Oak Tree

The official answer is that the CO can change the CC. The head of the CO would have the ultimate power to do this. But I think you should go with Stosh's answer first. You need to get to a common vision for the troop. If the CC and SM have a vision and are happy with it, it's going to be tough to change. How many parents are unhappy? Getting them all to talk about what they hope for in a troop might get some good response from the CC/SM. Or it may not. But unless someone has a good relationship with the head of the CO, I don't think he or she would be likely to take program complaints as a good reason to fire the SM.

I think it's an interesting topic. Most overweight people are already *very* aware that they are overweight. Certainly they already have a lot of motivation to be thinner. It's not clear that there's too much that the Scout program can do to effectively increase that motivation (although an upcoming trek can certainly be a help). But I do agree that there are a lot of overweight Scouters in our area. I don't know how it compares to the overall population - there are a lot of overweight people there, too. And perhaps the Scout uniform has something about it that doesn't flatter the overweight. I do think it's an interesting idea that Scouts would try to focus on the healthy aspects of food, though. I agree that a lot of the time, we focus on eating well, more so than eating healthy. Would changing the focus help? I don't know. There's a lot of evidence that not much helps. People are getting fatter everywhere, despite a huge range of diet aids and the fact that most people are trying to lose weight. But it does seem like it would be a good symbolic idea to get out the message that we should do what we can to eat healthier.

Here's what I hear most of the McCain critics say that indicates how he's liberal: - he opposed the Bush tax cuts - he initiated McCain-Feingold (seen as a limitation on free speech) - he was part of the gang of 14 that supported the idea of allowing a minority to block confirmation votes - he supports "amnesty" for illegal immigrants - he refuses to support an amendment to ban gay marriage - he supports stem cell research - he wants to be aggressive about taking on global warming - he considered being the running mate for John Kerry On these issues I think he is definitely more liberal than the conservative wing of the Republican party. But he certainly seems more authentic that Mitt Romney.

I think the most persuasive reasoning is that it says so on the application form. http://www.scouting.org/forms/34169/51.pdf "Dates of service used to earn this award cannot be used to earn another key or award." You can see more discussion of this topic at http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=147833 and http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=150588#id_152217

I think these are the requirements that you're looking for: http://usscouts.org/usscouts/mb/Old/mb001.asp

I subscribe to Backpacker and I find their reviews to be very worthwhile. They do way more testing than some other magazines like Outside, for example. I have their gear guides going back several years, and I find it very helpful for seeing what's all available. I've made a number of gear decisions based on their data, and I've been very happy with them. They do review the higher end stuff, but they also include Kelty and Eureka and other cheaper models in their very extensive listings of equipment. The things that Backpacker lists as "Bargain!" are often about what is appropriate for Scouts, in my experience. I still find it hard to believe that there is a $450 rain jacket.

Varsity teams are not restricted to sports. In fact, the teams I've seen have all been high adventure, so they really have nothing to do with sports. There's very little difference between what a team can do and what a crew can do.

There are no official wait times, as you know. Our troop has sometimes done two BoRs in one night for a Scout, one time we just combined the BoRs, and sometimes we've made the Scout wait a week or two for the next scheduled BoR. As to whether it's permissible - I'd say it's questionable. The committee is within its rights to schedule BoRs. The Scoutmaster Handbook does mention quarterly BoRs, so it would be ok to have a wait of up to three months in that case. But to delay the scheduling solely based on a desire to delay the Scout - that doesn't seem quite kosher. If they are doing BoRs once a month, then they should allow these Scouts, at a minimum, to earn a rank each month.

Our district does have the restriction that you don't sit on EBoRs for your own unit. There are always plenty of volunteers, and it avoids any appearance of favoritism.

You can also order them mail order from the Scout catalog. I think it's actually units of 12. Normally a unit will order enough for the whole unit, and then will just give or sell one to each member and then to each new member going forward. We once ordered a whole bunch of patches from our Scout store. Our unit number is XYY. The store made a typo on the order form and got XXY instead. We actually have a unit XXY in our district, and the last I heard, the store was going to contact that unit and see if they could unload all the erroneous patches on them.

There are no minimum age or rank requirements for being a den chief. As FScouter suggests, if you ask for documentation, you'll find that there is none that specifically states a rank or age. The BSA national site does say that a den chief is an "Older Boy Scout", but that would seem to be subjective.

