Oak Tree

We do number 1 and we typically do number 4 from your list, depending on what type of ceremony the Scout wants. I don't think we have anything else that's really a troop tradition for the Eagles.

Venturing started in 1998, but it was really an extension of the old Exploring program. They split Exploring into two pieces - the high-adventure piece became Venturing, and the career-related units stayed as Exploring Posts, but became part of Learning for Life, a BSA subsidiary that does not use a uniform or a duty to God. My belief is that the primary reason for this split was to allow government units (especially police and fire departments) to continue to sponsor units. Why they chose the name Venturing is beyond me - as the primary result appears to be non-stop confusion among the casual observers.

"the Tiger program is significantly different than the Cub (Wolf and Bear) program" That may be so, but when I took Tiger den leader training, the class was combined with the Wolf and Bear den leaders, with the instructor pointing out a few differences for Tigers as we went along. Then the next year I took Wolf training - which was the same course, but hey, I wanted to set a good example. I took it from a different district, so it had a bit different perspective, but really, I think Tiger could very reasonably be combined with Wolf/Bear training.

The scoutingnews blog item references back to a Capital Area Council post that says the badge itself and the pamphlet are still under development. Usscouts.org doesn't have a picture yet, either, so all indications are that the badge image has not yet been released.

Oak Tree, you would be OK with your local council charging every member an extra yearly council fee on top of National registration? I was actually surprised when I first learned that none of my membership fee went to the local council. But yes, I would personally prefer an extra fee rather than being asked to sell popcorn. I do realize this isn't everyone's preference - so again, I'm ok with popcorn and FOS going to fund the council office operations. You should really look at what is available for your Pack to use at these properties. Our council camps are available for packs to use. But the state parks are better. And I'd be happy if the council charged packs a fee to use the camp (to cover the cost of the electric bill and whatever.)

Ok, I'll take the other side of this one. Why should a Cub Scout pack give money to subsidize a Boy Scout camp? Why not have the camp be self-supporting - either through dues or through capital campaigns? I guess a pack does need some professional around, just in case things go wrong, but really, our pack pretty much survived just fine with hardly any contact with the council. I would personally prefer a straight up charge, too, but that might drive away some families. So I can live with popcorn and FOS going to help fund the council office, but beyond that?

That seems like a fairly cynical interpretation. I thought they already did summer camps there, although it certainly wouldn't surprise me if they were expanding. I would have guessed that National would be pushing councils to close camps because they are tired of having councils run out of money. If I were in charge, I'd certainly push councils to shape up their accounting so that they could tell if their camp was self-sustaining or not, and either get them to break even or close them. The idea that National would want councils to close the poorly run, money-losing camps because it wanted less competition for the Summit - that's just not passing the common sense test for me.

I hate to say it, Stosh, but I think that recruiting is one place where adults will be more effective than the Scouts. Well, ok, the adults would actually be more efficient than the Scouts at pretty much any given short-term task, but for the most part we decide to sacrifice short-term effectiveness/efficiency in order to develop the boys and the troop. However, if you sacrifice the short-term effectiveness of recruiting, you're not going to have too many boys for the long-term. You don't have to change anything. But if you want things to change, you might have to start the change. It doesn't sound like they're going to just turn around on their own. Webelos' parents have a large say in what troop their sons go to. Like it or not, a successful recruiting effort is typically done by troop adults reaching out to those parents in one way or another.

Our troop has dealt with this from time to time. I deal with it in two ways. 1. I don't worry about it. At the time the apathy is occurring I just figure on making the event the best it can be for those who did show up. 2. Later we'll work with the PLC and with the adults to consider if there's anything about the program that might be changed. If turnout for service projects is low, we'd have to think about whether we're doing projects that the Scouts really want to do. We have Eagle projects going on almost every weekend, now. Hence, automatic volunteers have become thinner and I've been advising Eagle candidates to contact some number of Scouts directly, and to look outside the troop for volunteers. If only 4-5 Scouts show up, but we were hoping for more, then that would be a learning opportunity. Do we need to communicate better? Figure out a way to make the service more fun? Schedule fewer service projects? I've found that the more enthusiastic/confident I am and the better I communicate and teach, the less apathy there is among the Scouts and the volunteers.

