Beavah

I think it's fair to say dat the information on Saddam and WMD at the time was ambiguous, eh? I mean, the guy himself claimed pursuit, and it is fairly clear that both the French and the Russians were quite flagrantly violating the sanctions protocol. Lots of people fool themselves by seeing what they want to see in ambiguous data. Where I fault this administration is not in that single error, but in its culture of premeditated ignorance. The WMD issue was just a symptom of a constantly repeating theme... ignore the data and let Osama escape from Tora Bora... ignore the data and assume you can do the job of occupation with too few troops... ignore the data on the deficit... ignore the data on global warming... ignore the data on oil supplies, appoint people ignorant of disaster response to head disaster response agencies,... ignore the law on torture, or wiretapping... ignore the data, ignore the law, ignore the complexity.... ignore, ignore, ignore. All that really matters is Belief. And anybody who says otherwise is a traitor. What galls me as a life-long Republican voter is that I voted for this bunch of ignoramuses back in 2K, assuming they'd uphold a tradition of U.S. honor, fiscal responsibility, and the like. I was fooled, but I will not ignore the data that I was dead wrong. What frustrates me is that the Democrats are so stuck in their own mutton-headedness that they seem unable to offer a reasonable and honorable alternative.

As for the "chain of command" comment, I sorta agree. But I think it's just a word for what we know exists. There are responsibiliites in the troop. The PLs "report" to the SPL, the troop PORs "report" to the ASPL, etc. This just makes it more formal than we're used to seeing it. Not just more formal than we're used to seein' it, eh? Also more formal than any set of kids is likely to be when runnin' it, if they are in fact youth-run. Better to teach collaboration and shared responsibility in this day and age, don't ya think?

Yah, firecrafter, this is a common problem in many troops out there, eh? Good SM's naturally have to say "no" sometimes, otherwise they wouldn't be good SM's. Some parents aren't used to being told "no," or to have their child told "no." If you've got them on your committee because somewhere along the line someone was dumb enough to invite everyone to be on the committee, then yah, it's always a drag on the SM. In my experience, open committees only work with like-minded folks; and sometimes not even then. Every parent bein' on da committee is definitely not the BSA model program. How troops handle this is all over the place. Most, unfortunately, aren't very selective about committee members. Some strong CC's run tight meetings and simply rule out of order any item that trespasses into the SM's jurisdiction. That works if you've got a strong CC. Sometimes a strong core group of committee members stares such stuff down by social pressure. That works if you've got a strong core group of MC's. Sometimes, a long-time SM has so much "social capital" that he can just stare down these things. That works if you've got a well-liked long-time SM. The point is that there needs to be somebody in your organization whose job it is to deal with re-educatin' those that need it. Most good volunteers aren't that great at dealing with conflict, while the problem-cases relish it. You have to find a person who can handle it - UC, CC, COR, former SM, somebody. Good communication also helps. Regular, positive parent newsletters, trip reports, publicity, etc. etc. also helps keep the snipers in check. If the CC starts out each meeting with positive reports, it becomes hard for the snipers to jump in, as Ma suggests. Ultimately, though, the CC and COR have to make decisions that are in the best interests of the program as a whole. You've already lost one key volunteer in your former SM. How many more key volunteers can you afford to wear out? Are the snipers really worth keeping around at that price?

Yah, given what you said about their level of ability/responsability, I'd let them do this on their own, eh? Make them fill out an itinerary, check out their gear, have them present their emergency plans... in short, treat it like a pre-project review for an Eagle project. When you're comfortable with it, drive 'em to the trailhead, and let 'em loose until the arranged pickup time/location (with plans in place for delays/revisions). That'd be the right level of challenge and growth for them, eh? After all, in a year or two, they're goin' to be adults in college who will be launching off on such trips without all that prep oversight... or ASMs who will be doin' the overseeing for your next bunch of guys. If you let 'em have the keys to the car Friday night, you can let 'em go hiking together. Da car is a lot more dangerous, eh? But if you're not comfortable with it, and you really feel you need two adults along, then you need to start recruitin' some younger leaders. Look to APO organizations at colleges, contact adult outing clubs in your area (AMC?), keep in touch with your former scouts and pull 'em back in, etc. Even if they don't want to be "regular" leaders, many of these people and groups would help your guys out on a one-shot.

