CalicoPenn

I think a question related to the one posed - AND related to the digression about number of religious awards earned is: "How much religion is there in your Scouts". In a lot of ways, the answer to that question will answer the others. My troop as a youth was sponsored by a non-demoninational, mostly protestant, community church. No divisions into Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, evangelicals. It was open and welcoming to all - including Catholics and Jews. The troop was therefore open and welcoming to all - including Wiccans, Shintoists, Nativists, Deists, etc. For many of the people in my unit, their sole exposure to religion was Scout Sunday and Scout's Own. Our meeting ending prayer was nothing more than the same prayer, repeated everytime "May the Great Scoutmaster, of all good Scouts, be with us till we meet again" Each of us could picture the Great Scoutmaster as whomever we wanted it to be. For some, it might have been God. I always envisioned Baden-Powell, and others did too. The Scouts I met through district and council events seemed mostly to have the same experience I had. Maybe 40% attended church more than once or twice per year. Most scouts I met attended Scout Sunday services and maybe Christmas or Easter services. Maybe 15% attended regularly - meaning weekly. It was much more likely that scouts in units that were sponsored by churches and that drew their membership almost exclusively from the church member families, would attend church regularly. It was far less likely for scouts in units sponsored by PTA's or community organizations to attend church on a regular basis. The same held true for religious awards - it was much much more likely for scouts sponsored by churches that drew their membership from church member familes to earn that denomination's religious award. Religious awards programs are administered by churches, not by the BSA. If a church charters a scout unit, it's much easier for that church to offer the counseling needed for the award. Its a very real and public way for the chartering organization to support it's unit. That's not to say that scouts in units chartered by community organizations, schools and non-denominational churches can't earn the award - it just becomes a bit harder - the sponsor isn't pushing it and the best the Cub/Scoutmaster can do is encourage a scout to work with his church to earn the award and hope the paster at the church is familiar with the award in the first place. In most cases, even if a church is familiar with the award, a pastor will only work with youth that are somewhat active in their church. Since the 60's, church attendance has dropped. Many people who think of themselves as Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. have no "home church" except the one they might go to once or twice a year on holidays. They no longer have any real affiliation with a church except a self-declared one. It then becomes increasingly difficult to earn one of these awards - its hard to go to your church when your church doesn't really know you. I witnessed over time a marked decline in Sunday services at Camporees. When I first started in Scouts, our troop, and every other troop at a camporee went to Sunday morning services. By the time I was 16, Sunday services were no longer a scheduled part of the camporee - it was left to the units to conduct their own Scout's Own - and this was in the 70's. I believe that this isn't neccessarily a bad sign. Rather I believe that this is simply part of the redirection that religion has had over the past few decades from group spirituality and organized religion to a more personal relationship with one's God (or Goddess) and spirituality and the movement away from organized religion. As the world's societies and cultures have grown, we are becoming more sure of our own personal interpretations of our various scriptures and less dependant on needing other people to interpret for us. Polls show that more than ever, Americans believe in God, yet also, more than ever, American's are no longer attending church and feeling a need to connect with an organized religion. Maybe the real question should be "How much spirituality it there in Scouting"

An Ilk is a rare, large ungulate that feeds on grass, shrubs, flowers and trees. They roam in herds throughout flat country in the north, mating in fall and giving birth in spring. Male Ilk grow large sets of antlers that are prized throughout the country as the basis for "western" chandeliers in cozy "greatrooms" in ski and mountain resorts. Ilk are related to Deer and Moose. It's most closely related animal cousin is the similar looking Elk. The difference between an Ilk and an Elk is the coloring of their fur. Ilk fur is a dark chocolate brown with deep red stripes, much like an Okapi. Ilk are native to one region of the Canadian Tundra and are rarely seen by man. They have a defensive technique unique to the animal kingdom that results in any photos of them coming out looking like a Caribou. Said ability extends to digital images, as well as filmed images. Scientists are puzzled by this ability though it's alleged that the United States used this ability to develop its stealth bomber and fighter planes. Legend has it that the US keeps a herd of Ilk at a base near Groom Lake, Nevada, though this has been uncomfirmed.

