Oak Tree

Do you find the rationale that "everybody has to have the same version of the uniform shirt to be 'uniform'" to be compelling enough to justify shelling out yet another $30+ for this latest version? I do not. Our council didn't do so, either, for the 2010 Jamboree. They did require that everyone wear green shoulder loops, but they provided those. I don't know about staffing Wood Badge. On the other hand, I'll probably end up buying the shirt anyway. (Many councils also required that people have two shirts for Jamboree, but ours did not.) Is this just the BSA's version of planned obsolescence? Nah. Just over-enthusiasm from the people running those particular events. As far as forcing you to buy a new uniform to participate, Id not stand for that. BSA uniform policy is made by two groups, National Council and a units Charter Org Local Council is neither. Yeah - I don't think that argument holds. You might have an official BSA uniform, but participation in some particular activity can be contigent on lots of different things, and owning a particular version of the uniform is one. I'd be interested in hearing any documented policy that contradicts that, because it was a common thing for Jamboree, from what I heard.

Our district has always done district boards since I've been around, and the council just started mandating that all the districts do it that way. The letters make a bit more sense in that situation. I don't think I've sat in on a board yet where any of the board members knew the Scout. Our council does require the Scouts to give the blank reference forms to the references, and they do require five references plus an optional employer reference. What they have stopped doing is requiring the Scout to pester the references for the letter. Once the Scout has given them the blank form and has provided their names on his Eagle application, his work is done. It's up to the district to do any follow up. I find this process to be pretty reasonable, although it does indeed add to the burden of the district volunteers. It also appears to be entirely within the guidelines. The Scout does have to list five references - per the Eagle workbook - "The Scout shall have listed six references (five if no employer, and parent if no organized religious association)." Also, asking the Scout to deliver a blank form is expressly allowed, but forcing the Scout to follow up is prohibited: "the candidate may be asked to deliver a blank reference form and envelopes to the listed references" and "If the initial reference letter or form is not returned to the council in a timely manner, the council advancement committee must make direct contact with the reference(s) listed on the Eagle Scout Rank Application on its own" and "The candidate shall not be required to make a follow-up contact with the reference or submit other reference names."

I had not thought about how odd that image was. Are we encouraging our Scouts to go track mountain lions? That would seem, shall we say, sure to violate some G2SS rule, you'd think. I am guessing mountain lion for the animal despite some of the oddities about the image. It's a very long tail, and a mountain lion is really the only North American animal that comes to mind that would have an extra long, black-tipped tail.

If I couldn't tell the difference, then I wouldn't notice and wouldn't care. If I could tell it wasn't a BSA shirt - and I think that's far and away the more likely scenario - then every time I looked at them I'd be struck by how different the shirt was. I'd probably just think to myself how odd the person was.

We'd have maybe 100 or so at some of our Cub Scout camping trips. We paid for the campground out of popcorn money. We'd have one group meal, where we'd set a hat at the end of the table and ask everyone to put in $3 per person (or whatever), and the rest of the meals were done by family (primarily) or by den (occasionally). For any more complicated situations, we just used a spreadsheet to track it.

In the short term, it may be best to NOT collect all the scout's personal email addresses (a project that has just been started in the troop) and to start using a troop common email address for most email communication so a copy is archived at gmail. It certainly is convenient to have messages that apply to all troop members go to a common email address - "troopXXX@yahoogroups.com" - or something like that. However, you still need a way to reach individual Scouts. I'll say that Scout email addresses have proven to be pretty unreliable for us - much better to contact them on Facebook or via text. You can always copy the parents on emails, but it is entirely reasonable to have a way to reach a Scout directly without having to have his parent relay the message for him. Trying to decide if I should bring this up in committee meeting Monday night If you want to do it for your own amusement, go right ahead. I wouldn't expect it to be an entirely productive discussion :-) and it is not clear that this is really any type of "policy" - since it's not covered in any youth protection education or in the Guide to Safe Scouting.

Well, it was right there, on the "Today's active topics" list - but I now recognize the problem with that reference. It's under the "New to the forum?" category, http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=316597

Excellent job, Mr. Humphries. That'll do.

