Oak Tree

I like the idea of letting the Scouts correct their uniform ahead of the inspection. That way they don't get penalized for having heard and followed some uniform myth. With some effort, they can make things better. Sounds like a winner to me.

Getting out of the tent business is probably a useful step to consider if most of the boys have their own tents. I think your best bet on keeping the tents in working order is to assign the tents to a Scout or Scouts on a more or less permanent basis. If they know they're going to have to use the same tent next time, there's a much better chance they'll take care of it. We're working with this idea now. If it's a big problem for your troop, you might try requiring a tent deposit while a Scout is in the troop. Have everyone pay for their tent up front, and give them their money back when they leave the troop if their tent is still in good condition.

I'll add that I've seen a number of patches that were intended to be temporary patches but that did not actually fit, especially on some of the smaller Scouts' uniforms.

Many COs do provide significant resources, and BSA in general provides only things we pay for. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I want a CO patch on the uniform. If anything, I'd think it would belong as a strip under the unit number. Mom and Dad provide most of the resources for most Scouts, but we don't put their names on the uniform, either. It's also traditional to recognize the CO on the troop trailer.

"You absolutely must file -- everyone and everything must file a tax form." In general, people and organizations do file tax forms, but it is explicitly incorrect that everyone and everything must file a form. From irs.gov, for individuals:You must file a tax return if your income is above a certain level. The amount varies depending on filing status, age and the type of income you receive. Check the Individuals section of IRS.gov or consult the instructions for Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ for specific details that may affect your need to file a tax return with the IRS this year.And for organizations like churches, from Publication 1828Exceptions to file Form 990, 990-EZ and 990-N The following is a list of some of the organizations that are not required to file Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-N. ■ Churches (as opposed to religious organizations, defined earlier) ■ Inter-church organizations of local units of a church ■ Mission societies sponsored by or affiliated with one or more churches or church denomination, if more than half of the activities are conducted in, or directed at, persons in foreign countries ■ An exclusively religious activity of any religious order See the form instructions for a list of other organizations that are not required to file.On domestic partnershipsA domestic partnership must file an income tax form unless it neither receives gross income nor pays or incurs any amount treated as a deduction or credit for federal tax purposes.

There were many units at jamboree who clearly had corporate partners - Halo on a JSP, or Cheerwine signs, or Louisville Slugger baseball bats as their border. The JSPs were required to be approved by National. If you are just receiving a donation, you don't need approval. I am guessing that donations "in kind" don't require any special approval either - at least in practice (asking the fence company to donate some fencing, for example). I don't feel as good about selling advertising space on troop equipment. That would seem like a fund-raiser that should be approved by council. I like the idea of going the NASCAR route - great big ad space on the Scout trailer.

I'm generally in line with everyone else here, but I have a number of specific questions that come up from time to time. Basics: Summer Camp - 1 activity (even if a patrol does something within it) Camping Trip - 1 activity (and all 10 activities can be camping) Troop Service Project - 1 activity Patrol hike - 1 activity Other items that come up: 1. Working on someone's Eagle project - if the entire troop is invited, it can clearly be a troop activity. What if a Scout asks just a few of his friends to help out? 2. PLC meeting. We do this once a month on a different night from our troop meeting. 3. Working on a merit badge with a friend or two. 4. Court of Honor held on a regular troop meeting night. 5. Eagle Court of Honor held on a weekend. 6. Eagle Court of Honor held on a regular troop meeting night. 7. Troop meeting night, but it's an activity (troop hike, or waterfront activity) 8. TLT - basic training, 2 hours in a meeting room (could easily be a "troop meeting") 9. TLT - all day training in the outdoors 10. Taking a course (den leader training, or University of Scouting). Clearly a Scout activity, but is it a "troop/patrol activity"? 11. Working on advancement. In a troop of 50, maybe five Scouts show up to work on the orienteering requirement on a Saturday. Invitation went to anyone who needed the requirement - so not really the entire troop nor to a particular patrol. 12. Camping with another troop. 13. Camping with your family and you worked on requirements for most of the weekend. How would you count all of these?

a charity organization shouldn't exclude anyone, and don't stand for anything, and no one will have a problem with you. That's absolutely not the case. Habitat for Humanity very much does stand for something. But they picked that one thing that they stand for and don't muddy it up by adding in other things as well. Their mission, in a nutshell: - We seek to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action. - To accomplish these goals, we build houses together in partnership with families in need. I would say that the BSA - Offers young people responsible fun and adventure and outdoor skills training - Trains young people in citizenship, service, and leadership - Serves America's communities and families with its quality, value-based program. Standing for those things does not require including "duty to God" in the pledge; or alternatively, BSA could easily say that each person should determine what his or her duty to God is, including atheists. I think the BSA does itself a disservice by taking a fundamental stand on something that is not fundamental to its mission.

