CalicoPenn

My thoughts on this is that the press often brings up the exclusionary policies because no other organized group represents "America" better than the Boy Scouts (not even the Girl Scouts, American Legion, VFW, etc). In our collective American subconscious, the BSA represents the Human element of Baseball, Hot Dogs, and Apple Pie. It seems to me that when the press is bringing up the exclusionary policies of the BSA, they are't attacking "traditional American values" per se but are pointing out that as America has evolved over time, our values have evolved and changed, and that the Boy Scouts, in clinging to certain Antiquated "Traditional" American Values, has been by-passed by an America with new, enduring, traditional values, and that by continuing to cling to those antiquated values they hold, are marginalizing themselves and will go the way of the Horse and Buggy if they aren't careful. In a sense, the Press is saying that the BSA is no longer part of the American equation, but is now a relic of a by-gone era. Calico

All this teeth gnashing over the "what if" bumping off of Hitler and/or George III and if it's ok to bump off Hitler but not George or is that hypocritical - and in the end it's all meaningless twaddle. You're assuming that history would have changed for the better had Hitler been assassinated - allow me to suggest that such an action may have, instead, allowed someone else to ascend to power that was even more of an idealogue than Hitler and this person would have prevailed instead of losing. It's not that big of a hypothetical stretch, either - it's known that Adolph had some of his inner circle removed from power because they were a direct threat to his control, and he feared that not only would they take control, but they would prove to be better than he was. What's more important is the original question - about the Supreme Court somehow negating the First Amendment and what the response should be. Let's start out by saying that this is an extreme hypothetical - there is no provision in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to amend the constitution - and declaring the First to be invalid would be amending the constitution. It can't be done - the Supreme Court doesn't have such power. What they can do is limit the protections (ie - can't yell Fire in a crowded theatre) but they can't eliminate the protections. But let's say they do make such a ruling - what to do? A couple of things that have been suggested - impeachment, or Congress passing a law stating the Court can't rule on such a law - aren't possible. In the first case, Judges of the supreme or inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior. This is important - that clause is specifically there to prevent Congress or a President from taking action against a member of the Judiciary because they disagree with that person's opnions. Bad behavior is limited to criminal behavior - as long as the actions of the court or a member of the court aren't criminal, the constitution prevents removal. A Judge can't be removed for infirmity, for mental illness, for disability, for being an utter lunatic - s/he can only be removed for criminal actions. Ruling that the 1st Amendment is unconstitutional isn't a criminal action - it's utterly insane - but it isn't criminal. In the second case, read the clause very carefully - it doesn't give Congress the power to write into a law that the Supreme Court can't make a ruling on a law. Congress can't prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing any law for constitutionality. If that was the case, every law we have would have a sentence in it exempting that law from judicial review, thereby negating completely the function of the Judiciary. What this clause explains is that, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original (or primary) jurisdiction in certain cases - its kind of a "Go Directly to the Supreme Court, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200" clause. In cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, the cases are heard directly by the Supreme Court without going through the lower courts. The clause further states that in all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdication - in other words, the cases are heard by lower courts first and the Supreme Court acts as an Appeals Court (in this case, final appeal). Here's the catch - Exceptions to Appellate Jurisdiction (NOT to Original Jusrisdiction cases, only appellate jurisdiction cases) may be made by Congress, under such regulations Congress shall make. This catch doesn't mean that regulation can be "no court will have any jurisdiction over this law" - clearly, the Judiciary has jurisdiction over ALL laws. No, what it means is that Congress can state in a law that SCOTUS will have Original Jurisdiction in reviewing this law. They can change, without constitutional amendment, on a law by law basis, which law that would normally be an Appellate Jurisdiction for the SC to Original Jurisdiction for the SC. As to further regulations, this means that Congress can tell the Court that should they accept a case to review such a law, that the Court must rule on it within a certain period of time, or that it may only accept briefs from the two original parties (no friends of the court briefs) or other such items. This clause has rarely, if ever, been evoked - and likely would only be called upon if there was a national emergency requiring near immediate congressional and executive action and a desire by Congress to make sure such a law passed constitutional muster before it was fully implemented. So what to do? Either wait the Court out until a change in the makeup of the court can be accomplished, or pass a Constitutional Amendment reaffirming First Amendment rights and another Amendment stating that Amendments to the Constitution cannot be ruled unconsitutional by the Courts and that judges may be removed from office for attempting to violate this amendment. Calico

