emb021

"Eamonn brought up the fact the old course ran with guys who staffed over and over and over never letting anyone new into the course. And that even when the new course started the old regime stayed glued to their positions." "From what I am told, Currently the 21st century course is suppose to have something like 2/3 the staff be first time staffers, while the others go through a few courses being groomed to someday be the course director." Not quite. In the old course (ie, pre-"WB for the 21st Century"), it was EXTREMELY hard to get on staff. Per the literature, a council had to really justify why they were adding someone new to staff. Some councils were good at working to bring in "new blood", rather then had the whole staff be fill out course directors. But many weren't. To address this, with the current WB, a certain percentage HAD to be new staffers. NO, its not 2/3 new, its 1/3 new. This IS in the admin guide. To be a CD, you must have been a troop guide and one other position. Most councils have worked out who will be the future CD for the next 1-2 courses. And once you are CD, you are more or less done. This was done to address the issues of elitism and such that pervaded WB staff. Another thing that was done was to cut back on the amount of staff development required, as this too often limited the pool of potential staffers.

I have to agree with SR540's assessment of jrush's comments. This isn't what WB is about. "The tickets aren't just about improving yourself or the organization...they should force reflection of why you're in scouting to that extent in the first place." No. The purpose of the ticket (there is only 1 ticket, composed of 5 or more tasks or goals) is a chance for YOU to put in practice what you learned in WB in a practical way. This is very valuable, but something too many people loose sight of. Too many leadership courses are just going over leadership concepts. All well and good, but if you don't put it into practice, its useless. Some leadership courses ask you to make commitments to yourself to put what you learn into practice. That's nice, but with WB (and a few other courses), you actually DO have to put it into practice to full graduate from the course and get your beads et al, which are the outward sign that you completed the course. This is why the ticket is called the 'application' phase of WB.

"If this young man wants his public Scouting identity to be beyond the troop level - thus the different loops and the district patch - odds are the troop program no longer holds any interest for him. I'm just guessing here, though, based on my own experiences." I wouldn't quite look at it that way. Every Venturer who holds a position above the unit can wear (depending on the position) silver/gold loops, appropriate office patch and sometimes a VOA patch. I have no problem with that. (same for OA officers at any level) What I do have a problem is when such youth wear a uniform decked out for their non-unit position when they are NOT performing the duties of that position, say doing stuff within their unit. I know of an area venturing president who hasn't done the job, but because they are an area officer, wears gold loops ALL THE TIME. Even when doing stuff that has zilch to do with there position as an area venturing president. So, if this boy scout is wearing his "District Committee" patch on his uniform at troop events, then I can understand people questioning that. He should only wear it when he is doing that job, which would pretty much be at the district committee meetings, NOT in his troop. A different (but similar) example is myself. I'm involved in Toastmasters. I am an officer in 2 clubs, plus I am an area governor (oversee 6-7 clubs). But neither of my clubs is in my area. So when I am at those clubs, I conduct myself as a member and officer of that club, NOT as an area governor. I let the area governor for those clubs do their job, not try to do it for them.

Comment on this: "the district committee and troop committees can totally have youth members. In my troop, the SPL is a nonvoting member if invited, as are lodge and chapter chiefs in the OA in their respective council and district committees (again, if invited)." Not quite. At the district and council level, there are really only some youth who could wear silver. As noted, these could be the chapter and lodge chiefs and the district and council venturing president. There is NO proviso for any other 'district youth representative'. Like Eagle92, I am puzzled by the fact that we have district/council/area/region/national venturing president (and some cases vice-president) patches, but NO OA youth officer patches. I DO know that the regional and national OA chiefs DO wear gold loops and the appropriate regional/national committee patches. So why not the same for chapter/lodge/section chiefs??? NO, the SPL is NOT a 'non-voting' member of any troop committee. The SPL CAN attend troop committee meetings to present information and the like, but NOTHING makes him a member of the troop committee any more then a scoutmaster or assistant scoutmaster can be a member of the troop committee. It's not how it is to be done. Period. Ditto to what Eagle92 says. When you hold a non-unit position, you NEVER wear unit numbers. I get so tired of seeing that by certain district/council volunteers.

