Oak Tree

buckytom, I certainly can imagine the situation you describe, where everyone else is convinced that yes, the mothers are breaking into Polish when they want to make some private critique of someone. It's not a scene that makes for anyone feeling welcome. Anyone have a smartphone? Record the conversation at a meeting - just set your phone on 'record' before you walk in and leave it that way for the whole meeting. Get someone to translate for you (there must be an app for that :-) That could at least settle the question of what's being said. Or heck, just bring in a big ol' tape recorder, make it obvious to the parents, and see if that settles people down :-) [Yes, I can imagine this going wrong in so many ways...but hey, if you can't have fun messing with people's minds, why did you sign up to be a leader (more smiley faces here)] The problem here is that both parties feel aggrieved at the moment. Hence my original comment on the need for a skilled arbitrator. Everyone needs to feel like they are being heard. My first suggestion would be to sit with each set of people and listen. Just listen. Maybe ask a few clarifying questions, and listen to their answers. People are so much more likely to look for compromise when they know that someone is listening to their concerns.

This is not correct. You won't get your Tour plan approved just because some place has amenities. It needs to be on the Council approved list... they don't have time to approve new places just because that's where you want to go. I just about spit coffee all over my computer when I read this response. And I'm not even drinking coffee. Our council office will approve any tour permit we fax in, as far as we can tell. We pick any park we like, any distance we like. We've been to state parks, national forests, county parks, city parks, national parks, private land, military bases, parks in four different states, parks where you have to backpack to the site (with Webelos dens), places where we had to bring our own water, you name it (well, we've never had to dig catholes). There is no "approved list" that I've ever heard of, and no one at any council training has ever mentioned such a thing, and yes, I did take BALOO. Sure, they can go camp by themselves any time they want. But we could also camp as a pack or as a Webelos den any time we wanted. YMMV.

So there are multiple parts to this question, and SeattlePioneer, I'm not sure what your point is. You ask a simple question in the topic, people answer it, and then you tell them that they can't get the information they are asking for. The questions I would ask are: Why was he expelled? Here I'm looking for things like - dangerous behaviors, sneaky behaviors, illegal behaviors, or something else that I might want to take some action on ahead of time. What might you recommend I do to head off any similar problems? There might actually be some relatively straightforward answers here that could be implementable - "Don't let him tent with someone he doesn't know", or "Don't let him bring a knife", or "Check his backpack for alcohol", or "Try to avoid having an adult yell at him." I would also try to listen closely to see if there are beliefs on the part of the Scoutmaster or troop adults that exacerbated the situation. What would I do if the Scoutmaster wouldn't tell me anything? Probably nothing. I'm not going out on some type of witch hunt here. But the more indication that something is seriously wrong, the more I might look into it. Records are hardly ever "effectively sealed" among volunteers, in my experience. It's another local troop? I likely know some of the other leaders. I might know another parent. I might mention it to someone while chatting at roundtable and see what they say. But really, if the other SM doesn't want to talk about it, it's not a huge deal. We'll probably figure out the problem for ourselves soon enough, if it's relevant. If the problem does not reoccur, then we're ok anyway.

The most common place I've seen it worn is on the collar point. It is not officially correct, but it's not that unusual to see.

