Oak Tree

Yes, that's exactly how I understand it. Note - we had decided not to use TroopMaster Web for now, so I'm not speaking from current experience, but it looks like you've got it right. When I looked at using it for our troop, I wasn't looking at all of the benefits that you are. Mostly I just wanted to give an ASM the ability to access our current data from a Linux or Mac, and the extra hassle wasn't worth it. But for all of the things you want, it sounds like it's a good fit. [Disclaimer - while I'm generally quite happy with TroopMaster, I'm not associated with it in any way other than as a customer.]

>>"I guess we can just take the donations directly."

Twocubdad, I'll happily cut you as much slack as you'd like. You might be a carpenter, but I would never call you dumb. So think of it this way - whichever version of TroopMaster you use, somewhere the master data has to sit. It can be on an individual's machine, or it can be on a TroopMaster server. TroopMaster has two different servers - a web server, or an ftp server. If you use TroopMaster Web, they use the model that the main data is kept on the administrator's machine, and the data that people can look at is on the web server, but the administrator can sync up the web site with the master data. From their site, one of the FAQs is what does it mean if the web site is locked - "Your administrator is currently synchronizing the TroopMaster Web database with the main TroopMaster Program. If the administrator is not currently in a sync operation it is possible their was a problem uploading the data and unlocking the database. Please have your Administrator run the sync process again." With TroopMaster.Net, the master version of the data sits out on an ftp server somewhere (which TroopMaster is happy to host for you). Everyone gets to look at the same master data. If you were to go to .Web and drop .Net, what would you lose? It depends. If there is only one person who wants to run the main TroopMaster program, then you're fine and you don't lose anything because that one person can keep running it. But if you want multiple people to be able to edit the data, you might lose something. People who use the web version can do the following things (from TroopMaster.com) TroopMaster Web allows you to view and edit: Scout and adult personal data, including addresses, phones, email addresses, emergency contacts, emergency phones, doctor information, insurance information, physicals, medications, allergies, and more! Advancement data, including rank advancement, merit badges, partial merit badges, special awards, Varsity, Venturing, Sea Scouts, and Duty To God (for LDS Units). Adult Training Activities and attendance. Merit Badge Counselor personal data and merit badges. You'd have to do a detailed comparison with the current TroopMaster interface to see what they've left out. I'm assuming they may add more stuff to the web interface in the future, but right now I do not see them listing the ability to view/edit (and maybe they have these but just didn't list them, but there are definitely some items missing from the web UI): OA Swimming levels Adult awards Family links Photos Unit and patrol awards Group credit You can compare the list of features for what the person with the master copy can do (http://www.troopmaster.com/products/boyscouts/troopmaster_features.html) and what the person with the web version can do (http://www.troopmaster.com/products/boyscouts/web_features.html). I believe that one of the other things you'd lose with TroopMaster Web is for the ability for someone other than the main administrator to be able to run in a disconnected mode. In our troop, for example, the advancement coordinator normally locks the database at the beginning of a troop meeting, makes all the changes locally, and uploads the changes at the end of the meeting with TroopMaster.Net. This would work ok with TroopMaster Web as long as the internet connection was consistently available the entire time, but TroopMaster.Net is going to be a lot better for any place with intermittent internet connectivity, I think.

I also noticed the absence of any statement about when the clock started on these awards. I'm going to presume that it counts all of a Scout's activity. Now, Cub Scout camping is under the auspices of the BSA (as are any other activities done as a Cub Scout). So presumably this award counts all of a Scout's Cub Scouting history as well. That was true for the National Camping Award that this replaces. The National Camping Award was very clear on this point. It had a start date. It had a statement about what camping counted. It would be nice to have that clarification for the replacement award as well. What I'm going to do is to count all of a Scout's entire Scouting history - it seems clear that this award is intended to count retroactively. It's not obvious that it's supposed to count Cub Scouting, but that is definitely included from the current wording.