Hey klflintoff, Da SM handbook, Troop committee handbook, and the District Advancement Committee Policies & procedures books are good places to start. As someone new, I agree, it's good to start with the books, eh? With time, though, I hope you recognize that the above sources conflict with each other on some minor points, and that all are written to be deliberately ambiguous to some exent. That's because contrary to popular opinion, there isn't "one, best" way to do scouting. The materials reflect the different views of the Charter Org. members out there. And your role as a unit or district volunteer is to support and advance the (potentially different) goals, missions, and policies of the organization that owns the unit(s). Differences between units on how they approach scouting methods like advancement typically aren't hurtful to kids or to scouting... quite the opposite! They allow us to reach more kids and more families than we would otherwise. Conflicts arise most often from communication failures, or "outsiders" who try to get another unit to do things the way their unit does things. So don't expect the literature to define what "retesting" really means, what Scout Spirit really means, or even what level of skill is really required for a signoff. You have to stay mentally awake and decide what works best for your kids and your families, while advancing your CO's goals. Happily, dat also means ya can't be replaced by standardized, centralized BSA distance learning websites and a standardized test, eh?

Kids in public schools have due process rights. Kids in volunteer-run private activities do not. Both organizations acted within their rules and mandates, eh? Nothin' much to be done, except to voice your thoughts in person and in writing to the COR; respectfully, gently, with supporting evidence, so that if other such things come up in the future there may be more skepticism of the strong views of one long-time volunteer. It's always hard to judge these things from outside. Good volunteers and well-run programs can't always err on the side of "save every boy," because that as likely as not means "lose most boys" as they and their parents leave because they can no longer tolerate the behavior of the (bully, drug user, thief, etc.) someone wants to save. At the same time, programs can & should stretch to help kids, and should care about figurin' out da truth of things when the consequences are serious. My guess is that the parents' experience with their older son has made them hyperprotective of da younger one. That's a position to understand and be sympathatic toward, but not necessarily to allow to control the program.

I've seen all kinds of things in troops. Ours is pretty simple; the boy or the SM/ASM who did the conference call the advancement chair, he/she arranges members and date/time/location. Some troops like doing the once a month "standard" time with the boys signin' themselves up with the advancement chair. Some troops the SM grabs people from the back of the room at a meeting / from the campfire at an outing when needed. I've seen one troop where the Troop Scribe was responsible, working with the advancement chair.

Beavah, agree with the gist of your post, but gasoline on the fire is a bad example. Scouting insurance is "at will" and violation of G2SS or other BSA policy would allow BSA to refuse to cover (as it has been explained to me). Yah, of course gasoline on da fire is a bad example! Insurance isn't for when you've done your best, because if you did everything right there isn't liability to begin with. Insurance is for when you do something dumb, eh? And there's no such thing as an "at will" insurance policy. That would be called "insurance fraud." In my experience, most of the people who tell you BSA insurance won't cover if X or Y or Z are being dishonest. Or dumb. But the example raises a question for all da troops with a whole mess of unregistered parents formin' multiple patrols. How do you train them all? That's a lot of work. Some of 'em come in with no more skill than a newly-joined scout, and some bad habits to break to boot! The only person I've ever seen do the gasoline thing was one of those unregistered parents.

