Beavah

However, if you change the facts of Patrol 2 so that everybody does NOT "just pitch in effectively", resulting in chaos Yah, yah, that's always da assumption, eh? The kids can't do it. It will result in chaos. They need the adults to do it. They need the adults to solve da problem of working together for them. If yeh really are gettin' chaos, then I think yeh have to look carefully at a lot of program components, because for some reason yeh aren't succeedin' at teaching character and citizenship. A duty roster can be an OK thing as a tool, if yeh have a PL and a patrol that needs that sort of support. But I think yeh can move past "An adult tells them how to do it" fairly quickly with a tad more guidance and practice. A couple rounds with a paper roster, then da duty roster can just become verbal, and then just friendly agreement, and now yeh have a patrol culture where new lads learn da culture by watchin' and gentle social pressure. Boys learn by watchin' and doin', not by worksheets. B

Yah, hey, I haven't bitten anybody! Now, there are some relatives that might be considered rabid, but they're all on Mrs. Beavah's side B

Yah, hmmmm.... OK, diannasav. First, thanks for your service to Scouting. Thirteen years is a long run, and growin' a troop from 7 to 40 is a fine accomplishment and a real gift to a generation of kids. Yep, there's nuthin' that can be a drag like adult personalities and politics, but then that's humanity. Try to remember that nobody who volunteers to do stuff for kids in Scoutin' is a bad person; as much as they can make us crazy sometimes they're on our team. Now, yeh say that da pastor/IH actually attends committee meetings? That's a rarity. Generally speakin', the pastor has lots of other things to do, and each ministry more or less is expected to run itself. That the pastor is interested enough should be a good thing. That they give yeh money to help out, allow yeh to put da trailer on their insurance, etc. is an extraordinary good thing. That's a relationship that can be built on. One of the ways to build on it is to increase da connection with the church. Do some service projects for 'em, have the boys who are members show up for some stuff in uniform, make a presentation to the church board. Can I ask what denomination the CO represents? That can matter in figurin' out how they look at things. Now, if I'm hearin' this right, in your opinion the troop's SM is gettin' spread too thin. Has anybody talked with the fellow about it? What did he have to say? Then there seems to be a matter of an election? An election for what? For Scoutmaster? Based on some 4-month-old bylaws? Hmmmmm.... I think bylaws are a reasonable thing to have, dependin' on da CO. But for bylaws to really work they have to be in place for a long stretch and be seen by everybody as bein' fair and "the way we do things." Yeh can't jigger up a set of bylaws and then immediately turn around and use 'em to try to oust a Scoutmaster. That's goin' to look to everybody like what it is, eh? By and large, troop committees want to avoid contentious votes. You're workin' together for kids, and a contentious vote means you've stopped workin' together for kids. If there's a problem with a SM, individuals from the committee, like da CC and an ASM and perhaps the COR should buy him a beverage and sit and chat. Let 'em know what the committee is seein', listen to his side. Perhaps float some ideas but leave some time to think about it. People need time to adjust to different possibilities, and react badly to bein' ambushed. Face-savin' moves that promote a fellow up and out of the way are a kindness and keep a friend. So if I'm readin' this right from afar, this feels like it got really bungled, and da Chartered Org. has perhaps given its word on the matter. In that case, you've reached the point where yeh either pull together or, if yeh can't do that, yeh resign with honor and dignity. Yeh aren't goin' to do anything but damage to the unit and the kids by waivin' around da Commissioner Guidebook and da bylaws and all the rest. Just like any democracy, if yeh have an election and yeh don't like da outcome, yeh shrug and pull together behind the leadership. Maybe next time, eh? But what's important is that the program succeed for kids, so your role is to help it do that no matter who the SM is. That's about all I can offer until yeh tell us a bit more. Beavah

Yah, it happens. It is a real sadness. It's hard to have that sort of conversation with a fellow. Or a lady. Lots of times they seem themselves doin' more good in Scouting than at work or at home. But I've pulled scouters aside occasionally and told 'em that they wouldn't go out on a hike leavin' camp a mess and untended. Sometimes yeh need to tend da homefront. Marriage is a lifelong courtship, eh? Yeh have to keep it up. Love needs to grow and be renewed. Perhaps da Catholics are right; if you're really called to service that takes a large chunk of your time, it's better to be celibate. Nah. Beavah

