nolesrule

FScouter, thanks for finishing my thought. I meant to include what you said in my post, but I hit submit when I got distracted by the wife, and then you posted before I got a chance to edit.

"First, Why was Joesph Reid arrested? The article states that Reid told the 12 year old to "walk back to his campsite". Then on the way back to the campsite "Four OTHER scouts jumped him". Then it Lists Joseph Reid and 3 Others as being arrested. " It's possible the newspaper story got the detail wrong about four others. Maybe it was actually Reid and 3 others. The same article you quote says it was Reid who actually forced him to drink the urine. "The 12-year-old said the scouts then took him off into the woods and told them they were going to teach him a lesson for making derogatory remarks toward another scout. The boy told police that the four told him he could either get beaten up, or drink human urine. He said before he could answer, Reid ripped the duct tape off his mouth and forced him to drink a bottle of urine." As for telling him to go back to his campsite, assuming there was no other involvement (which would be ignoring everything the article says about Reid), he could still be complicit if he was the setup man. Ever heard of the word accomplice? One prank gone wrong? This goes way beyond pranks.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

A unit commissioner should never serve a unit in which they are a registered scouter. Probably shouldn't serve as a UC for a unit that their spouse is a scouter in either. Ideally, a UC should be a dedicated position, although we know that doesn't always happen. When you are serving 3 units (the suggested average) and have a monthly commissioners staff meeting, you're putting in a good amount of time.

403 errors are peermissions issues, so it was likely something temporarily going wrong with user authentication system.

The merit badge pocket certificates have no real value, other than being a certificate, which is why I suggested using them at the Court of Honor to satisfy the "need" to present something.

"On the other hand, when I last broached the topic, the grave concern was "what would we hand out at CoHs then?"" At the next meeting, give the scout his merit badge and his portion of the blue card. At the Court of Honor, give him the pocket certificates as a formality. If the scout shop isn't convenient enough for a weekly run, make the run every 2 weeks (or maybe once a month of its really inconvenient).

They've been performing some major maintenance work to myscouting to consolidate all the various log-in systems and services into a single access point. My DC was a little annoyed that the unit visit tracking was down and got a reply from the BSA's IT director on it. I don't know when they'll be completely done, but things are currently working.

As has been stated, the goal (besides meeting numbers) is accurate rosters in ScoutNet. A unit's recharter roster is accurate only up to the point wear a new person is added to or transfers out of a unit. I am somewhat wondering why the DE is handling this personally though. One of the duties of unit commissioners is to review unit personnel inventory with the unit leaders twice a year, once just before recharter and once about midway through the charter year. I would also hope that units are being notified of registration issues when advancement reports are being turned in. The online systems have helped a lot but they still aren't perfect.

Florida's similar with the FCAT. They aren't graduation tests, but the scores can hold you back. In addition, it's those scores that determine the distribution for federal funding under the good ol' No Child Left Behind Act. The test is taken in 3rd grade and 10th grade. My mother is a 3rd grade teacher, so I hear all about how the NCLBA affected how she had to teach her class. It's certainly not for the better. Needless to say my mother is looking forward to retiring in a few years.

"I really like the idea of BORs scheduled more often during the meetings but wouldn't it take away from Patrol Corners time? I'm just trying to think of objections that might be raised so I could have solutions to rebuttals. " At 10-15 minutes a pop plus 5 minutes in between, sure you could get get 4-6 in during a single meeting, but odds are you wouldn't need that many on a weekly basis. If the requests are made ahead of time and there are less than 4, you can optimally schedule them for minimal impact on a meeting's activities. Alternately, you could also hold one either immediately before or immediately after the meeting if the demand happens to be high during a particular week. If you think about it, there are probably 50-80 potential days to hold a board of review on a troop's calendar without having to add special board of review nights. 42-51 meetings, 5 days of summer camp, 9-12 committee meetings, 8-11 campouts (numbers vary between year-round and those that take off the summer except for camp. I didn't even include PLC meeting nights. Even if you remove campouts and summer camp due to lack of committee members, that's still a heck of a lot of potential dates. As for the Day X+7 stuff, I would consider it an unreasonable expectation for them to have to accomodate X+7 if it doesn't fall on a night where meetings are already being held. But that doesn't preclude any day in the X+8 through X+13 range being reasonable requests if there is a troop meeting or committee meeting (or even a campout or summer camp that 3 committee members are attending) in that time frame.