It's hard to comment on these things by remote, eh? And hard to tell how much of your description is just healthy "venting." First, good job in tryin' to take your troop to higher expectations. Ultimately, that will pay off for you and the kids. To help you on your way, here are a few more thoughts to consider. A few thoughts: 1) You threatened (several times), talked to, called out, argued with, etc. the ASPL several times. Don't do dat! Boys learn more and better by simple consequences than by lots of words. Choose the consequence, and apply it fairly and without a lot of yadda yadda. 2) Off the cuff, it sounds like you're runnin' low on "social capital" with both the boys and the parents. You might not think you're goin' too fast, but they might. For every "push" you make - for every "tough thing" you ask them to do, are they getting at least 4 or 5 good things? Not candy, but real rewards - your attention, your praise, your confidence, the experience of success with a challenge, the experience of watching their kid succeed, etc. If not, slow down. Better to have them (parents & youth) feel and experience success in some things, then feel "pushed" on a lot of things. 3) Who are your best guys? Da ones who are active, and helpful, and buyin' in. They need to become your leaders, and you need to make that happen by doin' a special campout with them... something very cool and very fun, but that also allows you to do TLT with dem, eh? A chance to build relationships and positive "social capital." 4) Follow Kudu's advice. Bein' in patrols should be "natural" rather than "forced." If you find you need to do patrol method by raw adult authority then you're really just doin' another form of troop method, eh? Make it so bein' in a patrol is natural. And if it isn't natural, then don't sweat it if they're not in their patrol. That's just bein' mentally awake on their part - knowing when something makes sense and when it doesn't. 5) I don't think patrol method really takes off until there's competition. I also don't think you need their permission to start competition. I don't mean settin' up a contest. There's an old story about a plant manager who had a plant that didn't produce well. At the end of the day shift, they had made 6 widgets, so he just came in and chalked a huge "6" on the floor. The night shift asked what the "6" was all about, and heard that was the day shift's production. The next mornin', the "6" had been erased and replaced with a "7" by the night shift. That jerked the chain of the day shift guys, who thought the night shift was bein' uppity, so they worked extra hard and replaced it with a "9"... and on and on... within weeks, they were the most productive plant in the company. Just bring along a whiteboard, hang it up, and mark points for things (best breakfast, ready on time for hike, winning capture the flag, etc.). As soon as there are points or other comparison between patrols, boys' natural competitive streak will take over. At the end of the campout, and at the end of 6 months or so, a prize/recognition is OK. Keep it somethin' that's mostly braggin' rights, though, rather than a special event/food/etc. 6) Listen to da Kentucky Eagle. Up the challenge of your campouts and keep 'em movin', so there's no time for you or for them to spend on da little stuff. And keep on keepin' on!

BSA insurance is always secondary/excess coverage for driving, eh? So in other words, each parent's normal auto policy covers first; da BSA policy only comes in once the auto policy is exceeded. The place where there is a difference is that for most other things, the BSA insurance is primary if you are registered, but secondary if you are not. So if Joe Parent dumps gasoline into a fire and burns two boys, then the liability is on his insurance (homeowners). If Joe is a registered committee member, then it's on the BSA. So being registered is a help for the parents, but not particularly for the troop. From a safety perspective, training & screening is more important.

If as a member I sued to force female membership, I wouldnt be surprised to learn my memership was being revoked. Yah, but that's not what happened, eh? The man is President of another organization, and that other organization (presumably at the direction of its board) sued the scout council. As he was just a volunteer with the BSA, it's also fallacious and deliberately misleading to call it a "conflict of interest." Is it "legal" for the BSA to revoke his membership? Sure. But that's not the standard of behavior to which we should hold ourselves. The question is rather "is it right?" - is it in keeping with the Scout Oath and Law that we all pretend to hold so dear? I appreciate hearing bad news when it comes out. It reminds me to keep vigilant in my back yard. It prepares me for questions I might get from parents, unit leaders, community members. If we're mentally awake, we have to recognize that this constant buzz of fraud and mismanagement, with a new council poppin' up every month, isn't good for kids or the program. And that's not da fault of da messenger, eh?

Tap the brakes lightly, Eamonn. Take the time to get your current youth up to speed and workin' well together. The world is full of companies that grew too fast and imploded because they didn't have the infrastructure to support the growth. That wasn't fair to their customers or workers. Your ship growing too fast for your available infrastructure isn't fair to your adult leaders or your kids. Not for too long... crews and ships need to be recruitin' all da time to stay healthy, eh? But for a little bit, slow it down a touch, and work on gettin' better, before you work on gettin' bigger.

