LongHaul

Scouter or Leader? One sign for sure that I have seen is the Wood badge beads. Anyone that I have met with the beads has met my expectations of what a Scouter is. With the changes in WB the course has less and less to do with being a Scouter but is a great tool to improve your leadership skills. You can be a good Scouter and not a good Leader and visa versa. What qualities and attitudes do you find in someone that really knows, follows and lives the Boy Scout program? Someone that really knows, follows and lives the Boy Scout Program, that is the quality. There are many adults associated with the Scouting Program. We have parents without whom there would be no need for the program. We have volunteers, usually parents who help produce the program. They sit on committees, drive to and from outings and provide the needed supervision necessary for a safe program. If we are lucky they even take training and serve in a specific position. These same adults will also be found as Band boosters, team parents, chaperones, sport team coaches, and active community members. They are involved with their children. We have the professional, opinions on these vary with the individual. Ive seen some I would like to clone and those....I wouldnt clone. Then we have Scouters. Scouters believe in the Scouting Program, maybe not always with those chosen to administer it but their faith in the scouting program itself is absolute. Scouters, as with that young man in England on that foggy morning, do not accept payment for their service. They will in fact gladly pay you to allow them to take training, be on staff to provide training or supervision. They do wear the uniform and most have more than one, either because of training, having staffed, or just because they feel the need to have an everyday uniform and a dress uniform. Most of all is that they live the Boy Scout program in their daily lives. On my honor are not just three words we string together once a week, they are the beginning of an Oath taken freely and in earnest each and every time. LongHaul

EagleInKY, The big difference there is that the committee is NOT telling the PLC that the PLC can't do something they are telling the PLC that the committee can't do something. LongHaul

Kellyr, Does the CC have a boy in the troop? How does she know how long it has been taking for meals and clean up on outings? How did her rejection of the first aid instructions come about? Sounds like a case where the troop committee feels it must approve the PLCs yearly plan. As EaglenKY wrote the committee is there to enable the youth leaders not dictate to them. The only reason a committee should have to refuse an item in the yearly plan is because it violates the policy of the CO, violates the GTSS or BSA R&R, or is viewed as unsafe by the committee. What is the relationship between the rest of the committee and the COR? The CC needs to understand her job and the program she is supposed to be helping provide. LongHaul

Nldscout , no disrespect intended but have you actually read in the BSA R&R that Chartering Organizations must negotiate with BSA on assets of a disbanded unit? My experience and the wording of court documents submitted by BSA when they are sued say that BSA is not a franchise entity. BSA operates on a charter from Congress and enters into Charter agreements with reputable organizations. The Troop Committee Guidebook states Your troop is owned by a chartered organization, which receives a national charter yearly to use the Scouting program as part of its youth work. The unit is not a separate legal entity. It has no separate tax id. It cant own physical property nor be held liable in a court of law. Individuals can as can the CO but the unit has no physical existence. This I found out when trying to insure our troop trailer and contents. The CO can insure but the unit cant. I dont see how state law can recognize the units right to own property if the unit has legal substance. We had a case where a very old Pack was disbanded by the CO because some District Unit Commissioner went in and ruffled the Church Elders feathers. The Church was going to take everything but enough community and parish pressure was brought to bear that the unit was allowed to find a new CO and retain everything. Kahunas solution is something to look at if the unit is large or handles large amounts of funds to finance trips and such. LongHaul

