Beavah

*sigh* Yah, but BobWhite, what yeh missed is that after Eamonn's plea, BadenP offered an olive branch, eh? He listened to da feedback of others, admitted his errors, and offered to do better. You took his olive branch, and set it on fire. Usin' all da combustibles you could that were lyin' around from the past. Just like yeh had to get in a personal dig at me about "rules", rather than tryin' to understand the point. I'm sorry for yeh, mate. Yeh should think about takin' a break. B For anybody else who was interested in da discussion, I was not talkin' about breakin' rules. BSA has statutes, and it has professional practices, eh? Both define what the BSA says about its own program. Which is why insight from those folks who have served for years wearin' wreaths is valuable. In this case, despite da "statutes", we allow more than one Catholic COR per diocese. Or per parish. Da CO tells us what it considers a separate organization, eh? If they say a parish is separate, we consider it separate, even though legally it is the same organization. If a pastor says the parish elementary school is a separate organization from the teen youth program or the mens' club, then we consider 'em separate, eh? The practice of da BSA is not to interfere at all in da internal governance of the CO, and to effectively accept multiple CORs from what is legally one organization. That's not Beavah talkin', eh? That's da BSA setting the BSA's own practice and precedent in how it interprets its own program rules. It's a mistake in da real world of law to read statutes without also examining case law. Both define and authentically interpret da law. It's a mistake in the BSA to look only at da guidebooks, and not look also at the actual practice. Both define what da BSA program is. If we just look at the former, we're puttin' our own interpretation on what da guidebook means, rather than lookin' for what da BSA's interpretation really is. We're claimin' to be BSA spokesmen, when we're really not. So I reckon, if we all want to "follow da program," it's important to read the handbooks and take training, but it's equally imporant, perhaps more important, to understand how those things are properly interpreted in actual practice, and especially in "best" practice. For that we need to listen to folks like BadenP and others here, eh? And not just belittle 'em. Beavah

Yah, OGE, how does your council handle out-of-council camps, outfitters, MBUs and such? How are yeh handlin' online advancement, where there's no field to enter counselor name, and so no way to ask for it as extra? When yeh say it "doesn't count" what do yeh actually do? The boy has fulfilled his obligations in good faith, eh? Do yeh really deny da lad a badge he's earned because adults fouled up the paperwork (or more frequently in many councils, because da district or council didn't keep up with its MBC lists)? How do you suppose our national office would react to that should it be challenged? Beavah

Yah, yeh know da answer, jtswestark. Broadly speakin', in most councils and districts, nobody tries to verify MBC signatures at that level. That job is left to da units, just as rank advancement is left to da units. Yeh might wish it were otherwise, and I've seen districts that tried for a while. Mostly, it's just not good use of volunteer time, eh? Half da cards are beat up, 2/3 of the signatures aren't legible on those small lines, lots of units do what you mention and go to out-of-council camps and outfitters and whatnot. How long are yeh willing to hold up a lad's advancement for adult paperwork issues? How many good district volunteers are yeh goin' to dedicate to da process? And what are yeh goin' to do if you find a "bad" one? Make da lad re-take the badge when he thinks he's done? This is where we get into "it's a children's program" , eh? Lots of professional organizations aren't hyper-thorough about vetting resumes of folks they're hirin' for important jobs. Often because it's not worth da cost. Surely folks can be excused for not applyin' a higher-than-professional standard to kids' awards. The corollary to that is that (hopefully!) nobody is ever goin' to try to hold up a lad's advancement at some more remote time down the road for whether or not a counselor was registered at the time. Dat's just one of those urban legends things, eh? If it gets entered into ScoutNet, it's da kid's badge (at least until ScoutNet loses it...) Beavah

