LongHaul

I carry a sheath knife when ever I go High Adventure. Mine has a 4 3/4 inch blade a 4 1/2 inch handle and the blade is 1 1/2 inches at it's widest point. I find it to far more useful that carring a pocket knife, and hand axe. Along with a cable saw it has served me for over 40 years. Along with my "vittle" kit (knife, spoon, fork) and a 2qt. metal canteen it is all that has survived from my Boy Scout days. With proper training it is no more dangerous that a lock blade or hand axe. The problem I find most adults have is that it is worn on the belt and seen as a weapon instead of a tool. As I see it the situation related in the original post showes a need for the PLC to make a ruling concerning sheath knives and I recommend, as epalmer84's troop has done,include rules for folding blade knives as well. If the CC wishes to consult the COR and have the troop committee and the CO reach a decision on what the CO's guidelines on this may be that is also an avenue of resolution. For now the knife should stay home until a ruling is reached. LongHaul

nldscout, I wonder why you chose to use the phrase "middle of the road truth", is it your opinion that if it's not middle of the road it isn't true? Are you asking for both sides of the issue in simple terms? In the many posts concerning CAC over the last three years I think both view points have been expressed. A board of directors duly elected by the COR's and MAL's of CAC hired Jim Stone as our SE. It is hard to believe that the board did not know of Mr. Stones history of selling or attempting to sell the land assets of the councils which had hired him in the past. He gets hired, sells as many camps as the board will allow then moves on to another council. The fact that Mr. Stone has this history is a matter of record and not a personal opinion. It was not until Mr. Stone was announced as our new SE that his track record was made public knowledge in CAC. The CORs and MALs were against this answer to our problems and sought to have members with views that reflected the voting members slated for election. These efforts were resisted by Mr. Stone until the camps could be legally listed for sale and binding contracts could be entered into by the board. Since those contracts have been made there has not been an Executive Board elected by the voting members. Its been something like 4 years now. The nominating committee is stacked to produce slates that will support Mr. Stone and only those slates. When legal action was taken and a court ordered slate was issued National stepped in with threats of disbanding the council if the members tried to force a vote on the court ordered slate. These are matters of record and not opinion. Whether the people slated are good people or not, whether the voting members should accept those people as a sign of Brotherhood does not excuse the actions by the elected board and current SE. The methods employed and the tactics used are inexcusable in a Scouting Council. Does why Mr. Stone wants to sell camps across the nation excuse his conduct? When a court of law finds it necessary to hear a case and make a ruling which goes against the executive board and SE of a council shouldnt it be a sign that maybe things are not right? Isnt the fact that National refused our pleas for mediation and help saying that it was a local matter only to set up and threaten to disband the council if the volunteers tried to have the court order enforced a sign that maybe things are not right? Someone please direct me to that middle of the road. All I can see is those trying to return our council to one in which the voting members actually have a choice and those who are trying to control our council in violation of the bylaws and in opposition to the wishes of those entrusted with the duty to monitor exactly that type of action. As Jschlich posted above we only dug in our heels over 4 specific individuals out of 72 slated for election does that really put us off to the side of the road? On a side note consider the possibility that the radical right saw that they didnt need to even show up for the vote because if their people are not elected by the voting members those people will be appointed by National anyway. Democratic rule? I think not. LongHaul

As I am sitting here working at the computer I have my music playing. Today I have selected Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. 4way Street came up and 49 bye-byes began to play. I guess that is why so many of us are taking the stand we are in the struggle to return our Council to the path we see as Scouting. We lived through the 60s, most of us as Scouts. Some protested, some of us remembered our oath "On my Honor.." and wet to war inspite of our views. Either way we remember what can happen when politics runs unteathered. The line came along paranoia strikes deep, into your hearts it will creep, it starts when your always afraid, step out of line the man will come and shoot you right down. We are so afraid to stand up and cry foul that our elected officials feel they are entitled to abuse and misuse our trust. Maybe I am a radical, have been since childhood. Never liked Do it because I say so. My parents always gave us a reason, we didnt like the reasons or agree with their relevance but we were told why. Authority is not beyond reproach. If National chooses to revoke Chicago Area Councils charter and divide the dissidents up among the surrounding councils then so be it. Maybe just maybe CORs and MALs in some other council will see this as a wake up call and not allow control of their programs fall into the hands of bean counters and carpet baggers. LongHaul

