay the salaries of those employees who died through December and is considering extending health benefits beyond that, Woodall said.

The story below deals with a ballot initiative in which the proponents of the initiative apparently used pictures of boys scouts in their mailings. There was a similar controversy in Florida earlier in the year. I think BSA is right in refusing to get involved in these campaigns and trying to limit the use of BSA imagery by others. I wonder why there is so much action in Michigan. ____________________________ Boy Scouts Can't Escape Debate Over Homosexual Rights By Matt Pyeatt CNSNews.com Staff Writer October 19, 2001 (CNSNews.com) - A ballot initiative in Traverse City, Mich. aimed at prohibiting preferential treatment for homosexuals, has swept the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) organization into a controversy it would rather ignore. A local campaign committee called the Traverse City Citizens Voting Yes For Equal Rights, Not Special Rights, mailed out a postcard to attract support for the ballot referendum. The postcard shows three Boy Scouts saluting an American flag. However, the BSA has not endorsed the referendum and would prefer not to be involved in the debate. "We are very strongly opposed to the idea of using children - in this case a particular group of children - to make a political point," Peter Magoun, president of the Scenic Trails Council of the Boy Scouts of America, told the Traverse City Record-Eagle. The Scenic Trails Council is the local governing body for Traverse City's Boy Scouts. Greg Shields, spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, agreed with Magoun and added, "we're totally apolitical. We do not take a position on political bills, candidates or anything similar to that." "We don't use and do not authorize the use of children or the use of the Boy Scout image in political campaigns," Shields said. Whether it seeks the political limelight or not, the Boy Scout organization finds itself in the middle of the debate over homosexual rights because of its long standing policy, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, that bans homosexual scout leaders. Since last year's ruling by the high court, the BSA has been subject to withering criticism from homosexual activist organizations, and as a result, several Boy Scout chapters have lost funding or sponsorship in their local communities. Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan, has made numerous references to the Boy Scouts while promoting the Traverse City ballot measure and says the proposal directly affects the scouts. If approved, the referendum would prohibit "the city from passing any ordinance, rule or law that grants special protected or minority status or hiring quotas or other preferential treatment on the basis of homosexual behavior," Glenn said. "With all due respect to the Boy Scout bureaucracy, the principles that the Boy Scouts stand for deserve to be defended in the political arena. The Boy Scouts have been under constant attack by homosexual activists in the public policy arena," Glenn said. "It is the main focal point of our discussion of the entire issue because it is such a clear example of attempts by homosexual activists to use so-called 'gay rights' laws to discriminate against citizens or organizations who oppose homosexual behavior, the Boy Scouts being the prime example over the past two years," Glenn said. "We do find it curious to be under attack by the Boy Scout bureaucracy, but this is an organization we are committed to defending because of the common sense stand it's taking to protect young boys from exposure to homosexual behavior," Glenn said. Shields denied the BSA was attacking the local groups. "We're simply saying that we are an apolitical organization. We don't make or take positions in political campaigns," he said. "The most poignant example is, for instance, last year when a vote was taken on the Boy Scout's own federal charter. We did not lobby or take a position on that bill. We allowed that legislation to rise to a vote in Congress, and we did not take a position on that bill," Shields said. According to Shields, the campaign group that paid for the mailings apologized for the use of the Boy Scouts on the postcard. "They have apologized and they will not do that again," he said.

It seems pretty easy to reach a consensus on this one. Certainly the board of review is absolutely the wrong time to inform a scout of his obligations. I am somewhat conflicted about boards of review. No scout should appear before a board who has not met the requirements of the rank sought. Adverse board actions should be rare. Nevertheless, the newest materials that I have seen out of national clearly envision that boards have this authority and are not expected to rubber stamp every scout that comes before it. Boards need to be consistent and fair. Our internal problem was a result of poor and unspoken policies. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.