I would allow it in our troop, although no patrol has approached me about it. And I haven't really pushed them to do it. I suspect I might have an ASM or two who would argue against it from a safety perspective, but I've got enough faith in the boys that they could go ahead. It would depend a little bit on which patrol it was and which boys were planning on going, and I'd make sure the parents were ok with it. And I'd want to review their plan for the weekend, just to confirm it wasn't involving any high-risk activities. I've observed that boys don't always make the best risk assessments when considering their own capabilities :-)

Ok, I'll try to make this clearer. I think that the use of old program materials in today's program can be fine. I do not think it damages the BSA. I think there is a lot to learn from in all of the old material. I like Kudu's posts (well, most of them, anyway). Some of the old program may be outdated (I don't think I'll have my wolves practice boxing), but some of it is great. FScouter - is that on-topic enough for you? I'm starting to find your moderation in favor of Bob White to border on being over-the-top.

Ok, Bob, I'll take a shot at explaining how I interpreted your statements. Your statement implies that the 12,000 hypothetical adults who are not following the program are doing damage. Some of those people who are not following the program might be using an older version of the program that has been superceded by new materials. Some might be using a version more similar to something from another country. But your blanket statement suggests that generally "not following the program" does damage. I'll also say that I think that it's a far greater percentage than 1% who don't follow the program. When I attend summer camp, way more than 1% of the troops wear a shirts-only uniform. When I attend Roundtable, far more than 1% of the attendees appear to be uniform libertines. When I talk with leaders about how they are implementing the program, they almost all indicate some use of judgement. It's much smaller than 99% who indicate that they always go 'by the book'. The idea that all of these volunteers (1% in your example - probably more like 80-90% in my experience) who are using their judgement are somehow "doing damage" seems a bit far-fetched to me. The BSA has designed its program to run this way and seems to actively support and encourage units that do so. And yes, Bob, I realize you didn't say these volunteers were doing damage. You just asked us to imagine the damage they were doing. I'm probably just leaping to conclusions when I assume you mean to imply that they are doing some non-zero amount of damage. :-)

Gold Winger, out of all that Pappy's posted, that's the item that caught your attention? Wow. And I'm not sure where you got the idea that Pappy is a stickler for this type of rule. He does, after all, run a self-proclaimed rogue unit that doesn't exactly precisely follow the BSA guidelines. I'd say that Pappy, like many of us, uses his judgement about when to apply which rules. This half-staff usage seems like a fine use of judgement to me. (And actually, the state governors can also legally order the flag to half-staff in their own state.)

How would it benefit the BSA? Better service for the units. Happier units, more retention. Who knows? Less cost of providing service. Better record-keeping. There was an argument that Barnes & Noble shouldn't open an internet store, because it would just cannibalize the sales at their existing brick and mortar stores. Clearly, that argument didn't win the day. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that their internet store has been a success and isn't going to be closed down anytime soon. They've even integrated the two units - you can order stuff on-line and pick it up at the store. I realize the BSA model isn't exactly the same. I haven't done an MBA market analysis study on the topic. I'm just saying, that off the top of my head, this sounds like a reasonable exercise and an interesting experiment.

Typically the answer would be yes, you should be fine at a council sponsored event. You can presumably ask directly to the person that you're signing up with - or someone at council who's in charge of the event. I'll bet that they'll tell you it's fine.

FScouter, your final comments about having each poster be their own best moderator are good thoughts. On your earlier point, I would suggest that there are indeed reasons beyond morbid curiosity that would apply to having moderators sign and explain their actions. First of all, it lets others in the community see what's going on. It removes the feeling of having a 'secret police' force that operates in darkness. It can also prevent abuse of power by moderators (not that I'm implying any is going on here) because they need to think carefully about using their authority. It also provides some background for the community. What is happening on this thread? What types of posts are being deleted so that I know not to post them? Does one moderator in particular seem sensitive to a certain point of view, or are all the moderators pretty much in total agreement that I'm behaving wildly inappropriately? And finally, I'll have to say that I also find the standards are not equally applied. At least in my mind, there are certain types of posts that I find inappropriate (some, as Beavah said - bizarre and deliberate; others just insulting) and they stay on the forum. Clearly it's a tough job to be a moderator and have to figure out where the censorship line is drawn. But because it's important and it matters to the community, it's very helpful to have it discussed openly.

I think that was the right thing to do. OGE, we all have other lives (at least theoretically) in the real world, so I understand if you don't have time to use a surgeon's knife. Unfortunately, Google caches the content and it still pops up in a google search. Ah well - presumably it will fade over time. It is kind of weird to have all this meta-discussion of the plant thread when there is no plant thread to refer back to - but I do thank you, OGE, for this thread explaining your actions.

