LongHaul

Ed, now your talking about something entirely different. uniforming is not a requirement but getting SM approval is a requirement. Which projects a SM approves is the SM's decision as long as the CO has not set limits or guidelines. We can debate this all day long but you have your interpretation and I have mine. You want to be letter of the law until letter of the law goes against what you want the case to be. Zero budgets are OK because it does not specifically disqualify them even though zero budgets do not accomplish the intended goal. You have a valid point, literally speaking a zero budget can be seen as fulfilling the letter of the requirement. Why not leadership? If it's not specifically restricted why is it adding to the requirement to narrow the scope of approved projects as a Scout progresses? Why do you only get technical when its in the boys favor? What about consistency and a level playing field? LongHaul

Ed, first I am guilty of not communicating properly. I was referring to the Eagle Scout applicant, the scout who is doing his Eagle project when I used the Eagle project reference. Is the Life Scout going for Eagle and presently "doing" his Eagle project participating in that project? Secondly where does the requirement for service projects for Star and Life "exclude" leadership? If we are to use the same blind interpretation which includes zero budgets, a point which I respect your position on even though I disagree with it,then we must not say the SM is expressly forbidden from excluding a given project for approval. The requirement as written does not address leadership which leaves it open the the SM's interpretation. If a scout had a lawn mowing buisness and said that his 6 hours of service was the service he provided to his customers would that qualify? He provided a service and worked 6 hours. Does the fact that he got paid to do it disqualify his efforts when we use the strict interprtation of the words used in the requirement? Payment for services is not addressed in the requirements either. It is clearly addressed at the Eagle project level so does that mean that the fact that it is not addressed at the Star and Life levels that it automatically means it's acceptable? If I can't require him to lead because it is not stated I can't deny him from being paid because it is also not specifically excluded. LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Ed, again leadership is not exspressly excluded. Take part in does not exclude the leaders. Is the scout getting credit for an Eagle project participating in that project? How can you complete an Eagle project you didn;t participate in?

Yes Ed, but it also does not say that he should not lead or show leadership. If we have to read things as written and never dare to interperate intent then what ever standards a SM uses to decide what will or will not be accepted should not be considered adding to the requirements just because it's not specificaly specified in the text. Tenderfoot requirements state that you must sleep in a tent you helped pitch. No where does it specify where that tent should be so setting up a free standing tent in my TV room qualifies? Campout means exactly what? Look up camp in a dictionary and tell me where it says it can't be in my house. Out can, in terms of BSA policy, mean anywhere other than the normal meeting place. In another thread you said I should have accepted a budget of all zeros, why not apply that same latitude to what a SM should be allowed to require for approval of a project? Are we only adding to the requirements if we are asking the scout to do something he doesn't want to? Why doesn't the sword cut both ways? Service to others could be taken to mean service to those you are leading as well as those benifiting from the work. It doesn't say that service projects must not get progressivly more demanding as you progress in rank but it doesn't say that they shall not. We must give the adult the same extent of latitude we do the scout. LongHaul

First my browser or the forum will not allow me to format my post so I cant use bold font or italicize. Please bear with me. Supervising is not working? Ive got a lot of management personnel who would take issue with that position. If the new requirement is in addition to the existing requirement 4 then it is, by definition, adding to the requirements. If it is a condition for approval of a project to be considered for requirement 4 then it could be considered acceptable as I read the following requirement. For Star and Life ranks, a Scout must perform 6 hours of service to others. This may be done as an individual project or as a member of a patrol or troop project. Star and Life service projects may be approved for Scouts assisting on Eagle service projects. The Scoutmaster approves the project before it is started. (Source: 33215F - page 20) The operative part of that statement is the last sentence. If the SM will only approve projects which require the Star Scout to lead a project that would be within the SMs right in deciding what will and will not be considered as approvable. The SM should be consistent in approving projects, what is acceptable for Scout A should be acceptable for Scout B, but that is not mandated or stipulated in the requirements publication. The word "may" found in the second and third sentences of the statement can not be taken to mean "must", which is found only in the first sentence. Just because a SM "may" approve work to be done does not mean that he/she "must" approve said work. The requirement states that a Scout must perform 6 hours of service and that the SM approves the project before it is started. All else is at the discretion of the SM. If we were to replace the word "may" with the word "must" in the second sentence then any project or service rendered as part of a non scout group would not qualify for consideration. Work performed by the scout as a member of a church group, social club, school association, youth service group or just a bunch of local young adults with civic pride would be unacceptable. The requirements are left open to interpretation by the SM to accommodate the individual scout and the abilities and challenges of that scout. What constitutes service to others? How do we calculate the 6 hours? Do we include preparation or clean up? If materials were required do we include time spent acquiring the materials? For the SM to narrow the scope of what qualifies does not in itself constitute adding to the requirements, otherwise why require pre approval if any service qualifies? If not all service qualifies then who draws the lines and using what criteria? Many wish to cry adding to the requirements simply because thats not how their troop does it. Just because something is not expressly permitted does not mean it is expressly forbidden. LongHaul