We had a similar question arise. For auditability purposes, our CO thinks they should be able to account for all the money that goes through them. The fact is, though, that they don't have an easy way to show what happened to the money that they gave to the pack. Yes, they can come ask the pack treasurer, but they could not easily just pull up the records for the pack the way that they can pull up all of the expenditures/receipts for all of the other units of the church (e.g., choir, women's group). And yes, we could run all money through the CO the same way that the other groups do, but the CO doesn't really want to deal with all of the incoming/outgoing funds associated with running the pack (and I can't say that I blame them for this). I guess we can make the argument that we do have audit-ability - but I can also see how that would not really be sufficient from their perspective. The problem really arises when donations are made to the pack through the CO. Other than that, I think they're happy to have us run "off-the-books" - and they wouldn't need to worry about the audit requirements. Yes, I know, they're still just as responsible, but it doesn't leap out as a red flag when they look at their finances. Hence, they don't really want us to run donations through them. I guess we can just take the donations directly.

I've looked into using TroopMaster Web and tried it out during their beta. I think the idea is great, but there is one giant flaw in the implementation from my perspective. They set it up as a separate database from TroopMaster.Net. So while I'd like to give people some easy access to the data, I don't want to stop using the full version of TroopMaster myself or for any other leader who likes the functionality. Yes, you can run both TroopMaster Web and TroopMaster.Net - but you have to manually sync up the data from one to the other - you would not necessarily all be seeing the same data at any given point in time, and who wants the hassle of syncing up? Also, I'd have to pay both fees. I really think TroopMaster got this design wrong - what I really want is web and/or full client access to the same set of data. However, if you just wanted to switch over to TroopMaster Web, then I think you'd be fine. I didn't think it would take the place of TroopMaster.Net for us. I have lots of comments on the design of TroopMaster - it's clearly grown up as function after function has been added on top of one another. I love the functionality, but there are some issues that arise from the way it's all been built up. As for accepting money, I think that would be a fantastic function to have - we've just started looking into paypal, which looks pretty easy to use but charges 2.9% of each transfer.

I agree that we are a Bureaucratically Supervised Assocation. I've had leaders call the G2SS the "Guide to No Fun". We can offer all kinds of activities, but I think the prohibition on so many activities leads people to think of Scouts as being for basic activities only. If we want to keep the kids' interest as they grow older, it would be nice to be able to offer some of those prohibited activities, and saying "you can do it as a non-Scout group" doesn't really help with the image. The funny thing is, there are other activities that are undoubtedly more dangerous than the ones they have listed, but that can be really hard to figure out how to describe. Zip lines don't appear in the G2SS, yet surely there are unsafe (and safe) things that you could do with that. Walking along the edge of a cliff can be dangerous, and there's a general warning in the G2SS but no policy on prohibiting it beyond some certain danger point. Constructing giant catapults can be dangerous, too. With all of these activities, there is a safe way to do them, and there is a point at which it becomes unsafe. I think that the danger with allowing such activities is that it's been demonstrated that not all Scout leaders will always use their best judgment in deciding how to proceed in these situations. I'm sure that there are some leaders out there somewhere who would take the fact that some activity is permitted to men that they should just go for it. Someone who doesn't understand the dangers associated with jet-skis or ATVs could easily set up a dangerous troop activity. But rather than reacting by just banning such activities, couldn't the BSA set some reasonable direction in place on these things? Such things could be permitted under the supervision of a {commercially licensed operator, trained and knowledgeable Scout leader, certified individual, other}. I think the ban results from the combination of 1. bone-headed Scout leaders, 2. risk-averse financial and legal people, and 3. negative-publicity-aware brand management people. But surely we could find a middle ground here somewhere.

If you google "custom license plate" you'll get a number of hits, including Build A Sign. I've found the biggest difference in these companies is often the price for a very small number of items. Note that in order to use a BSA logo, you'd legally have to use a BSA-certified provider, and who knows which of these would qualify as that. I'm a big fan of zazzle.com, but despite the fact that they have 45 customizable products, they don't yet list license plates. They do have pet clothing, ornaments, key chains, coasters, shoes, and legal postage stamps, along with the standard t-shirts and such.