Paperwork and bookkeeping? It doesn't really require that much time, even on a weekly basis. Sounds like one of those troops that only awards advancements, including merit badges, at courts of honor, rather than as soon as possible after it was earned (per advancement policy). I always get the question "Well, what do we give them at the court of honor then?" Here's what my troop did when I was a kid, and I think it worked well for both immediate recognition AND making courts of honor still meaningful... 1) at the next meeting after having earned the recognition, give the scout his patch for rank, merit badge, whatever other item he might have earned; for merit badges also give him his portion of the blue card. 2)At the court of honor, give out the pocket certificates for ranks and merit badges, and for ranks present the mother's (parent's) pin to the boy to present to his parent.

With a troop of 80 kids, wow. That means it would take a total of 10 board of review hours if half the scouts are ready to advance. Even more if younger boys need multiple BORs at once for T-2-1. I assume they do multiple reviews concurrently. Surely with a troop that size, there must be enough committee members to be able to have a rotating schedule where 3 could be on call for needed BORs at every weekly scout meeting. The scout would just need to request the BOR a week ahead of time. molscouter asks a good question about SM conferences.

FYI, and this is coming from someone who knows Hebrew, the translation is "Do not murder." There are different words for murder and kill in Hebrew and they have different connotations, just like in English. As for the context of the Torah laws, there are enough volumes about what they mean and how they are applied in Judaism to fill a library. How they apply to non-Jews can be explained in two words. They don't. Stepping back out of this conversation.

" As a leader we try and work out calendars for Scouts as they work their way up to Eagle (within resaon) but what is the difference between getting 10, 11 or 12 palms? " If the kid has met the requirements and wants to advance, why hold him back for no good reason? What makes an Eagle Palm less worthy that the kid should have to wait 6 months because the scheduling doesn't work out? Even if they aren't on demand, if you hold them monthly and make sure that the day of the month is always equal to or greater that number from the previous month, there won't be time issues (a month is like Feb 20 to Mar 20 or Mar 20 to Apr 20, not 30 days). From the way it was described, they aren't holding them exactly or slightly greater than 3 months apart, but rather a few days to a week less than 3 months.... " My son's first Palm BOR was on December, Day X+7. It was the night of the troop BOR. His 2nd one was on March, X+7 and the troop did hold a special BOR for him (happened to be on the same night as a troop meeting so it wasn't difficult). June, Day X was the troop BOR but he isn't eligible for a week later until June, Day X+7 which does not fall on their troop meeting night." This schedule affects more than just Eagle Palms. If the December BOR was held on X+7 and the June BOR was held on X, that means no Scouts who earned Star in December could have their Life BOR in June. Yes, there does need to be a reasonable expectation to get the thing scheduled, but that should mean the next meeting, campout (if 3 committee members attend) or committee meeting night AFTER June X+7. (I don't think it would be reasonable to demand a BOR for a day that is none of those things.) (This message has been edited by nolesrule)

"Is there any reason a BOR can't be held a few days before the required time has elapsed and the rank or palm post-dated to the required date.? " Advancement policy is that the board of review is held after all the requirements are met. That would include the time requirement.

Oh, I found this on the BSA website "Question: How often is a board of review held? Answer: Whenever a Scout completes all the requirements for any rank, from Tenderfoot through Life, he appears before a board of review. He does so after having a conference with his Scoutmaster. Note that when a Scout has completed all the requirements for a board of review and then requests to have a board of review, he may not be denied a board of review." Whenever a scout completes all of the requirements. That's when the BOR should be held. It doesn't mention Eagle Palms, but the same standard should apply. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/GuideforMeritBadgeCounselors/RankAdvanceFAQ.aspx

" My son's first Palm BOR was on December, Day X+7. It was the night of the troop BOR." As I said before, I don't condone quarterly BORs. But if a troop that holds its quarterly BORs on DAY X, then every subsequent BOR needs to be scheduled on Day X or later. If the next BOR is held Day X-1 (or 2,3,4,5,6,7, etc.), then anyone who completes Life, Eagle or a Palm requirement in the minimum amount of time is forced to wait an extra nearly 3 months for no reason other than because the adults want to get in the way of advancement. Of course, the problem with that and Eagle Palms is that the EBOR does not coincide with the quarterly schedule, so that means palm BORs will always be at a minimum 5 months and 20-whatever days, and that's an issue. And that still doesn't resolve Star BORs, which can be held no sooner than 4 months after the previous BOR. At least with monthly BORs, no Scout has to wait more than 27-30 days depending on the month. Even better is the on request BORs, so a Scout doesn't have to wait more than 1-2 weeks. Does your unit ever have 3 committee members present at weekly unit meetings or on campouts? If so, then there's no reason to wait 3 months. It only takes 10-15 minutes to do a BOR and then it won't take hours to squeeze them all in a single night every 3 months.

