Beavah

I'm sorry, Merlyn. Yeh keep making a claim that the BSA "signed nondiscrimination agreements" but I haven't seen any evidence of that. I haven't been willin' to dig into this as far as I have some of your prior allegations, but it strikes me from the way these things are usually handled that there probably were no such agreements. Do yeh have a reference or are yeh just making an assumption? And I keep telling people that the money will be re-allocated to an HONEST organization that will honor their word to follow the HUD requirements Maybe, maybe not, eh? The small amount of money involved may be consumed in staff time just to solicit new proposals. But yeh also have to consider whether any re-allocated money will be used better. An organization may meet your unique definition of honest, and then spend the money for 10 hours of staff "overhead" time with very little to show for it. After all, a lot of programs that provide services to urban youth do it with paid staff, rather than leveragin' it with a lot of volunteers. Me, I'd rather see my tax money used as well as possible to serve kids, rather than simply allocated to serve ideology. Beavah

So the rules only apply if they are convenient. Nah, the rules apply only when they serve their just purpose and meet the common sense test. The gang is right that ACP&P assigns BOR responsibility to the Ship Committee. BobWhite is right in that yeh just can't think of Irving as one coherent brain or even assume it has good editors for every publication. And the different publication schedules mean there's always something that's behind. In this case, it might be Bob's Sea Scout manual. But then yeh gotta understand the way things really work. Sea Scouts are sorta their own division, eh? They're only partially incorporated into Venturing, and that's because they've had a strong "independent" (civilly disobedient?) streak for many many years, dating back to when National tried to kill the program like it killed Air Scouts. So they sort of are responsible for their own program, and anybody who's seen a truly active ship has to admire 'em for it. In Sea Scouting, I expect it just makes more sense for the Bridge of Review to handle the rank advancement, eh? Since the Bridge handles all of the rank advancement. Better fit with da program, better experience for all the youth. Though I reckon it is fun catchin' poor old BobWhite in another program tweak. Beavah

Yah, I'm in da cold, standoffish North, eh? Honestly, I think our growing fear of physical signs of affection for kids is a form of violence against children. Young people need affection - especially boys for whom shared time and games and roughhousing and such is more meaningful than talking about feelings. The worst evil of child molesters is that they mimic the proper behavior of good, caring people - and provide affection and attention that other adults are too standoffish to provide. So I'd say be an ordinary, good, caring person. Hug children that need a hug. Squeeze a shoulder, put an arm around a kid who needs it if it seems right and natural and welcome. Talk with a kid in private if there's a need to talk to a kid in private. Be aware, but not fearful. Let's not have an increase in the youth suicide rate because we're too afraid to show kids we care about them. Beavah

Yah, again, I think there's a difference between arguing what the regulation is and what makes for the best public policy, eh? Let's not try to quash the public policy discussion with temporary legalism. It's that public policy discussion that gets laws changed, eh? Merlyn is right about the HUD regulation, but the regulation applies to HUD in its distribution of funds, not to the BSA - it's HUDs role to do due diligence. And we've already established that within the target community, it is altogether likely that the BSA was truly able to deliver services to any boy who wanted to participate. So accusations of "fraud" are just a bit trumped up, eh? Practically speakin', of course, if good folks didn't occasionally bend a social service regulation to do what was right by a kid or family, the system would be even more of a disaster than it is now, eh? So let's not be gettin' all hyper over Obedient when there's also Helpful, Friendly, Kind, Thrifty, Brave, helping others at all times, Mentally Awake and Morally Straight to be considered. Merlyn, if yeh believe in Affirmative Action, or Social Security, or Medicaid, or Federal Student Loans to attend an all-women's college, then you are allowing da government to discriminate in order to target services for a specific group of people. Because they need it, because it makes for good public policy, because a majority feels like it, whatever. But yeh can't allow discrimination in one area without considerin' whether it should apply in another. If it's OK to deny a majority-white firm a contract to favor a majority-black firm because it serves a public purpose, then it's OK to finance a soccer program targeting Latino children who are religious, or to give Pell Grants or GI Bill funds to attend Georgetown. The test for public policy is whether it serves a public purpose. The needs of kids in the Latino HUD families are real, and reachin' them even through a church-based or religious program (because that's how best to reach them!) serves a public purpose. But if legality is your only test for ethics, that's fine, eh? Because as you know, the trend in law and case law is slowly but steadily against you. As those laws change, are you going to keep arguin' based on law? Or are you going to change your ethics then and start arguin' based on principle and public good? Beavah

