Oak Tree

I read this thread hoping to learn how to have more fun, but sigh, all I get is a good fund-raising idea. Ah well...

vol_scouter - good catch. I know what I was thinking - that all of the times that voters have struck down a gay marriage law, they were overturning a court or a legislature, never reversing themselves. That, in fact, is true, but as you point out, that's because voters have not explicitly approved gay marriage in any state yet. So that may not be the strongest point for me to make :-) Voters in Washington did approve an "all-but-marriage" law, which grants all the rights of marriage except for the use of the word "marriage". I'll stick to my point, though, that once gay marriage is around for awhile and people see it doesn't affect them, I think they'll start to accept it as a fact of life. In California, a poll showed majority support among those under 50 years of age, with 68 percent of 18 to 29 year olds supporting it. Among those 65 or older, support drops to 36 percent [wikipedia]. With support like that, is there any doubt that voters will approve it eventually? I actually think that the reason it didn't pass last time around in California was because California changed the marriage license form to "Party A" and "Party B" and refused to accept it when a hetero couple wrote in "Bride" and "Groom" (can't alter state forms, you know.) So in this case, gay marriage actually did hurt straight marriage, just a little, but it was enough to make people angry.

HiLo - there are some self-chartered units in the US. Well, typically the charter goes to "Friends of Troop XXX", or something. Finding a meeting place might be an issue. In our case, I think it's possible that our church could ask not to be our chartered organization, but would let us continue to meet at the church. That would almost certainly be the case if the policy was that the troop was not allowed to discriminate on that basis. Eamonn - I don't think the fussin' and-a fightin' is going to end anytime soon. I agree with you that it wouldn't be a big deal, practically speaking, for those of us who are on the ground running the units. In fact, if the Supreme Court had agreed that the BSA was indeed a "place of public accomodation" and required them to accept homosexual leaders, I think it would be a moot point by now. People would have realized it wasn't a big deal. But because of the Court's ruling, any change in policy now has to come from the BSA, not from an external force. And because it has to come internally, you start to see some of the same debate that you see in the various churches. Pretty powerful argument. I agree with others that I'm not sure what the LDS or RC churches would be arguing about, in the case of a local option. That just means that homosexuality would be considered the same way as everything else that the churches believe is inappropriate. Is homosexuality really somehow worse (in their eyes) than all the other possible things that could have rules? Maybe the BSA could start by giving a couple of councils the option. Maybe give the option to San Francisco and Iowa (gay marriage is now legal in Iowa but not San Francisco - how odd). Let them give the local option to their units. See what happens. I think that once it happens, the argument will die away. Is there any state that has voted in gay marriage and then voted it out again? People don't like to be forced to accept something, so they've overturned decisions of the courts or legislatures, but once the people vote it in, I think it's a done deal. People will realize it doesn't affect them much at all, and will decide to live and let live. But that still seems like it's a ways off for the BSA. Nevertheless, you'd hope that these discussions are going on between the BSA and some of the sponsors.

We've always done ours as an Eagle CoH. It makes it easier for the family to schedule grandparents or whomever. I do like the idea of doing it outdoors - we've had one done that way. When you only have one or two per year, it works out pretty well to have them as special events. I'm not sure what I'll do next year if we end up having ten of them - that would be a lot of extra CoHs for the whole troop to attend. I'm guessing that some of them will choose to combine theirs.

BSA says a den chief"Is an older Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or Venturer." First Class is a common requirement for many troops, but it is not a national requirement. I've seen den chief training courses where they listed the pre-req of being First Class. Some people may believe it's a national requirement, but it is not.

kittle, Good for your Scoutmaster. It's naturally difficult to deal with all of the volunteer leaders in a troop, and not all volunteers will get the training (or have it take), but unit leaders typically don't have enough volunteers in the first place, so they have to work with those they've got. Sounds like this all got straightened out appropriately. ---- acco40 writes The den chief is selected by the Sr. Patrol Leader and the Scoutmaster (assuming they came from a troop) at the request of a Cubmaster. This is indeed the official story, but it's even more complicated than that. After the SPL and the SM select him, then he is "approved by the Cubmaster and pack committee for recommendation to the den leader." And presumably he has to be approved by the den leader as well. In the Scoutmaster Handbook a den chief is shown as reporting indirectly to the SM, through the ASM for the new-Scout patrol. Approved by the pack committee? How unwieldy can we make this process? In our units, it usually works where the Scout asks the SM about it (the SPL typically has no concern about who the den chiefs are). The SM checks with the parents, then the CM and DL. It has been almost universally true for our den chiefs that they have had younger brothers in the pack, but we typically do not approve them to be the den chief for their younger brother's den, especially if they are at all close in age. Sometimes if they are 5 or 6 years apart, the younger brother will really look up to the older brother, and it can work ok.

