CalicoPenn

Be subversive yourself - in a positive way by making yourself visible to the members of the Pack. How? Here's a suggestion - in October, at the end of their Pack meeting, and without announcing it to anyone in the Pack (make it a surprise), have your Troop set up outside between the building and the parking lot to hand out Dutch Oven Cobbler to all. Give recruiting information about the Troop directly to the Webelos and their parents. That's your Troop meeting plan for the night - while they're inside, you're outside prepping and cooking cobbler in the parking lot. When you contact the DE, don't complain that the Pack is being uncooperative, just ask him for the mailing address of all of the Webelos in the Pack and then mail them a packet of information about the Troop - include in that packet a short description about the means and methods of Boy Scouts so that the parents can understand why the Troop is more Boy-led and less Adult-led. If your budget can handle it, follow up by mailing all the Webelos on the list a Boy Scout Handbook as a holiday present in December, with a big Compliments of Troop XXX sticker on the inside cover or fly page (don't call it a Christmas present unless you know that ALL of the Webelos are Christians). As the year progresses, come up with ways to make sure you're always visible to the members of the Pack - on nights when the Pack is meeting, don't squirrel yourselves away in a room somewhere - try to figure out excuses to just happen to be outside when the Pack is leaving for the night - running an orienteering course, running tent set up relay races, try to do things that are Scout related rather than just an extended recess where the Scouts just toss a ball around. You want the Cub Scouts to be looking over and seeing how much fun is being had and the parents looking over and seeing how much learning is being done. You have to market the Troop a bit - be creative and have fun doing it.

Is it wrong? If the Lodge has no problem with people bugging out at 10:30 after all the ceremonies are complete, then no, it isn't wrong. Even back when I was a Lodge officer (3mu0mble some odd years ago), we had people bugging out on Saturday nights after the ceremonies - and not just the LDS folks because folks just have lots of stuff on their plates, especially in fall and spring. Frankly, most of us are lucky we can get the Scouts to commit to one weekend outing a month in Fall and Spring - especially older Scouts of high school age. That being said, it is disappointing, especially if the only reason to leave early is "just because". Some of my finest Scouting memories involve hanging out with other OA members after the ceremonies either watching the ceremony fires burn down or at our own campfires, with no agenda, no pressure to perform, just relaxing and "chilling", then sleeping in late on Sunday and wandering over to the mess tent for come as you are breakfast, with the kitchen open for 3 hours for "breakfast anytime" with cook to order eggs, omelettes and pancakes (Breakfast started at 7:30 with last call at 10:30).

In general, a Den Chief is an older Boy Scout - most SM's will put that at age 13 but will consider a 12 year old who has shown he has transcended the Cub Scout program and is firmly following the Boy Scout model. An 11 year old in the first year program is probably a bit too close to being a Cub Scout to be an effective Den Chief (and frankly, IMHO, the first year program is more like the old Webelos program which used to prepare Cub Scouts to transition into Boy Scouts - now the Webelos Program is 2 seasons, and both dedicated to earning rank or the Arrow of Light instead of letting those come naturally as part of the transition - but maybe that's a rant for another time). A little history - When Cub Scouts was first created, there were no adult Den Leaders (fka Den Mothers and Webelos Den Leaders) - the people who led the Dens, with no interference from adults other than the Cubmaster, were older Boy Scouts given the title Den Chief. Eventually the Cub Scout program changed to put "Den Mothers" in charge of Dens with Den Chiefs acting as assistants. To become a Den Chief, a Scout approaches their SPL (in some Troops, they may have delegated that to the ASPL, but that's not all that common) and Scoutmaster. Both need to select the Scout to the position (one of only 2 positions that the Scoutmaster must give affirmative consent for the SPL appointment to hold - the other is Jr. Assistant Scoutmaster). Once the SPL and Scoutmaster approves, the Cubmaster for the Pack and the Pack Committee needs to approve and recommend the Scout for a Den - the Den Leader may accept the recommendation and the Den Chief or may turn him down. Sounds complicated but don't fret - what usually happens is a Cubmaster or Den Leader asks a boy (often the brother of a Cub Scout) to be a Den Chief for one of their Dens and then they get approval from the Troop, often while the Scout is acting as a de-facto Den Chief without official title. If he does become a Den Chief, he should do so for the right reasons - yes,he can use it for POR but if that's the only reason he's doing so, then it's probably not right for him. It's a bigger committment - he'll be attending more meetings and needs to be prepared - if he's really interested, have his ask the Scoutmaster to get him into training (a lot of Councils and Districts start offering Den Chief Training right about now). He should commit to at least one full year - it's not fair to the Cub Scouts in his den for him to do 4 months and then leave. If he loves it, he may be a Den Chief for the rest of his time in Scouts - I was a Den Chief from age 12 to the time I aged out, I earned the Den Chief Service Award, and I used the POR for Life and Eagle Scout. For those who wonder about where leadership comes in, it depends on the Troop culture. My Troop embraced the Den Chief program - it's a great recruiting tool. My last two years, my Troop considered me a "Senior Den Chief" and part of my duties included training and mentoring new Den Chiefs - both the ones from my Troop and the ones in the Pack I served from other Troops.