Over the years I've called many youth. My father was my Scoutmaster and he always began scout calls with "Hi, this is a Boy Scout call is XXXX home?" I've always used that salutation without even thinking about it. I identify my self as the scout's Scoutmaster when I'm calling a member of my troop but when I get a husband on the line and I'm calling his wife "Hi, this is a Boy Scout call" has worked well for me over the years.(No pun intended) LongHaul

And then there are those who support the BSAs right to exclude gays without agreeing with the policy. When I was a scout our troop was all Roman Catholic period. We didnt accept non Roman Catholics period. There was a troop on every corner in every school and every church and we all camped together at district and council events and nobody looked down on anybody, but individual troops were individual according to the sponsoring organization, ours was a Holy Name Society. We didnt have problems with exclusionary policies. In the mid sixties it became fashionable to impose yourself where you were not welcome just because you could. Some of that had to do with the fact that a lot of people were excluded from certain places unjustly. No Niggers NO Jews NO Dogs was a sign on a prominent country club in Chicago into the seventies. If you prefer to not associate with narrow minded bigots then that should be your choice, it should also be the choice of the narrow minded bigots to associate with each other. Again there are those who do not consider themselves to be narrow minded bigots but do support the protection and exercise of their Constitutional rights to assemble. On the homosexual front a lot of the problem IMO lies with the feeling that it is a choice and if it is not a choice then it should be suppressed by the individual. I always felt that homosexuality was abnormal, which if you look at it statistically it is, but if you look at it from a sexual or psychological view point one has to admit that they really dont know. I knew at a very early age that I liked girls, a lot, more than my parents would have wanted, I liked girls. What would I have done if that same desire had surfaced toward my fellow swim team members when I was in grade school? I never decided I liked girls, I just did. What would have happened if that same passion was ignited by my fellow males? My fault? Would I have been less of a Scout? Would I necessarily have been less of a MAN? I cant answer these questions because until very recently I never actually thought about any of them. I always looked upon homosexuality as being wrong, abnormal, and while growing up, illegal. Today I just dont really know what to think about homosexuality. I do know what I think about individuals and groups being able to exercise their Constitutional rights. I support the BSAs right to exclude gays. LongHaul

You indeed know which type of marker I'm talking about but in my cemetary back near Chicago we have veterans who have chosen not to include rank and branch on their memorial. They have the same marker as their spouse but we have a list of the verterans. Some have head stones from private companies which if you didn't know they were veterans you would pass them by. I guess I never really thought about it before because I'm so used to getting the flags from the American Legion for our family veterans and when the troop does the placements as I said we have a list of names with section and row designations which the American Legion or the VFW keep updating. LongHaul

I went out Saturday as a guest with a troop and the American Legion to put up the flags so the graves would be marked for the ceremonies held this morning. I normally do my scouting with my own troop but am out of town at the moment. Back home we have a list and a cemetery map which identifies the veterans graves, here we went grave by grave and replaced old flags and marked those which had service reference on the head stone. I saw several government head stones with out rank and branch of service reference which we were asked not to mark (by the Legion). Do the rest of you have lists of those graves to identify or is it only those who chose to include military reference, that get recognized? LongHaul