nldscout, The problems we have been have for the past 18 years is a result of the COR's not attending the annual meeting and just accepting what ever comes down the road. "As long as my unit goes on day to day the council will take care of itself." Well the council hasn't been taking care of itself. Council program was almost non existant, our scout camps were under used and never promoted outside the council and bearly inside the council. By the tiime volunteers stepped forward to take up the task National had launched it's bank the cash campaign and we were next in line. When the efforts of front line scouters trying to rebuild program were thwarted a cry wet out to all the COR's to review the Board and those incharge. The cry was too late in comming however, a board unwilling to stand up to those interested in cash instead of program was elected and our camps were put up for sale. This caused unrest umong the units and a division of the volunteer base. We began to fight each other over who should speak for the group and what should be said. Many COR's just wee not interested in the struggle and are choosing to sit back and wait'n'see. You refer to us as the radical left and that is the image Council and National have cast us in, we see ourselves as true Scouters who only want to provide the type of program to the youth that was provided to us. We have seen program, and recognize the absence of program. It is the view of many of front line scouters that the visions of our Council Leadership has become focused on cash instead of program. Why is the williness to stand up to that error in judgement "radical"? Why isn't the divergence from everything we teach in Scouting the radical path? Keep in mind that 11 Scouters reached deep into their own pockets to file suit in court over the breach of feduciary duties against the Council Executive Committee. It was the court ruling which held that the Board was indeed in violation of it's own bylaws and Illinois Statute regarding not for profit organizations which caused National to set in and threaten to dissolve the Council if the suit was not dropped. Radical? Just where are the examples of Scouting Values to be found in the actions of the CAC Board and National representative. The one slate voted down for Executive Board was rejected because too many of those on it were the cause for the law suit in the first place. The fact that the nominations committee enpanneled by National would slate these peolple in these positions shows little concern for the opinions and wishes of the voting members. We are being told that National will decide who will run and if we don't agree then National will appoint them anyway. Is that not radical when viewed agaist what we teach as the democratic form of government? LongHaul

Eamonn, You say "Went to bed, knowing that the next day we were in for the same." Have you ever felt that way aboard ship? I like backpacking, don't enjoy doing it in a downpour wet to the skin, but I can accept that as luck of the draw. I don't prefer cold but can enjoy it. Bought a pair of "Thinsulate" red Wing boots once, cost a pretty penny and kept my feet warm almost as long as it took me to drive to work. I must have some eskimo blood because most of the high end stuff is too warm for me. I'd probably be one of those guys in shirt sleeves you saw. LongHaul

