OldEagle4Life

Secret DE, How about a case of an adult who gets falsely accused of something, say some form of child endangerment. It seems from these discussions the BSA's policy when it comes to these issues would be to act immediately and terminate a leader's membership. But since we've also had several forum members say the BSA is not an investigatory institution, would a leader falsely accused ever be allowed back into service with a unit if the BSA does not do followups on this information themselves. Since I assume that this kind of accusation would be reported to the authorities, would they communicate this information between each other over time, or would the organization lose a good leader for good because of someone trying to get back at someone else? OldEagle

A parent recently asked a question at our last troop comittee meeting that we were unable to answer so I thought I would put it here at the forums, since I think this would be a dodged question by our council execs. The question basically came down to this: There has been a lot of headline news over the country in the past few years of leaders being removed from thier positions of trust due to accusations and lawsuits over inappropriate behavior and actions both in and out of the scouting world. If a leader is removed from his/her position in scouting by the Council/Region/National due to an accusation of inappropriate conduct with youth, would that leader ever be allowed back in if no legal charges say were ever filed. Perhaps because there was no physical evidence of a crime or someone was falsely accused of a crime? This parent asked this question because there have been a few leaders in our regional area lately who have been accused, and all found guilty so far, of various crimes. She wanted to know what happens if a leader was not found guilty or prosecuted. Would they ever be allowed back in? Thanks Old Eagle

As a former Summer Camp Program Director, let me tell you, the Advancement Committe in our council, while they do "sign off" on summer camp councilors as MB councilors, they do not do ANYTHING in regards to quality control. In fact, when we wrote the letter for the Council Advancement chair to sign, authorizing our staff to be councilors (only the 18+ year olds mind you, since of course the under 18 year olds CANNOT be councilors, yet they are doing the majority of the supposed "teaching") he signed it no problem. Then I noticed names missing from the list, went back through, added them, said "oh here, mistake, sign this letter please" he just looked at me, smiled and signed away. There is no quality control at summer camps. Most summer camps are merit badge factories, there is absolutely NO denying that. I get disgusted when we have ratios of scouts and staff that is above 20:1, 30:1 or even 40:1 in some of our merit badge sessions. I had made it my goal to try and elimnate that from our camp by offering multiple sessions of all badges to spread the load around, and it helped. But still, where there used to be 40:1, there would now be 10:1 in 1 session, and 30:1 in another, still way too many. The main reason for this: council's are unwiling to spend the money necessary to support the summer camp's the way they are suppose to. According to my NCS training, we should not care if we charge 300 a week (we don't, we charge under 200) if that will give the scouts a superb quality program, by hiring and paying (key poing being PAYING) high quality staff. 18 year olds should make at least 3000 dollars according to national in the ideal scouting setting, for their 7-8 weeks of 16 hour days, 6 days a week. At most camps, you're lucky to get 4-5 people in total paid over 3000. This is of course a very general number and not taking into account volunteer run camps (which there are some of these). Council's will not put out the money for high number of staff and the money to pay them well, to retain and entice them to work. My camp earned 100K+ in revenue the last summer I worked there as PD, and this year, they are in budget deficit somehow, and are CUTTING staff, i pity the units (including my own unfortunately) who will be attending camp there this summer. I would go into this more, but this is not the summer camp thread and i diverge. If scouts were held to do what the requirement states for most badges at summer camps then most scouts would come away with 4 partials rather than 4 completed badges every year. While I have no problem with this, partials are not evil, they are just incomplete and can be completed at their leisure, it is unfortunately the parents and the scoutmasters who have an issue with this. The general philosphy of many leaders is that scouts go to camp, to earn badges and to come away with advancement and awards, instead of memories and good times. This is definetly stereotypical, but an all to common occurance for summer camps. I wish to god that leaders would start holding summer camp's, council exec's and camp director's accountable for completing requiermetns, it would drastically improve the quality of what scouts learn and can do, DRASTICALLY. I was on the inside, i saw the problems, I tried to make change, I succeed to a degree, but failed miserably in most respects do to the nature of the beast of the BSA, the corporate mentatily. As has been expressed on other forums here the bsa is a corporation, but they should worry less about money and income and # of scouts, and improve what they have for the scouts here now, and those to come, then try to turn a profit in this non-for-profit organization. Sorry for the rant a little off topic, but i have strong feelings on this issue.