As a counselor for Camping merit badge I too run into this discussion from time to time. While I agree with Ed that what constitutes camping can fall under the discretion of the counselor I question the practice of limiting the boy to things done after a blue card is signed. In the 60s there were stipulations such as while a Second Class Scout , demonstrate to the satisfaction of your Scoutmaster, and after discussing with your counselor today most of those are gone. Even approved by your counselor doesnt mean approved before it is done. The guide line I was given by a representative of National was If the work in question would have been approved if the scout had presented it before he did it, then denying it just because he didnt get approval before hand is improper. Examples would be Backpacking requirement 11b complete a service project approved by your counselor does not say approved before you do it. If the project is one that would have been approved, failure to get prior approval should not be the sole reason for non acceptance. Communications merit badge requirement 6. With your counselors approval, develop a plan to teach a skill... implies prior approval and failure to do so could be seen as grounds for non acceptance. Allowing only camping done after a specific date, other than the date of initial registration in BSA, could be seen as adding to the requirements. Also requiring those nights to be done within a specific period, such as within the last two years as with OA eligibility, could also be seen as adding to the requirements. When does work on a merit badge begin? When the boy first talks with his Scoutmaster? When a boy first develops an interest in a topic? Ive collected stamps and coins since I was 5. I have a large collections of U.S. pennies. Should a collection I started before entering Scouting be disallowed and only coins acquired after attaining First Class (we didnt work on merit badges before attaining First Class) be allowed? What exactly are we as counselors trying to accomplish? If the scouts work reaches that goal thats what is important. As to counting Family Camping for scout badges I am reminded of the scout who presented himself for Backpacking merit badge some years ago. Back then you had to take three hikes of at least three days and one hike of at least five days. This scout had lead four of his frieds on a 21 day trek in the Grand Tetons. He mapped out an itinerary which allowed them to pick up supplies every four days and he kept an extensive journal along with his original plan. Should I have refused to accept the work because he was the only scout? Should I have refused the work because he didn't return "home" every three days and start over on a "seperate hike" When it says Plan a patrol backpacking hike does that mean the members of the patrol must be registered scouts? This was one badge I was proud to sign off on. This boy's scouting experience provided the skills and abilities to allow these young men to do something they might not have otherwise been able to do. They have a memory for a life time made possible in part by the Scouting program. LongHaul

Fuzzy Bear, I agree with what you say but think its too bad that you find the things we discuss here mundane and not worth much time. I think that the things we discuss here are very important to us and the youth we serve. I also find it heart warming to think that not wanting to error during a BOR is so important to some of us and hope that the fact that we have the time to devote to these topics is because we dont have to worry about having to hide conduct we are not proud of. We dont have to worry about hiding evidence because our character keeps us from producing the evidence in the first place. If a scouter is taking the time to discuss whether his/her conduct during a merit badge counseling session is proper or not, whether they are adding to the published requirements then I think accepting a bribe or covering up a crime would never be a question let alone wanting to negotiate with the Justice Department about how criminal conduct by their fellow scouters should be investigated. Its not the bribery that concerns me; dishonesty comes with the territory when politics becomes a profession instead of a civic duty. What concerns me is the marshalling of forces to protect fellow politicians who are engaged in criminal activity. If it were the exception and not the rule why are so many worried about being served with a federal warrant? The whole justification for the Patriot Act and the wire taps and demands for records from internet companies stands on the platform If youre not guilty what are you worried about? I think the term here is Whats good for the goose is good for the gander If Congress is worried that the Justice Department is going to abuse their authority in issuing warrants to search Congressmens offices then legislate safeguards not immunities to prosecution or investigation. We have had several discussions in these forums concerning whether it is OK or right to break National policy and the number of posters who felt they were above the law or that the rules didnt apply to them were miniscule at best. By far the majority of those leaning toward not following the National rule on something were advocating doing what is felt as best for the youth we serve in the particular instance not what is beneficial or convenient to the adult volunteer. LongHaul