When finally presented to the voting members the official ballot contained 8 of the 17 names omitted from the slate approved by the nominations committee. It is hard to work with youth on the Citizenship merit badges and have to explain the current conditions in their own council. "Example is not the best way to influence people it is the only way." I believe that was said by Albert Einstein LongHaul MEMBERSHIP ACCEPTS 4 OF 5 SLATES -------------------------------- www.fortdearborn.org (1/27/07) The long awaited Annual Meeting of the Chicago Area Council took place on January 27th at the Holiday Inn Mart Plaza where the voting members approved four of the five slates presented by the Nominating Committee. This was the first election held by the Chicago Area Council since 2004. Following remarks by Interim Board President Jack Jadel and Scout Executive Jim Stone, Interim Board Member Glenn Emig presented the slates for the vote. Following the collection of ballots, tellers Cal Bellamy, Larry Strickling, and Dick Jones reported the following results: Slate For Against Abstain National Board Representatives 78 1 0 Members at Large 64 16 1 Advisory Board 67 13 1 Board of Directors 64 16 1 Executive Officers 20 60 1 Although four of the five slates were approved by the membership, Ellen Babbitt, a lawyer employed by National Council chided and threatened the members with possible actions by National Council if the final slate was not approved at the next vote. Following the defeat of a slate, the bylaws provide that the Nominating Committee has 90 days to revise the defeated slate and present the revisions to the membership for approval. A change to the bylaws mandated by National Council during their takeover stipulates that should the slates be defeated twice by the voting membership, National has the authority to appoint who they want over the wishes of the membership. Prefacing her remarks with the statement that National Council was committed to local governance within its Councils, Babbitt attempted to intimidate the voters with a litany of possible repercussions if the final slate is not approved at the next election. Should the membership defeat the revised slate, Babbitt said that there were several recourses National Council may choose to take. Babbitt said National may revoke the charter of the Chicago Area Council or merge the Council with adjoining Councils. In either case, Chicago Area Council would cease to exist as an independent entity. Babbitts threats did not set well with the membership in attendance. How fair is any election when voters are coerced? questioned one Scouter. So much for the Boy Scout Method of Participating Citizenship. Does National think they can come in here and bully us? We approved 4 out of the 5 slates. She acts like we voted them all down. We've shown plenty of good faith here. Do they think they can gain points with their heavy-handed tactics and their fair elections which amount to a sham? Approve who we say or you will be punished exclaimed one Scouter in the hallway. Explain to me how an election run under those conditions can possibly reflect a fair outcome. I suppose they believe that they can come in here and bully everyone and we will just take it? So what if National takes over. They will inherit a lot of extremely angry people. Following the voting session, a majority of the voting members met in the 15th floor lobby of the Holiday Inn and signed petitions recommending changes to the defeated slate. The petitions, which will be presented to the Interim Board and Nominating Committee stated that if the following four changes are made, the membership will approve the final slate. The requested changes are as follows: 1. Nominate Glenn Emig for the position of Executive Vice President 2. Nominate William Egan for the position of Vice President of Operations 3. Nominate Anna Montes for the position of Treasurer 4. Replace Louis Vitullo and the firm of Wildman, Harrold as legal counsel to the Chicago Area Council. All they have to do is make these four changes, and the issue is settled, stated one Scouter as he signed the petition. The members have offered a solution they will accept. The ball is now in the court of the Interim Board and the Nominating Committee. The members approved 4 of the 5 slates, some against their better judgments. If the Nominating Committee refuses to make these changes, it will just show who is willing to work together and who is not. If National steps in with their over-the-top intimidations, the fault will not be the unwillingness of the membership to compromise.

there are nice BS Camps out there that have a winter survival program AHHH!!! Eamonn titled this thread Not Fun having to survive does not sound like fun to me. Eamonn also said that he had most of the gear needed to stay warm. When I took Okpik locally several years ago one of the trainers said that more people get cold from over protecting as do from under protecting. You over dress, perspire, get wet, get cold. Dont shoot for warm shoot for comfortably cool. Proper training indealing with cold as opposed to surviving it can make all the difference. We should keep in mind what Eamonn points out, When it isnt fun we shouldnt be doing it if we as leaders are surviving just so the boys who enjoy it can attend we project that. If we are the only available leaders OK but try to find the example who will be the good example. I have fun at negative degree levels, 43 below is kinda pushing it though. Activity next month is north of Wausau Wisconsin, camp on a frozen lake. Boys look forward to it, we usually have enough snow to build quinzees and dont even use tents. Being a fair weather camper is not like being a fair weather friend. I have leaders who refuse to hike, If I cant throw my gear from the car to the spot my tent will be I aint goin is the motto of one of my best summer camp leaders. Rain, wind, one year a micro burst that almost relocated the entire camp, doesnt faze him, he just hates walking with a pack. Eamonn should stick with what he is best at and find some one that enjoys lower temps. LongHaul 3 cube Okpik Flake

Only once did we have a situation where there were more qualified boys than we had slots available. My Troop Committee suggested several methods to arrive at the lucky 8 and it almost caused the demise of the troop. As Scoutmaster I saw the trip as program and as such it was the decision of the youth leader(s) for the trip and me. Several families chose to leave the troop because of that but the boys who went and I feel we made the right choice. Some boys are just not team players no matter how much we try to teach them. They are just slow enough to pick up the slack that someone else always beats them to it. They seem never to be around when something needs to be done, and always need extra help when they do get a task to perform. As I said this only happened once and I pray it never happens again because it was not an easy decision to make. As for pre requisite training, I decide that with, as it were the advice and consent of, my troop committee. It is after all their job to see that I am following all the prescribed rules and protocols. All aquatics activities require Swimming merit badge. Not only must you be able to swim you must be comfortable in the water. Climbing, I required Physical Fitness which several boys could not complete in time and after seeing the videos accepted that they would have held everyone back because of having more mass than arm and leg strength. Philmont required a two year commitment because we trained for and attended a 5 day backpacking trip locally the summer before as well as preparing going into the Philmont trip. Most boys can carry a pack 20% of their weight but picking that pack up on the third and fourth day is another matter. I do see HA as a part of the general program and not a reward or rank has its privileges type thing. LongHaul