If that is the case, then it begs to ask the question why people aren't supporting that council, why they aren't doing popcorn, why they aren't going to the sumer camps? If they are (we have seen no information on some of these aspects, so all any of us here can do is speculate) then the problem does indeed lie elsewhere, and while I would LOVE to blame it on bad management it very well could indeed be in large part do to these other circumstances. But what if it isn't? What if there really is a bigger problem. Even if it is "disloyalty" to the council (I personally think disloyalty begets disloyalty), if the council/distrcits, etc... did not have good programs, I for one, would not want my scouts or my own children to spend time trying to improve the program and instead go where there was a good program, at least activity wise. While that might seem morally ambigious, in reality, that is what most people do, and can we blame them!! Why should most people work to save a dying ship, when the "SS Good Scouting Program at neighboring council" is alive and well and can provide those good experiences. The bottom line is there really were better ways to go about this, I can't tell you what they are, my financial knowlege is not very extensive, but a warning sign a warning letter, a heads up SHOULD have been issued 2 years ago, if the money issues were bad. If one was, well, then i stand down and say its their own fault for not working with the council to solve the problem then.

In my troop, we typically have multiple boys make eagle a year (3+ is not uncommon). As a result, due to the complexity, the amount of planning, time needed to organize one, and anything everything else that goes into planning and executing an ECOH, we typically only do 1 a year. While some people argue that this lessons the signifigance of an individual achieving Eagle (no one in our troop complains along these lines, I would say because we don't present the option of individual ECOH's, if someone ever asked for one and would be willing to help/do most of the planning, we would of course allow it). For us, making Eagle is like adding an extention onto a family, it should be a grand event that everyone can see and appreciate. We have an elaborate ceremony, plenty of letters of recongnition garnered from around the nation, Candle lighting ceremonies, etc.... The boys write their own bio's of their time in the troop and how scouting has affected their lives, and either they read them, or the MC will read the bios to the audience. What I'm trying to get at is that the Troop takes care of everything for the Eagle, as to say "You've done your part, you earned all the ranks, the advancement, the Project was plannend and implemented successfully, your parents have lived through your tenure as a scout, now sit back and relax while we honor you one more time" The troop takes care of everything for the eagle. From buying all of the Eagle Kit supplies, to ordering a large (or several large) cakes, to getting the letters from around the country in on time to give to the scouts. The only thing that the boys must do is help with a little of the actual physical setup (we ask the eagle familes to come in the day before and help do a little cleaning and arrangement rather than asking the rest of the boys from the troop to do so) and they are responsible for making out the invitations (which we buy for them) to send to whomever they want at the ECOH. In my troop's mind, the Boy has done enough, now we will do the rest. But if someone did want their own individual (and indvidualized) ceremony, they would be granted it.

Well apparently someone did not do their budget right for this council, or else they would not have to charge 52 dollars a head, a year in addition to registration fees i would assume ( i have yet to see anything on that aspect of the council's budget) and FOS, and popcorn, etc... A scout office can look nice and serve an important function, but does not have to be large and extravagent. When you go to buy clothes, most of Americans today do not go for the builidng that looks the shinest, but for the most economical, close by, and shopper smart choice. Unfortunately the BSA has a monopoly on uniforms so people will have no choice. Would they still go to the scout office to buy uniforms if it was not a huge and extravagent office. I would safely venture a guess and say yes. Scouts do not need to be cheap, lord knows nothing in the BSA IS cheap, but it should be managed. Excessive costs, professional salaries, office space should be controlled, and the vast majority of funds should go to enhance the actual program, primarily the scout camps and scouting activities, not facilities that could (hopefully, but still only a "could") bring in more boys and enhance the program. If money was flowing in and just laying around would be one thing, but in a fiscally tight economic situation like most americans are in today, that is just unrealisitc. Out of curiosity, how are volunteers on boards of directors picked, i personally don't know. I do know that our exec board and all other upper committees are filled with the rich and upper class, the affluent and effluent of our community, who might not think spending xxx amount of dollars on a building, to look nice, is a bad thing, whereas your SM's and CC's for your troop's just might think so. Even some of the upper committee's in my council are restricted, and in a volunteer run organization, i stop and ask...why? Our property committee meetings are only by invitation only, not just anyone can attentd. I would like to know what they are thinking about buyin, especially if my troop popcorn sales and my personal FOS donations are going to help them buy it. If anyone knows why committees like this are closed to the general volunteer population, and can defend that rationale, i personally would really like to know why. OldEagle