Yesterday I came across an item in the News that caused me to put things in perspective. President Bush had ordered some evidence sealed which was taken from a Congressmans office. Now I know that Congressmen have a kind of diplomatic immunity when it comes to being held responsible for their actions but theirs is not true immunity. After all a sitting President was hauled into court over something that was thrown out of civil court and denied by the EEOC before that. What actually started me thinking was the response from members of Congress and prominent Washington officials. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said it would "provide additional time to reach a permanent solution that allows this investigation to continue while accommodating the concerns of certain members of Congress." Accommodating the criminal in the gathering of evidence? The president said he recognized that Republican and Democratic leaders have "deeply held views" that the search violated the Constitution's separation of powers principles. But he stopped short of saying he agreed with them, declaring the end goal was to provide materials relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation to prosecutors "in a manner that respects the interests of a coequal branch of government." Coequal branch of government? What the heck is that? I wont hassle you if you wont hassle me? Hastert, R-Ill., and Pelosi, D-Calif., responded with their own statement: "Today, we are directing the House counsel to begin negotiations with the Department of Justice regarding the protocols and procedures to be followed in connection with evidence of criminal conduct that might exist in the offices of members." These elected officials are talking about criminal activities here. They seem to be worried about not stepping on toes while the FBI investigates criminal conduct. Even Speaker of the House Hastert and Democratic Party Leader Pelosi referred to evidence of criminal conduct. Everyone seems to admit that a crime has been committed and that the attempt now is to set a standard, or protocol as they call it, for when further criminal activity takes place. Dont want to inconvenience a Congressman under investigation for accepting bribes because $90,000 happened to turn up in his freezer? MaScout is worried about adding to the requirements for Environmental Science Merit Badge, LisaBob is concerned about the legality of returning a Webelos to Cub Scouts and we repeatedly hash over what is and isnt proper at a BOR. All in all I think we should be d*** proud of ourselves. . As a group we hold ourselves to a standard of behavior I wish was more evident in other youth organizations Im involved with. Some may find it necessary to leave the forums and some may only denounce and attack but the vast majority of the Scouters here seem to have ethics and standards far above the elected norm. LongHaul

MaScout, Are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm not asking for details, the question is retorical. You can make the BOR aware of your concerns and bid by their decision. Thought about pressing charges? Beavah, The term "unit leader" is not synonomous with Scoutmaster. If they meant Scoutmaster it would say Scoutmaster. The Council Advancement Chair in Chicago Area Council wants the unit Advancement Chair to sign the application. LongHaul

OK!! Lock and Load everyone Im officially hanging a bulls-eye on my butt here. This is going to be seen as rule mongering by some and nit picking by others, BUT nowhere in the requirements for meritbadges does it say that a scout MUST talk with a MeritBadge Counselor BEFORE he starts a merit badge. Those references along with Blue Cards and Buddies are in the methods and procedures not the requirements. We are supposed to abide by the rules set by National according to the adult app we all signed. Requiring a scout to meet with you before he begins is adding to the requirements. Because parts of different requirements require a scout to discuss parts of the work with his counselor requiring him to discuss parts which are not stipulated as having to be discussed, in order to have the requirement signed off, is adding to the requirements. I HATE IT!!!! Im a counselor for Personal Management and have this argument with my Council Advancement Chair about twice a year. (I want the boy to talk with me before he starts and am told I cant require that) Ive contacted National and was given the parts of the methods and procedures explanation. What we end up with is a decision to technically break the rules in an attempt to better the scout thereby breaking our oath to follow the rules and regulations as set forth by the Corporation., follow the rules to the letter and accept work that is beneath the scouts ability and not in keeping with the intent of the MeritBadge Program, or quit being a Merit Badge Counselor. I related a story in another thread about a scout who presented me with a budget and records for three months money management that was ALL ZEROS! His explanation was that his mother didnt allow him to handle money. I refused to accept the work, Mom went to Council and I got a phone call threatening to remove me from the certified Counselor list. The boy got the badge from another counselor. Our Mission is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. The first line of the Oath reads; On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country and to obey the Scout Law. Thats all one sentence and nowhere in the Law does it say I will do my best. Our question here is not one of rules and regulations and fine print its one of ethics, can we be taken at our word or not. Personally I do not see that refusing to accept a budget of all zeros is breaking my oath to follow the rules. In fact I see it as up holding that oath and is an attempt to counsel the scout in the badge he asked me to counsel him in. MaScout, you are trying to do what you see as being in the best interest of the scout, if you dont have a problem with it the boy is free to find another counselor. Do your best to instill the values of the Oath and Law and teach the boys to do the same. LongHaul