You have to go to the local ordinary (Bishop) to overrule the Pastor. The ordinary bishop? Yah, hmmmm.... So is there a local extraordinary bishop as well? I remember once a fellow tellin' me at one of da Catholic camp services that he was an extraordinary minister. I thought yeh called ministers "priests"? And I'm pretty sure that fellow was a layman. He seemed pretty ordinary to me. Yeh folks are funny. Beavah

Yah, for some reason I got a Darwin Fish kissing a Christian Fish a lot in I&P. I got a great chuckle out of that. I keep waitin' for ads for beaver-skinned coats or conservation organizations in beaver areas, but I reckon da AdWords algorithms can't yet parse funny regional dialects in type. I think, it's great to know that Merlyn is really an Episcopalian. B

Read my post again beav, the 95% is a reference to adults, not scouts. And I asked you how you would get those adults to reach the goal of higher level proficiency without the checklist as a guide. Yah, I don't buy da figure for people - either scouts or adults, eh? Though I'll grant that adults have a harder time imaginin' things bein' different than what they're used to. I think by and large folks teach others the way they have been taught. So if we teach adults checklists, they'll teach the kids checklists. Our example speaks more loudly than our words. I don't think yeh can get adults to help kids reach the goal of higher proficiency unless we as adults use behaviors and practices associated with higher proficiency. ----- Basementdweller, I think when we're talkin' communication and records, the more steps there are in the system the greater the chance of errors and lost records, and the more energy is used just to maintain the system. Right now in troops usin' blue cards we have a communications/record keeping system that goes somethin' like: MBC->Scout (blue card)->SM->Committee Member->(transcribed to advancement report)->Council Registrar->(transcribed/verified in ScoutNet)->badge purchase->badge delivery->badge awarded. That's a lot of steps, and almost all of those are adult steps, eh? So we see a lot of loss/errors, and a lot of delays, and the majority of that is caused by adults. I think in terms of Scouting for the boys, da natural thing is MBC->badge awarded No errors, no delays, no long chain of adult involvement. Da folks who like cards can even expect that the boy bring his award card in its baseball card folder sheet thingy to his BOR for documentation, though I think most lads would shoot a photo with their phone and upload that. With modern technology to ensure back-ups, MBC->ScoutNet->badge delivered->badge awarded would work fine. Scout's job is to verify his online records. That's much closer to what he'll experience in da real world. Da other one I suggested was MBC->Scout's discretion communication->Committee Member->Registrar-> etc. Doesn't save many steps, but at least the lad is playin' an active role in the communication, not impersonating a mailman. Of course for camps these days, we have Instructor->MBC of record->camp's discretion communication->SM->Committee Member-> etc. Beavah

I find your whole argument that a scout need not take responsibility, coming from a person that strongly advocates the position that a scout cant learn in a once and done manner, highly surprising. Yah, well. It should be surprisin', because it's not my argument. I'm not sure how yeh managed to get to "a scout need not take responsibility" from anything I've ever written. I do talk funny, I'll admit, but that's got to be at least partly an error by the reader. So I guess I'm suggestin' a hierarchy of youth leadership. 1. Adults do it for them. 2. Adults develop all of the procedures and make them do the work (a variant of "adults tell them what to do"). 3. Adults develop all of the procedures and make them learn the procedures, but allow modifications if justified. 4. Kids take adult tools and procedures and modify them to meet the goals. 5. Kids develop their own procedures (and perhaps make adults do the work ). 6. Kids do it all themselves. You are accusin' me of advocatin' for #1, and are telling me how much better #2 is than #1. Yep, I agree that #2 is better than #1. I'm just suggestin' that there's more merit in #3, #4, #5, and #6. Astute students of history will recognize this as sort of parallel to Bloom's taxonomy. I'm suggesting that all scouts can engage in higher-order thinking, or reach a level of proficiency. If we let 'em. I don't buy that 95% of 'em can't. That doesn't mean that we don't give 'em tools. Some tools are fine, though I think it's also necessary to teach folks how to add and subtract in their head without a calculator, or how to cook fish without an immersion circulator. There are times when folks are learning we perhaps shouldn't give 'em tools. But a tool is somethin' yeh can use in multiple ways, and choose to use or not use in a particular case. That's different from a procedure. What folks have been describin' in terms of blue cards is an adult-mandated procedure. The boys can't choose not to use it, or use it differently the way they could with a tool. At least that's Point One of my argument. Point Two is that this is just a stupid recording task, and da proper way for anybody with a brain to handle a recording task in the modern world is to use tools to minimize the number of steps between accomplishment and recording. It costs less, is more accurate, and leaves more time to learn or teach real responsibility using more meaningful tasks. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, what ADCinNC said. No, a District Commissioner should not be a unit leader, particularly not a Scoutmaster. Absolutely no commissioner should be involved in a commissioner role for a unit where they or their sons are a member. Practically speakin', this is often honored as much in da breach, eh? The pressure has been on fillin' commish slots with warm bodies over the last decade, and it's gotten pretty sloppy. Nevertheless, when any issue comes up with a unit that is involvin' the District Commish directly instead of (just) the unit commish, a DC who is a SM should recuse himself in favor of the Council Commish or someone appointed by da CC. Yes, it would be a conflict of interest. The SM owes his duty of loyalty to the Chartered Organization and its committee. The district commissioner owes his duty of loyalty to the council corporation and the BSA. Those two masters may have different goals in a particular case, and servin' two masters with different goals is the definition of a conflict of interest. Beavah

