Beavah

I used to buy into the idea that our Scouts weren't as "Scouty" as we were. But I don't any more. I think many of the leaders are just not doing what they should be doing. I'm not sure if the leaders don't have the skills? Interestin' point, Eamonn. It does seem to me that Scoutmasters and other adult leaders have gotten older and rounder over the years. Some of that may be that people are gettin' married and having kids later in life. Makes a big difference if we're 35 and 160 instead of 45 and 200 how we view a strenuous outing. And as you say, in da long run the kids are goin' to follow the lead/encouragement of the adults in terms of the program. Beavah

The excuse for these troop method summer camps is how efficient it is. Hog wash, I could have cooked and cleaned in the same time and probably had better chow than what came out of the slop chute. Yah, I gotta agree with Gonzo here. My experience is that any troop that's used to patrol cooking can do much healthier, tastier (and personalized) meals in less time than a dining hall camp. More time for fun! Patrol Cookin' options seem pretty limited SE. None listed in NC, SC. In GA I show three camps that offer a patrol cookin' option: Camp Blue Heron in Riceboro Woodruff Scout Reservation in Blairsville Bert Adams Scout Reservation in Covington All of them also have a dining hall. This data's from a few years back, so you'd want to check to make sure the option was still available, but I expect yeh'd have good luck. Beavah

Can anyone provide a single scripture from the Bible that condemns slavery? Luke 10: 27-37 Romans 13: 8-10 Galatians 5: 1 James 2: 8-10 Leviticus 19: 33-34 All of Exodus

I always thought that the purpose of the scout uniform was for the sake of identification with and pride in the scouting movement Yah, dats OK, eh? But its not the primary reason any of those other well uniformed folks Nessmuk mentions wear the uniform. Identification with and pride in sorta reminds me of my Irish friends wearin green in da St. Paddys day parade, eh? Is that what we really want uniformin for? If so, then we need to have a uniform that the kids are proud to wear in public. And we need real neckerchiefs, like da rest of the Scoutin Movement. I think even then that wearin' clothes doesn't cause pride, it's an expression of pride that exists for other reasons. Scouts from other troops can see where the unit is from council wise, what rank the scout is, what office he holds if any and what merit badges he has, if a sash is present. A lot is told from a properly worn uniform down to how many years the scout has been in the program. I wonder if those are things kids really care about when theyre hangin out with other kids? Seems more like da kind of things we adults use as conversation starters over coffee at Cracker Barrel. Adult parlor stuff. Kids mostly just start playin together without worryin about all dat. I expect if a lad wants to know where another kid is from or whether hes done canoeing MB, he just asks! All that only applies to camporees/jamborees anyway. For most of a boys Scoutin time, hes with his troop, and he already knows what council, rank, and office all his friends and patrol-mates hold, eh? I dont reckon the lads need to be tryin to catch glimpses of arm patches to know who their Patrol Leader is . I recall reading an older item of Scout literature addressing Scout helping out in a crisis / emergency situation - and it emphasized that wearing the uniform is a key part of getting citizens to acknowledge your role. I've been part of a dozen or so emergency responses with troops & crews, mostly boys respondin' to floodin' and SAR assistance. You'd never wear da Oscars in those circumstances. If ID is important, sheriff's office ballcaps, blaze orange vests, and radios do the trick much better. At community assistance events (like runnin' first aid stations for the local marathon), event staff T-shirts and name tags are da way it's done. ***** Now dont get me wrong, Im a proponent of decent uniformin within a troop, not some evil commie or whatever I get accused of every time the topic comes up. If were goin to use the thing, we should try to do a good job of it. There is some merit to dressin up. Ceremony can play a good part in bringin' up boys, and ceremony uniforms are part o' that (caps and gowns, anyone?). I just think we adults could lay off tryin' to dream up justifications for the uniform, and instead listen to the kids. They know a lot, the lads do, if wed shut up about what we want the uniform to mean and listen to what it really means for them. Besides, our justifications are really pretty lame when we're honest with ourselves, eh? Beavah