There is a difference between Truth and Fact. While Fact is always Truth (in the True/False sense - A = B, B = C, therefore A = C is True AND a Fact), Truth is not always Fact - for instance, Faith is generally not based on observable Fact, yet for most people, what they take on Faith is a Truth to them. God exists is an act of Faith - but since there is no physical evidence, said statement is not an act of Fact, yet despite not being Fact, it is still. for many people a Truthful statement. The Investment that Lisa mentions is a form of Faith-based Truth, though not in the religious sense - Faith is not always about religion. For example, I have Faith that my car will start in the morning - but there is no Factual basis for that belief, merely past experience that my car has started every morning without problem for the past two years. The fact is that my car may or may not start, and I won't know until I try to start it. If my car starts in the morning, my Faith has becme Fact (for that one instance) but the next time I try to start the car, the earlier fact becomes a building block of my faith that the car will start again. Investment is a Faith that this happened or didn't happen or will happen or always happens or never happens - even if the facts don't support it. In this day of the Internet, it's remarkably easy for most of us to investigate statements of Truth to see if they are based on Fact or Opinion (Faith). It should be sufficient, if someone were to post that Eagles are Ducks for a counter poster to say that such a statement is incorrect and perhaps post a link and/or synopsis (enough to be able to find a source) to show it being incorrect. The next time the person states an Eagle is a Duck, we can collectively roll our eyes and move on - rather than try, over multiple posts, to point out to the person that s/he is wrong. At some point, the multiple posting about that person being wrong makes people tune out every other message one is trying to make. Post the factual link and leave it at that - its counter-productive to scream and holler at each other while the rest of us look on, and its really annoying to have someone (virtually) jumping up and down pointing out that the other person can't accept facts. As my old pappy used to tell me (and this is directed at no one in particular - because we're all guilty of this at one point or another - maybe on the forum, maybe at work, maybe in line at the store, or maybe somewhere else - so please do not take personal offense): "The more frustrated you get wrestling a Pig, the more likely it is that the Pig is enjoying it" Calico

Thanks, Dan! My Inclusive Scouting Award is now on order! Calico

First - shouldn't it be TAZE? Whenever I read TAZ - I think of a Warner Brothers cartoon character that bugged Bugs Bunny when he was whirling around in a cloud of dust. Should we really be following the example of some illiterate bonehead who may have spelled it taz on a bumper sticker or poster? Second, there are no penalties for violating the flag code. While it promulgates rules on the display and use of the flag, there are no penalties for not following the rules - other than pangs of your own conscience. Where penalties have been attempted to be imposed on certain acts (flag desecration) the US Supreme Court has ruled, rightly so, that such penalties are in direct opposition to the US Constitution and cannot stand. So, if the UP comes riding up on their high horse about your "violation" of the flag code - give them a dozen prozacs and drop your drawers to proudly show off your US Flag Boxers. Calico

Happy New Year everyone! (In the Celtic Tradition, Samhain celebrated the end of the harvest and the beginning of the winter season - it was also considered to be the start of the New Year with the end of the harvest being the end of the old year). Calico

It's believed that Jack O'Lanterns have their roots in a folk tale from Ireland. Seems there was a man name Stingy Jack who agreed to have a drink with the Devil but didn't want to spend his money on the drink so he convinced the Devil to turn himself into a coin. Jack pocketed the coin next to a silver cross so the Devil couldn't escape and made the Devil promise not to bother Jack for a year or to claim his soul if he died. The next year, Jack got the Devil to climb a tree then carved a cross in the tree preventing the Devil from escaping. He let the Devil go only when the Devil promised not to bother him for 10 years and not to claim his soul if he died. Jack died during this ten years and God wouldn't take a trickster like him into heaven, and the Devil honored his promise not to bring him to the underworld. He sent Jack to roam in the dark world with a lit coal to light his way which Jack carried in a carved turnip. The Irish refered to this figure as Jack of the Lantern then later as Jack O'Lantern. The people of the British Isle would carve scary faces into turnips, potatoes or beets in honor of the tale. When those country folk started immigrating here, they discovered the Pumpkin made a perfect Jack O'Lantern. Halloween has been a completely secular holiday since the early 1900's, though most religious connotations had ended long before that in this country. Just as Thanksgiving, which had its start as a religious holiday (a day of thanksgiving to the Lord for the bounties of the harvest and rememberence of family and friends) has become a secular holiday. Many schools throughout the country now celebrate Halloween as a Fall Harvest Festival. If Halloween is any kind of "religious" holiday though, it is a holiday of the Catholic Church tradition - not of the Pagans. Calico

There used to be a Division of Research in the BSA. I'm not sure it still exists. Most of their studies seemed to be geared towards sociology than psychology. Calico

The greatest immorality of all is judging other people to be inferior to oneself in any way, shape or form. CalicoPenn

