The Blancmange

So lesbians are OK then, right?

No one has mentioned that this site, Scouter.com, offers free web hosting. It is simply hosting - someone has to design your site. I would expect most units have a parent or older scout who is capable of creating simple content. I don't know if it is compatible with Joomla or Wordpress. You cannot have your own URL if you use Scouter, but since the site is only directed toward members, they can simply save it as a favorite.

I don't think you fully understand what civil rights are. Marriage is not a 'civil right' I don't think the unanimous Court in Loving v. Virginia would agree with you: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... Which also ties nicely into the other part of this discussion. In 1967, when Loving was decided, 72% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. Clearly if it had been put to a vote then, it would not have been approved. Today, opposition has dropped to 17% (Gallup). Compare that to the trend regarding SSM: In 1996, 68% were opposed and by 2006 it had dropped to 58% nationally. Broken down by age, a majority of those under 35 are not opposed. So this trend will continue as well. As for BrentAllen's assertion that trends like this are likely to reverse, the data do not seem to support that. The US is becoming more liberal on Social Issues like this regardless of which party is in power.

Blanc, No state has voted to allow same-sex marriage. Whenever it has come up for a vote of the people, it has been voted down - even in California. Right, becasuse every major civil rights change in the nation's history has come as a result of a "vote of the people." Ending slavery, women's suffrage, school desegregation, etc. all the result of ballot initiatives.

Here you have a guy who has served, apparently without any problem, for two years until someone "outed" him. I'm sure if there had been some complaint about the quality of his leadership or conduct, that would have been mentioned. Certainly presents a compelling argument that the policy is misguided. The winds of change are blowing as far as this issue goes: DADT is about to go by the wayside, several state Supreme Courts have endorsed single sex marriage; the 9th Circuit is likely to do the same. Dale was only a 5-4 decision and could conceivably be reversed, especially in a case like this.

While I agree that the best practice is to have registered committee members sit on BOR's, the idea that one is risking being denied Eagle, or anything else, because of an arguably improper board composition is nonsense. I asked this question before in the context of unregistered MBC's and never received a response: Certainly, if this were BSA's practice, somewhere in its 100 years and 2 million Eagles, there would be at least one example that someone can point to where a scout was denied rank because of either an unregistered lower BOR member or unregistered MBC. Given the abundance of anectdoctal evidence of these practices on this board, one would expect many examples. No one can point to any examples because it simlpy hasn't happened.

This isn't even really a scouting issue. Would the story have been noteworthy (or even run) if the headline had been "Protestant Church Refuses to Accept Mormon as Youth Organization Leader"?

For the Tenderfoot guys I would start out with a candle only because I don't want matches and butane lighters in the hands of a half dozen boys inside a building. What a killjoy. You probably don't let them use chainsaws either.

Does anyone know where I can get some cheap jeans?

Is there any BSA documentation to support allowing someone who has not earned their Firem'n Chit to fuse a rope. Search the whole G2SS; you won't find anything about a Firem'n chit or Totin' Chip.While the language for each of the two purportedly give the scout the "right" to use the respective tools, I consider those as optional devices for troops to use to regulate the safe use of fire or woods tools; not a bad idea, but they are by no means required. And certainlysilly torequire when under the close, immediate supervision of a SM or ASM. I hope that the DE wasn't on the side arguing that this was a requirement. If that is the case, your district has bigger problems.

I agree to some extent with the dead horse comments, but the original post in this thread asked about "military uniform items." There is no blanket prohibition on things like that, in fact some of them are quite useful in the field. Look at the Northern Tier publications - they recommend "jungle boots." If I'm not mistaken, NT is run by National, so certainly someone would have nixed that by now if then intent was to ban use of military items at any time. Olive drab BDU pants are hard to tell from uniform pants from more than 20 feet away and are certainly more durable in the field. Military surplus duffle bags? I can't tell you how many scouts I have seen hauling gear to camp in those. I agree with the others who suggest that the intent is to avoid the perception that BSA is a paramilitary organization.

Has he turned 11 yet? If he has, he doesn't need to finish AOL or 5th grade in order to join Boy Scouts. I recognize that you are suggesting that you want him to earn AOL, but if the situation is that abrasive, maybe he should just move on. I don't see your proposed solution as being viable unless you are willing to register as a Webelos DL. Good luck.

I agree with Scoutnut. Why is the Committee gettting involved in this? Their job is to provide support to the program, not interfere with it. If anything, a disagreement over an advancement requirement might be taken up with the CM. My guess would be that one of the committee members is a parent of one of the boys who decided to forego the other opportunities to satisfy the requirement. Remind them of this choice. The fact that I am a cheapskate comes in handy for situations like this. I am registered with both our troop and pack, and in order to avoid buying two shirts, I simply switch shoulder loops and use velcro to switch the position pactch. When someone interjects themself into a situation in which they shouldn't, I can simply take off my patch and offer it to them. Haven't had a taker yet.

You are correct in that All BSA meeting are open to everyone. They are? Only if youth are present. I can think of several situations where it would be appropriate, probably preferable, that a a committee meet in private - disciplinary issues that have been elevated to the committee level, sensitive issues regarding leaders (i.e. removal), secret fundraising planning so as to not tip off neighboring troops, etc (Hope everyone sees the sarcasm in the last example). Our comittee discusses many issues via email. The person who invented the "reply to all" function was a genius. Are we violating the BSA Open Meetings Act? Are we required to publish notice of meetings and proposed agandas?