So many things come to mind as to why this is a bad idea (If a Wood Badge instructor was promoting this they should be stripped of their beads in public though I'm guessing it was an idea someone attneding Wood Badge brought up since it's not generally something taught in Wood Badge). First, who is their SPL? The 14 year old Life Scout? Do you think they'll take direction from him? A rather good size portion of parents couldn't camp their way out of a Holiday Inn, who is going to take the time to teach them the skills needed to serve as an "example" to the boys? My quick answer to the idea is this: "It's the BOY Scouts of America - it is NOT the Parent Scouts of America". If parents want to observe, they stand in the back of the room or hang out in the "adult" camp - if they want to wear a uniform, they become Scoutmasters and Assistant Scoutmasters - and they get properly trained. If the Parents want to play at being Boy Scouts, let them go out camping and hiking on their own, on separate trips, to different places.

The very first thing I would do is eliminate the "PLC Disciplinary Hearings" - they have no place in Scouting - We may want units to be more boy led but that does NOT allow the adults (ie - Scoutmaster - ie YOU) to abrogate their responsibility to handle any disciplinary duties. For minor issues like a Scout not washing the dishes when it's his turn, or not getting up in time to serve as dining hall steward, you can leave those to the PL and SPL (and again, not a whole committe of Scouts) and support the PL and SPL in handling it. You, as Scoutmaster, step in when there are more serious issues and you pull the committee in when the issue could lead to suspension/expulsion. There are no trials - you sit down with the boy and discuss the issue and determine an appropriate pennance (and if you're wise, you'll get input from the lad himself what would be appropriate). If it's something that requires a call to a parent, you contact the parent asap then sit down with both to discuss the issue. If you think the issue is serious enough to warrant suspension or expulsion, you contact the CC and let him sit in on the discussion as well. My Troop allowed the SM and the CC together to suspend a lad with no further review from the committee. Only expulsions required the agreement of the committee and the COR. The next thing I would do is not to use the BOR to deal with my disciplinary issues - the District Advancement Chair did not do anything but provide advice and that advice was sound - if you felt the disciplinary issues were serious enough to delay advancement, then you should have postponed the SM Conference and the BOR - that is not adding to the requirements - but the BOR delaying a decision until the Scout completes something that is not part of the requirements for rank (and none of the BS about "Scout Spirit" of "Living the Oath" - a one time skills demonstration should not be considered sufficient to restore someone in good graces as far as those go) could be considered adding to the requirements. The third thing I would do is stop keeping score on disciplinary issues - heck, after a full week of summer camp, most Scouts will have a disciplinary issue or two under their belt by the end of the week - you deal with them and move on - humans are flawed, scouts are humans, therefore scouts are flawed - they'll never be perfect but if they're generally living up to the spirit of Scouting, even with their flaws, then they are still worthy - it sounds to me like you ASM might just have put the right perspective on the issues as a whole and gotten it right. Time to stand up for that ASM and that Scout.

I think there is more than just one reason for that thinking. Some off the top of my head are - Unit Leaders that don't know what a Unit Commissioner is, what they're supposed to do and how they can help their units; Unit Leaders who have had bad experiences with Unit Commissioners that don't know the limits of their own role; Unit Commissioners stretched too thin trying to service more units than possible due to a lack of volunteers; Unit Commissioners too busy with other roles in their own units to be able to find the time to serve the units they are assigned.