There even was a patch for Musician, from 1938 to 1951 There still is a patch for musician. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/06C.aspx

We pretty much do as SSScout does. Generally the Scouts point out the signs to an adult who is hiking with them. This can be done effectively on pretty much any camping activity. Also, we only allow the animals that are listed in the requirement.

Eagle92, No problem. I agree the Scout should ask first. I was presuming that it looked like that route was going to be unsuccessful, and I never really want to put a Scout in a position that is going to rapidly deteriorate with an adult. But absolutely, have the Scout ask. Scouts generally don't know all the nuances of the rules, though, so my experience is that they can be steam-rolled by adults pretty effectively. And I'm fully with you on how frustrating some adults can be in their "interpretations of" or additions to the rules.

kittle, As everyone else has posted, there are no such requirements (workbook or Webelos den). I would probably take a more friendly approach - first you'd want to identify who you need to talk to. If the advancement chair feels like he can overrule the board of review, you probably want to talk to the committee chair. I'd start by asking the AC a few questions. 1) Where does it say that? 2) What workbook are you talking about? How would my son have known about it? 3) Do you have the authority to overrule a board of review? I thought their word was final. And then I'd ask the committee chairman those same questions, maybe phrased as 1) Why does the AC think my son needs to be DC for a Webelos den and use a workbook? 2) Why does the AC think he can overrule a board of review? 3) Why does the AC think he can overrule the SM on questions of who served in which position? Then you can always go on to district or council (or possibly your COR or IH although they wouldn't be appropriate in most troops). And you can fall back on some of the standard Scouting rules that are pretty easy to find: you can't add to the requirements, and you can't take away a rank once earned. Now, do other troops have rules like this? A Scoutmaster could decide, I guess, that he was only going to approve Scouts to serve as den chiefs for Webelos dens. And he could also say that some of the expectations of the position would be that the Scout must do X, Y, and Z while serving(a reasonable requirement might be: attend den meetings, a less reasonable one may be to work toward the den chief service award by filling out some workbook). If the Scout didn't fulfill the requirements, the Scoutmaster could remove him from the position. According to the rules, though, if the Scoutmaster appointed him as a den chief, and he didn't remove him, then the time has to count. I'm not aware of any troops that have rules like what you describe. Some set a minimum age and/or rank for a Scout to be a den chief, but that's all I know of. I'm sure that some do a periodic check to make sure the boy is actively serving. I've occasionally had boys that I didn't think were ready to be den chiefs, so I didn't appoint them, but that's nothing like what you're describing. National has gone back on forth on whether Tiger dens can have den chiefs. One year they're not included, the next year they are, then they aren't again, then they are again. The current den chief training talks about Tiger dens, so I guess they're in. That means that any den can have a den chief, and any such role would count for advancement.

comics.com is a reputable site. It has over 90 standard comic strips syndicated on it. My software didn't report any issues, which isn't to say that there aren't any, but other than the fact that there are lots of ads on the page, I didn't see anything that looked to be too disreputable. It's a pretty normal place to link to.

Can yeh imagine the response of da parents of a scout so approached by a gay fellow scout? Well, yep. Heck, just reading through this thread gives a pretty good sense of it. I probably phrased my question in an overly rhetorical fashion when I asked, "How would this be any different if the BSA were to officially acknowledge the existence of gay Scouts and say the BSA wouldn't generally kick them out?" I meant this more in the practical sense of running a troop. If you have a Scout today who is trying to seduce other Scouts, you kick him out. Same would be true after the change. No difference. In terms of people's reactions, though, there would clearly be a large difference, as you say. The BSA is not yet ready to make that change. It would need to prepare its membership for quite awhile in advance, and would have to figure out how to make the transition with its COs. I believe both the members and the COs would vote against such a change today. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that the BSA will either 1) eventually need to make that transition, or 2) accept a shrinking membership and shrinking CO base as its units become almost exclusively sponsored by conservative religious congregations.

Brent - I read Troop24 to be saying that a person cannot control their desires - that is, who they are attracted to. However, they can control their urges - the impulse to act on that desire. I'm presuming that most married men (other than Tiger Woods, say), would agree that they are not able to really control to whom they are attracted, but they can control whether or not they act on it.