There are only a certain number of loops: Blue- Cub Scout unit leaders along with Webelos Scouts Red and now olive green- Boy Scouts and Boy Scout unit leaders Orange- Varsity Scouts and Varsity Scout unit leaders Spruce green- Venturers and Venturing unit leaders Silver- District/Council leaders (adults and professionals) and SOME limited youth Gold- Area/Region/National leaders (adults and professionals) and SOME limited youth You wear the loops for the position you hold. It has ZILCH with your 'primary' position, as you can hold several positions at different levels, and you want the loops to match the office patch and what you are doing. Yes, SOME youth can wear silver and gold. But they should ONLY do so if they have a formal position, and should wear it ONLY when performing that position. (ie, at their unit, they are unit members, so they shouldn't be wearing gold or silver). In addition to OA officers, there are Venturing youth leaders from District to National (with office patches, unlike the OA youth leaders). NO ONE, not councils, courses or units, can create their own loops. NO ONE should be adding anything to the loops (pins or patches). Its not authorized.

FWIW, I'm involved with a Fraternity, so the issue of hazing comes up. About every fraternity and sorority defines hazing and opposes it (and as noted, its against the law in probably every state, and against most school rules). But it still happens. With most such organizations, hazing is one of the quickies ways to get yourself removed from an organization and have your chapter shutdown. Here is how APO defines it: Hazing activities are defined as (but not limited to): Any action taken or situation created, intentionally, whether on or off fraternity premises or during fraternity functions, to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule. Such activities may include but are not limited to the following: Use of alcoholic beverages; paddling in any form; branding; creation of excessive fatigue; physical or psychological shocks; quests; treasure hunts; scavenger hunts; road trips; or any other such activities carried on in the name of the fraternity wearing of public apparel which is conspicuous and not normally in good taste; engaging in public stunts and buffoonery; morally degrading or humiliating games and activities; and any other activities which are not consistent with fraternal law, ritual or policy or the regulations and policies of the education institution and local, state and federal laws. A couple of good 'rules of thumb' I've used with people was to ask them: is this something you'd as a Brother (ie a member of the group) to do? and if your mother (or university official) happened to come by when you were doing this, what would you say? Keep in mind that hazing is pretty much always used against the new members as part of them being made 'part of the group', and as such is something that established/existing members would never be subjected to. A related problem is dealing with people who take too wide a stance on what hazing is. Some want to claim that asking a new member to do ANYTHING is somehow automatically hazing. But I go back to my second point: if this is something we ask of existing members to do, how is that hazing. For instance, asking pledge to do stuff (anything) is considered hazing, but in APO we expect ALL members to do service, so we expect pledge to ALSO do service. Is that hazing to ask them to do service? I don't think so.

This is covered in the Advancement Committee booklet. He follows the BSA program. [this is off the top of my head, so consult the booklet for the correct, in writing, policy]. What is supposed to be done is that a committee reviews what he has done in his own country's program to determine where he is in the BSA program. That is, what equivalent rank he is. He can be given any rank automatically EXCEPT Eagle. That is, it can be determined he is a Tenderfoot, 2nd Class, 1st Class, Star or Life. He can then continue to work on the next BSA rank and earn it, INCLUDING Eagle.

I thought they revamped their uniforms a couple of years ago.