Upon reading Longhaul's comments, I was tempted to join this fray. Don't let me keep you out of it, Roostah. Da more da merrier. I do part ways with you on one point. I'm not convinced that the life of a child-molester/killer deserves the same sense of sanctity as the unborn or some other innocent life. Did I say that? I didn't mean to. I think I said the child molester/killer deserved to die. But it is a Christian act to spare their God-given life, because so long as they have breath in them they may yet be Saved. Sometimes, though, particularly in small communities and unstable countries, there may be no way for a society to prevent future bad acts without execution. That would be just. ---- Packsaddle, I think we are confusing drugs (like the pill) and other interventions that operate and are taken primarily to reduce the chance of conception, and drugs (Plan-B, RU-486) that operate and are taken deliberately to result in death after conception. The position that most U.S. pro-Lifer's hold is that the former are acceptable, even though in rare circumstances conception may occur and the drug may hinder implantation . The latter is not acceptable, in that it is taking deliberate action to end life, not prevent it. Yes, I think that's splitting the hair mighty fine; an inevitable result of the technology operating "mighty fine." The Catholic and Orthodox positions, of course, are different, and might satisfy you more. I don't care which you adopt! For while we micro-examine the peculiar details of individual cases, we must not lose sight of the forest. The big picture is that for societies to be healthy and to thrive, they must treasure and protect their children. And to be fair, the logical distinctions the anti-child camp propose are far more absurd... it's not a child as long as its foot hasn't been delivered? A woman can "feel the baby kicking" and we can measure brain activity but it's still OK to poison it with saline? That's just a "private, personal choice?" Once you get out of that glass house, we can consider the subtle questions of life immediately after conception.

Merit Badge Counselors "must be men and women of good character, age 18 or older, and recognized as having the skills and education in the subjects for which they are to serve as merit badge counselors, as well as having the ability to work with Scout-age boys.... Older Venturers, age 18 or older, make excellent counselors" - Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures, page 13. Yeh should still be thoughtful about an 18-year-old who is still in high school and has buddies who are 16 and 17. A new ASM/MBC needs some help switchin' into "adult mode", eh? Do him a favor and don't put him in a supervisory/counseling position over his peers. Have him work with da younger guys, who view him as an adult.

We will not violate the mothers right to privacy to guarantee the childs right to life. It's not a privacy issue. It's a search without a warrant issue. Law cannot really be used to protect life; it can only be used to punish those who kill. If there is evidence of a crime, it should be pursued; but in this nation we don't allow "fishing expeditions" to find evidence of a crime that may or may not have occurred. Ordinary jurisprudence. If a doctor has knowledge that a crime is going to be committed that doctor must tell the police. Yes, so if a woman solicits a doctor for an abortion, he should tell the police, in the same way that if a woman solicits a man for murder, he should tell the police. Because soliciting murder for hire is a crime. Are we committed to protecting the life of the unborn or not? We are committed to protecting the lives of (born) children, but we don't test parents to see if they are fit to be raising kids, we don't stop them from smoking around their kids, from having alcohol in their house or giving their kids small amounts at dinner. We do intervene if parents are drug abusers or are giving their kids drugs or intoxicating amounts of alcohol. I imagine the standards for other children would be similar. It's true these days the state has gotten into the protecting life business, with helmet laws and seatbelt laws and the explosion of civil liability cases. Whether that level of state intrusion is a good thing or not I leave to others to debate. Your questions about serving drinks and all that fall into the same category. But regardless of how you feel about such pre-emptive statutes, I trust you agree it's OK to prosecute murderers for their crime after the fact? As to prison space, I assume you're in favor of incarcerating rapists? Drug dealers? Car thieves? You aren't going to stop prosecuting child molesters because the jails are full, are you? Where are you going to put them, eh? That's a different problem we have as a society.

