Beavah

Yah, I'm a bit confused, aliscout. There's nothing about "outing" in the requirement, eh? "Since joining, have participated in X separate troop/patrol activities (other than troop/patrol meetings), Y of which included camping overnight." Camping overnight is straightforward. For the rest, it should be a troop or patrol activity, eh? Going to a counselor for a MB is an individual activity, unless a patrol schedules it specifically as a patrol activity (ex. "We're all going to go out to the lake every Thursday afternoon and work with Mr. Jones on Canoeing MB as a patrol"). So I'd say "no" to just a couple boys working on a MB. I'd say "no" to a MB college as just a silly thing to do , but also because it's an individual event, rather than a patrol or troop working together on something. I'd say "yes" to troop-level JLT provided it was something more than just a meeting and involved other activities. Another thing to think about is that in most troops, by the time kids are ready for 2nd Class or 1st Class they have a lot more than the minimum for these requirements, so much so that it isn't worth even counting. So if yeh find that this particular requirement is a big deal for your program, yeh might look at how good a job you're doin' on Outdoor Method (enough outings going on?), Patrol Method (patrol outings going on?), and/or Advancement Method (are they really proficient in the other requirements after such a short time in the program?). Beavah

Yah, I think theft is immoral. I suppose yeh could call that a "prejudice", but I think that's just bein' silly. Whether a thief is immoral or not I can't answer. That's up to a Guy with more Qualifications than I have. I think that recreational drug use is immoral, too. More religious-based prejudice, I suppose. Whether a particular drug user is immoral or not I can't answer. I understand that the drug user experiences a natural attraction or "orientation" to drug use, and that such addiction happens for reasons that may be biological or environmental or some combination. But I would try to convince him to stop using drugs. And I would try to keep other kids from followin' in his footsteps in terms of drug use. And I wouldn't hold him up as an example of leadership to children. Must be an expression of my hate. Just like my condemnation of gay-bashing. I think that's immoral too. Guess I should stop that, it's just being prejudiced. Trying to tar all religious folks who object to homosexual activity on ethical grounds with the brush of gay-bashing is the worst sort of religiophobic hate-based prejudice. There's not a single western religion that teaches it's OK to beat up or kill a man for his orientation. We're all about conversion. Beavah

It is interestin', though, gwd's comment that all the larger troops in his/her area have some percentage attendance expectations, eh? Whether they look like asses or not, or occasionally lose a lad to a transfer to gwd's troop, they seem to be successful at gettin' and keepin' boys in the program. Beavah

Thanks for da clarification, gwd. I agree with you, it should be holistic. Or at least, I like it better that way . I'm not particularly fond of da rulesmongerin' bean-counters, whether about percentages or anything else. Part of helpin' kids and families, though, is givin' 'em guidelines, at least to start. I like usin' courtesy and teamwork and commitment and such myself. But there's always folks who "push the envelope". So inevitably, there's some lad that yeh have to talk to about courtesy, or being a more active team member, or whatnot. And sometimes when yeh do that, there's a parent who starts complainin' that's a subjective standard and you're just out to get their kid or bein' judgmental about their family priorities or whatnot. I think that's why troops retreat to rules and objective percentages. Same reason G2SS retreats to rules and arbitrary numbers (why 3 hours of paddling practice? Why a whole set of precise water clarity definitions?). So I understand why some folks like hard-and-fast "objective" guidelines, eh? They feel easier and more fair to enforce than those that involve judgment. As a guideline, I find nothing wrong with percentages. It's a much easier expectation to communicate than "teamwork". But as a hard and fast rule, I find the same problem with percentages as I do with everyone who quotes guidelines as hard-and-fast rules. Beavah

At what point are we allowed to call a belief that is supposedly based on religion to be just plain wrong? You're allowed. Just a question of what yeh want to achieve, eh? Callin' someone else's fundamental belief hateful is a good way to start conflict and war, eh? Is that what you want to achieve? Most folks who aren't religiophobic recognize that the way to change people's fundamental belief isn't to argue with 'em and call them wicked. It's to convert them. To present a whole system of thought and community and support so that they voluntarily change their fundamental belief. Da question is whether the religiophobes have such a thing, eh? Or whether the coherence of their thought is limited to rejecting the beliefs of others, rather than building something positive of their own. Beavah