"Sure it's nice for SPL's to get to know other SPL's in their district, but there's nothing in the manual that says that's their responsibility." True. But keep in mind you're speaking apples & oranges. the Boy Scout program is not the venturing program. By and large, troops rarely come together except at district/council events, which are all run by adults. For Boy Scouts, the only time they come together to plan and run stuff is in the OA. Venturing is different. Because Venturing, more so then in Boy Scouts, is youth run, the district/council venturing events should also be youth planned, organized, and run. And this is done thru VOAs (or whatever you want to call them). This is something that Venturing inherited from Exploring. Since the 1950s, council/district (and higher) Exploring events were youth planned & run. This started slowly in the 50s, really started going in the 60s with the establishment of district/council Explorer Cabinets (when ALL Posts were expected to send 2 reps to), and on into the 70s and beyond with district/council EPA/EOAs and the National Explorer Cabinet.

"Anyway, I wanted to know in what ways you or your crew are "innies" (tend to just do your thing and steer clear of council or other crew activities) or "outies" (tend to connect to other crews, Council VOA, or other "upper tier" Venturing associations). " Why would any crew want to 'steer clear of council or other crew activities'??? My experience is that most crews (and their members) LIKE to do things with other crews. When it doesn't happen I usually find its due to certain adults preventing it, by keeping their crew isolated (usually due to attitudes like they don't like the council, or putting blinders on, such as 'we do X', if your crew/activity does include 'X' we aren't interested.)

"TLC's have been re-cast as VOA's." Not really. What happened is most were called VOAs from the get-go. It was natural for VOA to be used, as the prior term was EOA (Explorer Officer Associations). Few used the new term National was pushing (which was used because they wanted to allow older boy scouts, varsity scouts, and explorer to be part of the mix). Its just that National realised most prefered the term and switched. "But the leadership guide is very clear that by definition, crew officers, if they properly fulfill their duties, will be agents of their Council as well as their crew. There is no indication that participation is "supplemental" or "not required"." Uh, the officers are NOT 'agents of their council'. The officers are representatives of their crew to the higher bodies (district or council VOAs). This is how it is in many organizations. For instance, in Toastmasters, club Presidents and VP-Education are members of the District Council, and club Presidents, VP-E, and VP-Membership are members of Area Council. Always remember that WE are the council. Its a bottom up structure. Crews to district/council VOAs and on up. OA is similiar with their sectional 'council of chiefs' formed by the lodge chiefs.

Well, as I understand a LOT of things will be different. * they will be a LOT tougher on participants (and staff) meeting the physical requirements. So, I think that means a lot of people who had been on staff, won't be allowed this time. I actually wasn't planning on attending, and probably good, because I might get turned down. * tempatures will NOT be as bad as the AP Hill site, so those issues will be less. * Visitors need to be aware that they CAN'T visit the Jamboree. Really. They will be limited to visiting the 'visitor village' (or whatever its called). This is a HUGE change. * Design of the jamboree means the distance to activities will be less AND there will be no buses or the like (I am going to guess all the outside vendors will be gone too).

"My first question is why would a Sea Scouter be in a WB course? Don't they have "Sea Badge"? (just curious...I don't know the answer)." Sea Badge is NOT Wood Badge. Wood Badge is the advanced leadership course for ALL scout leaders. There is nothing wrong with Sea Scout leaders attending WB. They will get a lot out of it. "If they do attend, I think common sense should prevail, as it does in the military (quit laughing!). The whites are a dress/ceremonial uniform. For everyday work wear (ie, office or classroom), the khakis are appropriate. For field training, the BDUs, or "Navy Working Uniform" is appropriate. If you are camping, the whites would get ruined." BDUs are NOT an approved Sea Scout uniform. For adults, there are only 3: Dress blues, summer whites, and tan working uniform. Go with whites for dress use, tans for everyday use. For instance, at the Sea Scout booth at the National Jamboree, we used whites for dress, tans for most wear, and for work, it was tan shorts (those are NOT BSA Boy Scout shorts) with our staff t-shirt.

