FScouter

Beavah makes quite an eloquent speech about the need for requirements. So what? Nobodys suggesting there should not be requirements for rank or awards. The Handbook has a long list of requirements for every rank. Everybody agrees there should be requirements and that awards should not be handed over merely because a boy is registered. The difference of opinion centers on whether BSA has or has not declared that attendance is not required, and whether a troop may add an attendance requirement in addition to all the other requirements. Quite obviously, BSA clarified the active definition declaring that units may NOT impose attendance requirements for rank advancement, simply because units were doing just that, instead of developing a program such as OGE suggests. Completing rank requirements is rather difficult if not impossible to do without attending, yes? How else does a boy participate in ten separate troop/patrol activities, serve as your patrols cook, demonstrate, show, successfully complete, serve in a position of responsibility, etc. etc. etc. if he does not participate and attend? If a troop feels the need to have a separate attendance rule that would only seem to prove that the unit is improperly signing off other rank requirements, and has not been successful in keeping boys interested, happy, and engaged. Surely theres a better solution than writing an attendance rule? BSA doesn't have one, because it's not needed.

We teach boys the various aspects of planning a meal: How many are going, for how long? Backpacking, such that weight or prep methods are a consideration? Hot weather or cold? Nutrition considerations. After considering all this, write a shopping list, get pricing and compute the cost per boy. Budget isnt a part of it. If the committee, or SM, or other well-meaning adult imposes a budget limit, this forces the boy to go back and scrap the other aspects of his meal planning to meet the adult-imposed restriction. Instead, why not let the boy and the patrol see the final cost results of their menu planning choices? When the patrol grubmaster presents the cost per boy figure, there will be pushback from the other boys if the amount is exorbitant, particularly if they must pay out of their own personal pockets. I dont see that we teach anything to boys by imposing a budget limit. Perhaps thats why the Handbook is silent on the idea.

Expanding on what Gern said re leadership. It's highly overrated. A good thing to be sure, but developing leadership is not the purpose of Scouting nor should it be a unit's focus. Boy leadership skills naturally develop from following the program.

There are lots of things boys don't understand. We give them opportunities in Scouting to do those things, and of course they don't usually do a very good job the first time. They buy too much food. They change the patrol menu while walking down the aisle of the Piggly-Wiggly. They pay too much. They must then explain to their patrol mates how it is they screwed up. They do better the next time. We have the first class plan-a-menu, make-a-grocery-list, and buy-the-ingredients requirements so boys can learn how to do it. Adults sometimes forget that the purpose of Scouting is to help boys grow up and make choices. That they screw up along the way is to be expected. Thrifty is part of the Scout Law, but we dont teach it very well if well-intentioned but misguided adults step in and take over in the name of efficiency. Parents would do well too to not pay for any of this. Teach their son how to pay his own way.

If the patrol wants to eat steak and lobster, the role of the troop committee is to offer assistance to the PLC and help them figure out how to earn the money to pay for it.

Ain't love grand?

NRA medals are not listed in the Insignia Guide as appropriate for wear on the BSA uniform.

We hear it repeated over and over a ridiculous notion that BSA says active is nothing more than being registered. I see it a only a cheap ploy to discredit BSA, somehow advocating an idea that BSA is crazy, therefore we can do or not do anything we want. I also see lack of meeting attendance is taken as a personal affront by the troop adults. Whaddaya mean you dont want come to my meeting?? How dare you, you ungrateful dopey kid! Heaven forbid Ed, a boy actually do Scouting outside of the "official required troop meeting". The nerve!

OK, so write the kid off. Lets just not perpetuate the myth that active = registered or that anyone advocates giving away the highest award in Scouting to a kid that is merely signed up and doesnt start fights.

The money all goes into the same pot so what's the diff? All those in favor of raising the registration fee a dollar, in exchange for "fair" uniform prices, raise your hand.

The point here, as I see it, has nothing to do with a precise definition of active. We all know when a kid is active and when hes not, yes? It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. If the program works, the boy is active and we achieve the mission. If the program isnt working the kid is not active and we dont achieve our mission. Active kids get more out of Scouting than inactive kids, semantics notwithstanding. We serve no purpose at all in disparaging BSA, or declaring policies to be wishy-washy or contradictory, or arguing about what one document means v what some other document means. If a kid is not active, get him active or youve failed. If writing a rule on the blackboard or posting troop bylaws or blocking advancement or withholding awards or parsing BSA documents helps achieve our mission, then go for it. If not, try creating an engaging troop program that lets kids WANT to be active. Of course thats more difficult.

Seeing as how all the versions are the same, it doesn't make any difference. The differences come from different individuals reading the same thing and choosing to interpret it to support their own purposes. If a boy is not participating in the troop program, a rule written by the adults is not going to make him active. BSA makes it clear that it is the job of the Scoutmaster to engage the boys and create a program such that they will actively participate. Writing a "you must attend or else" rule only shows that the SM has failed. Instead, he should be conferencing with those boys whose participation is waning and determine ways to increase it.

Just to be clear, BSA does NOT define "active" as being "registered". What BSA has said is the a troop may NOT define "active" with an arbitrary percentage.

Does my son NEED to have the SM sign off on the scout spirit section located in the book...the ACP&P does not make it clear The requirement is to live the Scout Oath and Scout Law, NOT get the Scoutmaster signature in the book. The job of the board of review is to determine if the requirements have been met, whether it has been signed off or not. The presence or absence of a signature does not determine whether the requirement has been met, though the absence should generate some thoughtful questions from the board.

Seeing as how none of this discussion has anything to do with Scouting, I'm moving the topic out of the "Program" forum to the "Issues & Politics" forum. I suppose even that could be construed as a violation of somebody's free speech "rights".

Ahh, good point. Another point: Why do some folks get offended by the existence of the "guides"?

That would of course be a violation of their "right" to free speech, no?

"They raise it to the level of lawbreakin'..." No, not really. You have it backwards. The noise comes from those folks needlessly defending their right to do what they wanna do which theyre gonna do anyway, be it a sash or uniform parts, insignia, or advancement, or anything Scouting. They get ultra-sensitive about it and heaven help the poor soul that may raise an eyebrow lest he get his head bit off and be subjected to a loud tirade about uniform police or book-thumping or some other dismissive berating. It's really old hearing the defensive justifications.

You can trust me. I have a beard too, until the weather warms up. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

"I don't like censorship." Winston, please step away from the alcove.

Trashing the book would be a waste of resources; help the economy and use as is.

Moderators: hops_scout Eamonn OldGreyEagle acco40 FScouter

Sounds like one of the justifications / rationalizations to which Fred was alluding. Why do we declare something not worth fighting over, and then fight to justify it? Human nature I suppose.

Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to re-write BSA rules. Apologies to Sir Walter Scott.

I earned the honor unit patch as a Cub Scout. It is 1" x 3", blue on white with blue border, "HONOR UNIT 1961".