CalicoPenn

Who is requiring "First Year Camper"? I don't think it's the Scout Camp. Their website gives no indication at all that they require it. It sounds like the Troop is requiring it - and given what you've already mentioned about the Troop, that would be a second (maybe even third) strike against them and I'd be looking for a new Troop.

Separate out the clauses: (Meet the age requirements.) (Be a boy who is 11 years old, or one who has completed the fifth grade or earned the Arrow of Light Award) and (is at least 10 years old, but is not yet 18 years old.) To be a Boy Scout you must: Clause 1: Meet the Age Requirements Clause 2: Be a boy who is 11 years old (Be a boy) who has completed 5th grade (Be a boy) who earned the Arrow of Light Clause 3: Is at least 10 years old, but is not yet 18 years old. No, a 9 year old bot, even if he completes 5th grade, cannot be a Boy Scout because he does not meet the age requirements.

Stosh, As soon as I read this I thought of this quote from you: She's well versed in outdoor environment, forester by trade and many years working with the National Forestry Service in Alaska as a crew supervisor. Somehow I get the feeling that she's not worried about camping in bear country when she's with you because she knows she'll be able to outwit both you and the bear in the wilderness.

My response: 1) Do any planning or development of his project. It was handed to him turn key from a city looking for labor. There is nothing in the requirements that say a Scout has to develop the project - there are many beneficiaries that already have projects developed that can be perfectly acceptable as an Eagle Scout project. Just because a project has been developed and handed to the Scout as the project a beneficiary wants to see done, doesn't mean there isn't planning to do. There is a big difference between developing a project and then implementing it - and there is plenty of planning that can be done to implement "turn-key" projects. It a bit like building a house. The architect develops the project plan then hands it off to a general contractor who now has to implement it - and implementing the work takes planning. Don't confuse development and planning. It will put you on the wrong side every time. 2) Did not follow any of the District suggestions for changes. So what? They're suggestions - not requirements. If the District thought their suggested changes were so important (and 99 times out of 100 they aren't - they're just adults injecting themselves in to the process because they think they know better or want to exercise a little power) then the District wouldn't have approved the plan with out their suggested changes. The District approved the plan, as it was presented - you don't get to go back now and demand that changes be made or complain that your suggestions were not followed. If you can't live with that, then the proper thing to do is to step back and not participate at all. 3) Did not follow the directions of the city (to wait for 1 week after applying herbicide before planting - instead did entire project in 1 day). Instead of jumping to conclusions here, ask. This is a good question to ask - it would be interesting to hear the answer. In my state (Illinois), I would still expect this project to take a day for the Scout to complete. Why? Because the Scout would not likely be involved in spreading the herbicide (at least in my state, Illinois, where you are required to have an applicators license to apply pesticides and herbicides on public lands, a license which, while you can get at 16, requires a pretty substantial insurance policy - heck, if you're a farmer spreading pesticides and herbicides on your own land, you need a license). If the District didn't question that part of the project before it was approved, I have to wonder how well the District read the proposal and why no one questioned this part. Either the city did this work before hand or the city decided not to do it at all. Just simply ask the question. Once the District has signed off on the project, they are rightfully not involved until the BOR. We don't need to add yet another requirement that the Scout provide progress reports to District/Council. In fact, if I had my way, the District would only get involved if there was a dispute at the unit level. As the District rep, your responsibility is to schedule the BOR - that's it - the beneficiary signed off - as a Scoutmaster, I would sign off if the beneficiary signs off - in the entire process, the most important people here are the beneficiaries - they are the ones that need to be happy with the project or not - and the Scout.

