Beavah

Yah, rmonigle, da situation you describe is fairly common, eh? I expect your local professionals and volunteers are workin' the issue as best they can. Ultimately, of course, this decision is up to the CO. Yes, practically speakin', it is the role and duty of a CO to provide its units a place to meet, eh? A lot of public school units have moved their charters to local churches or community organizations, but still use the meetin' place in the school, same as they were before. If your school district chose to impose a fee at some point (seems unlikely if they haven't by now), easiest thing is to either move your meetings elsewhere or increase your troop dues to cover the room rental. Your unit is part of da CO, so if your unit rents the space, that's the CO providing a place to meet. PTA's and PTO's IMO are weak chartered partners generally, and it sounds like this one isn't interested in runnin' a program. No point in forcing it on 'em unless there are other, broader reasons to do so (like the current PTA board doesn't represent a majority of its membership on this issue). Find yourself a better friend and partner. But keep doin' recruiting and perhaps meetin' in the school if that makes sense for your community. But like I said, I expect your professionals and council folks are workin' da problem. I'd follow their lead. Beavah

Yah, I dunno BA. Doesn't seem much different from behavior at a sports rally, eh? Perhaps a little more polite . Da home team marches in, people cheer, da opposition shows up, people boo. A few are rude. Nature of crowds. I'm more interested in what the candidates are doin', eh? McCain has certainly cemented his image with the voters as bein' the "negative" candidate who doesn't address the issues. Shame because I still want to believe he's a better man than that. I'm with Bill Kristol, he should sack most of his campaign staff. They're more inept than the guys who worked for George H.W. in engineering the loss to Clinton. I will say the video is typical of da neo-con crowd, though, with all its anti-intellectual quips. Used to be Republicans turned to intellectuals with strong credentials, like Kissinger. One wonders, after they've made everyone with an education or a Ph.D. out to be a bad guy, who they're goin' to turn to when faced with a complex problem, eh? Like da current financial mess? Ah well. Maybe Palin can handle it. Beavah

American Canoe Association has excellent paddlin' classes in different areas. Check 'em out online. College and University outdoor programs are often open to community members and offer good instruction. B

Yah, I'm a believer in da BSA's right to set their own membership standards, eh? And I'm quite content with the standards we have set. I'd be strongly opposed to a misguided judicial ruling trying to force the organization to change its membership standards. That havin' been said, Mr. Wrenn is on the right side in this suit, though it's a bit of a David v. Goliath endeavor. BSA can enjoy trademark protection for Eagle Scout, eh? But not for "scout" or "scouting". Those are, if we are at all honest about things, generic terms that were invented offshore, in common use by a number of countries with whom we have copyright and trademark treaties which are legally enforceable, and which were never licensed by the progenitors to da BSA. The court seems to be relyin' on da BSA's charter as an exclusive monopoly grant, not on trademark or copyright law, eh? In that case, every true conservative and Republican should be appalled! Da notion that the government is going to "pick winners and losers" in the private sector by givin' exclusive rights to one organization is a dangerous one, eh? Because, yeh see, it's unlikely there are goin' to be many Republicans left in da next congress, eh? What happens when a new congress votes to give a monopoly charter to some other Scouting Organization in da U.S. ... like Youth Scouts? Lots of good reason for it, eh? Like encouraging youth patriotic programs in the public schools. Da court should rule in favor of Wrenn, and save us from ourselves. He made a weaker argument in his pleadings (didn't have millions to spend), but he's on da right side of the issue. Beavah

Yah, so now da neo-con pseudo-Republicans want to label Senator Obama a baby-killer, eh? Have they no shame? I'm as anti-abortion as they come, eh? Life begins at conception, or at least close enough that anything resemblin' an abortion procedure is naught but murder in most cases. But as an old-time conservative, I also believe in honor and honesty. There is no honor in these attacks. They are despicable. A president can do precious little about abortion. For good or ill, ending abortion in America is now a ground fight. It's about convincin' individual hearts and minds, until eventually we succeed in changin' Congress, who have the ability to propose constitutional amendments and federal laws. But da things a president really does have influence over demand honesty and honor. Yah, and intelligence, eh? An ability to not be simplistic about complex issues. Da last thing we need right now is continued executive control by a party that has lost its way, and believes in jingoism over professional competence, or sowing "fear of the black man" over honorable dialog. I was toyin' with votin' McCain, eh? Hard for me to vote for a democrat, bein' a traditional conservative sort, albeit with an independent streak. But this last turn of his campaign back toward the disgusting tactics of Rove is just too unAmerican for me. In the America I love, we can have heated discussions, and disagreements, but in da end we work together. The other guy, and the other party, are not our enemies, they are our fellow citizens. And yeh don't call your fellow citizens terrorists and baby-killers. Beavah

