Oak Tree

If he could arrange to be the lifeguard, that would be perfect. I think I'd accept it.

Scoutfish, If I gave any offense, I apologize. I did indeed realize that you were discussing a hypothetical situation, and I intended for my response to be to that same hypothetical person who might be considering doing the den shooting. I probably should have started the entire post with the sentence "Here's how I'd respond to someone who was planning that." bear dad - I know the thread has wandered from your original question - such is the nature of this and most internet fora. To answer your original question - have any of us had the same type problem? - I'd say yes. I remember one family leaving our pack, they didn't state why, but I felt like it was because we told them they couldn't bring their camper on pack camping trips. People come and go, and you can't please everyone. Still, we try to aim for something that is fun for as many as possible, and if we succeed at that, the program grows.

Maybe the seventh adult was from the Scout's unit. His Scoutmaster, say. Or maybe the seventh was Mafaking, who was just an observer. I was in one EBOR for a Scout was who dual-registered and had both unit leaders present. It's not obvious there was a violation going on here.

What Twocubdad said. The boy cannot meet the technical requirements for Arrow of Light - so the pack is more than within their rights not to present him with it, even if he has done all the pins. But if you're a Scoutmaster and a boy comes to you who is eligible to join and wants to join, why would you turn him down? Sign him up.

Yeah, so as written, this policy would seem to prevent Scouts from driving themselves to troop meetings, but it's almost inconceivable that that is the intent of this policy. It might depend on how you interpret "area". If you take it mean the official BSA area (a subdivision of a region, but larger than a council), then the policy would prohibit Scouts from driving to any troop, district, or council event. If you take it to be a generic word meaning "around here", then a Scout could drive to any event that met the conditions. In practice, many troops have their own troop rules (I will avoid calling them by-laws for now) about who is able to drive. Some won't let anyone under 21 drive other Scouts around. Our troop would pretty much let any Scout drive himself.

Who has your committee designated to sign the rank advancement? Umm, our committee hasn't designated anyone. The Cub Scout books pretty much do that for us. I'm looking at a Webelos book (slightly out of date), and it says "When a Wolf or Bear Cub Scout passes requirements, he goes to a parent or guardian who signs his book. When a Webelos Scout passes requirements, he takes his book to the Webelos den leader..." From scouting.org: When a boy has done the requirements for an activity badge, the Webelos den leader or activity badge counselor, rather than a parent, approves most of the activity badges. From the 2005 Cub Scout Leader Book: In the Tiger Cub, Wolf, and Bear programs, the adult partner or a family member must approve completion of the requirements by signing the boy's book. It is important that the family understands the correct interpretation of the advancement program because when a parent or guardian signs the boy's book, the requirement is approved and should not be questioned." and The situation changes when boys become Webelos Scouts. [...] actual completion is approved by den leaders It's not totally in the hands of the den leaders for Webelos, it's also the responsibility of the committee to ensure the awards are given appropriately. Ok, sure - I can imagine the committee reacting to some den leader going totally loopy - but can you show any basis in BSA literature for your position? The books appear to say explicitly the opposite - that it is in fact totally in the hands of the den leaders.

Much like sandspur and jet526, we keep things in TroopMaster.net and the advancement coordinator or his backup (both adults) does the sync up upon a Scout's completion of merit badges and ranks. We also sporadically update the rank requirements - more so for the first year Scouts who have an ASM assigned to them, who can do the updates himself. We generate a paper report for the council, generally quarterly before our CoH, that includes the Scouts' earned ranks.

