OldGreyEagle

I asked this question of a few Kerry supporters during the campaign and since the election is over, I may as well try here as I didnt get a response. Kerry said if he was president he would make sure that the US went after the "real" terrorist threat, Osama Bin Laden because he said being in Iraq was wrong. I remmber words along the line of making sure the US armed forces would have the best technology, the best training and the best equipment in the world to hunt down and kill terrorists. Yet while in the senate he consistently voted against the weapons systems he wanted to provide the soldiers with. Then there is the 87 billion dollar appropriation that Kerry voted against. Thats the one he was quoted as saying he voted for it before he voted against it. Now, it was my understanding that part of the 87 billion was for body armor, armor for Humvees and that kind of stuff. During the campaign Kerry then ripped Bush for not having the proper body armor and armor for HUmvees in Iraq. Perhaps it would have been there had Kerry not voted against it. At the very least, it seems odd he was bashing Bush for something he himself voted for. Now, If I am wrong, and someone can explain these things I am all ears. I do want to know how he explained all these things because I never heard the explanation. Oh and during the debate, number 2 I think I could be wrong, maybe number one. Again, Kerry said Iraq was wrong, that is was a distraction. That the US should be tracking down and killing terrorists. Then he bashed Buah by saying the borders of Iraq were like a sieve as terrorists by the thousands were pouring into Iraq. Well, have them pour into a country makes them easier to find, doesnt it? Now, please notice I did not use labels or insults in this post, when you respond, please do likewise. If I did insult anyone, please point it out so I can apologize

Is the USO a government or private group? Just curious BadenP, the way I read it bases can still help out with logistical support to the level they would give any non-govermental organization.

When you mix cookies with chocolate, how can you miss?

Thank you EagleinKY and Beav. You did explain what I was thinking. If EVREYTHING is done for the rank advancemen, I would not hold up the rank. If the Scoutmaster conference had not yet been held, then by all means, its a definite "attitude adjustment" time. Even if the scout had completed everything, BOR etc and continued his aberrant behavior, an expulsion from troop activities for a period of time might be considered by the Comittee.

anarchist, I did say that I had no problem calling parents to take a scout home, and I also suggested a meeting with scout and parents to talk about what is acceptable behavior and what is not. I did not in any way condone the scout saying "scouts Whatever". What I am saying is if the scout had completed all his requirments, and had a Board of Review and all was fine then withholding his advancement at the next court of honor is wrong. There are so many other ways of showing an errant scout the error of his way other then holding back on a rank, thats all I am saying.

"On a campout, the Scoutmaster is like a ship's captain at sea" I dont think this is correct, the SPL is the ships captain, the Scoutmaster should just be along for the ride, if he (SM) has done his job "I told one scout that he couldn't get his first class rank at the next cour of honor because he had spent the last two campout saying that "Scouts s#@k" over and over." And this is wrong. By denying his advancement due to his behavior you added requirements to the rank, something you can't do. In effect you were bullying him, you witheld it because you could. Caling the parents to remove the obtuse scout is fine. Talking to the scout with his parents to set expected behaviors is a great idea. But witholding advancement is not. If that scout appealed to Council he would have received his rank (if all requirements were met of course) you can't decide to refuse a rank to a scout who has completed the requirements and the troop has signed off that he met the requirments,

from another thread, this is how I understood a Council Exec to be hired The council president appoints a selections committee. The region helps them develop a profile of what they want. National selects the records of 6 or so professionals who seem to fit the bill. The committee meets again, reviews the paperwork and decides which 3-4 to bring in for an interview. They meet again to interview them and then make a decision and an offer. How far off am I ? Like Fr. Belanger used to always say, its not what you dont know, its what you think you know that just aint so

BadenP, not to get medieval on you or anything, but I was under the impression the Council had at least some input to the selection of a Council Executive, are you saying that is wrong? That the local Council has no input to the Council Executive?