I'm with Scoutfish on this one. Most merit badges (most, not all) can be counseled by someone who knows more than the Scouts, and that would seem to include most adults. Especially given that you can read ahead in the book. I know what the rules say, and if you have someone who is particularly well-qualified, you should by all means use him or her, but since that's not always the case, I don't think I'd be overly concerned about it. They use 16 year old kids to teach this at summer camp. Bando - my take is that you would do a fine job. I think your last paragraph sums up a reasonable plan. If you can have some of the lesson plans involve interesting experiments, all the better. The more hands-on stuff you can do, the more the Scouts will enjoy it.

My policy is to describe what our troop does, and not compare it to other troops. In general, I don't think that it's acceptable to run down another troop. That's especially true if you're talking to people you don't know. If I had a good buddy ask me to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different local troops, I might give him some more information. If a new parent asked me "Why should we choose your troop over another?" I think I'd go into some general differences that you might see between troops (some do more camping, some less; some do more backpacking, others do more car camping; some are big, some are small; some are more adult-led, some are more boy-led; some focus on advancement and uniforming, others focus on participation and fun; some are disorganized, some are very organized; some have mostly younger boys, others mostly older boys, and others have a mix; and every Scoutmaster has strengths and weaknesses.) And then I'd say - "I'll tell you how our troop fits in that picture - I'd advise you to talk to the other troops about their program." Did the Webelos group talk to you and your troop? I'd think that would be the time to correct any mis-information. Maybe give them a hand-out that shows how much camping your group did in the past year. Include some of those statistics that you're using here. At least - that's what I would give the parents. Your Scouts can talk to the potential recruits boy-to-boy.

There are some interesting parallels, but there are several important distinctions. It's almost like opposite-world. In the BSA case, the assumption is that public schools are prohibited (under the equal protection clause, perhaps) from limiting membership based on religion. In this case, the question is whether public universities must recognize student groups that have some restrictions based on religion. One big difference is whether the institution is exerting the control (as in a BSA chartered organization) or merely recognizing a group. If it's just recognizing a group, can the government choose to deny recognition based on membership policies surrounding a religious viewpoint? In my view, the university's interest in ensuring that all officially recognized groups are open to all members of the community would be a sufficient reason to have such a policy. It certainly doesn't seem like a required policy. But if the university allowed other groups (a Married Student Association, say) to restrict membership, it seems like they would have to allow this group to do so as well. I don't see how this would really make much difference to the actual organization involved. I'm sure they can thrive whether their statement of faith is binding or is just advisory.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Well-said, Eamonn.

Carpenty + Space Exploration = Build Your Own Space Station MB

Our troop is going to have different colored jamboree T-shirts. Each day will be a specific color. The theory, I guess, is that it makes it easier to spot our guys.

Our camp gives us the option. We always take it and do the swim tests ahead of time. It's just so much easier logistically. We do it at a pool, and the camp is on a lake, but for determining whether someone can swim 100 meters, the pool works fine. It can be a huge hassle to do the testing at camp.

Committee or ASM? Ah the quandary. They really blend together in my opinion and in our troop, and I don't really mind whether particular functions are done by committee members or ASMs. It seems like I just posted on this topic not that long ago, actually. The idea that the equipment coordinator is a committee function just strikes me as funny (although I know it's listed that way in the literature.) Who knows best what the state of the equipment is? People who go on the camping trips. For jamboree troops, the second assistant Scoutmaster is in charge of equipment, working with the quartermaster. Quite honestly, I would not be too worried about having too many ASMs. I might be concerned about having too much adult influence at a meeting, but not about having too many ASMs. That's a problem I'd love to be confronted with, at any rate. I'd find something for the adults to do to be useful. The right number of ASMs would also depend on how reliably they can attend meetings. Do they travel often on business? Have other conflicts? Military bases can have a whole set of issues around this. Likewise - the number of hours that they can spend behind the scenes also has an impact. I like the idea of resqman's troop - having an advisor and a backup advisor per patrol, plus a couple others. In addition to their position as a patrol advisor or backup, there are lots of other particular assignments they could take on - including some of the 'committee' functions - and also including things like Aquatics, OA, High Adventure, Acting SM for a given outing, ASM for Program (a la Wood Badge), Experts on various topics, Adult Grubmaster, Photographer, and other positions are really only limited by your imagination.