This thread should be re-titled WTH??? I skimmed through the "by-laws" of the Shawnee Lodge. Mark, I assume from your comment on the pre-ordeal sleepover that you are not a member of the OA yet but have been "elected" and are getting ready to do the ordeal. Once you have competed the Ordeal, I hope you'll follow up with National OA (you can use the guise of being a new OA member curious as to why the Shawnnee Lodge's "policies" don't match National's. Here are some things I found in my quick skimming in these By-laws that are totally contrary to the policies of the Order of the Arrow and need to be changed back - this Lodge and Council seem to believe they can change the requirements and policies willy-nilly to suit their needs. OA is not chartered to a local Council to run as they see fit - it is a National program that must be run as National dictates. Paraphrase of by-lay between **'s. 1: *Every Registered Unit member under 21 PRESENT IN CAMP for the full week* - the bylaws seem confusing here - on one hand it seems to indicate elections are held in camp - on the other hand it seems to indicate that elections are held at a unit meeting in May. No matter - ANY registered unit member under 21 may vote for youth members whether they are attending camp or not. If election is held in camp, the lad can visit the troop the day of the election and vote. There is NO National Requirement that a voter must be going to summer camp - and this Lodge can't add that requirement. 2: *Registered Adult Members may vote for other Adult members.* WRONG, WRONG, WRONG - Adults DO NOT hold elections - Adults ARE NOT elected to the OA - National OA Policy is that Adults are RECOMMENDED to the Scout Executive for inclusion as a member in the OA - and is approved by the Scout Exec or his designee. 3: *After an election, the Unit Leader may veto the choice* - Again - Wroooonnnnnngggggg. Once the election is held, the Unit Leader can't veto the boy's choice! The Unit Leader has his/her opportunity to give a lad another year to grow towards the OA by not certifying him quaified for election in the first place - once he has certified a lad, he can't undo it after election. 4: *A candidate must complete his Ordeal during the first two functions of the Lodge* - In reality, an Ordeal Candidate has one FULL year - maybe there are only 2 lodge funtions in a year that this can be done, but the problem is if this lodge has 3 or 4 possibilities in a year - if the 3rd opportunity is still within the year, that Ordeal Candidate has every right, under National OA policy, to complete that Ordeal. Then a couple of notes on Brotherhood: *Youth must be approved by Unit Leader to advance to Brotherhood* - Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong (can you tell I'm frustrated by whomever allowed these "by-laws" to even get to the point that they were adopted with this stuff in it? Those people should have been whacked over the knuckles with a heavy yardstick by Sister Margaret-Mary every time they came up with these ridiculous things). Once in the OA - the Unit Leader has NO say in how a lad advances in the OA - a Brotherhood Candidate does NOT need "unit leader approval" before he can become Brotherhood. The requirements for becoming a Brotherhood Member are CLEARLY spelled out in everyones OA Handbook, and in National OA Policy - and no where in those requirements does it even mention a Unit Leader. Which brings us to "Since the Ordeal, a Brotherhood Candidate shall have attended a long term camp" - again - WRONG!!!!! No where is there ANY requirements for further camping nights of ANY kind for Brotherhood or Vigil. A member of this lodge needs to send this document to the National OA staff/leadership with everything that is contrary to and a violation of the OA Policies highlighted demanding that National take action against the dolts that put this garbage together. CalicoPenn Vigil Honor Member Lakota Lodge 175 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

As I see it, the key word in your question is "intentionally". As it's a hypoythetical question, I'd like to assume that means the boys had a choice between someone who has proven to be a leader or has leadership potential, and someone they knew to be the "class clown and screwup" and they deliberately chose the screw-up because they thought it would be funny. Without taking away from the other suggestions of making sure to mentor and work with this new SPL, I'd also make sure that as adults we weren't stepping in to make sure things happen that are supposed to happen if there is no effort being made by the SPL and PLC. If this SPL is making the effort, then yes, step in and help - but if no effort is being made, then I would step back and let the chips fall where they lay so to speak. After you send Scouts home from the first couple of meetings because the SPL/PLC didn't plan the meetings (don't step in with an alternative plan, that tells the SPL/PLC they don't need to do the work because Mr. Scoutmaster will do the work for them) and the camping trip/outing everyone was looking forward to is cancelled because the SPL/PLC didn't get the plans together, the Scouts will be clamoring for a change. I'm not suggesting you let the troop fold - I doubt it will even get to that point - but don't jump in right aaway to "fix" it - let the Scouts see the results of their decisions for a while - its as valuable a learning experience as everything going right all the time. Calico