Kudu - as I stated in my post, this is what my Troop taught me about the symbolism of the Scout Sign. We obviously didn't follow BP's Scout Promise as we were a unit of the BSA, not a unit of the Boy Scouts in England, which is not to say the BSA doesn't have their own version of the Scout Promise or what the symbolism of the Scout Sign is. I say whatever works, use it. Where they got it, I could not tell you - but I still remember it which is why I consider the Scout Sign to have dignity above the common use of "Shut Up". Barry and Gunny - Good question about the effect outside the unit (OA events, Junior Leader Training, Jamboree). This is part of the tilting at windmills mentioned. My experience within my District and Council was that the other unit leaders knew what we were doing and respected our traditions - as Chapter Chief, Lodge Vice Chief, Summer Camp Counselor and Day Camp Counselor, I never used "Signs Up" though I never introduced the concept of the "talking stick" (and in hindsight wish I had) but would simply stand in silence looking at the group I wished to address until I had their attention. The first few times, someone in the audience would toss that hand in a scout sign right above their head and yell out "Signs Up" - but that diminished as time progressed - people got the message without having to resort to signs up pretty quickly. At Summer Camp and Day Camp, the rest of the staff adopted the same silent standing waiting for attention - it just never took off from there (and my hunch is because I didn't think to introduce the "talking stick" component). Why other units didn't adopt it, I'm unsure - perhaps because we didn't have people as leaders in the training courses to make this suggestion - perhaps because it is difficult to overcome the ingrained (ubiquitous) use of "Signs Up", perhaps because not enough Adults bought into it because of the ease of use of "Signs Up (as Gunny points out, every Scout and Scouter has one), perhaps a hundred other reasons that someone might be able to point out. What I'm suggesting certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but given time, change could be created. Imagine one unit in a District who does this (or in the case of this forum, multiple districts - could help spread it faster). That unit spreads it to the other unit's in the District - perhaps a unit leader becomes the Roundtable Commissioner, or becomes active as a trainer in District training and in this way, spreads the suggestion to the other units in the District. Maybe a Troop has a feeder Pack and shows the Webelos Leaders what their Webelos can expect when they get into the Troop and the Webelos Leader introduces the concept to the Pack as a whole and that Pack has leaders that become commissioners or training staff. From the District, perhaps it spreads to the Council - District leaders become active in Council training (Woodbadge, JLT, etc.) and spreads the idea, Scouts become active in their OA Lodges and spreads the idea, Scouts become staff at Summer Camps (both in and out of council) and spreads the idea. From the Council, perhaps the idea spreads to regional gatherings (Lodge to Lodge, Training staff to Training staff) - perhaps it catches the eye of the folks that help write the training materials, or the Scoutmasters and SPL Handbooks and the idea appears in the next updated versions? Eventually (given time) a Scout at a National Jamboree (in 10, 15, 20 years?) from Oregon and a Scout in Florida (and all of the other Scouts) recognize the concept. Ask yourself this - how did "Signs Up" become so well known that a Scout in Oregon and a Scout in Florida and Scout's all in between recognize that "Signs Up" means "Shut Up"? Someone had to start it (just as someone had to pull a Lobster out of the sea, eat one, and spread the word that, gee - here is food). It all starts with one person or small group. Eventually it becomes a Movement. Gunny - another good question - how would they recognize what a different stick was (how do we know its not just a hiking stick)? At the troop level, its pretty easy to recognize your own special talking stick. It can be pretty easy for an OA Chapter or OA Lodge, or District Staff to create their own - the key is for each group to give it a special meaning by making it their own - and then showing the members the talking stick - inviting them to accept it as part of the tradition. Summer camp too - wouldn't it be cool to have the camp staff start a talking stick at the beginning of each camp season and have every unit contribute something to it as they come and retire it at the end of every season to be displayed in the Dining Hall or Trading Post or somewhere and watch the collection grow each year? Wouldn't it be cool to have a chapter and/or lodge talking stick that was ceremoniously passed on from one chief to another over the years, with the chief adding one thing to the stick each year? Wouldn't it be cool to attend a flag ceremony at a District Camporee or a Summer Camp with the PL's holding their Patrol Flag, the ASPL holding the Troop Flag and the SPL holding the Troops Talking Staff? Granted, it might be more difficult for the Jamboree but, and I'm just tossing this out there, maybe as part of the pre-Jamboree packet, information was provided with a picture of that years Talking Staff with a backstory on the creation and the artist that created it (I could envision a different Native American tribe being invited to create that years staff every Jamboree - one year, the Ho Chunk, the next the Seminole, etc.)and the tribe that supplied it. How do the folks in the back know when the signs up now? Probably the Big Screen Monitors placed everywhere. Gunny - finally - the most difficult question - Isn't it just another version of "Signs Up"? In a sense, I readily admit it is. But listen to the cadence of the following: "Signs Up" and "Shut Up". The cadence is the same. Now try "Talking Staff Presented" or "Talking Staff Up" and "Shut Up". Different cadences - one won't as readily think to themselves "Shut Up" when they see the talking staff as they will when the see and/or hear "Signs Up". My contention is that "Signs Up" may as well be "Shut Up" and how many of us really listen when someone tells us to shut up? Most of us become passive listeners at this point, not active listeners - we really don't care what the speaker has to say - at this point, we're still seething (we may not recognize it) at being told to shut up. The talking stick concept changes that - there is no subconscious thinking that one was just told to shut up - so we become respectful of the speaker and become an active listener. Calico