I have not looked at the online version either but I object on principle same as nldscout. Having taught the modual several times I know the difference in achievment at the unit level when a single person attended and when I presented it to a unit committee as a group. Sometimes making it easier to be "Trained" is counter productive to the intent of the training. All that said if it comes down to online training or no training (becasue leaders just will not attend) then I'll go with online. LongHaul

First Class and he must have demonstrated the ability to participate. Such as be a swimmer or have participated in 10 to 20 mile hikes, what ever the focus of the High Adventure outing. LongHaul

An update on our ongoing problems here in CAC. I appologize to Jim Schlichting for reprinting this here without his expressed written permission. This is an example of what CAN happen when volunteers become complacent and allow the checks and balances to deteriorate. LongHaul Here is an outline of the Chicago Saga as it has now evolved: Through June, 2004 three sets of candidate slates presented to the voting membership of the Chicago Area Council BSA were rejected by the Council voters. A petition presented by the Council voting membership (presented following the process specified in the Council by-laws) was withheld from a vote by the Chicago Area Council administration. In late 2005 eleven registered members of the Chicago Area Council initiated legal action to prove that the Council administration had breached the fiduciary duties owed to the members of the Chicago Council. The Council lost the case. The members of the Chicago Council won. In June, 2006, following the BSA's loss in court, the National BSA Council stepped in and removed certain Officers and Board members of the Council, dissolved all committees. The National Council put into place an Interim Executive Committee to operate the Council. The appointed Interim Executive Committee included seven non-Chicago Council BSA members and four Chicago Council BSA members. Oversight by National included, at all meetings, a BSA Regional Executive. The task of developing new candidate slates for the Chicago Area Council voters was to be done by January, 2007. A Nominating Committee, made up of the Nationally appointed Interim Executive Committee, developed the slates. The slates were first revealed on the Chicago Council web site one week before the scheduled vote. No other attempt to directly communicate with the voting members of the Chicago Council was attempted. (can be viewed at http://www.chicagobsa.org'>http://www.chicagobsa.org) A review, by members of the Nominating Committee, of the posted slates reveals that as many as 17 of the people approved and submitted by the Nominating Committee were omitted from the slates. The changes to the slates for election were made at sometime by someone unknown after the Nominating Committee submitted the slates and their appearance on the Council web site. It is observed that the by-laws of the Council allows for the Council President to personally select appointees for vacant or unexpired terms. Several such vacancies were created by the omission of the approximately 17 names submitted for the slates by the Nominating Committee. Less than a week before the scheduled vote the appointed Chairman of the Interim Executive Committee (not a member of the Chicago Council) and the nominee for Council President appear in a nine minute video. (can be viewed at http://www.chicagobsa.org) The video includes statements by the nominated President of actions being taken by the Council on certain issues. Issues that the voters of the Chicago Council have deemed critical and that they believe require the input of a locally elected Board of Directors (voter comments can be viewed at http://www.fortdearborn.org). On Saturday, January 27, 2007 the voters of the Chicago Council will gather to cast the vote that they have. To either accept or reject the slates that have a mystery surrounding them. Why is it not possible for more transparency in Chicago Council affairs? Why is it that the National Council, which has operated the Chicago Council for seven months, created a situation of failure? (Special note needs to be made that all of these happenings over the years have evolved under the watchful eye of the same Chief Scout Executive and Local Scout Executive.) Jim Schlichting Whitehall MI

Gonzo1, Don't remember any merit badge being a requirement for Tenderfoot. Troop adding to the requirements? As for not working on Merit Badges until after you attain the rank of First Class, exceptions were merit badges worked on at summer camp. This was the approach in the 60's when I was a scout. Ranks were earned in order, you couldn't begin working on 2nd class until you made tenderfoot etc. You had to be First Class before you were supposed to be contacting MBCs and working on your own. If memory serves this started to change in the 70's with the skill awards which could be earned in any order but were rank requirements for different ranks. LongHaul