Yah, only socialists I've seen around in recent years have been da neo-con Republicans, eh? They believe in borrow-and-spend governance (aka "tax our grandchildren but SPEND, BABY, SPEND NOW!"). They believe in socialism for every risk (if the market goes down, "Where's the Fed?" If investment banks that leveraged themselves badly go down "The taxpayer must bail us out!"). Sorry, I'm an old time conservative. Don't have many nice things to say about what this bunch have done to my party. Even more disgusted by this sort of spreadin' of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Shows extreme lack of character and honor. Yeh might disagree with John McCain or Barack Obama, but both men are decent chaps and patriotic Americans. Anybody who tries to call a fellow patriotic American a "terrorist" for political advantage has no business bein' in the White House. Far too easy a step from that to findin' ways for the Federal Government to start spyin' on all da rest of us potential "terrorist" citizens, eh? Beavah

Yah, $150 billion for jobless benefits and food stamps to me is a better investment than da $150 billion in pork-barrel nonsense they added on to the $700 billion bailout, eh? B

Yah, nothin' wrong with it, BulldogBlitz. A conflict of interest happens when yeh are in a position where you owe a duty to one person or group, but you also hold a second position where yeh owe a duty to a different group with competing interests. So if you are servin' on city council deciding on contracts (duty of care to the people of the city), and you are a contractor bidding on one of those contracts (duty of care to your company/self). In the case of a COR and CC, both positions owe a duty to one and only one group - the Chartered Organization. Both work for that organization. Now, I suppose sometimes it can be an ethical conflict of interest for a troop parent to serve in either role, eh? Or in da role of SM. That would happen because a parent has a duty to their son, eh? But a CC or SM has a duty to the CO and the troop. I reckon we've all seen SMs or CCs who put their son's interest or needs ahead of their duty to the CO/troop, which truly is a conflict of interest if their interests are not aligned (if the interest of da troop is to do advancement well, and the interest of the parent is to get their kid Eagle quickly, for example). When a COR serves as a CC it has a different feel, eh? The Chartered Partner feels more "present". Its values and goals are talked about more. Done well, adult conflicts because of other MCs and parents havin' a different vision are reduced, because it's clear what the troop owner's vision is. But yeh do need a good person in the role, eh? One who exercises a gentle hand on the tiller most times, and lets da crew work. Otherwise the combined position can be a bit overbearin'. Beavah

No, there's no BSA policy that applies here, beyond da Scout Oath and Law. Troops are not under the direction of the BSA, though. The question is whether your Chartered Organization - the owner of the troop - has a policy. They might, eh? Now, yeh seem to be sayin' that the parents have retained an attorney, presumably with an interest to takin' some kind of legal action against this ASM and the unit, and that attorney has told 'em they have a credible case. If there truly are real damages, that had to be a heck of a letter. I cannot say this clearly enough. If that is really the case, this is no longer a matter for the troop committee. The CC needs to take this matter out of their hands and run, don't walk, to the COR and head of the chartered organization and to the BSA district executive. It should not be somethin' a committee of inexperienced parents is involved in or discussing AT ALL. You have a duty in this case to protect da Chartered Partner. So EagleParent, yeh should call your CC today, right now, and have him call and meet with those three people, eh? IH, COR, DE. To the BSA District Exec (who are often young men), your CC has to use the magic words "the parents have retained a lawyer". This will probably cause the DE to kick it up the chain to your council's Scout Executive or Field Director. This is not a "sometime this month" meetin', eh? This is a "let's meet today or tomorrow" meeting. As a committee, you step aside (unless your committee is somethin' like da board of elders for a church, where yeh have executive authority for the CO... but in that case, I reckon yeh wouldn't be askin' about this here ). What the CO should do is review the situation with da BSA and their own counsel, and act appropriately based on that, eh? They will not report back to the committee. The committee will have no say. And, I reckon if it's handled well, there's a good possibility that either the ASM or the boy and his family will be removed from the unit. Either that, or they'll both be shocked and impressed by how seriously everyone is takin' it, and will back down to bein' regular human beings again. In the interim, if there's some delay, under no circumstances should the boy and the ASM be present at any activity together. Tell the ASM to stay away, keep his mouth shut, and retain his own legal counsel. Beavah