Ok, 1. These are not my views so lets not flame the messenger. 2. The Order of the Arrow has always considered those under 21 to be youth but required those 18 or over to conform to adult restrictions with regards to youth members. 3. I never saw the actual letter sent to the youth dismissing him, so I cant speak to exact wording. 4. This is the rational used to justify the actions taken. 5. I have no first hand knowledge of exact wording in the Official Rules and Regulations. Some where it says; that if you lead an alternate lifestyle you cant be a boy scout. If you dont believe in some form of deity you cant be a boy scout. That when a BOY SCOUT reaches the age of 18 he must register as an adult if he wishes to remain active. It is the exact wording and how that wording can be interpreted that led to this situation. Supposedly there is a gray line between Scouting and Venturing which allowed this youth to be declared an adult at 18. The position that YP ends at the meeting door or when the outing ends is also gray. Adults insert your own euphuism( taking advantage of, being in compromising positions with, acting inappropriately toward etc.) youth members is expressly forbidden. The god and gay things are about what happens outside of scouts as much as what happens while in uniform. Adults having physical relationships with youth members is against policy. Just because it happens away from scouting doesnt wash it clean. A number of scenarios were tossed back and forth. What age difference would be necessary to declare a relationship between adult leader and youth member outside scouting improper? Male 27 Female 17? Male 37 Female 17? How about Male 18 Female 15? How about Male 27 Female 15? Once we put an age difference to it we have established that Adult / youth relationships are improper we just haggle over technicalities. Put 100 dollars on a table and some people would steal it. Put 100 million dollars on a table and the number of those who would steal it goes up. They are all thieves, dollar amount is irrelevant. Adult/ youth relationships are allowed or not allowed, thats all there is to it. Adult/youth relationships are not allowed. Its the definition of adult that come into question. The law says that an 18 year old male can be held on statutory rape charges if the female is under 18 and her parents press charges. Nothing really has to happen. If the law says its wrong then Scouting must agree. I think I have made my point that the people that wanted to get this kid (my words) had enough gray area to work with. From the responses to my posts its clear that many of us would not have sought any action. The problem is that its up to local interpretation when in my opinion it should be decided Nationally. Venturing is for YOUTH 14 through 20 years of age. Youth Protection is too important a concept to be used in this way. Too many people get hung up on the letter of the law and loose sight of reality. Long Haul

FScouter wrote; "The rules and boundaries spelled out in the G2SS seem clear enough. No one-on-one contact, separate accommodations, 2-deep leadership, etc. The Venturing YP video for youth members is good." Ill agree the YP video is good but it doesnt address non harassment type relationships. In the first instance the violation occurred at a Council camp. The second, with the 18 year old, was the result of adults knowing a relationship existed. Just because it was outside scout activities it still existed. Im waiting for spring when a few couples will enter this limbo and the girls will either have to go to their proms with other people or one of the members of each couple will have to drop out of Scouts. This is the area I think National needs to look at. LongHaul

Actually there was a history involved. Some adult leaders got on the wrong side of Council Officials and some bad press resulted. In retaliation, though I fully agree with the validity and justification for it, the boy friend of one of the offenders daughter was dismissed for violating the Youth Protection Policy. He was on staff at our camp and turned 21 during the summer. His girl friend a Venturing Crew member 19 years old came up to camp with her parents when they came up with their troop. Soon as the two went off alone the hammer fell. In this instance 21 is 21 and the Youth Protection Policy is clear on adult/YOUTH MEMBER relationships. She was after all considered a youth member. The act was cold but in keeping with policy. A friendly Council professional leaked the news that they wanted to get both him and her for violating the policy but were afraid that it would look bad disciplining the victim. Once the door was opened and leaders were made aware of the limbo period between 18 and 21 it was only about 10 months before someone pointed the finger at the 18 year old and screamed. I dont know if National has made any definitive ruling on this with regards to Venturing. As I said a good many of our crew members are boy friend girl friend. As for the Crew it survived and the girl is still registered she is a true Scout and believes in the Program. Also she wouldnt give the Council the satisfaction of winning. As for the choice between scouts or your girl what are the alternatives? If a leader engages in inappropriate behavior with a youth member while not on a campout would we still think it was alright? Remember what it was like at 18 when you were alone with your girl and ask yourself if that is appropriate behavior between and adult and a youth member. If an adult male leader got caught with a female youth outside of scouts would we all say no foul, just dont do it in uniform. How big an age difference would we need for it to be wrong. Should the pre-existing relationship be special circumstance? Sometimes adults can touch youth members? Remember I have been having this discussion from both sides for a while and each has points but as a National Organization we have to have clear boundaries for Youth Protection. National needs to look at Venturing from the YP view point and rule so these young people can at least know where they stand and where the boundaries are. LongHaul