Actually, I like the idea. In the old days, stores had some geographic monopoly. If there wasn't an REI near you, you might have to make do with gear from Walmart. But since the internet came along, now you can buy from REI no matter where you are in the country. Maybe the same thing could work for councils. People could say that they are part of the "BSA.org" council. They submit all their advancement forms over the internet. Recharter on-line. Buy stuff from Scoutstuff.org (you'd need to enhance the current function to allow you to buy anything you can get at a council office). You could get all your FOS materials on-line or through the mail. Training could be done on-line - either self-paced or in a virtual classroom. Tour permits could be on-line. Now, there are a few things that are normally very geography-specific, and it's not clear how easy it would be to move all of those to an on-line model. - District and council events - Camporee - Klondike Derby - Recruitment days - OA Ordeal - Personal meetings of the DE with new units - Some checks and balances on units not getting completely out of control I think you'd still need to have local professionals - not so much the office help, because that can mostly be automated, but the professionals to run things that need to happen locally. And you'd end up missing out on some of the values of local knowledge and connections. And if you start to recreate some of the ways to make those things happen, then you are at least partially recreating the council. The part I struggle with the most in this new model is the question of why you would decide to pick BSA.org over your current council. Normally you choose based on better service or cheaper prices. But it costs nothing (officially) to be part of a council. And whatever on-line services you get from the internet council, you can probably get the same on-line services from your own council. I guess it would be this: you'd get a 1-800 number that you could call for help. There could be people there 24 hours a day. That service would certainly be an improvement over my current council office. Anyway, it would be an interesting experiment. Maybe National could sign up 100 packs and troops for the first internet council and see how it goes.

In the parent thread I described a Venturing Crew that operated as a subset of a troop. ScoutNut responded that this sounds more like a Venture patrol than a Venturing Crew, and that in his experience, was typically unsuccessful ("short shelf life"). Now, I can see how this crew wouldn't have as much identity as a stand-alone crew, but I'm not sure I see why it would be any less successful than a typical Venture patrol. What experiences does anyone else have? I know some units around here that have had their crews for a long time, associated with a troop. In fact, our district's biggest crew, I believe, is quite active but is entirely a subset of a troop. I also have talked with people who used a Varsity team for this purpose. I knew one CO that had all three units (troop, team, and crew), and had their boys triply registered. It seems to me that this crew or team that is a "Venture patrol on steroids" would have a few advantages over an ordinary Venture patrol. Primarily it would have more of a distinct identity. But I'm curious as to what other experiences are out there. P.S. Requested thread rule - you don't need to tell me what the BSA literature says. I already know that. There's a good overview of the basic differences here: http://usscouts.org/usscouts/advance/docs/VVVtable.asp

I think there are a number of ways that a Venture patrol could be formed. Certainly the Scoutmaster does have the authority to determine patrol membership, but he does not have to use it.

I'm guessing that Pack378 is referring to spoof adult leader knots. Like the "Order of the Fork" on this page: http://www.boyscoutstore.com/store/Scripts/prodList.asp?idcategory=82&curPage=2&sortField=description But I don't know where you'd get custom ones. I'd agree with FireKat that a local custom embroidery business would be the place I'd start.

ScoutNut, I think you may be wording it a bit strongly to say that "a Venturing Crew has nothing to do with a Boy Scout Troop." Around here, it's very common for a crew to operate almost as a subset of a troop. All the boys are dual-registered, as are the leaders. So there is a lot of overlap. I'd even venture (pun intended) a guess that some of the crews are indeed started by Scoutmasters. Now, as you say, the description of a pure Venturing crew does depict it as a stand-alone unit, not associated with a troop. But in practice that's just often not the case - and it seems a little much to jump on this particular statement by purpledragon.

The camp of my youth was very informal. They didn't run classes. They just had various stations, and you could go around and work on whatever merit badges you wanted to. So that would be the extreme version of what you're describing. At the other end are what I see in most camps these days - with a very structured environment that's decided well ahead of time. Should you worry? Well, will worrying help you take any action to fix anything? If not (and I don't really see how it could at this point), then I'd say not to worry. You're just going to have to go with the flow, whatever it happens to be. For now I'd go with your interpretation that they don't want to finalize their schedule until they know their staff. Sounds reasonable. And there should still be enough time to be flexible once you see the schedule. And I presume that you know what they offered last year. What was it about the camp that prompted the guys to pick this one?