Good heavens! Yah, to go back to OGE's question, I think da original question was answered: it wasn't a COR issue at all, it was a CC issue and some missed communication. COR did the right thing and went and had a cup of Joe with da crew advisor. We now return yeh to the 35th season of da BobWhite thread, already in progress. (If I may suggest, I think what BobWhite misses is that there are two components of law/rules...statute, and precedent. In quotin' statute, he's doin' only da easier half of good jurisprudence. The harder and often more important bit is understandin' precedent, which interprets da laws for particular circumstances. Only taken together are they a system of rules for "program.") B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm not as fond of becomin' king and makin' fast changes, eh? That's a recipe for taking a successful troop of 60+ boys with a good CO relationship down to a troop of 10 boys in a hurry. Or bein' ushered to da guillotine! I have seen many units like this, eh? A long-term scoutmaster like this one tends to shape a program particularly to his/her liking over da years, as other people come and go. They tend to be charismatic men (and women) who have a lot of support in the CO and community. Procedures are predictable and well-communicated. Yeh tangle with 'em at your own peril. And, in fairness, the boys adore such men, there is often good use of adult association (but not always patrol method), and da kids are usually fine examples of character, fitness, and citizenship. High standards tends to produce that kind of thing. I think as a commish I would go visit, go on a couple of campouts, watch some meetings, sit in on da committee, maybe on a couple BORs. My first question would not be what to change, it would be what is good here that needs to be kept and built on? They're usin' advancement, but not perfectly, OK. What about da other seven methods? How are they on Adult Association? Patrol Method? Uniforming is pretty tight as units go, that's good. How are they on youth leadership? Ideals? Outdoor method? I reckon if they're doin' pretty well on most of da methods of scouting and achievin' good things for kids, I'm not goin' to get too fired up over a kinda over-the-top Advancement specification. All units have somethin' to work on! So in workin' with a unit, I wouldn't start with weaknesses, I'd start with strengths. Praise those, and use 'em. "What's good that we can make great together?" should be da cry of any new leader in a troop. Never "what's broke that I can tell yeh to fix?". Then, along da way, I think I'd quietly start tryin' to relax da death grip of regulation they have on the Advancement Method, eh? Whittlin' at it, not takin' an axe to it. Problem when yeh take an axe to it is it creates hard feelings and such ("You didn't earn a real Eagle like I did..."). Honestly, though, da bigger problem is that usually when a long-timer SM like this fellow dies or retires, such troops founder. Rather than focusin' on their use of advancement, I'd want to focus first on their depth and continuity of leadership in preparation for that day. And maybe, just maybe, it's time for "Scoutmaster emeritus" . Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, printman31, BobWhite is right in general, you're probably right in specific, eh? It's very, very difficult to offer anything like clear guidance on legal matters across state lines and with vague hypotheticals. Speakin' in general terms, if a parent is transporting a child in their own vehicle, then da question of fact is whether this was a parent driving as a parent to a scout event, or whether da parent driving was actually part of the event. Just depends on da facts of the case, eh? I'd say if there were other, unrelated scouts in the car, and the parent were staying as a participant, then it's more clear, with or without tour permit, that the drivin' was part of the event. If only their child were in the car, then I reckon things might fall da other way. Not that that matters much to anybody, eh? I imagine parents are pretty comfortable bein' responsible for drivin' their own kid places. BobWhite is again correct in that local tour permits are at da option of the local council, despite what it says in the G2SS and other national trainin' documents. Those documents are general guidance for da country, where the council guidance is specific. Some councils want a tour permit for everything, some only for overnights, and some only for events outside da council service area. There are some border areas with Canada where local tour permits are used even for "international" travel. Doesn't mean that fillin' out a tour permit even when it isn't "required" is a bad practice, eh? It's probably a good idea for plannin' purposes. That's what the form is for, to help us all be safe and remember important things before we go, eh? But as to requirements, it's best to just ask your local council. Beavah