BDPT00, There is nothing in the Dale case that explicitly states the BSA is a religious organization. Apparently that was not viewed as germane. The BSA has stated this point in other venues, though. It was hard to find a definitive statement on-line - and this is in part due to the ambiguity in the term "religious organization", and sometimes the BSA says it is and sometimes it says it is not. Here are some quotes: From the BSA in Barnes-Wallace v. BSA: Boy Scouts of America is composed of persons who believe in God. In the same case, interestingly, BSA makes this point: Courts across the country have examined Scoutings private speech and have concluded that, for purposes of the Establishment Clause, Boy Scouts is not a religious organization. [this will seemingly conflict with other statements from the BSA in other cases.] ====== March 4, 2004 (bsalegal.org): The Justice Department will submit a brief today in federal court in San Diego in support of the Boy Scouts of America. The brief argues that the Boy Scouts are not a religious organization, and that its operation of a facility on city-owned property does not violate the Constitution's prohibition on the establishment of religion. ====== Indeed, in February 2003, the city agreed with the Boy Scouts in documents submitted to the court that while Boy Scouts is not a religion and is completely nonsectarian, Boy Scouts is a religious organization. ====== From the court finding in a San Diego case, indicating that the BSA did agree it was a religious organization: Not only does the BSA-DPC concede that it is a religious organization, but it insists that its religiosity is fundamental to its purpose and mission of instilling values in its youth members. ====== CAC is Chicago Area Council. May 1, 2001. CAC argues that the injunction and fine should be vacated because: (1) application of section 2-160-030 violates CAC's first amendment rights of expressive association (U.S. Const., amend. I); (2) Richardson lacked standing to sue for employment discrimination; and (3) CAC's employment policy was exempt from the Ordinance under its express exceptions for religious organizations or bona fide occupational qualification. ====== http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108666,00.html On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion." However, in several legal briefs, including one in a 1992 case in Kansas and another in 1998, lawyers for the Boy Scouts put in writing that the Scouts are a religious organization. Here's the quote in '98: "Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization."

jhankins, I think I know where you're coming from, in that the CM "reports to" the committee. But I don't know anywhere that the BSA literature says that the committee sets the standards. The official answer, I think, is that BSA sets the standard. Now, sometimes some interpretation is required to know whether a Scout has met the requirement, but the Cubmaster is in charge of the program, so he or she would normally be the authoritative voice in the pack on interpretation questions. The official answer, though, in Cub Scouts, is that it's up to the person signing off on the requirement to do any interpretation. So that would be the parent for Tigers through Bears, and the den leaders for Webelos Scouts. Why do you think the committee should be setting the standard?

Scoutfish, in general I tend to fall a little more on the side of using good judgement and less on explicitly mindlessly following the rules. But that's not a blanket statement indicating that there's no purpose to the rules. Can you ignore the rules? Yes. Should you ignore the rules? Well, not as a matter of course. There are lots of reasons to follow the rules, just as there are a variety of reasons why you might want to bend them. The reasons in favor of the rules can get magnified in situations like bb-gun shooting. BasementDweller says that he has packs that have archery and bb-guns with the knowledge of the DE. So go ahead and ask your DE, and maybe he'll give you permission, too. Our pack wanted to do bb-guns and archery at a pack campout. The council let us use their range, gave us the training, and lent us the bb-guns and bows and arrows. Was this bending the rule? Maybe. It didn't seem like it was officially a "Council/District outdoor program", but we ran it by the same rules, with the council's knowledge. So just think about it a little bit. You have indicated that you often want straightforward answers to your questions. Ok, fair enough. You asked what the policy is, and it's clear. So you can choose to follow it or not. Now, when you ask if you can ignore a policy, that's just not going to have a simple answer. Well, the simple answer is yes, you can ignore the policy, but the consequences of ignoring the policy can be much more complex. Other people can read the policy, too. What do you tell them if they ask why you aren't following it? If your Scouts get bb-loops at a pack meeting, will other den leaders ask about how you managed that, and be upset at you for setting up expectations with their own kids that they can go shoot BB-guns? How do you actually intend to maintain complete control of the range? What would happen if someone did get hurt? What would you be able to say about what safety rules you were following? Your basic question appears to be whether we agree that you could overturn sanctions. While I think sanctions are unlikely, I do not agree that you could overturn them. Who are you appealing to? It's not a court of law. What kind of sanctions do you think you are appealing? I don't think council is going to swoop in and repossess belt loops from a bunch of Cub Scouts, so that's not going to be topic for repealing sanctions. If your membership got revoked, good luck in arguing that you should have it back. If you're so confident that your local culture overrides the "only at council/district events" rule, then go ask the council and get them to agree. I don't think that Policy A and Policy B are really in conflict here. Policy A says you might want to adapt the "age appropriate guidelines" to your locality. Policy B (which is not an "age appropriate guideline") is that packs/dens can't do shooting events on their own. There is another similar statement in the Guide to Safe Scouting, in the aquatics section: Ultimately, each responsible adult leader must personally decide if he or she understands the risk factors associated with the activity and is sufficiently experienced and well-informed to make the rational decisions expected of a qualified supervisor. So is there some flexibility? Yes. But there's a big difference between "some flexibility" and "anything goes."