On his 18th. Birthday he is most definitely considered an adult. Youth Protection guideline apply, he must now conduct himself as an adult with respect to being alone with a youth, physical contact with none family members etc. This is very tricky with Venture Crews who are boy friend girl friend in many cases. Though they are youth till 21 for registration purposes they are adults at 18 for Youth Protection matters. We had a case where the boy was removed from Scouting because he was involved with a 17 year old girl when he turned 18 and didnt break off the relationship or resign his membership. He fought but lost. LongHaul

First off I will agree that some adults want to be Man Scouts instead of Boy Scouts. They gather with other adults on committees and in training situations where they can Lead adults. Often when there are no other awards or accolades to be had they fade away. You rarly find them delivering quality progrqam to youth. This type of display or example is not what Im referring to. Deliberately not wearing the awards one may be entitled to wear or not seeking those awards even if the required participation or work has been done seems to me to be counter to what we are working toward with Scout advancement. If doing the work is all that is important why should a boy seek advancement. Or are we telling them that seeking recognition until you are 18 is right but after 18 its self-indulgent? Second I find it odd that the same people that are saying wearing all your knots is not for them seem to be saying that wearing improper items on their uniform is OK. Using the Uniform to make a political statement in direct disregard for the expressed rulings of National is less an evil than boasting? LongHaul

One thing to remember is that One size does not fit all by that I mean what keeps you warm may cause me to perspire like it was full Summer. I bought a pair of Thinsulate boots and within the first hour my feet were soaked. Wore them twice (tried liners in minus 10 degrees and still felt like I poured a cup of water into my boot. The suggestions posted are right on the money but one should test their equipment before relying in it. Being too warm is as dangerous as being too cold if you dont ventilate quickly enough. Try to stay comfortably cool rather than comfortably warm. Stay Dry! LongHaul

Drakmund, The question I have for you is what type of an Example are you trying to set. You admit to the fact that wearing the cloth Eagle badge is against BSA National Policy yet you defend your choice to do it. You say you don't wear recognition knots because you want to focus on the scouts and their awards. If you set the example that awards are not important then why should the scouts seek them? I've been in scouting for over thirty years and like you never wore Adult awards. Then I took Woodbadge in 1998 and my Scoutmaster asked me that question. How is qualifying for , being recognized for and wearing an embroidered knot for Adult Training any different than rank advancement? Why should the scouts do it by the numbers and seek recognition if you dont. This is not saying that you should seek recognition as a goal but when being trained, serving youth and providing program qualify you for recognition why refuse it? LongHaul

Update. Finding no relief or help at the Regionalr National level a group of concerned volunteers have filed a court action to prevent the current Executive Board of the Chicago Area Council from taking control from the CORs. The Executive board, which was not approved by the COR membership has remained in power on a technicality for some 18 months. The board has revised the by-laws to allow them to re-elect themselves if the slate is voted down by the COR's. In my last post I said that the slate which the Nominating Committee proposed was voted out off order by the Executive Board president. At that time 40% of the COR's in the council signed a petition to have the slate brought up for a vote. The president refused to allow the petition to be presented by adjorning the meeting without a vote to adjorn. A new slate has been developed by the current board which, if voted down, can be retified per the by-law change and put into office against the wishes of the COR's. The law suit was presented to the court and a ruling preventing the vote has been given. Further motions and rulings are set for October 17,2005. The sale of the camps was the straw which broke the camel's back but the dissatisfaction of the COR's with the current administration has been an ongoing problem. LongHaul

