CalicoPenn

OGE, When Barack Obama becomes President, I wouldn't be surprised to see the next DNC convention in Chicago. He's moved a significant portion of the staff there already. Calico

I note with amusement that the Sea Scout Apprentice requirement for uniforming - "Describe the Sea Scout uniform and obtain one. Tell how and when the uniform is worn and how to care for it." - makes no mention of actually wearing the uniform. So much for life being easy. Something I've noticed when it comes to BOR's and "rules for uniforming, testing, etc." that some Troops like to put together. In my experience (and this is purely anectdotal so don't quote as if this is set in stone somewhere), Scout Leaders who insist on these rules were either never Scouts, or never advanced far in Scouts, while Scout Leaders who look upon such rules with suspicion and dismay tend to have been Scouts, and in many cases - Eagle Scouts - or at least Star or Life (not to suggest Star or Life is lesser). Again, just in my experience, Scouters who were Star, Life or Eagle seem more apt to view Scoutmaster Conferences and BOR's as touchpoints and opportunities to help lads grow, and help unit programs, while Scouters who were not Scouts, or did not advance far in rank are more apt to view Scoutmaster Conferences and BOR's as a gatekeeper function - designed as a barrier to advancement. Obviously this is a generalization and there are excepetions on both sides of the coin, but nevertheless, this has been my experience. The BSA is pretty clear in their literature that while the BSA uses Uniforms as a method, Uniforms are not required in order to be a Boy Scout. If the BSA say's uniforms aren't required, how could they possibly make a rule that says a Scout must be in uniform in order to go to, let alone pass, a BOR? They can't do so, so they don't. It's rather a stretch then for a unit to conclude that there must be some kind of policy requiring uniforms for a BOR - and if not, they can make one up. I often hear that the reason Scout's need to wear uniforms is so that people will know they are Scouts. Yet very recently, in this forum, someone posted a thread about their son's experience at a state park where he was called out of the audience at a sing along with words something along the lines of "Hey you, the Eagle Scout, I'll bet you know a song you can teach us" and how the lad was incredulous that the ranger knew he was an Eagle Scout when he wasn't wearing anything suggesting such a thing - and she said it was all about his attitude at the campfire. I see that as proof positive that you don't always need to wear a uniform to be identified as a Scout or former Scout. One last thought - while it's admirable to try to get committee members to wear a uniform, its really not essential - it is more important for SM's and ASM's to wear a uniform (they are in a uniformed position) - committee member (even committee chair) is a uniform optional position. Calico

I find it interesting that people get riled up about this group depending on whose ox is getting gored. The WBC has been picketing at funerals of gay men who have died of AIDS since the 90's. It wasn't until the Matthew Shephard funeral that the media actually started to take notice - mainly because the Matthew Shepard murder was a big national news story. Once the hoopla over the Matthew Shepard story died down, no one seemed to care when the WBC started picketing funerals of gay men again. When they started protesting the funerals of our soldiers killed in Iraq, it started getting notice again when the Patriot Guard "rode in to the rescue". People started praising the Patriot Guard for their solution to the problem - apparently having forgotten the Angel Action put together by college students who created large angel wing costumes, marched together and stood silently in front of the WBC while they were protesting the Matthew Shepard funeral, and raised their wings, blocking the view of the protestors from the mourners. Now, the WBC decides to boycott the BSA Tornado Victims funerals and we get outrage again - up to the point of blaming the Governor of Kansas for not trampling on WBC's first amendment rights. As despicable as WBC's actions are, and as much as I deplore their picketing, they have the first amendment right to do so - and I will defend that right. BUT - there is a very simple way to stop this madness, that doesn't require violence, and the solution comes right from Chicago. The modus operandi of the WBC is to let the local authorities know they are going to be picketing a funeral in their town - they do this because they know they are a lightning rod for counter demonstrators - and possibly people who will do them physical harm. In typical fashion, the police usually respond by beefing up security at these events - this gives WBC a safe space in which to do their picketing. If WBC doesn't get that beefed up security response, they don't show up. A few years back, when a Methodist Church in the Boystown area of Chicago was caught up in a flap over their openly gay pastor presiding over same sex committment ceremonies in defiance of the denomination governing board, WBC informed the City of Chicago that it was going to protest at the church on a busy Saturday morning and that they would need beefed up protection. The City's response was simple: Feel free to protest, but we are under no constitutional obligation to provide security for any expression of free speech and will not provide security for you. If you want security, you can hire a private security firm on your own dime to provide it, and we will be glad to give you a list of firms that work in the city. If there is an incident that happens on that street corner while you're protesting - we will respond in the same manner we respond to any 911 call. Westboro's response? They left town without protesting. The small towns in Iowa, facing these threats of protest, can - and should - respond in the same way. Feel free to protest, don't hesitate to contact 911 if there is an incident, but we are way to busy to provide you with any beefed up presence just because you want to protest. Let's be rational about how to deal with this group, and stop blaming the current governor of Kansas who was not in office when the WBC started this type of nonsense in the first place. Calico