LongHaul, I think yeh use ordinary jurisprudence, eh? Packsaddle makes a big deal out of how sometimes drugs that prevent ovulation also work by preventing attachment to the uterus. But if we're honest, there's really no risk of prosecution there. No way of the state ever having evidence. Ordinary civil liberties also would mean that no, we wouldn't make women take a pregnancy test before leaving the country, buying cigarettes or whatnot. For your other cases, we already have established law as a guide. A woman abusing drugs while pregnant might indeed be convicted of child abuse, and placed in custody, and perhaps have her child placed in foster care upon birth. That's the same as a woman giving her five-year-old drugs. And wouldn't the result, including being drug free for the rest of her pregnancy, be better for the child and society? One night in a neo-natal ward with drug babies would convince any sane individual that it would. In a similar way, the law makes distinctions and prosecutors have some discretion when a person harms another because of emotional distress and other extenuating circumstances, which may apply to a woman procuring an abortion. There is settled law regarding travelling across jurisdictional boundaries and committing legal acts in one jurisdiction that would be illegal in another. And on and on. In short, most of this jurisprudence is settled. It needs no more hand-wringing than it did when we finally stopped treating African Americans as property. A black man is just a man, and an unborn child is just a child. But I expect, as with that case, that we'll end up with a period where the laws apply somewhat differently to unborn children. That's unfortunate, but probably socially inevitable. First stop the crime. Then work slowly toward full rights. Now, as far as "lethal injection" goes, I confess I'm with the Catholics down the street on that. Respecting life means respecting all life, from cradle to grave. Capital punishment, much as some people deserve it, should not be used in a civilized society that has other options. But I see nothing wrong with a long incarceration of a physician who spends his days making money from (as you say) sticking a vacuum tube into a child's brain.

Aw, packsaddle. Yeh were waitin' and proddin' us to talk about birth control and in-vitro from our perspective, then rather than answerin' us, you retreated to statements from anonymous "pro-life contacts" that you could straw man. Very disappointin. Yeh had un-anonymous pro-life ladies and gents right here. No question that genetic technology is proceedin' at a pace faster than most of society has had a chance to think about and discuss, let alone reach consensus on. Frankly, that's pretty scary. Just because we can do somethin' doesn't mean we should. The race to tinker with genetics because it's an interestin' scientific problem reminds me of the race to build better thermonuclear devices to kill people in cities because that, too, was an interestin' scientific problem. The only thing to date which has kept us from a genetically engineered disaster is that life seems to be very fragile. Almost no genetic "accidents" survive in the lab or in the wild. I'm surprised you stopped in your discussion where you did. That genetic-target "silver bullet" cancer pill you mention can also be used to target and murder an unborn child. But it doesn't stop there. It can be used to target and murder any specific individual simply and anonymously. Like it or not, society (through taboo or restriction or aggressive prosecution) is going to have to get a handle on many of the possible uses of genetic technology. Because stable reproducing genetic life is fragile and rare, it is much easier to use such technology to kill than to save.

Yah, first you need to get documentation from dad, and perhaps ask permission to speak to the treating physician/psychologist. This has nothin' to do with rank advancement, this is so that your adult (and key youth) leaders understand the boy's condition & medications enough to be able to help, support, and keep him safe on trips. We must remember that advancement is just a technique we use to help boys learn and grow. You should not hesitate to use it! If you figure that with an extra three months, a clear goal, and some more support for this boy you can help him improve in an area that's obviously goin' to be valuable for him the rest of his life, then by all means, do it! Just remember, the boy is going to need your active support and help to change. Autistic spectrum kids don't usually "get" social cues, and it takes a lot of repetition and work for the behaviors to correct. You have to stay on top of this, and you have to bring the youth leaders and his patrol-mates "into the plan." The kids are goin' to be there with him when you're not. Keep a sense of humor, be happy with small growth, and don't worry if it takes six months or more instead of three. Care for the kid, not the patch.

