evmori

One wonders why mom is telling you rather than telling the local scout council? And why you are telling us and not telling the local scout council? Looking for advise? Questioning why this didn't show up on a background check? And we don't know if this is true or not so reporting it to the local council without all the facts would be irresponsible!

SctDad, Maybe the answer to your question is that you are incorrect about your premise, and I am trying to get you to reconsider what the real problem is. I am not the only poster who has tried to explain the real problem to you. Bob, Are you in the same council as SctDad? If not you don't know what the real problem is!

Where is this family camp you speak of acco? And just for the record, camping in an RV ain't camping.

Right on the money SSScout. This is not about the plaintiff's inability to use the park. It has been stated that neither plaintiff attempted to use the park. They were merely offended by who was using it. Too bad. So sad! Move along. Nothing to see here! Wonder how many times either plaintiff has been to the park since this poor ruling?

Your district advancement committee might tell you there are a minimum number of hours required & that the project has to be written up on a PC & that letters of reference are required. None of which is true. There are no minimum/maximum number of hours required.

University of Scouting is merely the title of an event it is not a formal syllabus. It is not a set group of classes and can be anything which that particular council wants to include at that event. Bob is correct but this doesn't address the problem. If, as SctDad posted UoS Being held in on the same weekend as camp staff training and webelos OA weekend will pose a problem with resources & leadership.

If overbooking is occurring, it sounds like who ever is in charge of the council calendar is dropping the ball.

Bottom line is the original decision was based on flawed logic & now those who made that decision are running & hiding. SCOTUS will do the right thing.

The same way blacks had their civil rights infringed by city busses in Montgomery, Ed. They could ride the busses, they just didn't get equal treatment. The court said it violated equal protection under the 14th amendment. Completely different & not applicable Merlyn! Regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation, if the place is reserved, no one can get in. No ones right are violated.

Ed, gays and atheists (and girls, for that matter) have inferior access to public parkland, because the BSA controls access and prefers their own members. And how does this violate their civil rights, Merlyn?

Sorry, the civil rights of atheists and gays can't be dismissed by you as egocentric. Are atheists & gays civil rights different from everyone else? Because if they aren't I don't see how their civil rights were violated. Sure their feelings were hurt. So what? The initial ruling was flawed & in the end, the BSA will win out!

The BSA says they book the park solid with their own members during the peak-demand summer months. You can't use it if you aren't a member. You can't use it because it is booked to capacity. Another BSA unit wanting to book the park would be turned away, too, because it is booked to capacity and they ARE members! The ruling was flawed from the get go & will be over turned. There is nothing in the Constitution that about being offended by anything. Grow a set & move on!

The requirement reads While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of six months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility: The way I understand this is a Scout can serve an in one or more POR's as long as the total time is greater than or equal to six months.

Now that was a great way to solve the problem! And funny! Thanks for sharing!

Riding in the back of the bus has absolutely nothing to do with this case! No one is being denied use of anything in the Balboa Park case. Someone's feelings were hurt! Grow a set & deal with it!

Maybe you need to re-read it, Merlyn. The original decision was flawed & the judges are now hiding behind their flawed ruling.

Does anyone know what happened to the Scout Parent Forum? It was located http://www.forum.scoutparents.org/forum/index.php?s=93b8ab42a7dc169d46ed615a3784980f

What it says to me is the whole thing was screwed up from the get go! The wrong ruling was made & now they wanna hide!

"Eagle scouts that don't camp? Boy leaders that don't lead. Eagle projects designed, directed and implemented by parents. Eagle projects that are basically a total waste of time." Where does the BSA allow that except for scouts with extreme medical conditions? Where does the BSA teach or support Eagle projects being developed and lead by parents? I don't think anyone has said the BSA allows or teaches these things. But the BSA does let them happen!

If he will meet the eligibility requirements why would you say that he is joining early? Early would be if he didn't meet the requirements yet and tried to join. Well that was no help! Bryan, As long as your son has met the requirements, he can move up. While you might think this is early based on his age, I would bet ya a lot of Webelos have moved up exactly the way your son plans to.

Consider it done!

personally think that the Tiger program added in the early 80s is the single biggest contributor to the loss of boys in the cub program today. Why? Burnout. The kids get tired of crafts & the like & mom & dad get burnt out helping out & driving little Johnny all over.

I'm a talon you! We're the Eagles! NE-V-120 Eagle Patrol

As long as he has served the necessary time, the positions he served in are fine.

If a kid needs to worry about breathing at a Scoutmasters Conference something is seriously wrong.