Oak Tree

Is it incorrect to believe that you're there for the Scouts first and foremost? Of course not. The guy would probably say that himself if he was asked. He just wants to hear himself talk. You did not do wrong, but you seem remarkably worried about your answer to this one question. If you're going to be walking on eggshells all the time, you're going to find it hard to be effective as a DE. Be yourself, give the best answers you can, and move forward. Stay confident.

Can I pick something in between luxury and necessity? I'd say it's a convenience. For some trips, it's very convenient to have a trailer. If all you do are backpacking trips, then you don't need one. But we do car camping trips, camporees, bike trips, water trips, all manner of things. Sometimes it's nice to have coolers, dutch ovens, and gear boxes. Some trips involve extra stuff, like catapults that the Scouts have built. Summer camp involves hauling a lot of trunks. Could we change the program? Yes. We don't really want to, though. Could we do the same things without a troop trailer? Yes, but it would be inconvenient. So, I admire those troops that do everything lightweight. But I also admire troops that make good use of a troop trailer.

Why does your moral code outweigh my moral code? Shortridge, I think you are asking this is both a rhetorical and non-rhetorical sense. On one hand, you don't really think anyone can provide an argument for this, so it's rhetorical. You don't expect a real answer. On the other hand, you are truly curious to hear if anyone can provide an argument for this. On some points like this one, it can be hard to argue why an organization like the BSA should choose one moral viewpoint over another. However, I'll note that in more extreme examples, the BSA chooses one moral viewpoint over another all the time. There have been religions that sacrificed children. There have certainly been religious arguments in favor of slavery. There are religions that tell you not to pledge your allegiance to the flag of the US. I feel fairly confident I could find some type of "religion" that says you don't have a duty to God. I also feel confident that there could be some religion out there that doesn't believe that being "obedient" is moral. The BSA, though, has chosen to side with the moral viewpoint that the Scout Oath and Scout Law are part of a moral code that outweighs other moral codes. In fact, in order to have any moral code at all, you have to choose one over another. The hard part for me is not that the choice has to be made. It's that being straight gets lumped in with all the other parts of the Oath and Law. Why is that included? I think it's part because of the Christian heritage, in part because homosexual acts have historically largely been considered immoral by most religions, and in part because of the perceived pedophile issue.

Yes, I do see this at official functions. When boys want to wear both their merit badge sash and their OA sash, it is common to see it worn at the belt. I do think tradition bucks the uniforming guide. I actually think this looks pretty reasonable as a uniform. I'm not sure what the rationale is for prohibiting it. I've never been enough of a uniform policeman to tell anyone it's against regulation.

You definitely don't need two adults per boat as a general rule. You don't even need one adult per boat. As you point out, canoe trips would be difficult. I do think that the professionals would count as supervision, although it isn't 100% clear from the wording. Not that this is an issue for you, but my argument would be: 1. The G2SS says Additional leadership is provided in ratios of one trained adult, staff member, or guide per 10 participants. Bold emphasis is mine. When you are talking about professional commercial guides, I don't think you'd expect them to be trained in the BSA program. You do want them to be fully trained for whatever their position is. 2. The G2SS also says at the beginning of the aquatics section activities are supervised by a mature and conscientious adult age 21 or older who Understands and knowingly accepts responsibility for the well-being and safety of youth members in his or her care Is experienced in the particular activity Is confident in his or her ability to respond appropriately in an emergency Is trained and committed to the nine points of BSA Safety Afloat and/or the eight points of Safe Swim Defense. Unit leadership that accompanies the unit on an outing is always responsible for the first and last bulleted points above. However, under appropriate circumstances, the unit leader may delegate responsibility to trained individuals within the unit or to on-site professionals for the second and third bulleted points above. For example, a Scout troop at a water park with trained lifeguards on duty need not assign separate unit personnel to perform water rescue. A Venturing crew on a whitewater excursion may rely on a licensed outfitter to provide the necessary equipment and trained guides.So again, I think you are ok by the rules if you count the outfitter. You'll need to decide for yourself what is appropriate in this case. I think I'd still have at least one adult per boat.