At the risk of sounding defeatist, it sounds like this Troop's time is up. I applaud you for stepping up to the plate and taking on the SM role (btw - Welcome to the Forum) but that shouldn't mean you spend your time banging your head against the wall. A Troop with 1 Scout showing up for meetings? No planning by the Boys and no proper support by the Committee? You could try (as I'm sure others will suggest) getting the Committee Members to take training so they know what the game is all about - and it's not about the boys being entertained. You should definitely tell the committee that you will not do any of the planning and logistics alone - if the committee members aren't willing to step up and help shoulder the burden, then don't hold the activity(s). I'm sure others will recommend searching out your Unit Commissioner for some help - and it wouldn't hurt. You might consider speaking with your Stake President or your Bishop and explain to them what is happening in this unit - if the Stake wants this unit to continue, the Stake leadership will certainly make their viewpoint known to the committee & parents. If not, then, sad to say, let the Troop wither on the vine and find another unit that would value you, your skills, and your time. Calico

Gazing into my crystal ball, I see the next big OA Ordeal project at summer camps all across the country - installation of solar powered cell phone chargers in every camp site with the capacity to charge up to 20 cell phones all at one time. Rather than ban cell phones, take the troop camping to places where the cell phones just won't work. As for "emergency use" - remember that story last year about the two former scouts who rescued a woman who was lost in the woods? If you'll recall, they hiked out to get help - not opened their cell phone. Even if they had a cell phone with them, its quite likely it wouldn't have gotten a signal where they were anyway. I've seen a few people throw their cell phones off mountain tops in frustration that the phone didn't work when they reached the summit. Heck, my cell phone doesn't work in my own home except in a few very limited areas (I live a block away from a cell phone tower - one would think the signal would be strong - but the reality is the signal is overpowering). Even the phone's "gps" capabilities won't work if it can't get a signal - cell phone gps works by triangulating position of the phone from the nearest cell phone towers - no signal from a tower, no triangulation. A regular GPS unit communicates with orbital satellites, which is why they tend to work just about everywhere. Calico

I'll continue my recently started quest to read all of the Joe Leaphorn/Jim Chee mysteries written by Tony Hillerman. I plan to re-read some of the Anna Pigeon mysteries by Nevada Barr (set in various National Parks, Anna is a Law Enforcement Ranger). Also on the re-read list is A Density of Souls and The Snow Garden by Christopher Rice (Anne Rice's son). On the non-fiction front, a re-reading of William Least Heat-Moon's Blue Highways around weekend campfires is sure to happen. The Journals of Patrick Gass (a member of the Lewis and Clark expedition), Into Thin Air (Jon Krakauer), The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (CA Tripp), Hunting a Shadow - the Search for Blackhawk (Crawford Thayer), Chocolate (a history of chocolate by Mort Rosenblum), The Founding Fish (John McPhee), and an Edward Abbey tryptich - Postcards from Ed (Edward Abbey), Adventures with Ed (Jack Loeffler) and Edward Abbey, a Life (James Cahalan) are on deck. Other items on the reading list this summer are Clouds & Weather, Rivers & Streams, Trees, Insects, Birds, Campfires, etc. Calico