This is not quite correct - the order did not apply special vetting to "all" travelers from six countries (tossing Obama in there is just a red herring - has nothing to do with anything other than to re-iterate that these 6 countries were already facing "enhanced screening"). Read it more carefully - the order applies to "certain" travelers from those six countries - and never defines which "certain" travelers. If the order(s) applied to ALL travelers from those countries, it probably wouldn't have been frozen. But because it applies to "certain" travelers and doesn't then define what that means, the Courts must rely on the statements of the people involved. Those statements are undeniably opposed to one specific class of people - Muslims - and though the Executive Order doesn't use the word Muslim, it doesn't have to in order for the courts to conclude that "Certain People" is a euphemism for "Muslim". Agree with the court or not, this is what happens when an administration tries to be cute and hide their intentions - someone will always see right through it. The administration had a second chance to get it right - they blew that one too - Trump should be looking for new advisors and lawyers at this point - people that would tell him to simplify and issue an order stating that travel to the US by citizens from those 6 (now 5 apparently) countries are banned for ALL travelers, no exceptions until such time as the President is confident that the vetting process is satisfactory. The courts don't operate in a vacuum and don't operate only on what's on paper - and they never have (which means there is no new trails being blazed in the judiciary). The courts have relied on intent countless times in the past - its when the intent is muddied that the courts struggle. There is no muddying here - without a definition of "certain people", the court relied on past statements by this administration and determined the intent is clearly against one specific religion. As for the use of judicial legislation - the judiciary does not legislate - that kind of nonsensical terminology is only used by people that don't like the way a court case has gone and aren't mature enough to handle it.

The best answer is "Yes - it counts". The ONLY Scout that is required to participate is the Eagle Scout candidate himself. It's his project, after all.

Considering only about 50% of voting age American's vote, it's more like 25% of the population. And who are you to decide it's a non-issue for other people? For the Canadian Girl Guides organization, current government immigration and visitation policies are an issue because it could affect some of their members. While some in this thread seem just fine with potentially leaving some members behind on a trip if they can't get through customs so the other members don't lose out, I applaud the Girl Guides for coming out with a position that says either all of their members have the ability to enjoy an official Girl Guide trip to the US or no one goes to the US under the Girl Guides rubric. I applaud them for sticking up for their diversity policies. If I'm crossing an international border with my Scouts and a couple are turned away because of their religion, we're all turning around and finding somewhere else to spend our money.

Redacted

I expect on any flight, there will be a problem at the airport. If one or two are delayed (I really mean detained) by TSA, do we all stay behind, scrap the trip, and eat the expenses. No.............CP Response: Actually, yes, yes you do - until the situation with the TSA is resolved, especially if the situation is with a Scout or two that you are traveling with and you are acting in loco parentis.

Oddly enough, no one seemed to complain too loudly with the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act which was passed by Congress and not vetoed by the last administration. It treated folks without previously granted waiver the exact same and the current restrictions. This was not vetoed or signed by the last administration because it was not passed by Congress. It passed the House and was sent to the Senate where it languished and died. The site you linked to shows what the disposition of the legislation is - and the last thing it shoes is being sent to the Senate on 12/09/15. Had it passed the Senate, it would show that.

Stosh, I think he meant that the shirt would be passed on from one First Class Scout to the next deserving First Class Scout. pchadbo: Though the Brotherhood of the Traveling Shirt has merit, I would suggest that you use a name that gives title not to the shirt but to the person wearing the shirt so that when people ask, as they might when they notice one scout wearing a completely different shirt than the other Scouts, you can simply say "That's our current Distinguished Scout" or something along those lines (Illustrious Scout? First-Rate Scout? Master Scout? (ooohh - Master Scout - you have a Scoutmaster, why not a Master Scout - maybe every Troop should have a Master Scout). edited to add: Thinking about it - you could do both. The new Master Scout (or whatever you call him) becomes the next person in the Brotherhood of the Traveling Shirt.

I suspect I'm reading this in a completely different way than most. Given the scope of the troubles you've reported - 20 packs and 5 troops - this is not a unit issue at all but a Council governance issue. Based on what you have written, it appears that the DE may have been fudging membership numbers across the board and s/he's just got caught. Unfortunately, that affects all of your charters. You might have more people "on record" than what you reported in your recharter, it could very well mean that you reported your numbers accurately in your recharter document but that someone added "members" during data entry in to the computer system and didn't think anyone would compare it to the recharter document. What is even more unfortunate is that no, you can't register for Council Camp if this has not been straightened out by that time, no your Cubs can't advance (they can work on them at home for when you're charter troubles are taken care of - but you can't go to Council to pick up any awards), you can't have any den or pack meetings or activities - you're in limbo. Your CC either needs to get really active on this right now or get the COR or the head of the chartering organization involved. The COR should be contacting the President of the Council and the Scout Executive and raising holy heck - as should the representatives of the other 24 units in the district that are affected. Mistakes can happen with charters - but to have this many units in one district have this many issues is way beyond volunteers.