I would love it if a group of adults came to me and said that they were volunteering to do some extra work. I'd find them things to do that supported the program without taking away from the youth leadership. It seems like there are always tons of projects around that could be taken on. Sure, it has to be managed right, but I want the adults to have fun too.

Here is a link to a document that appears on a council web site listing official BSA policies. http://www.bsacmc.org/BSA_Fundraising_Policies.pdfLocal Boy Scout councils are not allowed by the BSA to assess Scout membership fees.Councils are allowed to charge "activity fees", but the clear interpretation from the document is that an activity fee is the fee to participate in some particular activity, not just another name for a membership fee.

In the parent thread, SeattlePioneer states that drivers should be expected to show license, registration, and proof of insurance on every trip. Do people do this? Is this something we should consider? What are the risks of taking the drivers' word on this? I checked my car - I do have my license, registration, and proof of insurance, although my insurance card does not indicate how much insurance I have. It seems like that would be a key part of verifying the insurance. How would you verify how much insurance someone has? If you did verify these items, what would you do if someone showed up and didn't have their up to date registration and/or insurance? I know that the updated documents don't always make it into my car as soon as they arrive in the mailbox. I realize that by itself this doesn't sound like much of a requirement, but when you add it in to all the other things that we're trying to check on before we leave on a trip, it just becomes one more hassle. Just on the adult side, we're trying to make sure that we have the adult food, all the medical forms, the first aid kit, that all the drivers have directions, that all of the stuff fits into all of the vehicles, that all the drivers are there, that we have enough tents for the adults and cooking and cleaning gear, etc. And then we're also working with the Scouts to make sure that every patrol has all of the stuff that they need as well. Could we add this driver verification to the checklist? Yes, we could add it. Should we? Do others? Do you?

From what I have been told, that particular clause (original question)refers to Venturers, where there are Male and female participants. There has never been an issue of siblings sharing a tent with their Cub Scout brother. It's called Pack Family Camping and happens all the time. What wingnut is looking for is any actual documentation that says this. I do not believe that participants refers specifically to Venturers. You may have been told this, but I do not believe it to be the case. Can you point to some official documentation that says this? There may never have been an issue with siblings sharing a tent, and it does happen all the time, but can you point to any documentation that states that this is ok?

I don't think this is common, but it depends on what this is. Forging doctor's signatures is something we would never do (at least, not in any situation that I can reasonably think ok.) We do want a doctor to sign off on those forms. Smoking in front of the kids never happens in our group. I can see that in groups of regular smokers there might be some inadvertent moment, but I get the impression that you're talking about more than that. The other items aren't so clear cut. The money in the Scout accounts could be considered troop money. Legally registering a trailer in another state seems ok. Registering as ScoutParent seems fine. Waiving requirements does seem pretty common. Our summer camp does a lot of it. Merit badge days do a lot of it. Most of us don't like it. Sometimes there can legitimately be a matter of judgment applied in my opinion, but not outright ignoring. if parents are driving, they should be asked to show a troop leader their valid driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. For EACH activity they drive Really? This would be another crazy logistical burden. I do want parents to have insurance, but I'm not going to ask them to prove it every time. I'm not even sure what the insurance is really covering that I care about - I'm pretty sure all of my Scouts have medical insurance. In summary, I would not be happy in this troop. I would really avoid forging doctor's signatures, outright waiving of requirements, and openly smoking in front of the kids.

There will be no headline. Most will never notice it happened, except at the few local units that end up with an openly gay leader. Maybe in the old days this would have been the case. When the policy was unwritten and not fully communicated, and when word didn't spread so easily. But now that the BSA has drawn the line in the sand over and over and over, gone to court, laid out all of their rationale for the position, it's not going to be so easy to make the change without having members and news people take note of the change, and comment on it in forums like this one. Now, they might be able to do something like "we haven't changed our official policy. We just aren't enforcing it. We've decided it is cost-prohibitive to fight these court battles. Units are still free to remove anyone who is in violation of the policy." I'd hope there are some good lawyers and PR people who are considering how to make this change. After some time of having the policy not enforced, then an official change in the policy can happen with less fanfare.