I'm sure there may be some rule about awarding ranks posthumously - and there are times when such rules should not only be bent, but shattered. I'm of the opinion that this is one of those times - but that's just my opinion.

CNN had a fine follow-up article today on the 4 Scouts who died in the tornado. It sounds to me as if all of them were very dedicated to Scouting and would have completed the trail to Eagle. I have a modest proposal - award all four of these lads the Eagle rank posthumously. Calico

Might I humbly suggest that there were a combination of things involved: A) A famous designer (Oscar de la Renta) offered to donate his services to the BSA to redesign the uniform, B) People's attitude towards a uniform that looked quasi-military in appearence was souring during the aftermath of the Vietnam War, C) The color of the uniform in the 70's was just awful - a pea soup green, D) Green as a color choice was now both over done (remember Avacado Green applianes and carpeting) and dated, and E) older boys (11 and up) just aren't into the "garanimal" look of wearing shirts and pants that match colors - the Forest Green shirt with the Pea Soup Green pants was a sharp combination - any two tone uniform combination just looks more exciting and vibrant. The all Pea Soup Green look was staid and boring. Calico

Both Assistant Scoutmasters are right - you cannot add to the requirements, the BSA is more likely than not to side with a lad if he held a POR for the required time even without "doing anything" in an appeal (and remember, Council and National will only hear appeals of an Eagle rank denial), and every boy should be evaluated on his own strengths, weaknesses, and merits. As has been pointed out, the BSA has some wonderful documents that state just what each Position of Responsibility is and does - stay within those guidelines, and you should be ok (in other words, a Quartermaster does the Quartermaster responsibilities - not the Scribes, too). I took particular interest in the idea the new Scoutmaster has of having the SPL and ASPL ask candidates what they've done as a leader before scheduling them for a Scoutmaster Conference. The way it's written, it sounds like the Scoutmaster intends for the SPL or ASPL to be gatekeepers for Scoutmaster Conferences. Let me just say that this is "wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong..." Any Scout, at any time, can ask the Scoutmaster (directly) for a Scoutmaster Conference - for rank, or any other purpose. A Scout Troop is not a corporate office, where the "lower ranks" have to go through a chain of command to speak with the "guy at the top" (which, BTW, in a Scout Troop isn't an adult - it's the SPL). The SPL & ASPL shouldn't be put in a position where they are evaluating another Scout for rank advancement (this isn't about signing off on T-SC-FC requirements - that's a whole different ball game). That job falls squarely on the shoulders of the SM and the BOR. Here's the thing that really popped out at me though - both in the original post and in many of the responses. There's a lot of talk about how to evaluate the Scout's "Leadership" roles. Just one little issue with that. The Boy Scouts of America does not require any Scout to hold a Position of Leadership. The only rank in which a Scout is required to show any leadership is for Eagle Scout. Let me repeat that: THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SCOUT TO HOLD A POSITION OF LEADERSHIP. They require a Scout to hold a Position of Responsibility. Some may think it's splitting hairs and it's the same difference - but it isn't. Some of the POR's have a heavy Leadership component -mainly the positions of SPL, ASPL, PL and JASM. Most of the POR's are a Service position, not a Leadership position - Den Chief, Troop Guide, Instructor, OA