Lisabob, your guess is correct. From the questioning during oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court in the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case. Justice Kennedy: "just as a matter of New Jersey law it would seem to me that the schools and the fire departments, to comply with the New Jersey law as interpreted by the supreme court, would have to sever the relation. Perhaps I'm wrong." Mr. Davidson: "Justice Kennedy, that may well be." [...] Justice Scalia: "Anyway, your point is if Government giving any assistance to the Scouts is a problem, you'd rather, no thank you, not have the assistance than have to change your policies." Mr. Davidson: "Right. The Scouts have said many times that their policies are not for sale, and if it costs the sponsorship, well that's... so be it."

OGE, I'll take the fall in place of Frank. FScouter was just responding to my posting (and quoting me), where I somehow inexplicably reverted to something before my time. Should have said AFC. And I agree, FScouter, that a Scout can't really come across as controlling if he says "my troop", but a Scoutmaster could. Still, I think it comes down almost entirely as to what he says about "my troop" and how he acts the rest of the time. The phrase alone indicates nothing, since it is used by so many people in so many ways.

fgoodwin, I have no particular special insight into the influences of groups at the national level. I do know that it is common for people to discuss certain policies as being dictated by some of the largest sponsors, with LDS having a prominent role in this. I don't know how you would measure influence, but here are a few things I observe. Number of sponsored units: LDS: 37,146 Methodist: 11,499 Catholic: 9,265 Only one group has a week at Philmont devoted to units from that organization. As I understand it, only one of these groups uses Scouting as their primary youth program. These are again my assumptions, based on what I've seen, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: The great majority of youth in LDS units are LDS youth. I expect this percentage is substantially higher than that for Methodists in Methodist units. I also believe that if a Methodist church were to decide to stop sponsoring a troop, the troop could fairly easily move elsewhere. I don't have the impression that is true for an LDS troop. For all of these reasons, it is my perception that the LDS would get more attention paid to the policies it is pushing. And in one sense, there is certainly nothing wrong with that - that's how democracies in general work. But in another sense, diverse organizations like the BSA are well-served not to have any one group be perceived as having an outsized voice in the proceedings. It's going to be difficult to "prove" any one group has too much influence. But the perception is definitely out there. You see it referenced frequently. I did a quick web search and found a few examples. From the Unitarian web site: The Mormon influence, especially, is pervasive From www.troop97.net: My prediction: coed Cub Scouting and coed Boy Scouting will not happen in American Scouting before 2020, and probably not for many years beyond that (if ever). This is partly because the US tends to be more conservative than most other western countries, and it is certainly partly due to opposition from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS or Mormon church), whose church-run units represent about one-fifth of BSA membership, giving them a powerful influence on BSA programs and policies. From dailykos: The structure is complex and deliberately obscure but it allows a few groups chartering units (sponsoring Troops) to have a disproportionate influence. LDS (the Mormon Church) has had an increasingly large presence in BSA From msnbc: The Boy Scouts are the official boys youth group of the LDS, and more than one in nine Scouts are Mormons. Critics say the church exerts disproportionate influence through membership on the national advisory council and vigorous fund-raising. From portlandphoenix.com: Why do the Boy Scouts make such a big deal about gays when the Girl Scouts don't? The boys rely on donations from the Mormon Church while the girls sell cookies. It appears to be widely believed that the LDS church is largely responsible for reinforcing the BSA's ban on homosexuals. This quote, for example, was attributed to the Salt Lake Tribune: If the Boy Scouts of America is forced to accept gays as scoutmasters, the LDS Church will withdraw from the organization and take more than 400,000 Scouts with it. I had not been intending to make any kind of controversial statement by saying that LDS had the largest voice. I'm not really "concerned" about it. But I do believe that such influence might prevent the BSA from adapting new policies - and it certainly has prevented other organizations with more gay-friendly policies (e.g. Reform Jewish, Unitarian) from creating troops that are in alignment with their own religious beliefs.

I can't speak for OGE, but I know how I interpreted his question. All the individual Mormons are great. But it's not entirely healthy for the BSA to have any one particular large national body have an out-sized voice in setting policy for the organization.

Our pack uses Packmaster and it's great. Our troop likewise uses Troopmaster, as do most all of the troops around here. You don't need a CD - you can just download the program off the web. Troopmaster is also testing out a pure web-based version. We use the .net version in the troop, and the pack is going to start doing that too. Very convenient.

