mds3d

I will say this till I am blue in my face. The COR is supposed to be involved! Yes, for many troops this is a ceremonial position that belongs to the CO and puts his name on some forms a few times a year. That isn't the intended purpose. The COR is supposed to be the official representative of the CO to make sure that the unit serves the purpose of the CO and represents them well. If you have a situation where a Scouter might need to be removed he needs to be involved. If you have a Unit Commissioner they can be a great source of advice as well.

I hope you are doing the right thing. This still sounds like a bit of a toxic environment. Why would a lawsuit be filed?

I don't think BSA documents actually support the CC having Hire/Fire authority over the SM or ASMs. BSA Rules and Regulations published June 2018 state the following- "Chartered organizations may remove or refuse to renew the unit registration of unit leaders when the unit committee and chartered organization representative agree that the Scouter’s service is no longer desired or required." CO's may remove scouters. The confusion comes because so many CC's are dual CC/COR. I don't know what district volunteer would have said that. Besides, the camping requirement is unambiguous. It says "While camping in the outdoors, cook at least one breakfast, one lunch, and one dinner for your patrol from the meals you have planned for requirement 8c. At least one of those meals must be a trail meal requiring the use of a lightweight stove" The only flex might be in the case of an adhoc patrol formed by some troops with poor attendance.

The troop committee does not have the authority to replace you as scoutmaster. That is not their job. Officially only the COR has this authority. That being said my advice is as follows: GET OUT!!!!!! I may have missed it but I don't see your son's age and rank. They would have to be nearly done for me to say that you might as well stay. This sounds like a very toxic place. You might discuss the issue with your COR (the person really in charge). If they are supportive of you continuing to develop the troop then they need to inform the committee that they don't have the authority to remove scouters and need to get off their power trip. If the COR is not willing to do that then there is no fixing this troop and you need to find a new one.

I think the CO bears almost all of the moral responsibility that can be placed on someone other than the perpetrator. Lawsuits aren't about moral responsibility, they are about financial responsibility and most of these places are churches that would never be able to pay out much.

Having been both the bullied and the bully at various points during my time as a scout, and having no knowledge as to the actual nature of the bullying in this instance - I would say that your assertion that this SPL cannot change is a little over the top. These are presumably both Life Scouts, though I have no idea how old they are. These boys obviously aren't friends, but they don't have to be. Selection of the ASPL was done incorrectly it seems in this troop, and that certainly didn't help matters. It may be that no one has taught these scouts how to be around people who aren't your friends. If no one has actually talked this out with the SPL then us internet scouters certainly are in no place to make a determination on the heart of this scout. I am convinced that teenage boys are predisposed to be bullies at one point or another. That doesn't make the bullying wrong, but it does make it one of the things we have to compete with when trying to get them to be Trustworthy, Loyal, etc.

I just want to comment on who has the responsibility of dealing with bullying. From a UC's point of view - It depends. If this is an opportunity to teach and improve the bully then it is "program" and the SM's job. If this is a situation that needs "corrective action" or requires involvement of the boy's parents (more than "let me tell you about the talk johnny and I had") then it is administration and the CC/COR/IH (depending on the relationship) should be involved. Anything where you are talking about "punishments" or the like needs to be handled by the unit key 3. If (and only if) this involves criminal action does the council need to be involved or probably even care. I have provided advice and assistance, but have specifically been told that the professionals need to be contacted only if there is the possibility for (or need for) law enforcement/legal involvement. To the OP: If the response from the SM isn't satisfactory, your options as I see them are: 1. Talk to the CC, 2. Find a new troop.