Maybe it's a Y2K11 bug.

Labor unions can and do sponsor Scout units. They also have an award for union members who have done significant volunteering for the BSA. In that award, they specifically say that one of the criteria is "Forming Scouting units, especially those to be operated by local unions or other labor groups." (http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/Relationships/GeorgeMeanyAward.aspx) This link from 2007 shows labor organization chartering 142 units. (http://www.praypub.org/pdf_docs/BSA_Membership_Report_2007.pdf)

Actually, as I re-read the requirement, I'm less certain of the answer I just gave. I was presuming that Buffalo Skipper's quote applied to all of the camping. However, the phrasing is actually this: 4.Complete 25 days and nights of campingincluding six consecutive days (five nights) of resident camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America My interpretation is that it is saying that the long term camping has to be done under the auspices of the BSA. I do not interpret this as saying that all of the camping has to be done that way. That phrase is used in other places to apply to long term camping, as per the OA requirements. After registration with a troop or team, have experienced 15 days and nights of Boy Scout camping during the two-year period prior to the election. The 15 days and nights must include one, but no more than one, long-term camp consisting of six consecutive days and five nights of resident camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. The balance of the camping must be overnight, weekend, or other short-term camps.

If you and your son go camping, you are not doing it under the auspices of the Boy Scouts of America. You aren't following the Guide to Safe Scouting, etc. You are just on a family camping trip.

i.e. Cary, NC ban on sheath knives Eagle92, in the spirit of the forum, can you show a reference to your statement? I do not believe that Cary has any such ban. You aren't allowed to have them in town parks, but then again, you can't camp in town parks, either. Note that in all of North Carolina it is illegal to carry a "bowie knife" on educational property.

She complains regularly about the irresponsible parents that send their kids out in this with no hat or gloves and a light jacket, seeing the kids turning blue and shivering uncontrollably at the bus stop, often while the parent sits in a car with the engine running. This is one area where I tend to take the side of the "irresponsible parent". It depends on the age of the kid, of course, but by and I large I figure it's up to the kids to dress themselves. I wouldn't say the parent is "sending their kids out", but that the kids are choosing to go out dressed that way. Anyway, I'd think that this would be a self-correcting problem. Once the kids realize they are responsible for their own warmth, you'd think they'd dress a little bit better. (note: I'm not talking about kindergartners, and I'm not talking about sending kids places where they could die, just a typical Scout-aged kid on a typical short outdoor excursion.)

Is someone being punished?

Our troop earned around 21 of these, from 11 for Carpetry down to 2 for Pathfinding. One Scout earned all four, one Scout earned two, and the other 15 were earned by Scouts who earned only that one.

The program is complicated. If the leader does some things to simplify it, good for him. Some years we used the beads, some years we didn't. The boys did not seem to care. They paid a lot more attention to belt loops. They do want to get their rank, but they didn't seem to pay much attention to the progress toward it. This is a pretty minor issue. If you're going to war over this, you're undoubtedly going to find lots of other things to complain about as well. Have you asked the den leader if you could help him out and take care of this part of the program? If you did, and he said no, then I'd just accept that he's not going to use that part of the program. As for the history of Scouting, I'd say, "What?" There's no requirement to cover that. Let the Cubmaster do it, or do it at home, or don't worry about it.

Basementdweller: "Soooo, is limiting the number of merit badges that a scout can get from a merit badge councilor adding to the requirements??????/ " Umm, no. The Scoutmaster is told to give the Scout the name of a counselor. Nothing is said about what criteria he may or may not use in order to provide that name. No slippery slope here from what I see. I see a little bit of the other side of the slippery slope - making everything too legalistic. Every adult behaving badly is a "youth protection" issue. Every time someone tells a Scout what a requirement means, they are "adding to the requirements." When Scoutmasters make a decision, they are apparently violating some rule or another. Just keep the boat between the buoys, use common sense, and enjoy the program.