I'm at the same place where Trevorum is. I think by and large we as a people are *slowly* coming to value human life more and more. Yah, sure, there's plenty of badness we can point to, but I think there's overall progress. Slavery, torture, debt imprisonment, capital punishment, all on the wane - in fact, it's noteworthy when it does show up somewhere in the world. I think that's because of religion, though. It was those religious folks who started schools and universities by and large, and placed a high value on preservin' and passing along knowledge. It was those religious folks over the years who challenged governments on behalf of the less fortunate. Beckett who bearded Henry II, More who challenged Henry VIII and on and on. And the governments of Stalin and Mao and others who actively suppressed religion illustrated what fruits that route yields. In our own nation, it was religious principle that declared that men are Created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights, and so because of God's endowment government can be justly opposed. It was religious "zealots" who lit and then fanned the flames against slavery ultimately leading to its abolition, and religious leaders and churches who led later efforts for civil rights. Even today, it isn't secular governments that demonstrate true compassion for life. More than half of the AIDS patients in Africa are under the care of religious folks, nearly a third under the care of the Catholic church alone. The "enlightened democracies" of the secular west and the tribal despots they prop up as often as not don't come close to the true compassion for the poor shown by those of faith. Yah, sure, religious folks commit their sins, too. We can all point to folks who put a religious justification on every kind of nationalistic or tribal or economic wickedness. Islam in particular seems caught up in that these days. But I think, in fits and starts, we're makin' progress. And like as not it's due to folks who for religious reasons care about the choices they make, and do their best to love God with all their heart, and love their neighbor as themselves. The story of the last 2 to 4 thousand years has been the story of those simple ideas slowly defeatin' all others. Beavah

Yah, this is probably just fiscal year-end inventory goin' on over the holiday. But one can always hope! I got one of da activity shirts recently to check it out with my switchbacks. I like it. Very much what I would tend to wear as summertime field-wear while backpacking or canoeing. I'd love to see 'em go that way. Beavah

.... That the youth sports teams where kids wear uniforms also have strict expectations for participation and attendance? .... That the youth sports teams typically cost more than Scouting, and are therefore viewed as a "bigger investment." .... That kids don't mind being seen in their soccer or baseball uniforms in public, but even then they take 'em off as soon as they can? .... That soccer and baseball uniforms are designed to be played in. .... That military, police, letter carrier, UPS driver, etc. uniforms are designed to be worked in. .... That all uniform-wear outside of Scouting serves an important identification role (you need to be able to easily distinguish members of the other team, people need to be able to easily identify a police officer, a homeowner needs to recognize that the stranger coming to the door is a UPS man, etc.). And that when the need for that identification is over, people take off da uniform as soon as they can. Uniform wear within Scouting really doesn't serve any of these purposes. Boys recognize their own troop-mates and patrol-mates without a uniform. There is no "other team" to be distinct from. People in the general public don't need to identify a Boy Scout the way they need to identify a police officer. The uniform isn't designed to be played in (but we're startin' to move in that direction). And we don't demand the same level of commitment/investment as da youth sports programs. So da comparisons aren't fair, eh? Except for a camporee/jamboree with lots of other troops and such, the uniform isn't needed for ID within the organization. Except when doin' a public service where a boy needs to be recognized (like soliciting food from houses as part of Scouting for Food), there's no need for da uniform in public. And as soon as the need for identification is over, they should do like every other group and take off the uniform, eh? Isn't da real reason for the uniform that we adults like to play-act as bein' military types? Parade kids around lookin' spit and polished with lots o'ribbons on our chests? That was OK for B-P, tryin' to train youth to maintain an Empire, though even he adopted military field wear primarly because of its practical usefulness in the field. Seems like stickin' with civies when a uniform ain't needed might be more in tune with our country's notion of citizen-soldiers, citizen-volunteers, and civilian leadership. Especially if that civilian outdoor gear is of more practical usefulness in da field, eh? Just an alternate perspective for thought