Packsaddle - I guess the thing I find "strange" about the BSA's religious beliefs is the incongruous specificity of one of the beliefs. It's not one of the ten commandments, and the BSA does not apply the same stringency to the ten commandments - the BSA does not ban "avowed adulterers"; nor does it have hard rules on the 'seven deadly sins' - the BSA does not ban the gluttons (those with BMI over 35, or alcoholics) nor the lustful ("avowed readers of pornography", maybe), nor those with anger management problems, nor the lazy, arrogant, greedy, or jealous. And yes, there is indeed some irony in "respecting the beliefs of others", while not actually allowing the chartered organizations to freely choose leaders according to those beliefs (some of the COs are fine with homosexuality). grmaerika - As to the rift - I'm not so sure. I do agree that many/most of the religious organizations in America have effectively split into two branches - a conservative branch and a liberal branch, in simplistic terms. So you have the PCA and PCUSA for Presbyterians, the Missouri Synod and the ELCA for Lutherans, the Conservative and Reformed branches of Judaism, the ongoing drama of the split in the Episcopal church, etc. The Girl Scouts chose the more liberal path and the American Heritage Girls formed as a conservative reaction. BSA has clearly chosen the more conservative path thus far. If the BSA was to allow "local option", would that mean they were becoming so liberal as to cause a split? I'm not so sure. Leaders of local units are always chosen by the chartered organizations. BSA does not have to do an about-face on this issue. They can just start indicating that they are going to give more weight to their belief that local units should continue to have the right to select leaders as they see fit. There was a time when units weren't allowed to select women leaders, either, because they didn't make effective role models for young men. Barry - I agree the Judaeo-Christian religious setting was the backdrop for the BSA for most of its history. And if the BSA accepted all general Judaeo-Christian beliefs as bedrock principles, that would make it more consistent. But the BSA doesn't do that. It specifically accepts many other religions. You don't have to believe that God created the world. You don't have to believe Genesis. As for the transgendered, I'm not sure the BSA would know how to handle them. In Texas, the law says you're stuck with the gender on your birth certificate, at least as far as marriage is concerned. Here in North Carolina, you can legally change your gender once your doctor certifies that you've gone through gender reassignment surgery. I know a woman who used to be a man. She's legally female in all regards, and you wouldn't know it when you met her that it was ever any different. When I see her, I don't think of Star Trek, although it did take a little while to adjust to saying 'she' and 'her' instead of 'he' and 'his'. It was more like something you hear about in documentaries but never think will actually be something that you yourself encounter. If she applied to be a Scout leader, I'd accept her - even though she is legally married to another woman (which is otherwise impossible in NC - you can't get married that way, nor will NC recognize such marriages from other states). At least, I'd accept her unless the national organization said I couldn't. Is she gay? I'm not sure that term is really intended to apply to this situation. And Scoutfish - I too think you will look quite exquisite. I don't think marriage licenses are to give the government money, though - there are a lot of legalities that attach to being married, because, as Eagledad says, the government has decided it's worth it to encourage healthy families (and probably to simplify a lot of legal questions, too). All of you - thanks for keeping a sense of perspective and humor :-) Much individual respect to you all!

My thanks to the moderator for moving this to Issues and Politics - I thought I was going to be asked which forum but apparently I'd already selected it somehow. I'm also not sure what the deal is with the links I tried to post - the forum software is doing some funny things automatically. At any rate, this poll has been asked with the same wording over a number of years and this is the first time it came out with a majority. Yes, I realize the percentages change depending on the exact wording. And yes, there are going to be many instances of states choosing not to allow gay marriage before they eventually allow it, but I predict that one by one more and more are going to allow it. Eventually the Supreme Court will rule that the equal protection clause now protects your right to marry someone (that is, the law can't give one gender the right to marry a man without giving the other gender the same right.) Yes, it's just my prediction, but I think the trend is so clear, it's almost like a scientific prediction (psychohistory, anyone?) The BSA does define itself as a religious organization for these purposes, and in fact, the BSA's religious beliefs appear to be: 1. There is a God. 2. You have a duty to God. 3. You should be reverent towards God. 4. You should be faithful in your religious duties. 5. You should respect the beliefs of others. 6. Homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. This is decided case law at the moment and likely to remain that way for some time. I do not think the courts are likely to force the BSA to accept gay leaders. Sometimes it just seems like a strange religious organization that I've joined here.

Just saw this article: "A majority now backs gay marriage." http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html?hpid=z3 Five states and D.C. now allow gay marriage. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-02/politics/dc.same.sex.marriage_1_same-sex-chief-justice-john-roberts-high-profile-issue?_s=PM:POLITICS 77% of Americans were in favor of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which passed in December. The BSA is becoming increasing out-of-step with public opinion. Is there any other organization, except for religious groups, that explicitly doesn't allow gay adults to be members? Something's going to have to give. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Why would you think that? (and I think you meant Venturing crews, not Varsity). I very much doubt it.

Well, as pointed out numerous times in numerous threads, the G2SS is a guide except where it is bold type and then it is BSA policy and rule. From the G2SS: BSA Rules and Policies Bold type throughout the Guide to Safe Scouting denotes BSA rules and policies. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/Resources/Guidetosafescouting.aspx'>http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/Resources/Guidetosafescouting.aspx That would be "rules and policies" as oppossed to "guidelines". Yarrrr! And Beavah says da former practice of using boldface for "policies" in the G2SS has been deprecated I wanted to clarify this for myself, so I looked up the references. The new version of the G2SS was published on 03/04/11. It no longer contains the phrase Bold type throughout the Guide to Safe Scouting denotes BSA rules and policies. Older versions of the G2SS did have that statement clearly documented in the preface. It's gone. However, National has not removed that statement from here: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/Resources/Guidetosafescouting.aspx - which is the link that SR540Beaver posted. Since the statement is gone from the G2SS, I'm trusting that was intentional and the web site is the overlooked item.