"Did you know that if you are a 501 you need to file a tax form every year, 909 or 9099????" 990. Or E-990. Many small orgs have to do this each year. I can tell you that my Toastmasters club must do this each year, and my parliamentary org (part of a National org) and my professional society (again, part of a National org) has to do this each year. Our parent orgs provides us with our unique tax id number. And bug us to make sure we do this. "As predicted the church won't share theirs and the DE is almost of the tough luck line." Won't share what?? Their tax id number? They do understand that your unit IS part of the church? Its no different if the church choir or the church youth group needed it. "I will talk to the store front and if they demand it....guess we won't sell in front of stores this year." Demand what? What is this store wanting? Get on the horn with your council office. There shouldn't be an issue. I know in my neck of the woods, our council office has done things like work with local Publixes for discounts, so we have no issue selling our camp cards there.

One council I work with has an annual Eagle Banquet. All the current Eagles (ie from the prior year's 'class') attend free. We usually have about 140 Eagles each year, but only about 70-80 will attend (as I seem to recall). Anyone who wants to attend may do so for $40 (that is just a little more then our costs). We have other levels, such as sponsor (you pay for yourself, and another, and extra money goes to pay for an Eagle). And then we have 3 donor levels (several hundred dollars). This helps the cost of the dinner for the Eagles and the extra money goes into a scholarship. NONE of the money goes to the council, it all goes to the scholarship (we give 2-3 $1000 scholarships each year). We have a NESA chapter, so that's our alumni association. I think that's a better method of doing it then what it sounds like in your council.

"I would like to hear more about the parent letter" Don't know what you mean by a 'parent letter', but some organizations (especially those that don't use a nominating committee) make use of some kind of nomination form. This form specifies the dutes and responsibilities of the position being sought, and may also set down a code of conduct for the position (or all officers in general). The person putting forth themselves as a nominee is then required to agree and sign the form (and it may also require a brief essay explaining why they want the position and what they plan on doing with it). In scouting, I have seen such forms be used for officer elections in OA lodges and Venturing Officer Associations. I've also seen similiar forms used for appointed positions in other orgs (but rarely in scouting). "also why someone cannot hold the same position in concecutive terms." Its not always good for an organization to have someone continuously hold the same position term after term. The org gets stale, someone else wasn't allowed in, etc. So term limits are placed. Usually they don't allow one to hold the position more then two consecutive terms (especially in yearly terms), but could disallow holding a position for consecutive terms.

"I can find almost no information on the Bronze Bighorn Award. I received it in 1979 or 1980 as an Explorer Scout. Anybody have a clue as to that history?" This award is not a National award, and AFAIK, was a regional award that only existed in one of the regions. I have yet to find any info myself. BTW, you were an Explorer, not an Explorer Scouts. Explorer Scouts only exist pre-1949.

"A few folks mentioned the Scout BSA dark green shirt was dropped in 1979." The Explorer/Scout BSA forest green shirt WAS dropped in 1979. They no longer had them in the catalog, and they revised the literature (such as the leadership corps booklet) to no longer mention them. So don't know how your camp was able to continue to have their staff wear the green shirt, unless they had a stock to provide to new staffers.

FWIW, I just was doing an edit of my parliamentary club's bylaws. (we did a minor amendment to bring our bylaws in-line with certain policies of our national body). Our bylaws are 5 1/2 pages long. Our standing rules take up the rest of the 6th page. Also, the standard articles of bylaws are: Name Object Membership Officers Meetings Executive Committee (or Executive Board) Committees (committees within the organization) Parliamentary Authority Amendments

word I've been hearing is they are coming out with a revamped set of Venturing pants (which supposedly are zipoff). Could care less. Am quite happy with the charcoal gray pants & shorts I get from Bass Pro Shop. (cabela's has similiar). I have several 8-pocket shorts. And they have a newer item called "Sportman's Cargo Short" which also has a pants version I've used.