Wow, ya beat me to it. I was so prepared to say something when i saw the ID phrase, but got distracted. And look, before I could say something about someone saying something, someone ELSE has said something!! AHH too many users online and too many active threads right now. But definetly, interesting choice of words

My Philmont crew was set up as such 9 youth 3 adults 1 Crew Chief (rather than trail chief but same difference) 1 assistant Crew Chief 1 Navigator 1 assistant navigator 1 Chaplain's aide 2 "cooks" 2 "camp organizers" Those last 2, i just made up the name now, because I can't remember what we called them. Everyone had a job. Job's at Philmont are important, it helps everyone to know what has to be done, and to make sure that someone is always responsible for making sure it happens. Whether that is making the big decisions, figuring out which way is North and South, prepping and cleaning up the meals, hanging the bear bags...whatever. My crew decided to assign people to jobs around the campsite on a permeant basis for our trip. ie, the cooks/cleaners and camp organizers. We had considered the option of rotating jobs, among everyone, not just those 4 people (5 because the chaplain's aide's job wasn't TOO extensive). So every day everyone did the same job, while on a long trek, especially a Rayado (sp) trek, this might get monotnonous, on a 10 day trek, it isn't bad. And the plus side is, you get GOOD at your job. So whereas the first few days, it might take 20 minutes or more to get your bear bags together and up where there are no pre laid lines, by the time we were 1/2 way through the trek, those 2-3 guys working on that stuff were DONE in 10 minutes. The cooks got good at not burning food (after the 1st day) so they wouldn't have to deal with crunchies and less for the sump (a drain at every campsite for getting rid of small food particles and unusable liquids to keep animals away and increase leave no trace). Its good for everyone to have something to do, but it is up to the crew going to make those decisions as to what they want everyone to do. A Crew Chief is one of those more important jobs, because they will help make the final decisions on what trek to pick, any modifications to make at base camp, and attend any meetings with the advisors if you are going with an "organized" council. I'm sure the Philmont guru's on this board will have plenty to add to this thread! OldEagle

Exactly! The road to hell......

I have never heard of anyone denied eagle for not attending the seminar. It has been around for I would say, 3 years now give or take. Most people have no problem attending the seminars, some learn things, especially if they are from a "joe schmo" troop. I just personally dislike interference, whether meant to be positive or negative, of this nature on any level. The seminars are offrered every month, at every district roundtable (so there are 4 place you can go every month to get this done). You also could schedule one if you have a group who would like to do it, and they were offered, at least this past summer, every week at camp. I think it was the past 2 summers actually. About eagle mentors, they don't use this to assign mentors at all, since the scouts can attend the seminar any time, any place (preferably with a guardian, but a troop leader can fill in if no parents are available). I am pretty sure it is primarily to hand out Eagle Packets and distribute information, to make sure everyone has the right info. I would personally prefer if it was an optional program, highly encouraged, so that those who HAVE questions can get them answered, those troops that WANT their boys to have council/district committee's provide additional information concerning Eagle. My beef is just that they make it in essence then, a requirement for Eagle Scout, to participate in this seminar, which they should't. Is it a bad thing, in and of itself, no. It's annoying pain in the ()3 is all.

On page 23 of this publication it states "No Council, District, unit or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from any advancement requirement. OldGreyEagle, when you quoted this and the above lines talking about the executive board, you were talking about the national exec board, right? I felt this related enough to post on this thread...COUNCIL's adding requirements for advancement. My council has a requirement that makes all scouts, once they are star or life, attend a seminar on Eagle. They can go any time once they turn star (so they may have several years to do this, and it is only 1-2 hours) but before they can even start to plan out their eagle project or anything else, they must attend this seminar. I don't know how advancement committees deal with eagle canidates, but this seems like the same thing, just on the council level, and it has always irked me since I have always been told that NO ONE can add or subtract requirements in a normal scouting situation. So, is the council (this is sanctioned on every level of the council, from the exec board down to the district advancement committee) allowed to actually do this, and to prohibit a boy from completing his work on eagle and his eagle project if he does not attend this seminar! OldEagle