Ed, that's a nice story. But remember your mother CHOSE. That's my point. If the pro-life arguments are sufficiently persuasive, the choice will be agreeable to them, as was your mother's choice. Sure. Our ideal and desire is always that people freely choose to do the right thing. I hope all of our scouts freely choose not to smoke or do drugs. And it would be nice if they so chose because their parents' arguments or ours were sufficiently persuasive. But we still choose to help them make decisions by criminalizing possession and by criminalizing sale of drugs (or cigarettes to minors). In fact, if we're honest, this is part of the argument we're using to persuade them - that doing drugs is illegal, and comes with consequences. "See, look at John Q. in your school who got expelled and arrested for drugs. You see how it can screw up your life?" There are always temptations. Temptations to steal to improve your life. Temptations to escape from it all with heroin. Temptations to kill a child so that you might live the lifestyle you prefer. The law, and its consequences, are part of the way we help people avoid temptations and make good choices. ---- There's no argument that our brothers & sisters in the Catholic & Orthodox communities are logically consistent: life begins at conception, no artificial birth control, no in-vitro. No tinkering with the start of life. I think da rest of us can make an argument in terms of intent. The intent of artificial birth control is to prevent conception, a reasonable act (unless you believe that sex is a manifestation of love that should be unconditional, and therefore open to new life). That birth control has the occasional/rare/unpredictable unintended consequence of causing an abortion by failure to implant is regrettable, but not criminal. We must remember that a number of babies die from failure to implant even without the presence of hormonal agents. It is "natural" to that extent. The intent of invitro fertilization is to help a couple have a child. That's a good thing (unless you view such artificial mechanisms as a form of selfishness and control, rather than openness and love - by wanting to select a boy, or a blonde, or our own genetic kid rather than adopting). That in vitro generates extra embryos is an unfortunate and unintended consequence. It is something that should be "fixed" in the technology. But until that happens, the embryonic child should be treated with dignity. Not experimented on. Not disposed of. Preserved until natural death or the chance for life can be given him/her.

Ed, that's a nice story. But remember your mother CHOSE. That's my point. If the pro-life arguments are sufficiently persuasive, the choice will be agreeable to them, as was your mother's choice. Sure. Our ideal and desire is always that people freely choose to do the right thing. I hope all of our scouts freely choose not to smoke or do drugs. And it would be nice if they so chose because their parents' arguments or ours were sufficiently persuasive. But we still choose to help them make decisions by criminalizing possession and by criminalizing sale of drugs (or cigarettes to minors). In fact, if we're honest, this is part of the argument we're using to persuade them - that doing drugs is illegal, and comes with consequences. "See, look at John Q. in your school who got expelled and arrested for drugs. You see how it can screw up your life?" There are always temptations. Temptations to steal to improve your life. Temptations to escape from it all with heroin. Temptations to kill a child so that you might live the lifestyle you prefer. The law, and its consequences, are part of the way we help people avoid temptations and make good choices. ---- There's no argument that our brothers & sisters in the Catholic & Orthodox communities are logically consistent: life begins at conception, no artificial birth control, no in-vitro. No tinkering with the start of life. I think da rest of us can make an argument in terms of intent. The intent of artificial birth control is to prevent conception, a reasonable act (unless you believe that sex is a manifestation of love that should be unconditional, and therefore open to new life). That birth control has the occasional/rare/unpredictable unintended consequence of causing an abortion by failure to implant is regrettable, but not criminal. We must remember that a number of babies die from failure to implant even without the presence of hormonal agents. It is "natural" to that extent. The intent of invitro fertilization is to help a couple have a child. That's a good thing (unless you view such artificial mechanisms as a form of selfishness and control, rather than openness and love - by wanting to select a boy, or a blonde, or our own genetic kid rather than adopting). That in vitro generates extra embryos is an unfortunate and unintended consequence. It is something that should be "fixed" in the technology. But until that happens, the embryonic child should be treated with dignity. Not experimented on. Not disposed of. Preserved until natural death or the chance for life can be given him/her.