Yah, F, I think someone else has posted the wordin' from the National site, which says the same thing although it's a bit more ambiguous (or just poorly worded! ) From what I'm hearin' in da field, where the strict "time in position must count if the boy is not fired" thing is coming from is a couple of gentlemen from the National Advancement Committee who have been conducting various training sessions for council advancement chairs at PTC and a few other venues. Well, maybe not official trainin', maybe more like "info sessions." My take on it is that the gents doin' those sessions might be goin' a bit overboard, but that they probably are honestly representin' National's general take on the topic (in the Boy Scout Advancement group anyway). The fact that, as you point out, their current take is in conflict with the spirit and letter of other program materials doesn't seem to matter. That's just one of the eccentricities of how da office in Irving works; individual committees are semi-autonomous and don't always coordinate well. And we have to remember it takes resources in staff time (and sometimes legal expense) to handle (or deny) an appeal. That can be wearisome. Explains how we get lots of odd notions in da field, though, eh? Beavah

If a BOR discovers that a Scout did not really do a whole lot in his POR, but it was still approved by his SM, that is a TROOP problem, a SM problem. The Scout can be counseled to take a more active role in his NEXT POR. Yah, with due respect to ScoutNut, this is where I think folks make some mistakes. If a Scout comes to a BOR havin' not yet met the expectation for some requirement as FScouter describes, it's a "problem" for both the boy and the troop. The boy needs to learn that an honorable man admits when he doesn't know something, and goes back and improves himself before he accepts public recognition. The boy needs to get the full benefit of the program. The boy should not be put in the place of looking the fool in front of his peers and other adults by being "the Life Scout who can't plan a meal". Giving a boy a badge because we feel the adults should have done better does not help the boy!. I think sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking that it does. There's a second issue that I believe matters a lot for the troop. If we set the expectation that a boy who doesn't know/hasn't accomplished some of the requirements is always approved by a BOR (because the assumption is it's the "adults' fault") then that creates a unit culture. The unit culture it creates is that the best/easiest way to get recognition is to scam a signoff from the "weakest link" adult or youth leader. Once it's "in your book" nobody else will ever review it. I've watched this culture play out in a number of units. Funny thing, it seems to go hand-in-hand with bullying in units, too... perhaps kids start bullying to get themselves recognition because the Advancement Method becomes a joke. Certainly it seem to encourage a sort of "What's the minimum I can get away with?" attitude. So we're back around to how in the BSA program, a problem caught at a BOR is supposed to be addressed with both the boy and the adult leaders... in the same way. Both get congratulated on what they've accomplished so far, and then get told they need to go back and work on a few things a bit more until they've got them "down." Beavah

OGE beat me to it. EagleinKY, my bet is that the camp you went to recently had some boy slip and hurt himself on a muddy trail in the rain. That seems to be the theme, anyway... not wanting boys to be walking in the rain on muddy trails. Their rules probably reflect the amount of grief they got over some sort of incident like that. B

if one does not use the 8 methods to reach that end it isn't Scouting Yah, this seems to be a topic which comes up here occasionally. I sorta agree with acco... the Aims don't get us to Scouting. Character and ethical choices are also the aims of every church youth ministry program (and they might do a better job of it than we do!). The Methods do a better job of defining what Scouting is, because they describe how we get boys to ethical choices. Yet o'course, perfect implementation of every one of the methods isn't required (or there would be no Scout Troops at all!), and even individual methods are optional. So how do we define what we are? I think the expectations of the public are one way. I think the public views Scouts in a certain light. Leavin' aside the negative views, the public: 1) Expects Scouts to be strong, capable, independent outdoorsmen. 2) Expects Scouts to Be Prepared for emergencies - to have the strength, skills, and attitude to "help out" when needed, from rescues to providing first aid to relief work and community service. 3) To be good examples - patriotic, responsible, "manly and gentlemanly" young lads. To at least be capable team members, if not leaders. Those are probably characteristics that apply as readily to the Worldwide Scouting Movement as to BSA brand. What's your definition? Beavah

