FScouter

"Do you mean the BSA official website?" No, I mean every internet site EXCEPT the official BSA website. Council websites are the worst. They generally seem to be put together by a volunteer and are updated on a haphazard schedule if at all. There's no way to tell how current things found on the internet may be. The best way for a council to present current forms and docs is to link direct to the BSA site. Some do, some don't.

I can't imagine even the weakest scenario to support a lawsuit regarding advancement.

How do you know the internet has current and correct information?

"I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this policy, but it does seem to be the policy and to be pretty doggone clear." A policy has a good chance of being ambiguous and unclear if we want it to be something else.

Right, there are no silly questions. Most questions can be answered by looking in the book. I'd feel silly asking a question where the answer is right where I should have looked in the first place. In this case there wasn't even a question; just a silly statement from a third party that wanted someone else to validate him. That is silly.

"Frankly, the National Council could fix this issue if they had the zeal to do so." Tell us what could be done to fix things. Of course the repair should consider other issues that may be broken by the repair. If the fix is to source in the U.S., you'll have to consider the problems that were fixed by going to other sources. So what is your idea?

See 157 what I mean about personal opinions? Everybody's got one and if somebody doesn't agree with yours they're either pig-headed or stupid.

"This is one of those rare instances where BSA has written something that isn't very clear." There may be some good arguments for simultaneous tenure. It matters not. BSA says "no". The old "isn't very clear" argument doesn't fool anyone. Any suggestion to skirt the requirements by twisting the arm of the training chair is abhorrent.

"During the Committee meeting, it was brought up that a leadership position had been offered but he did nothing with the opportunity." When you're finished dealing with this particular Scout, I'd suggest you call both the SPL and Scoutmaster in for a separate meeting to let them know they have done a poor job in appointing a Scout to a position and failing to meet with him regularly during his term to ensure his success.

Insurance is a complicated topic in Scouting. The publications from the national council cannot speak to the insurance policies that the local council, chartered organization, or unit may or may not have. The Guide to Safe Scouting mentions insurance in general terms. See Scouting $$$ Pay Liability Claims: http://www.scouting.org/HealthandSafety/GSS.aspx The annual charter agreement has a paragraph about insurance. The various accident policies offered through councils usually have a brochure that talks about coverage and limitations. The tour permit talks about auto insurance for drivers. And of course there is an infinite variation of personal opinions and anecdotes that are heard around the Scouting water cooler and internet chat forums. Probably youre best approach would be to speak to the council professional that handles insurance, not necessarily the girl behind the counter.(This message has been edited by FScouter)

If you're referring to liability insurance, leaders are "covered" regardless. If you're referring to accident insurance for injury to individuals, boys invited for the purpose of being recruited are "covered" the same as a registered member. Accident insurance is optional so your unit may or may not have it. A tour permit has nothing do to with insurance coverage.

Hey fellas, we are all painfully aware of the great love you two have for each other. But arent such intimate expressions are really better expressed privately? If you cant demonstrate courteous to each other, well, thats between the two of you. But how about demonstrating it to the other 9,998 forum members and take your affections to the PM system.

I'd feel embarrassed posing a silly question to the DE. Rather, ask the pack person doing the telling to have the DE call you if he's so concerned about it.

Wise commentary indeed Calico. I never set out to teach my son to read. He picked it up on his own, because Mom and Dad sat down every day to quietly read, every day. He followed. Raising young'uns isn't so hard. Do what it is you want to teach.

"I have heard this, but I've not found the source for it." That is a very common occurance in Scouting, particularly on internet chat forums. You can drive yourself nuts looking for substantiation.

Uhh, without quotes, italics, or "he says", "my response", it's hard to tell who is saying what here. Too easy to blow through to the bottom and move on to the next topic.

For a number of years, the BSA Den Chief training syllabus was a full day event. About 2 years ago the training was revised and the syllabus shortened to about 3 1/2 hours. I have not reviewed the new on-line version.

Some of the best adult leaders are those WITHOUT a boy in the troop. They don't have a "vested interest" to color their judgment. If the CC is ineffective, replace him on that basis, not based on the status of his son.

Well Neil, that is a very good point. Notwithstanding the impeccable analysis by Jet, I do think folks first decide what they want to do, then look for something in the books to support their decision. Resulting in these indignant defenses of position.

Its been posted a number of times in this topic that either thats what we do, or its OK to wear an OA sash at a non-OA event. Thats what we do is fine, but Its OK or its allowed is subject to refutation, quoting BSA sources, including OA sources, to the contrary. If an Eagle Scout chooses to wear his OA sash at a court of honor, he is certainly welcome to do so. But if he claims that BSA says it is OK to do so, he may be challenged. Several posts have already challenged the assertion. Personally, I think it would look silly to wear both sashes, and if one chose one sash over the other, the MB sash at a COH makes a lot more sense than an OA sash. My personal opinion only and not a slam to OA.

I really doubt anyone is going to tell an Eagle Scout at his court of honor to remove his OA sash. But if misinformation is posted on an internet chat forum don't be surprised if someone posts a correction.

Wearing my moderator hat, Ed, you started this, so would you please end it by not responding?

"For minorities, I assume the the CSE is talking about racial minorities." From the article and the quote from our chief SE, it seems clear he is referring to Mexican immigrants: [The Hispanic population boom in places like Texas and California offer both a challenge and an opportunity. "If we don't figure out those communities all over the Sun Belt and across the country, then we will become a niche organization for the white, middle class," he said. "We want to serve all kids, and that's really what these changes are about." ]

That's the most common reason I hear too for skipping the Outdoor Leader Skills training. "I already know how to go camping." Somehow folks get the idea that the purpose of IOLS is learn how to tie a knot and sharpen a hatchet. Maybe the name should be changed to "Teaching Camping Skills to Young Scouts".

Have to agree with Ditro. Boys bring something to Boy Scouts that girls don't have. A girl is not a boy and no "skill set" can ever make up for what a girl is not. Girls and boys, and men and women are vastly different creatures and equating the two is just silly.