Oak Tree

Our situations haven't been quite the same, but we'd do as Horizon says. We'd suspend the BOR and finish it later. Scoutfish - the link that nolesrule gave you is good. I think that one of the reasons for the BOR is to make sure that someone other than just the SM is looking over the advancement. But assuming that all checks out, as it normally does, then the conversation proceeds along the lines you imagine.

AlFansome says "The basic fact still remains that if do your appropriate preparation and do everything that's required by a Tour Permit (and yet don't actually pull the permit), you are still covered by insurance." Why do you think you are required to do all of that to be covered by insurance? I've never seen that stated. Beavah keeps saying that insurance covers you whether you follow the rules or not - and that certainly matches my experience with all of my other insurance. A lot of councils have exactly the same wording on their sites: "There is no coverage for those who commit inte

Scoutfish - yes, our council did exactly that for our pack. They gave us the training and the use of the camp and gave us the BB guns - so it was a council-sanctioned activity. It seems like a gray area in the rules as written, but I was happy to go with the council's judgement, and it was just as safe as any other time Cubs get to shoot.

If this ever happened to our unit, I guess I would expect that the unit would do all the work. We're the ones who have all the vested interest in making sure there is a good match, insofar as we have to live with the day-to-day consequences of picking our CO. I would normally start by looking at all of our members and seeing if any of them belonged to a church that was a possible CO.

The common thing to do in that situation is to have the boys tent together in one tent, with the parent of one of them in another (close-by) tent.

The council is a private organization. They can pretty much kick anyone out for any reason, just as anyone can choose to leave the organization at any time. Now, for what they should do...I would think it would at least be courtesy to call the family.

The original post asked "IS the Dr interpreting this chart incorrectly?" I think that's exactly what's happening. That is, the doctor is not offering an opinion on whether the boy should be allowed to do the activity, he is just saying - "The boy doesn't meet the BSA's guidelines, so I won't approve him, because the BSA tells me not to." I think that getting a physician from council to explain the form would be the best approach. On the other hand, the form is fairly clear. It may be terrible policy, but that's what's listed. I could easily argue that the BSA doesn't want t

Gern, Despite the fact that many of us attribute barrister-hood to Beavah, I don't recall that he has ever claimed that status himself - and on a number of occasions, I know he has intentionally refrained from making such a claim. He's just an id on the system. So Beavah, I'd still be interested in the answer to Gern's question: Whether or not you are a member of the bar, do you agree with the BSA stance?

I think that there's a limited amount that you can do. I don't want to get into telling parents how to raise their own kids. The most that I would do is to consistently demonstrate a philosophy, and discuss the idea, and lead the troop in a way that shows that advancement isn't the most important thing. Pay attention to what you notice, what you reward, what you measure - this works for the parents as well as for the kids. It's not foolproof, but it sets a general tone.

I liked the idea of the magnetic backing, but I've tried it and now I'm not as big of a fan. The main problem is that it doesn't stay in place. It gradually slides until it's cock-eyed. After seeing pictures of myself looking like I can't dress myself, I decided to stick with the pin backing. I think the embroidered name tag idea is great.

We use FB, but only informally. For the reasons listed above, it would be hard to make it the official channel for information. Still, lots of our adults and Scouts will post their pictures there.

We do a pack handbook as well. I think it's a good idea. Highlights some important things, and documents some pack-specific things.

I'd agree with you, Eamonn. It might depend a bit on individual circumstances, and I think you'd be best off stating the policy up front, but in general, yes, money raised for one purpose should be used for that purpose.

And again with the liability question. What do we even have insurance for? Everyone seems to be convinced that just about every time something goes wrong, there's some violation involved, and that violation nullifies the insurance. Sigh.

If you are an active MC, the class would be great. Take it. It's very applicable to committee functions.

I have no idea what our council's fiscal year is, or why I'd care. Our units can use whatever fiscal year they want - September thru August, June through May, March thru February (we recharter in March), or January thru December. Units don't even need a strict fiscal year, as far as I can see. Personally, I think Cub Scout packs should recharter in the summer, to match the Cub Scout year. I do find it odd when the council wants to collect renewal dues somewhere in the middle of the Cub Scout program.

Right, I know. That's what I told him. But as Crew21 Adv suggests, what the Scoutmaster says can have a big effect. By emphasizing some traits over others, a Scoutmaster could influence the vote. There are all kinds of things a Scoutmaster could say, appropriate or not. "As you vote, you should remember recent trips and who has been the most helpful on them." - "I personally have found all of these Scouts to be excellent candidates and I would be very disappointed if any of them were not elected." - "I'd like to especially emphasize that cheerful service is being shown by everyone w

Crew21 Adv, I didn't mean to imply I didn't believe you. I think it's clear that the Scoutmaster's actions can have some effect on the voting, although as you say, it would be impossible to prove. Shifting the scales towards accepting more Scouts is probably a reasonable goal. In our case, the leader wanted to more-or-less reorder the voting (give the SM a few extra votes to add to one Scout, or something). I think it would be very difficult for the SM to manage to re-order the voting in some fair fashion. I'll think about giving the scales a slight nudge towards acceptance, thou

The requirements have been made available from lots of places. I know that none of them meet the "truly official" criteria, but they are reliable sources, including council web sites. How are we playing with fire if we use our own judgement? Just don't finalize the merit badges until they come out officially. Are the BSA auditors going to come in and go over my troop advancement records with a fine-toothed comb? Perhaps they'll dock my pay? Nothing bad is going to happen from trying to figure out something intelligent to do about these badges.

Scoutfish - yes, you can do that.

I did have a leader who was disturbed at the results of our election one year and wanted to know what we could do to change the process. Well, nothing. Oh, we could try doing as Crew21 Adv suggests, but in the end the Scouts are voting for those who they think deserve to be in. In our case, I knew why the one Scout didn't get it. The other Scouts knew more about him than the adults did.

The current youth application form has circles for Lone Cub Scout and Lone Boy Scout, but no Lone Venturer. If that's worth anything...

Latin is the official language of the Holy See. So maybe all he has to do is go hang out with the Pope. There is even, according to wikipedia, an ATM in Vatican City with instructions in Latin.

You may want to be informed of that, but I don't think it's a good policy to broadcast concerns about parents. That could get into gossip pretty quickly. As for what our troop would do, I'm not sure. If the custodial parent didn't warn you, you'd have no idea about the issue, and the non-custodial parent could presumably just come along. We do not, as a general rule, quiz parents about their divorces nor about their legal history before we allow them to come camping. In practice, it sounds like the non-custodial parent isn't going to actually end up coming, anyway. He has this id

The Scouting grapevine (tracing back through what I consider to be relatively reliable sources) says that the badges will be official by April, and that the requirements will not change. I want to believe it...