Membership is not denied to youth who openly claim to be gay. Never was. Period. Well, hmmm. Here's a site that's compiled various BSA policy statements on gays into one place. http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_gay_policy.html 1978 - the first memorandum was issued due to two Explorers being expelled for being gay. "The impetus for these memoranda was the public revelation of the expulsion of two Explorer Scouts in Mankato, MN." 1991 position statement - "the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders," Also '91, reported in '92 - At its February meeting, the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America voted unanimously to reaffirm its position regarding homosexuality. The position is that the Boy Scouts of America does not permit avowed homosexuals to be registered as leaders or members in the BSA. This position was upheld in May 1991 by the Superior Court in Los Angeles. This is an anti-BSA-discrimination site, but the data appear to be accurate. The BSA did go to the Supreme Court and argue that they did not view homosexuality as consistent with the values they were trying to teach. Chief Justice Rehnquist quoted the BSA's policy statement in the written opinion. I found the opinion on FindLaw, and Rehnquist states that the Scouts state "Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA." In Curran v. Mount Diablo Council, we can read "The superior court denied summary judgment but ruled that a number of issues were without substantial controversy, including [five other things and] [d]efendant will not admit any homosexual into membership regardless of such persons qualifications and will dismiss homosexuals from membership if it becomes aware of the members homosexuality. Also in that write-up - "The written policy to which the trial court referred was apparently a 1983 statement by the Legal Counsel of the Boy Scouts of America that declared: Avowed or known homosexuals are not permitted to register in the Boy Scouts of America. Membership in the organization is a privilege, not a right, and the Boy Scouts of America has determined that homosexuality and Scouting are not compatible." And, quoting the BSA - "Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a registered unit member? A. No. As the Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization, participation in the program is a privilege and not a right. We do not feel that membership of such individuals is in the best interests of Scouting. Those cases make it clear that BSA was indeed arguing for the ability to prohibit homosexual members - either youth or leaders. The Dale case ended up focusing on the expressive power of leaders, but the statements from the BSA seem pretty clear.

National does respond to advancement issues, at least to some extent. When I trained at Philmont, one of the classes offered was advancement, and it was taught by a member of the national advancement committee. He stopped by our class for Scoutmasters for a bit and talked about how to avoid the issues that end up coming to the national committee. He talked about some of the issues he'd seen and how they had responded to some of them. He was a volunteer, enthusiastic about his position but also very serious about it. He was military, and he treated these items with the attitude you might expect - serious but fair, leaning towards the side of the boy in cases where the adults screwed up. So unless he was totally making things up, I took that as evidence that they did in fact respond to issues.

For a masculine rainbow, maybe some old ribbon cable? Or you could go with a Tom Selleck mustache: http://www.flashnews.com/news/wfn06100520fn23635.html

Also looking like it's in camo: http://www.pack134.net/uniformpatch.htm Pretty good picture: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=110487550121

On this site it looks like the patch is already done in camo. http://pack464minooka.org/Home.aspx

See the "To whom it may concern" thread.

What browser are you using? The "format this post" link is not working for me now, either, but the site is all screwed up with the browser constantly trying to protect me from the malware, so it might be related to that. I have seen the html editor work in the past. Always good to have something more basic to fall back on.

On average, Cub Scouting camping typically is associated with better restrooms bigger tents more group activities more Scouts tenting with parents less ruggedness no snow no backpacking more focus on fun better organized campfire programs more family members more large group meals fewer instances of one "great big activity" and more variety in activities fewer miles to travel to get to the campground people arriving separately more leader-planned activities

In the past this has usually turned out to be one of the sites hosted by scouter.com, and not the main scouter.com pages themselves. You can see the last thread on this topic: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=288336 where SCOUTER-Terry saidThe warning is because one of the thousands or free web hosting accounts that we provide on this site for Scout units got hijacked and a phishing scam was upload to that area. It was completely non-threatening to any site visitor, unless that went to that URL (http://host.scouter.com/ny/torr/____, which has now been deleted). Unfortunatley, many times a unit abandons the free site, or someone creates one under false pretences. It's difficult to police... but anything that is loaded into those sites is of no real consequence to visitors to the forum, and Norton was warning you that just some part of the site may have had a problem. It's a harmless warning.

Ok, so my first post should have looked like this: I just use html too. The easiest ones are <i> and </i> for italics and <b> and </b> for bold. The site does filter out some html. It also adds some html, turning a URL into an actual link, for example. You can also create tables: italics<i>phrase</i>phrasebold italics<b><i>emphasized</b></i>emphasizedlist<ul><li> list item 1<li> list item 2<li> list item 3</ul> list item 1 list item 2 list item 3numbered list<ol><li> list item 1<li> list item 2<li> list item 3</ol> list item 1 list item 2 list item 3 <center>This is a centered sentence</center> This is a centered sentence <blockquote>This is a blockquote</blockquote>This is a blockquote <hr> horizontal rule <strike>text you want to strike through</strike> text you want to strike through heading 1 is <h1>heading 2 is <h2>heading 3 is <h3>heading 4 is <h4> There are special characters like > which makes a > and is good for writing about hmtl (like this post), also & produces &, and if you want to write "So Paolo" you can do it with the ã character, or you can just cut and paste it from another site. <font color="red"></font> <font color="blue"></font> <font size="+2"></font> I'm sure there are more fun things that could be done...subscripts, superscripts, monospaced fonts.