Dues - if your Troop collects dues from the Scouts every week, then yes, if a Scout misses a meeting, he should be paying two weeks worth of dues at the next meeting. Weekly dues aren't meeting dues (pay only for the meetings you attend) they are weekly dues, payable every week, whether attending the meeting or not. (My troops never collected weekly dues - we relied on our fundraisers, and only collected annual registration fees). The Books - YES - the books should be open for view by parents - the only reason not to open them to view by the parents is if you're trying to hide something. The Treasurer should be creating a monthly report for the Committee - and that report, as well as Committee Meeting minutes, should be provided to any parent who requests them. Even just having a policy that the books are open to view by parents will help prevent the "Our Scout's money went to the Cub Scouts" and "The old Scoutmaster took money" rumors and innuendo. The innuendo that "the old Scoutmaster took Scout's money" can be legally problematic too - if the old Scoutmaster were to get wind of the accusation, and could prove it false, the person spreading the accusation could face a lawsuit. If your books haven't been well kept, it wouldn't hurt to look for an accountant willing to volunteer to audit the books for the past few years, just for peace of mind and a clean slate. As for the boys getting money based on the hours they work - I really, really, really, (can I say enough really's) hate the whole idea of "Scout Accounts" or "Scout Shares". For one, its not easy to keep track of multiple "accounts". Two - what happens if you need to immediately replace a couple of tents, at a cost of $400 and you have $1,500 in the bank but $1,400 of it is dedicated to "Scout Accounts" - how do you raid the "Scout Accounts" accurately and how do you replenish them? Three - it's borderline legal, maybe - when Non-profits raise funds, the money can't be used to enrich individuals (employee salaries excepted) - it can be argued that Scout Accounts enrich individual scouts with fundraising money - if a Scout drops out, you can't write a check out to that Scout for the funds in his Scout Account (unless he has deposited his own money into that account - then how do you determine if he has spent his money or "Scout Account" money on outings when such funds are mixed. Units should treat the money they raise as Unit money - it is to support the programs of the Unit - for purchasing equipment, insurance, badges, etc. There should be no reason to have individual "Scout Accounts". I know some units argue that Scouts can use their "Scout Account" moneys for outings, uniforms, etc. - Instead of "Scout Accounts", units could create a separate "campership" fund or "uniform" fund, funded by donations specifically given for that purpose. In my Scout Troop, our sponsoring organization donated a few hundred dollars every year for a summer camp "campership" program - it didn't come from the Troop's fundraising, it was specifically donated for a campership program - the money was used to help send boys who might not be able to afford it, or families with a number of boys who may have needed a little bit of help to send all of the boys, to summer camp. One year, there was enough donated so that each boy who went to camp had $50 of their camp fees paid for through the campership program. Bottom line - consider dropping this whole idea of "scout accounts" - if you want to use Troop Funds to fully pay for a couple of weekends of camping so that no boy has to pay, that's perfectly acceptable. CalicoPenn

A couple of thoughts: Print out the Eagle Scout list from Wikipedia and show it to Mom. Ask her if she would like to see her son join the ranks of these men someday - if she says yes, remind her that they all had to go camping to get there, and that Johnny will need to do so too - heck, if she remembers "Who's The Boss", that goofy television show with Tony Danza, point out Danny Pintauro's name on the list (played Jonathon) and tell her if he could get his Eagle, then Johnny certainly can. Talk to Johnny's football and karate coaches - any chance they may have been in Scouts and can talk to Mom about their experiences? Calico

I'm with Beavah on this one - the people who were out of line were the Committee Members. Patrol organization is not the purview of the Troop Committee. Nor is it the purview of the Scoutmaster Corps. It is the purview of the SPL and his PLC. I have to say upfront that if I were in the SPL's shoes at this point, the Committee would no longer have to worry if it would lose little Joey because little Bobby, whom he doesn't get along with at school was assigned to his patrol - they'd have to wonder why their SPL has suddenly stopped attending meetings and outings and perhaps why they just lost their SPL to another unit - if not Scouting altogether. I think this would have demoralized me completely as I would have been quite proud to have solved a difficult problem like this with consensus from my PLC. You may already have a ticking time bomb on your hands even if "Joey" and "Bobby" aren't in the same patrol - there will be plenty of opportunities for a blow-up to occur between them. If it's as bad as the Committee seems to think it is (and what they're likely hearing is reports from Joey's parents - which may or may not be entirely accurate - it's rather common that a 20 second shoving match one day ten months ago at a playground swing becomes in the eyes of some parents a bloody nose and black eye with a possible broken arm and keep that boy away from my boy attitude while the two boys have been tossing the football around every day at lunch) then I'm surprised that "Joey" hasn't already left the Troop. Have there been any incidents between the two at Scout activities? As Beavah says, chances are the boys already know more than the adults think they know, and may even know more that the adults do in the first place. In my opinion, to empower the SPL, the Committee has to stay out of what is the SPL's/PLC's business, and Patrol Organization is one of those things that is the SPL's and PLC's business, and the SPL/Scoutmaster working relationship. To re-empower this SPL, the Scoutmaster should admit to the SPL that sometimes adults make bad decisions themselves because they think they know better and reinstate the SPL/PLC's decision, and discuss the possibility of re-assigning either "Bobby" or "Joey" to another Patrol (the Scoutmaster should find out why the SPL re-assigned "Bobby" to the patrol he did in the first place - maybe that PL is more experienced and is the PL most likley to control/train/succeed with "Bobby"). The Scoutmaster should make sure s/he's communicating better with the SPL - the PLC can certainly meet without the Scoutmaster, but the Scoutmaster and the SPL should have spoken together before the Committee Meeting, thus avoiding a surprised Scoutmaster. The Committee Chair should make it clear to the Committee that if they have problems with decisions like this, that they take it up with the CC and the Scoutmaster - NOT go directly to the SPL. The Committee Chair should apologize to the SPL on behalf of the Committee for interfering and should publicly support the difficult leadership decision the SPL made. Interesting that you have the SPL give a report to the Committee - I wonder how many other Troops do that. I've always operated on the belief that the Scoutmaster is the bridge between the Committee and the SPL/PLC and gives a report to the Committee about the activities of the Troop. Maybe ending this practice of the SPL giving a report to the Committee would help empower the SPL too - it seems like it could be confusing for the SPL to be giving a report to people he doesn't report to. The SPL should be responsible to the PLC and Scoutmaster, not the Troop Committee. Just my 1 Swedish Kroner on this (I got one of these today as change - its about the size of a Quarter) Calico Lisa - I hope this doesn't seem to come across as harsh - I certainly don't intend it to be. I readily admit that it raises my hackles a bit (and in some cases quite a bit) when actions of adults in Scouting, even those actions with the best intentions, throw roadblocks in the way of the Scouts - and I see this as a roadblock that was tossed in front of what seems to me based on the limited info about him and his capabilities, an excellent SPL. (And I also know your just the messenger not the roadblocker). CP (This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