Yah, I reckon this is what Eamonn and BadenP are talkin' about, eh? "You can believe what Beavah says or what da BSA says." "If it was da Beavah Scouts of America" and all that. I reckon those kinds of personal jabs aren't all that welcome for most folks. I don't mind so much, it's kinda funny. Truth is, BobWhite is right about da materials, but not right about the practical execution of those materials - how they are really interpreted by the BSA in its day-to-day operations. In the day to day world of Scouting, one Catholic diocese does get more than one COR, even though they are a single corporation/organization. We let the COs tell us what they consider to be an organization, eh? And if they want to treat their elementary program and their secondary program as different, or their school and youth program, or their church and their mens' group, then we do that. Da CO is the customer, and the customer is always right . So as Eagle92 describes, there are single entities with multiple CORs all over da place. That doesn't change da materials or make 'em wrong. It just explains how they are practically applied, by those folks with wreaths and such who have that duty in da BSA. No need for da personal digs. Same information, just different perspectives on it. Beavah

Sorry for da thread drift, gcan. I think you're doin' right. Go have a coffee and give feedback in private. (Praise in Public, feedback in private!). If yeh could, I'd try to do it several days before the next committee meeting. People often need to "process" feedback. To get angry, and then recover, and then change. Takes a few days . I'd encourage da committee strongly not to conduct a public lynching or gripe session. Almost nothin' can come of that but hurt feelings. That should be step 3. First it should be one person, then a different small group, both in private. Save the "Hey, we as a committee need to do somethin' different" for da last step if yeh can. If you do get there, though, I reckon given the history that your CO will accept a recommendation from the committee on a new chair, eh? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Eppur Si Muove - Galileo Galilei Perhaps it shouldn't be, but nevertheless it is. Da real world is funny that way sometimes. I imagine an SE or a Commish who is goin' to tell da pastor of the largest charterin' org. in the district he can't do that isn't understandin' the role of a Commish or SE very well. COs get to choose how they administer things, eh? Technically, every Catholic unit in an area is chartered to one corporation - the corporation sole of da diocesan bishop. But they create administrative sub-entities as parishes and schools and whatnot, and we treat each administrative sub-entity as a separate CO, though legally it really isn't. No different for a public school system (back in those days) when we had one public entity (the school district), but recognized individual subdivisions as separate COs. No different from a pastor who wants his elementary school religious ed person to be COR for da pack, and his teen youth group leader to be COR for da troop. Of course we do that! Yeh just enter 'em into ScoutNet as two organizations with da same name and address (or names like "First Methodist Teen Program" and "First Methodist Elementary Program"). Easier than tryin' to stop da planets from movin', eh? Happens all da time, all over da country. Beavah