Yah, but there's an additional problem, eh? At the time the NCLB law was written, not a single public school district anywhere could meet the requirements that every school district is supposed to meet by 2014. In fact, there's still not a single district that meets the requirements. Seems like before mandating an outcome for everybody, it would be nice to have one successful "proof of concept." So the law created a situation where by 2014, every district, even packsaddles, will be designated "failing." In the end, either the law will change or the states will have to dumb down the tests. Politicians pretendin' to be educators, no question. Pretty much the same result as politicians pretendin' to be diplomats or scientists or generals. Beavah

Goin' back a bit to avoid the stuff that repeats what's goin' on in the other thread, Hunt writes: That's a very different story from a boy worrying about whether he will fail his BOR because he might not be able to tie a knot on command. and OGE responds A scout never "fails" a Board of Review, if the rank is not given... it is not a message of "you don't qualify", its "you will qualify if..." I'm with OGE here. Advancement is recognition of skill and achievement. If a boy hasn't yet fully learned a skill or achieved to a certain level, it's not a "denial" or a "failure". It's just a "hey, good job so far, let's keep workin' so you get it!" I think the key here is the attitude and message of the adults. If the adults have a notion that it's a "failure" and they communicate that to the boy, then that attitude is hard to stop in youth and parents. I always cringe a bit when I hear adults talk about "failing" or "denial" 'cause it's the wrong message. It just ain't Scouting. Sorta like swim checks. A boy just demonstrates where he's at in terms of swimming skills. We record it for information and safety reasons, and then we work with the boy to improve from where he's at. It's totally the wrong attitude to talk about "failing" a swim check, but if it happens that where he's at meets the 1st class swim requirements, he gets that signoff. That's why in the BSA program we're supposed to have Boards of Review without rank advancement (even though most troops never do). A BOR is supposed to listen to a boy tell about where he's at, and offer some encouragement. If it happens that where a boy is at is a new level of recognition, the board should grant him a new rank. Either way, they keep encouragin' him. And it's OK in that sort of environment for a SM or a BOR to say, "Johnny, your PL signed off on 'what to do when lost' but you still seem kinda unsure, you should work on that some more." It's just the boy tellin' us where he's at, and us helpin' him progress. It's only when we adults start thinkin' of Scouting=School, with "classes" and "failing tests" that we send da wrong message. As B-P wrote, we "trench on the work of schools" rather than doing real Scouting. Beavah

SCOUTING COMPETES WITH ...Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, Football, Nintendo, Swimming, Tae Kwon Do, Judo, Karate, Music Yah, dat's interestin', eh? What I notice about all the other activities J-in-KC mentions is that every single one of them puts a big, big emphasis on skill development. The boys work, and work, and work some more in order to get really good at the skills for makin' layups, makin' tackles, or makin' it to the next level at Nintendo. They get to experience real personal achievement at skills development, and their parents & peers get to see it. Do we really do that in Scouting anymore? Work, and work, and work at perfecting skills until they're really good at it and know it? Do kids get to have that kind o' fun makin' the next level? Seems like more than half of the troops these days are mostly just checkin' boxes, and so boys are lookin' for real challenges in other activities. Da other thing I notice about J-in-KC's list is that there's real, hard measures of accomplishment for each. Video games, your peers know you've made level 27, and you can beat 'em at Doom. For some, the measure is real competition (most sports). For others, the measure is real testing (belt tests for martial arts). For most, there's a notion of makin' the "A" team, the guys who are "really good." Do we really have anything like that in Scouting anymore? Are BOR's really a hard measure of accomplishment like a belt test? Is patrol competition really like a soccer match? Do our kids really practice outdoor skills on their own as much as they practice trumpet? Is da troop high adventure group really the "A team"? Yah, it seems like kids and parents are gravitatin' toward the activities with "harder" expectations. Probably because those activities yield more recognizable growth and achievement. Beavah