I'd like to issue a challenge and encourage the end of the ubiquitous use of "Signs Up" (though full well knowing I'll be tilting at windmills like Don Quixote as I do so). My Troop never used "Signs Up" and even though we learned what it meant when invloved with gatherings of other units (or as most of us learned it, in Cub Scouts), we never responded with a raised sign, though we would respect the intent. Here's why: Our Troop taught that the Scout Sign means something - it is not just an empty gesture but had a real symbolic meaning. The three fingers of the Scout Sign each individually represented an important keystone of Scouting. Finger 1: "On my honor I will do my best, to do my duty, to God and my Country and to Obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight" Finger 2: "A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent" Finger 3: "Do a Good Turn Daily" The Scout Sign represents the combined strength of the keystones of the Scout Oath, the Scout Law and the Scout Slogan. We were taught to use it as its intended - to show that we are Scouts and to show that we believe in and follow the keystones. We were taught that the proper display of the Scout Sign is with the upper arm held out at a 90 degree angle from the body with the forearm held up at a 90 degree angle from the upper arm, ending with the hand in a sharp Scout Sign. Thrusting the sign into the air as if signalling some kind of end zone victory or trying to get permission to go to the bathroom was, in our Troop, declasse and disrespectful of the sign. The opinion of our Troop's leaders, one that has stayed with me and that I fully share, is that using the Scout Sign as a "Signs Up" debases the Scout Sign, and the meaning behind it. Indeed, how many of the Scouts now look at the Scout Sign not as a symbol of the keystones but as a symbol that tells them to just "Shut Up"? Is that what we want the Scout Sign to mean? Shut Up? I hope not. My Troop didn't use a Scout Sign to request that attention be paid. We used a "talking stick". Most of us are aware of the concept, an honored stick which when held by a person in a circle or group directs the groups attention to the person speaking. The person holding the stick has the floor, the rest listen attentively. If someone else wishes to speak, he would respectfully request to hold the talking stick while he says his piece. Our SPL or ASPL or SM or whomever needed the attention of the Troop would stand quietly at the front of the meeting room holding the talking stick in front of him (it has to be obvious that the speaker desires the attention of the group - idly holding it at ones side is interpreted as meaning he will be asking for our attention at some point soon but is not yet ready to do so)and would look around at the people gathered to catch the eyes of at least the PL's if not the whole group. The use of the talking stick was, to us at least, a more dignified and respectful way of gaining one's attention - it didn't just say to us "Quiet Down" - it said to us "I've got something important to tell you, please listen up" - it turned us into active listeners. I think it also helped make us better speakers and better instructors. If a Scout was giving a skills presentation to the Troop, that Scout would have the talking stick - he may not be holding it, but the stick was in his posession. Too often I've seen presentations interupted every couple of minutes or so by a "Signs Up" to refocus the lads. We learned pretty quickly that if we had to refocus the Troop throughout out presentation, we had to work on our presentation skills - make them more interesting. As we got older of course, even though we may have sat through a similar presentation numerous times, we were charged with leading by example to teach respect for the talking stick and were capable of keeping our attention on the speaker. It was very rare in our Troop for any one to have to refocus the Troop (or a Patrol) if they had the talking stick. My challenge to you is to end the use of "Signs Up". Create a talking stick. We ended up with a version of a Coup Stick - and each year, every patrol that formed or re-formed would add a little bit to the stick - a feather, a bead on a strap of leather (it had to stay in keeping with the "theme" of a coup stick - for instance, no patrol patch with a hole cut into it on a ribbon - it had to be natural - beads, leathers, turkey feathers, etc. were kept in a small box by the Quatermaster). The patrols name and the year might be written on it somewhere - but didn't have to be - the important thing was the Patrol made it, even a simple feather, a special part of the Talking Stick and it symbolically bound us to the Talking Stick. Or create your own new tradition. If it starts in your troops, it can follow to other troops - epecially as your leaders join district training staffs where they can implement such a strategy and teach others how you do it. In this way, we can quietly restore the dignity that the Scout Sign should have. Prepare a speech for your Scouts (and others) when announcing the change. Get the PLC's buy in and have the SPL deliver it - while holding the new Talking Stick - perhaps slightly "decorated" at first should you go the add on route throughout the years. I would start by telling the Scouts what the Scout Sign symbolizes - raising one finger at a time while reciting the Scout Oath, Scout Law and Scout Slogan until all three fingers of the Scout Sign is raised. I would talk about the power of the Scout Sign and how it represents the three keystones coming together. I would talk about how using it as a "Signs Up" changes the important meaning of the Scout Sign and removes it's dignity. Then I would introduce the concept of the Talking Stick. It will take time, and may not be easy, but I believe you will see an interesting change. That's my challenge to all - end the use of "Signs Up". Calico