"When was this "brought back"? Are you refering to the current Centeninal Uniform?, or are you talking about something else? " You know guys, if you would check out my site, www.seniorscoutinghistory.org, your questions will be answered. He is refering to the forest green shirt. BSA National actually dropped it TWICE. They first dropped the shirt in 1979. After this, Explorers (and leaders) had to wear the tan BSA shirt with green loops, and also made the office patch strips on tan instead of green. In 1985, they brought the shirt back, and AGAIN dropped in in 1990 (so back to wearing the tan shirt, again). And finally, they brought the shirt back in 1995, which was kept thru the split of Exploring in 1998. Now, one thing I found interesting is that per published Exploring literature, when they brought back the forest green shirt in 1995, the Explorer uniform policy was VERY clear that Explorers were NOT to wear tan, they HAD to wear forest green. (adults had a choice). I always thought that was done to ensure enough shirts were sold...

Overall, I thought the segment was pretty good. Nice to have both Boy Scouts and Venturers highlighted. Only nit was the slipup in refering to Venturing as "Venturing Scouts" by one of their leaders (who should have known better).

Yes, its ok. There are ADC-Venturing and ACC-Venturing, and you have Council Venturing Committees, and you could have a District Chair for Venturing, so if you are a unit commissioner ONLY for VenturING Crews (please note the correct term), then wearing the spruce green uniform is perfectly fine. That's one of the reason the uniform has epaulets, so you can wear green or silver or gold loops.

"I've always found it curious how a Scout can be "active" enough to earn merit badges, do service work, carry out a position of responsibility, and fulfill all the other requirements for a rank advancement, but be declared "not active" by some pompous adult that wants more." Well, as they say "Your mileage may vary", but this has NOT been my experience. If a scout IS doing all you say about, then I doubt anyone would claim he was NOT active. What usually happens is the scout who does all his stuff, then disappears for several months (ie no meeting, events), then returns to get his Eagle finished off and there are complains that he hasn't been active because he has been gone all that time. Its these sorts that are usually the reason units want to define active. sort of saying to these youth that you truly MUST be active to be considered active. "THAT is why the national council finally said NO, you can't make up a bunch or arbitrary and capricious "active" rules." Depends again on what you mean by "arbitrary and capricious active rules". As I've said before, in most organizations, even one that are local 'chapters' of national groups, the local chapter has control on what THEY determine 'active'. These are usually along the lines of being current in your dues, attending a minimum (and reasonable number) of meetings and events. And usually, the national body will back up the local group's rules. Heck, in my Fraternity, we have a set of guidelines for pledge programs and requirements, but leave it to each chapter to define THEIR requirements for THEIR chapter. And so long as it is in-line with the guidelines, they are ok. Some may require 5 service hours, others 20, other 30s. And THAT'S OK. I suspect that National wants to ensure that the SAME requirements for all ranks are the same for all youth. So allowing each unit to define their OWN requirements for active would in a sense be changing the requirements. If unit A says attendence at 50% of meetings is part of the active requirements, and unit B says its 75%, you now have requirements that AREN'T the same. So the only way to ensure this is to toss it all out and say being registred is the only proof of being active. Personally, I would have preferred National follow what pretty much all other groups do: leave it up to each unit to clearly define what THEY consider active (prehaps in line with some national guideline), and stick with that. But I guess they just don't want to do that.

"So emb, you put no stock in "The official BSA Rules and Regulations that you agreed to when you became a member state the Policy of the BSA: An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age." ? " OGE- what I do or do not put stock into doesn't matter. I don't set BSA policy. I thought I had made it clear that in my mind, what is put down in the above R&R I happen to agree with. As I stated, most groups I am part of set down their own definition of what THEY define as active (again: pay dues, attend a minimum number of meetings/events). But has been made clear for many years, the BSA does NOT follow this rule when it comes to define what 'active' means for the purposes of advancement. This is CLEARLY set forth in the the Advancement Committee Guideline book I just quited, to whit: * be on the roster & kept in formed of activities. NOTHING MORE.