I think we've discussed this before - National seems to consider "active" to be synonomous with "registered", not with quality/quantity of "activity", and has used the appeals process in the past to bolster this position. Since this seems to be the position of National, then "Be active in your troop and patrol for at least 6 months as a Life Scout" would be properly read to mean that they have to wait 6 months from the time they earn Life to the time they can earn Eagle - and they must be a dues paying registered member during this time. Your troops policies? They don't apply - they would never hold up in an appeal. Now some may come back that being active means doing things with your troop and patrol, but what of the SPL or ASPL or Troop Guide, or JASM that is also earning their Eagle - how can they be active in their patrol when they have no patrol - the requirement says troop AND patrol - that would seem to mean certain troop office holders wouldn't be eligible to become Eagle - something the BSA does not intend. What it all boils down to is will you, as an adult, put roadblocks in the way of someone who is working on their Eagle - based on what you've written, he was active by the common definition we all know for at least 6 months as a Life Scout so should be passed on that. The suggestion that he might want to bump up his activity level a bit if he expects to get Scout help with his Eagle project is a good one, but keep in mind that there is nothing in the requirements stating the people he should be leading in his Eagle project should be, need to be, or even may be Scouts - he can lead a group of 30 year old carpenters and he can meet the requirements. Calico

Not a go-getter? Had to push and prod? And yet he still earned his Eagle? How many go-getters fail to earn their Eagle? Many, I'm sure. So what if he got his Eagle, and other ranks, through fits and starts - he still earned his Eagle - and you should be celebrating the fact that you were there to push, prod, and cajole him into trying - and succeeding. How many times on the forum have we heard of Eagles earning their rank despite the actions of their Scoutmaster, or some other leader. Clearly, this lad earned his Eagle BECAUSE of his Scoutmaster and Committee Chair. You should be proud of that! Send him his Eagle credentials - he's earned them - even if he doesn't want a public ceremony. He has still done what most boys in Scouting never do. CalicoPenn

Seems to me they should face forward and salute as the flag should be carried through their ranks and placed in standards in front of them - once the flags are placed in their standards, they should say the pledge - since the flags are now in front of them as they are facing forward, there should be no need to twist their bodies or heads - the Senior Patrol Leader and the Color Guard, who should be up at the front, should fully turn however is necessary to face the flag when saluting and saying the pledge. There is no reason for the Scouts to face the flag and follow it as it is being carried through their ranks to be posted (or retired) and forward should always be where the flags end up being posted. Calico

Packsaddle - there are plenty of prohibitions and limits to the liberties of the people in law - this latest SCOTUS ruling is just one of those many - but the key is its in the law - not the Constitution. There are no prohibitions and limits to the liberties of the people (except perhaps Presidential term limits which arguably prohibit us from re-electing a President for a third term) in the Consitution - only in the laws. The laws may be found to be Constitutional, but they aren't enshrined in the Constitution, and are thus easy to repeal or change. Eamonn - I had to read about Miller vs. Jackson and read the rest of Lord Denning's verse after that little tease of yours. And here I thought NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) was an American invention - looks like you Brits beat us to it. Calico