Yeah, I'm baffled too. I don't think this is a committee issue or a PLC issue. This is a "give-the-guy-a-strange-look" issue. What is his stated concern? I'm curious.

The Scuba merit badge requires the use of one of several organizations. In this case the site geocaching.com is the first, largest, most popular, and most familiar web site. To the uninitiated, it would seem virtually synonomous with geocaching. The word "geocaching" was coined in 2000 and the site geocaching.com also opened in 2000. So I don't have a real issue with referring to it, but I do think it could have been stated as "geocaching.com or similar web site", or something like that.

We do have a specific job - or two or three - for each ASM. The ASMs are indeed hand-picked by the SM, just as our committee members are hand-picked by the CC. We did not used to have ASMs assigned to each patrol, but as the troop grew bigger, we needed to have ways to apply adult safety, crowd control, and individual attention to each Scout, so we do assign ASMs to patrols now. Not all the ASMs are patrol advisors, as we have more ASMs than that, but there are lots of other jobs for them to do. I would have no problem with keeping a mostly inactive college student on the rolls as an ASM, although we don't have any such ASM now.

(1) None BALOO is required for taking the entire pack camping. IOWLS is recommended but not required for taking Webelos camping. If anyone tells you something is required, ask them to show you the reference. The entire Guide to Safe Scouting is on-line.

NJCubScouter, I think your position is a good one. No right in the constitution is absolute - everything has to be balanced against the other rights and responsibilities of the government and of individuals. Beavah has pointed out a number of other cases where government may (or does) give unequal treatment to people in various protected sub-classes. The government is only allowed to discriminate in cases where there is a "compelling state interest". I can imagine such a state interest in not allowing women in certain combat roles, or targeting some underserved populations for better health care. I think it's going to be very difficult to argue that setting up a program for theists is a compelling state interest (indeed, it borders on being ridiculous on the face of it to argue that the state should provide a youth program for non-atheists.)

The current test for whether an action is constitutional under the first amendment is the Lemon test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971): 1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. Creating foot baths does have a secular legislative purpose, I guess, of allowing students to clean their feet. As long as a number of non-Muslims do this for cleanliness purposes, I might buy this. I still am dubious on this point, though, because it was clearly the government's intent to provide these for a religious purpose, not a secular one. On point 2, I think the government's action clearly is a stamp of approval on the Muslim practice of foot-washing. The primary effect of installing the foot-baths is that Muslims can now more conveniently practice an act associated with their religion. I don't think there is excessive entanglement here.

Frank17, that conclusion doesn't really follow from the story. For reference: "Jurors on Tuesday found the Boy Scouts of America negligent and awarded $1.4 million to a former Portland man who was abused by an assistant Scoutmaster in the early 1980s" [...] "Clark opened the trial by showing the jury the six boxes of documents. He made little actual use of them during the trial, but during their deliberations the jury had the opportunity to look through them. There was no mention of whether the jury consulted the files after the verdict was delivered Tuesday morning following two days of deliberations." Keeping the files didn't appear to be the problem. Continuing to allow a known molestor to associate with the troop appeared to be the issue. Without knowing more about the case, I don't think I can really reach a conclusion as to whether the files were important or not.

Den chiefs can come from any troop. Ask your unit commissioner to show you his position in writing. From scouting.org Qualifications: Is an older Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or Venturer. Selected by the senior patrol leader and Scoutmaster, Varsity Scout Coach, or Venturing Advisor at the request of the Cubmaster. Approved by the Cubmaster and pack committee for recommendation to the den leader. Registered as a youth member of a troop, team, or crew.(This message has been edited by Oak Tree)