CalicoPenn

I read this much differently than some of your folks. The way I read this is that BORs were done at a recent camping trip, the lads were expecting to get their badges at the next COH but no one at the camp (whether it was the boys or the adults) remembered to tell the AC that Johnny and Bobby completed ranks, and when they didn't get the patches at the COH, their parents tag teamed the AC, who was not informed about the advancements and the SM/ASMs didn't "man up" and jump in to take the blame. I would have dumped the position immediately too, if that had happened - you can't expect someone to give of their time then expect them to take the heat for your mistakes - and it was an inadvertant mistake - but it wasn't the AC's mistake.

"Kind of like I used to think "oh, I can start worrying about whether I eat a healthy diet when I turn 40." As if, at 40, I would suddenly enjoy eating spinach instead of pizza! Ha!' Gee, I get the point and I almost hate to bring it up, but....there's rather some truth to at least part of this. Eating a healthy diet is important throughout life, but there is research out there showing that at about the age of 40, we suddenly start liking things we didn't like earlier - things like broccoli, spinach, carrots, turnips, brussels sprouts. And at about 40, we start to lose our desire to live on pizza all the time - we still enjoy pizza, we just start consuming less of it because our tastes have changed. " Standard question: "When are you going to start treating me like an adult?" Standard answer: "When you start acting like one." " My response would be to turn on the television, tune into one of those ubiquitous reality shows, like one of those courtroom shows, or one of those Kardashian things, point at it, face you, and smirk. But to answer Lisa's question - you can't convince kids of that, all you can do is lay the groundwork of the journey. We all see the world through the lens of our own experience - we can try to take lessons from other's experiences, but our own experiences will color whatever lessons are being taught. My best friend is turning 40 on Labor Day. 10 years ago, when I was 40 and he was 30, he'd shake his head when I would head home from a club at midnight while he stuck around to the 4am closing - I told him time and again "just wait until you're 40" but he never believed me. Now, he's starting to head home from the clubs at midnight and admitted that, yep, things really do change. So when will I be the person I want to be? The day I die. You see, with each new experience, each new trip, each passing day, the person I want to be changes. It changes because I'm still experiencing new things all the time. I think the basics are there, but I learned fairly early that regardless of the life you've mapped out for yourself at 18 or 20 or 22 (usually following a prents suggestion to have a plan - I know my father always told us to have a plan), life comes along to obliterate your plans. I know my plans didn't include caring for my parents for 13 years. I know my plans didn't include 3 bouts of cancer and a rare lung disease made even rarer by presenting as chronic. I know that these things have affected the way my life path has gone and the direction it's now taking, and I've learned that something can come along at anytime to change the path yet again so just hang on and enjoy the ride.

First, I'm not sure this is a rule, more of a suggestion to the group disguising itself as an order (since it came from one of the camp's "big cheeses". Second, I'm not sure how you would go about policing it - I'd expect that if a staffer was trying to enforce it a Scoutmaster would tell the staffer to back off. Third, I've got to give props to the Program Director - on a hot day, to suggest (order) a final toast of water at the close of a meal - and often, people think they've had enough fluids when they really haven't. Fourth, unless someone was already right at the very edge of hypnoatremia, I don't think another 6 ounce glass of water would do much harm, and the benefits likely will outweigh the risk. Fifth, 12 year olds decide to break rules all the time - for instance, there are rules to baseball, but when playing a pick-up game of baseball in the park with friends, they'll pick and choose which baseball rules they're going to use when they play baseball. Sixth, civil disobedience isn't climbing on a table and shouting that the rule is stupid and you aren't going to follow it - civil disobedience is sitting at the table, not drinking a cup of water. Seventh, my opinion is that a Scout is Obedient allows for civil disobedience, not following a rule if it will cause others harm, or if it conflicts with other rules. Eighth, had you decided that the order must be followed and the Scout refused, what would you do about it - is it something you would fall on your sword for when you, yourself, thought that maybe it wasn't necessary? As for your case of hypnoatremia, how was this diagnosed in the health lodge? Just curious since an accurate diagnosis requires a urinalysis and blood tests and the physical symptoms mimic a lot of other physical symptoms relating to heat related injuries, and I've see very few health lodges with the capability to do these kinds of tests.

Actually, I believe that WOSM used the same theme it had already announced for Iran - if you look around, you'll find official Iran World Jamboree items produced with the Iran World Jamboree logo using that theme.