Did anyone else notice the big headlines over at CNN yesterday (10/24) that the UN climate change group released their study showing that the Greenland icemass is indeed melting, and faster than they had originally thought. Interesting that this was one of the "11 inaccuracies" that the Judge in Britain based his ruling on when the Government didn't defend the supposition. The ruling in the case in Britain really doesn't support the global warming debunkers case since the British Government (the defendants) never really put on much of a defense anyway. I wonder what would have happened if the British government had taken the case seriously instead of just essentially noloing it. Calico

"Those students would go through scouting and never be touched by this policy." Does anyone else see what makes this statement by a spokesperson for the National Jewish Committee on Scouting so obviously wrong, especially at the Cub Scout level? Students whose parents were same sex couples would indeed by touched by this policy - every day of their time in Scouting. When I was a Cub Scout, I was proud that my mother was a Den Mother and that my father was an Assistant Cubmaster as my scouting career started. Imagine the devastation a child that age would face (remembering to consider what a child that age would consider devastating - I cried for a week when my gerbil died when I was 8 - heck, I still remember her name - Ginger) if all of his friends parents could be Den Leaders or Cubmasters or Committee Members and he couldn't share that same level of pride in his parents just because they happened to be a same sex couple. It't time for the BSA to just adopt the local option. Sure, the BSA can lay claim to legally discriminate against gays and athiests under the Freedom of Association portion of the First Amendment but it should be obvious that the BSA's freedom of association is often in direct conflict with their own sponsors, or potential sponsors, freedom of association and that when those sponsors, especially those sponsors that are a tight knit community such as Community Day hear from their members, the BSA loses sponsors and potential members. Seems the BSA keeps insisting that Scouting is good for all boys but keeps holding onto a couple of large barriers to making Scouting available to all boys. Calico

Though I hate to contribute to the further hijacking of this thread, I'd like to point out something about the wording of the 1st Amendment. The sentence reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Supreme Court throughout the years have interpreted this to mean that Congress (and States and Local Governments) may not pass a law or appear to favor any one religion over any other, or for that matter, any religion at all. The opposition viewpoint is that this sentence means that Congress can't form a national religion (like a Church of America). The Founding Fathers were very deliberate and careful with their wording - what was left out is equally as important as what was put in. Read the sentence again carefully - "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Note a very important piece that is not in that sentence - the piece that, because it is missing, turns the argument that this means Congress can't establish a National Religion on its head. That piece - that one little piece, is the letter "A". The sentence reads "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" NOT Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of A religion. What does that do? It makes this clause apply to EVERY religion - not just A religion. It means that not only can't Congress form the First Church of the United States or the Church of America, it can't pass any laws that make any other religion a defacto religion in the US - it can't mandate Christian Prayer, or Muslim Prayer or Hindu Prayer. It can't favor any over any others. The second part - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty simple too. Congress can't declare that Christianity can't exist in the US, or Islam, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism, or Mormonism. Just as Congress can't form a religion, it can't prevent US citizens from forming a religion. It couldn't pass a law preventing an Eagle Scout from forming the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It also means that while the Government can't make anyone pray, it can't prevent individuals from praying. Want to pray in school? Go ahead - but Government can't lead you in that prayer. Calico