Some relevant quotes: * All I did that was different from you is read. * Whether on-line or in a book it still has to be read, and many posters here take a dim view of people who read. * As far as scouting goes you can choose to understand and follow the program or choose not to. If our worlds are all that different Barry it is probably just that we made different choices. * Have you considered why there are so few people active onn the forum who openly use and support the methods of scouting? * I am curious, How many posters would stop a stranger on the street and ask for an opinion on how they should lead a scout program? Anyone? And yet some of you do that all the time on the Internet. * The program has always relied on the personal integrity of the volunteers and the people who select them to do the right thing. (posted in a way to imply that other posters or anyone who disagreed lacked personal integrity). * It was nice to have another person on the site who cared enough about the program to try to learn and follow it. (Implyin' everyone else doesn't care about da program) and those are barely da tip of the iceberg. Most weren't even directed at his usual tit-for-tat "associates." ------- In readin' all these things, I tend to dismiss 'em as someone who hasn't learned how to communicate well on-line, or how to separate critiquing a position from attackin' a person. It's OK, we all sometimes sit around campfires with fellow scouters who have quirks and whatnot. And I have more than my share, and have been mis-read for miscommunicatin' plenty! But I'm thinkin' more that these are the poster's real feelings, eh? That he actually doesn't value any of the contributions of the many scouters here, and really intends to impugn our integrity, our work with kids, or our ability to read. Don't know if I'm right about that, hope I'm not. But I can understand someone who would think that. I do know that I've learned a lot from a number of folks here, eh? Good ideas, good perspective that have helped me in my work on behalf of scoutin'. Eagledad, Lisabob, jblake, scoutldr, Eamonn, Oak Tree and many, many others. Yeh all know who yeh are! (need a smillie that does a Scout Salute!). Thing is, every one of 'em at some point has gotten both barrels from this fellow. Either that or been dissed a bit for not bein' able to read or not havin' integrity to do what he feels BSA recommends. And we haven't seen some of 'em in a bit, eh? For my part, I can't figure why someone who doesn't value input from others here, who tends to belittle da members of the community here, chooses to spend time here, eh? At best it's pigeon management (swoopin' in and droppin' bird poop on folks), at worst it's just trollin'. Yah, yah, we also have Merlyn, of course, but we keep him around as our pet troll. Seems to me if it was a unit I was workin' with, I'd sit with the adult and ask him or her why they were here? If they don't value da perspective of most of the members, and they don't even value internet forums in general ("opinions of 2000 people" and all that)? Forums, like scout units, have certain goals and character. If yeh don't buy into the goals, and yeh can't stand da characters, yeh need to find somewhere else to spend your time. But I might be wrong. I personally believe that every poster here is here because they care about kids and about scouting. I believe they all make use of and openly support the methods of scoutin', and are able to read, and have integrity. Still want to believe it of this fellow. Sometimes folks are just in da wrong place or wrong position, though, eh? Best to find 'em a spot where they can feel more at home, and be more productive. Makes 'em more positive and cheerful about this scoutin' stuff too, eh?! Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I can't say enough about Buglers Across America and encouragin' your young scout musicians who can play Taps well to volunteer. Means da world to the family of a service member called home. To be honest, havin' participated with youth in many of these, I think havin' a lad in a scout uniform play taps is far more moving than even a regular military bugler. Just feels to everyone like it's the next generation honoring the fallen for the gift of Liberty. I rarely see a dry eye in da field. Beavah

Yah, for all those who care about such minutia, da COR can dual register as either an MC or CC or ScoutParent unit coordinator, not just CC, and yeh will find in the real world that it isn't uncommon for a CO to designate different CORs for different levels of program. Councils will approve this if asked. Only fair, eh, so as to give da CO proportionate representation. Also makes sense, especially for schools and churches and such, where often different people deal with elementary vs. secondary programmin'. I agree with both BobWhite and jblake, eh? I've seen plenty of COs that charter both troops and crews do it successfully, if da CO has a commitment to runnin' 'em as separate and distinct programs, OR if da CO has a commitment to runnin' 'em as tightly coordinated programs. Either way, each program knows where it fits. Where things are a problem, IMO, is when a crew is a sorta half-spinoff of a troop, put together by one group of boys/parents (especially parents with daughters ). That kind of gets into what I think jblake is talkin' about - the SM's feelin' boys are being "stolen" and the like. Happens in an "absent" CO most often. As jblake describes, da crew in such a situation needs to have a vision of its own, independent of the troop. Personally, I don't like da criss-crossin' of registrations at any level. I don't think commissioners should also be unit scouters, I'd try to clean up this bit with a CR for one unit bein' a SM for another. Can't say I like district positions bein' held by too many unit scouters either, or even unit leaders who split time at multiple levels. Just tends to confuse everyone, and cause even the best people to mix up their roles. Cub leaders who also work Boy Scouting tend to make Boy Scouting more like Cubs (or vice versa); Boy Scout leaders who jump to Venturing tend to mess up Venturing by makin' it like Boy Scouting. Just MHO, but I think it's best for folks to choose a job or two to do well rather than criss-crossin'. Not always possible, but worth workin' toward. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

There is nothing in the BSA that allows the committee to vote on the chairperson. Nor is there anything which prohibits it, eh? This is done is some units, not in others. Generally speakin' I don't recommend contentious votes, but prefer workin' things out like friends and adults. I'm with Lisabob here. Yeh have what looks like a CC that other packs would die for. Someone who's committed, organized, and energetic, eh? Count your blessings. The alternative is far worse. But part of da problem with committed, energized, and organized people is that they take a lot of ownership of stuff and move it along... sometimes faster than others are willin' to go, sometimes without considerin' the feelings of others. I think the cup of coffee is in order. Feedback is a gift. The other thing I'd try to find is a good friend of hers on the committee who complements her style and can provide a bit of a "buffer" for the rest. Committees are teams, and strong people often need good partners. Beavah