I am not aware of any documented exception for brothers and sisters. Or for parent/child one-on-one contact. Or for "any violations of the BSA's YP policies must immediately be reported to the SE." Or for sleeping in a large room like an aquarium (males, females, youth, adults, all together! Oh my!). As far as I am aware, the only defense is common sense. And my favorite paragraph in the G2SS pretty much says this.Every possible contingency will not be covered with a hard-and-fast rule, and rules are poor substitutes for experience. Ultimately, each responsible adult leader must personally decide if he or she understands the risk factors associated with the activity and is sufficiently experienced and well-informed to make the rational decisions expected of a qualified supervisor. The BSA training programs listed above help provide the skills, experience, and guidance for making such a determination.I know this paragraph appears in the aquatics section, but as far as I'm concerned, it applies everywhere. Sorry I can't be more help, wingnut. I think the rules have more impact when there aren't obvious holes in them.

charging each unit a couple of hundred dollars No way. Not going to fly. National won't allow that. Councils and districts can't charge a fee. I don't think they can make FOS mandatory, either. The only real lever that they have is that they can threaten to take away your charter. Would they really do that? I suppose if you got to be a complete thorn in their side, they might. But really? They want to keep boys registered. They need the numbers and the money. Still, I'd go along with the FOS presentation - it doesn't actually cost you anything.

That's a good picture of a community. But communities vary a lot across the country. Rural areas, especially up north, are in a big decline. Our area is the opposite. New schools going up. New churches. More people every year. Roads getting built. Our district had to split because it got too big. Our own CO is in good shape. I do know that some neighborhoods had trouble as they aged - a lack of youth can be an overwhelming problem for a Scout unit.

Our district camporee is way better than the council camporee. We do have a commissioner. Our district organizes a lot of training. Our roundtables are ok - but mostly for getting to know the other folks in the district. Council is too big for that. The district Eagle boards work pretty well. Do we need any of that? Probably not - I'm sure we could figure out options for those things, but for now, we do get some benefit out of the district structure.

I have to agree that large alumni donors are probably a big part of the resistance to changing the existing policy. And large alumni donors tend to be older people who have had time to establish their fortunes. There are indeed some providers of funding who oppose the current policy. Steven Spielberg dropped his support. United Way funding has dropped (stopped in some councils). Some large companies have dropped their support. (Wells Fargo, Levi Strauss, IBM, Medtronic, ...) And various COs, of course, have dropped their support for BSA - a local YMCA, some liberal religious organizations, some PTAs. The hard thing to see is what kind of a hit is being taken on the input side. There is clearly some anti-BSA sentiment out there. That's a long-term membership issue. Still, the US military has adjusted. I think BSA can too.

I'll reinforce what NJCubScouter says. This policy is going to change sooner or later. There is no doubt in my mind. The societal trend is clear - not only are people changing their minds, but younger people are dramatically more in favor of gay marriage than older people. As time progresses, this is going to overwhelm the opposition. I'm not sure who all might force the change. Rex Tillerson is the CEO of Exxon and the President of the BSA. According to Fortune he is one of the 25 most powerful people in business. http://www.scouting.org/Media/MediaKit/Bios/President.aspx Exxon Mobil says "Our global, zero-tolerance policy applies to all forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity." I feel like some of these corporations that are providing support are going to face increasing pressure not to support an organization that is openly discriminatory. Here in NC, there is a gay marriage initiative on the ballot. Gay marriage might get banned, but the numbers are far less than what other southern states have seen in past years. And there are a lot of people who oppose writing discrimination into the state constitution. From one of the local news blogs While some polls still show that the amendment is likely to pass, the opposition to it is passionate, well organized, broad-based, and well funded. Amazingly, that opposition group includes some opponents of same-sex marriage who say they do not want to enshrine discrimination in the states constitution. Many business leaders, fearing the consequences to their increasingly diverse work forces, oppose the amendment. Prominent Republicans like former gubernatorial candidates Richard Vinroot and Robert Orr, as well as John Hood, President of the conservative John Locke Foundation, and Congresswoman Renee Ellers are in the opposition. Even a supporter, Republican House Speaker Tom Tillis, predicts the amendment, if passed, will be repealed within 20 years.