From the NPS Website: Who is required to obtain a permit: Any organized, non-commercial, group conducting rim-to-rim and extended day hiking and running, including rim-to-river-to-rim, and rim-to-rim-to-rim that are operating in the inner canyon. The inner canyon is defined as the area below the Tonto Platform (Tipoff and Indian Garden) from the South Rim and below Manzanita Resthouse (Pumphouse Residence) from the North Rim. Groups including, non-profits, schools, church groups, scouts, clubs, and other similar organizations will be required to obtain an SUP for their activity. Any group, regardless of size, which has advertised to the general public, required individuals to sign up prior to participation, or that has an organizer who has been compensated for their services (including subsidized participation in the activity), are required to operate under an SUP. Non-profit organizations are prohibited from deriving taxable income under this permit. Any individual who has been compensated, including subsidized participation, must prove 501©(3) status. You may call the Permit Coordinator to determine if a special use permit is needed for your activity. Commercial operations are not authorized under an SUP. What will be required with the SUP? An application fee of $175 The group must provide a certificate of insurance for general liability in the amount of $300,000 with the United States Government listed as additionally insured. Group size is limited to 30 individuals, including all organizers and trip leaders. The permittee and its' organization (club, non-profit, group, etc.) is allowed to obtain one permit per day. All groups will maintain a ratio of no less than 1 trip leader with certification in Wilderness First Responder (WFR) or Emergency Medical Responder (EMR) and CPR for 1-7 participants or 2 trip leaders with certification in Wilderness First Responder (WFR) or Emergency Medical Responder (EMR) and CPR for larger groups. All non-profits applying to operate under an SUP must provide proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code Any individual who has been compensated, including subsidized participation, must prove 501©(3) status Non-profits are prohibited from making taxable income under an SUP

... between a Scout and his conscience

National has provided guidance to Councils to refrain from holding Council and/or District events on Christmas, Easter, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and provides Councils with a calendar of other religious holidays suggesting they take those into account as well. Many Councils have codified those into Council-wide planning policies applying to Council and District events. They key words here are that they apply to Council and District events - they do NOT apply to unit outings and for good reason - since many of the units are sponsored by religious organizations, telling a unit sponsored by a Catholic Church that it cannot hold an event on Yom Kippur or telling a unit sponsored by a Jewish Synagogue that it cannot hold an event on Christmas could be seen as the Boy Scouts telling religious organizations that they have to celerate other religious organizations holidays as well - clearly interfering in the sponsoring organizations relationship with their units. If the Cub event you are hosting is actually a District activity (and there are Districts where units might plan and host District activities) then you'll have to follow the guidance provided and make sure that when the planning calendar is set up, the event not fall on one of those dates. If, however, the Cub event is something your unit does for itself and invites other units along, without receiving any support from District, then tell the DE it is not a District event, it is a Pack event and not subject to the guidance from Council - and you will continue to operate it on the first weekend of October, and will continue to invite other units to come if they wish unless s/he provides you with a signed letter from the SE stating that the BSA is dictating to your unit what religious events they must honor.

I take it by your description that by Conclave, you mean a work weekend combined with Ordeal and Brotherhood (and possibly Vigil) ceremonies. I've always thought of Conclave as a place for training and sharing ideas which generally does not have a service project component. Either way, I'd call it absurd. The value of the amount of work done in a single work weekend at camp should be more than enough to justify waiving the fees. I wonder if the Council camping committee and/or executive board, knows about this policy and has agreed to it. Maybe this new Council is just so large now that the professionals can institute new fees and policies without the Exec Board even knowing anything about it. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anything that said that OA work weekends had to be done on Scout Camps - if it were my Lodge, there is a really good chance that we would be holding our next work weekend at the nearest State Park with a camping area.

"Hi - I've called and left a couple of messages about making a $150,000 donation from my father's estate at his request but apparently you don't need the money since no one called me back - I'll contact the Girl Scouts instead" I wonder how much time they would spend frantically searching through their voice mail after that message.