It always amazes me why people feel it necessary to make demands on others.... One cannot say they are promoting freedom and then take it away from others. Gotta agree with jblake here. I had that conversation with a young scout once, shortly after the Dale decision. He though bein' in Scouts was a "right." I said if it's a right then we have an obligation to provide leaders for anybody who wants to be a scout. Are yeh ready to empower me to pressgang you and your parents as ASMs so as to provide other kids with their "right" to Scouting? Can I levy a tax on you to fund that "right"? Scoutin' is a program provided by the generosity of others as a gift, a service. If yeh don't want the gift, it's OK to politely decline it. It's not OK to demand that they buy you the gift you want. Now, none of that stands in the way of our own reflection as Scouters and BSA folks about whether we want to offer that gift of our time and treasure more broadly than we are at present. That's our choice, and worth discussin', especially among those of us who actually have votes at the council or national level. I see two notions being possible. One is allowing youth atheists to join but keeping our expectations for adult leaders. I reckon that's what we have by default most places anyway, eh? Except when some particularly obnoxious set of parents decides to try to make a political statement with their kid. This would be the equivalent of a church running a soup kitchen for anybody in need, eh? Yeh might have to be a member of the church to serve, but not to eat. But if yeh eat, you might do it in a room that has a cross on the wall, a banner with a scripture passage, and someone sittin' next to you who says grace. We are what we are, but all kids are welcome. This likely gets us back into schools and federal grants. It will create an oddity in that there will be a few fine scouts who are not eligible to be ASMs. Da second notion, which is a bigger change, is simply respecting the CO's choice of adult leaders. CO's that are churches opposed to homosexuality may continue to use that as a selection criteria; others might not. If there's a real actuarial risk, reduce the insurance coverage for the latter group of COs and let 'em make their own choices. In both cases, we can keep a notion of duty to something outside yourself, and of reverence. Aside from the Relationships politics and other social politics, I reckon the first option wouldn't change us much at all, eh? Probably the second wouldn't either, really. Functionally, though, I reckon the second would split us. While some CO's may or may not stay in the BSA, they are at least likely to generate separate camporees and summer camps and other events for some period of time at the very least. That might be enough to cost us a lot of our camp properties and such. The short-to-medium term impact would stand a good chance of killin' a lot of councils. I think the first option is an easier one, though. Allow a footnote that "God" in the Scout Oath refers to any duty or obligation outside yourself and that of your family/tribe/nation. To the Earth/Global Environment, to Znerflot, to Peace, whatever - just something which can place demands on you to be a better person, and can serve as a counterweight to poisonous nationalism. But you'll be exposed to friends and adult leaders who believe in God and are allowed to express that belief and share it, just as they will be exposed to you. Beavah

Yeah, atheists HAVE no civil rights. If HUD funds are deliberately misused by lying BSA officials, who cares? I dunno, Merlyn. What's your position on affirmative action? If the government gives a preference to a racial group over another in college admissions, radio broadcasting, or government contracts, is that OK? Or is it a violation of the civil rights of the rest of us? Is Social Security discrimination by age because folks under 50 can't retire and start receiving it? Should federally backed student loans be denied to young women at Wellesley? Beavah

Yah, sorry there DDibben! I didn't mean to paint with a roller, I was just assumin' context already being discussed. We're talkin' about high-risk, high-poverty ethnic groups receiving HUD assistance, eh? And if you're not familiar with it, da Soccer & Scouting program is specifically targeted at Latino outreach by the BSA. When yeh look at urban and immigrant populations, whether it's school-church partnerships in Philadelphia or migrant outreach in rural western farmlands, one of the key contact points for social service are the churches. That's not sayin' that all churches are going to be great Scouting COs. It is saying that public social service dollars are often best spent in partnership with the churches which are the trusted community "anchors" to those communities. Beavah

"Nominally against"? Sounds like a blatant violation of the ACP&P. Remember, this is Boy Scout advancement in a Venturing setting. Yah, yeh know. BSA program materials are meant to be read and applied in context, not in isolation. They're a help to units and developing youth; they shouldn't be an obstacle. Most Venturing units don't do "advancement" and so there's no organizational structure set up for it, eh? So the ACP&P gives guidance on how such units can/should support a former Boy Scout on the last steps of his trail to Eagle. Sea Scouting, on the other hand, does have a well-developed advancement program and structure, which includes a "Bridge of Review" composed of adults and youth quarterdeck members. So it makes a lot of sense for a Ship to fit the Boy Scouting rank advancement into that system rather than create a separate parallel system, eh? Particularly if the Bridge members are familiar with Eagle. At least, if they desire to approach it that way. Beavah