Yuck. It's hard to even parse that statement to figure out what it means, and unless you are paying particularly close attention to things, there's just no practical change from the existing definition. Can anyone point to an official source for this? Google can't find it on scouting.org.

JoeBob asks: Does anybody know what it is in the HTML that triggers the generation of another page for the forum? Is it the number of posts? Can 25 short bump posts get us to 35? Or is it the length of the page itself? Will we have to read odious soliloquies (I hate myself!) and odorous narcissims (but I like my smell!)? Neither length nor odiousness nor odorousness nor HTML of odd formation stays this forum from the swift addition of an appointed post to the existing page. The only thing that forces a new page appears to be the number of posts. Fifteen posts per page.

Clerk said they were for those who belong to a unit founded during the Centennial Year. Ok, I'm not a clerk at a Scout shop, but this just doesn't sound right to me. If you are listed as a "Founder", I'd think it would mean that you were one of the founding members of the troop. If it said "Founded 2010" or something, then it could mean what the clerk said, but as it is, that just doesn't make any sense to me. I do like the idea of having a whole set of strips "Founded 2000", "Founded 2001", etc. Simpler than the five year increments.

Our default option is to have the religious organization present the medal, and the Cub Scout gets the knot at a pack meeting. Snow_White - yes, yuck, I don't want parents entering advancement themselves. They so often don't understand what they are checking off. I did have families that would submit their son for a religious award manually through the den leader, and the den leader was unsure if he should question them. I had no such qualms...and since the people in question generally had little clue about advancement, I was pretty confident they had not tracked down some obscure religous workbook ("obscure" meaning that our Scout shop didn't carry it) and completed it. And indeed, they had not. I don't think a den leader needs to track any of the sub-requirements. Just track it as done when the parents accurately report it as complete.

Yeah, NJCubScouter, I probably could have chosen a different more accurate phrase, but I was using the term "political correctness" in the way that the right wing tends to use it as shorthand for a whole bunch of things. In this case, I'm thinking it was meaning "let's not offend or hurt anyone", and since the BSA holds some positions that might offend people, and does activities that might get people hurt, we should shut them down. Mentioning God in the Pledge of Allegiance might offend people, so it's PC to remove that from the pledge. At one point they say "Others found what you were doing to be offensive." Putting up a flag is apparently offensive, so you're not supposed to do that. But the film is certainly attacking other things that aren't really what would normally seem to be "political correctness" insofar as the surface definition would lead you to categorize that way (although some people now seem to mean "socialism, big government, environmentalism, and Democrats" when they use the term.) The trailer also appeared to attack the idea of putting all your hopes on one person ("worship" of the President), government censorship / thought control in schools, loss of justice (sounds like they replaced "justice" with "support" in the pledge?), other trappings of a rising dictatorship ("Citizen's Task Force"), probably gun control, etc. They mention shutting down the camp due to "loss of sponsors" (a reference to United Way). The Border Patrol also appears to be anti-Arabic - I'm not sure what to make of that. They are definitely using real uniforms, and I agree, the hero likes to wear the old style uniform. Makes him more cool in the film, and also makes him stand out (the opposite of one of the goals of uniforming, ironically). I like the Second Class badge, although it does make you wonder about the title of the movie. I guess he could be 16.5 and still get Eagle, but I doubt the movie plays out over a year and a half. In fact, by the end of the trailer, when they come to get "the last Eagle Scout", he's still wearing the Second Class badge. Maybe he's just wearing his dad's old uniform. The actor, at any rate, is 21 years old, if I can trust the various web links. According to the web site, "Yes, its a dramedy...And that's OK!" So maybe we shouldn't make too much out of it. The Scouting snippets they showed did strike me as fairly reasonable - not overly cartoonish. Looks like a low budget movie - but could be fun to watch. I'm now really wondering if they got permission from the BSA, or if they are going to get a "cease and desist" letter.