Am I the only one havin' edit message problems? Every time I try to edit a post, I get: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14' [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver] Line 1: Incorrect syntax near '.'. /forums/forumLibrary.asp, line 260 Anyone else havin' this issue? Beavah

ASMs and I agreed that motivation through punishment does not work. We prefer to use consistent reinforcement of the idea that to get the most out of the program a Scout must be present when things are happening. Yah, gwd, I may be misunderstandin'.... But "the idea that to get the most out of the program a Scout must be present" ... doesn't that usually mean that unless you're present, you won't be havin' fun and learnin' and advancing? Advancement comes from being present and contributing and working hard, eh? Or to quote the BSA policies "In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration." So it seems like both troops are sayin' "You have to attend to advance", which is just common sense, not punishment. One troop tries to help by putting a firmer guideline in place, one doesn't. I suspect one troop is more comfortable for overscheduled and pushy folks who need firm guidelines and for folks who like "rules" for their kids. Yours is probably more comfortable for all da rest of us . Personally, I usually find that kids who get much below 50% on attendance usually drop out within a year. So pushin' for 50% attendance can be a good retention strategy in many places. Beavah

Yeh got me, LongHaul. I don't know enough about the error checkin' on that gawd-awful clunky program . I usually ask our council registrar that kind of stuff. I can do that if yeh like. Not sure you're gettin any real service out of Chicago these days . As a Sunday evening guess, I'd say yeh might get it into ScoutNet for a boy, but it might kick for a young lady... if only because da registrar got puzzled about entering a MB for "Jennifer". I'd still advise a crew to do Venturing stuff, rather than Boy Scouting stuff. Just don't see the point in dumbing down a crew program to middle school level, which is where most MB's are targeted. The Bronze, Gold, Silver, Ranger, Quartermaster, etc. program is so much more interestin' and challenging. Beavah

They did pretty good with the Boy Scouts Equal Access Act for schools, eh? Didn't even really need to hold your breath, as quick as that sailed through on bipartisan majorities. But I don't think yeh really want to make a claim that "following the law" is the same thing as "doing what's right", do yeh? B

Yeh can find some people who are prejudiced about anything. Yeh can find a few people who can be put in situations where they really express hatred. So "yes" and "yes." But from readin' what you're writin', yer really tryin' to paint with a much broader brush, eh? You're not sayin' that there's some people who have prejudice, or a few people who hate. Yeh seem to be implyin' that everyone with an opinion about not according homosexuality protected class status must be both prejudiced and hateful. All public policy necessarily treats with groups, and inevitably creates injustice with respect to individuals. Make a law about affirmative action, inadvertently give preference to a wealthy black man over a poor white Appalachian farmer. Make a law about taxing estates, inadvertently take the family farm away from a family where their land is their only real asset. The fact that policy must necessarily treat with groups doesn't mean all discussion of public policy involves prejudice or hate. And in that context, not all judgment is pre-judgment. It isn't prejudice or hate to suggest that affirmative action may not be good public policy. It isn't prejudice or hate against farmers to suggest we still need an estate tax. It isn't prejudice or hate against sexually active folks for Catholics to have a celibate priesthood. But it might be prejudice and hate for someone to claim that folks who adhere to certain religious values must be prejudiced, hateful, and interested in conflict. Beavah

Yah, one can also be prejudiced in favor of gays, eh? And one can be a "religiophobe" expressin' "hate" against folks of faith, and accusin' 'em of all kinds of things. A few of which may be somewhat true, in da same way that many-partner promiscuity in the gay male community is somewhat true. Prejudice and hate cut both ways, packsaddle. Best to stay away from that kind of loaded language, eh? Beavah

Personally, it's a bunch of bs and it's time the USA followed most other countries into the new century and go completely coed. Nah, there should be a place for single-gender activity, particularly among adolescents where development comes at different paces. And I'm in agreement with da BSA rules requiring a same-gender adult along on a campout, which can limit da ability to do a coed program if yeh have limited female outdoor leadership. Still, it would be nice to have a girls middle school outdoor adventure leadership program under BSA auspices. It would further strengthen coed Venturing. Beavah