Once again, I find myself in agreement with TwoCubDad. I love the clever part of the solution. There is a "remarks" section on each Scout in TroopMaster. You can enter up to 400 characters there. You don't have to go into great detail - but at least provide enough information that the other troop knows they could ask more information. "BoR was held on XX/XX/XX. Scout was expelled from troop. Council was present and informed us they would consider revoking Scout's membership in BSA." If that's not enough to get them to ask questions, then they don't want to know. It's not libel if it's true.

I can't imagine that the BSA has specific guidance on this topic, as it would vary greatly. The Cubmaster's argument is specious - this is not about what people are allowed to do by the U.S. Constitution. It's about not being disruptive. The general rule is that we ask parents not to be disruptive at den meetings. The den leader has every right to expect that. I'm not clear on whether the mothers are doing things that are disruptive simply by speaking (would it still be disruptive if they were speaking English?) Why is the language disruptive? There's another argument - which is that we are all together at the meeting and the goal is to benefit from being part of a group. The whole group only benefits from something if the whole group is able to understand what is being said. People have an expectation that they'll feel comfortable in a group. If either set of people - the Polish speakers or the English-only speakers - feels uncomfortable, they are likely to start dropping off. In my unit, I would probably talk to the English-speakers, and get them to be very specific about what makes them uncomfortable. Then I would go have a conversation with the Polish speakers, and talk to them about why they were choosing to speak Polish, and about how that made the others feel. If the women are talking together in the back of the room, and other women do the same thing, then I wouldn't really care what language they spoke. (If they started talking about someone in particular, and you could tell that by looks or gestures, that might be another thing.) But for things said to the kids, I'd try to suggest a policy that everyone needs to be able to understand what is being said. At this point it sounds like the groups are polarized. Unless you are a skilled arbitrator, I'm not picturing a good ending here.

QU is a unit award. It is associated with the unit number, as far as I'm concerned. So if you wear the unit number, you also wear the QU strip that says "this unit is a quality unit." We just buy ours at the Scout store. They always have lots.

moosetracker, what you're doing sounds great. I wish there were more like you. Thanks for your service. I don't really have a good answer for IOLS, other than doing it the way we do it with Scouts. Have each individual person demonstrate that they have the skills. Some of it could be with a computerized test. Some of it would have to be done in person. That assumes that you want to keep IOLS more or less with the same goal. When we were taking the class, though, we were commenting that what we wanted out of the class wasn't really so much "how to do the skills", but rather, "how to teach the skills." I'd like to know what kind of rope troops have on hand. What is the best size for teaching Scouts how to tie knots? What kinds of axes are for sale and are a good size for new Scouts to use? What are some sample menus that new Scouts can use successfully.

Yes. Exactly.

There was one petite lady at training who was wearing an actual Cub Scout shirt. It took me a minute to realize that something about her uniform looked wrong. I'm assuming she just had trouble finding an adult BSA shirt that fit well enough. I liked her solution.

The part I like about training is that you get to meet other Scouters, here their ideas, and maybe pick up a little enthusiasm. At this point of my Scouting career, I don't expect to learn anything from any BSA course. I have really enjoyed University of Scouting classes and I really liked Wood Badge. The Scoutmaster-specific course and IOLS were just absolute, complete wastes of time. In fact, it's hard to imagine how this wouldn't be the case, since they appeared to be geared for people who didn't know anything about Scouting. I understand that you might occasionally have someone starting a troop who doesn't really know how a troop works, but my Scoutmaster-specific class had about 20 ASMs who appeared to all have a few years of experience with a troop and who appeared to all be college educated. By lunchtime the class was about ready to mutiny against the coverage of basic material. And IOLS??? First of all, the idea that you can learn these skills in a weekend is impractical. To really learn the skills would take more time. It was a fly-over of the skills. If you knew the skills already then it was useless. If you didn't know the skills before, you still didn't know them after. I couldn't see who was learning anything. And now I'm supposed to encourage all of my ASMs to get the training, since it will be mandatory in a year?!? Can I honestly recommend the courses? Well, some of my ASMs did take an IOLS class in another district and came back with rave reviews. We'll be recommending that. But it's not because that district follows the syllabus. In fact, the course seems to have been good precisely because they *didn't* follow the syllabus, but instead discussed much more advanced versions of the topics. I don't even mind making training mandatory. But I want a test-out option. Or else an advanced version that would also count. Or just require some number of hours of training. Or something. Our troop is working well. Our new leaders learn the basics just from being around the troop. Give them a way to learn better stuff.