Representative, Quartermaster, Historian, Librarian, Scribe, Bugler, Chaplain's Aide - these positions are all about Service - Service to the Troop, to Patrols, to the PLC. There may be some leadership components in them - but that is not the primary purpose of these positions. Ask yourself the question posed by the SM "what have you done as a Leader" and answer it as if your POR was Bugler, or Librarian, or Historian. The BSA has provided everyone, in various publications, what the performance metrics for a POR should be - use them - they've worked for generations. Don't get too hung up on "actively served" - that pretty much means in BSA speak that you don't get the position patch then disappear for the next six months (one would assume that a Troop that didn't have a QM show up for 2 months worth of meetings without talking to anyone would have replaced the QM well before that 6 month time period is up. It does mean that you keep taking an active interest in your Troop (as much as possible - other interests interfere sometimes, and you just have to be flexible and roll with them - and evaluate how the POR was fulfilled (I had a QM miss a number of meetings and campouts when he was chosen for a very prestigious statewide drama team - yet he may have been the best QM we ever had, because he made sure that someone was assigned to take on the nitty-gritty when he couldn't be there, then personally followed up to make sure his designee got everything done right - he ended up training his replacement in the process!). Calico ps. I do have to take exception with one thing in a response post - someone said that Cub Scouts promise to do their best - and Boy Scouts either do or do not. Unless a near 100 year old tradition has changed recently, I believe the (Boy) Scout Oath starts out with "On My Honor, I Will DO MY BEST".

The primary purpose of a Pack Meeting is to recognize the work the Cubs have done since the last Pack Meeting. With the exception of a Pinewood Derby night (or raingutter regatta, or space derby), awards should be given out at every pack meeting - even for big packs. I look at skits, etc. as cutting into awards time - not the other way around - if you need to take 15 minutes to give out awards when you only planned 10, simply cut the 5 minutes from something else - maybe you skip a silly song or two that month. There doesn't need to be a big ceremony for every award. For most badges, just call up all the lads that earned it that last month (ie. "We had a bunch of Cubs earn their Bear badge this past month - when I call your name, come on up - Billy, Den 1; Johnny, Den 3", etc.) When they've all lined up, the Cubmaster goes down the line, shakes their hand, hands them their badges, and sends them on their way. Save the big ceremonies for things like Tiger and Bobcat, and for the Arrow of Light Award (which should have an important ceremony to drive home the point that this is Cub Scoutings highest award). If you're waiting months to hand out the badges, you're missing a big part of the methods.

I just don't understand the desire to call an "all hands meeting" as it were, with a lecture by a police officer or emergency services worker over this. It insults the parents (the unit would be basically telling the parents "You aren't doing a good enough job telling your kids that this stuff is stupid and so you need to hear this lecture too and get with it") and is going to draw attention to the lads who did this (and likely in ways you don't expect - among their peers, and younger scouts, it's far less likely that they will be shamed and and seen as foolish and more likely that they will be looked at as being brave and will be heroes). Private Scoutmaster's conferences with the participants, and the nifty SM Minute that SSScout suggested, will get the message across quite well.