I got to the page by googling Sea Scouts site:scouting.org. That is, granted, not necessarily the way the general public is going to think to look for Sea Scout ships. It can be done, but it doesn't look like this is the intended way to get such a list. It looks like it's a leftover page. The right answer is going to be to get Sea Scout ships included on beascout.org.

I think that adults clearly have the right to ban things if they want to. There are always ramifications, but some things being banned are often just a basic framework for how the program is going to operate. I have no problem with many of the things here being banned. We did rethink our cell phone ban, and we aren't electronics police, either. If you listen to an iPod in your tent with earphones, why should we care? However, adults set a lot of the tone of any program. With a solid PLC and a well-developed program, with some tradition and some responsible boys, you can pretty much discuss all of the policies with them. It's a good thing to do. But there are often a lot of issues in any troop, and sometimes the simple ban is an easy way to deal with an issue in the short-term. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.

It's Here's a beautiful sampling of prose from scouting.org. For more infomration[sic] about the Sea Scouts, including how to join or start a Sea Scout ship in your area, please contact your local council service center. Sea Scouts learn to maintain and operate then[sic] vessel, courses are taught with the ship by our own officers. Seems like this was cut and pasted from some ship's website. This page (http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Venturing/venturinglocator.aspx) is actually better, although it wasn't working at all under IE for me. But under Safari, it gave me a list of all of the crews (26) and ships (3) in our council. The crew list here is definitely out-of-date, though. Sigh... So many things to talk about when you talk about National and IT... I love this link: "■NEW! 2009 Philmont Training Center Conference Schedule " (http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Venturing.aspx) So there are definitely more than 3 sentences about Sea Scouting on scouting.org, but it's missing from some key spots (and oddly represented in others). At least you have something you can do about it.

I'm not sure how you could justify taking Cubs or Webelos on a winter camping trip to for the purpose of simply earning a patch, Heck, we don't go camping simply to earn a patch. We go camping because we have great fun. We sleep in tents, we hang out around a fire, we eat good camp food, we hike through the woods, we see interesting things and we have great stories to tell. Sure, we get a patch. But we'd go camping whether there was a patch or not. I know my personal liability insurance does not cover such an undertaking. How do you know that? Can you post the wording from your policy that indicates this to be the case? But I'm not worried about liability. If a Cub Scout starts to get cold, he can get in a car, or into a warm sleeping bag, or his family can even go home. It happens regularly (more in the rain than the cold). It's not like we're backpacking 5 miles in below zero weather here.

A lot of it depends on who's going and how prepared they are. A Webelos den can be much more prepared, on average, than a whole pack. Also, you can make it fun - the kids in our pack seem to be constantly hoping it will get below 32 degrees so that they can get the award. A day where it gets down to 28 at night and up to 60 during the day is not that bad of a day. My kids have camped on many a polar bear camping trip, and except for the first one, way back early in our Scouting days when we were really unprepared, they haven't had a problem. They want to go again. Here's the key: keep it fun. Don't make it an endurance thing for the kids. If it starts to get too cold, jump in the cars and drive somewhere to visit some other landmark. Seriously, though, it's one of the most coveted awards in the pack. No one is forced to go. Come if you want to, know what it takes to be prepared, and keep it fun. It's worked for us.

Skeptic, I have no idea what the conditions are. I don't believe there is any danger of Philmont being sold. One reason it hasn't been marketed is that I suspect that they had more customers than they could handle for the longest time. They have rules that you can't come two years in a row. There are *lots* of things that they could do before they'd sell it. That said, conditions can't really prevent it from being sold. Let's imagine that the Scouts had been only granted an easement to use the property, and if they stopped using it, it would revert back to the family. Let's imagine that someone wanted to buy the property for $50,000,000 or something. BSA could go to the family, and say, we'll give you $10,000,000 for all out rights to the property. At some figure, the family would say yes.

Our EBOR requires full and proper uniform OR professional business attire appropriate for a job interview.