Hiya diannasav! I see from your previous posts that you are from a relatively young unit. The sort of question yeh raise often suggests that there's more to the story. If yeh share more of what's goin' on, then perhaps we can offer more help and insight. The answer to your question has been given correctly by everyone else. The Chartered Org. owns the unit. It is liable for da actions of the unit's leadership. Therefore, it is responsible for selecting and supervising the unit's leaders, and can remove any or all of them at any time. It can specify "bylaws" or other operating restrictions or requirements. The scout troop is just a youth program of the Chartered Org., no different than the Sunday School Class. A wise chartered organization works with folks, and makes da relationship a mutual and collaborative one, and tries not to micromanage. Beavah

Yah, Eagle732, always the scout. For a first-time lad, I'd suggest the parent sit with the boy and help him think through what he's goin' to say, and then practice a bit. Gets the parent involved more productively. So if a parent calls me, I might gently suggest that and say how important it is to their son's growth, yada yada. I always get a chuckle out of the number of emails I get from "Scouts" sent from a parent's email address in the middle of a school/work day. Probably a lad with a smart phone in the middle of class, hackin' into his parent's email account. At the risk of gettin' lynched by the blue card mafia, why would anyone in da modern world call to set up an appointment? That's somethin' yeh do by text, email, or doodle. [duckin' and runnin' for cover] B

Yah, VeniVidi, I agree my example doesn't provide 1:1 correspondence, but it at least let's yeh in to my way of thinkin'. Nothin' wrong with scouts having an agenda, that's a fine thing. But followin' TwoCubDad's logic, in which case is more of the responsibility with the scout? The case where da scout has to fill out da form (complete with prompts and most activities and times already pre-set by adults), or the case where the scout creates the agenda from a blank piece of paper, workin' with his buddies and deciding on order, and timing, and other stuff on his own? Or takin' the duty roster example, which is da more effective patrol... the one where the PL is given an adult-compiled duty roster form with times set up and blanks to fill in for names, or the patrol that dispenses with the duty roster and has everyone just pitch in effectively, one lad swapping out with another at da cooking station so the other can pack his stuff, two guys who were done early with packin' jumpin' in to help da cleanup go faster? All without a form? I'm arguin' for the second in both cases. TwoCubDad, I reckon there are two points that I'm makin' with respect to blue cards which perhaps aren't clear. Point One is like the point I'm makin' above. By specifyin' the form and the exact method of communication (Eagledad lays out enumerated steps for communication), while the lad is only executing the communication, the adults have done most of the work. Da task of carrying the card back is trivial make-work which doesn't teach very much. As an alternative, yeh could make the lad truly responsible for the communication and let him (or the PLC) choose what's best. That might be asking the MBC to call (or calling himself and handin' the MBC the phone). It might be email. It might be showin' the MBC how to log on to the ScoutTrack account and add the badge. It might be takin' a photo of himself with da counselor and a sign saying "MB Completed" and photo-texting it. It almost certainly wouldn't be carryin' a blue card until da next time he sees the Advancement Chair. Point Two is that da act of recording the badge is truly trivial, and no matter what yeh do it teaches almost nothing. Real responsibility and communication are learned in other aspects of da badge and program. Yeh can dispense with learnin' about a paperwork system the boy will never see the like of again in his life, and the important things are all still there - settin' up a meeting with an adult, communicatin' expectations, bein' responsible for completing requirements, an ongoin' mentoring relationship. The added requirement of conveying a form doesn't add much at all to the lad's experience. As a result, since the benefits are so low, the cost/benefit analysis argues against it. Let's look at da cost. Some of the kid's time. An advancement chair's time. More time when the form is lost by the boy or (more often) by an adult or (still more often) by the council. All that adult recordin' and passin' off and signing time. All so the boy can learn that make-work bureaucratic systems are annoying? Let's be honest, most badges are earned at camp, and at camp da recording process is adult-run. I don't think that's an awful thing, because the recording process is an adult need, not a kid need. All of Scouting in the eyes of a boy, and all of its positive effects on his character can be accomplished without an exercise to get data entered into ScoutNet. Beavah