Actually, from what I saw, the author seemed to have issues with the political correctness of society. The Scout was just a victim of this who was fighting back. The uniforms looked pretty real. Think this was made with the permission of the BSA?

trainerlady, We've hashed through a lot of this recently. You can see some of my feelings/reasoning on this thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=259258&p=1 so I don't want to re-do all of it here, but I'll comment on your points. And let me re-iterate, I have nothing against those who want to encourage the full uniform. I've contemplated doing so myself, and I always wear the full uniform. But I don't think your analogies are really accurate. You write: The BSA is a uniformed organization! No argument on that. Not sometimes, not when it's convenient, not just from the waist up. Well, as Bill Clinton said, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If you look at a Scout troop on a camping trip, you can see that the BSA is not always uniformed. So it is indeed 'sometimes' uniformed. If you mean that National always states that the uniform is not just from the waist up, then yes, that's what they state. But if you look at a Scout camp, you can see that the great majority of troops (around here, anyway) are indeed uniformed from the waist up. You may not like it, but that is how it actually is. Football players wear it all, so do baseball, hockey and soccer players. Ever seen half dressed football player? IF you don't dress you don't play. This is only true for games. The majority of the time they spend on a team, players are practicing, and they don't wear the uniforms then (typically). The uniform has a primary use on sports teams, which is to tell one team from another, and to display an individual number so that referees can identify particular players. That primary use does not exist in Scouts. Also, BSA has lots of opportunities to enforce that policy if they wanted to, and they don't. They could say "You can't come to summer camp without a full uniform", or "you can't have a BoR without a full uniform", but they don't. Why should a troop enforce things that National doesn't? Let's take it a step further ever seen a half dressed McDonald's employee, a half dressed nurse, firefighter or EMT? IF your job says you wear this, that and the other thing for a uniform you wear it or you're fired. That's true. But these are different from Scouts in lots of ways. First, these people are getting paid by the organization, rather than paying the organization. Second, BSA specifically says that you can't get fired from BSA for not wearing the uniform. Third, one of the primary reasons that these people wear the uniform is so that the public can identify them, but that would not be true for Scouts at a troop meeting or a camping trip. One thing they do have in common is that the organization prefers to have sharp, full uniforms as a way of building their brand identity. And BSA does this, too. You can't be on Boys Life in a half-uniform. You can't go to jamboree in a half-uniform. But the rest of the time, National doesn't seem to care much. In fact, you personally appear to care much more than they do. What's wrong with instilling this in our youth? Not every worker that wears a uniform gets it paid for by their employer. Most don't get that luxury/perk. Nothing's necessarily wrong with instilling this in our youth. But BSA as a whole does not do so. If you aren't using this method how many more are you sidestepping, glossing over or forgetting? Sigh, I hate this argument. I'm emphasizing the methods that I find most important to achieve the aims for my troop. Just as others do. State the expectations, make them well known, and follow through on the expectations. I agree, this is how to make it happen. But right now, those are not my expectations, and regardless of what BSA puts in print, in practice they don't expect fully uniformed Scouts either. You will ultimately be a stronger unit and have better members for it. I remain unconvinced of this point. Our unit has experienced excellent growth and excellent retention, and I find it unlikely that we would be doing "better" as a unit if we required/expected the full uniform, and I'm really dubious about the claim that we would have "better" members. But it is easy to throw anecdotes out on both sides. I just don't care enough about the issue to enforce things that National and my council don't bother to enforce.

As long as you've made it possible for all Scouts to have the full uniform, I don't really have an issue with requiring the full uniform for a BoR, especially if you have it written in your by-laws. I think it would be much better if the SM actually wore the full uniform. evry, I think you realize that inserting yourself didn't seem to help the situation, but I know sometimes it can be hard to resist. :-) If you were really worried about trying to fit the letter of the law, then maybe you could say, "we will schedule a BoR for the Scout when he appears in full uniform" (presuming, again, that they all have uniforms). In my troop, hardly any of the Scouts wear the uniform pants regularly and we don't require it for a BoR, so that's not an issue, but I don't recall that we've ever done a BoR for a Scout who wasn't wearing the uniform shirt. At the same time, I can't remember denying any Scout a Bor for that reason either. It's not good to spring a surprise on a Scout, though. If the troop requires pants for a BoR, it should be communicated fairly regularly so that everyone knows the rule. Our district does Eagle BoRs this way (well, it's either full uniform, or no uniform).

Hadn't used it for awhile. Just sent one to NE-IV-88-Beaver.

oldsm, you can find the answer to your question already. :-) Just narrow the browser. You can see it do the default behavior - not surprisingly, since it would be unlikely to write code for the special case of this unusual situation. It just wraps. I'm with Beavah. Why close the thread? Until it gets so big that you can only post with a particularly high-speed internet connection (without getting an http timeout), I'd say that just because a thread is big is no reason to close it.