Yah, Merit Badges are a Boy Scout Program Division thing, eh? Yeh can't really earn 'em as a cub or Venturer.... except for the 1st Class boy transferin' into a crew as described. No real way to enter 'em into ScoutNet, and no way to buy the badge without an "accepted" advancement report (not that anyone's goin' to look at many councils ). I've always been mildly opposed to offerin' MB's and Boy Scout Rank Advancement as part of the Venturing program. Ain't one of the methods, doesn't fit with the other program materials, isn't age-appropriate, and half da membership can't participate. One of those weird program mix kind of things we should move away from. If yeh want MB's and Eagle, stay dual-registered in a Troop. Do Venturing things in your Venture Crew, not Boy Scout things. But if a crew really feels the need to borrow a Boy Scouting program element like workin' on a MB, I can't see why everyone in the crew wouldn't participate in the activity. Good learnin' experience and yeh should do things together. Give everyone an in-crew recognition patch at the next crew awards ceremony. Give da boys the MB on the side. Beavah

Packsaddle, the exact same majority of city council that can vote the rent on the boy scouts can vote to change the law in Philadelphia. Da "law" is just a decision by a majority of councilmen either way. Which gets us back to "What is in the best interest of the public?". That's the purpose of law, eh? Beavah

Yah, pack, I'm not opposed to "local option", eh? Seems fairly sensible, we have it anyway for da most part. But da BSA is a democracy of sorts, and da majority aren't comfortable with local option.... sorta like lots of folks on da forums don't like "local option" for things as small as adding a uniform patch or decidin' who should be an MBC. . But this is a different question, eh? Not a constitutional question, a local law question. How should da government interact with its citizens of faith who are engaged in activities that benefit the public? The "yeh have to benefit ALL of da public" is just poppycock. Around here, most rural public school districts do not provide services to severely handicapped kids, eh? They refuse. Services are provided by the tri-county district. Does that mean that public school districts shouldn't receive tax dollars? In our state, we have affirmative action in a bunch of hirin', and many local governments have a preference for local vendors. Many public college scholarships are only available to certain individuals, not everybody. Governments discriminate and restrict services to people all da time, eh? So da notion that yeh have to provide a service to everybody to merit tax dollars is poppycock. If some private agency can handle after-school and educational supplement programming for 80,000 kids in exchange for a token rent on a building they built and maintain, that's 80,000 less kids that have to be served by tax dollars. Great deal. Instead, they're goin' to charge rent, which means they have to maintain the building. So they make maybe 50K per year after expenses. But now either the city is goin' to provide programming for 80,000 kids for $50K per year, or they're goin' to cut services to kids. Is that in the public interest? All kinds of nitwits who stand on self-righteous "principle" like a rebellious teenager not realizing how much damage they do to the health of a community makin' a mountain out of a molehill. They should grow up. Beavah

Call your local Boy Scout council office. Yeh can look it up here at Scouter.com. Ask to speak to the District Executive for your town. He will guide you through all the paperwork. Yeh need to: 1) Have a "Chartering Organization" - a community organization like a church, private school, VFW, club, or business to serve as owner/sponsor of your group. The head of the organization has to sign the paperwork, and appoint a "Chartered Organization Representative" to work with you. The paperwork they sign is called a "Chartering Agreement". 2) Register several people as official leaders by having them fill out a Boy Scouts of America Adult Leader Application. That includes one person as Advisor (chief person who works with kids), 3 people to serve as Committee Members including a Committee Chair (to serve as a board of directors and assist the Advisor with adult-level behind-the-scenes stuff), and the Chartered Org. Representative. 3) Register 5 or more youth aged 14-20 by filling out a youth member application. 4) Submit all of the above, along with payment ($20 for the charter, plus an amount per registered youth and adult) to your Boy Scout Council Office. Then you're official! Get trainin', have fun! Beavah

Any further US comment on non-BSA/GS options for Mom? Campfire USA has a chartering relationship like BSA, with insurance coverage. Units are given a fair bit of autonomy, and access to camp properties. Also program materials, but last I checked they were pretty vague. I wish there were a great girls' outdoor adventure/leadership program to point to. But GSUSA has mostly abandoned that, unless an individual troop gets it together. Then they just have to deal with da paperwork . Makes BSA look downright simple. No surprise there are so many young ladies in Venturing, eh? Beavah