You mean back when heretics were burned? I wonder how many burned heretics yeh can find in history, eh? A few hundred, perhaps? Wikipedia could manage barely more than a hundred over da course of a thousand years. That pales in comparison to da executions of religious folks by secular or atheist governments, eh? Even just within da last century. B

Holy Cow! Forty pages into da digital beyond! I bet even Merlyn is hopin' there's such a thing as resurrection (and hey, that other thread about Blasphemy came back after three years...). Ah, well. Da record still stands (what was da record anyways)? Beavah

Religious ideas on the other hand, whether stupid or inspired (and there are lots of examples of both), come from a fundamentally different way of perceiving the universe and are much less susceptible to normal changes in thinking. That in a nutshell is the essential conflict between religion and empiricism. Yah, I always get a hearty laugh out of it when people claim that all other branches of human thought are subject to error, except their own. Atheist scientists and university professors tend to be roughly equivalent to the most pigheaded of my fundamentalist religious brethren. They can only see from one perspective, and insist that everybody else convert! All that despite da fact that science has never really been the least bit successful at understandin' human social systems. Yah, yah, with electrons they do fine. Just because yeh can make a fine integrated circuit doesn't mean you're likely to be successful comfortin' the lad who has lost his father, or inspiring the artist, or shoring up da courage of the corporate whistle-blower, or convincin' the physician to leave a lucrative practice to go serve Doctors without Borders. The truth is, if we were truly honest about empiricism, we would recognize that religion has been vastly more effective than any other branch of human thought at most of the things that really matter for humans and society. Yah, yah, science gives us da tools to incinerate a town or to prolong da life of someone through invasive means. Then it runs and hides when the time comes to consider whether those tools should be used. Left to the unchecked State, what would we have, do yeh suppose? Religious thought also changes with time, as humanity develops greater experience with life and with divinity. Read the Talmud, examine da writings of the Councils, listen to the debates of modern clerics. Unlike science, though, religious thought isn't as focused on populations as it is on individuals, and how individuals learn and grow and improve. Da growth of understandin' of the population is secondary. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

PS: to clarify what I mean, you'd need a court to agree that such-and-such a treatment was essentially useless Yah, hmmmm.... So in your opinion, Merlyn, da court system is the proper arbiter of what constitutes good science? B