Dang it. If I'm going to post tests, I should get them right. The following line is not written with an actual tag: <strike>text to strike through</strike>

Now that's interesting... I previewed my post, and it looked one way, and then when it actually posted, it looked another. It's like it ran another level of processing, so places where I had carefully written html to display, it processed it again. I wonder if it would do that if I didn't preview it? The following line is not written with an actual tag: <text to strike through>

I just use html too. The easiest ones are and for italics and and for bold. The site does filter out some html. It also adds some html, turning a URL into an actual link, for example. You can also create tables: italicsphrasephrasebold italicsemphasizedemphasizedlist list item 1 list item 2 list item 3 list item 1 list item 2 list item 3numbered list list item 1 list item 2 list item 3 list item 1 list item 2 list item 3 This is a centered sentence This is a centered sentence This is a blockquoteThis is a blockquote horizontal rule text you want to strike through text you want to strike through heading 1 is heading 2 is heading 3 is heading 4 is There are special characters like > which makes a > and is good for writing about hmtl (like this post), also & produces &, and if you want to write "So Paolo" you can do it with the ã character, or you can just cut and paste it from another site. I'm sure there are more fun things that could be done...subscripts, superscripts, monospaced fonts.

It appears to me that these guidelines were written for public "marketing" sites - like a council Facebook page, or such things. For those situations it seems reasonable. To the extent that it appears to apply to unit operation, it is completely out-of-sync. Our troop has a wide web of connections between adults and Scouts, on Facebook in particular. I have many Scouts as "friends" and it's a great view into their lives. I have texted Scouts. I've sent them individual messages. I respond to individual emails that come to me. I've had IM chats with Scouts on Facebook. We have a "private" yahoo group for the troop. Which is something that BSA recommends anyway - you don't necessarily want to put all of the details, names, places, dates, out there on a public site. If I was working with Cub Scouts, I'd always copy the parents and rarely even have an electronic communication with the Scout. As the boys get older and join Boy Scouts, it feels more comfortable to copy the parents. But by the time the Scouts are 17 years old, they drive themselves around, they are applying to colleges - if they shoot me a quick email and ask when John's Eagle project is, I don't want to copy the parent on the response. I may as well say "I'm going to treat you like a child." One of the sensitivities that I've developed over time with all of troop operations is trying to keep various aspects age-appropriate. When our troop was mostly younger Scouts, we could do things one way. With many older kids now, we've made lots of adjustments.

We need to do everything possible to ensure boys in our program are safe. I disagree. The most comprehensive way to ensure no one in the program is ever molested would be to shut down the program. Short of that, we could hold all of our meetings in well-lighted gymnasiums and require at least five adults of each gender be present at all times. Never allow any Scout to have any private conversation with any adult. We don't do "everything possible". What we do is try to come up with a set of guidelines that reduces the risk to a very low level, but is consistent with continuing to provide the program. Sure, trying to copy someone on every email can be reasonable for many situations. But when people are trying to do a lot of things and make sure everyone gets the word, and you don't have time to figure out how to copy someone on a text, or find another email address, I just fail to see the harm. The thing that makes the internet conversations safer is that everyone knows it is possible that someone can bring them to light. Actually, I think that it is beneficial to put the Scout on his own communicating with an adult, without a parent or someone else ready to help at every single instance. It's good for them to learn to communicate with adults.

NJCubScouter, you're probably right. Certainly within the context of the story, his words are taken to be contradicting National's position. I could imagine a clarification that would keep his statements within National policy, though. "I would like to clarify a statement that was in the press. When I stated 'its our obligation as board members to explore any and all options to increase the numbers of kids that are served by our program, whether they be black, white, orange, left-handed, handicapped, gay, it doesnt matter', what I meant was that we should be out there offering the program to all takers. We do not ask people about their sexual orientation, and I'm certain we have gay members, just as virtually any group our size would. My position is consistent with the National policies on membership, and I was not indicating any change nor any opposition to such policies."

many of the forms of communication on the internet are like going into that public place's coatroom, turning off the lights, and locking the door. And turning on an infrared video camera and tape recorder and making a record of everything that happens in the room. Internet communications seem far safer than phone communications. The guidelines as stated would appear to require no one-on-one phone calls, either. It states "electronic communication between adults and youth should always include one or more authorized adults openly copied" and phone calls are electronic communication. They might as well state that all conversations have to be public - no one-on-one conversations with a Scout. This is way overkill.