If the Salvation Army or the Catholic charity restricted the beneficiaries of its service to a certain subset of society, would that make it similar to the BSA deal? Kinda like da Salvation Army making folks receivin' services attend a religious talk? Kinda like Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program including a Higher Power? Or should we talk instead about how "public" entities restrict the beneficiaries of some of their services? Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, it's humorous to say that Philadelphia is bound by the law when they passed the law themselves. And they choose to ignore it with other kinds of public-private partnerships, like da Amachi Program which is cited - which partners faith-based organizations with Philadelphia to provide mentoring to children of incarcerated parents. Are we claimin' da Catholic Church doesn't discriminate in its leadership or membership? But they are uniquely well situated to provide mentors to at-risk hispanic kids, eh? I think the author thought Philly is wrong because he's arguing that public-private partnerships are a good thing for the public and should be encouraged. Elected officials should act in the best interest of the public, rather than furthering their own discriminatory agenda. From a public policy perspective, do we really care if it's the Salvation Army that takes the lead on sheltering the homeless? Is it really awful to give the Salvation Army a building for $1 rent if they provide services for free that would otherwise cost the city millions? Beavah

Well, it sure is comforting to know that we can safely ingore what it SAYS. Not at all. What it says is just fine. Yeh just have to read it in context. Remember that what OGE quoted is an excerpt from R&R reprinted in the Insignia Guide. So it's not in context. Second is that just because it's written down doesn't mean the intent of the writin' is perfectly clear to someone else. Like most of my posts, eh? That's why we do training in scouting, because yeh can't get everything just from readin'. You gotta see things in action and discuss meaning and intent. Training and discussion are important. Isn't that pretty much the Beavah philosophy? Da "Beavah Philosophy??!" :) Sounds like I should be makin' T-shirts. But yeh got it wrong. It's more like 1) Don't be content with fulfilling requirements or training. Don't stop at answers. Seek understanding. 2) Not everything is of equal importance. Know the difference between what's important and what ain't. (A toy gun ain't the same thing as a firearm....) 3) Just because a guy has too much sugar in his diet doesn't mean he's also smokin' crack and shootin' heroin. Forgive people their small foibles. 4) The world is complex, and subtle. Be skeptical of simple answers, they usually mean da guy givin' you the answer doesn't know what he's talkin' about. Even me! 5) When a parent asks a question, answer with what a good parent should do in that circumstance, not what the SM should have done. Save that for when da SM asks the question . and... 6) Right and Wrong is decided by God Alone. Don't try to do His job unless you have His qualifications. Beavah

Yah, fgoodwin, been through it a bunch of times. Dealin' with adult feudin' and squabbles tryin' to tear apart units is part of da Commish's life, eh? Often times, too many egos are involved to see reason, and the conflict can only be resolved by a Decision from Authority. So da CO made the decision. They endorsed the CC and removed da CM. Nuthin' you can to about that, don't let it get to you. In fact, it's probably a better resolution than letting the feud go on. Now it's just being helpful managing "what's next". A nice thankyou to the CM, a brief, reassuring, professional explanation to the parents and kids, a good search for a new CM. Follow Lisabob's script. And back to program as quick as they can. Since the CC and CO seem to be on the same page in this feud, I figure you can probably let the Committee manage the CM selection as long as there's not a lot of hard feelings by other parents. Havin' a DE there is fine, but not necessary unless yeh need some Authority around. Better the COR. The DE probably isn't going to know the folks that well. Beavah

Love your answer, Local1400. Ain't that da truth?! No, there's no official policy. Yeh don't need an official policy to allow you to be a reasonable, responsible adult leader. Do what's right and safe and works for your kids. If yeh want my advice, sleep is a good thing for kids. Go for the 8 hours (which will really only get yeh 6-7 after they're done talkin' with their tentmates and playin' cards under the covers). Beavah