I've been trying to make sense of this dialog, but am getting lost. Yah, you and me both! All I suggested was that blue cards weren't a necessary part of scoutin', and that all that was really required was any reliable way for a MBC to indicate that a lad had completed a badge. Apparently I was wrong. VeniVidi does raise an interestin' point about structure, and perhaps by takin' a different example I can communicate better. Let's look at meetings. Da BSA does provide some optional structure in terms of troop meetings. More like some examples. Those used to be called Woods Wisdom, now they're Program Helps or somesuch. They are based off a relatively rigid structure of opening game and opening and then some other stuff, which stayed the same no matter what the topic was. Now, I suppose yeh could say that anyone doin' meetings differently was "doing it wrong and not following the BSA guidelines" as Eagledad implies for not usin' blue cards. Da problem with that is that I've yet to see a successful troop anywhere that followed Program Helps exactly, eh? Mostly yeh just see some elements. Some just come up with their own meeting plan, which works just as well. Others have longer meetings than what Program Helps were designed for, heaven forbid! So I guess everybody's doin' it wrong. Just like I don't think troops or boys have to use blue cards, I don't think it's really "wrong" for troops or boys to come up with their own meeting plans. Da structure isn't required. The BSA materials are there as a resource. Is da structure desirable? In da grand scheme of ways to approach puttin' together a meeting, havin' boys take da Program Helps documents for da Canoeing month and fill in the blanks is one option. In that case, da responsibility of the scouts is filling in the blanks. The other parts of planning - setting a goal, figurin' out where your people are startin' with respect to that goal, developing a progression, usin' local resources, planning for time, etc. etc. have all been done for 'em by adults. The boys just have to execute it. On the other end, yeh could have a PLC that says it wants to do canoein' for a month, and those boys could set a goal, consider their patrol members and patrols, investigate resources, develop a progression, plan for time, etc. In all likelihood, they'll come up with somethin' different for weekly meeting plans than the ones in Program Helps. Maybe they'll change the order, or go longer, or skip the game at the start. Maybe they'll go grab somethin' from the American Canoe Association instead, and the meetin' won't look anything like Program Helps. Probably, they'll do more actual canoeing. In da first case, the boys have learned how to execute a plan within a rigid structure set up by others. Lots of adults look at that and feel a swell of pride. The kids have learned how to march. It looks neat and organized. Nuthin' wrong with that, if that was your goal. I think its of limited usefulness in this day and age to the lads; too much like assembly line work, which is goin' away. So it would not personally be my goal. It gets yeh Scout 1 in my example, a lad who knows how to execute a system provided for him. In da second case, by contrast, the boys have learned how to have an idea, change it into goals, gather resources, develop a progression, plan for time, and execute their own plan. It's leadership work. It's portable. It requires the boys to set up their own structure, not just follow someone else's. It gets yeh a lad like Scout 3, who can organize and engage on his own, without adults havin' to provide all da structure. Now, in a brand new unit, with brand new youth leaders, yeh will need more structure. That's just the way things are with beginners. If yeh leave it wide open, beginners will flounder. To me, though, yeh want to get past that unnecessary structure quickly, rather than lock it in forever, because it's da other aspects of youth leadership where most of da growth really takes place. Once yeh have a unit culture in place, yeh don't need a rigid structure at all, because kids learn by watching and doing. If they've seen older boys run meetings, if they've served in assistant roles for a while doin' the meeting planning process, then by the time they're in PL and SPL roles they've got it down. No need to pull out Program Helps unless they happen to want to look at a set just for an idea or two. So I'd say Program Helps aren't necessary, might be useful as one resource or idea, and are perhaps a hindrance dependin' on what outcomes yeh value and how yeh use 'em. Same with blue cards. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I'm still not gettin' yeh, Eagledad. What does phoning and settin' up a meetin' with a counselor have to do with Blue Cards? Why do yeh feel that if we eliminated Blue Cards that would somehow mean that a lad wouldn't have to find a counselor and arrange meetings with a counselor? Anyways, settin' that aside for a moment, I think da place we fundamentally disagree is that you have a notion that 95% of boys and adults can't achieve high performance on what in da grand scheme of things are relatively easy tasks. I think that's utter nonsense. I think you're gettin' those results because of the system you have set up. We can, as adults, set up a highly regimented system. We can say within our troop that the way to do Merit Badges is yeh must go to MB.com where yeh can select a badge, then download and print out the MB worksheet. Then yeh must come with your worksheet with your name on top to the SM for his approval, and the SM will give yeh the MB book for that badge and a phone number. Then yeh must fill out all da lines on the worksheet and have your parent sign that you did it yourself, then with your parent (for YP reasons) call the MBC to arrange an appointment. Then we tell the MBC that he has to use the worksheet and make triplicate copies and just walk through each of da requirements as covered on da worksheet (no adding to requirements). Yeh must use black pen because at some point da Advancement Chair has to copy it for da records, etc. etc. You are correct, eh? Adults set up that kind of regimented system when they believe that kids and other adults aren't capable of goin' about workin' on merit badges without that kind of added structure. And yeh know what? They discover that the kids and adults they work with aren't capable of goin' about workin' on merit badges without that kind of added structure. Their system produces the result they expected, eh? But they'll be proud that their boys are demonstratin' "responsibility" by always havin' their worksheets completed and signed in black pen. What I'm gently suggestin' is that yep, yeh occasionally need to provide a bit more structure to a young scout or a new MBC when he's just gettin' started. But very soon after that the extra structure should fade so that things proceed more naturally and real learning takes place. 95% of youth and adults are capable of doin' this stuff on their own, without all that extra foorah. They can manage their own learning without a worksheet, and they can engage in normal communications, which these days usually involve email instead of 3-part cardstock forms. But in the end, yeh get from boys and adults what yeh expect, eh? Expect they can't do it, and they won't. Beavah

For large troops, it takes a lot of time to maintain all the data...especially for active troops. There are weeks where she would log 40 or more hours. Holy Smoke! I know folks are goin' to yell at me for keepin' up my current theme, but really? Is this the best way to use a full-time volunteer in your program? Seems like da tail is waggin' the dog. Or that the system used to make things easier really isn't. B