A parent has dominion over his children, but none would consider sacrificing a child for a better home or view. Hmmm... yah. Tell that to the million aborted kids a year. It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish - Theresa of Calcutta

Yah, there is little question that Merlyn is correct on the regulations affectin' HUD grants, eh? I'm back to raising a different issue of principle. Is it good public policy? Does it really accomplish goals we feel are important? Does it really honor the hard work of locals who understand the local situation far better than folks half way across the country and who are just trying to do their best by kids? Who knows better what the local need is? Fact is, you can't reach the kids and families in at-risk, high-poverty environments without workin' with the Churches. At least not without greatly reducin' your effectiveness. There weren't any kids actually denied access, eh? So it may well have been the local councils and S&S folks who were playin' a quiet "civil disobedience" game on the BSA in order to do good work for kids, possibly even with a wink and a smile. So Merlyn only accomplished undermining his natural allies within the BSA. That's the problem with these tactics in my mind. Yeh do more damage by scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners polarizing tactics than yeh do by goin' along with things in small ways when the net effect is positive. So noxious is the effect of such tactics that yeh even get presidential candidates talking about constitutional changes to address such issues - changes that I think most all of us would object to - but dat's where polarizing tactics push things, eh? When we're talkin' about $5K out of the entire federal budget for a kids' soccer program highly leveraged by volunteers, we're in the noise. Better to spend our time on somethin' of substance. Beavah

Yah, kahits, you're exactly right. It can be a fine option for a young man who has "moved past" his troop but still wants to do Eagle. I've found that those lads coming from crews or ships are very fine and self-motivated Eagle candidates indeed. Good on yeh for takin' the time to find out about it and encourage it! BW, does your old copy of the Sea Scout materials show the BOR being conducted by the quarterdeck? I confess I sorta like that option better, even though it's nominally against the current ACP&P. Seems like it would fit better with the character and structure of a Ship than havin' the committee do it. I wouldn't squalk at a Ship making that tweak. Beavah

Oh, but when it comes to the BSA's dishonesty regarding atheists, many here are completely, insanely blind. I'm still curious to know how many Latino immigrants living in HUD you feel are atheists? It's quite possible that da BSA was bein' perfectly honest - they really could serve all of the target population. In the real world, yeh have a choice, eh, similar to the one you presented us. 1) You can choose to help people, by meeting them where they're at and using resources from all the population, or 2) You can choose that your personal agenda is more important than helping people, in which case you can try to force religious immigrant groups into exclusively secular programs, or reject resources from people whose views you don't like. If you really want to help the latino community with government programs, you had better be workin' in public-private partnerships with the church communities that provide their real social support and community backbone. The CO's for Soccer and Scouting are going to be Catholic Church organizations, eh? At least until folks like you are willin' to step up to the plate and move from suburban life down to the housing developments, eh? B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

You know, one could be a Congressman, a Senator, a President, a Supreme Court Justice and still not be eligible to be a member of the BSA Yah, that's true, eh? It still begs da question: Should it be true? I wonder if we can't continue to be an organization where duty to God and Reverence is important, but it isn't a standard for membership. I reckon in such circumstances we might encourage some young leaders to rebel against their parents' silly notions of godlessness, eh? Maybe that's the proper answer to Merlyn. Beavah

How sad. Remind me to write my congressman and senators to vote additional cuts to HUD as part of the budget negotiations this year. Perhaps the tax dollars saved will allow local private donors to fund youth programs for underserved, at-risk, minority kids. Just how many Latino immigrant children living in HUD housing do you really suppose are committed atheists, Merlyn? I bet you would be hard-pressed to find a single one. Atheism is a luxury of the idle rich. So the net effect of your zeal is to deny needed public service to families of faith, who were perfectly comfortable with the BSA. And to annoy voters who may in turn stop giving to the government, so that they can manage their own allocations to charity. If community polarization and animosity is your goal, yeh might be doing a good job. If service to the community and to children is your goal, I reckon yeh should be ashamed. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hi there keneunice! Welcome back to Scouting! Your first assignments as CC are: 1) Take the Boy Scout New Leader Essentials training on-line. 2) Take the youth protection training on-line. 3) Check with your district/council on when you might take the troop committee challenge training. 4) Strongly consider buying a uniform for yourself to be a good example to the leaders and kids. 5) Find out who your "unit commissioner" is for the troop and meet with him/her. They're the person from the district assigned to provide service to your troop. 6) Find out who the Chartered Organization Representative is for your ward/stake. Meet informally with them, perhaps along with your bishop, to learn about how your local LDS ward/stake uses the BSA program as part of its young mens program. The COR is the real "boss"... you work for him, and owe him your full loyalty. 7) Meet with all the scout leaders informally to get to know them. 8) Meet with all the committee members informally to get to know them. Get a sense for their strengths, so you know where they may be most useful. 9) Visit a couple of meetings, see things in operation, chat with parents. 10) Plan to get out on one campout to see things "in the field." All of this is just "familiarization", eh? Get to know your people and your resources and the current state of your program, round 1. Then come on back and let us know what you find, and we can suggest round 2! I think youth ministry in Scoutin' is one of God's great gifts to churches and young people. I hope yeh are able to support that important work for at least a few years. Stability helps! And I think you'll find it rewardin'. Beavah