The saddest part of the Owasippi story is the manner in which it was sold. Actually it's not a done deal yet and some of us have not given up the fight. The Council Board of Directors has repeatedly ignored the opinions of the Chartering Organization Reps. The current executive board has failed to be approved three times. When the meeting to accept the sale proposal was set it was set in mid afternoon instead of evening which was traditional. Members of that board asked to be allowed to cast proxy votes because of work restrictions, they were denied. When the meeting convened and the board president realized the No votes out numbered the yes votes a conference call was established to allow extra yes votes to be cast. Today I found out that the Nomination committee meeting, to present a slate to the CORs on March 9th, was abruptly adjourned by the council president because the proposed slate removed most of the "yes" people. I always thought the board was composed of CORs or at least concerned scouters. I have found that seats are actually for sale. Some scouters who have taken action to organize efforts to stop the sale have been expelled from Scouting by the council board. One of those for allowing youth to voice their opposition to the sale. This was deemed a political statement and the long time scouter (40 years?), Owasippi staff member and father of 4 Eagle scouts was told he was to cease all contact with Boy Scouts in all forms. Region says it's a council matter and National just does not care. When I was a scout Chicago had 8 camps on the Owasippi reservation and 6 local camps. Today we have none. If the sale goes through as planned we will have the largest bank account of any council in the nation so I guess being number one is important to the current board. To bad the youth aren't .

packsaddle, They are indeed aware. I sent e-mail and hard copies to all the guilty parties. Next step is to get this to the individual District Advancement Chairs, which I am in the process of doing. Longhaul

Here it is, I knew I had seen it somewhere. Ask and thou shall receive. http://www.meritbadge.com/art/mb-memo.gif Good health and happy days to all. Longhaul

Scouters, I couldn't find reference to this in any of the publications I have. I have sent an inquiry to National and am waiting for a reply. To answer some questions from your replies, packsaddle asked how council would know which requirements were used. In my council we have to turn in the blue cards when we turn in advancement reports. The portion which has the requirements listed on it is held by council, in our case they pass through the hands of the advancement chair. Also this question was brought up at the District Roundtable and my District Advancement chair is aware of this case. I was told flat out that when an advancement report for this scout is turned in the badge will not be accepted by council unless the new requirements are met. Yes, I know all of this is being done wrong. But those in power can do as they please unless someone can stop them. I could have the boy turn in a fresh blue card but then I would be doing what they are doing and telling the boy that it is OK to bend the rules. The boy just turned 17 so we have time to redo if necessary but standing up for what is right is part of being "Brave". The messages I send these boys will come back to me in kind in thier own time.

Bob White, I was sure he was in error but couldn't find the reference in the Policies and Guidelines. When I get home I'll try reading line by line till I find it. Thanks for the reply.

Hello again, The Council Advancement Chair in my council has said that all partials for badges that have been rewritten (Personal Management) are invalid and that boys must start over from square one. I need to know where to find the policy in writting so I can convince the powers that be that these boys can complete the badge as begun before the changes were anounced. Help BoB White

First let's limit this to the original parameters. A youth is found to be in possesion of some quantity of marijuana. For what ever reason or by what type of experience you know beyond a doubt it's marijuana. Are we, as Adults having taken responsibility for the saftey and welfare of minors, obligated to inform the local authorities when laws are broken? Should our willingness to honor that obligattion be influenced by the severity of the local punishment? In NJ it's a d.p. in Texas it's 20 to life ( or was back in the 60's when it mattered to me) Do we have the right to decide when to follow the law? I believe the law says that if we as adults have knowledge of a crime being committed we must report it.