California currently doesn't have a BSA specialty plate though legislation for one was put into play in the late 1990's. The hold-up at the time was a Senate transportation committee agreement on a moratorium on any new specialty plates beyond the few they had at the time while an investigation was done to determine if having multiple kinds of plates would be bad for traffic safety. By the time the research was completed, the State was being sued by supporters of an anti-abortion license plate for content discrimination so the State continued their moratorium until after the lawsuit was decided. The State lost the lawsuit then passed a new law authorizing special plates only for state agencies or governmental agendas while grandfathering those already in existence, which appears to reslove the issues the Court has with the original moratoriums. For instance, one of the the latest authorized plate - a Snoopy plate - benefits museums in California through the California Cultural and Historical Endowment, a state agency. Since the State is not deciding that private group A can have a plate but private group B can't, then there is no content discrimination. So alas, there is no BSA license plate - and probably won't be for a long time to come. Oh - and the anti-abortion group may have won the court battle but they lost the license plate war - California still does not have one.

If the Friends of Tibet or Bowlers can get license plates in Virgina, surely the Boy Scouts can

Make it cyrstal clear to all involved that this is not a Scout event - make it crystal clear to all involved that the lads are not volunteering as Boy Scouts - they are volunteering to help their friend. Make it crystal clear that the lads are NOT to wear their uniforms or any part of it. Make it crystal clear to the boys that they will not earn credit towards service project hours for helping out. Make it crystal clear to the boys and their parents that no one is required to attend and no one will be making note of who came and who didn't (other than the 14 year olds parents who may want to send they lads a thank you note) and it's no harm no foul if parents feel uncomfortable about alcohol being served and would rather their sons not participate. Make it crystal clear that parents and siblings and other friends (if old enough) are welcome to come help out. While at first glance, Stosh's suggestion of a scout t-shirt seems reasonable, I think I'd suggest that the lads wear something a bit nicer than a t-shirt - a casual button down shirt or polo would be more appropriate. Lastly, make it crystal clear to the District Executive that it is not a Scout event, that the boys are not volunteering as Boy Scouts but as friends who happen to be Boy Scouts of a friend in need who happens to be a Boy Scout in their Troop, that they will not be wearing the Boy Scout uniform, that they will not be getting any credit towards Boy Scout ranks and to either come by and volunteer and/or donate to the cause or to shut up and mind their own business.

Many states have BSA license plates. Some are generic BSA, like Iowa. Some are just for Eagle Scouts, like Illinois. Missouri may be the only state with an OA plate. Some states have plates for Girl Scouts. The earliest example of a BSA specific license plate I can find (and one that proves specialty plates have existed much earlier than most people think) is a Boy Scout Valley Forge Jamboree plate from 1957 issued by the State of Michigan. Yeah - I've become a license plate geek - I'm a birder with a pretty hefty life list and with the proliferation of specialty plates out there now, I've started to keep a "life list" of all the plates I've seen on the road. At one time, Illinois issued more specialty plates than any other state, and as far as I know, they may still do so - mostly because Illinois, on top of the permanent specialty plates, issues about 400 different special event plates per year - temporary license plates that are usually good for a couple of months around special events and used as fundraisers for those events - for instance Superman Days in Metropolis, or the DuQoin State Fair, or any other of a number of events.

$20K for the OIG to investigate and probably another $20K for Customs to investigate without any coorperation from the accusers. Oh well, it could be worse - at least the Scouts didn't set a forest on fire.

Admittedly, the elected official that Perry targeted does not make a sympathetic figure - I don't think anyone would disagree that she should have been pressured to resign. The issue, though, is in the way the pressure was made - the veto threat. The question becomes does the Governors constitutional right to veto legislation give the Governor free reign to use the veto to pressure or punish political enemies. Do we, as voters, want our Governors to be able to override our electoral wishes by vetoing legislation needed for our counties or municipalities unless the sheriff or mayor or county executive or representative or senator that has done nothing wrong but s/he just doesn't like resigns? At what point does the exercise of veto power become abuse of that power? That's the core of this messy case - and it isn't an easy answer.

If Governor Perry had simply vetoed the funds and said this at the time, there would be no case. The issue is that before he vetoed the funding, he turned his veto threat into a potentially illegal quid-pro-quo by telling her to resign or he would veto the funds. He made a rash threat that may have crossed a line to abuse of his powers as governor - it's one thing to pressure an elected official to resign - it's quite another to set conditions in an attempt to force an elected official to resign. By telling her to resign or the funds would be vetoed, he essentially said he would release the funds if she resigned. The biggest defense Perry might have is that he wasn't after personal gain and thought he was doing what was right for the people of that district.