In my troop, there were three "ceremonies" of recogniont. The first was between the Scout and their own religious institution, where they were generally presented the award at one of the churches own service. The second was at the next Court of Honor, where the religious award knot would be presented. THe third was on Scout Sunday - the troop was sponsored by the men's club of the local community (non-denominational, though mostly protestant) church. On Scout Sunday, no matter what church we went to on a regular basis, all of the members of the Troop attended service, in full uniform, of the community church. I think I've mentioned this before, but the lads on the Troop were truly a diverse bunch when it came to religion. Every year at Scout Sunday, the Pastor of the church would call up all those Scouts who had earned a religious award since the last Scout Sunday, and present a certificate from the church as recognition of the accomplishment - no matter what the faith of the Lad was that earned the award. The Pastor really enjoyed this part of the service, and in recognizing the different faiths that were represented. Calico

I just have to point this out, only because The Scout asked a hypothetical about an Eagle Scout, specifically himself, starting a religion where the divinity of his pet hamster was central to the religion. It's been done. Some of you may have heard of the Pastafarian Movement. It gained some notice when the state school board in Kansas was proposing to add Intelligent Design to the curriculum and open the curriculum to other religions to present their creation viewpoints (presumably to douse any constitutional issues). The creator of the Pastafarian Movement wrote to the Kansas school authorities requesting that the Pastafarian Movement be included in presentations on creation viewpoints, so that they could spread the message that their deity, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is responsible for the creation of the universe, the planet and man. The founder of the Pastafarian Movement, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is a gentleman named Bobby Henderson - he is also an Eagle Scout. I'd love to see the youth award medal for this religion! Calico

It's quite possible that the Scouting Parent and the COR just aren't aware of the rules about Scouts and Political Campaigning. Given that this person is running for Judge, I'm sure that once they are told what the rules are, they'll understand. If they don't understand, then I'd wonder if the person is cut out to be a Judge. I'd let the COR and the Scouting Parent know what the rules are and leave it at that. CalicoPenn

gwd-scouter - Wow - that's all I can say - Wow! You really are doing it right. That's exactly the response that should come out of a BOR. Congrats!! CalicoPenn

Patrol decided to make blueberry pancakes. Scout volunteered to be the cook. He prepared the pancake batter then stirred in the blueberries. Batter turned green - Scout forgot to drain the blueberries. Had the blueberries been canned in water, it wouldn't have mattered much - so the pancakes were green - call then St. Patricks Day pancakes - but no, the blueberries were packed in heavy syrup. Tried cooking them anyway - I've never had a worse tasting pancake in my life. Fortunately the other patrols had extra pancake mix so we just had regular pancakes. Calico

Why can't we attract and/or keep minorities? I suspect its nothing overt but is the subtle things - things that we don't make a big deal out of yet still lodge themselves in the back of our minds and makes us wonder if we're really welcome. For instance, African-American folk songs (or Hispanic folk songs, etc.). Not in the Woodbadge Song Book, not taught to Scouts, not part of the traditional campfire. Most of us won't see songs, or lack of songs, as a big issue, or even a small issue, but if you're part of a group who isn't represented by the songs, you'll notice over time, and start to wonder if you're in the right organization for you and your family. Chances are you'll make a decision at some point, without really understanding fully why, that the organization is just not for you and will quietly drop out, rather than try to buck years of tradition to see a more inclusive song book. Just thinking of some other possible unintentional messages we may send out: Packs that do up their pinewood derbies with a big Nascar theme - innocent fun to most of us, but also vaguely unwelcoming to some of us. The image many Americans have of Nascar, fair or uinfair, especially in the North and among minorities, is a bunch of Confederate Flag waving white people. Flash a picture of 7-11's Nascar vehicle, or Target's Nascar vehicle at someone, and chances are high that they'll swear they saw a Confederate Battle Flag sticker on that car, even if there isn't one. How many people think of the "General Lee" from the "Dukes of Hazzard" with its Confederate Flag coloring as a Nascar car? More than we'd like to think, I'd guess. Sure, the Pack isn't flying a confederate flag, but it doesn't matter because you're evoking the image of something else. When Packs or Troops go on an outing to a sporting event, how often is that sporting event a Soccer Match? Around my neck of the woods, a lot of Packs go out to baseball games - and rarely go to any of the professional soccer games. If you're Hispanic, isn't it possible you might think that unless my son starts liking and playing baseball, he won't be very welcome in this Pack? What about a Scout's Own at a camporee, etc. Sure, they're supposed to be non-denominational but step back and look at one sometime. In my experience, they tend to have a staid, white, middle-class, protestant look and feel to them. What is the service like at Morningstar Baptist Church? If its like many churches with mostly black parishoners, the service is upbeat, energetic, joyful, exuberant - if that's the kind of experience you've had at church, might you not be a bit put off by the tone of a Scout's Own and start to wonder? Of course, we shouldn't discount that in the US, we tend to want to be with people like ourselves. And that's not just about race or religion or creed or national origin. It can also be about region (I've been to places where African-Americans from northern cities are uncomfortable around African-Americans from southern rural areas), economic status, job type, etc. Think about this - if you're a tradesman, how many of your friends are other tradesmen, how many are white-collar financial types, how many are "professionals" (doctors, lawyers, etc.), how many are assembly line workers, how many are office workers, how many are scientists, how many are farmers? Chances are strong that most of the people you are friends with, and may be in a troop with, have jobs similar to yours - there will always be exceptions, but the biggest number of your friends will likely be fellow tradesmen (and so on depending on what your occupation is). Or maybe you're in an area, a suburb most likely, where the devining line isn't occupation but class - upper, middle, lower, upper middle, etc., where no matter your occupation, you're friends with the people that make about the same amount of money per year that you do. There are some things we just can't change - like the tendency we have to want to associate with people more like us - because it is societally ingrained in us. There are things we can change, though - if we have the ability and desire to stand back and evaluate from a neutral position - if we want to attract and retain minorities. Our challenge is to try to understand what those changes should be and to determine how much we'll work for those changes. CalicoPenn