If you've already "scrubbed them to blazes", then they are already clean and there really is no need to clean them more. The "black stuff" in the pits (I'm assuming the cookware is pitting, small dings in the surface of the aluminum)and along the edges is not likely to be food particles, not after all this time. More likely, it's just oxidization (yes - Aluminum "rusts" (it's called Aluminum Oxide - just like Iron "rust" is called Iron Oxide) and this Aluminum Oxide hardens and serves to protect the surface of Metallic Aluminum. The surface of most aluminum cookware is treated to reduce oxidization but when pitting occurs that protection is reduced and the pits oxidize. You can try to get the oxidization out by boiling a mixture of vinegar and water (about 2 tablespoons vinegar to 1 quart water) in the dutch ovens, but that won't treat the surface and it will just oxidize over again. I'd leave it be - that black stuff is protecting your dutch ovens from further damage. I'd also try to avoid cooking any tomato based sauces in the dutch ovens, unless you empty and clean the dutch oven right away after cooking - tomato sauces, and undissolved salts, are the most common causes of aluminum cookware pitting. Calico PS: For all those Star Trek geeks out there (I include myself in this), remember that scene from the movie Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home where Scotty gives out the formula for Transparent Aluminum and we all thought it was a fantasy idea? In 2004, US scientists working for GM developed a formula using Aluminum Oxide and Rare Earth Elements to create a strong glass called...Transparent Alumina (aka Transparent Aluminum or for Eamonn - Transparent Aluminium). Star Trek strikes again!

Beavah will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe what he is saying is that a violation of YPT isn't neccessarily a violation of a state's child welfare laws - that something reported to the Scout Executive wouldn't neccessarily be reported to a state's child welfare agency. At the same time, IF you are a state mandated reporter (I don't know of any states that have included Scoutmasters in that list (yet)) and there is a YPT incident that you would be mandated to report to the state, reporting it only to the Scout Executive would not be an acceptable substitute, you must also, and likely must first, report it to the child welfare department in your state (or whomever you are tasked by law to report it too). If you are NOT a state mandated reporter, then you are under no legal obligation to report it to the state - but if you do, you will generally be protected by state laws protecting reporters from prosecution for "wrongful reporting". (Do I have it right, Beav?). I faced this issue myself when I was working for the Council's Cub Scout Day Camp. Council policy was that if we suspected that a child was being abused in any way, we were to report it to the Scout Executive only, not to any other authorities. I was an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT-A, before I took further steps to become a Paramedic - EMT-P) and in my state I was a State Mandated Reporter. At first, Council's intended response was to rescind that years job offer (yes, we were paid - a whole $100/week)until the Summer Camp health officer, also an EMT-A, told the Summer Camp Director he could not follow this directive either, and no other health professional would be able to follow this directive (this was the first year we were mandated by the state to report and the mandate for the first few years was limited to MD's, RN's, LPN's, and EMT's, Firefighters and Police Officers) - and that was in the early 80's). Faced with the loss of their health staff at both the summer camp and cub day camp, and on advice of the Council's legal counsel, the policy was amended so as not to preclude Mandated Reporters from reporting but requiring that the Scout Executive be informed of any mandated reports made. There were an awful lot of firefighters and police officers that were volunteer adult leaders that would be mandated to report. We were required to report even if we weren't working "professionally" but were merely volunteering, and even if that volunteering was not related to the our reporting status - in other words, if I were working at a Camporee station and in the course of the event saw something that would lead me to suspect that a Scout might be being abused (say his shirt rode up his back and I saw what looked like burn or whip marks), even if I didn't know him, hadn't spoke to him, or treated him, I would still be mandated to make a report. As for Psycho Female Scouter - the DE wants you to document? The heck with that - tell the DE in no uncertain terms that this woman is not to interfere with your unit ever again, that she is not to try to get involved, that she is not to approach any of the Unit's Scouts, Parents or Leaders. Get the COR's backing and anytime she shows up at a troop activity or troop event, call the police and have her arrested - if need be, tell the DE that you want Council's help in getting a restraining order against her (unless one of the parents/Scouter's in the unit is an attorney or has a good attorney that may help with this pro-bono, ask that the Council's legal counsel be made available). She's got to be gone - NOW - before she does any more harm and before she victimizes more of your Scouts. Calico