Beavah, "We don't have this anywhere in writing" Says it all. I just can't understand why Mr. Holmes and National sided with our SE in the three cases here in CAC. Even after formal petitions to reinstate were filed with National they said the decision of the SE was in keeping with National's YP policy. Go Figure Eh LongHaul

Beavah, You keep referring to a "married couple" Jenn isn't married and that is the whole issue. If she wants to be able to participate in the program when she is married and has children she best consider the risk now. You say the risk of not being able to join outweighs the risk of not being able to participate when their child joins. I dont see it that way. They cant be brought up on criminal charges but if not being able to join is worth the risk now why isnt not being able to join with you child later on equal footing? Do you know anyone who has had their membership revoked for YP issues? Unfortunately I do, and the avenues to reinstate are very rough because of general views on YP. This has NOTHING to do with the precious and revered CO. If you live in Grand Teton Council maybe you can laugh at the YP regulations but not so much elsewhere. It makes no difference who voices the concern it could be someone with a personal axe to grind as was the case with one of the couples here in CAC. The result will be the same unless the SE wants to take a stand in opposition to the YP regs. As John-in-KC says talk with the SE. Blowing the regs off on principle could be very costly if this couple wants to remain in Scouting and participate with their children. You seem to be a person who looks at things from the stand point of what is in the best interest of the Scout. How is telling Jenn to take the chance in her best interest? How is it in the best interest of her fianc? Would you tell someone to ignore YP rules and drive to and from a meeting with an unaccompanied youth in the car because its the only way this youth could attend meetings? Would it be OK for an adult to have a secluded one on one discussion with a youth as long as the youths parents didnt object? I feel your pain in that sometimes we cant do the sensible thing because the rules say no and the Risk involved with breaking the rules is great. LongHaul

Once again Im faced with the question "Is CAC the only council that does it this way?" According to our Advancement Committee (and we are told this comes from National), the First Rank in Scouting is now SCOUT. I don't have a 2006 edition of the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures to check, if someone does, look around page 16, Under Advancement rules and regulations, where it lists Boy Scout Advancement. Earning the AOL normally prepares the boy to be able to complete the joining requirements for Scout but Tenderfoot has a number or requirements which are not addressed as Webelos. #1, #2, #3, #8. As a SM I go along with Lisabob in that you can't start working on advancement until you join the troop. LongHaul

The list of approvable and outlawed Eagle Project must be subject to local Council editing or something because in Chicago Area Council Blood Drives have been on the Outlawed list for years now. The decision was that the Professionals were running the program and not subject to the Scout supposedly in the leadership position for the project. Other than advertising what would be subject to the scouts "development" "planning" "execution" or "leadership"? LongHaul

Beavah is absolutely correct when he says that I live in Chicago and that my council does not have a reputation for using, possessing, understanding, or even acknowledging the existence of anything resembling, common sense. Just because it happens here does not mean that it WILL happen anywhere else. The fact that it did happen here does mean that it COULD happen somewhere else. I also agree with Beavah in that National MUST address the fact that Venturing was created with the full knowledge that Crew members would at times form romantic relationships with other crew members. No where have I seen any material coming from National which addresses married Crew members. Far too often the person at National who actually puts a matter of policy in writing for publication does not understand the entire Scouting program. That person is looking at one piece of wording without applying it to all the different programs. When a member of a Scout troop reaches the age of 18 he must re register as an Adult leader and must observe all the restrictions concerning one on one contact UNLESS he is at an OA function where he magically becomes a youth again despite his registration and is housed with the youth and can not be housed with the adults. With YP the terminology employed is Adult MEMBER or Adult LEADER and Youth MEMBER. As far as the UNIT is concerned he is an ADULT leader as far as OA is concerned he is a YOUTH member. The Venturing Youth Protection guidelines, provided by epalmer84; http://www.scouting.org/pubs/ypt/pdf/25-026.pdf , clearly restate the distinction according to membership in point #10. As the YP Trainer for my District I encounter these questions often and have tried to get clarification from National but cant get OFFICAL policy in writing so that I can use it when something goes wrong. Until National publishes a written policy on this I advise following the rules as written. The consequences could be expulsion from BSA which has a lengthy and difficult appeals process. A mistake today could mean that a person could not be a leader when their child reaches scouting age. Be Prepared Be Aware of the RISK. LongHaul