Now, in my world to accuse someone of confessing implies rather strongly that they have done something wrong. So the many people who confess a faith in Jesus Christ are all admitting to doing something wrong? I don't think so. I suspect da word has a variety of meanings, not all of 'em bad. How we look at other people, whether we choose to read their writing in a bad/judgmental way or in a positive light, reflects on the reader as much or more than da writer, eh? In internet forums, where there are no tone of voice cues, no facial cues beyond simply smillie conventions , it's important to read imagining folks are fellow scouters around a campfire. Different folks have their own styles of speakin', eh? Some even have adorable accents. Discussions can be heated at times, but everybody's in da same game of servin' kids. Though I worry a bit at times about some of our characters leadin' new folks afield (and others worry about that in my posts), I've found it rare that anyone who is engaged in Scouting is not a friend. So don't go away, Docrwm, but lurk instead for a bit. That's good advice for any online forum. Get to know da characters, learn the lingo. Just like in your profession or in scouting, there's getting a degree and then there's learning da practice. The books and classes for a degree are important, but they don't take away from the need to learn the practice. If pseudonyms bug yeh, there are other online Scouting email lists and forums that require actual names. I encourage yeh to check those out. Here's da current list of USSSP net resources (the NFP lists, unlike this for-profit forum): http://usscouts.org/netresources/netresources5.asp Go visit some of those. I reckon you'll find da same characters, the same squabbles, the same sort of friends and fellow scouters. Yah, and they also have a few people who mistake challengin' a person's ideas with challengin' a person, as both reader and writer. A signature doesn't change that dynamic much, IMO, but it does lead to some additional SPAM. You should judge for yourself. Continued good luck to you in your journey, and good fortune in your service to youth. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Docrwm, I reckon what Eamonn and others are tryin' to tell you is that the certificate you're talkin' about is just a bin item, like one of da "National" certificates lots of units pick up at the scout shop to present to Scoutmasters and SPLs and such. Our names as commissioners are never sent off to National for approval (beyond bein' typed into Scoutnet), and nobody from national reviews 'em or actually "commissions" us. But if it makes anyone happier thinkin' that their wreath comes direct from Irving, no harm, no foul. Yah, Eamonn, I hear yeh on da "Distinguished Commissioner" award, eh? At the time I earned it, I certainly didn't feel very distinguished. Even many years later, I feel like I'm a better commissioner, but I still don't feel worthy of a recognition. Mostly it's a friendly job, sometimes it's firefighting, but at the end of the day I'm never really sure whether I contributed to da life of kids, eh? I hope by smoothin' things for adults, keepin' goals and values in the forefront, and maybe sometimes bein' an example of service that perhaps I've had an effect down the chain? Maybe? But I'm never sure. Certainly don't feel deservin' of a wreath. I think it's fairly clear across da country that the Commissioner Service is mostly a dyin' breed. Not very many districts and councils have active and good ones, and in many cases I've seen folks just plug positions with warm bodies. I think some of what we used to do "back in the day" is bein' replaced by online information and such. The rest of the traditional role of commissioner, still present in international scoutin', has been mostly subsumed by da professional service. Beavah

Hi clc5105. Let me ask a question, eh? Is this person a real COR, or was he a warm body that yeh put on the roster to fill a position? In other words, is he a member of the CO with a good relationship with da IH and organization, so he really is representin' their interest? If not, then I think you and the CC go sit with da IH and explain the relationship, and work with him to appoint a real COR. Move da old one to a regular MC. Beavah