Also, "Got a minute?" [the usual prelude into some type of adult dispute] "Hear about Jimmy?" [the after-action report that follows a "Hey, watch this!" episode]

The BSA has rules on what you have to do to take kids swimming, or take them climbing, or take them boating, or let them go shooting. How hard can it be to come up with reasonable statements on what you need to do to use an electric screwdriver? Some quotes from the Guide to Safe Scouting, as examples: "For recreational sailing, at least one person aboard should be able to demonstrate basic sailing proficiency (tacking, reaching, and running) sufficient to return the boat to the launch point." " instructors for canoes and kayaks should be able to demonstrate the handling and rescue skills required for BSA Aquatics Supervision" "Anyone engaged in recreational boating using humanpowered craft on flatwater ponds or controlled lake areas free of conflicting activities should be instructed in basic safety procedures prior to launch, and allowed to proceed after they have demonstrated the ability to control the boat adequately to return to shore at will." "Every possible contingency will not be covered with a hard-and-fast rule, and rules are poor substitutes for experience. Ultimately, each responsible adult leader must personally decide if he or she understands the risk factors associated with the activity and is sufficiently experienced and well-informed to make the rational decisions expected of a qualified supervisor. The BSA training programs listed above help provide the skills, experience, and guidance for making such a determination." "Powerboat operators must be able to meet requirements for the Motorboating merit badge or equivalent" That's as specific as we get for motorboats. I'd think a roughly similar standard would apply for leaf-blowers. There does not need to be any special electric screwdriver training. It is reasonable to say that power tool usage must be supervised by an adult who is able to use the tool proficiently.

Hypothetical examples given by RichardB as a argument for why we need these rules: Re-roof the church steeple24 foot ladder to scrape the lead paint off the light poles in the playgroundClean gutters on the homes of the elderly in town as a fundraiser.Using a hand cart to move stacks of boxes off a semi trailerFloating air pumps and hoses used while diving a few feetUsing a scaffold to go to the ceiling so he can change the lights.Digging into a gas lineHaving a roof collapseDealing with asbestosGetting a smashed finger from loading something. Actual things banned by the form: PickaxeMattockPosthole diggerWheel cart (1-, 2-, or 4-wheeled)Paint roller with extension poleScrewdriver (electric)Handheld sander (small)Cutting tools (e.g., Dremel, small)Paint sprayerResidential lawn mowerLine trimmeredgerLeaf-blowerhedge trimmerbelt sanderpressure washer How do these lists have anything whatsoever to do with each other?

In the end it is an honor system, for sure. Now, there are various checks in the system that are supposed to help catch any truly rogue units, but if you have enough collaborators, I'm sure you could pull anything over. In addition to the honor of the Scoutmaster and the Scout, there are any merit badge counselors, any committee members, the head of the CO, the COR - all of these people might have some reason to suspect if a unit is handing out merit badges like jelly beans. Some parent might mention it to the council. To get Eagle, you need someone from the district to approve the application. There is supposed to be a unit commissioner who sometimes talks to the leaders of the unit. The DE is supposed to visit the head of the CO once a year or something. Now, if you are a Lone Scout, doing this in isolation with your parent, there aren't many checks in place. But at the same time, we don't see a wholesale fraud in a huge number of Lone Scouts receiving Eagle without earning it. In the end, though, yes, it is an honor system. We have a few checks in place just to try to weed out those who would pencil-whip everyone through everything, but if you are going to approve adults to work with the Scouts, in the end, you're going to have to trust them to do some of these things. I do like the idea of not having the parents pick up the merit badges. But we've never had one do that. Our biggest issue was when a parent got his son a position of responsibility patch that hadn't been approved by the Scoutmaster. Maybe we should make the position patches restricted, too. (Seriously, we had a huge blow-up in the troop over this issue. You can't prevent everything with bureaucracy.)