Gosh darn it Beavah, I said I didn't want to learn this stuff

Ok Beavah, I'll go ahead and surrender on the parent thing - even though I agree with you that the situation in your example was abhorent, but by gosh, I just didn't understand that a Scoutmaster can override a Parent's wishes. I guess I'll just go ahead and contact all the Scoutmaster's I know and tell them that ole Uncle Beav has said that Scoutmasters don't have to listen to parents anymore - that when a parent tells the Scoutmaster their child is not to have peanut butter, the Scoutmaster can say Pfffftt, and ignore the parents wishes. After all, the Scoutmaster knows best, right? Hmm - I wonder how that will go down with the risk management folks. Yeah - enough sarcasm. If you can't understand that the ultimate decision maker for a Scout is Mom and Dad, then there's no sense trying to convince you otherwise.

Yeah, I think stepping down would have been my reaction as well. Sorry to hear of the abuse your wife was subjected to.

Welcome to the forums. I believe the theme for the cancelled 1979 World Jamboree was Join-in-Jamboree.

Can I ask what, exactly, was the purpose of asking him to attend 3 outings? Was it to provide leadership to a bunch of Scouts that he had never really interacted with before, and do you think had he been there, it would have made any difference? Or was it because you could ask him to do that? I'm not suggesting it was an unreasonable request - I am suggesting that maybe it would have been even more reasonable if there hadn't been so much time passing between fall 2009 and spring 2012. I can't help but think that request would actually have created more of a burden on everyone else, than on the Scout (not that he fulfilled the request anyway, or did he - stay tuned) since now you either have "dead weight" on the trips with you or you have younger Scouts wondering just why they should be following this guy. Who benefits by this Scout showing up for a few hours at a campout just to meet this 3 activity requirement? I can't think of anyone. When he was more active back in 2009, was it Troop policy that the SPL could sign of on POR's? If so, and the SPL had signed him off on the Life POR, then technically, he really didn't need to do another one and that he did should count as a bonus since the unit changed the rules on that one. Then there is this conundrum - would individualized active requirements be considered reasonable? I think we need to read beyond the paragraph heading for active test # 3 which reads: "The Scout meets the unit's reasonable expectations; or, if not, a lesser level of activity is explained." The rest of the paragraph reads: "If, for the time period required, a Scout or qualifying Venturer or Sea Scout meets those aspects of his unit's pre-established expectations that refer to a level of activity, then he is considered active and the requirement is met. Time counted as "active" need not be consecutive. A boy may piece together any times he has been active and still qualify." What jumps at me is the unit's "pre-established expectations". I think there are two possible ways to interpret this. One is that you meet with each individual Scout at BOR's or SM Conferences and develop an individualized plan, as you did with this Scout. I don't believe that this is the actual intent of this paragraph as it would allow abuses of the system - it would allow a SM to require a boy he doesn't like to attend double the activities of a boy he likes. I suppose it could also be argued that the meeting really didn't pre-establish any expectations - it added expectations in the middle of the process (and I would suggest that even if a Scout did nothing for the first 8 months after earning Life, meeting with him 8 months after earning Life is too late to "pre-establish" anything, let alone the time period we're talking here). Plus, it sounds like way too much work to have to keep track of. The other intent is for units to develop, and announce, a single set of expectations that everyone is to follow. I believe this is the true intent of the GTA. If we accept that this is the intent, that units develop and announce a single set of expectations, then sitting down with the Scout and agreeing to an individualized plan wasn't the right way to go about it. So then the question becomes, does your unit have a universal set of expectations that apply to all and if not, can you really ding a youth for not meeting an individualized set of expectations that doesn't meet the intent of the GTA definition of active in the first place? Next there is this conundrum. The GTA allows for alternatives to the third test of active (which is that the Scout meets the units reasonable expectations). He says he's been busy - he even points out an external program (HS Band) that supports that contention - things like HS sports and band are just the kinds of activities the BSA was referring to in the alternative test - he would likely meet the active test. Now here's the conundrum, if we accept that the intent of the third test is to allow for individualized active expectations, then we must also accept that the alternative to the third test still applies to those individualized expectatons, just as if were a set of universal expectations, which means that even if the Scout accepted the 3 activity threshold, the alternative test can still override that agreement. My opinion, based on accepting the latter interpretation, is he's met the BSA's expectation of active, by using the alternative third test, and he should have his paperwork signed.