Beavah the rule you refer to relates only to the active membership requirement and not to the leadership requirement so it is not relevant to the topic of the thread. Yah, well, sorry about dat. Someone had gotten talking about "active." Here yeh go then about POR, from da Patrol Leader's Handbook: What is expected of me? While you are a patrol leader, your troop and patrol are going to count on you to live up to some clear expectations. They will look to you to: * Represent the patrol at all patrol leaders' council meetings and the annual program planning conference. * Keep patrol members informed of decisions made by the patrol leaders' council. * Play a key role in planning, leading, and evaluating patrol meetings and activities. * Help the patrol prepare to participate in all troop activities. * Learn about the abilities of other patrol members and fully involve them in patrol and troop activities by assigning them specific tasks and responsibilities. * Attend troop junior leader training and continue to work on advancement. * Encourage patrol members to complete their own advancement requirements. * Set a good example by having a positive attitude, wearing the Scout uniform, showing patrol spirit, and expecting the best from yourself and others. * Devote the time necessary to be an effective leader. * Work with others to help make the troop go. * Live by the Scout Oath and Law. * Solicit ideas and concerns from patrol members so they have input to the planning and operations of the patrol. Beavah

From Boy Scouts of America Rules & Regulations ARTICLE VII. YOUTH MEMBERS GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS SECTION I. Active Clause 1. An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit: subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age, as promulgated from time to time by the Boy Scouts of America.

Yah, in da previous thread, Docrwm confessed to bein' a new commissioner, recently out of trainin', and working mostly in serving Cub Scouting units, eh? He expressed interest in serving kids and units, in ways that were truly helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind to others. So in that spirit, what thoughts, ideas, and advice would da group like to share for a new unit commissioner? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

From the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms: "Will it play in Peoria?" - will it be acceptable to an "average Joe", symbolized by someone from the small town of Peoria, IL. Bein' "from Peoria" means bein' an "average Joe." BobWhite, my post was not all about you, it was about da challenges of interpretin' a lot of internet sources, from da USSSP's "Ask Andy" (also an "average Joe") site to this one, eh? My post was about how on the internet, just like at a camporee or a roundtable, we find all kinds of folks, eh? Some with a lot of experience, some with a little. Some with quite a bit of knowledge, some with a little. Some quite opinionated, others pretty laid back. Goes with da territory, eh? Bunch of average Joes we are. Adults from all walks of life, volunteering in a children's program. I reckon I'm grateful for the mix, but especially those with a lot of experience who share that. Me personally, I can't see gettin' my shorts in a knot over da meaning of a wreath on a patch or what level of poohbah I am as a commish. My role is just to be a friend to unit scouters and to be helpful, eh? As long as a commissioner on my staff understands that, we're good. Docrwm is a new commissioner, fresh out of training. Like all folks new to a job, now that he's done trainin' he can start learnin'. There are a lot of folks with a lot of years in da Commissioner Service here, and hearin' our perspective I reckon is what he needs now, eh? Not a bunch of book quotes, but practical advice on how to do the job well. I hope he sticks around and asks more questions, and I hope we respond to him in that way. But we all get heated occasionally, just like around a campfire. This thread does have one comment I made to ASM59 in error, which I apologized to him for personally some days back but which I'll apologize in public for. I was respondin' to try to tone down da Nazi references of another poster and typed his handle by mistake, not readin' carefully. Sometimes, we just goof or misunderstand each other, and rely on fellow scouters to recognize us as fellow scouters - good people at heart - and see through our foibles. Now BobWhite, forgive me for bein' blunt, but yeh seem like a blunt kind of fellow. I reckon you see posts as bein' "attacks" because that's the way you seem to treat other people, and yeh assume other people work the same way. When yeh respond to 'em, you always seem to try to get in a "dig," or some comment about how we're all less than good scouters. I reckon other folks are motivated by other things, or at least don't approach things quite da same way. Where you see an "attack," I only see someone tryin' to be helpful or offer a different perspective, and perhaps gettin' a bit exasperated by havin' it thrown back in his face. I suspect I'll never convince yeh or get yeh to change. But I hope along da way the perspectives others share will help yeh in your work with young people. 'nuff said. Beavah