Yah, kahits, you've got it. They do MB's on their own. For a POR, they can be a crew officer or do an advisor-assigned project. (Specifically listed qualifying positions are President, vice president, secretary, treasurer, boatswain, boatswain's mate, yeoman, purser, or storekeeper.) For Scout Spirit/SM Conference, the crew Advisor signs off and does the conference. Crew Committee does the BOR's. Pretty straightforward, except that the crew program itself won't (and shouldn't) be focused on Boy Scouting advancement, so the boy pursuing Eagle has to work more independently, which is fine. B

they're still trying to figure out what they believe and are walking on shifting sands anyway more often than not Yah, I agree with this, eh? Sat on a number of boards of review where boys declared themselves to be atheists. Made for good discussion. By the next board of review they were the president of the church youth group. I think we've got to meet kids where they're at, walk the road with 'em together for a ways. Eventually they'll find their path to go, whether it's rejecting ours (but still takin' things from us that will guide 'em down their road), or embracing some variant of ours. I reckon when we're makin' membership decisions up front, it's all about whether BSA Scouting is a good fit for the parents. Beavah

Yah, sredl, welcome to da forums, eh? I'd take a step back and have a conversation with your committee and CO about what your goals and values are as an organization. What does the CO feel the mission of fundraising is? Charity? Operations? Learning experience? Often times troops get into the nitty gritty of dollar allocations and it just becomes personal, political, or expedient, rather than actually being directed in ways that represent deeply held values. I know CO's who view fundraising as a communal Christian act. Each person gives according to his ability and takes according to his need. All moneys fundraised go to the troop, and get allocated either to group gear/expenses or to support for needy families. That's their ethic. They can be very successful. Contrary to popular belief, most Scouting families don't need to be "getting something" personally in order to participate in supporting the unit. I know some CO's and troops that feel very strongly about teaching youth hard work. So all fees are charged to kids no matter what, and they either pay their expenses or fundraise to pay their expenses. 100% of fundraised dollars gets allocated to Scout Accounts. Many hybrid the two. I know a couple of church-run units that introduce "tithing" - an expectation of giving 10% on top of fees or revenues to the troop. Some units will designate fundraisers on an individual basis - this one goes 100% toward buying a new trailer, the next one goes 50% toward the trailer, 50% to individual accounts. I reckon this is sort of a "democratic" allocation by committee vote. As acco mentions, all kinds of other things are possible too, eh? The key is to make your money follow your values and mission, not vice versa. And to be up-front and clear with everybody both how money is allocated and why - before you raise so much as a dime. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If one has to have games to keep it interesting, then there's something fundamentally wrong with the presentation in the first place. Yah, I agree with this, eh? A good presentation doesn't need games. But IMHO, thinkin' about MB's or T-2-1 as a "presentation" ain't the right way to be thinkin'. It's an easy thought pattern to fall into, I'll grant. Have to cover the material, have to make a presentation, etc. Better to think about MB's as apprenticeship, perhaps, and learning within Scouting as not "instruction delivered" but "challenge engaged in". Lisa'bob gives a fun example with Amateur Radio, eh? Have an enthusiastic HAM just come and show kids about radio. Make contacts, have 'em tune antennas, have fun just playing with gear and learning about radio. Never pick up a Radio MB requirement list. Be interested in radio for its own sake. Learn to proficiency because being proficient at something is fun. Along da way, they'll meet all the requirements for Radio MB, eh? But they'll learn a lot more, and it'll be fun and interesting because it's a challenge they engaged with - a mentorship and apprenticeship, not a class. MB Requirements and rank requirements are part of the second step of advancement - Testing. That's down the road a piece, and teaching to the test is a silly thing anyway. The first and most important step in Advancement is A Scout Learns. Really learns - to proficiency. And learns as a natural outcome of his activities, eh? Only after the scout has really learned does testing requirements come in. Beavah