I have no problem with announcements for parents at a COH (though I do dislike the FOS presentations at a COH). But the key is HOW they are presented. The best COH's I've seen are those where a "normal" Troop meeting agenda is "adapted" so that the COH fits in. Take a look at how your regular Troop meetings run - most of the time, you'll have an opening, a closing, a brief time for announcements, time for skill work, time for planning for an upcoming event, time for some kind of physical activity, etc. Now think of how and where COH activities can work in this agenda. You still have your opening. You use "brief announcement" and "planning time" to hand out awards. When it comes time for skill work - you send the Scouts out to set up some kind of demonstration for the parents - a pioneering tower, a model campsite, a short orienteering course - use your imagination. While the Scouts are doing that, the Adult Leaders can be doing the "boring Adult announcements". Then during activity time, the adults go to the Scouts to view their handiwork, or to learn something themselves (such as going through the short orienteering course just set up while being taught by their sons). BTW - during the "Boring Adult Announcement" and "Scout Skill Demonstration set-up", you might consider releasing your non-Patrol affiliated youth (or even better, your Den Chiefs - even if they are part of a patrol) to bring the Scouts younger siblings in attendance somewhere for some kind of organized game/activity from the Cub Scout handbooks. Do a quick transitional clean-up, and head in for a closing ceremony - and DON'T FORGET a memorable Scoutmaster's Minute just like any other Troop Meeting. Add an after meeting cracker barrel and you have the makings of a great COH (in my opinion). Calico

I would consider traveling back from a PLC at the Scoutmaster's home to be part of a "Scouting Activity" in this case. If they were all coming back from a movie they went to together - different story as far as Scouting Activity goes. I like the suggestion of SSScout - and it is a great Scoutmaster's Minute. I wouldn't do it as part of a Court of Honor - I'm with Beav - the COH is a place to honor folks achievements - and a safety lecture doesn't seem in the spirit of a COH. Yes - there is often information relating to safety at summer camp relayed at a COH - but in general, it is pretty specific to upcoming outings in a "What You Need to Know" kind of way. Should there be consequences for the Scouts involved? That's a question for the Troop to answer. I think you can certainly make a case for it - but I'm usually not in favor of any sort of punitive actions unless the actions of the perps reach the level of threatening a Scout with a Weapon (as an example). I do think a Scoutmaster's Conference is in order - and a chat with the lads parents (as concerned parent to concerned parent - let them punish their boys as they see fit). The Scoutmaster's Conference should focus on how their actions were perceived by the parents who witnessed it - and how those adults have serious questions about the trust they can put in the boys - an "I'm disappointed and parents are asking me how much I can trust you with and I don't have a good answer for them at this time" will do more to help the lads learn from this then telling someone he has to wait another 2 or 4 months for rank, or can't go on the next campout will. Calico

If you've read any of the full stories about his leaving the church, you'll learn the main reason he's leaving is because of all of the attention and scrutiny his running for the Presidency has brought to his church by a media that just doesn't have a shred of decency and respect for anyone or anything anymore. He didn't leave the church during the midst of the bogus Wright controversy - he didn't leave it because of the rantings of Pfleger (though there are many people out there who believe that Pfleger was telling the truth as they saw it - albeit with a bit too much theatricality). He's leaving his church of twenty years so that people will leave the church alone and in peace as they should have been doing from the beginning. Calico

Lots of advice about talking to the COR and the IH and the District Commissioner, etc. And that's good advice, most of the time, especially if it's behind the scene politics that's wreaking havoc. But this time - the Scouts are rebelling. And we often forget when we toss out the mantra that Scouting is for the Boys, that Scouting IS the Boys - and nothing else really matters. If the older scouts are openly rebelling and the younger scouts are now adrift, the time for chatting and being nice is over. You can easily toss up your hands and say it's over and bring your son over to a new Troop - but that only helps your son, and you don't seem to be the type to leave the other lads adrift. Frankly, I would gather all the lads that are unhappy with the new direction of the troop, and their parents, and walk away to a different unit - or create a new unit. I wouldn't want to just leave without making sure that all the lads that want a Scouting experience get one. Calico

I think we can look to FScouter's response for a likely reason that Kucinich voted against it - a waste of time when there are more important issues to be worrying about - that seems pretty much in character with Kucinich.