Nah, CNY, it's supposed to be adult Committee Members. Another institutionalized adult-run component of Boy Scoutin', perhaps. But if yeh want to keep da crew/ship youth-led dynamic, I've never seen anything wrong with puttin' youth members on the BOR as "active observers" in addition to the three required adults. That passes technical muster. And o'course, nobody besides us online busybodies is goin' to squalk if you just ran it like a regular Sea Scouting or Venturing review. Personally, I've never quite understood the attraction of pursuin' Boy Scout Advancement in a crew, especially a coed one. Crews should stand on their own, and it seems silly to train Advisors and Committee members in out-of-program advancement procedures. Silver, Ranger, and Quartermaster are tougher and more age-appropriate recognitions to work for anyways. And yeh get to do 'em together with all your crew/shipmates. Leave da little boy stuff back in the troop! Beavah (now I wonder if that'll start any fireworks this holiday ).

Yah, Info's got your Info, dScouter. Every camp should have a licensed physician who can act as medical control and establish camp protocols for you to operate under. What happens on a practical level is all over the board, though, dependin' on various state laws, the relationships and operatin' agreements with county EMS, individual council, physician, and insurer views on what their malpractice exposure would be, how remote the camp is, how savvy the camp and health officers are, etc. So you really have to call a specific camp to get the real scoop on how they handle things. Beavah

I don't know any serious preparedness experts or outdoorspeople who would seriously challenge me on the utility of such a device and practice.. Yah, Nessmuk, yeh must be an old codger like me, eh? These days the young'uns are into ultralight backpackin' and fancy fabrics made from recycled pop bottles. And even I have to admit they have a point, especially in da cold, wet north, where a big hunk of cotton ain't nuthin' but a liability . For First Aid in the days of proper wound sanitation and bloodborne pathogens, I'm afraid the old necker has lost a fair bit of its usefulness, too. But I'm still a fan, especially because da necker is the one nearly universal emblem of da Scouting Movement worldwide. Forget the World Crest, forget special shirts and pants, the necker is the way you identify a scout in the rest of the world. It's a shame we're losin' that uniform connection with our brothers and sisters. And I vote "over the collar." It's supposed to be a piece of gear, not a fashion accessory. Beavah

Yah, acco's got a good point, eh? What are the boys being told? To add to his response, here's what they're told in da Patrol Leader's Handbook, right at the very start of the book: 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. (emphasis mine) * 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. ... * Set a good example by having a positive attitude... and expecting the best from yourself and others. * Devote the time necessary to be an effective leader. ... Seems like dat's a bit more than "be registered, hold a position title, and don't get fired." Certainly, speaks much more to the kind of man I hope Scoutin' will produce. Beavah (edited for brevity)(This message has been edited by Beavah)

In my opinion, a boy should never enter a BOR wondering whether he will "pass" or not. As a corrolary, he should never get to the stage of a pre-BOR Scoutmaster Conference only to find out that he hasn't satisfied the SM's expectations. Yah, well a little bit of seriousness/nervousness is OK, eh? I agree again with Hunt, in a very well-run program everyone is on the same page. Da instructor who taught the boy a skill fully understood the requirements and gave the boy everything he needed in terms of information and practice. Da PL who signed off the requirement knew exactly what he was doin' and how to uphold the testing standard for that requirement. Da SM or ASM channeled the Spirit of the Committee during the SM conference, and had a deep, personal understandin' of the goals of the organization, and how to use the program to make those happen. And da BOR signed, sealed and delivered. Excellent. Problem is, no troop is perfect, eh? At least not all the time. No boy is perfect, either, and it is a Natural Calling of boys to try to get away with what they can, eh? So sometimes the PL checking on a requirement discovers an instructor didn't do the best job, and has to say "no" to a boy. Not completely the boy's fault, eh? Two things still happen: the boy doesn't get signed off until he actually learns the requirement, and da PL may have a chat with the instructor or a topic for the next PLC to improve the quality of instruction. Sometimes the PL signing off on a requirement doesn't do the best job, eh? The SM might discover this durin' an outing and then bring it up durin' a SM conference. Not completely the boy's fault, eh? Two things still happen: the boy needs to do some more work to really learn the requirement, and the SM has a chat with the PL or somethin' to include at the next TLT to improve the quality of checkouts. Sometimes a SM lets things slide a bit, and doesn't do the best job at mentoring or at a conference. The Committee might discover this during a BOR, when a PL admits he only went on one outing with his patrol and his APL did all the work. Not completely the boy's fault, eh? Yah, but two things should still happen: the boy needs to spend some more time to really earn the requirement, and the CC has a chat with da SM or works to encourage more scouter training to improve the quality of the program. Both things in each case need to happen. The boy, to fulfill his own Honor and obligations has to go back and really earn the requirement, and the unit has to take steps to improve to do a better job for the boys. Beavah