Ed - I'm guessing 'nothing' and 'no'. In general, it does seem to be a common tactic to label something that you don't like as some generally agreed-upon evil. You don't like the way an adult is behaving towards a kid - label it child abuse or youth protection. You don't like the way someone behaves towards someone of another race - label it racist. You don't like the way someone behaves towards a gay - label it homophobia. You can see it on both sides - the crusty old man labels his son's behavior as 'girly'. Or someone is a 'bigot'. You don't like what your doctor did, so you call it malpractice. You also have the 'better-safe-than-sorry' phenomenon - we want to ban all weapons, so we'll cover anything that might conceivably be used as a weapon. Schools are particularly guilty of this type of thing. Speech, drawings, etc - can be labeled as threatening.

a bunch of self admitted drug abusers among the posters Really? I just read back through the thread and I didn't see any.

You could check out Great Outdoor Provision Co (www.greatoutdoorprovision.com) which has a store in Wilmington. I bought my last canoe from their store in Raleigh.

It's up to the CO as to whether it has anything to do with the pack's money. I would say that most COs typically have very minimal interaction. The pack does not have to file income taxes, and most COs don't either. The assumption I'm making is that your CO is a typical non-profit. If you are sponsored by a for-profit company, the rules may be different. Churches are generally exempt from income tax. If you do nothing special, you're fine. Just make sure you have multiple people looking at the bank balance regularly. We always had our treasurer review it at our monthly committee meeting.

So those links that Ed lists appear to be some sort of actual sex site (with a safe cover page) that are actually hosted within the scouter.com domain. (at host.scouter.com) Those sites don't appear to be directly linked from the forum - at least, I don't see any obvious reference to them. So it seems like the forum is still safe from what I can see, but it seems odd that there is that other web site under this domain.

Our camp has golf carts for this purpose. They'll also allow cars if necessary. What I didn't appreciate was the troop that brought their own golf cart because their leaders appeared to be too out-of-shape to make the regular long hikes to the dining hall. They justified it because they were so far away, not because they were disabled.

I don't think it's Terry's job to address vague complaints from other software. If Norton says the site is unsafe, it should be much more specific about what it thinks is unsafe.

You can install TroopMaster multiple times in different locations. I did that for our jamboree troop and my home troop. Just had to pick the correct one to open.

Our council hasn't seen much change to the finances as far as I can tell, at least as a result of the United Way bans. Many United Way units continue to support Scouting - such is the case for the council of my youth. They don't appear to have seen much change either.

If the result is sharper minds, focused attention, and clearer thinking, what's the objection? I'm with Packsaddle. If drugs help you perform better, without side effects, then perhaps by definition they should be drugs that you could be prescribed since without them you work at less than your optimum. People have used caffeine for this purpose forever. The only real objection is whether there are side effects. That's the main reason we don't allow steroids in sports. Although, I've got to say, it would be cool to see an Olympics where you could use all the steroids you wanted to. I'm sure we'd see some real freakish performances. The original question asked was What thoughts do you all have on people who use these drugs to do better in school or at work? Isn't that why all users, including the ADHD, use these drugs?

ScoutMythBuster writes: The only thing that needs to be monitored is that the boys are electing or appointing positions by ability and not by popularity. I think that when its a popularity contest is the only time a SM should step in and make sure the scouts understand the consequences of their decision. I understand the thinking here, but this strikes me as an easy path towards adult-led. Adults will often think the Scouts are making a decision based on popularity, and regardless, it's not at all easy to define what the difference is - how do you tell what is causing a particular vote? Also, if an adult jumps in and overrules an election where Ezekiel won, that has the possibility of making Ezekiel frustrated/angry/disillusioned (and it also has the possibility of a future unpleasant discussion with Ezekiel's parents about how you publicly embarrassed him.) If you sense that the boys aren't doing a good job choosing leaders, I'd suggest you might rather see adults try to do things behind the scenes, either before or after the election. Before the election you can sit down with the candidates, one-at-a-time, and review the expectations of the position. If it's someone you don't think is up to the job, you might emphasize the aspects of the job that you suspect he would hate. You can also veto him ahead of time. If you let him run, I think you have to let him win. After the election, you can start work on coaching. If the Scout just isn't going to do the job ("I just can't make it to PLC"), then you could discuss removing him. But it's good for Scouts to see that their votes matter - that's the best way to get them to take the voting seriously. If the troop is all adult-led and it doesn't matter who the boy leaders are, then why should the Scouts care about voting? I've never overruled an election in our troop. I've let some terribly unqualified people run for election because I know the Scouts take the election seriously and would not elect him. I've occasionally talked a Scout or two out of running. But if an unqualified Scout won an election, we'd give it a try.