This is from the current insignia guide ( http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/05B.aspx ): Activity badges These metal pins are worn on plaid front panel of the Webelos cap or on the Webelos colors.

Our Pack provides Webelos colors to the boys when they receive their first pin. I guess we look at it as being closer to an avancement item like a rank patch or award pin, as opposed to a uniform item.

Our pack has, probably since the inception of the TC program, tolerated parents who do not participate as required. Some do, but because of the absent ones, it is run more like a Wolf or Bear den. I have discussed this with the CM and others, and we have considered being more strict about it. We basically agree with the original poster, that these kids are generally probably the ones who will benefit the most from scouting in the long run, and we want to get them hooked on the program as soon as possible. In general, these kids have been well behaved and it has not been an issue. In fact, some of the most disruptive kids have been the ones with parents there. Trying to view our TC program objectively, it certainly seems like the kids are having fun and getting a lot out of it.

If you don't want to make it yourself, I've ordered from these guys: http://www.mvww.org/arrow%20of%20light%20plaque.htm I have no connection or intererst, I was just very satisified with their service and workmanship.

No way to put out a blanket statement of "Hey participants, were going to have a fun time, but are missing our cooking demo trainer, and plants & animal trainer.. Can any of you do that for us??" and at all look like we were in control of the situation.. I laughed when I read that. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?

"We are suppose to get new software (good software) before it goes into effect." That isn't going to be an immediate fix. There are still many people out there who are fully trained, but it was never properly recorded. That missing data is not going to magically show up in the new program. Here is an example. Four people from our unit attended a RT earlier this year where they offered YPT. All of us signed in. I just recevied an updated training list from council and 2 of the 4 who I can verify attended this class are shown as needing YPT.(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

I'm continuing this discussion not in order to beat a dead horse, but rather because I'm amused by the fact that we are now engaging in a sort of primacy of law analysis of BSA publications. The BSA's own Chevron Doctrine, if you will. 1) Is registration required? Seems like we all agree the answer is "no", based on da quote from AlFansome's read of the BOR training supplemental, and the fact we can't find it written anywhere else. In fact, even in ACP&P, right after talking about boards being conducted by members of the troop committee, it goes on to add that unit leaders and assistant unit leaders cannot serve on the board. The ACP&P actually states: This board of review is made up of at least three and not more than six members of the troop committee. (emphasis in original). I can't imagine how one could be a member of the troop committee without being registered. Can you be a SM without registering? MBC? This would appear to conflict with the quoted training material, though. If someone actually wanted to resolve the conflict, I would think you would have to go with the Policy & Procedure over a training guide. Same goes for the presence/participation of the SM. Now it's about time to head off to our fall camporee. Hope the boys can get credit for it :-)

I provided instant coffee. That's why no one helped. It was pushback for this fundamental error. On a more serious note, every single outdoor training that I have been to or looked into attending has been at council property that is already equipped with the basic necessities. I think you decision to only hold them there is sound. Tell the training committee that if no one else helps with support, the course won't be run.

I'm thinking about asking around and trying to split the Webelos group into a second group as others suggested to me in here before. I just don't know how to go about suggesting this without making them think that I'm incapable of doing the job. You're not capable of doing it. No one is. That is simply too big for a Webelos den. It needs to be split into 2. Talk to your CM and enlist his help in recruiting another DL from the parents. If that doesn't work, then the CC and/or COR should help find one from outside the den. You absolutely need another leader involved here. You also mentioned a difficulty with public speaking. Enlist help to work on the various activity badges. Do you have any Engineers, doctors, paramedics, carpenters, etc. among your parents? If not, ask friends and acquaintances. Many of them are happy to come in for an evening and work with the boys on a badge. Don't try to do this alone.

As for only being able to go to your district's camp, let me guess your DE told you that? As Col. Sherman Potter would say, "HORSEHOCKEY!" I thought the same thing. My guess was that the individual was on the district camping or day camp committee, and that the district struggles with putting on a program that attracts enough people to fill it. I could see a district or council giving preference to its own scouts in a program that fills up, but that certainly isn't the case here. Like it or not, scout camping is a competetive "business." Some camps have numerous OOC troops every year, while others resort to the "guilt trip" approach with units who choose to go elsewhere. Guess which one offers the better program? Edit: I was typing this while when the OP's repsonse was posted. My comments are still generally applicable. I would still guess that the CM is getting pressure from district people to increase attendance.(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

I can see a source of controversy arising when a BOR turns down a boy for rank advancement and that board composition does not meet the formal requirements. My concern comes more from the opposite end of the spectrum. I would guess that these parent-comprised BOR's rarely, if ever, deny advancement. (Although it certainly could happen, I doubt the district advancement committee would have to put to much time or thought into reversing the decision). If a BOR is conducted with untrained people who are not MC's, the scout loses out on meaningful discussion of his progress, goals, and attitude with people who understand the program and the committee loses out on receiving meaningful feedback about the success or shortcomings of its program.