Yah, I'm right there with yeh, OGE, on how things should be handled. I think there's a subtle thing about the way we think or talk. A boy who has completed Tenderfoot earns the badge because he's proficient in a bunch of basic skills. It's a token that we give da lad to recognize or reward his effort at achievin' proficiency. He's "earned" it through his work, but its bigger meaning is we give him our respect and recognition for who he's become. Respect and recognition are ours to give, eh? Not his to take. A boy who hasn't yet been "signed off" on tying two half hitches or on Scout Spirit isn't "denied advancement". It's just sayin' "Not yet, Joe, you've got some more work to do." There's nuthin' bad about not (yet) earning a rank, and it's not takin' anything away from a lad. Just like there's nuthin' bad about a typically disorganized adolescent boy not (yet) gettin' the troop library together. He just has some more work to do. I think that small difference in way of thinkin' is at least a little bit important. Beavah

In da original thread, in a thoughtful post which I agreed with, Hunt wrote somethin' about: denial of advancement without adequate mentoring or warning And I was thinkin' to myself, "Gee, that's an odd way to think about receiving an award." Awards are usually something others give us to recognize our contributions or skills. If a lad gets a Varsity Letter, it recognizes his skill and contributions to his team in a particular sport. Kids who didn't letter in their sport weren't "denied advancement". They just weren't (yet) recognized for that award. Scoutin' awards were to my mind always supposed to be like that, eh? Somethin' a kid earns when he reaches a certain level and others see it in him. There ain't no such thing as being "denied advancement", only not yet havin' achieved it. Maybe if we keep that in mind, and were careful with our language so that kids and parents learn better what it's all about, it might help, eh? Awards in life aren't an automatic thing. They're a gift that others give us when they feel we're ready. Beavah

Goldurn, I hate this digital stuff sometimes. Re-readin' my last post I sound way more strident than when I sounded it in my head while I was writin' it . If its dishonorable to follow an organization's own rules, then I am dishonorable. I don't know which message this responded to, perhaps it was mine. I'll just share my loose thoughts. Here's what da Rules & Regulations of the BSA have to say: Article X. Program (Advancement) Clause 1 "Education is the chief function of the Scouting movement and it shall be the basis of the advancement program." "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." Clause 5. "There shall be four steps in Boy Scout advancement procedure: learning, testing, reviewing, and recognition." Clause 2. "All advancement procedures shall be administered under conditions that harmonize with the aims and purposes of the Boy Scouts of America." Those are the Rules & Regulations we sign up for, eh? So I think if we take that as our point of honor, then we should interpret da procedural manuals and guidelines and memos so that they are in agreement with the organization's Rules. * Does an adult removing a boy from a POR really serve our "chief function" of education? * Does removing a boy from a POR harmonize with our aims of citizenship, fitness, and character? * Does a boy who has not really fulfilled the expectations of a POR show "leadership, attending and participating, living the ideals, and proficiency" which are required for advancement? Is "seat time" really sufficient to demonstrate those things? * Does giving a boy who has not yet fulfilled the expectations of a POR follow the required 4 steps, including "learning" (by the boy) and "testing" (by us adults)? Our answer to each of these questions may depend on da boy, and our own best judgment. It might be the right educational lesson to remove a particular boy, or it might not. It also might be da right thing to let him stay in a position, but not give him credit for the position until he makes real effort and achieves some success. I think it's never the right thing to give recognition or rank if a boy hasn't yet learned Responsibility. That doesn't harmonize with our Aims. A troop or a district or council or national office that does that is breakin' the organization's Rules. I understand it; good people sometimes give in to practical considerations of time, resources, and fatigue dealing with belligerent parents and manipulative kids. OGE is probably right, though. A truly honorable man at any of those levels wouldn't allow it. He would stick to the Rules, and expect a boy to learn Responsibility before earning recognition. Beavah