A thought has occured to me - often in discussions like this, someone brings up the analogy that Scoutmasters are gatekeepers but I'm going to suggest a different analogy. Gatekeeper implies that the gate can be opened or can be shut. I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be keeping gates closed. I think a better analogy is Lock keeper. Common on canals and navigable rivers, lock keepers open and close locks to allow passage upstream or downstream. When the locks are closed, the lock keeper is preparing the lock to allow for smooth passage. When the way is prepared, they open the locks. I think the same applies here - the Scout goes to the Scoutmaster for a blue card - the lock is closed - the Scoutmaster prepares the way, talking to the Scout, recommending a MBC, signing a blue card and then send the Scout on his mission, opening the lock. If a lock keeper were to keep a lock closed permanently, it interupts the smooth flow of traffic on the canal or river, which is not the goal we want, is it?

Beavah, only someone who reads things in the funniest way sometimes could possibly accuse someone else of reading things in the funniest way (insert smiley - I don't know how to do it, and being a fifty year old tired of 50 years of being an early adopter of technology, I just really don't care to learn, either (yeah, I'm feeling a bit Luddite-ish lately)). "Scoutmasters are tryin' to do their best for the boys in their unit, eh? They're tryin' to find 'em good experiences with the right amount of challenge. They're tryin' to hook 'em up with da best counselors they can, so that they get da most out of the program." Yeah, I agree with that sentiment - but it doesn't require a Scoutmaster to "assign" a specific counselor to do so, does it? The Scoutmaster's recommendation handles this quite well. In 98% or more of the cases, the Scout is going to accept the Scoutmaster's recommendation anyway, wouldn't you think? The issue is in that 1-2% of the cases where the Scout ignores the Scoutmaster's recommendation and uses another registered merit badge counselor. Those Scoutmasters who have decided that they "assign" the MBC is much more likely to get upset and stressed than a Scoutmaster who understands that he has made a recommendation. Now one would hope that there would be some kind of interaction between the Scout and Scoutmaster over changing MBC's - but it's far more likely that an "assigner" rather than a "recommender" is going to take it as a personal affront and change the nature of what should be a friendly conversation into something accusatory. "7.0.0.2 It is the Scoutmaster's responsibility to see that a counselor is identified from those approved. The scout may have one in mind, or may want to take advantage of opportunities at Midways and such, but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve it if it is appropriate." Well now this just may be one of my funny ways of reading something but the way I read this is if a Scout has a different counselor in mind, and the counselor is a registered merit badge counselor, then it is appropriate for the Scoutmaster to approve using the Scout's MBC rather than the Scoutmaster's recommended counselor. Same with Merit Badge Midways - if the Scout wishes to attend, and the Midway is using registered MBC's, then it is appropriate for a Scoutmaster to approve. If the Midway is being staffed by people that aren't counselors, then it is not appropriate for the SM to approve. The Scoutmaster's approval in this case verifies that the counselor is a registered MBC. The Scoutmaster's approval of the lad to take the Merit Badge is a message to the MBC that the lad is a registered youth member of the Boy Scouts and has met with the Scoutmaster. It's no more than that. "Forget it, none of that matters, his parents can insist he take the badge with dad because da MBC the SM assigned is black?" Unfortunately, if Dad is a registered MBC for that badge, and the parents object to the SM's recommendation of a MBC, for any reason, you have really have no grounds to reject dad as the MBC. Yes, as abhorent as the reasoning in this example is, it doesn't matter - yours is not to judge the parents reasoning - heck, you don't even have to respect the parents reasoning, you just can't force the lad to use the MBC you prefered if the parents object - and since there is no policy that disallows parents from being a MBC for their own sons, provided they are a registered MBC, you can't really reject the parent. "Or "it doesn't matter that the SM knows the MB Midway First Aid badge has been taught poorly and in less than 2 hours by an old grump of a district person who no one wants to remove despite da complaints?" I really hate to disagree with you on this point because I think these midway things are a load of hogwash and should be abolished. I can also understand the objection that the counselor is short-sheeting it - but really, that's a risk with all of the merit badge counelors, isn't it? If a lad comes to you for Landscape Architecture Merit Badge and your list has one registered counselor that you've never worked with, you're taking a risk that the counselor is good at this, aren't you? I would hope that you aren't telling a boy he can't take that MB because you don't know the counselor. It's even still a risk choosing a counselor you've worked with in the past - you can have 3 years of great feedback from prior Scouts but maybe this is the month that the MBC got the news that his wife has cancer, or he's being laid off at the end of the year and the quality just drops. So the question for the midway is "is the counselor registered"? If so, then it's appropriate. And who knows, maybe this year the old grump has stepped aside for the young Paramedic who takes more time to do it. However, this is where the Scoutmaster's power of pursuasion comes in - this is when you have a long chat with the Scout and convince him that he won't learn anything or really get anything out of this event and should really consider taking it with an individual counselor who will give him much more time and detail. Outright dis-approving eliminates that conversation, and that chance to really help the Scout grow - and in the end , isn't that they goal that you keep trying to remind us of? That lofty mission and the CO goals you are always mentioning are well served by the processes that are in place - and are far better served by a lot of yes rather than a lot of no. The MBC process, for a very long time, has never been about giving the Scoutmaster the opportunity to say No - it's always been about giving the Scoutmaster the opportunity to say Yes - and how can I help.