I am not aware of any official guidelines on this subject. I also am completely sympathetic to your view that these youth should not get credit for filling a leadership position. We are going through such a controversy just now in our troop. I was on a board of review that recently turned down a scout seeking advancement to life scout. He should never have gotten past the scoutmaster conference. The action of the board has triggered a controversy and the troop will establish written guidelines for each position. We will not require 100% attendance or participation, but at least we will be more up front with those boys, and parents, who are simply expecting a ticket to be punched. In the case I was involved with, the youth was months away from his 17th birthday, so he has ample opportunity to recover. The adult leadership has to be fair and clear about its expectations. The whole concept of the "patrol method" and a "boy run troop" effectively goes down the toilet if the elected youth leadership is not committed to even showing up. Establishing expectations for youth leadership is up to the adults. To repeat myself, I am not aware of any official guidance. You may wish to contact your district advancement committee, particularly if eagle ranks are involved. Otherwise, you are on your own. I strongly advise that these youth be contacted immediately and informed that they will not receive credit if they don't act immediately to start fulfilling the responsibilities they took on. Good luck.

Figured I might as well chime in one more time. Concerning the distinction between the committee and unit leadership: It is clear to me that "the book" does make such a distinction, although, as is obvious from the previous posts, few units draw the distinction. One of the more effective policies I have seen used to make sure that the committee has at least an adequate number of adults on board, is require each family to register at least one adult in some capacity. "Committee member" was the usual default unless someone wanted to be an assistant scoutmaster. In that unit we recogized and enforced the policy that scoutmasters and assistant scoutmasters were not supposed to sit on boards of review. There were always enough committee members on the list to put together boards of review. While every registered adult can be considered to be generically part of "unit leadership," some make the distinction between "uniformed volunteers," and all others. "Uniformed volunteers" are normally taken to be the scoutmaster and his/her assistants. However, there is nothing to prevent other adults from buying and wearing uniforms. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent any registered adult being identified on a tour permit as the responsible adult for an activity. To me that is where the rubber hits the road. If you are going to lead an outing, you need to be registered in some capacity. One does not need to be in any particular capacity to lead an outing, just registered.

I had not noticed that I was now a "senior member." I had noticed earlier that one seemed to advance based on the number of posts. The only other explanation is that the forum has spies about tabulating the number of senior moments that may occur.

A common mistake with color guards is that the boy holding the flag often will try to hold the staff with one hand and salute with the other. The member of the color guard holding the US flag does nothing but hold the flag. A scout carrying a troop or state flag should dip that flag during the national anthem. I don't know what the rule is for "subordinate" flags during a pledge of allegiance. I would probably have such flag bearing scouts not salute, but dip their flag. If the color guard includes scouts not carrying the flag they, in my mind, should certainly salute and partipate in the pledge. Likewise they should salute when the national anthem is played or sung. If you have ever watched a military color guard during the national anthem, you will see the two members carrying weapons come to "present arms" during the national anthem. It is also correct for the guard to step back and give one final salute together after placing the colors in a stand or raising the colors to the top of a flag pole.

Our troop bought two of the heaviest BSA dining flies with poles last spring. They served us well on two occasions, one in a drenching rain and other in very hot sunny dry environment. These are not easy to carry around, but they have served us very well so far.

Here we go again. _____________________ Vassar College drops United Way fund Cites Boy Scouts' policy on gays By Anthony Farmer Poughkeepsie Journal Vassar College has decided it will not participate in the United Way's fund-raising campaign, which raises millions of dollars annually to support health and human service programs in Dutchess County. A controversial decision by United Way of Dutchess County to continue to fund the Boy Scouts of America -- despite the group's policy regarding homosexuals -- is the reason for Vassar's withdrawal. Vassar College President Frances Fergusson said in light of the college's own strict nondiscrimination policy, it would be wrong for the school to participate in the United Way campaign, now under way. ''We think it's an affirmation of the human dignity we afford to everyone on our campus,'' Fergusson said Wednesday of the school's decision. ''As an institution, we didn't feel we should be participating in the strong way we always have in the past with the United Way, when they weren't asking the Boy Scouts of America to adhere to a policy of nondiscrimination on sexual-orientation issues.'' United Way of Dutchess County President and CEO James Williamson said Vassar's decision will have a significant financial impact on the organization's campaign. Vassar helped raise $77,000 for the United Way last year, 92 percent of that going to the Community Fund -- where donations are pooled and given to agencies and programs where the need is the greatest. ''We're obviously disappointed in their decision but we certainly respect it,'' Williamson said of Vassar College. ''This creates a hole we have to fill. It's a challenge for us, but we believe we're up to the challenge.'' Upheld by high court Across the country, funding for Boy Scouts has become a controversial issue because the Scouts refuse to allow gays to take leadership roles in the organization. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts policy prohibiting openly gay members from becoming troop leaders was constitutional. The local United Way board adopted a revised nondiscrimination policy earlier this year that asks member agencies to certify that they don't discriminate against people within that group's ''target population.'' If a group receiving funds is found to violate the agreement, funding can be cut off. But the Boy Scouts have said its target population includes those who believe in traditional family values, which would exclude homosexuals. Officials from the Boy Scouts of America Hudson Valley Council were not immediately available to comment. Williamson said he was not aware of other businesses or institutions pulling their support over the Boy Scouts issue. But Regis Obijiski, executive director of New Horizons Resources, said he is altering the way he supports the United Way. When donating to the local United Way, he will designate which groups should receive the money, instead of donating to the Community Fund. ''I feel that they've made a fundamental mistake here,'' Obijiski said of the United Way's decision on the Boy Scouts. ''It's a conscience thing for me. The employees of New Horizons, I basically said to them they can do what they wish in this regard, but they know where I stood.'' Vassar still plans to help raise funds for selected community service groups through its new ''Community Works'' campaign. Ten recipients are being selected to benefit from ''Community Works'' and details are still being worked out.