Yah, I reckon most of us old critters are experienced MBCs and unit leaders or former unit leaders who have worked with hundreds of kids, eh? In fact I left hundreds behind quite some time ago. I'm now completely confused, though, which Mrs. Beavah says happens often enough. A bit back, Eagledad and others were talkin' about how da blue card administration process was important for teachin' responsibility, leadership, etc. Now yeh seem to be sayin' that administration is just a small part of da process and doesn't really affect the behavior of any scout. Which is it, I wonder? I must have missed somethin' somewhere. I didn't see any particular lack of passion or personality issues with any of the boys I mentioned. That wasn't what I meant to convey. I was just reflectin' on observations of what I took to be some interestin' learned behaviors. The boys in question were typical of other boys I've seen from their respective troops. There's a difference in skills between boys who can execute a given structure that they've been trained in, and boys who can impose their own structure as needed in order to learn or accomplish some task. When yeh have different expectations, yeh get different outcomes in that way. Could approaches to MBs lead to lack of passion? That's a different question. I worry that when we overly proceduralize learning and rewards that that is at least dull. That goes beyond simply administration, and more to TwoCubDad's concern about MB worksheets and the strict version of "no adding to the requirements" which turns Merit Badges into checkin' off isolated independent tasks, rather than a deeper engagement with a topic and a mentor. I share TwoCubDad's lack of enthusiasm for da worksheets. And I reckon my own personal feelings on a checkbox, one-and-done approach to any advancement are well known in this particular pond I prefer approaches where da focus stays on the mentoring and the interestin' subject. Beavah

Ah, but in a public settin' would yeh stand up and call Muhammed a False Prophet, or da Jewish prohibition on pork a bunch of superstitious nonsense? I doubt it. I figure despite your protestations yeh are probably a fine and respectful fellow. I find in public settings it's nicer to share your own positive beliefs, rather than dissin' on someone else's beliefs in a negative way. Da problem with words like "myth" or "cult" is that their common-use meaning outside of academe is disparaging to those with deeply held religious or cultural beliefs. And, like it or not, angels are an aspect of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theology, arguably also in Hindu and Buddhist faiths. Satan and fallen angels aren't quite as strongly held, but they are an aspect of Christian and Islamic theology and tradition, and yeh can find aspects of that belief in the Talmud in Judaism and in other faiths as well. Beavah

Beavah can't throw lightning, alas. However, he does have an unusual aptitude for attractin' it (and other meteorological phenomena) when out camping. Beavah would never call Thor a myth to a genuine believer, just to be respectful. I don't think there really are any of those left though, eh? Just like I don't think da anthropological term "cult" when referrin' to things like da reverence Catholics feel toward Mary is appropriate in polite company. Just part of bein' respectful, is all. Beavah

Beavah can't throw lightning, alas. However, he does have an unusual aptitude for attractin' it (and other meteorological phenomena) when out camping. Beavah would never call Thor a myth to a genuine believer, just to be respectful. I don't think there really are any of those left though, eh? Just like I don't think da anthropological term "cult" when referrin' to things like da reverence Catholics feel toward Mary is appropriate in polite company. Just part of bein' respectful, is all. Beavah

Just because someone's idea or view is different then yours does not make it wrong. Sure it does. At least, in my opinion. And that's all any of us can really post, eh? Our opinions. Hopefully among friends and fellow scouters who will do us the kindness of tryin' to read our drivel in the best light, or who will challenge us just because we need to be challenged in our thinking. Sometimes who will go 'round and 'round with us because that helps us refine our own thinkin' while seein' other arguments. Yep, we all run off da rails from time to time, but at least we're doin' it among friends. I confess I don't care much for folks who just post snide remarks about individuals, rather than engaging with da matter being discussed. Even those very few I have no reason to believe are not wonderful scouters in their units or councils. So sit and stay a spell. Try not to hold on to your ideas too tightly, because ideas should be challenged and refined. And stay away from Issues and Politics for anything other than entertainment value. Beavah

Like BSA units, individual Girl Scout Troops might decide that they will only take members who are of a particular faith, who attend a particular school, who are female, etc. Like individual BSA units, an individual GSUSA Troop can not be forced to accept a specific member. Yah, ScoutNut, I'm not sure this is true, eh? I'm pretty sure ndividual units have to follow the GSUSA's membership policies, especially for youth. They aren't separate organization's, they are part of the GSUSA. Do yeh have a citation on that, or a publicly available example? Beavah