No suggestion here - just an observation. If a lads book is falling apart, it usually means he (and in Cub Scouts - his parents) is reading and referring to it - a lot. As Martha might say "It's a good thing". Except in the rare case where one experiences a manufacturing flaw, such as with the Tiger books. I'd take the Scout Shop folks at their word that they are only having problems with the Tiger books (which will likely be resolved as soon as that printing batch is sold out). Calico

If it's not a Pack or Den event, how can Webelos II's earn crdit for advancements? Calico

Serve 6 months in a POR (as listed in the handbooks - despite what some may want to be true, Scribe is listed in the handbook as an eligible POR for Eagle Scout). He's served 12. He's met the requirement, even if you don't think he did a good job. The time for those corrections are before the 6 months are up, not after. He met that requirement after the first 6 months, and didn't need to serve any POR since then. Deny him based on performance of the job and the Scout will likely be the victor on an appeal (the BSA is very careful about not setting standards of how one must serve - they consider someone in the position for 6 months, even if they did nothing, as having served). And no, you cannot "start the clock again" with new performance metrics. He's served, its done - move on. Have an SM Conference - if you refuse to do so, he can go to District to bypass you and your Troop Committee altogether. Be cautious about not signing off on "Scout Spirit". That's a highly subjective category and you will need a better explanation that "He hardly ever showed up" for such a denial to be upheld on appeal. You shouldn't base any decisions on a rumor that you've heard. Unless the Scout is announcing it himself, it's all heresay. Be cautious if you're thinking of asking him about the rumor. In fact, don't even ask about it - you'll just be giving him the one magic bullet that will make an appeal a slam dunk - all he has to do is tell Council that he was subject to a rumor and feels that this rumor was the cause of his denial. If you truly feel you cannot be party to this lad moving on to the next step in his quest for Eagle, you should talk to the District Advancement Chair and let him/her know you can no longer be impartial and ask what can be done. Calico

Re: the Lambert discussion "The very article you link includes the statement by a relevant "Scouting official" that Mr. Lambert, in 2002, need only have acknowledged some "higher power": "On membership applications, Boy Scouts and adult leaders must say they recognize some higher power, not necessarily religious. 'Mother Nature would be acceptable,' Farmer said.'" based on the above, it sounds as if the BSA will accept ANY definition of a higher power and yet: "Mr. Lambert would not agree to even that, acknowedging no "higher power" beyond homo sap collective: I think the only higher power than myself is the power of all of us combined, Lambert told King." In seems as if Lambert is acknowledging a higher power - the power of all people combined. So if we accept that Lambert is acknowledging a higher power, and yet he was still tossed out, then we must accept that the BSA statement that they'll accept any higher power is, well...BS. Further: "Mr. Lambert's case hardly advances your argument. He was not denied membership because he was not a theist. He was asked about meeting his religious duties at a Board of Review and said he did not believe in such a duty. (Perhaps he had not noticed the words in the Oath and Law.)" This statement actually advances Merlyn's argument. Who else but an athiest would state they have no religious duty? As only an athiest would make that claim as it is a central belief of an athiest, then the BSA tossed him out for professing his belief which he comes by as an athiest. They tossed him out because he was an athiest. Calico

I'm pretty sure it's Zzyzx - because I don't buy Zzzz as a word, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Calico

"BTW, doesn't the water also serve to lower the temp of the fuel so that it can no longer burn?" That's a good question - I've never heard that before. I'm thinking experiment time. Put a piece of paper in the freezer overnight. Next morning, take the paper out of the freezer and attempt to start it on fire with a lighter and see how long it takes to start, compared to how long it takes to start the same kind of paper that hasn't been frozen first. I really had never given thought to lowering temperature of the fuel to stop fire, maybe because of the few years I spent feeding my woodstove with wood direct from my outside woodpile in the middle of January. Calico

