TAHAWK

Of course not. If there's room for Noam and the Donald, there's room for you.

Yah. Yah. Barbara Boxer says that, but Forbes pointed out the scams in her numbers. Cooking the books again. (See "cut spending.")

"2) They learned to Jump in and get it done before some interfering adult comes and makes thing worse." In Mr. Smith's Advice to the New PL, that came out. "They are always watching for an excuse to "help." Don't give them an excuse. Stay on top of things."

Only had a dad want to "help" put up a tent once in 7.5 years as an SM. I told him, "We need to have the boys put up the tents so they can earn their badges." He replied, "Oh." That was that. Probably saved him from embarrassment. In case that didn't work, I had already decided on, "We require the boys to put up their own tents." Whatever it took beyond that.. Frankly, hovering parents had not been part of my first "life" in Scouting in California. Summer Camp was 100 Scouts and two-three commissioned Scouters. When I started up again in Ohio and saw all the parents who wanted to go to Summer Camp, I was amazed. Amazement didn't stop me from keeping them away from the patrols. The council camp helped with adults programs, such as "Nap On Safely." Next year we went to a camp with cold no showers and an hour from the nearest very small town. Want coffee? Boil your own. Interest in attending camp with son fell sharply.

If the governments were subjected to the same tests as private charities for efficiency - % of $$ actually helping "clients - I wonder how they would be rated. The Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, determine in 1995 (Yes, the last investigation was twenty yeast ago.) as regards to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and Food Stamp programs: "The accountability issues are very basic. We are not sure what we are paying for and whether the funds are being spent in a cost-effective manner. The way that the current system operates, it would be too resource intensive to even try to find out the answers. We do know that some States spend double and triple what other States spend per recipient, without any clear relation to outcomes. There are a lot of reasons offered as to why this is the case, but no solid evaluated data to confirm the degree to which these reasons affect administrative costs. We also know that we could find no significant correlation between the costs incurred and the recipients served on an individual State-by-State basis."

If the OP is accurate, there is no issue of judgment. Instead, the issue raised is what to do about a commissioned Scouter changing the rules to suit himself. There is no reason that the answer has to involve discourtesy or disregard of the feelings of the Scouter. The issue also extends to other Scouts in the unit. Will they also be subjected to the alleged arbitrary treatment that is contrary to the rules, regulations and policies on Advancement? The Scouts too are entitled to respect and courtesy. Change the facts - have an existing policy on being "active" that the Board of Review determines the Scout has arguably failed to meet - and you change the result. Were those the facts, I have no problem with the concept of judgment, without a lot more facts. Although I question whether a policy of the SM being "comfortable" is an acceptable policy any more than "I know it when I see it." satisfied anyone other than Justice Black. Obviously, parents can be other than rationale and fair when it comes to their kids. In forty-six years in the program, I have experienced more than one parent who had gone off the deep end in a desire to "help" their son. Those experiences do not make it inevitable that the parents are always in the wrong when it comes to challenging the treatment of their Scouts. I have personally heard an SM proclaim that no Scout who was not a Baptist would ever Eagle in "his" troop. I have dealt with an SM who made up his own advancement requirements for T-F (First he didn't agree with changes from B.S.A. and then, while he was at it, he made up drastically different requirements based on how "it should be. "Tracking." for example, was back for Second Class and Morse Code for First Class.). One Sm would not "pass" a Scout for First Class unless he could safely fell a tree. Then there was the SM giving alcoholic beverages to Scouts who had reached 14 years of age. (That behavior made it to American Heritage. in a very favorable article about the troop) And more. Our duty as commissioned Scouters is to provide the B.S.A. program according to B.S.A. rules, regulations, and policies. When the CO agrees to be a CO, it agrees to "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies." Thus, the CO's mission is not relevant to solving the issue raised in the OP. If the CO determines that the SM is not following the BSA rules, regulations, and policies, it is contractually bound to correct that situation. The Scouting values involved according to the OP's statements include "Obedient." Do we teach in the Citizenship badges that one should regularly disobey laws that one does not "respect." While I dislike the current explanation, I like anarchy even less. Use wiggle room? Sure. Unequivocally violate the rules? No. Is there evidence that the SM counseled the Scout that he was at risk of failing to qualify for Eagle due to failing to be "active" until the point in time indicated in the OP? If not, he was he loyal to the Scout, friendly to the Scout, kind to the Scout? Surely, rules should be interpreted in view of higher values. In this case, the authoritative interpretation is by B.S.A. It ill behooves Scouters to preach the Law and ignore it when it suits them. [emphasis added] See, Guide to Advancement, 4.3.2.1 Note who exercises the judgement Either the Scout passed the requirements or he did not, the SMs "comfort" notwithstanding.

When baseball decided pitchers could throw overhand as well and underhanded, what unacceptable behavior was baseball trying to prevent ? Would the rules have been passed if Quisenberry was around? (Are you related to DuckTape?)

So far as I know, the Scout Spirit requirement is unrelated to time. "Be "active" is the requirement with the time limit. I know of many SMs in this area who make up their own rank requirements I doubt that one of them thinks he's doing wrong..

To the contrary, the unwillingness of certain council execs to follow the rules has resulted in a change by BSA that I never thought I'd see: a SM can now decide that a signed Blue Card is meaningless if he determines that a Merit Badge could not have been actually earned. Next step: refusal to certify camps who do not have registered MB Counselors for each MB offered. So the "business plan" of giving away MBs to fill summer camp is under serious attack- finally.

Can drop/drive/take. Four just stationed in Philippines to patrol international waters west of there.