I can see this happening to my council in just a few years, at least to a degree. They currently are moving to a new headquarters, which at the current size of their professional operation IS too small. But the new building is huge, at least 4-5 times bigger than what they have now, and are making due with at this point. Confernece rooms, training rooms, huge lobby, museum, etc... are not necessary. And this is the scaled down model, from the 2 story monster they were going to build 2 years ago (I saw the 3d model, it was huge). Now the plans are for a 1 story builidng that is even smaller than the original plans called for the 1st story to be in this new building, because they couldn't raise enough money. Fortunately they supposedly are not using any normal income to finance the construction of this builiding, and had a fund raising drive going for about 3 years to raise the 1 million they needed for a building. But, then the bills for the building will come in (electric, water, heat and so on). Plus the huge over staffing they have: 7 DE's, SE, ASE, 2 Field Directors, Finance director, camping director, 7 secretaries, 2-3 aides in the building and 1 full time and 2-3 part time scout shop employees. I'm sure I'm missing a few here. That pay roll has to be in the 500K plus range every year. We are a decent sized council, but in recent years we have not grown, but our professional staff has. I just hope the same thing does not happen to us and other council's as has happened to Momouth.

I don't know if it is a requirement, when I went to Philmont we never even discussed the possiblity of using single person tents, primarily because we use troop tents and the troop doesn't own any personal tents (buddy system!!). I know that our ranger, and the leader in our troop who subsequently became a philmont ranger used a single person tent, but that was out of convience and the fact that the ranger shouldn't need to have anyone else sharing a tent with you for the hopefully 2 days they will be with you. Our troop has always taken T4's (timberline's) and slept 3 to a tent, whether it was adults, or youth's, at least in the past. Our last crew only did 2 per tent and that upped the quantities of tents to carry by 1/3. I personally think that individual tents would be a waste, just because of the extra space and weight they will take up. Every pound can count at philmont that you are going to carry, and while an individual tent will be smaller and hopefully lighter than a tent for 2-3, you now have 12 tents to carry total, 12 ground cloths, etc... rather then 4-6 tents spread out over 12 people (assuming you have a 12 person crew). I'm sure we have someone out here that is a philmont ranger, former ranger, or knows the details of philmont trek requirements who could give a definitive answer. But why did they buy the individual tents? Do they need them, or simply want them? I would hope by the time any scout goes to Philmont they would be well indocternated (sp) in the ways of the buddy system and would see the light of using that, even at night while sleeping.

Just continuing another lively discussion on the true meaning of the G2SS. Hence the reason i started this thread. It has been good to see everyone's ideas and comments concerning liquid fuels. Honestly, if the scouts went out on a patrol campout, we would encourage them to use charcoal, rather than liquid fuels...would probably "reek vengence" on them if they used anything but sanctioned fire starters to start a fire. The only thing I would not be sure about would be propane cylinders. While they are liquid fuels, I feel much safer about them (well, assuming the people using them are acting and behaving responsibly) then about white gas or any other form of fuel the scouts can't just find off of the ground while out there on their own. Good debate!

On a cub scout level I can see why this song might be a little ambigious in its usage, with the references in the main verse to "horrible ways to die!" And there are the subsequent versions about: Santa Claus is DEAD Here Comes peter cotton tale, hopping down the bunny trail, BANG my personal favorite that we created a few years ago was Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Sponge Bob Square Pants has DROWNED (but then again, i hate spongebob and think he is an entirely innapropriate cartoon for youngersters, even before the entire androgonous comments about the cartoon came out last year) Now on a Boy Scout level, this is one of my and everyone I know's favorite song. From being a summer camp staff member for years, this was always a camp favorite. We avoided using the phrase annoucements as much as possible and scripted it into a single place every week in order to ensure that we did not waste or go over board singing it (our version has at least 10 verses and goes on for quite a while). However, I do have a digital copy of an ultimate song book that I was working on for many years that never got published or finished, could never get it to print right, one day I will. It has many songs on many topics, cub scout and boy scout alike, if anyone is interested in attaining a copy, send me a message, and I will gladly email it to you. OldEagle