Yah, cookiemonster, welcome to da forums. I think anarchist has the right approach here. As a parent, this isn't your fight. Your job is to be a good example to your son by supporting the coach. I'm sure you've seen all kinds of parent "bad actors" at sporting events, insisting their son get more playing time, arguin' with da referees and all that. You don't want to inadvertently become the Scouting version of that. Your son's troop has gone all the way through an Eagle project with your lad, eh? So it seems like they're lettin' him move pretty fast. And your son is no slouch, I reckon. I think he and they can work it out. If they're framin' the question more generally about what the Eagle in the troop should be, that's a good discussion for all troops to have, eh? Some folks believe Eagle should be a high school award, earned as a late teen, which represents da character, maturity, and skill of a young adult. That kind of Eagle Scout award has value for college resumes and such, eh? Other folks believe Eagle should be a challenge a lad should tackle right away, and pursue and finish in middle school, representin' an ambitious youngster. Not really valuable for college resumes, but it teaches a pattern of goal-setting that will serve a boy well in high school. Yah, I think folks in a troop should have a clear vision for what an Eagle Scout, our highest award, should be in their troop's program. It's a vision they should communicate well to everyone, and promote. I've seen some excellent troops where all Eagles were earned at age 16-17, and they were mature, inspiring young men. I've seen some excellent troops where Eagles tended to be age 13-14, and they were bright, hardworking boys. (Of course, I've seen some 13-14 year old Eagles who were da product of badge mills, and 17-year-old deathbed jerks on occasion, but we'll leave them out, eh?) Point is, it's hard to inspire a 16-17 year old with a middle school award, eh? And very hard for a 13-14 year old to really deserve an award suitable for a high-achieving young adult. A program should decide which it wants. Practically speakin', troops can set age requirements for positions of responsibility, so a troop can certainly "force" Eagle to be a high school award, eh? I think it's better to design the whole program so it fits with the troop's values and goals, though. As far as earnin' all da badges goes, it's interestin'. Wouldn't discourage it. But I've never been very impressed with it either. Mile wide and an inch deep. I personally am more impressed with lads who delve deeply into a few things and really become experienced at 'em than boys who have a lot of experiences. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, EagleParent, welcome to da forums, eh? There's really not enough information in your post for any of us to give yeh very good advice. I'm always a bit leery of throwin' around technical legal terms like libel without havin' a good understandin' of the nature of the letter and who the parties were, eh? The simple answer to your question of whether "parents have the right to know" is "no." This isn't a question of "rights." Similarly, da answer to "can the leadership of the troop just talk to the offending adult?" is "yes." Whether or not it's da right course depends a lot on what the circumstances are, and yeh don't really give us enough to go on. Might be OK, might be a very poor choice. Do parents have a legitimate reason to be upset? Dependin' on the nature of the letter, and whether the leader had communicated first with the parents or not, maybe? They might have reason to be livid. But it's not clear, eh? I reckon Goldwinger's right though, eh? A real lawyer wouldn't call a letter "slanderous" . I think if you are a bystander in this mess, yeh should stay a bystander, eh? If the letter went to the council, it's bein' handled by professionals with trainin', and by other good scouters, and you should trust 'em to do their job. If you are the parent of the boy, it's OK to vent here. As Calico points out, good scouters are often very critical of our fellows who behave badly. But then yeh need to take a breath and either listen to your attorney or listen to the good scouters in your son's program. We really can't offer yeh better advice than they can, eh? Beavah

Yah, I really dislike da councils that put on the added restrictions. Very arbitrary. And I've known some fine men and women who were outstandin' counselors for groups of badges. Why would yeh turn down the offer of a great counselor in an area who has the time to do multiple badges? Councils can do it, of course, simply by not acceptin' MBC applications for more than 5 or whatnot. They are not obligated to approve any person for any badge. I don't recommend it, though. If yeh have a problem with abuse, address that problem with the individual, eh? No need to mess up the entire council when yeh can pull one SM aside and say "Sorry, George, we both know you're abusin' the system here, so we're limiting you to 5 if yeh don't cut it out." The way it's set up in some councils, a BSA Aquatics Director might not be allowed to counsel all the aquatics badges. Just silly. Beavah