Yah, Eammon. You've got a Sea Scout ship, eh? You're an advisor. These kids are old enough they don't need your support for this kind of task. This is not your problem. The problem belongs to the leaderShip. You aren't allowed to steal it from them. If they can successfully flex the deadline (and want to), then it gets flexed. If they can't successfully flex the deadline, then it breaks for some reason (transportation falls through, not enough spaces, etc.) and they have to deal with that. Not your problem. Go tinker with the boat and leave 'em alone.

Thanks for da update. This is good news. If the courts and scouters can force the governance issue and finally send the Executive Board packing before the final zoning ruling comes, then all your hard work may pay off. My understanding of the sales agreement is that it's contingent on zoning changes. And only the council has the legal standing to challenge the zoning decision. If the Executive Board chooses not to fight a negative zoning decision, then that will void the sales agreement, eh? Never, ever have I seen such dishonorable behavior by a NFP board of directors. To have it happenin' in Scouting is just appalling.

Yah, der's no question that the insignia guide agrees with you, ScoutNut. The youth religious award knot is clearly permitted on the adult uniform, I suspect for the reasons you mention (just like the program capstone awards - AOL, Eagle, QM, Silver). Da rest is just my personal opinion. I'd at least want to see the youth knot worn only if the person earned it for the highest level program they participated in as a youth. Wearing the knot for a cub level religious award if you spent seven years in Boy Scouts and didn't earn the scout-level award just seems cheap. As far as the resume thing goes, in the real world nobody walks around with their resume on their chest. Indeed, anybody who walks up to you and starts spouting their resume would be considered "boorish," eh? A resume is something you keep and pull out when needed... like a patch blanket or vest. I think the insignia guide intent is pretty clear: wear only the patches/awards that correspond to your current position, to keep your uniform neat and uncluttered. That way people can clearly see your "resume" for the position you are serving in. The only exceptions are the youth capstone & religious awards. To find out if a SM once spent 8 years in service to the cub scout program, you ask them over a cup of coffee, eh?

"Members wear only the insignia that show their present status in the movement. Members should make every effort to keep their uniforms neat and uncluttered. Previously earned badges and insignia - not representing present status - [should be moved to a patch vest or blanket, etc.]" Dat's in my copy of the Insignia Guide, page 4. I read this to mean that when you shift positions, you remove knots associated with your former position. Thus if you move from a pack to a troop, you remove the Cubmaster Award, Den Leader Award(s), Cub Scouter Award, etc. Similarly, a district or council scouter should remove unit leader award knots; someone who is no longer a commissioner should remove the Distinguished Commissioner award, etc. While the youth religious emblem square knot is allowed on the adult uniform, I've never been comfortable with this. What is it really saying? "I'm proud I got to a 10-year-old's understanding of my faith?" I personally believe that the better example is to wear only the adult religious emblem award/knot when it is earned. "See, kids, this is an area where you keep growing and learning more." And I think cubs should remove the knot from their Boy Scout uniform until they earn the Boy Scout level award. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

LongHaul,asking a Scout what,why,how questions is not in my opinion a retesting, but a way of determining if requirements were met. Gotta be careful there, eh? "WHAT precautions must be taken for a safe swim?" (2nd class 7a) "WHY do we use the buddy system in Scouting?" (TF 9) "HOW do we treat for exposure to poisonous plants?" (TF 11) Asking what camp gadget a Scout made is not retesting it determines if the requirement was fulfilled. Yah, maybe. But it doesn't determine whether the skill has been learned. And the first purpose of the BOR is "To make sure the work has been learned..." Same goes with asking what requirement was his hardest or easiest. I don't see this question as really applying to the first purpose of a BOR. This question really goes to the second purpose - "To check to see what kind of experience the boy is having in his patrol and troop." As we see from OGE's posted questions on the other thread, questions which retest requirements are a part of what he (and almost all of us) do; it's really almost impossible to avoid if we care about fulfilling the first purpose of the board of review. As Lisabob pointed out, such direct questions are often more age-appropriate and kind than the abstract, open-ended questions used to avoid all appearance of retesting.