Hey now, don't be dissin' New Jersey, that'e Roanne A'Rosanne a Dan's job. Besides, if by Northern New Jersey you mean the Delaware Water Gap or the area around Hope New jersey you can watch Bald Eagle nest. Not all of New jersey is bounded by the toll way or by tony soparano's boda bing lair

I don't agree Ed, If the troop doesn't meet, then its not the scouts fault. If the scout is ready to serve, and is not asked to do so, its not the scout who is at fault its the troops. Now, I can just hear the palms slapping foreheads all over the globe with people thinking, how come its always the troops fault, but in this case I think it is. In Troop A, with a year round program, a 17 year old scout can earn Eagle. He can get in his 6 months of POR for Life and 6 months for Eagle. In Troop B, with only a 10 month program, a 17 year old scout can't. This means advancement is tied to a troops calendar when its supposed to be up to the scout without the troop adding or subtracting requirements. Now, if a troop goes dormant, couldnt the PORs be given tasks to do? Quartermasters clean and inventory and organize the equipment? The PLC set up the next years calendar and have agenda's for the meetings, themes for outings ? Just because the troop isnt meeting doesnt mean the PORs have to be dormant as well

John D, keep that body armor on tight and your head low and we all love you, Out

Hey JD, just a few observations. First of all, thank you for providing the scouting program overseas, I am sure the families of the scouts appreciate it even if they dont hardly mention it. I know I do. next, you say you have a "small troop of 20". Well, in the District where I live there are 23 troops. The average size troop was last reported to be 18-20. And the troop I serve has 70, so in this District you would be considered a normal to larger troop, I dont know if that helps. Now, I can see how having an Ambassodor on a Board of Review would be a momentous event for a scout, but scouts being scouts, which is another way of saying scouts being kids being kids, help me understand. If a scout misses out on a BOR because he has one requirement outstanding, and he gets that requirement done the week after the BOR, does that mean he has to wait 6 months to be raised in rank? Why not have Board of Reviews when the scouts need them. A Board of Review (other than Eagle) requires 3 committee members. I would hope with 20 scouts you could get three parents who are on the committee to do this function. Actually, committee members dont have to be parents, just interested people on the charter as committee members. I can see having Courts of Honor every 6 months with the Ambassador handing out the ranks. That way the scout can remember I got my first class badge from Ammbassador X, not that I had to wait 12 weeks for that lousy ambassador guy to have time for me to do the BOR so I could get my rank. In the troop I serve, we give the badge of rank to the scout at the meeting they earn it. If the BOR was done after the meeting, then the scout gets the badge at the end of the next meeting. At the Court of Honor the scout gets the rank card and parents pin (if any) that way he is recognized twice, once immediately after he earns the rank and then again formally at the COH. He advancement is then not held up because of adult imposed calendars. Camping in the dessert? "... Midnight at the Oasis, send your camels to bed..."

We started by Atison Lake hiked along the Mullica and came out at Basto, all part of the Wharton State Park, ah, the tea stained waters of the Mullica, it has such a tangy taste (after going through a one micron filter, of course)

I am not sure about numbers 1 and 3, meaning I can't help you there, but if you have eyewitnesses to scouts (who would be by definition minors) serving alcohol, then you have illegal activity which needs to be reported to the authorities. The proper authorities would depend on where the incident took place. This is a serious matter, are you sure they scouts were serving the drinks and its not just a side comment? if true the liquor laws will take care of things. If its hearsay, then you are nowhere

If you know he didnt do his job right, and he knows he didnt do it right, then there is no question, he does not advance. While I am against making up rules, such as you have to attend 50% of meetingscor one campout every 6 months, I am also not for letting requirements slide. Bob White's original question ( I think) was what would/did the scout say if you asked him if he did his job satisfactory for the required six months. I see two issues, a scout who drops out of sight without a job and those who do. The ones who have a job who "abscond" (always loved that word) are in much more "trouble" when they get back. He has to complete his six months for the sake of every other scout who ever earned Life. Now, about this board of review every six months, in the troop I serve we have them as scouts need them, we dont slow down advancement based on an adult calender, the scouts advance at their own pace

Oh Heck, our Council Exective comes to plenty of the troops Courts of Honor, Committee meetings, Troop Meetings, Camp outs and has spent the past 3 summer camps with us.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

::snapping off a snappy scout salute:: Way Kewl!