This quarterly thing always baffles me. Are there really only 4 days a year that 3 members of the committee can get together to do boards? All it does is hold boys back who are ready to advance because it's an inconvenience to the adults. Based on your description, it seems that the Eagle Board of review was out of sync with the troop's board of review schedule, so everything is off by a week. I've said it numerous times, holding them quarterly is adding to the requirements for advancement without even realizing it. The ranks of Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class have no time requirements (except for a couple minor ones like the physical fitness 30-day progression). Star has a 4-month requirement, Life and Eagle are 6 months. By not holding BORs on demand, they are automatically turning Star into a 6 month time requirement, and if boards of review are held slightly less than 3 months apart that forces the boys to wait yet another 3 months for Life or Eagle. That's potentially adding a 50% increase on the time requirement for those 3 ranks. For Eagle Palms, poor scheduling could result in a doubling in the time requirement, as you've become aware. As a unit commissioner, I recommend to my units holding them monthly in conjunction with the monthly committee meeting (or on a separate night if they'd rather not pile it on), but still being flexible enough to hold them during meetings or even on campouts during some downtime in the itinerary. It's not like the boys need to "study" for these things, as it's not a test. (This message has been edited by nolesrule)(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

The online Insignia Guide only has the Recruiter strip listed under "Cub Scout Participation and Achievement" as insignia worn by a Cub Scout and "Boy Scout Participation and Achievement" as insignia worn by a Boy Scout. The listing in the Boy Scout section has a link to the scoutstuff.org site where the item description is "For youth members who recruit another youth member. " I could find nothing in the guide regarding scouters.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

"Kids - boys and girls both - have been suspended, expelled, and arrested for having and/or sending this sort of thing." This is what happens when the law cannot keep up with technology. Like statutory damages for copyright infringement. Email your friend a copy of a an mp3 or 2, and the statutory damages are up to $220,000 per infringement. But you can buy the song on iTunes for 99-cents. Copyright damages were set into law at a time when illegally duplicating books, music, etc. required a large operation, including printing presses, and was designed to stop the bootleggers from selling knock-offs. The same goes here. Yeah, the behavior was inappropriate, but the real purpose of child pornography laws, including possession laws (which are all about reducing demand) is to protect children from predatory behavior. They weren't written with the idea in mind that a girl would willingly take a naked picture of herself and send it to her friends, but as currently written, it's covered by these laws.

I concur with NealOnWheels.

If it was a local option activity then I wouldn't even be participating in this discussion here, and would only do so locally if I was asked. And then, I'd probably say go for it. The real issue is that we shouldn't be encouraging people to willfully violate the G2SS, especially regarding an activity prohibited as a rule, whether it's as a unit activity or the "wink wink unofficial" activity. Just because some units may do it anyway doesn't make it ok. It condones a whole slew of not-so-scout-like behavior. If you think it shouldn't be prohibited, fine. Get National to remove the prohibition completely or make it a local option. The safety/lawyer thing is only a side opinion of mine that I think is secondary to the real issue. I only mentioned it to address some of the "cover your butt" type comments.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

Who's telling them it's unsafe? I thought it was banned because it was considered an inappropriate scouting activity. The book may be primarily about safety (and risk management), but it's also the BSA's reference for what is and isn't an activity appropriate for scouting. If it was really about safety, the ban would be limited to just pointing at living targets, rather than also including a ban on non-living targets that are representative of human (you know, like a head and torso paper target you often see at gun ranges depicted on television). Afterall, shooting at a human-shaped paper target is just as safe (or just as dangerous) as shooting at a round target.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

I don't care whether anyone wears green or red. Just don't wear one of each.

Beavah, that's all fine and dandy until someone gets hurt and afterward the parent (or worse, a personal injury lawyer) discovers that the activity never should have been run in the first place. What really bothers me with this discussion is the double standard. No one has a problem with the G2SS when it says certain waterfront activities for cub scouts can only be done at district or council-wide events. There could be 10 fully trained safety personnel and only 2 scouts involved, we all still say you can't do it. But if its a ban on lasertag or paintball, all of a sudden it becomes a "who cares about the G2SS? It's not a dangerous activity." Not everything in the G2SS is about preventing physical injury. Some of it is an organizational stance against combat-like activity (whether with weapons, simulated weapons or hand-to-hand).(This message has been edited by nolesrule)