Yah, unless Fred down the street that you play video games with can write about how you convinced him not to try marijuana the one time you were really tempted, or how yeh saved him from failing algebra by helping him study, or how yeh supported him when he was depressed when his parents were gettin' a divorce, or how he was always bein' bullied and you stood up for him, or... The world that kids live in is a big one, eh? If we're interested in a lad's character, it's not da folks with credentials that matter. Everybody tries to suck up to the folks with credentials. It's how he behaved toward folks in need - those without credentials - that really demonstrates his character. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me. Just MHO, of course. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so of course the BSA insignia guide says we use numerals. There, you've been told what's official! Now, did da authors of the insignia guide anticipate your weird circumstance? Nope. If they had, maybe they would have come up with some official way to designate "temporary merger" of two units (multiply da troop numbers and divide by pi?). I think that for a small change like this, if it's somethin' that da boys came up with, and are proud of, and it makes 'em interested in wearin' their uniform because they're proud of their group, it's OK, eh? Or at least go half way, and do patch with the two troop numbers separated by a lightning bolt. If yeh are worried that you're goin' to be a bad example at district functions, I've found the beige velcro works fine on the new uniform shirts. Hot swappable numerals / lightning bolts are easy dependin' on where you're serving. Personally, I think you're an example of creative thinkin' about small units, and your unique "numerals" might start a conversation that helps some other unit come up with a new idea for patrol method, or for mentorin' a smaller troop or whatnot. That may be a better "example" to fellow scouters than how to wear a patch. As to vendors, I'm always in favor of buyin' local as a first choice, eh? Check your yellow pages for embroidery or maybe your Chamber of Commerce. After that, look for da custom badge makers that advertise in Scouting Magazine, just to support our friends, eh? Takin' a step back, yeh might want to think about your merged patrols... or not. If your goal at some point is to re-separate into two units, breakin' up those mixed patrols may be hard. Yeh might want to plan for that now, or yeh might want to cross that bridge later. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I agree with John-in-KC. Ask your local folks, they'll give yeh the straight scoop on what they expect. Me personally, I sort of like the units and districts that ask for a peer reference from a lad. Other kids see a boy's character when no adults are watching, eh? Beavah

Cool. Have fun in your new role(s)! Especially have fun beginnin' this whole scout journey again! B

Perhaps I have missed it somewhere in the blizzard of comments and often circuitous thoughts, but how do these proposals address the "credit card" usury? While it certainly may not be on the level of the home loan fiasco, I cannot help but think if there were forced caps on credit card debt interest and other fees, many people would then be able to apply more money to paying down the debt. Of course the banks need to suck it up and not count on continuing their obscene profit margins on these services. Yah, I think that would be a kindness, eh? What are top card rates now? 35% or more? Plus fees. But nope, no proposals like that in the law. There should be, I agree. Same problem, really... lendin' to those who can't afford to repay, then makin' da interest so high that they will never be able to afford to repay. If yeh cap rates, then yeh restrict the loanin' of too much to poor risk borrowers, because the return isn't high enough to cover da risk. B

No need for soap. Better to be a good example of LNT and leave it at home, eh? Some areas in da backcountry where traffic is moderate will see a lot of damage from soaps, and sometimes hikers get sick from da soap itself because it can't be easily rinsed off (yeh would never dunk your pots in a water source, would yeh?). Good hot water and good cookin' technique will keep everything safe and clean. Watch out for "washcloths" which may accumulate food bits and bacteria. I usually only carry a bit of soap in my first aid kit for washin' my hands before and after I treat an open wound, eh? Beavah

Yah, your choice on da SM conference, eh? I'm with nolesrule and jtswestark. Hold da SM conference when he's done with the requirements and when he asks for one. Now, preparin' for da future when you have a lad who is "tight on time..." You can have the SM conference before the 26th. You must hold the BOR on or after the 26th, since the board cannot approve his advancement until he has actually completed the participation and POR requirements. B