Beavah, Am I to understand that you are advocating that this Scout should just accept that all the work on the merit badges he earned at summer camp was for naught and that he should just give up the badges he earned and start all over again because his unit is failing to follow National Advancement Policy on earning Merit Badges; and this Scout should limit himself only to Merit Badges that are counseled by Troop level volunteers and not Merit Badges that may interest him which may not have someone in the Troop signed up to, let alone qualified to counsel? Am I to understand that your position is that Troops can now make up their own advancement rules and too bad, so sad, so sorry you followed the BSA advancement rules and not the Troops so you don't get the badge? I sure hope I'm misinterpreting what you've posted because otherwise I'd have to violently disagree with you, and I'd really hate to have to do so. This Scout has earned these badges - it is the Troop that is at fault here. Maybe the best thing is for this Scout and his family to find a new unit that will follow the policy and make sure his advancement needs are met (3 merit badges earned by a total of 25 Scouts since the last Court of Honor???). Of course, that takes care of this Scout's issues. In the meantime there are 24 more Scouts who are not benefitting from the program, and who may grow up believing that the way their unit awards Merit Badges is the way it's supposed to be giving them the potential to spread this virus to other units in the future if they become adult leaders (which, frankly, seems very unlikely given that they certainly don't seem very motivated to advance as it is). I'm all for the whole let's get along and support the program - as long as we keep in mind THE PROGRAM that we are supposed to be supporting. This unit isn't following the program. Instead it's following it's own program. What program should this Parent then be supporting - the real program or this deviation of the program. I'm also all for calling ignorant adults on the mess they are making of things when it starts to impact the Scouts and their advancement. Calico

Talk to the Unit Commissioner who was present when this policy was announced - if s/he doesn't tell you that s/he and/or the District Commissioner and/or the District Advancement Chairman will attend the next Troop Committee Meeting to tell the Troop in no uncertain terms that the Troop WILL follow National Policy and WILL award Merit Badges earned outside the Troop Merit Badge Counselor List with NO retesting and that s/he expects the Troop to award - immediately, all of the Merit Badges earned at Summer Camp then call the District Commissioner as well - this Unit Commissioner needs to be retrained/replaced. The Commissioners are not just window dressing - they are there not just to help Units through various troubles they get themselves into, but to ensure that the Units are following the franchise rules. Calico (btw: Welcome to the Forum) Your son earned those Merit Badges - the Troop cannot deny them to him. Attend the next Committee Meeting and

Wouldn't that be War Against Xmas (WAX)? That would sure make it easier to know when the war was on and when is was off again for another year. All we would need to do is have Pat Morita announce on the TV at the beginning "Wax On" and at the end "Wax Off" Calico

Someone from the unit attended the Popcorn Kickoff. Did the information presented at the kickoff match what is being said now? If the 27%/30% split was explained at the kickoff, then Council has been upfront about it from the beginning and there is little more that can be done. However, if it wasn't explained this way, or wasn't explained clearly and the impression was the units would receive 30% with an additional bonus of 3% if other criteria was met, then that's something to bring up to District/Council popcorn chair. If you were promised 30% and they changed the rules in the middle of the game, then its a call/e-mail to the Scout Executive (not the DE - bypass him/her) and let the Scout Exec know that because of the loss of the 3%, the Council is losing their percentage of your sales next year because you won't be participating in the sale. Calico

Philadelphia's BSA Headquarters building would be considered a single tenant office building. Typically, single tenant buildings, be they office, retail or industrial, have NNN (Triple Net) Leases - that means that in addition to base rent, the Tenant pays for all other expenses needed to maintain and operate the building, including taxes, property and liability insurance, and maintenance & repair costs. In most single tenant buildings, the tenant pays for those services/expenses directly, meaning they contract for the services, they pay all the bills when due. Any improvements made to the building are adjudged to be beneficial to the Tenant and such improvements then remain part of the building when the Lease expires. The Landlord does not pay for these improvements (beyond initial Tenant Improvement costs negotiated with a Lease to make the building ready for occupancy by the Tenant). In Ground Leases, which sounds like what the now canceled Lease truly was, the Tenant leases the ground and is allowed to build a building on the ground, at their expense. When the Lease expires or is otherwise terminated, the building becomes part of the property with no cost to the Landlord. In essence, the Boy Scouts may have built that building, but that building isn't theirs. At the end of the day, the building and all improvments belong to the Landlord (in this case the City). Most Ground Leases contain a clause that allows the Landlord to inspect any building the Tenant puts up and make demands for repairs or reasonable improvements (such as those required by changes in law) to maintain the building's long term value (No Landlord wants to be stuck with a building that was not maintained properly - what often happens is a couple of years before the Ground Lease expires, a smart Landlord will have a full inspection of the property done including roof, HVAC equipment, parking lot, structural and environmental then make sure the Tenant makes all needed repairs or replacements before the Lease expires - Tenants who have never performed preventative maintenance on their roof or HVAC equipment or the parking lot often find themselves spending big money in the final year to replace HVAC equipment, replace the roof and replace the parking lot). A typical Ground Lease collects rent only for the land, not the improvements - and base rent for a building is higher - generally much higher - than rent for land only. Most Ground Leases are also NNN Leases - the Tenant paying for all expenses for the improvements they've made, as well as the taxes and insurance. I've not been able to find the square footage of the building which would be the only way to determine if the $200K is market rent or not. Current market rent for a Class B office in Philadelphia (This building would be no better than a Class B) is about $10.00/net. If this building is 20,000 sq. ft., that would be about right. Calico