Yah, DDibben, you'll forgive me for smiling, eh? I reckon your tale is fairly common. My guess is that districts that run "by the books" are relatively few. Partly, it's because districts are an artificial construct. The real entity is the Council. So one district role - Finance - really has very little meaning beyond an FOS target amount. The actual finance work of budgeting and strategic financial planning and financing of program and such are all done at the council level. A second district role - Membership - the folks involved really have no understanding of nor control over. They tend to spend their time sharing statistics. True membership growth in a mature district really depends on unit program, which they can't influence. In an immature district, it might involve developing new CO relationships, but that's typically "specialty" work that the committee members aren't always good at. Ironically, COR's would probably be best at it, but they're not at the meetings. The third role - Program - tends to focus on a few events a year. A camporee, a Merit Badge Day, etc. The actual work for those things is done by whatever volunteer(s) are leading up the event, not by the committee. The fourth role - Unit Service - is handled by the training folks and by the commissioner staff (where it exists at all). The actual work for those two groups is done individually or in their own subcommittee meetings, under the direction of the district training chair and district commissioner. Where it is done at all. So what happens at a District Committee meeting? Well, yeh get to hear mind-numbing reports from others, and then hang out with da old guys! Beavah

None of that changes in a BOR for two ranks. I can't imagine how the scout would benefit from doing that three times in one night or one month. Yah, but I can't help thinkin' that a lad that gets one short BOR for T-2-1 has been somehow shortchanged compared to a lad who completes the ranks progressively and gets 3 times the adult contact, the experience "interviewing" with adult strangers, etc.

I have found out that this is not the first issue with this adult leader and the Committee Chairman has another complaint about him and he will be asked to leave the troop. Yah, OK then, that can be a good answer too, eh? Seems like you have more than the "do nothing" committee you described earlier, eh? That's a fairly prompt and pro-active "tough" response. B

Yah, hmmmm.... Not quite sure where we're tryin' to go here. In this case you are apparently responding as a parent. That's fine, eh? You pull the gentleman aside and say "Hey, I know you didn't mean anything by it, but that's not OK with me. Please don't ever do it again." The gent acknowledges you sheepishly, tries to make an excuse to explain he didn't mean anything by it, apologizes, whatever. End of story, incident finished, return to friendly scouting. As BobWhite suggests, if you're an ASM and just watching this and it makes you a touch uncomfortable, you do the same thing, eh? If it's a repeated issue and the guy keeps it up after you've approached him about it, then you bring it to the SM/CC's attention and let 'em handle it. And after that on up the chain if appropriate as Lisa'bob describes. What you seem to be describing is in your own words "something a dad might do to his own son" while being playful or whatever. Incidental horseplay or affection doesn't in my mind rise beyond "Hey, George, you should think about that a bit more and maybe avoid the touching, eh?" But I reckon we can't give yeh a more general answer without knowing the type of touching and the context and the players involved and whether there's any subtext or "grooming" behaviors or whatnot. Me personally as a dad, I was always grateful for the people in my son's life who were affectionate. Kids need hugs from teachers and coaches and friends and SMs on occasion, not just from dad. And a little bit of friendly roughhousin' is fine, too. How many games of "try to drown the SM" involve the SM pickin' up Joey and sendin' him flying with delight to splashdown? Beavah

Yah, Kansascity, to go on to answer the second part of your question - no, I really haven't seen folks try to put delays in to the T-2-1 sequence very often. But there are troops that set dates for BOR's (like last meeting of each month) and may only do one at a time per boy. Just ways of managin' adult and youth time to be fair. I think I'd sit with da Committee and chat about what their concerns really were. Timing is symptom, but not usually a cause of committee concern. It may be that they're just not seeing the level of personal growth and development they want reflected in the advancement program. I suspect with some conversation about goals for the program a better approach might be considered. Set the expectations higher, and yeh don't need to introduce artificial time hurdles. B

Yah DDibben, I think you hit the nail on the head, eh? DC meetings are typically boring/waste/mess. When they're not, they tend to be "worker bee" meetings - details like who is doing camporee check-in and where the forms are. Good CORs and IHs (especially!) are very busy people, and are "big picture" people. If we bring a pastor to a district committee meeting to listen to someone complain about last year's hot dogs at the pinewood derby being cold, he's never going to return, eh? If we want CORs and IHs, it better be for something substantive that merits their attention and expertise, and it better be run professionally not amateur-hour. B