Help me understand why a youth planning and executing a service project can't be expected to recruit qualified adults to do hazardous work? I think we all agree that a youth can indeed recruit adults to do hazardous work. That's not really the question here. The question is whether these sheets have a reasonable definition of "hazardous work." They do not. It is patently ridiculous to prohibit wheelbarrows and wagons by anyone. It's absurd to say that 15 year olds can't use an electric leaf blower. It's just bizarre to say that 13 year-olds can't use an electric screwdriver or a dremel tool. We have adults supervising activities - I understand that not every Scout in every situation can use every single tool - but leaders can use their judgment. These rules are going to be openly ignored, as packsaddle suggests. They might be used by wacky Eagle boards to harass Eagle applicants, as Beavah suggests (although with the new workbook, it's going to be harder and I don't see an Eagle getting turned down for using a wheelbarrow.) Rules like this just cause people to stop caring about the rules. This form is truly flabbergasting (and that's a word that you simply don't get to use much these days.)

Are the councils that do not require turn in of blue cards the same councils that require a scout to turn in a photocopy of his blue cards with his Eagle app or to bring all his blue cards to the Eagle BOR? Well, I can't answer for all councils, but I can say what ours does. Ours does not require turn-in of blue cards at advancement time, nor do they require a photocopy of blue cards with the Eagle app, nor do they require blue cards at the Eagle BOR. The blue cards are never required beyond the unit. A lot of our badges are earned at a neighboring council's summer camp, and they don't issue blue cards. So our Scouts don't even have blue cards for a lot of their badges.

We have to turn in the Eagle application about three weeks before the scheduled board. I assume that gives them time to check that the Scout actually is registered and has earned the ranks, or whatever it is that they actually check. I suppose that theoretically they would come back to us if there was an issue, but they have never asked us a question and the boards have generally been held on time - the major exception being that sometimes we have to wait a month until the recommendation letters get turned in. I don't know what they check in Scoutnet, but I've got to believe the records haven't been perfect, and nevertheless, we've never heard anything. At the same time, all of the Scouts have actually earned Eagle, earned all the ranks, been registered, etc. I don't know what would happen if we turned in a really bogus Eagle application. I bet it would get rejected. I had to talk the office into selling me some extra Eagle patches one time. To do so, I had to say it was for a second shirt for a Scout who was going to jamboree. The store staff told me that I needed to verify the Scout had actually earned Eagle in the council records. They told me to go down the hall, talk to the council office, get them to verify the Scout really had Eagle, and then come back to them and tell them that the council staff had verified it. I asked them if they were just going to take my word that the council had verified it. They said yes. I said, well, can we just skip the part about me walking down the hall? I know the Scout is recorded as having Eagle. They said ok and sold me the patch. If it was really easy to do internet advancement - for example, as easy as using TroopMaster DotNet - then we'd probably do it. But the last thing I need to worry about is one more version of the troop data. Got too many other priorities.

I realize that each CO can set rules in this regard, but I still find this hard to square with one of the other BSA policies: All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents This quite literally means all activities, so I don't see how they can say that women aren't able to come along and observe these activities. There might be an argument that women can't camp overnight with the group, but I don't see how they could prohibit you from observing the camping trip. At any rate, I suspect that the above non-confrontational suggestions are the best approach, and you probably don't really want your son joining a group where you are going to feel like an outcast. My take is that they should definitely allow women on the trips where Webelos are invited along, but I don't see that they would have to, if they don't allow women in other situations. I personally think it's a bad policy not to allow women to come along in general. We've had excellent success with the few women that we have who come along from time to time. I wouldn't think of prohibiting them. Why turn down good volunteers?