SR540Beaver, I was in agreement right up till the last paragraph. Everything is designed to ease them into the troop environment in the comfort of a peer group. The TG's serve as their PL and APL and do much of the training. We ASM's make our presence known and assist with some training to get them used to adult association. After about 9 months in the NSP, we move them into existing patrols and if we and the boy leadership have done their job right, they are ready to hunt with the big dogs. The TGs are the PLs and APLs so the new scouts never get a chance of hands on learning in these positions while they have the TGs and ASMs as a back up. After about 9 months they are moved into existing patrols, so as I read it for the first 9 months they dont have the Patrol Method to build with because the transitory group they are a part of is going to be dissolved and they know it. Building the trust and cooperation doesnt begin until they are expected to hunt with the big dogs. I always looked upon the NSP concept as a means of building a new patrol not as a means of developing a feeder group for the existing patrols. LongHaul

I've read the posts to "rule mongering" several times and don't see a personal attack on Kahuna anywhere. As mine is one of only two that could IMO be construed as a personal attack I hope Kahuna is listening when I say I meant no disrespect. I do respect your opinions and views and that is why your post surprised me, that should not be taken to mean I don't respect your view on what should have been the response to your presence on the water front, I just don't agree with it. I've seen personal attacks in these forums over the years and have seen posters ejected from this forum for those attacks and rightly so. Eamonn if mine was the post you think you should have deleted Please PM me. LongHaul

The US Flag Code says that old flags should be retired with respect preferably by burning. Ive never understood how cutting the flag into pieces so that it is no longer the Flag and then burning the pieces is first respectful and second compliant with the flag code. If your going to shred the flag why burn the pieces, why not just throw them in the garbage? If you still consider the pieces to be the Flag then I say leave it whole and retire it with the respect it deserves and honor befitting the men and women who have given their lives for that which it stands. LongHaul

Kahuna, Im a little surprised at your post. Being a Red Cross Water Safety Instructor you should know better than to enter a restricted water front area without permission and being a Scout Leader you should know better than to enter a water front without posting buddy tags on the check in board. I worked the water front at Camp Owasippe and at the very beach you were on but when it was Camp Wilderness before it was renamed Camp Blackhawk. Camp Owasippe has been in service since 1911 and we have not had any, not one, water front fatality we are proud of that. If you read a post I made to a different thread youll know that those rules are not always followed to the letter but thats not because the water front staff wants it that way. Would you have entered the shooting range without permission and walked down range unannounced? LongHaul

Oaktree, in a public or private pool where the pool operator provides guard personnel, there may be no need for additional designation of Scout lifeguards or lookout. In a beach environment where provided lifeguard personnel do not meet the BSA guide of 1 to 10 those extra precautions may well be needed for a safe SCOUT activity. When I guarded at the Indiana Dunes State Park our guard perches where 40 yards apart. How many bodies can you fit in almost half a football field? The first line of responsibility in any Scout event is the qualified adult in charge. Pull one little kid out of the water and have to do mouth to mouth and you will regard aquatic activities differently I can assure you. Over kill on the Safe Swim Defense means under control. LongHaul