In reading through these posts, I have concluded that we are trying to be over precise about something. We want to be consistent with the flag code and teach our youth proper respect for the symbols of the USA, but I think we need to keep the principle in mind and not worry too much about the details. The language cited from the flag code about uniformed personnel not reciting the pledge of allegiance while saluting is probably correct. I have no recollection of any instance when I was in sam's army of ever reciting the pledge of allegiance at all. But then I never participated in any ceremony where civilians were involved. Personally I see no harm in having the boys recite the pledge while saluting with a proper scout salute. The idea of having the scouts render a civilian salute with a scout sign over the heart, while in uniform, creates unnecessary confusion, and goes against the usage of the scout sign. I personally would not have any problem saluting any historic flag representing the United States of America, in uniform or out of uniform. To me, the important principle to be taught is respect, rather than the nuances of the flag code. Clearly we do not want to introduce confusion, but the details would escape most people, adult and youth, present at any such ceremony. Let's keep it simple.

As one reads the other posts, it is obvious that units run their committees in different ways. I did not go into the details of the various committee positions. Essentially there is no limit to these positions, depending upon the ability of the committee chair to supervise subdivided labor. For example, we have finally created a transportation chair. This person makes sure that the troop has current information for tour permit purposes, and assists trek leaders in arranging transportation to and from events. OGE, I was not aware that boards of review were specifically a committee responsibility. Maybe I am minsinterpreting your comment. Certainly boards are not a scoutmaster responsibility. The most effective board system I ever saw was run by an advancement chair. At her insistence we scheduled boards on specific dates prior to scheduled courts of honor. Boards were not run at troop meetings but at separate times on different evenings. While the unit committee chair sat on some boards as a member of a board, the unit committee chair did not handle all the details of the process. If one thinks of the advancement function as merely an extension of the unit committee, then there is no real distinction here.

There is a pamphlet on unit committees, and unit committees are mentioned in all the training materials. I don't really know what the current spin is, but my personal view is that the committee is primarily responsible for several things: recruiting adult volunteers, seeing to it that adult leaders are trained and are aware of and comply with scout policies (particularly as regards safety issues), maintaining relations with the chartered unit sponsor, dealing with fund raising issues, establishing broad policies on matters such as unit size where policies are needed, among other things. The committee should not get over involved in unit operations or issues involving individual youth members unless there is a substantial controversy. The committee cannot work at cross purposes with the unit leadership, otherwise the program fails.