OGE, Ever hear of false equivalency? Weiner texting his privates to a single person is not the equivalent of Akin going on a televised interview and using the term "legitimate rape". Yes, both are stupid things to do, but one was a personal transgression while the other one was a "gaffe" based on the persons actual position on an issue. Yep, lots of Republicans decried what Akin said, but a bunch of the far right members of the party came out backing him up. I don't recall anyone on the Democratic side going to CNN to support Weiner. Further, the issue Akin was talking about was not denounced by the GOP. They denounced the comment, but thats as far as they went. Akin was talking about his position on Abortion, which is no abortions, ever, not even for rape or incest. The "legitimate rape" comment is really more of a sidebar to the real statements - and our media, dumb as a box of rocks as always, got sidetracked by Jo-Jo, the Wolfboy, and missed the Flying Wallenda Brothers in the Center Ring, and the politicians they went to for comments were the ones they knew would validate their attraction to the shiny bling (and of course the media is too stupid to realize that they'll be glad to validate the media's idiocy in order to keep the focus away from the real issues). Akin may have said something really stupid, but the policy behind it, that abortion should be banned in all cases, no exceptions, even in the case of rape and incest, is the same policy that is supported by Paul Ryan (who was a working co-sponsor with Akin (as opposed to a person who jusrt signed it without doing any work on it) of just such a ban (and who also decried what Akin said) and is part of the latest GOP platform. That's the real story - but lets get distracted by the bling and pretend the rest of the GOP doesn't think the way Akin does.

Venividi, I will admit right up front that I took the wording from the Scoutmaster's handbook (which doesn't use the words assign, suggest or recommend) and combined it with the wording on the blue card (which specifically uses the word recommended), added two and two together and came up with four. Taken together, it's pretty clear what is to happen - the Scoutmaster, in handing the Scout the name of an MBC, is not assigning the MBC to the Scout - they are recommending (a synonym for suggesting) an MBC. The only place you'll ever find statements that MBC's are assigned (other than in forum discussons, of course) are on Troop websites - and they aren't official. Thinking about that, I have to wonder if UCs ever visit the web pages of the Troop they serve to see if there are some things they can gently correct - like this "assign" an MBC statement. As for the parent - I really don't think we need something in writing, in an official BSA policy statement, to understand that in the real world, the parents are the ultimate decision makers when it comes their sons and if a parent rejects a merit badge counselor for their son, that decision trumps any decisions by a Scoutmaster to "assign" a merit badge counselor. If you ask why, hopefully the parent will give you an answer - maybe they know something about the person that you don't but should - but if s/he looks at you and says "none of your business" - it really doesn't matter, does it? Maybe there's is just bad blood between them and they just want to leave it at that. The decision triggers one response - recommending another MBC. For that matter, maybe the parent knows that Mr. D from work is a registered MBC for that badge and the parents want their Scout to work with him - still a done deal.

Ok, Youngmaster, drop and give us 10 - we don't use language like that around here. Just imagine the havoc around here if everyone used the word "sorry".