The curriculum already exists - and it is not LFL specific - it is fire and police cadet curriculum developed by police and fire department unions and professional organizations. Again - the reality is that there is little benefit to be had for a police and fire cadet program to be part of LFL. The police and fire cadet programs in our council that are also part of LFL are covered by municipal insurance (there is no way in heck the municipal insurers around here will allow for ride alongs and fire training under just the LFL insurance). The sponsors paying for the program are the municipalities - why would they stop paying for the program once it's no longer under the LFL lable? What Exploring, and later LFL, did for police and fire cadet programs was to provide opportunities for police and fire posts to interract with other police and fire posts in the area, state and nation. That's the only real benefit these programs every got from Scouting. A large city fire department cadet program like LA's can put together competitions amongst their own cadets, by stationhouse - and will do just fine. Calico

Can anyone point to any LFL documents that specifically relate to Police and Fire Department cadet programs regarding training, etc.? I've yet to see a BSA/LFL "curriculum" for such a thing. The argument that the fire department won't be able to use LFL materials is a strawman argument as there is no LFL materials relating specifically to police and fire cadet programs that aren't already available to police and fire departments through other sources - like their own professional associations. Let's face reality here - the kids won't be losers in this because LA will still continue the program, just without the LFL label, the city won't lose anything because the benefits they get from LFL is going to be pretty minimal. The only folks losing out is LFL (and the BSA)as they lose the revenue those 175 or so cadets in the program, and the adult leader, are no longer paying to LFL. Calico

Ever see a modern tent go up in flames? If not, its worth sacrificing a retired tent for a demonstration. Water buckets will be pretty useless once the flame gets going - those tents burn very quickly. That's not to say water buckets won't come in handy to stop the spread of flames along the ground once the tent has burned out, or to put out smoldering sleeping bags, sleeping pads, backpacks and clothing. Prevention is still the key to the fires we'll most likely face. But - if I were in a situation where a modern tent is burning and there's someone inside, I'd want a fire extinguisher - chemical, not water (and of a decent size - not the little dinky things you buy at Walmart) to quickly knock back the flames as fast as possible with people backing me up with water buckets or pressurized water extinguishers if it came to that. As for grass fires - if its small enough, the best fire fighting tool is your Boy Scout red jacket. Use it to cover and smother - once its going, fire needs two things to keep going - fuel source and oxygen. You need to effectively get rid of one. (Water, BTW, acts to cut oxygen - by blanketing the fuel, it prevents the oxygen from keeping the flames going - thus smothering the fire). Other useful tools are rakes and shovels (to remove the fuel source). Most firefighter deaths in greassland fires are caused by a lack of training in fighting grassland fires for professional and volunteer firefighters. Most firefighters are trained to attack a fire to keep it fron advancing. In grassland fires, the fire should be attacked from the rear as a group attempts to cut off a fuel source well in front. To often, the firefighters will rush into a grassland fire off a roadway as the flames are advancing towards them to start putting the fire out - their time would be better, and more safely, spent reinforcing the natural firebreak that the roadway is. A grassland fire can hops, skip and jump around - racing under your feet without you knowing it until it reaches another great source of fuel and the next thing you know, you're surrounded. (Have I mentioned that I went to a rather unique school in Maine for college? I got wildland fire certified while doing my internship with the US Fish & Wildlife Service - and then became a member of my school's Wildlands Fire Fighting team - willing to be called up to fight forest and grassland fires as needed). Calico

I'd be hesitant if the units asking had no connection to your unit. However, in this case, the folks doing the asking are members of your unit who happen to be members of another unit as well (it even looks as if your unit is feeding those units, though you might have never thought of it that way - which is another discussion - why troops are quick to realize that packs are feeder units but aren't so quick to realize that troops are also feeder units). I'd say go for it, just as long as the ASM and the 4 troop members understand that it is ultimately their responsibility for the care, repair and maintenance of the equipment while they are using it. Besides, that unit may just have something to offer the troop at some point down the road. Calico

Knothead, I would if I had them, but alas, most of my scenarios and keys predate Windows version 0.00001. Calico