dragon, No matter what crew you join as a person under the age of 21, a person registered with the BSA can not have a one on one relationship with you period. In my council we have had BSA members expelled on these very grounds. Boy friend girls friend joined a crew, he turned 21, they were seen together he was expelled. Boy firend girls friend, he was registered with a Troop as an ASM she joined a crew. In the Troop he was considered and adult, she was considered a youth. THe policy is an adult can not have a one on one relationship with a youth member, he was expelled. The CO had nothing to say in the matter it was a Council decision. MY COUNCIL is not run like other councils, this may not happen where you are, it is however BSA Policy. With the growing concern for youth protection I would advise you not to join the crew. If on the other hand you were to join a troop as an ASM you would be a registerd ADULT member of the BSA and could participate with the Crew as a guest. I'd run that by your District and Council Reps before risking your husband to be's membership. LongHaul

gragonn, The Youth Protection Policies of the BSA strictly forbid ANY type of one on one relationshiop between Adults and Youth members. An Advisor for a Venturing Crew must be at least 21 and members must be under 21 so this automatically precludes your situation from being acceptable. If you were to join the crew and continue in a relationship with the advisor that advisor could be expellled from BSA no questions asked for violation of the Youth Protection Policy. LongHaul

It should also be noted that according to the site Hunt provided 1 in 9 UK women can expect to be diagnosed with BC in her lifetime while in the US it is 1 in 8. In the UK 1 in 14 males can expect to be diagnosed with PC in his lifetime but in the US it is 1 in 6. Maybe we should be studying the UK males to see what they are doing right. LongHaul

Hunt, I apologize for the mistake in gender assessment. I cant really say why I thought you were female but obviously I did. I agree that having members of the troop committee to serve as a BOR who are not also involved on a day to day level is not the reality in many if not most troops. BORs in the troops I am associated with are composed of people that indeed have a day to day association with the unit. In the troop I serve as SM BORs are almost always composed of our CC our Advancement Chair and our Outdoor Activities Chair. In fact the CC is at every meeting and goes on every outing as he hauls our trailer. The AC is actually registered as an ASM as is the OAC. The four of us carry 90% of the load, small troop, and limited resources. Getting a parent or non-regular to sit on a BOR is a rarity but we employ them every time they stray into our midst. The point I was trying to make is that we allow for the fact that reality requires that we evaluate the intent of Nationals position on the make up of a BOR with respect to availability of personnel. Some of us seem to be letter of the Law in one area but what ever it takes in another. You say that the BOR is not supposed to be a test then say that its good to have a preconceived opinion of the Scout and use that as a basis for questioning. Thats not how its supposed to work anymore than retesting. The BOR does not need to have scout skills, whether they know a bowline from a bovine is irrelevant. The person signing off the requirement is supposed to know that and the BOR accepts that. What is Nationals objective in requiring BORs? 1.) to make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to do for the rank. 2.) to see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit. 3.) to encourage the Scout to progress further. What is the BORs purpose? 1.) To make sure that the work has been learned and completed. 2.) To check to see what kind of experience the boy is having in his patrol and troop. 3.) to encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank. Numbers 2 and 3 are pretty much interchangeable between objective and purpose but Number 1 opens things up for discussion. What is the boy supposed to do for rank advancement? Get all the things signed off in his book. The person signing off is responsible for checking level of learning and completion of the requirement. When the BOR is given the task of insuring that the work has been learned and completed view points become focused on favored phrases and terminology. What are we trying accomplish with respect to the boy by having him stand for review? Why can we ask a scout to repeat the Oath and Law and discuss them, which are requirements for rank advancement, but not ask him to tie a bowline or demonstrate his ability to perform any task which is also a requirement? How can a BOR execute the duty entrusted to it when they know the work has not been learned nor completed? (As with the case we have discussed elsewhere in which a Scout received a signed Merit Badge Card for a MB he did not complete.) National writes the rules in shades of gray but we try to find black and white. LongHaul