@The Latin Scot I am a little sorry I posted this now. I will continue to address things you bring up however. I know you are not a new scouter. Neither am I. I wasn't talking about us. I was referring to the Scouter who turns to this community and others for the first time looking for advice that doesn't have anything to do with the terminology used around uniforms. Those terms are not "pushed" they are used, by volunteers who run and participate in district level meetings, to refer to the Official Uniform and matching t-shirts. Scouters ask things like "What are people doing about scouts who can't afford full Class A's" and "Where did everyone get their Class B's?" It doesn't really help that scouter at the moment to correct that terminology so I don't. As for disparaging, while there is far less correcting than I thought when I search "Class A" or "Class-A" here, that doesn't mean that it is all in a positive spirit. Some of it is clearly in the vein of "no real expert on the uniform uses the term 'Class A'" Quickly searching other online scouting communities reveals that it is actually much better here than other places. The newest resource I can find in print from an official publication (the Scouting Magazine article referenced above) states that these are unofficial terms but does not call them incorrect, discouraged, or prohibited. Can you help me find a recent official publication that discourages these terms? I understand that the official documents do not use them but I believe there is a big difference between unofficial and inappropriate. After having typed this I think I will change my stance. I only ask that when you correct people, can you do it in context of also answering their question in the friendliest way possible (I am not saying that you don't)? It probably isn't a big deal, I may even be wrong. I definitely made the mistake of not assuming positive intent, and for that I apologize.

I think that the use of the terms do not necessarily indicate a "lackadaisical attitude towards the uniform" If you showed up at any of our local district meetings (committee, commissioner, roundtable) you could easily be convinced that "Class A" and "Class B" were official synonyms for Field and Activity. I also here "Full Dress" around here a lot to mean the fully decked out version of the uniform (sashes, medals, etc). A scouter coming from my district online here for the first time would not understand any negative reaction to these terms. I didn't say that the use of just "uniform" (as their is really only one) isn't correct, just that random corrections in threads not specifically about uniforming aren't helpful and the correction is often not delivered courteously. This is a thing all around the internet where we read others words without the inflection and body language that usually accompanies the same interaction in real life. Secondly - Officially, there isn't even an activity uniform in any program except Venturing (I can only find the terms "field" and "activity" here: https://www.scouting.org/programs/venturing/about-venturing/uniform-guide/) Although, it seems like there is an off hand reference to "activity uniform" in the handbook. Troop t-shirts however, definitely serve a purpose. They fulfill many of the goals of uniforming without the disadvantages of actually wearing the official uniform on an activity. I am a big fan of troop t-shirts and large useful (square) neckerchief for hiking and such. The common lexicon in scouting has often used the term "class B" to mean "all wearing the same t-shirt." In most cases we know what those people mean. Side note: Is there an official instance of the BSA actually asking us not to use those terms? This article (https://scoutingmagazine.org/2018/08/clearing-up-common-questions-about-what-we-wear/) in 2018 references those terms as unofficial without disparaging them (though the comments seem to talk only about that). This much older letter answer from 1998 (https://scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0605/d-lett.html) does include the correction.

I don't expect a 12 year old to get a real job. I don't really think the BSA does either, at least not anymore. I think the idea is that dues should cover your monthly budget and that fundraisers should be used for capital expenditures (tents, flags, etc) that last over multiple years. However, since the BSA doesn't really recognize units as separate entities from their CO I would say that the official line is probably that those things should be provided under the budget of the CO. Since the CO actually owns anything the troop owns, any fund raisers that benefit the troop alone might really be under the review of the CO not the BSA. The approval form is for the purpose of conducting a fundraiser as a representative of the BSA instead of the CO. This brings up another thing I like to point out to people. A unit cannot solicit donations, but the CO can. Your CO could accept a donation earmarked for the troop. They could also accept (and even solicit for) a goods donation. The CO giving money to the Troop isn't a donation, it is funding. We did this when I was a scout. Our church provided a (albeit very small) budget for the troop each year. Mostly this money was used for our re-charter (that small). However, someone did occasionally write a check to the church for the purpose of funding the activities of the scouts.

"Class A" and "Class B" when referring to uniforms originate with the US military but are no longer specifically military. Police, Fire, and EMS departments also use this terminology. Additionally there are no longer officially "Class A" or "Class B" uniforms (confirmed with US Army, don't know about other branches) in the military either. Regardless, in most contexts, the military heritage of these terms is irrelevant. If the BSA was really that concerned with the military association they wouldn't license to a company called "Class B"

What I think is funny (and confusing) is that if you search "scout activity forms" you still get the following from Mike Walton http://www.scoutinsignia.com/abcd.htm As he is generally considered a good reference for scout things, him leaving this page up means (or maybe causes) the terms still do get used. Of course, what he describes is what my unit called them circa 2001. Except for us, Class A = the full thing, and Class B = just the shirt. I know that this was wrong even at the time, but I think it served a purpose. For our unit, it encouraged the full uniform while still giving preference for scouts that bothered to come in the uniform shirt even if they didn't change pants from school. In a place and time where uniform pants and socks were a luxury that some scouts couldn't do I think it was fine.