let''s not forget that there is also an element of training the Scouts on properly addressing adults when their parent(s) is in camp. In my units, there was never a "dad" or "mom" in camp. A call for "Dad!" always went unanswered (and yes, you do have to train the parents not to respond). On a campout, if I wanted to speak with my dad (if he was in attendance), it was Mr. CalicoPenn. No kid wants to call his parent by Mr. or Mrs. - helps prevent the Scout from relying too much on mom or dad too. Calico

You ask a good question regarding intent - what is the intent of the POR time in service requirements. Let''s come at it from a different way - what it the intent of the Eagle Leadership/Service Project. We rarely give the intent behind that much thought. Now I readliy admit I''m extrapolating from experience and am in no way quoting any official writings of anyone, as far as I know, so what I''m about to say is my belief as to the intent. I believe that the intent of the Eagle Leadership/Service Project is to give our Scouts the opportunity, and the challenge, to transistion from Unit level leadership to Community level leadership. To take the leadership skills he''s learned as a Scout and use them for his community. The Eagle Project is not, I believe, intended to be some sort of final test of leadership ability. Nor is it to be the end of one''s leadership - rather, I believe it''s a new beginning, a new chapter, to leadership and service - a community based leadership and service. How does this relate to your question about the intent of the POR time in service? First is that more often than not, Eagle bound Scouts aren''t blowing through all the requirements to earn their Eagle at age 13 or 14 - I think that''s still fairly rare, though it does happen. Historically, most boys earned their Eagle while they were 15, 16 or 17 - and I think that''s still the case now. That just happens to be about the age that the Scouts are pursuing other interests outside the home and Scouts (such as work, school clubs, school sports, etc.) and therefore have less time to spend on Scouts - not no time - less time. That means an adjustment in what is referred to as "be active" - they may no longer attend weekly meetings, or make every campout as they did when they were 12, but that should be ok - we don''t seem to have a problem still calling an adult who was an ASM who spent 2 years attending every meeting and campout and then scales back to attending 3 campouts and 25% of the meetings "Active" so why should we have a double standard for our youth? It''s at about that age, oddly enough, when folks become more community oriented - where they learn that their community is important in their lives and they learn that giving back to the community is rewarding and important in keeping the community going. Second is that most Scouts don''t earn their Eagle 6 months from becoming Life - I suspect the average is more like 2 years. They will more than likely meet their POR time in service requirements within that first 6 months, but may not even start working on their Eagle project until that''s done. Third, I''ve got a gut feeling that the intention was for an Eagle candidate to focus most, if not all, of his leadership ability on his project for the community when he is working on his project - not to spend it being the SPL. I see being the SPL a full time leadership job for a Scout, as I see planning and running an Eagle project to be a full time leadership job for a Scout. So, I think the intent of the requirement is that the Scout polish up his leadership skills for another six months then start leading his project - without worrying whether he is peforming a direct leadership role in his unit to satisfaction. If he can juggle both at the same time - hey, that''s great - but I wonder if one or both of those leadership roles suffer a bit. Therefore, I think the intent of the requirement is that they be given the credit for their 6 months of service and that if it now takes them another year or two to earn their Eagle (and really, is there any reason to rush a 13 year old Life Scout into getting his Eagle in 6 months?) they not be penalized because they didn''t spend much time on a unit POR after they completed that requirement, or weren''t as active as they used to be before they had more things added to their plate of life. CalicoPenn

I''ve looked and looked and looked and looked on Google Earth and I just can''t find the Tropical Island with a lagoon, a volcano, an underground cave system, a bamboo motor car and seven stranded castaways. Calico

Sounds like you''re making the right steps, and your answer that they chose their SPL is a good one. Its important that the SPL and the PLC get trained as well - not just training by the Troop but try to take advantage of the training offered by your District and Council - getting the perspectives of Leaders in different units is invaluable. Might I make a small suggestion? The requirements for holding POR for rank advancement is 6 months for Eagle. Why not structure your SPL election around the rank requirment. Hold SPL elections twice a year - every 6 months instead of once per year. Patrols should hold elections for PL every six months too. There is nothing that would prevent an SPL from being nominated and running for a second 6 month term. Calico