The SM Handbook states: "The Scout obtains from his Scoutmaster a signed merit badge application and the name of a qualified counselor for that merit badge" and I believe the Boy Scout hanbook has similar verbiage. The Blue Card states I have discussed this merit badge with this Scout and recommended at least one merit badge counselor. Does anyone, anywhere, see the word "Assign" in either of those sentences. Unfortunately, too many Troop and Scoutmasters have decided that when a Scout obtains the name of a qualified counselor, that it means the Scoutmaster "assigns" the merit badge counselor. That's not what you are doing, you are just providing a suggestion from a list of people you know are already qualified. Ultimately, it's up the the Scout, and even more up to the Scout's parents, if he is going to work with that Merit Badge Counselor. As long as the Merit badge Counselor is registered, there is nothing you can do other than to award the merit badge and ask the Scout why they didn't end up using the counselor you recommended ("assigned"). You might learn there is a real good reason for the Scout not using them.

I'm not sure you can compare baseball, football and politics anymore. Baseball and football have rules.

3-ring binders? Are you a troop or a school? More importantly, what makes you think that just because they write something down in a notebook, they're going to remember the task anyway? That would require them to actually pick up the notebook between meetings and review what is in it. What is more likely going to happen is the lads will dutifully bring their notebook, write things down, take it home, then not pick it up, let alone open it, until the next meeting which pretty much negates the reason you want to have them bring notebooks anyway. A better way - the SPL/PL has a list of everyone's tasks - part of his job is to keep track so he follows up with the Scouts - let him communicate however works best - phone, text, e-mail stop in a school hallway. Who follows up with the SPL/PL? Why, the Scoutmaster, of course - a quick call or e-mail asking if things are on track, how is everyone doing with what needs to be done is usually enough to prod a SPL/PL into doing their follow-ups in case they forgot. (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

""There are Council and District events the Pack does not participate in. Recently I was talking to a few parents while at school and discovered the families are not being told of events." Why do the families have no clue about these events? "Therefore, they are not getting getting the opportunity to attend activities that the Pack is not directly involved in." Wow! Not only does that suck, but is very unprofessional of the CM and unscoutlike!" Why? Maybe because the Cubmaster and the Pack is under NO obligation to share that information with the families and they have decided that doing so will create bigger problems for them. While giving the parents all the information that is forwarded to you worked with you and your unit, that doesn't mean it's going to work with this Cubmaster and her unit, or for all other units. You have no idea what the dynamics are in her unit and here you are calling her unprofessional (which doesn't make any sense because she's a volunteer, not a professional) and unscoutlike. You don't know what kind of direction she's been given by the CO - you have no idea if the decision has been made by the CO, or by the leadership of the Pack, or by the Cubmaster, not to promote any activities that might be inaccessible to members of the Pack due to economics to prevent hard feelings among the members. Maybe $9 doesn't sound like a lot to you, but that can be a major expense for a family living on unemployment or part-time work. You don't have any idea if the Pack or the CO is providing minimal scholarships that pay for a Cubs registration so they can at least participate in this great program called Cub Scouts. Now let me repeat something here - the Pack is under NO obligation to share any details of any district or council events with their Pack. Yes, it would be nice if they did, but they don't have to. It's rather unscoutlike to call someone unscoutlike for not doing something they aren't required to do, don't you think? A good commissioner, who learns that district/council event information isn't being shared with the parents, even if those parents are "friends", talks to the Cubmaster FIRST before inviting people out to an event. That's when they might learn that the Pack didn't tell the parents about an event because the Pack has it's own event scheduled or that the Pack has a number of members struggling economically and that the Pack may have made the decision not to publicize to avoid problems at Den and Pack meetings (As adults, maybe we can understand that life isn't always fair but 8 year olds really have a hard time understanding why Johnny got to go to some fun thing and they didn't). If someone is telling you that they felt that $9 was way too much money for an event, that should be a pretty big clue that the leader is taking a lot more into consideration than what you know on the surface. If I recall, Basement's unit served an economically depressed area - I wouldn't blame Basement a lick for not publicizing district and council events that only some people in his Pack could afford and then kicking the hind end of a UC/DC that went around him and "invited" people to the events. I'm also going to say this - in some respects OP's Cubmaster may be a better leader than you were, Scoutfish. One of the hardest things we do as leaders is make decisions that affect other people, whether those people know it or not. This Cubmaster made a choice to not publicize certain events - for whatever reason. The DC just swooped in and, unintentional as it probably was, undermined the Cubmaster's leadership. When I was a Scoutmaster, I made those choices all the time - when I got home from Roundtables, I looked at all the information and chose which I would share with the committee, which I would share with the PLC and which I would just discard out of hand. I made those choices because I knew my unit and the people in my unit better than the people at Roundtable knew them. That's part of being a leader. You, on the other hand, made a choice NOT to make a decision. You avoided making those decisions by broadcasting everything out to the parents, whether it was part of your Pack's program or not. Its a different leadership choice - I wouldn't call it a bad choice but I have no hestitation in calling it a weak choice.