The piece posted below goes back to July 25. On September 25 the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the District funding bill prohibiting government funds being used to enforce the District's Human Rights Commission from enforcing its order against the scouts. Apparently the controversy involves volunteeer leaders, not paid professionals. It is bizarre that the District would ignore the Supreme Court of the United States, but then anyone who has followed the statehood controversy would not be too surprised. These guys almost make Berkeley look good. _____________________ D.C. Gay GOP Councilman Leads Charge Against Scouts, Salvation Army By Martha Kleder District of Columbia City Councilman David Catania (R-At Large) is leading the effort in the nations capital to punish the Boy Scouts of America and the Salvation Army for excluding homosexuals from leadership positions. "Mr. Catanias intervention shows that Log Cabin-type Republican activists who achieve public office will abuse their powers to advance the homosexual agenda," said Robert Knight, director of CWAs Culture and Family Institute. "The GOP ought to apologize for backing a man who, because of his own sexual agenda, wields government authority like a commissar in singling out the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts for scrutiny," Knight added. Catania went on the warpath on July 11. Thats when The Washington Post broke the story about the Salvation Army receiving assurances from the White House that in the presidents faith-based initiative, charities religious beliefs would not be trampled by local and state laws requiring accommodation based on "sexual orientation." Catania assailed the Army publicly, and contacted the local and national Salvation Army offices. "When public funds are being used, those entities receiving them must follow the law and not discriminate," he said. He also threatened the religious denomination. "If I learn or suspect that the Salvation Army is, in fact, engaged in discrimination in carrying out its non-religious work," Catania said, "I will not hesitate to conduct hearings and subpoena them into appearing before the Council." GOING AFTER THE SCOUTS The next day, Catania sent a letter to members of the U.S. Congress, protesting HR 2390, a bill that would invalidate a June 20 finding of the D.C. Human Rights Commission against the Boy Scouts. The commission had issued a 75-page ruling that says the Scouts policy of prohibiting homosexuals from serving as Scoutmasters violates the citys anti-discrimination law. The commission ordered the Boy Scout Council to re-instate two homosexual leaders, Roland Pool and Michael Geller. The Scouts also were ordered to pay the two men $50,000 each in damages. The actions came after the June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Scouts have a First Amendment right to their own beliefs and associations. HR 2390 prohibits the city "from using any funds to issue, implement, administer, or enforce any order invalidating the policy of the Boy Scouts of America regarding the employment or voluntary service of homosexual troop leaders." The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Indiana), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland), Steve Largent (R-Oklahoma), Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Bob Schaffer (R-Colorado) and Todd Akin (R-Missouri). Catania sent a protest letter to every Republican House member. It read, in part: "The recent decision by the D.C. Commission on Human Rights regarding two individuals and the Boy Scouts of America is only one step in the process. If the Boy Scouts do not agree with the decision, they can appeal it to the D.C. Court of Appeals. I implore you to allow this process to proceed as if it were occurring in any other jurisdiction in the United States."

Concur. An answer to a question that you did not ask: Those still flying flags at half staff are "out of compliance." No disrespect to the fallen or the families of the fallen, but the officially designated period of mourning is over, even though most remains have not been recovered.

I take it you are speaking of what used to be called a "garrison cap?" Have you tried national supply? They probably got stuck with hundreds of these in inventory when they changed hats many years ago and could easily still have some?

Rarely do I disagree with Mike, and I could be wrong, but I have no recollection of any circumstance when the flag would not be displayed on the speaker's right.

I almost posted this under "unit fund raising", but it really has to do with fund raising for national. In a news piece about patriotic songs, and how everybody is singing these songs since September 11, there was a comment about "God Bless America." This was originally written by Irving Berlin in 1918, but did not become popular until much later. When it started earning royalties, Berlin donated those to the boy scouts and the girl scouts. I don't know if this song is in the public domain yet, but if you are in an environment (night club, radio music request show, etc.) where royalties would be paid, keep in mind that you might be generating revenue for scouts if you ask for "God Bless America" instead of some other patriotic song.