Unless "adult supervision" is similar to "active participation", both fuels would have limited use in patrol camping. Yah, I reckon that would make it pretty hard for troops in areas where fire bans are in place for much of da year, eh? Remember, competent adult supervision is part of the Sweet 16 too, eh? But that doesn't prevent patrol campin'. I also don't think I've seen anybody carryin' a ventilated, locked box to store their fuel in on a backpacking trek. I reckon storin' below 100 degrees F might be hard, too, in some areas. My favorite is the bit about needin' to set up stoves below the level of da tents. It's an interestin' thing to try to imagine in da flatter areas of the country. I really thought we had taken that section out of G2SS a few years back, when BSA made the commitment to go to LNT. Then it seemed to reappear. Some things on da list are excellent safety tips, and some are really dangerous (like #10, which gives instructions that may be exactly wrong dependin' on da stove). I reckon common sense and good judgment by experienced folks should prevail. Or at least followin' da manufacturer's instructions. Yeh would think that wood and charcoal might be safer, but from what I've seen of da accident statistics, they're more dangerous. Lots more incidence of melted clothes and burns from fire that leaves da fire, eh? Or from people who fall into it while tryin' to work on somethin', or folks who spill hot liquids because it's more awkward and the handles get hot. And of course, there's a reason for those fire-bans, safety wise. There are a few council camps which at least nominally have no white-gas fuel bans in place, though mostly those have all gone by da wayside. A council doesn't really have the authority to prohibit a fuel type in unit campin', though it can discourage it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I plan on becoming a Leader in this Pack but I just haven't been able to sit down with current Pack Leaders and discuss my role. Yah, hmmm... I think it's up to da pack to determine who it invites to be a registered leader, and when, eh? It's fine to intend to offer to serve in some way if our skills match the needs of the unit. But it's their decision whether to accept such an offer. Don't take this the wrong way, CNY, because I expect your heart is in the right place. It's just always a bit creepy to me when an adult plans/insists on becomin' a leader. Sends up all kinds of red flags that I'd be worried about if I didn't know the person really well. Usually I advise units to "go slow and careful" with such folks. Might be a good leader candidate just bein' forward. Might be a pushy, helicopter-type parent who is goin' to cause conflict. Might be someone really bad, who wants access to other people's kids. What uniform yeh wear is really a distant second to how yeh approach offerin' your services (though perhaps related?). I'd also ask yourself whether "blending in with the other leaders" is goin' to be perceived as bein' honest, eh? You'd be representing yourself to other parents as a pack leader, when you aren't yet. That, too, can be a "red flag." Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, uniforms are an outward sign to others of the role a person is functioning in, eh? Da role you are functioning in tonight is that of a parent, or a tiger partner. So yeh should wear the uniform of a parent or tiger partner. Wear your Venturing uniform only if you were asked to represent Venturing or to perform some function as a Venturing leader at tonight's pack meetin'. Otherwise, it's not appropriate, and serves only to call attention to yourself. In the same way, a police officer who is a parent is goin' to take off his police uniform comin' to a pack meeting. But a police officer who has been asked by the pack to give some presentation as a police officer should wear his uniform. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, kahits. No BSA prohibition on gasoline stoves, eh? To be honest da worst burns I've seen have been from malfunctioning old propane cylinders. Pressurized gas is a bit scary sometimes. No way to turn it off if there's a leak, eh? Up here in da north, propane in the cold weather months can be a problem. Takes extra work to keep da pressure up, doesn't provide as much heat, can be hard to start. Far safer for the lads to be usin' gasoline. I know many troops that have only white gas campin' stoves, no propane. Their NSPs do just fine with it after some practice. Older patrols have no trouble without direct supervision. Beavah

Oh, no! Now we're back to da Game of Life thread? OGE, are yeh a secret pawn in da Game of Life? Inquirin' minds want to know. Beavah

I don't reckon there are a lot of boys stumblin' here, eh? It's a large troop, with a good CO relationship, many active parents, and a heck of a lot of Eagle Scouts. Boys seem to be advancin' just fine. My guess, from seein' lots of units like this, is that they're fairly active in da district and bring in lots of FOS dollars as NeilLup suggests. Or at least that's what it seems like, eh? Always hard to tell from afar. Like I said, I've known a few troops like this, and so I might be envisioning somethin' different than what AlFansome is actually experiencing. All da complaint here are about only one method, eh? And it's not that they aren't usin' the method or kids aren't advancin', it's that they've put a lot of extra structure on it. Regimented it a bit much. But as someone mentioned, as guidelines what they suggest is a pretty reasonable progression, eh? Maybe a bit too active for some families, but certainly not for da families they serve. We don't know at all how they'd handle transfers, but we've got no reason to assume they wouldn't welcome a transfer scout and treat him just fine. Yah, some things should change, eh? But start an adult fight, "I'm right, and the 34-year Scoutmaster everyone loves and respects is wrong" and yeh won't have much of a unit left. Or you won't be left! Those boys and those families bought into this program, eh? What you're talkin' about is changin' the program they sought out, chose, and love. My bet is that if yeh asked them, those boys are proud of their accomplishments and ranks. Far from stumblin', they're climbin'. All things in balance, eh? Dat's why in WB we teach styles of leadership. We don't always have to be directive. Again, what I would address first is succession, eh? Makin' sure that when da SM gives up his badge, there's good structure in place for a replacement. That change from a long-time charismatic fellow is really rough on troops. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)