"So do you think it would be possible for humans to change the definition of, say, murder, to make gay murder legal?" Since humans defined what murder means in the first place, then yes, humans can re-define it as they see fit.

Want to know why the boys are bored and uninterested? The two reasons that immediately pop out to me are "being lectured to by the adults" and "exceeding the attention span of the lads". An hour for covering a topic? Maybe adults can sit still and pay attention that long (though I've yet to meet any adult who can really sit that long paying attention to one topic - next time you're at a meeting at work or are at church, or somewhere else where you are being talked at, see if you can tell how long it takes for the adults to start looking at watches, playing with their smart phones or other signs of "adult fidgeting". I can sit through a 2+ hour meeting but if the topics don't change after about 1/2 an hour, I'm done paying attention and am starting to think about my next vacation trip. I do have a few suggestions for you. One is to ask around your district to see which Troop has the best reputation for being boy led - then ask if you can bring your SPL and a PL and visit one of their regular meetings so you can observe. Then let the SPL and the PL take what they've learned back to the PLC and the unit and let them decide what to emulate and what not to. My next recommendation is to stop having the leaders call the meeting to order - that's the SPL's job, let him do it. Your job is to coach him to be able to call a meeting to order - I'm guessing the adults call the meeting to order because they assume that they can get the Scouts attention better than the SPL - but I guarantee you that if the SPL forewarns his Patrol Leaders that he will be calling the meeting to order from now on and that his method is going to be very simple - when he is ready to start the meeting he will quietly stand in position at the front of the meeting hall looking at the Patrol Leaders, without holding or hollering "signs up", the PL's will know to be on the lookout and will quickly gather their patrols into formation for the opening of the meeting. It will probably take more than a few meetings for the Scouts to understand the routine - don't give up after the first week or two just because the Scouts took 15 minutes to get themselves ready and organized - patience is going to be your biggest virtue here, and your second biggest virtue is going to be setting the tone for the other adult leaders who might see you "doing nothing" and decide to act on their own - you need to model and insist on patience from the rest of the adults too. The Scouts will get it and you'll be amazed if you let the process work. Your opening includes a flag ceremony, right? The SPL call out the Patrol responsible for that weeks flag ceremony and turns the meeting over to that PL. Once the flag ceremony is finished, the SPL takes back control of the meeting. For many Troops, now is the time for announcements from the Scoutmaster - upcoming events, reminders about permission slips, and instant recognitions for rank advancements. Try to keep it to 5 minutes - get in, state your piece, answer questions, and shut up. It's the SPL's show. You could do the announcements at the end of the meeting, but most lads that age will be far more likely to be paying attention at the biginning of the meeting than at the end. My next suggestion is that the adults all hang out in the back of the room and say nothing, or in the kitchen if they wish to talk amongst themselves. You know that old saying that children should be seen and not heard? In the Boy Scouts it should be Adults should be seen but not heard, unless they're asked to speak. Next suggestion - stop spending an hour on a single topic. Talking about merit badge or other advancement requirements? 20 minutes, tops. If you have a choice between a lad or an adult doing the "lecture/demonstration", choose the lad first - adults should take on topics only if there isn't a Scout who has already done the requirements and can do the teaching, or if it's a special guest adult. BTW, my exception to the 20 minute rule would be a special guest "lecturer" - if you bring in a canoe instructor to talk about canoes, canoeing and whatever else he can do on dry ground, then 35 minutes with 10 to 15 minutes for questons sounds about right. So where you once had an hour, your down to 20 minutes with 40 more minutes to fill - what happens now? My next suggestion - after the "lecture/demonstration" portion of the evening, the Scouts break up into Patrols to Try/Practice what was just talked about for about 20 minutes. If you're giving a demonstration on first aid skills, its time to give the Scouts a chance to try and practice the skills - under the watchful eye of the Instructor that gave the demonstration - he's there to answer questions and encourage the Scouts. Are you aware that Instructor is one of the Youth POR's, generally filled by older Scouts that have experience? What do you do if the "lecture" doesn't have any skills to practice? Then you practice other skills - those are good nights to do patrol competitions like knot relays or tent set-up races (if you have a place to use outside). So what's next? For many Troops, the next 20 minutes might be taken up by mini-patrol meetings - now's the chance for the Patrols to quietly go over plans for the next campout, or for the PL to get some feedback on what kinds of activities/topics the members want to talk about that he can take back to the PLC. Now we get to "shooting hoops". First, know there is nothing wrong with that. A lot of Troops set aside time during the meeting for the lads to go do something active - shooting hoops, football relays, hackeysack. But - 30 minutes? Have you noticed yet a pattern developing? I've been recommending 20 minute time blocks for the different activities and that's a hint. No more than 20 minutes for shooting hoops, and that includes putting the balls away. What's next? The SPL gathers the Scouts back into a circular formation. I suggest skipping a closing flag ceremony - it's really not neccessary after a short meeting like this - it's not a Cub Scout Pack where the closing flag ceremony really does put the period on the meeting. Boy Scouts have a different way of putting a period on the meeting. First up, a Scoutmaster's Minute. Know why it's called a Scoutmaster's minute? Because the Scoutmaster has a MINUTE (no more!) for his parables/stories/however you fill the minute. Lastly, the Scouts close with the Scout Benediction (the version I use: May the Great Scoutmaster, of all good Scouts, be with us until we meet again" followed by the SPL or Scoutmaster saying "Goodnight Scouts" - I like when the SPL and the Scoutmaster take turns saying that rather than one or the other dominating - it's a reminder to the Scouts that both are important leaders in the Troop). So let's break out the timing: SPL opens the meeting and opening flag ceremony - 3 1/2 minutes Scoutmaster makes announcements - 5 minutes "Lecture/Demonstration" - 20 minutes "Try/Practice" - 20 minutes "Mini-Patrol Meetings" - 20 minutes Physical Activity "Hoops" - 20 minutes Scoutmaster's Minute/Scout Benediction - 1 1/2 minutes Total time? Well how about that - 90 minutes - probably about as much time as you need to meet on a weekly basis. Of course there is set-up and take down but those are pre and post meeting activities not included in your official meeting time. Oh, and if extra time is taken up (for instance the SM accouncements go a little bit long, or the Scouts take too much time to get organized or in the patrol meetings, where does the time come from? I suggest from playing hoops. When the Scouts get 5 minutes to play hoops because they took 15 minutes to get in formation to start the meeting, they'll adjust really quickly. One last thing? Welcome to the Forum!