Maybe National should come out with an active-wear shirt that's a lot less "dorky" and we can reserve the Class A uniform for courts of honor and other public events. Which maybe is what's happening anyway. On the behavior of adults, that's a tough thing to change by just decreeing something. It seems like what we're really asking for here is for the adults to treat the kids age-appropriately. What national change could you make that would stop adults from creating a game involving Vaseline and cotton balls? Some of that gets very much to the way the whole entire program is set up. It varies so much from unit to unit.

Everything that OneHour, Eagle92, and moxieman said, of course, since they apply to all units, pretty much. For my specific unit - one thing I'd love to have is an adult archivist to work with our troop historian and organize all of the various scrapbooks and pictures, produce a timeline for the troop, create an Eagle plaque that lists all of our Eagles, etc.

Troop24, Balance and moderation and good judgement. Balance and moderation and good judgement. There's always the question of whose judgement is more correct, but I don't think you can go 100% to the self-control side, without doing anything to address the system that creates the situation. Some of the rules we have are explicitly set up to reduce temptation. Not letting boys and girls share a tent. Not letting them shower together. I agree that we expect people to behave properly in all situations, but that doesn't mean you want to set up situations that are ripe for things to go wrong. Of course people can control their sexual urges. But not all of them do, not all of the time. Hence we have school dress codes, and lots of other rules. When setting up such rules, the rulemakers need to evaluate and weigh what is the probability of the event, what is the seriousness of the event, how effective the rule will be at reducing the likelihood of the event, what are the impacts of the restrictions, and how likely it is that people will follow the rule. Based on his personal experience, GHB appears to view such events as relatively more likely. Lisa argues much less so. Calico focuses on the impact that such societal rules have (i.e., the continued ostracism of gays makes people suicidal). But I don't think we necessarily want to throw out all rules and just rely on people's judgement entirely. Are you really advocating that all Scouters should be able to sleep with a beautiful woman sharing their tent? Actually, now that you mention it, that doesn't sound all bad...

Calico, Let me also add my thanks for your service. I'm sure it can take an emotional toll over the years, constantly dealing with people who despair of ever having joy in their life again. And more than that, I'd fear constantly being angry at how awful some people treat one another if I had that job. Kudos to you. The more I think about it, the more I agree that there would not need to be any (or any significant) changes in the youth protection rules. We know there are already gay Scouts out there. As Calico says, there are even a handful who have had a sexual experience on a Scout outing. How would this be any different if the BSA were too officially acknowledge the existence of gay Scouts and say the BSA wouldn't generally kick them out? Exactly the same rules would apply both before and after. Anyone caught doing sexual experimentation would be in trouble under the current rules and under the new rules. As an aside, is it actually written anywhere that Scouts must avoid any/all sexual activity while on Scout trips? LisaBob wrote sexual behavior of ANY KIND is unacceptable on scout outings and I think everyone on the thread has pretty much been presuming that is true - but I don't recall ever seeing such a statement. If we've gotten by without such an easily-findable printed statement thus far, it's not obvious to me why things would have to change. Still, if in some alternate universe I were to actually find myself with a gay youth couple on a camping trip, I don't think I'd let them tent together any more than I'd allow a straight youth couple to tent together. But between the probabilities being so low, the position of the BSA, and the position of my chartered org, I'm not thinking that's likely any time soon.

Lisa, All your points match my experience as well. It is not something that I would worry about either. Thus from a practical perspective of running a troop, I don't think it would be an issue, so the discussion serves as an academic exercise in that respect. While the probability is quite low, though, I'd guess it would still come up somewhere. More than that, though, I think it would likely need to be addressed to deal with all the possible objections coming from COs/parents/volunteers. Not just for gay Scouts, but for gay Scouters as well. So I'll grant you the probability is quite low. But that still doesn't address the theoretical difference in the situations. It also doesn't really deal with the shower situation, either. Just as 10 girls would probably be pretty uncomfortable having one guy showering with them in the same shower room, many teenaged boys would be likewise uncomfortable showering with a gay guy, even if there was only one. I'll add a couple of points on your side of the argument, though. Females tend to be smaller and less strong than males, have been discriminated against historically, and generally feel more vulnerable than males. Those facts are not true, in general, about straight males when compared with gays. One other difference is that girls can get pregnant, but boys cannot.

Gern, your post immediately followed mine, so was it intended to be in response? So having and using a one man tent is the same as promoting the homosexual agenda. God I love this place! I'm certainly not saying that and would disagree with it whole-heartedly. I think we're moving to one-man tents and showers because of an increasing sense of privacy. Over time I've seen various showers converted from room-wide showers to versions with increased privacy. I think adults like to sleep in their own tents, and some boys sure do, too. I have a one-man tent and I'm only trying to promote my own comfort.