Cary, NC doesn't have a general law against sheath knives. The town does have a law that says "No person shall carry a knife upon his person having a blade of three inches or longer in Parks/Recreation Areas." At least, that's according to this site that summarizes knife laws in various places: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USKnife2.pdf From the town ordinances, the only reference to knife is Sec. 24-10. Weapons. No person shall carry a knife upon his person having a blade of three inches or longer or have possession of or discharge a BB gun, air rifle, bow and arrow or any other type of lethal weapon in any park [emphasis added] except at public exhibitions and with a permit from the director of parks and recreation. The NC general statutes do ban carrying a concealed bowie knife. 14‑269. Carrying concealed weapons. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his person any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shurikin, stun gun, or other deadly weapon of like kind, except when the person is on the person's own premises. Also, you can't take bowie knives (concealed or not) onto educational property. You can't sell them to a minor, either. So yes, there are local knife ordinances, but the one in question is a bit more mild than a general ban. Many towns and cities in North Carolina have a similar law banning weapons in parks and/or municipal property.

I agree with Beavah that it makes sense to evaluate treatments scientifically. There is lots of research on drugs that shows that they are effective, to one degree or another. All of the medications have double-blind trials. A drug won't get approved for prescriptions if it's not. (this is not true for those "all-natural" cures you hear advertised on the radio). I think it's safe to say that the drugs have at least some beneficial short-term effect - and while I'm not sure what the long-term studies have been, I'm ok with the presumption that the drugs actually do something useful. I'm not as sure about therapy. Is it any more effective than having a friend who will listen to you? A dog? It's hard to do double-blind experiments on therapy. There is little doubt that therapy in general is statistically effective - not necessarily for everyone, but on average. http://counsellingresource.com/types/effectiveness.html

75% to 80%?!?!? No way. That number seemed so wrong I had to go check it out. "A new study has found that antidepressant drug use in the United States has gone up 75 percent, from 5.84 percent of the population to 10.12 percent." (http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/08/03/antidepressant-use-up-75-percent/7514.html) Here's evidence that some of this is typical immaturity being diagnosed as a disease: "Youngest kids in kindergarten more likely be diagnosed with ADHD. Are we confusing immaturity with hyperactivity?" http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/08/20/youngest-kids-in-kindergarten-more-likely-be-diagnosed-with-adhd-are-we-confusing-immaturity-with-hyperactivity/ I've definitely seen medications make a big difference in some people's lives. And not so much in others.

Ok, let me turn the question around. Instead of using rank as a requirement, should we be using older as a requirement? What is an acceptable definition of an older Scout? I would think it would typically rule out first year Scouts that just crossed over from Webelos. Nevertheless, I just appointed an 11-year old first year Scout as a den chief and I expect he'll do a great job. I would not call him an older Scout. The requirements don't define older, so I'm taking it as more of an advisory requirement than a literal requirement. Scoutmasters can definitely add requirements like having to be First Class to be a den chief. You can argue all you want that they can't, but they can. They do it all the time. I don't - but I can see why some might. I'm not a big fan of tweaking rules to make things harder for the Scouts, but there is certainly a place for judgment in interpretation.

Councils cannot modify advancement requirements without National's approval. There are a few places where they have specifically been delegated that power (e.g., youth with disabilities, further specification of how they will handle the Eagle requirements). Councils cannot officially relax/modify existing national rules. They can add rules, though. As can troops. In practice, many councils and units do modify existing national rules. One widely ignored rule in the G2SS is "All driving, except short trips, should be done in daylight." I'm guessing councils routinely approve tour permits for trips that start on Friday after dark, especially in the winter. In general I agree with your sentiment - it's not a great plan to force more restrictive rules on people when those rules are not even official. It can be fine to make recommendations. It depends on lots of things, including who you are, how important the rule is, etc as to whether you want to fight a particular battle. People routinely complain about Eagle boards having lots of ridiculous rules. Unless you get into a position where you can influence the board, though, complaining is typically a waste of breath. Our Eagle boards recently revamped their policies to be much more relaxed and in line with the official requirements - it's truly a breath of fresh air.

"after causing much trouble over the real rules vs traditions." My experience is that it's been easy to correct things (at least within my own unit) without causing much trouble. I just ask the person making the statement to show me the rule - if they show me, fine - if they can't, then I don't have to follow it. I try to avoid "heated debates" and statements like "unveiled the deception" and "it is wrong." I'm not looking to call people out, nor do I assume that people are intentionally deceiving others or doing things with ill-intent. Our troop generally does things the way the book recommends. That said, there can be a place for traditions and expectations. A Scoutmaster can indeed say that he won't choose a Scout below First Class as a den chief. That could be a requirement in his troop. Councils can add restrictions on some things too.