fred8033

... duplicate ...(This message has been edited by fred8033)

For me, it's not the badge. I like any badge where I can get to know the scout, provide a bit of my life experience, guidance and wisdom ... and make a difference. I'm sad when a scout shows up with a completed workbook from MeritBadge.com. I'm impressed with the scout, but it means I'll have little chance to make a significant contribution. Basically, if it says "discuss" and the scout wrote his answer all out, then he can just regurgitate the words and be done. Do I reject him if he just reads the words written? Do I demand more? I don't think that's legit. If the scout is not in a hurry and we can have a good discussion, fine. But more often then not, my experience is that scouts that have the requirements written out want to be done with the badge. They are not focused on learning or chatting. They just want to be done. I'm also sad when a scout shows up for a merit badge where they've done it in school multiple times. It feels lame to make them go thru the same hoops again to earn the merit badge. That seems so true for communications, citizenship in the ###### and numerous other eagle badges. I'd like to see more badges like tracking, welding, wood working, carpentry, fishing, climbing, cooking, camping, canoeing, hiking, etc. More doing. More showing. More practical. More fresh topics that will be new to the scout.. Things where the scout can't just show up with a completed worksheet and where the scout can't just re-hash what they just did in school or found via Google. If it is a discussion related badge like any of the citizenship badges, I'd like to see more requirements like attend a city council and visit national historic landmarks.

Twocubdad - Your right. From a few of the hints in the original post, it's really hard to give good accurate advice without knowing more of the details. I'm afraid this situation falls into the mess category in which everyone contributed some amount and now people are stuck with untangling the issues.

I have a hard time with this. I don't personally care about a person's orientation and I'm definitely not going to spend time weeding them out. It does not affect me. But, it would definitely be a significant deciding factor if I was at the time choosing what troop to put my sons into.

Huzzar wrote: "Have two or more adults joined at the hip on every trip?" Isn't that what we're trying to avoid happening at our scouting events? Sorry. Had to add some levity.

Kristian wrote: "Defining and actually enforcing the active requirement is whats going to help here." Kristian is absolutely right, but if you don't have them already defined for since the scout joined your troop and you knew about it, then it's sort of moot for this specific incident. VigilEagle wrote: "I think the big thing here is sitting down with the Scout and understanding the situation." I think that's the best answer. Not necessarily sitting with the parent. Sitting with the scout and understanding the situation. You will probably need to talk with the parent too to learn more. But they are separate conversations. Once you deal with the situation mess, then look at the advancement questions. Advancement is individually pursued and earned by completing the requirements. Maybe he has done that and that's absolutely fine. It really depends on his situation. There's nothing wrong with getting a rank advancement on his 1st meeting as long as he has completed the requirements. By the way, he has to attend a meeting to have a SMC and/or a BOR.

I've got to admit that our pack plays slightly lose with the dues. Though we won't sign anyone up for summer camp or other explicit activity without receiving payment, we are flexible with re-charter. - If a scout is attending meetings and/or involved, we recharter them. We treat dues as a separate issue. - If they paid dues but we haven't seen them for a long time, we recharter them. They paid and that was the purpose of the money. - Only if they don't pay dues and they are also not involved at all, then we drop them. No communication necessary as they are not communicating with us. I'm not a collection agency. We do our best. We notify parents and maybe send a 2nd request. We deal with parents the best we can. But if parents don't bother to pay dues or pay attention, then the kid is not going to go very far. We just want him around as long as he is interested and benefitting from scouting.

Saw two district changes. One just before I became a leader but I saw the results. One while I've been active at the unit and district level. The 1st was a split. It went smooth but there was lingering problems as neither district had sufficient quantity of units to put on a really good roundtable with good breakouts. Other issues too such as friendships not seeing each other. Generally, life went on. Those who grumble, grumbled. The 2nd was a merger with another district. The other district was most of the old broken off district and part of another. Those districts had been re-aligned again. It was fast and quick, but handled well with sensitivity. Again those who grumble, grumbled. One memorable problem was that the OA chapter which had been once one chapter, but had since split, was again one chapter. The OA advisor claimed it would be too big of a chapter. It worked though. I think the OA advisor was more concerned with his position and having to deal with change then anything else. The biggest problems were with people. Change leads to two questions. #1 What job will I have in the new district? #2 Is this a good time to step away? From what I saw, if two districts had each 15 committed volunteers, the new merged district will have 20 committed volunteers. Not 30 volunteers. BUT, now you have more units to pull help from for roundtable and camporees. IMHO, it's been a huge success and the new district is much better then the smaller older district.