Folks seem to have missed something in the list of committee responsibilities that Tahawk thoughtfully provided as they're tearing apart the Committe Chairman for "interfering": "Obtains, maintains, and properly cares for troop property." Yeah - that's right - part of the job of the Troop Committee is to obtain, maintain and properly care for troop property - I'd call troop-owned tents "troop property", wouldn't you? Now, in general, most Troops have a lad in a POR known as Quartermaster who maintains the troop equipement and makes sure they are properly cared for. In many Troops, the QM works with either an ASM or (more properly) a member of the committee who takes on the responsibility to make sure that the committees role in obtaining, maintaining and properly caring for troop property is met. But in many Troops, the committee may just delegate the roles to "program" while creating or helping to create policies on maintenance, care and usage. Yes, usage too since usage actually affects maintenance and care, doesn't it? Evilleramsfan - I'm afraid you're coming at this the wrong way - especially as you've mentioned that the CO is a good buddy of yours and that you seem to view this as yet another battle to be won. Sure, the proposed policy seems to be a bit much - if anything, it's a bit too extensive, trying to think of every possible issue - but it's a draft that can be reworked down to something a bit simpler that still gets the point across. Most troops have at lease a minimal policy of the "you break it, you replace it" variety - that's not for accidental damage, it's for deliberate or negligent damage - at the very least, you want a policy that states that Scouts using a troop tent is responsible for it. If a tent pole shatters through no fault of their own, then the troop replaces it - but the lads need to inform the troop, not just pack it up and return it to the quartermaster - but if they're playing star wars light sabers with the poles and break them, then yeah, they need to replace them. If a lad just packs up a wet tent and returns it without properly drying it, then yes, they should be responsible for replacement. Nothing wrong with a written policy from the committee, who is, after all, ultimately responsible for obtaining, maintaining and properly caring for troop property, that outlines that and makes it clear to parents and scouts. I see nothing wrong with a policy stating the occupancy of a tent though I would probably word it something like "No more people than the stated occupancy level of a tent may share a tent" In other words, if you buy a three-person tent, no more than 3 people can stay in it overnight. One would think that is common sense, but then again, common sense isn't that common anymore. If the Committee wants to adopt a policy providing for minimum space per person per tent, I see nothing wrong with that since it should properly be used to help the committee purchase tents or review tent suggestions from the lads, if you get them involved in researching tents. If you have a troop of 30 people, it would help the committee know if they have enough tents for that number of Scouts - and if they have just the right amount and gain 10 more people from crossover, it signals that its time to buy some more tentage - what's wrong with that? But again - simplify it - ie "It is the policy of this Troop that we provide a minumum of XX sq. ft. per boy in a tent. Of course, you could argue that if they limit users in a tent by the stated occupancy of a partcular tent, then this would be superfluous. In these times, it also makes a lot of sense to have disclaimers about troop tents - there are too many parents nowadays that will start screaming because Johnnies sleeping bag got wet because the tent leaked. Take a closer look at some of his responses. I particular agree with him on this: "At some level, I am personally offended that boys, who are reluctant to camp without their parents are elected into the order of the arrow, a camping society. What message does this really send?" He's right, don't you agree? In fact, his entire response is reasonable and thoughtful and pretty much captures what Scouting should be about. It is the Boy Scouts of America - it is not the Boy and Parent Camping Club of America. It seems to me he's got a good handle on what Scouting should be. When I was a Scoutmaster, I would have given my left arm to have a Committee Chair like this one. If you can't see that in him, if you can't work with him, then maybe its time for you to ponder and reflect and think about your own role.