One-man tents are certainly acceptable in our troop. But they aren't mandated. I think the objection would be to mandating them. One-person tents, one-person restrooms, one-person showers - that would pretty much solve any of the youth protection concerns that have been presented. And I do see that we are generally heading in that direction in a lot of places. I am still curious, though - for those who support the acceptance of gays into troops, and who don't think any changes are necessary in the youth protection rules - why would you say it would be ok for two gay kids to sleep together in a tent, but not for a boy and a girl to sleep together in a tent?

I've dealt with car breakdowns on a couple of trips. I do think that a caravan would be convenient for those cases. I wouldn't have all the Scouts stop right there on the side of the road with me (I agree that's unsafe), but instead have them pull off at the next gas station or something, and send a car or two back for me and the Scouts in my car. It's much more convenient to try to arrange for a tow-truck, or to pick up a rental car, or to split the Scouts up among the others cars, if there are some other cars handy. In practice, even though we don't caravan, this hasn't been a big problem at the time of the breakdowns. As long as cell phones work (admittedly, not always), you can just call another car or two and have them find you. Plus, oftentimes, even though we aren't caravaning, we often end up hanging around the same general vicinity of roadway as the other drivers. If it weren't for cell phones, though, I think this might be a much stronger argument for using a caravan, or of having some way of knowing if the last car is going to make it.

I would be interested in some of the following things: - what has he or she done in previous jobs, or what does he or she plan to do, to strengthen and support existing units? - what is the candidate's position on transparency and communication with the membership? What can he or she point to that supports the claims? - what evidence is there that a candidate shows good judgement and good interpersonal relationship skills? I'd want someone who had low staff turnover and relatively few controversies in their past. I'd also want evidence that the candidate knows how to manage a budget. - I would not need for the candidate to be a long-time BSA employee, but they do need some familiarity with the program. - I'd want them to have ideas on how they could make things better. Not just keep things running well, but actually improve them. How would they go about identifying the biggest inhibitors to Scouting in the council? How would they approach fixing those issues? I'd probably ask a variety of hypothetical questions just to see how they would deal with various issues. * Suppose a council is running a deficit. What steps might you take to reign in expenses? * Likewise, what steps might you take to increase revenue? * What would you do to get more Scouts to attend summer camp? * How would you make a decision about whether to sell council property, or decide whether to make more capital investment in a camp? * How might you apply technology to the council's operation to improve organization and efficiency? I'd want someone who is an effective communicator, who can inspire others, who can get the local well-to-do to contribute to Scouting. The ideal candidate should be comfortable moving in lots of different circles.

Scouting is perceived as nerdy in Follow Me, Boys. The movie was released in 1966 but set in the 1930s. Whitey doesn't want to join the troop because of that stereotype.

So after reading all the responses on the thread, I'm trying to summarize what I've learned... - any change would absolutely have to be a local option - there may or may not have to be any change in the youth protection rules (well, there obviously wouldn't *need* to be any changes, but some might be wanted by different people for various reasons.) - any change would have to deal with a potential backlash and loss of members among certain groups. And one more thing I learned - OGE still keeps perspective. Even though it wasn't on this thread, it was on this topic. being only able to speak about things from my own experience and where I live, if a scout was seen kissing his boyfriend at the football game, or any place else, having me see them would be the absolute least thing they would have to worry about. I just laughed out loud when I read this. It rings true to me, and it's a reminder than BSA is not about to be taken over by some tremendous influx of gays. I still think the change is coming - today's youth are much more tolerant than their elders - but the BSA is walking a fine line between alienating its core supporters or alienating more and more potential members.

Sounds great to me. The CM or his delegate could play it up, do his best Howie imitation (or Richard Dawson or Alex Trebek or whoever). Your CM certainly sounds a bit set in his way. How do you ever do fun new stuff if you never do anything you haven't done before? You could offer to do this game show skit for him, if he doesn't want to do it. Our pack often has den leaders leading a game of some sort. Would the parents go for it? Of course the parents would go for it. But you can't act tentatively and ask them if anyone wants to come up. You just call out their names, "Mr. Steve Bazoma, come onnnnn doooowwwwwnnnnn!!!" If you want, you could discuss it with a few parents ahead of time. Too much work!?! Other than coming up with a list of questions, it doesn't sound too bad. Yes, there's a little bit of work. It usually takes a little bit of work to have fun at a pack meeting. You'd want to try to pick questions that the Cub Scouts would likely know, but that the parents may not. It can be a little bit tricky to figure those out. Test it out with your own son. See what all he knows. You might even be able to make him a ringer up there. It's good for kids to see their parents having fun, being goofy, able to make mistakes. Sounds like a great time to me.