In general, I've seen that Scouts with dads who are ASMs tend to stick with the troop longer and are more likely to earn Eagle. But it varies a lot and there are certainly many kids of ASMs who drop out. Give your son space, whether you register or not. As far as your son goes, you could join or not join, either way. As far as your wife goes, you should not join. You need to have your wife's support. She probably knows better than you in this case anyway, but even if she didn't, I'd still recommend going with her recommendation. You want her goodwill. I'll repeat it (and not just because my wife sometimes reads this forum) - LISTEN TO YOUR WIFE.

Is it proper for the COR to meet with someone who has volunteered to be CC and turn them down? It can be, sure. Many IHs would delegate that responsibility to the COR. The IH has final say on everyone, even if a signature is not required. He or she can turn down a choice for treasurer or den leader, or could appoint someone as Scoutmaster over the objection of the COR and CC. I'd suggesting treading a little more lightly, though. The COR works for the IH, and serves at the pleasure of the IH. The COR and IH really need to be on the same page.

My last post may have been a bit one-sided. I think Lisabob captures my actual position. I don't object to advice that says "depending on your CO, you might want to run this by them", or something like that. The advice statements that I find less useful are the ones that presume the CO is taking an active role in the leadership of the pack. Or as SeattlePioneer puts it, "No harm in asking about where the chartered organization is". Yes, there are times when the official answer has to be the one you give. If you want to remove a CC, you have to go to the CO. And as Beavah points out, advice to go to the DE or the SE isn't right, either. Normally I expect adult leaders to be able to work things out amongst themselves. I would presume that pastors don't normally want to hear about how hard it is to find a fourth-grade Sunday school teacher, or how the adults in the choir can't get along, or how the music committee can't agree on who the new pianist should be.

I'm with SeattlePioneer on the base premise here, which is that the forum often directs people with problems to go talk to their CO, despite the fact that it's a minority of the time that the CO would be a meaningful place to go. We have a good relationship with our CO. The church gives us space, signs all our forms, sometimes helps out with religious awards, works with us on Scout Sunday, lets us do service projects for them. Even so, I don't think I'd ever expect to go to the COR or CO with a problem like not being able to find a Cubmaster. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation where I'd go to the CO for any leadership issues. I could conjure up one, but I've been around the units for over a decade and it's never happened that I'm aware of. So we have a relatively engaged CO, and we would not normally go them with this type of issue. Most units seem to have less involved COs, and so they wouldn't go to them. So most of the time I do find the advice to go talk to your COR or your IH to feel like the official but useless line. (or your unit commissioner, but that's another story).

There's no reason the district couldn't communicate the information via email. You shouldn't have to physically appear at Roundtable just to get information. There's no way I would change our troop meeting night if district changed Roundtable. People have joined the troop knowing that it meets on one particular day. They've adjusted their other activities to accommodate that. Our facility is used by other groups on other days. I'm with SMT224 - it may not be literally carved in stone, but it might as well be.

A Lad who has never used illegal drugs might upset the Board when he says that he is in favor of legalizing them. How about the Lad who might agree with the Supreme Court ruling that funeral picketing is free speech? I would personally be fascinated with that discussion. If the boy has well-articulated positions, I'd love to listen. But yes, it's possible there might be a board member who could take offense. Those positions are relatively mainstream alternatives - one could imagine far more inflammatory positions a Scout could take on current events. Most of the boards I've seen, I think the boards would listen to the Scout's position. I don't think they'd deny Eagle because of it. I understand what Calico is getting at, but I don't think the SM has any place nor any standing to halt the BoR. If there are problems, they can be handled afterwards.

And most important get training dates out on the council calender early I couldn't agree more with this. As pack trainer, I really wanted to encourage all my den leaders to get training. But I would really want to have all the training on the calendar for many months in advance so that I could promote it, I could ask them which training they were planning to attend, we could avoid conflicts, etc. It's common for these things to show up one month in advance, and that's just not enough time. I don't want to be constantly checking the calendar.

This happens regularly in our pack when someone joins at the beginning of their fifth grade year. Most of them earn both Webelos and Arrow of Light by March, although it requires some focus. If they complete the requirements, that's definitely the way to go.

The CO has always been responsible. The unit leaders are agents of the CO. Liability has always rested with the CO.