Back when I was in management, one of the tasks I hated to do was the employee evaluation. And I am sure the employees didnt like it either. We both tolerated it because it was a required evil. One thing I did learn was you don't wait 12 months to unload on someone all the mistakes they have made in tha past year. On a day to day basis you evaluate people and take periodic notes and see the persons performance over time. I have been at roundtables where adult leaders almost brag how shocked scouts were because the scoutmaster told them they had to redo the position of responsibility time because they hadnt done it "satisfactory". I think that is sadistic. There aren't a lot of people who will take a job without knowing what that job is. Our culture has made the term "job description" virtually ubiquitous with the work place yet many troops have no problem "failing" scouts from position of responsibility when the scout was never told what the measuring stick will be. When a scout receives a position of responsibility is given to a scout, the scoutmaster needs to assure the scout knows what his responsibilities are and what will determine success. I beleive thats what Bob White was after, if not, Bob, I apologize. But the scout should know if he has done the job the way he knows it should be done. Now, that was a general response. The issue here is JD's prodigal scout who has left the troop to waste his time on wild and disolute living and now wants to come back. The question to be answered is did he complete his position of responsiblity satidfactorily? The reason I harp on this is simple. If he was a patrol guide for 6 months and did his job and at the 7th or 8th month he wandered away, he still did what was required. If he wandered at the 4 month mark, then he didnt do his six months. In the former situation he completed his active requirement, in the latter he did not. I have often told this story before, but for those who missed it, here goes. You can have a scout who makes first class in a year, then 4 months to Star, he takes 8 months to make Life and then another 8 to make Eagle. During this time he makes virtually all meetings, outings, events, et al. The when he s awarded Eagle, even though he is just 14 he is never seen again at a scouting meeting. What do scouts learn from this? That if you do all the reuirements and earn Eagle you can leave and never be seen? In the troop I serve the kids said they hated to see anyone make Eagle, becasue that meant they wouldnt see them anymore. Versus a scout who take a few years to make first class, he is energetic, but is very involved in many activities. He finally meets all the requirements when he is 13, then he "goes away" for six months and comes back and performs adequatley for 4 months and meets the requirements for Star when he is 14. Another period of 6 months goes by with nary a word, but he returns and after a few months of attendance he is given a POR which he does for 6 months and during this 6 months he meets the requirment for Life. He earns life at age 16. Now, he "goes away" for a year, but comes back at 17 and after talking to the scoutmaster shows hw will attend meetings, sompletes a POR and receives Eagle when he is 17 364/365 years old. Which scout is the better Eagle?

Ed, could we wait for the facts before we jump to conclusions?

Oz, look in the Scouting History section for the thread titled "Camp Hazing the good kind "

Just to freshen things up for OZ

JD, Did the scout serve actively and fulfill the expectations for the position of responsibility for 6 months and has he met all the other requirements ?

Well congrats, its just to bad your not a Bear, then it would be perfect

I dont see where Bob has said attendance doesnt matter. The key question is whether or not he completed his position of responsibility. What position did he have? How satisfied are you with how the scout handled his job? Another key, has he me the requirements? As far as what does it say to other scouts, any advancement in rank of any scout should say to the other scouts, see what happens when you fulfill the requirements, you advance! Don't add to the requirements or take away from them. Now, you said you have a Board of Review comming up, how often are BOR scheduled?

When I look back over this thread, I am reminded of Forrest Gump's feather and how little control we have over threads we start. I has originally conceived of this thread with a notion of talking about how we as members of this this forum address each other and that every thread doesnt have to be a referendum over which way is best, or who the biggest jerk is or anything like that. I was using the election as an analogy, trying to compare even though there are republicans and democrats, we are all Americans. I was thinking that here our common ground is we are scouters, even if we dont always agree on what consitutes hazing or allowable discipline. That we should still be civil to each other. I do take a small margin of comfort in the fact both Rooster and NJCubscouter questioned my original post, so at least I ticked off both sides of the aisle equal time you know. Anyhow, continue villifying each other over everything we can and then wonder why our kids have such horrible attitiudes towards anything new and different.