If you really want to cover your bases, and I do think that this is technically required, you might think of how this would be easiest for the situation. I would recommend providing the form to volunteers ahead of time (A&B) with something like the following explanation on an envelope containing the form) As an explanation - I advocate for the following handling of the AHMR- Forms are turned in sealed in a standard envelope. Each participant (or guardian) is asked "Do you (or your scout) have any medical issues we should be aware of before we are away from prompt medical care?" This puts the informing of allergies and medical conditions on them and allows them to put things on the form that they think the doctor needs but you don't. Forms are returned at the end of each activity and brought to each activity (no form, no go). That keeps you from having to keep a file of confidential medical information.

I would say that there might be some (although difficult to define) value in this goal. This is how I would pitch it. If units in the council are providing a high quality program, a certain percentage of registered scouts should reach eagle every year. Not reaching that number might mean that the provided program isn't as high quality as we want. It might also mean a bunch of other things. Metrics are useful for businesses and organizations when used correctly. The questions that matter are how they arrived at that number, and what do they do when the number isn't met. It could be that National provides a historical rate from all councils. It could also be that other metrics are used to determine which councils are doing the "best." This could be increasing registration or whatever. Here is how I could see this going well - -Councils with consistent year over year growth of registered youth all have a similar rate of scouts reaching eagle. -This rate is seen as a marker of a program that provides scouts good opportunities. -Local Council adopts this as a goal for the next year -Goal is not met -Local Council now asks why that goal wasn't met. A recent influx of young or new scouts would be a reason that wouldn't be a worry, but they might also discover that units felt that there was poor support from the council regarding the trail from Life to Eagle or that Eagle forms were processed too slowly or that they had a high rate of Life dropouts that year. That last one might lead them to ask why that happened. They might also react to it completely wrongly, but I don't think it is a wrong thing for a COUNCIL ADVANCEMENT group to track. They are after all focused on that one particular method. They might also be interested in tracking rates of First Class achieved per year (effectiveness of early program) or rates of first class to star each year (effectiveness of the transition from early to late program).

I didn't want to post this in the original thread because I didn't want to derail. I seem to see someone bring up the classification of uniforms any time the words "Class A" or "Class B" are used. I just wanted to say that this interjection of correctness (pedantry IMHO) isn't helpful or courteous most of the time. Most of the time it easy to tell if people mean "Class A = Field" and "Class B = Troop T-shirt" or some small variant of that. In most circumstances it really isn't important that the field is the only real uniform and that there isn't an accepted variant on "fully uniformed." If it is important to differentiate what people mean by "Class B" then you should probably ask. If the discussion revolves around these designations of classes or what an official activity uniform is, then it might be useful to bring up, otherwise maybe think about contributing something else.

I just have guesses at this point, but are you willing to be a little more specific? We might be able to identify the guideline that your council thinks it violates. I think that some councils are stingy about approving things because scouts are supposed to pay their own way. The official deal is that units shouldn't really need a lot of money (or technically any).

The state says that they weren't deteriorating but becoming dangerously slippery from rain or fallen leaves. This is one of the issues with doing work for a government agency. If it had slowly needed repair, then someone might have thought to get in touch with the scouts to get it fixed. If someone thought it was a safety issue, then I imagine that order probably took less than 24hrs to issue. Someone said it was unsafe, a ranger went and determined it wasn't really necessary and a supervisor ordered it demolished. It wouldn't surprise me if someone actually slipped and got hurt. In contrast, there are other eagle projects in various TN state parks around me that pose no safety hazard that have long since needed repair.