"Leadership lesson: You can never expect people to follow you unless you're already doing what they wanted to do anyway." BSA24 - despite the apparent cynicism, or maybe because of it, this might just be one of the best sentences on leadership I've ever read!

"Yes marriage is an inalienable right but the minority hasn't had any rights taken away at all. Those who identify as homosexuals can marry -- that is, homosexual men can marry women and homosexual women can marry men." What if we expand it to say that a person has an inalienable right to marry the person they love? How does this argument hold up then? There have been a couple of questions that have been consistently asked of the opponents of same-sex marriage that have never been answered except by reverting back to the original argument of "tradition and history" which doesn't actually answer the questions and only serves to divert attention - How does same sex marriage affect your marriage? How does calling it marriage affect your marriage? So I'll ask in this forum - how does same sex marriage or calling same sex marriage by the word marriage personally affect your marriage?

Questions for the group - is marriage an inalienable right. If it is an inalienable right, does a majority have a right to vote to take away an inalienable right from a minority? If it is not an inalienable right, then what is it?

And that's a shame because his heart was in the right place. Taking on district roles requires a new mode of thinking - and I think he'll get it. Unfortunately, I've seen way too many people take on district roles and think it means they outrank unit leaders, especially at the commissioner level (sorry, that's just my experience). I think I may have come across as harsh which wasn't my intention, and for that I apologize - but I stand by my advice - go apologize, stop trying to run other people's programs, and to add to it, everyone is going to run their own programs their way - it may not be your way, but that doesn't make it wrong for them.

I suspect we'll see the same statement from National that we always get - the "our policy is the policy but we don't enforce it unless there is a complaint and a unit/council saying they have a diffent policy buy it doesn't really conflict with out policy blah blah blah" speech and National will consider it closed unless there is a complaint that the unit actually has an "avowed" gay leader. I suspect the Council, after some gnashing of teeth in the lower echelons, will just ignore it altogether unless there is a complaint and even then, might not do more than a cursory investigation and then let it drop.