EagleLeader wrote: "..., so until recharter rolled around I totally forgot about him." Plus EagleLeader wrote that the registration process caused some "tension" with the troop committee. So, your leaders knew he was on the roster and official per BSA. So now it's moot who signed the app and how he joined. By doing nothing and leaving him on the roster for an extended time, the troop accepted the scout. That raises the question was the scout ever ever attending your meetings or ever ever went on a camp out. If not, then you can start the relationship as Beavah said. The challenge is what to do with rank advancement progress that has been made since his last rank advancement and his last troop. It could have been partly in the last troop. It could have been after his last troop but done using the same mechanisms. What I'd have hardest with is the "active" and "POR" for Star and Life and "with patrol/troop" requirements. You need to use your judgement, but ... depending on the situation ... I'd let the requirements decide. THEN... THEN... I'd reset expectations so that everyone is on the same page. Leaves the scout with a starting positive experience. BUT if he does not plan to be an active member of your troop, drop him from the roster. Better now then later. Better now then the headache questions that will happen later. I say let the requirements decide because every rank has expectations for troop involvement: "10 separate troop/patrol activities" ... "On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook" ... "one of these campouts, select your patrol site and sleep in a tent". Star and Life requires "active" (hard to define) and to complete a POR. If you really follow the requirements, it's impossible to become a paper Eagle. ===================== The original poster raised a red flag for me and it is a classic example of why I hate the Webelos transition. She asked about his advancement when she had her Webelos den visiting. That's an implicit statement of you better keep me happy if you want my Webelos to join your troop. I've seen this year after year with Webelos den leaders that try to negotiate or sweeten the pot. We are at the point now that our troop has a good program and it is what it is. We'd love your scouts to join us but we won't jump thru hoops to make it happen. I just have contempt for the whole Webelos process in general(This message has been edited by fred8033)

If you get a 10-12 person adventure, you only need two adults. Just say'in.

We don't mind one parent coming with. Maybe two. BUT we try to separate the parents from the scouts. We don't even want the parents hanging near by quietly. It's a distraction. So if the parents come, we usually break out a game of hearts, spades, cribbage or similar. I enjoy it and the real purpose is to let the scouts bond and learn from each other.

qwazse had great advice. IMHO, ultimately the ones that go are the ones that commit. It's an educational point that others will need to learn. That to achieve and be part of something special, you need to invest yourself long in advance. It's the same for jobs, relationships, education and anything worthwhile. It is always easier to stay non-committal, but then you automatically lose. That's life. Try to get more to sign up. If you are borderline for a 2nd group (one or two short), open it up for cousins, non-scouting brothers or former scouts that just turned 18 or similar. I'd rather stretch the rules slightly then to have scouts that want to go lose out because of a numbers game. I've been to Sea Base and I loved it. MUNSON. munson. MUNSON. munson.

OldGreyEagle ... I'm often confused by criminal prosecutions for causing the death of a fetus. Or the driving laws for negligence and death of a fetus. http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Vehicular-Homicide-Laws-and-the-Unborn-Child.html

Cambridgeskip wrote: "In short, none of them could understand what the fuss was about. They were actually a bit surprised to learn that religion was any problem in terms of joining anything. They are used to people having different beliefs and are all quite able to discuss theirs without being nasty to each other. " That's what I'd expect. The push to remove reverent and God from scouting is not a scout based push. Scouts deal with these situations all the time. It's a political push. I find that interesting.

Nike has one view of the question. "Who has more right to control what's going on in that uterus? The woman? The fetus? The man? The State?" That's only one policy question. From my view, the question is worded as does one life have the right to end another life in the interest of their own freedom? The question is political and a matter of policy ... not a matter of science. We know when a unique human being is created. We know where the major transition from two separate people, two separate parts into a new single UNIQUE living entity occurs. We also know when the heart starts beating. We know when the fetus can start feeling pain. OldGreyEagle ... I find these articles are very useful when distinguishing the "science" view from the "political" view. These articles are from Princeton, about as authoritative as you can get. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html So... The science is clear. The policy is clear. But the combination is a mess. Obviously, women have a right to control their bodies, absolutely, as does anyone. BUT .... the state recognizes the duty to support the lives that people create. For example, mothers and fathers are routinely forced by the state to financially support their children for 18 years. Parents can be jailed for "abandonment". One famous case was in our local newspapers this year. But we hear all the time about the deadbeat dad (or mom). So one life is 100% dependent on another life for nine months. Instead of 18 years of support, we are talking about nine months. Or probably only seven months more by the time of abortion. Or only four months more of support if you already consider the child a life not worth aborting in the 3rd term of pregnancy. From what I understand, most abortions are driven by the economics or the wrong time of life or wrong situation. So if the economics or situation was different, the child would be wanted. That itself itself becomes pitiful. That's playing russion roulette with human life. Obviously, I view abortion as murder. I'm not ready to walk the steets in protest or picket planned parenthood. But as my children grow to adulthood, I find abortion a ghastly concept.