There is nothing in the current BSA literature that contradicts what you have posted Click. In fact it supports it. Despite bein' asked several times, BobWhite, you've never been able to point to anything in the literature which supports this rather odd view of yours. "Approving" adult leaders is always a function of da CO/IH/COR in the BSA, not the Committee Chair. Scoutmaster's Handbook, Troop Committee Guidebook, Selecting Quality Leaders pamphlet, video, and supplementary module, COR training module, etc. all say da same thing. Committee selects and recommends, COR/IH approve, committee recruits. There's good, practical reasons for that, eh? IMO, a CC who tries to do this on his own, whether to approve or deny, is takin' on more risk than he should. Since he's not speakin' for the committee, and he's not authorized to speak for da CO, he's making the selection of a unit leader - and any negative consequences of that choice - his personal responsibility. Just not smart, and not safe. I recommend followin' da BSA program materials instead. Beavah

Yah, emb, badges are now restricted items. Not supposed to get 'em until you've filed the paperwork. My approach is the same as yours. Give the lad immediate recognition by keepin' a supply on hand, then file the paperwork to replenish the supply. Like I said, paperwork scofflaw, I mean... workaround! For units lookin' to set that up, yeh can have anyone who is a current rank buy a couple of patches and turn 'em in to build the supply, eh? Boys of the current rank can always buy new badges for new or additional uniforms. Yah, I know, my ethics are now suspect again. I just think the lads should be recognized immediately, and get to wear their badge right away while they are excited about it. B

Yah, there's no 700+ billion dollar package that can't get passed if yeh add $150 billion in pork to it, eh? Wish I had da money to set up a monument in Washington with da names of all the congressmen who voted for this thing, so that next year and in the years following when the vultures come home to roost, they will be remembered for their legacy. B

I think it's funny when an assistant unit leader in Peoria makes himself BSA spokesperson, eh? Part of the zest of online forums. And it's really interestin', because it shows where our literature and trainin' haven't accomplished what they should. How easily misinformation gets passed on "definitively" with much bluster and blow. That can become a particular problem for us, as on-line learnin' and communication expand, and folks get a lot of their information online, whether from "Ask Andy" or from email lists or forums. I'm not sure it's really any worse than local trainin' problems, as GW mentioned in da CC thread. "Train the trainer" really doesn't verify a person's understandin', nor does it seem to keep people on the official curriculum. Been to a few districts over the years where things had sort of run off the rails. As long as there's perspective provided by former BSA professionals like BadenP, some of our gold-tab scouters like NeilLup, and other folks who have served in perhaps healthier councils and districts, I reckon it's just fine. Folks then get exposed to lots of views, and can choose what's effective. My worry would be that a forum or exchange would get selected by some like-minded folks, who just reinforced misinformation or incomplete understandin' without anyone contributin' a different perspective. Yah, I reckon lots of us have seen that kind of "old boy's clique" in some districts, eh? It would be worrisome if the same thing happened online. So for my part, I don't reckon it's "attacking" anyone to offer additional and possibly better information, or a different perspective. It can be an act of kindness or helpfulness. Beavah

Yah, click23, you are free to believe whatever yeh like, eh? And your Chartered Organization is free to operate in the way you describe if they feel that is in keeping with their policies and values. So if it works for you, OK. Nuthin' "wrong" with it. Just understand that it's not the way the BSA recommends units operate in any of its literature, so it might not be right to recommend to all other units out there, eh? The Scoutmaster's Handbook, the Troop Committee Handbook, the Training for Chartered Organization Representatives, the training on selecting unit leaders, and the other training documents all point folks to a different way. There's good reasons for that. First, it shows due diligence in leader selection, and thereby provides some protection in terms of legal risk management. Second, the BSA has found over time that doin' things that way avoids problems like adult conflict and leads to better selections. Like I've said, I've unfortunately had to help remove several CC's who acted in da way you suggest. I think it's fascinatin' that when they added that one line on da new application form that folks believe it replaces all da other BSA literature. Probably because people read the applications, when they might not read the other literature. I suppose it's something we should probably fix in da next printing. Beavah