First let me say that this is not directed AT Hunt, I seem to be in opposition to her views in other threads as well, it is directed at the condition she brings to light. The BOR instructions per the Advancement Committee publication state that the BOR is to be made up of troop committee members. It states that unit leaders, assistant leaders, and relatives are not allowed to sit on the board. When Hunt writes I suppose I can see how BOR members who don't know the scouts well might focus in on details like whether a scout can tie a particular knot. If you know the boy, you are not likely to focus on something like that--either you know he's a good, deserving scout, or you know that there are more important problems to discuss. she touches on something I believe is over looked far to often. If you know the boy to the extent that you have made up your mind before the BOR convenes whether he is a good scout or not should you be sitting on the Board in the first place? If you are a committee member who has constant or repeated contact with the troops daily function should you be on the BOR? Is the exclusion of unit leaders and assistant unit leaders a matter of registration or a matter of pre disposition? As SM I pretty much know who can tie a bowline and who cant, who is a leader and who isnt. The BOR is supposed to make a decision based on the things brought forth in the BOR not personal opinion based on contact over the course of the scouts tenure. If I cant give a scout Ive never met the same consideration as a scout Ive interacted with over many years then I should not be sitting on his BOR. Far to often those sitting on BORs hold a committee member registration but function as an assistant unit leader and are too close to the scout to be impartial. The other thing Im seeing in these threads is the notion that a BOR can be adjourned. Are we so worried about telling a boy he is not ready to advance? The BOR should always reach a decision and that decision should be given to the scout. If the BOR is held for the purpose of considering advancement then they either advance or not and the procedures are spelled out in the Advancement publications. Is it a matter of not wanting to give written notice and go through all the details? We worry about retesting and what we can ask and how but ignore the details at our convenience. What example does this show? LongHaul

I like you, packsaddle, you make me laugh. When I stop wanting to spawn I'll be ready to die what ever the cause. LongHaul

Hunt, A lot of elderly men contract prostate cancer, but die of something else--in fact, if you live long enough, there is a very good chance that you will get prostate cancer, but it probably won't be what kills you. First you argued that BC kills at a younger age and that "the impact in terms of life expectancy is much greater for BC". The numbers from both the NCI and the ACI say that 97% of the women who die of BC are over 40 and 51.8% are over 65. Now you are saying that even though 1 in 6 men will contract PC its not as important an issue because it wont actually kill them? Where are your numbers relating the effect of having PC on the general health and well being as it relates to the ability to fight non PC illness? Where are the studies to look at the effect of having PC as it relates to heart disease mortality? Where are the studies which look at the instance being susceptible to other cancers after being diagnosed with PC? We don't have them becasue we are not funding those types of studies for PC but you can find those types of studies for cancers affecting women. Once again I will state that I do not advocate cutting, stopping or impeding in anyway the fight against BC. I just cant accept the validation of the difference in importance placed on BC over other cancers and diseases. As packsaddle so eloquently pointed out this male dominated societys attention rests more on the female than their fellow male. We are bias in our sympathies SO WHAT admit it and move on but stop trying to justify it with arguments the evidence does not support. LongHaul

SueM, As has already been said a BOR is not a pass / fail proposition. A BOR is convened at the request of the unit leader, the scout, or the unit committee and does not always involve advancement. It is recommended that scouts not ready for advancement attend a periodic BOR. With the adjournment of the Board the BOR is completed. Some forum members have talked about adjourning a BOR, this is actually not possible but could be looked at as a matter of semantics. If you are attacked walking into a building and then attacked by the same person upon exiting the building was the original attack adjourned or were they two separate attacks? The BOR can, depending on the purpose of the review, decide to advance the scout or not advance the scout. If the decision of the board is to not advance the scout procedures are spelled out on the Advancement Committee policies and procedures publication. If the person telling you that a unit BOR can not fail a scout is in fact telling you that every scout must be advanced, then I would refer them to the afore mentioned publication. The District Advancement committee can chose to advance the scout on appeal. If the District Advancement committee chooses to advance the scout there is no avenue of appeal for the unit advancement committee. Appeals are only provided in the event that a BOR chooses not to advance. The unit advancement committee, the COR and Unit leader can petition the Council Advancement Committee for a policy statement in writing concerning the parameters, latitude of consideration, and latitude of jurisdiction concerning Boards of Review. If this statement conflicts with National Policy it can be brought to the attention of the National Advancement Committee. Bottom line is that the District can not demand that the Unit become a rubber stamp. I hope you have come to the acceptance that in your case the District is not in line with National policy. There is little you can do to make them comply with National policy if your council does not support you. LongHaul