Being a UC, I would say that this fits within our wheelhouse. The truth is, this isn't actually a legal matter yet. You have a scout who is accused of violating the law, but this isn't a police matter. No LEO would be able to act on the information here. This is primarily a mission issue. If this were brought to me, I would advise a meeting between the CC, COR, and SM and NO ONE ELSE. Primarily this kind of issue lies within the preference of the CO. Because, this is a potential legal matter and certainly a recruitment and relationship (and probably safety) matter this should be where the COR steps in to exert the opinion of the CO. This doesn't really have anything to do with the other members of the CC and will invite more debate than is necessary. This should be the decision of the CC and COR. If my opinion was asked - suspend the scout. Don't suspend him for any length of time, but tell the parents that their son is suspended until they have a legitimate action plan in place to correct these issues.

I think the spirit of the rule is to only count "summer camp" once otherwise most scouts would only need to camp 5 nights outside of camp. I would not count part of a long term camp as a short term camp unless this was truly a different event (not during the summer camp week at the summer camp). Over the last two years this scout has camped 4 times + NYLT + Summer Camp. That is not enough for the OA IMHO. I think you are eligible because you camp. OA is a recognition of those who spend time away from civilization, usually under the stars or a tent roof, and who do it honorably. I think the rule is enough to determine what counts. The rule could be written that you must have 1 - 5 night camp plus 10 nights of camping where you are out no more than 3 nights at a time. 4 night camps don't fit the rule anywhere. The rule is supposed to balance number of nights with number of trips without specifying exactly how you got there.

Wow, Eagledad, I wish they would just make you in charge. Here is where I expect these things came from. Someone at national asked some scouts who stuck with the program (11 to 18) what made them stay. They got a large number of "the OA" answers. I think this is true of many Arrowmen. I also think that the rate of people sticking with the OA after Brotherhood is much higher than those who only ever complete the Ordeal. National must have concluded that getting scouts to brotherhood with help them stick with the OA longer, sticking with the OA will make them stay in the program longer. I am not sure of the logic as it seems to me that OA lodges are all so different. I hated our chapter because the chapter chief was the same guy for my first three years there. He was a bully that got in "trouble" for smoking at camp. I hung around just enough to complete my brotherhood though. I don't know if it really matters how much of an "honor society" the OA is. For reference, our lodge only had two weekends for ordeal, one spring and one fall. They also did the brotherhood ceremony during summer camp after the ice cream social/lodge meeting. If your lodge doesn't have ceremonies to match this requirement then it is your lodge that is going to have to change.

If they forced it, I would be tempted to pick a three digit number not in use and put that on your uniform and only use the 4 digit one (starting with a 4) for official stuff. Essentially that is what everyone with a less than four digit number does, they just don't include leading zeros.

All the information we have about 2017 is that "an incident" occurred. No one but the involved people, the BSA, and the investigators know exactly what that incident was. We have no idea if it was something to be reported or not. This is the problem with the news cycle related to criminal cases. Except in the most sensational of cases, we will never hear what happened to these people. The news will not report if they are found innocent, because that doesn't get clicks and sell ads. Yes, some of them seem pretty cut and dry, but others are all accusation at this point. It is bad, but if I were the BSA, I would start throwing people under the bus at some point. Units, camp directors, and chartered organizations would all make good scape goats. I am unsure if that would just scare away more volunteers or scare some into actually paying attention to YPT.

I am not really trying to challenge, just curious. Why do you want it to cease being a flag? Then you are destroying the flag by cutting and only burning two pieces of cloth. I find the traditions very interesting. Without a specific prescribed ceremony different ones have been created with different meanings and logic. We were taught that the flag was burned as one piece because it remains a symbol of unity until its retirement. We were taught to fold the flag in half then drop the stripes on the fire, then fold the flag over onto the fire so the canton remained up (because it stays up even during retirement). Fires were always started without accelerants and made of local materials only because retirement is done by the land which the flag represented. (Our OA ceremony fires were always started without match or lighter).

^ My notes in bold above. We cannot prevent every bad person from joining scouts if that person has not shown how he is bad yet. You posted 7 articles. 4 were definitely unrelated to scouting, 1 might have been unrelated (no information). The last two are hard to judge what would have been done to prevent it. None display any improper actions by any part of the BSA.

Zero cases where guidelines were followed is the goal. Making that number actually zero is solely in the hands of frontline volunteers and parents that need to make sure that guidelines are NEVER violated.