"'A nod and a wink' is still alive and well when it comes to following BSA rules." Wink, nod, adult-run troop method Scouting.

OK. But ask a "Hog Driver" to get the divergent opinion. They even have a fan with stars. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18236/why-the-a-10-warthog-is-such-a-badass-plane/

There are American companies that make "Made in China" labels. ^___^

The whole A-10 vs. F-35 vs, A-?? mess is the military arguing to civilians who control the spending, although fortunately some of the civilians were military at one time (to the Air Force's dismay).

Perhaps a policy but not a practice. If it were the practice lot's of council execs would be fired and/or lots camps would be closed. Some many dozens of execs ignore the policy 'cuase lots of unearned MBs handed out is perceived as the path to lots of campers in camp, and rules be damned.

I vigorously agree. But what is the problem with judgments made on the basis of facts?

Very true. We know exactly what the rule is because BSA publishes it in the Guide to advancement, and it is: "Policy on Unauthorized Changes to Advancement Program No council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to add to, or subtract from, advancement requirements. There are limited exceptions relating only to youth members with special needs. For details see section 10, “Advancement for Members With Special Needs.†Boy Scouts of America, Guide to Advancement (2015) at p. 2. At least since 1965, Merit Badge Counselors have known this rule as "Add nothing. Subtract nothing." So as a Beaver, you can make all the changes you want. As a Scouter you may make no changes -zip - zero- nada.

"Not to put too fine a point on it @Stosh, but yeh do know that da number of folks employed by da federal government has not been goin' up, right? In fact, as a percentage of da employed population of the country, the number of federal workers is near an all-time low. Not sure where all these bloated bureaucrats are hidin'. Are you? (http://www.businessi...ent-2012-7?op=1)" I know what you mean by "all time low." At about 22,000,000, it's the all time low since 2008. (The article you cite has numbers that do not agree with the numbers published currently by the Office of Personnel and Management.. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ ) Must be "New Math." "Try this as an exercise, eh? Name who you would cut.." The Department of Education. A good start. "State militias will handle our worldwide defense like da good ol' days? " In part, it's what we are trying by using the National Guard (FKA the "militia") as front-line forces. "Goin' to leave food and water safety up to da locals who try to save a few bucks and deliver leaded water to all their constituents? " That is what the USEPA did for months: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/12/epa-stayed-silent-flints-tainted-water/78719620/ We need someone to keep an eye on all the bureaucrats, but real journalism is dying out. "Goin' to trust da bankers to self-regulate? " No, we trust them to cheat - and to buy almost every politician in sight regardless of party. The feds have been doing a great job right? The really prevented the scams right? And not one indictment by the feds of the leaders of the mortgage loan fraud after the facts came out. Fines to be paid by stockholders of the offending companies and the big sorts rock on. "The only substantive increases in federal spending (but not workers) have been in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Can yeh explain to me how those have curtailed our freedoms? Seems like they've mostly kept elderly folks healthier and out of poverty." Sure. Federal dollars always come with strings attached. Go along with nonlegislated regulations or no money. More money = less freedom. "Now I'm a conservative fellow by nature, eh? So I reckon we do have some problems with a dysfunctional Congress that can't pass a balanced budget even in good times." Pretty sad, is it not? But the Executive Branch (or is it the Monarchy) should not be left out of the story of this mess. Both sides need to give. "As a conservative fellow and a patriot, that never made any sense to me. If we're goin' off to war, that's when we increase taxes to pay for the war and for care of our veterans. We all pitch in and sacrifice together, eh? " Hitler, IIRC, called it "guns and butter " Lyndon called it "The great Society" - one that could fight a war and greatly increase social welfare spending. "Had we done that with a fuel tax way back in 2001, America and the world would be far more secure.... and more energy independent to boot.." ​That would be an increased fuel tax, right? It's 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel and brings in far less money than it did when last raised decades ago when 15 mpg was good. As for the thousands of pages of new federal rules each year, the feds do about as well as others bureaucracies when it comes to the rules being well understood by those that pass them. Remember Obama Care - "We'll have to see what the legislation provides after we pass it." We rely too much on the unelected bureaucrats, not the supposed law-makers.

Nohting wrong with coaching. Front foots needs to come down in the same place.

Two teams played under their own rules. But is wasn't football anymore or even Association Football. It was American Football. Imagine the Quadruple Option: run, pass, punt, drop kick.

The zero-tolerance policies I find via Google are local, although federal and state laws often seem to have pressured the school districts into adopting such rules. I volunteered to join Scouting knowing that it has rules and has a value of obedience to rules. Having said that, how do we read "Obedient" given that BSA hails Dr. King as an icon - a man who won the Nobel Prize for Peace for running a campaign of civil disobedience?

But will it help the son's control? Exactly!

It is also amazing how much neck pain results from someone using a trump-line who has not built up his neck muscles. Ditto for carrying a load on the top of your head. Of course, if you only have third-best, that is what you use.

JTE encourages patrols, patrol leaders, SPL, youth leader training, PLCs. It does not encourage the Patrol Method. All the listed scoring criteria typically exist in the adult run, troop-method troop. JTE COULD encourage the Patrol Method by giving points for: elected leaders; significant patrol program; advancement instruction primarily in the patrol; every patrol member with a functioning job; Scouts planning the program of the patrols and troop; SPL running the troop-level program and the planning thereof. But it does not. In fact, JTE imagines that the Patrol Method is solely about developing youth leaders (which would be the Leadership Development Method): "Patrol method: Use the patrol method to develop youth leaders." If you don't know where you're going, it's hard not to get lost.

Yup.