Packsaddle, I won't be nervous just as long as you don't drive like my brother. CP

National and the Religious Relationship Committee of the BSA doesn't recognize it? Fine - and who cares. If I had a boy in my unit who earned the Hart and Crescent, I would go buy the religious award knot, and present it to him at the next Court of Honor. The heck with the politics of National - recongnize the Scout for his accomplishment. Calico

In general, the equipment is held in trust by the Troop, for the Troop's exclusive use. The Troop raises the funds, aquires, cares for, repairs, replaces and, if neccessary, disposes of outdated, irrepairable and unsafe equipment. In general, they do this without interference from the Chartered Organization. In general, only if the troop were to fold, would the CO take possession of the equipment. In all of the Troop's I was involved with, we kept an inventory listing of all the Troop's equipment. This is part of the Quartermaster's responsibilities. Like Lisabob, we had an adult committee member who served as an adult "quartermaster" and worked with the Troop Quartermaster. Equipment was signed out to the patrols before campouts, and signed back in. New equipment was added to the inventory list. Discarded equipment was removed from the inventory list, with a transfer to a discarded equipment list that detailed the reason a piece of equipment was removed - it could read lost, damaged beyond repair, unsafe, aged out (tents, etc. might be "aged out" after a time), and what was done with it which might read hauled as garbage, recycled, donated to XXX (non-profit), traded in (if possible), traded for XXX equipment, sold to XXX for $x.xx or sold at rummage sale (which was also entered in the Treasurer's books). If the Chartered Organization asks for an accounting of the equipment, it's all readily available to them. Most will not ask, and those that do will likely be very happy to see detailed records. If, on the very off chance, you have a CO who is not happy with disposition of any equipment and is looking for someone to "reimburse" them for the equipment that is no longer there, I'd ask the Council to step in and mediate as the CO really wouldn't have much of a case unless they can prove financial malfeasence (such as a Troop buying brand new Coleman Stoves for $40.00 a piece and turning around and selling them to adult leaders for $30.00 a piece without even taking them out of the box). There are 75 year old Troops out there that would have closets full of moldy canvas tents and unsafe liquid fuel stoves and lanterns if they didn't have some kind of program of disposition. In General, the Scoutmaster is not held responsible for the equipment. The Scoutmaster is responsible for the Program. The Troop Committee is responsible for supporting the program, and equipment is purchased and held to support the program, therefore, the Troop Committee would ultimately be responsible for the equipment (thus the adult "quartermaster" coming from the Troop Committee and not the SM/ASM ranks). At campouts, the patrols are responsible for the equipment. They need to report any lost or damaged equipment to the Troop Quartermaster when they turn in the equipment. They are responsible for making sure the equipment they turn in is in the same condition as when they checked it out - that means tent's are bone dry, all stakes and ropes accounted for, stoves cleaned (no spillover egg residue, etc.), pots and pans are clean, etc. etc. etc. If there is deliberate damage to the equipment, I'd expect the patrol to figure out a way to replace it. I realize this is a bit long so to summarize the most important part: The ultimate responsibility for the Troop's equipment rests with the Troop Committee, not the Scoutmaster or any individual within the Troop. The Troop Committee is responsible to the Chartered Organization - not the Scoutmaster. The answer, therefore, is "No - the Scoutmaster is NOT responsible to the CO for the Troop's equipment - the Troop Committee is" Calico