Lisabob, Others will disagree with me I'm sure but as long as the boy is a registered scout he is covered at any and all scout functions. If he were a den chief he'd be covered, if he were assisting with the den without being a den chief he'd be covered. He is a registered scout at an approved scout function liability is covered until his registration expires. There are many occasions where my scouts attend functions without my express permission, OA meetings, patrol meetings, this would be no different. He is attending as a scout function as a scout. LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Lisabob, A Webelos Scout can remain in the pack for six months after his 11th birthday or until the completion of the fifth grade which ever is later.(Webelos Leader Handbook page 7 bottom of page) Does this mean he can rejoin after transferring out? How old is the boy? when will he be 11 1/2? Making him a Den Chief is wrong IMO because it assigns him a POR he can't fulfill and a POR he does not deserve. One of the responsibilities of a Den Chief is to set the example, what kind of example are we setting by making this boy a Den Chief? Personally I'd talk with your Council office about the technicality of this boy having transferred out of Cub Scouts and can he transfer back in until he is 11 1/2 (if this even makes sense time wise) Once you know what the options are decide what is best for the Scout. Worse case scenario, he is registered with the troop so if he attends Webelos Den meetings he is covered liability wise as a registered scout. If he does not attend Troop Meetings will the Troop Committee refuse his recharter next year when he wants to come over with the now Webelos? What's best for this boy? Should he be asked to "grow up"? is it a case of getting Mom out of the picture? What's in the best interest of this boy? Decide that and work toward that end. LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Yes! Please what is H&S training? Fred you speak of a video and modules, as a fellow trainer you have my undivided attention. (Green with envy and salivating at the thought of new training possibilities) I've never heard of this training and know it is not readily available in my Council. Please! information! LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

I've held off responding to this thread because unless you have the back ground this is just another he said they said. If you want the background PM me and I'll do what I can. The volunteers in Chicago Area Council have been in a struggle with the Executive Board for about 6 years now. We are currently in court to restore voting rights to the COR's, background for this can be found at http://www.fortdearborn.stalphonsusscouts.org/, scroll all the way to the bottom. In the early days of this fight all our council camps were put up for sale. In response to this some volunteers organized groups to prevent the sales. Some were trying to raise money to buy the camps, some were trying to organize residents local to the camps to resist and block the sale. One organized a protest rally to be held in front of the Council Office on the day of an executive Board meeting to be sure the board knew how the "people" felt. The rally organizer was told his membership would be revoked if youth attended the rally. The board had decided the rally was a "political" event and that youth involvement was forbidden. The Organizer was told this by the Council Commisioner during an unrealted coversation an nothing was put in writting nor did any other Council official express these concerns. Youth did indeed attend and the organizer was sent a letter signed by the Council SE, Council President and Council Commissioner revoking his membership( which has since been made a permanent revocation). At this rally a different Scouter addressed the crowd and told the youth present that their presence at the rally could be used to fulfill requirements for Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge as this was an example of peaceful address of grievances and an exercise of their civil rights. This Scouter was suspended for 6 months for "making a mockery of the Merit Badges Program". At the Council Meeting to vote on a proposed slate of officers (a slate which was voted down three consecutive times and is part of the cause for the law suit) a Scouter was accused of repeatedly bumping into another Council member, and attempting to impede that members attempts to eject news reporters from the meeting room. The offending Scouter was suspended for six months. National does not revoke you membership your local council does and fighting to get it overturned is very difficult because the people you need to petition are the people who revoked your membership in the first place. LongHaul

Im curious, this is not a judgmental thing, Im open to new ideas here. When anyone says hike and cooking I think backpacking stove because in most areas around me ground fires are forbidden. Backpacking stoves and 13 year old scouts is scary, backpacking stoves and Webelos makes my skin crawl! When those of you who have already done this and lived to tell about it , actually did it, how did the Webelos cook? What did they cook? The more options and ideas I can offer at OLSWL and WLS the better the program. LongHaul

John-in-KC, Sir you are 100% absolutely correct. Boy led is an archaic term and no longer has a place in our program as it has become, on many fronts, a coed program. Sometimes us old goats fall back on the past but in this instance the correction is well deserved. I was after all giving comment on a program which is definitely coed in nature and "youth led" should have been my terminology. Emb021, Correct you are but in this case CNYScouter is trying to form a new unit and is worried about having enough youth to charter a unit. Allowing the youth to come to an agreement with the CO would make more sense than having the CO and Adults issue a decision which the youth would participate in. LongHaul