National will not give a clear directive on this because they know that they are not able to enforce it- it's why they use terms like Should and May and Guidelines instead of terms like Shall and Must and Rule. I know it seems like a rule to a layman but when reading BSA documents, you should always keep in mind what purpose does the BSA have for writing these - and a reminder - the BSA is writing these to cover their butts. By using those weasel type of words, they are setting up a defense FOR THEMSELVES against someone claiming in court that the BSA is liable if a Unit posts a Scout's full name and something happens as a result because the BSA didn't enforce the rule. Colonel - you emphasized the wrong words: That sentence says that units should share the guidelines with Scouts, parents and leaders and that all Scouts should abide by the following Internet safety guidelines and personal protection rules. It states that all SCOUTS should abide by the guidelines - it says nothing at all about parents, leaders or units abiding by the guidelines. And yes, I did assume it would be part of Cyber Chip - after all, aren't those guidelines pretty much the purpose of Cyber Chip?

Source #1 (A): This language applies to Scouts and should be used as part of Cyber Chip. It is not a prohibition against units using Scout's last names - it is a suggestion to the Scouts that scouts shouldn't use their last names, post anything about school, etc. In fact, the introduction to that entire section states this: Any Scout units that plan to use social media should share the following Internet safety guidelines with Scouts, parents, and leaders, and all Scouts should abide by the following Internet safety guidelines and personal protection rules. That's a section of advice for Scouts and parents - and it's not even a requirement that the unit must follow - look for words like should - that means it's a suggestion, not a requirement. Source #2: That's the rules for that site, and only that site. It's a good idea for units to follow - but it's not a requirement that units need follow for their own websites. Source 1(B): Again - it's a suggestion - they use the word Should again. Understand that I am not disagreeing that its a really good idea for Scout units not to post Scout's last names - Just let's not say that the BSA has created rules and requirements that Units must follow when they haven't.

There is no official prohibition. It is a suggestion - whether you follow it is up to the unit and parents.

And that is really the whole bone of contention in a nutshell - the idea that someone who is transgendered really isn't transgendered just because they say they are. There is a divide between the people who believe that - who believe that what is typed into someone's birth certificate is the way it is, the way it should be, the way it always will be - that it is an immutable fact and the people who believe that what a person feels and says they are should be accepted and valued - that it is not our place to judge. When I became a Cub Scout, no one demanded that my parents produce a birth certificate to prove I was a boy - they took my parent's word for it. I firmly believe that Joe's parents should be given the exact same respect my parent's received when I joined up. Joe's parents say their son is a boy, then he's a boy. As for the birth certificate? I don't really care what it says. It's a piece of paper - it is JUST a piece of paper - IT IS NOT THE PERSON (all caps for emphasis). I'm not providing services to a piece of paper, I'm providing services to a person. I'm not interacting with a piece of paper - I'm interacting with a person.

Reuters got that impression from an interview with a spokeswoman for the BSA - they didn't get it from any documentation that the BSA has - at least none that any of us has seen.

In your state, it was once illegal to sell margarine - and I'm surprised it's legal to sell butter produced in other states. Can Wild Alaskan Salmon be a product of China? Sure it can, if the fish was caught in Alaska, lightly processed (read gutted), frozen and then shipped to China for canning.

New Jersey's laws against discrimination are abhorent? Care to explain that?

Qwazse - I was indeed responding to Ranman 328. I would have quoted him but ever since I "upgraded" my Internet Explorer on my home computer, the quote function, the post function (I have to go in to more reply options to post), and the ability to make proper paragraphs has gone poof (when you see posts from me properly formated and quoted, I'm using a different computer.

OK...Bye...Se Ya....So Long...Au Revoir....Bye Bye...Adios

Something else you should do that's not really programming related. From what you wrote, it appears the Cubmaster has control of the finances. That should be a Committee/Treasurer responsibility - I'd suggest that you give that responsibility to the Committee.

The SpiralScouts apparently did respond to the Boy Scouts of America and the BSA never responded. The word Scout does apparently have trademark protection despite it's generic-ness, based on Wrenn vs. Boys Scouts of America I'm guessing - and this is only a guess - that the BSA might have backed off because the SpiralScouts is a mission of a specific church and not an association of churches so there might be some 1st Amendment issues at play that the BSA didn't want to get entangled with.