So you really can't think of a national security reason, any reason at all, why it might not be a good idea to post videos of border crossings in action or videos/photos of the customs agents working those borders. I'm willing to accept the Scout Executive as proxy in viewing the videos - and it seems he is backing up what the investigators have said about the incident. Fox says the 13 seconds when the agent was off screen must have been when he pulled the gun - I have a couple of issues with that - the first is since he didn't witness it, how can he possibly identify the agent that was off screen as the agent that allegedly pointed the gun? The only people that can identify the agent have refused to cooperate based on Fox's advice. The second is that the reporting seems to indicate that everyone was in view of at least one camera 100% of the time during the time period except one agent - wouldn't the video indicate that those two Scouts were looking at someone offscreen as they were raising their hands or doing whatever it is someone does when a gun is pointed at them? I don't see anyone making that claim about the videos. So the Scouts refused to talk to the investigators about their claims on the advice of their Scoutmaster - do you think those Scouts will remember their Scoutmaster and the advice he gave them the next time they cross an international border and are stopped for extra scrutiny on the way back in because their name has appeared on the warning list? With no cooperation from the accusers, do we really need the official IG report to know what's going to be said? Is there any doubt that the report will come back with a "claim unsubstantiated" ruling specifically stating that the accusers were uncooperative and likely were lying about the incident? Fox may believe everything he is saying but if I were the Scout Exec, Fox would no longer be a member of the BSA, not because he still insists that the story is as he believes it to be, but because his advising two Scouts not to cooperate with an investigation into their own allegations shows he is not the kind of role model that should be part of Scouting.

1) What's your role with the troop 2) Have any of the boys complained 3) Are you sure you're seeing what you think you're seeing 4) Are you prepared to deal with the backlash if you're wrong, or if the parents react badly?

It's unlikely we'll hear anything more about this unless someone decides to sue. The Council likely wants it to go away, the Media likely feel that they've been hoodwinked by the Scoutmaster, the Border Patrol likely convinced the local Congresscritter that the videos are conclusive enough that the story doesn't hold water in an election year, and the Congresscritter likely doesn't want to go out on the limb the Scoutmaster is on given the apparent public sentiment (based, admittedly, on the comments section of the media stories) that something doesn't smell right about the Scout's stories in an election year. Plus, the Iowa State Fair has just started so there are a lot of stories to tell about butter queens, butter cows, real cows, food on sticks and other fair news.

Thanks for posting the link to USAToday article. Seems like the SM is heading to the deep end without a floatation device. 4 videos from different angles aren't enough? Odd - but when coupled with his statement that he would not allow the suddenly TWO Scouts to talk to the federal investigators - it just makes him look bad. He's not going to have a choice in the matter. Sounds like the SE has the right idea. As for the ACLU's "100 mile map". The nearest international border to Chicago is Detroit - about 300 miles away. Lake Michigan is not a coastal area and does not touch another country at any point (unless you call Michigan another country).

I wrote this last night before your update (and the system glitched and wouldn't post it) - nothing about your update changes my mind: Two things jump right out at me - and if this was a lad working towards Eagle and was getting his BOR on a disputed basis over this and I were on the BOR, I suspect they might tick me over to the Scout's side. The first is your admission that part of the reason for this Scout's "failure" to perform his duties is that the Troop hasn't given him much access to the Troop Trailer, which he needs access to in order to fulfil his duties. Yes, he's had the sports thing too - which I'll discuss in a bit - but you have admitted that the Troop has failed to give him access to the thing he needs to get access to in order to do his job. That's on you - not him. The second is the 75% rule - now it's probably ok to make a 75% participation rule for the positions, but those rules have to pass the reasonable test - are those rules reasonable? I could lean towards maybe if it weren't for one thing - you asked the ASPL to step down because he wouldn't be available this summer so wouldn't be able to participate in 75% of the activities. The kicker? He's unavailable because he's working at a Boy Scout Summer Camp. Want to know my first reaction when I read that? It was "Are You People INSANE??????" Want to know my second reaction? It was "Holy Boy Scout Batman, are those people insane?????" That pretty much ticks me over to the "That rule is not reasonable" column. When you are penalizing - and you are - a Scout for working at a Boy Scout Summer Camp by not letting him continue on in his POR, then you all need to step back and re-evaluate whether you've created these rules for the right reasons or whether you've done it just to play gatekeeper. My goodness, if you don't have an exception to the 75% rule for an ASPL working at a BOY SCOUT summer camp, then how can you possibly call that rule reasonable. Sure, the lad "agreed" but he probably felt he had no choice. You have now stopped or delayed advancement of 2 Scouts in your troop by your actions - one is borderline, and one is just far beyond the pale - who will you blame if they leave for greener pastures? And what will you do as the lads get older and have even more outside activities to attend (because by the time they're 14 and in high school, there are far more activities available to them) - how will you retain older scouts if they can no longer advance because they've decided to join football, or band, or theater? Just because you can pass a 75% rule, doesn't mean it's the smartest thing to do.