We go to Target Minute Clinic or a CVS pharmacy for our physicals. Cheaper and gets done faster. For most 11-17 year olds, who attend public school ... yeah ... it's a waste of money and time. Once every three or four years is good. ... BUT ... I'd require yearly physicals for anyone outside of normal physical and mental health boundaries. Diabetic. Morbidly obese. Prescriptions. Voted democrat.

I've noticed that the cheap and intellectually lazy way to argue is to call someone else a bigot. I'm not perfect, but I try to avoid that threshold. Hard not to as though as you get upset with the opposition being unreasonable. IMHO, credibility is lost by the 1st person to accuse the other of being a bigot. Same as swearing, insulting or physical violence ... you lose.

You are facing a very stiff up-hill struggle. You might want to re-think what is best for the remaining boys in the unit. ----------- I've seen Kudu's presentation web page in the past. Great idea. The challenge is getting it in front of middle age youth. IMHO, if you have a chance of doing it anywhere, you have a chance doing it at churches or at your charter org. Our schools wouldn't let us do it at a school event. If flyers get lost / ignored, youth won't get to the presentation anyway. ----------- Ask your pastor if you can stage Kudu's presentation at the church for after each and every service for two weeks. Ask for a small room that people have to walk by on their way in and out of the church. Bring the canoe too.

Need to be slightly more specific. Troop and crews run programs differently. --- "Function as one unit" can mean different things. --- "Meet at the Same time and Place?" can mean different things. --- "unit" can mean different things... even though BSA has clear meaning being a pack, troop or crew Generally... IMHO... You can meet at the same time and place, BUT at minimum you'd need two different large rooms and a few other smaller rooms. One for the troop to run their program. One for the crew to run theirs. IMHO, you don't need to meet at the same time and place to work as one unit. But when I say "unit" I view unit as the charter org providing a youth scouting program. IMHO, pack, troop, crew are scouting program levels. And I'd add Webelos to that list as a separate program level.

Qwazse is right Merlyn. You hypocritically hide behind the banner of tolerance and then shout that everyone needs to believe the same as you. Bigot? Really? Many of us cherish scouting because it does have a faith element to it. It's not thrown in your face and many barely notice it, but it is present and an important part of the program. I'm not much for big camporee events. But if you choose to attend faith components... There is something very special about sitting on the grass Sunday morning with the wind blowing thru the trees and being together with hundreds of others for an inter-faith service to reflect and pray. Or at summer camp at a late Sunday afternoon mass with the lake water rolling onto the beach. Or the rained out service that gets relocated into the dinning hall. Scouting has always had a major faith element to it. You have a choice whether you participate in the faith components and you have a choice whether you participate in scouting, but you can't use scouting as a platform to advocate atheism and expect to be considered a member in good standing. Tolerance is working side by side. Camping side by side. Helping each other. Without demanding each other change. In our city, many of the churches work together on basic humanist project such as food shelves, homeless shelters and protecting the vulnerable. All churches I know welcome others being present at their church services. But as a member of my church, I cant use their church to evangelize my faith. Its really the same things with scouts. Belief in a higher power is a core element. You can personally believe different and participate. Thats tolerance. But you cant use scouting as your platform to advocate the opposite. That just not smart.

.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Outdoors: "I find that highly offensive." That's funny. .... Your point is ???? .... Scouting without a component of faith is just camping. You can have all the virtues you want, but without a component of faith, it's just not scouting. That's why Eagle rank accepts Chaplain Aide as a position of responsibility to fulfill requirements. ... I pray that BSA never goes the path of YMCA. I find it hard to walk into our local YMCA these days as the ones in our city have had the crosses removed and have been rebranded "The Y". Go on their web sites and you see a whitewashed history that talks about being formed to promote positive values. That's a half truth at best. The first YMCA organization was started as a Christian bible study to keep young men away from sin. Every YMCA until the last few decades has had Christianity in it as part of the program. I'm against the YMCA as much as I'm incredibly sad when I think what a great organization it once was. I'm sad because they choose to remove Christ from the title. BSA is more inclusive then the YMCA was, but I pray BSA does not go down the same road. If nothing else, let the unit charter organizations choose. If sponsored by a church, why not let the church include a component of faith. If ya don't like it, find a scouting unit sponsored elsewhere.

scoutingagain is correct. All these controversial topics on this forum rarely come up in the units. The most controversial thing in units is usually how to work with the scouts, how to discipline, etc. In fact, most of us try to pull the controversial topics (both sides of the discussion) OUT of scouting.

trailwalker... just following track of posts. Just looked logical. My apologies. CalicoPenn... Get a grip.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

trailwalker = Merlyn LeRoy.... ZZZZZzzzz....(This message has been edited by fred8033)