Bob White, Having read and reread your posts in this thread, I notice your steadfast belief that you should not impose a punishment upon scouts in your troop. "Define terms" a wise teacher always told us, so I looked up punishment. Punishment n. 1. A penalty imposed, as for transgression of law. 2. Any ill suffered in consequence of wrongdoing. I wonder, Bob, who decided to call the boys parents when the marijauna was discovered? Was it a result of a consultation between you , your COR, and the Troop Committee? Or did you act unilateraly and decide the penalty for being in possesion of marijuana was to be excluded from the group? Was this a rule previously set by the PLC? Was the PLC consulted before the parents were called? You so desperatly need to be perceived as following every rule every time, both by others and by yourself that you over complicate issues. "Punishment" in your mind carries a negative connotation and therefore you would never do it, yet what you say you actually did fits the definition of punishment. Maybe for the sake of this discussion we could agree that discipline is a variety of internal and extrenal controls that define and maintain acceptable behavior. Punishment is action taken after a rule or discipline is violated in order to enforce the discipline. Wasn't your action as a result of discovering marijuana taken to enforce dicipline (the rules)? The boy broke the rules and suffered the consequences, crime and punishment. I believe you handled the situation properly, you would have been justified in calling the local police (in my opinion) as following the guidelines of Youth Protection and reporting an incidence of drug use. Anything leaders, both youth and adult, do in response to a breaking of the rules which limits or restricts the "breaker" can be interperated as punishment Lastly I can find no reference to "punishment" in the G2SS except in conjunction with the word corporal. The G2SS does not say the parents should be involved in "Punishment", is does not address "Punishment"

I think this question must be looked at from two perspectives. First, the GTSS is clear and the "intent" of bringing attention to a lost article is to make the person feel uncomfortable and therefore unacceptable. Second, however, is our task of prepareing our boys to function in the real world. We teach leadership not only for better troop function but to ready these young men for life. Society and the real world are not sensitive to wether they make one another feel bad. If, as a group, we as leaders continually shield these boys from conditions which exsist outside our infuence how are we preparing them for those conditions? I see a lot of the "Politically Correct" attitudes being introducted as an attempt to insulate BSA National from legal suits and not as being totally about the needs of the boys. Once things like this start they end up going to extremes. All of us who have been around for any lenght of time will know what I mean when I refere to a skit or joke which makes someone the "sap running around the tree" or "the suckers holding up the line" or the "nuts to hold it up". I seldom saw a person who was tramatized by any of these displays of insensativity. All such jokes are now discouraged. Songs which draw attention to ones religious beliefs are discouraged if presented at gatherings which include other units. "Rise and Shine and Give God your Glory" is no longer an acceptable form of awakening your troop because neighboring troops may be offended. At our summer camp "Green Grow the Rushes Oh!" was a standard and became a contest as to who could sing their verse loudest. Today it is on the "no no" list. As a group Scouting is falling prey to the "Zero Tolerance" approach, which is actually an "I can't control or respond to this topic, which is my responsibility, so I will try to eliminate the need to respond by envolking a blanket ban." OGE and Bob White, I don't disagree with your position. My question to you is how far do we carry this approach? Is it "unscoutlike" to publically bring attention to any unacceptable behavior? If your entire campsite is being judged, is it unacceptable to bring attention to one scouts messy tent because it will embarrass him? Should we clean his dishes so as not to draw attention to the fact that his is the only gear left unwashed? Before you say these are ridiculous questions think about the policy. We, as leaders, are supposed to protect the boys from being "singled out" or made to feel "uncomfortable" in front of their peers. If singing a song because you "lost" something is hazing how can I,as a Scoutmaster, allow the SPL to require a patrol to have a song or skit prepared for the campfire. Singing is singing, boys are being required to stand in front of their peers and perform. Where does this end? Is it hazing to have one do it but not if the whole patrol has to do it? Is hazing a matter of numbers or intent?