Where is the adventure? It is wherever you left it. Blaming National and it's rules and it's attempts to keep the organization alive by adapting to the times and to the attitudes of todays youth and parents is easy and we seem to do it all the time. I'm going to be bold here and say none of it is National's fault. None of it. Let me repeat that - None of it. National, Region, Council, District - they aren't leading the boys. Volunteers in Troops, Packs, Crews are. Is your unit providing adventure? If not, why not? Because National has all these rules? Let me be blunt - National does not have these rules to protect you, the chartered organization or for that matter the boys. It may appear that way but the reality is National has all these rules to protect the corporation and it's sub-corporations (Council). They help to provide a layer of protection against lawsuits and insurance claims - and that's it. If you're on an outing and you failed to follow the Safe Swim Defense rules and a Scout dies - National can point to their rules and show that people in the Unit were trained (why do you think they're doing online training on these things, and requiring all chartered volunteers to complete it if not to be able to pull up those records as evidence that the Unit Leaders were aware of these rules) and say that National/Council is not at fault and that the fault lies with the unit and the volunteers (and to the Chartered Organization who chose and approved of the leaders). These rules aren't created out of a vacuum - they come from something - and that's often going to be some lawsuit or insurance claim that landed in National's lap. National didn't just decide one day that 13 year old boys couldn't use a power drill - someone, somewhere down the line was using a power drill, got hurt and the parents sued. No one is being 100% compliant with the rules - most likely not purposefully, but we all know units that will ignore a rule they don't like and do a work-around to do an activity that is banned - calling a Troop just a bunch of friends getting together on their own to play laser tag with the Scoutmaster and ASM's is one of those things. We probably all know a unit that doesn't even bother with a work-around and will just blatantly ignore rules they disagree with. The thing is, even diligently following the rules, there is still plenty of adventure out there, but that's for the units to provide. National and Council provide some of the tools, but they aren't going to handhold you through everything. If there isn't adventure in your unit then you need to look at your unit. Yes, a Troop should be boy-led but we as adults in the unit have to start being a better resource. Telling the PLC to go research and come up with the program themselves isn't the best way to ensure that adventure abounds in the unit - but having the adults plan it all isn't the best way either. The best way is for the Scouts and the Adult Leaders to work together to create that program - the Boys decide but you get to advise and in some cases consent (it doesn't do the Boys any good to plan a weekend camping trip to a cave 150 miles from home if there aren't enough adults around willing to provide the transportation and help with the logistics). Don't just let the Scouts loose on the internet to research camps and campsites - I know folks like to claim that their 13 year olds are better at technology that they are but the fact is, that 13 year old still is learning about things like researching and critical thinking. Anyone can type in "campgrounds near your town" in a search engine but sorting through the information takes some skill, which comes with experience. Anyone who has ever done a research paper in high school then does a couple of research papers in college will tell you how little they actually learned in high school on how to research - and any one that has a Master's will tell you they didn't really know anything about researching until then - and we expect our 13 year old boys to be good at it? This is where we as adults come in to play - we help them research (not by doing it for them but by guiding them through the process - and I'll bet that is most of the successful boy-led units out there, some adult had already done a lot of research into camps, etc. - not to hand it to the boys but to know what the Scouts could expect to see) and we help them think outside the box - we guide them through the brainstorming process - sure, the SPL may be at the front of the room leading the session, but an occasional nudge from the SM or ASM in the meeting can go far. An out of the blue "do you think anyone might be interested in a weekend canoe trip?" can help get those creative juices flowing. If your unit is truly adventurous, then it should be really easy to recruit - if your Scouts aren't successfully recruiting, maybe its time to look at the program your offering. Summing up - Stop blaming National for the shortcomings in your programming. Instead of looking at these rules as things you can't do - try to see the things you can do - and there are an awful lot. Oh - and Summit and Seabase isn't High Adventure? Check your adult bias - to a 14 year old boy from Iowa, a week at Seabase will be a high adventure. To a 15 year old boy from Kansas, a week at Summit learning whitewater kayaking will be a high adventure. <mic drop>