Are there any Philmont travel guide books similar to a Fodor's or AAA's guide that discuss history, camps, activities, preparation, etc--all in one place? Yah, yeh need to get Coop Wright's Philmont Advisor's Guide. I highly recommend it. Contact coopwright@aol.com for the current pricing. Everything you need or want to know in one place, and the proceeds all go to supporting da kids in Coop's Crew.

Yah, acco, I appreciate your viewpoint, eh? And I should probably be more careful with my colloquialisms like "yappin" . I think most troops are happy to have adults as they happen to come. I'd welcome an adult who came in his/her work attire with open arms and respect. Kids too. I remember doin' an EBOR for a lad who came completely un-uniformed, straight from a homeless shelter soup kitchen where he'd been da lead guy in dealing with some problem or another. Never had time to get home and get changed. We welcomed him with open arms and respect, and recognized him as an Eagle Scout. Fact is, Scoutin' isn't what you think it is. It is a smorgasbord. Nationally, it's a licensed program where those who run da program can and do interpret and decide how they use different program pieces. BSA will happily grant a charter to a unit that doesn't do a lick of advancement, or that runs everything as a whole troop (and remember, in da BSA program literature, MC's wear civilian attire more often than not!). Internationally, Scoutin' is a movement that has some common themes and character, but every scouting organization implements it in different ways - recognizable ones, but different. More than all that, the reality is that Scoutin' is enacted by volunteers. So we have a choice. We can recognize and embrace other volunteers as brothers and sisters, or we can complain that they don't do everything the same way we would. Which is Courteous? As a suggestion, though, I think yeh got da backtalk you did from your scout because you were imposing Uniforming as an adult-run element. So it's natural for a kid to say "Hey, but not all da adults are doin' it!". You might try workin' on the Youth Leadership method. If the PL's and SPL are the ones who are really leading the boys, then I bet they wouldn't get that kind of response. Beavah

If the scout is savvy, he knows he was in the position for 6 months and according to the rules, he compelted his POR because he was never remvoed. If the scout appeals and it gets to District where I am on the Advancement COmmittee for the Disitrct, the scout is getting credit for his POR, not because he did anything, but because the Troop allowed him to be in that postion for 6 months and according to the rules, thats all it takes. So what lesson have we taught the lad?? We've taught him that it's more effective to play at being da worst sort of sheister lawyer than it is to work hard and live as a responsible, honorable man. Do as little work as you can. Find da letter of the law. Interpret it in the most strained way possible. Use that to try to force others to give you what you don't deserve. In short, teach boys how to be Enron accountants. Then make everybody applaud them for their "success." Fine Texas tradition, eh? We have sacrificed the Aims of Scouting, our reason for existing, to comply with a poorly thought through memo from a small office in Irving. A memo that conflicts with da clear intent of the real BSA Rules & Regulations. Shame on us for not living up to our own values. Every other document, writing, practice, and principle in Scouting is that we work with kids, we don't remove them. Kids get to try requirements for as long as it takes until they are successful. What VeniVidi describes is da Scouting program. Beavah