SouthPoleScout, If you arrange for a trek to Philmont the information will be in the packet they send you. Bob White has given you an excelent resource. I can tell you that they are indeed strict about the limitations. I took a trek in 2001, and had a boy that exceeded the height /weight max. I was sure that because he was very athletic (offensive lineman) and practiced three times a week in 90 degree heat in full football gear that he would have no problem. Philmont was not amused. If you have someone that exceeds the restriction contact Philmont and explain the situation ahead of time. Be sure before you go that an exception will be made. My boy got to hike but it was a close call. The staff was concerned about rescue in the event of accident, 6'3" at 250 has a different center of gravity than 5'11" 250. Over 21 years and you must meet the restriction.

I don't know where the post was I read about someone who had gone on a school trip and was concerend because BSA Youth Protection policies where not in place. They had asked "Where is your two deep leadership?" I chose not to respond because expecting non-scout groups to understand our precautions is unrealistic. We try to implement them when ever possible and to steer people in the right direction where we can. Well God decided to give me yet another wake up call. My youngest son is being graduated from high school at the end of the month and he dragged me kicking and screaming to yet another awards dinner last night. The only thing was I was the one getting the award. The kids from the Band, Orchestra, and Performing Arts group gave me a plaque for being "The Worlds Worst Chaperone". I have an older son so some of these kids have be seeing me on trips for eleven years. Several girls spoke about things I did that were special to them, one said" When you meet Mrs. A she would say 'Good Morning" Mrs. B would chime "Looks like it will be a fine day' but MR G could always be counted on to greet you with, (at this point the entire room errupted with an obviously rehearsed) "Where's your buddy?" They told about how every trip I had some new rule. "Other groups had fun, Mr. G's group had check-ins and role calls." "Mr G always had to know where you where and who you where with, it was like your own Dad was there!"> At the end a Mom presented me with a photo album of head and shoulder shots of kids from past and present with notes from each. This lady and I were on a trip to a major university over spring break one year. Our Preforming Arts group (mostly female) had been invited to participate in three days of competion/ workshops. I had taken polaroids of each kid and had them fill in height, weight , eye color etc. I passed it off as just another precaution. (Later I found out it did spur a discussion about being careful and not letting guards down) After the kids were gone the mom asked me if I thought pictures weren't a little much. I answered "Probably, I'm just so scared I had to do something." I explained that the only kids still on campus were those who lived to far away to go home, which was fine, and those who didn't have a home they wanted to go to and couldn't afford to be getting drunk in Florida. So we just brought about a thousand 16 and 17 year old females to campus. She looked at me and said "Boy you can really bring a person down." We both spent three days on pins. When this woman contacted her daughter, now married, for a current picture for the book the girl sent a picture of her new born twin girls with a caption which read. "You And Your Damn Buddy System!" I cried. The kids notice when we care enough to worry.

I promised myself I would not respond to any more posts concerning this issue. Most of the people posting on this are expressing core beliefs. People don't change fundamental beliefs because of pressure or discussion. We disagree at the base level, alternate life style vs. perversion. Acceptable behavior vs mental illness. NJCubScouter writes And, although I know supporters of the temporary BSA policy absolutely hate this analogy, the argument of "we will not be able to camp together or share facilities" is exactly the same argument that was made in the late 40's against racial integration in the military. Opponents said that many white soldiers, especially in or from the South, would never share a barracks or a bunk with a black soldier. Well, once the deed was done, those white soldiers got over it, because they had no choice. Maybe a few who had the option of getting out of the military did so. But we were able to fight a war shortly after that. In the long run, the BSA would be fine, this issue would die away, and to paraphrase one of the prolific posters in this forum, everyone could get back to the business of Scouting. Well NJCubScouter the deed has been done, BSA has chosen to exclude gays. Are you going to get over it? Can we get back to SCOUTING? Well we can't get over it either. Let's agree to disagree and stop beating this horse

Bob, Read my post again. I never said that you said the board should pass him I said that you said he, meaning Wood Badge Eagle should have passed them, meaning the boys in question on to the BOR. I also noticed you didn't touch the original question AGAIN.