I have pasted in below an op ed piece from today's Wall Street Journal about the Falwell fiasco. It is not just political liberals who were upset with Falwell's remarks. __________ Falwell and Folly America's sins didn't bring down the World Trade Center. BY TIMOTHY GEORGE Friday, September 21, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT In ordinary times, it would be unthinkable for a sitting president to criticize a theological statement made by a religious leader. We don't expect politicians to fault preachers for interpreting the oracles of faith. Yet that's just what happened last Friday, when the Rev. Jerry Falwell, en route to the National Cathedral to attend the national prayer service, received a call from the White House telling him that the president disagreed with his remarks about the tragedy of Sept. 11 and found them "inappropriate." And inappropriate they were. As we all know now, Mr. Falwell--with the assent of Pat Robertson, with whom he was conversing--singled out pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians, the ACLU and other assorted groups, blaming them for the attacks in New York and Washington. "I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'" Thus in a moment of collective mourning, as the president was calling for unity, one of his supporters, a man of the cloth, had made one of the most hurtful and divisive comments imaginable--and one of the least defensible, morally and theologically speaking. It is one of the essential understandings of Christian belief that man possesses free will, and that evil deeds are chosen by man in defiance of God. This defiance is, of course, the central drama of the Garden of Eden, and it is repeated, tragically, throughout the biblical narrative. For Christians, it is precisely a sinful, defiant will that finds redemption in Christ and his suffering. To put it another way: The murder of innocents on Sept. 11, insofar as it is given to us to understand such things, was not directly caused by God but by man rebelling against God. To equate this act with divine judgment--as if the Lord had conspired with the attackers to sacrifice the workers in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the passengers in the four airplanes--violates the most cherished tenets of the Christian faith. Like Mr. Falwell, I am a Baptist minister and an evangelical Christian. Many of the trends that he opposes in our culture I oppose too. But my heart sank when I heard his words, for I knew that, aside from their wrongheadedness, they would reinforce the worst stereotype of conservative Christianity, and they would be used to justify inane comparisons between Bible-believing Christians and the hate-filled zealots who carried out the attack. On many counts, Mr. Falwell should have known better. (He has since apologized.) This is not to say that we should think of the events of last week apart from the judgment of God. This theme is woven into the holy texts, from the Hebrew prophets to Jesus himself. "For three transgressions and for four I will not turn back my wrath," the Lord said to the prophet Amos. But there are two considerations to be kept in mind, both lost in Mr. Falwell's comments, if cataclysmic events inspire in us a desire for self-examination or a need to interpret the evil we have witnessed. First, the Lord's judgments include God's own people. It is not "them" (sinners) against "us" (saints). No, we are all in this together, and none of us is free from sin. Second, there is a mystery to evil that none of us can fathom, including those of us who believe that God is all-powerful and infinitely loving. In the face of evil, we affirm that God's love will ultimately triumph, as it did in the cross of Christ. We accept this by faith, but how it is worked out in the tragedies of history we do not know. Perhaps more than anyone else in American history, Abraham Lincoln understood this principle. "The Almighty had his own purposes," Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural, contemplating the slaughter of the Civil War. He urged his countrymen to act "with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right." As a scolded Mr. Falwell arrived at the National Cathedral, America was listening to another Baptist minister, the Rev. Billy Graham, who declared that God cares for us, whatever our ethnic, religious or political backgrounds. God is sovereign, yes, and he is also a God of love and mercy in the midst of suffering. "My prayer today," Mr. Graham said, "is that we will feel the loving arms of God wrapped around us and know in our heart that he will never forsake us as we trust in him." Both of these men have done much good in their lives, but last week, on that day, it was Billy, not Jerry, who spoke truthfully and, no less important, said what we all needed to hear. Mr. George is dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, in Birmingham, Ala., and executive editor of Christianity Today.

Stacy, As OGE points out, the Order of the Arrow is the most explicitly native american component of scouting. It is an honor society within scouting that incorporate native american costuming into its ceremonies, and bases its traditions on a legend of the Delaware Indians. Members of the OA often organize indian dance teams and compete with one another. The OA has had some interesting interaction at high levels with native americans that have led to changes in the OA. When I was a boy scout far too many years ago, when the OA would suit up in indian regalia, we would use face paint in a random way. Now, at the suggestion of native americans, the use of face paint in OA ceremonies is prohibited because non native americans did not, and still do not, understand all the symbolism involved. For several decades the OA adopted as its logo a round representation of an indian face wearing a feathered head dress most commonly associated with the plains indians. Somebody suggested that this was not sufficiently general, so that logo was dropped and a new arrowhead logo adopted. There is also an Indian Lore merit badge. You might want to stop by a scout shop and pick up a copy of the pamphlet for this badge. Most merit badge pamphlets are created with the assistance of specialist groups outside of scouting, and these are usually credited in the pamphlet. It would be interesting to know what native american groups may have helped structure this merit badge.