Is the Scoutmaster storing the Troop's equipment in his garage? Then Yes - during the time it's being stored. Otherwise, its everyone's responsibility - the adults and the boys. Calico

Diversity isn't about quotas and mandates from on high. It isn't served by a rule that says for every 10 boys in a unit, the unit must have 1 boy of a different ethnicity, race, creed, religion, etc. What diversity is about is creating a space where other peoples "differences" are respected, where we learn from people that aren't carbon copies of ourselves, where people can be comfortable around other people, even people who are "different". The BSA has had a diversity component as part of the Scout Law for decades - as part of a Scout being Reverent, the Scout is to respect others religious beliefs. It surely wouldn't take much to extend that teaching to a respect for others cultural beliefs and heritage. SR540Beaver illustrates the "problem with diversity in the BSA" well with his post. The BSA, while it publicly trumpets its support of diversity, suffers from an image problem when it comes to attracting minorities (of different races, creeds, religions, etc). As Beaver asks "how many of the white middle-class folks who make up scouting would embrace singing a song in Swahili instead of The Quartermaster Store song?" There's the public image of Scouting - summed up in the midst of one question - "White, Middle-class". And the image is perpetuated year after year after year. Why? I submit it's partly because talented people willing to share their culture and heritage are subtly dissuaded from attempting to do so. Good Scouters, who are doing good Scout work, often do the dissuading without really realizing they are doing so - usually in the name of tradition, or of trying to keep someone from failing. I have absolutely no doubt that suggesting that it would be difficult to fulfill a WB ticket item attempting to get the woodbadge song book changed, or would be difficult to fulfill a WB ticket item by trying to get units and roundtable to issue an invite to learn African American folk songs was the right thing to do - in the context of earning one's wood badge beads. Trying to get African American folk songs in the Wood Badge Songbook, or in front of roundtables and units is an admirable goal, but maybe too big a goal for Wood Badge. Consider, though, that because there aren't any African American folk songs in the song book, or being taught and sung at campfires, and as a result aren't traditional songs for Scouts like The Quartermaster Song, or John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt, etc. etc. - that a message is being sent, one we may not notice, but other do - the BSA has no place in it for people who aren't just like everyone else. Perhaps then the follow-up is the promise to help get those invites, and those changes - after the beads are awarded. Because it fits with the theme, I'd like to relate this story. Back in the mid-70's, my mother still took on a den every year as a Den Mother for the Pack I was in (I was a Den Chief at this time, my youngest brother was a Webelos - Mom had no child of her own in the Den - she just liked doing it). At the fall recruiting session, a young black woman and her son came to sign up. They kind of hung back a bit, just taking it all in, and eyeing the rest of the folks rather warily - this was white bread suburban Chicago - diversity in our town consisted of boys that played football versus boys that played baseball - and the family had just moved to town. Mom marched right over to the young woman, welcomed her and her son to the Pack, got them signed up, and placed in her Den. Two boys who were in Mom's Den were pulled out to another Den because of this - but the rest stuck around. For the next few months, we only saw K and his mother at Den and Pack meetings. K's dad was around but was a very busy man, always traveling. He had come by once to pick up his son after a den meeting - he was running late and the rest of the boys had come home - we learned who K's dad was but promised to keep it to ourselves for K's sake. Not that Dad was in any trouble or anything, but because K's parents wanted K to have as normal a life as possible. The jig was up on the night of the Pinewood Derby, though. K's dad had the night off, and was going to see his son race the car the two of them had built together. In walked a 6'8" tall, lanky, black man - dressed in a suit, his big hands delicately carrying his son's Pinewood Derby car. The gymnasium got quiet really fast (the Pack had 70 or so boys in it then - you can imagine what it took for a crowd that size to spontaneously quiet down). From a small group of dads off in a corner, we heard "Oh my god - that's Bob Love". K's dad was Bob Love, a starter in the Chicago Bulls. Bob spent half the evening signing autographs for the boys and their dads - and really cheered his son on during the races. Scouting eventually lost K - to school sports - specifically, Basketball - but it just goes to show that you never know what your next encounter with someone "different" will bring. Calico