Yah, sorry, OGE. Didn't mean it to be a "reprimand" but the edit feature ain't workin' anymore so I couldn't fix some of that language. I'm not sure I understand your question, though. "Class A" is of course meaningless if we're talkin' being official. If someone were to say that the BSA Boy Scout uniform consists of only the tan shirt, that would be incorrect. If a troop were to decide that's all they want their kids to wear to a meeting, that's their call, eh? We can argue about whether or not it's a good call. If a troop were to be asked by National to perform an official public function as representatives of the BSA, then they should be wearin' the tan shirt and the green pants and look da part, eh? Same with BSA camp staff and other employees. They should not be wearin' a "protest patch" or some other organization's award in an "off" way, but nobody would quibble about minor deviations or patch misplacements. And nobody would quibble about council-level adjustments (like everyone at camp wearin' Venturing green for consistency in ID'ing staff, or wearin' a special camp staff patch or such). National's interest in da R&R about uniform is to maintain proper control of their trademarked items and "look", and ensuring that it isn't abused in ways that misrepresent the organization. Nobody gives a hoot about the small stuff. Ever played "find da uniform violations" in National's official documents? Remember the kid in a green shirt with red tabs on the front page of the website for months? They sure don't sweat the small stuff. We're not the military. Uniformin' isn't a regulatory thing. It's a program piece in a kids' program. A unit that has a military ethic as a goal/mission can choose to be military-style regulatory about uniforms for their unit. Great for them, if it works. But that's their own program choice and not really what da BSA is about. Beavah

Yah, GLD, yer not goin' to find anything like that in any literature. So da question is what to do with an official patch without a specified uniform location. Most folks would say what others here are sayin', and I'd agree - it goes in the Temporary Patch location (right pocket, back of MB sash, patch blanket, patch jacket, etc.). As a commish, I read da Guide differently than Fred and those who want to be all military-rigorous with a kids' program. I think there's room for minor variation especially when it helps us achieve the Aims. So if your local NYLT trainers are tellin' the lads it's OK to use the above-right-pocket spot, and they're really proud of that and it's gettin' 'em to think NYLT is special and encourages other youth to take it (and SM's to send kids)... well, then would a good commissioner really stand in the way of that in order to quibble about a patch? The Uniform Method only works when da youth buy into it and it's special for them. Don't sweat the small stuff. Better to spend yer time with a unit that really needs support. Beavah

1. My troop's lead ASM recently said, of the overall program, ". . . as long as it's fun. After all, that's what's really important!". I would have expected him to think of 'fun' as necessary, but not a program goal. Is his view typical of most SM's and ASM's? I think many might say that. But the really good adult leaders have a vision for where they want their boys to get - in terms of skills, in terms of character and makin' good choices. I think for kids of Boy Scout age, "fun" means facing a real challenge with your friends and finding yourself successful. More fun is takin' those new skills and deeper friendships into bigger challenges. Fun isn't really "be entertained by others or by program". 2. Yep, there's somethin' special about groups that have been through real challenge together. Like the Marines, we create mostly artificial challenge to get kids there. Not boot camp, but at least an "obstacle course" of things to learn and do and work through that's tough. And then we let 'em into the field to face real challenges together. They develop their identity that way. It has a big impact. I think Scouts has gotten away from that feel in many ways, eh? Now as often or not we're just another youth club. Folks that get into required precision uniformin' "feel" that, too, I think, but they're goin' after a symptom, not a cause. 3. Don't know about the peer affiliation thing; maybe its da willingness to be on your own facing challenges that changes with adolescence. I think in a lot of ways da modern cub program, as it is typically run, really hurts recruitment and retention into Boy Scoutin'. 4. I think yeh were probably pushin' too much, HillBilly. If a lad wanted to pursue a bunch of non-Eagle badges because they were interestin' and challenging - more interesting and challenging than Eagle for him - then I'd say "great, go for it!". I'd even try to find him some really interestin', really tough counselors to give him challenge & success. Fun. Some of those Eagle Required Badges are gawd-awful boring! Leastways, as they're usually done. Nuthin' wrong with kids setting their own goals. But it's always a bit rough to have adults settin' goals for kids based on what the adult's interest is. Advancement's only a tool, and only 1/8 of Scoutin'. An interestin' question to ask yourself might be "why didn't the kids think of Eagle as particularly valuable?" Too much of an adult thing? Not challengin' enough? I agree with everybody else, though. A troop should help the lads a bit along the trail, especially the young ones. Get 'em to First Class and "competent", encourage and invite leadership/responsibility. After that, it's their deal. Good luck with your quest. Don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough" in your search. Beavah