CalicoPenn

SR540Beaver - true, there is the footwear thing but the difference between Lundin and Rowe is that Lundin lives it every day. How about Neil Patrick Harris - then the conservatives would only be faced with heart attacks rather than stroking out over Takei or Foxx.

Cody Lundin

Yes, it can be done in bits, over a long period of time. Does that happen often? No. But there might be instances where it does. Scout may have been elected PL, serves 4 months, earns Star, then serves another 2 months as Star but isn't re-elected as PL and isn't selected by the SPL for another post until 2 months later - the two months of PL time counts but there might be a gap in PORs. Or, Scout serves 3 months as QM for Life rank, then gives up the POR because he's playing High School Football and doesn't want to leave the Troop without a functioning QM. After 3 1/2 months of football, he comes back and is appointed QM again. And yes, that means you could end up with something ridiculous - a Star serving one month as QM, then 2 months with no POR then 1 month as Librarian, then 1 month with no POR, etc. etc. The BSA could write a rule against something like that but that just leads to adults complicating things with interpretations that aren't meant by the BSA. Kind of like interpreting "A Scoutmaster signs a Blue Card" to add "unless the Scoutmaster says he can't to the rule "A Scout can work on ANY merit badge at ANY time and for as long as it takes him".

You've got three weeks - contact your UC now to see if he knows of any retired Scouters that might like a week of camp (your Troop will offer to pay his way, of course). That is a great idea you have - now follow up. Yes, your wife can be the second leader - register her now if she's not and use her as the back-up (of course, the Troop will pay her way, right?) - then plan a fabulous weekend away at a nearby spa/resort, either with you, or without you (her choice, of course). Do any of the boys going have an unemployed Uncle that could come, or a grandparent? Any college alumn of the Troop that might be available? You have lots of time without haveing LOTS of time - I think you could have a solution by the end of the week

"The GSS does not state the BSA swim test has to be administered in a designated swimming area. The area had a floating dock and was marked off for the depth and distance required to jump in over your head and swim the required distance. Under the Safe Swim Defense section, it actually states: Safe Swim Defense does not apply to boating or water activities such as waterskiing or swamped boat drills that are covered by Safety Afloat guidelines. " ALL swimming activities are to be done using Safe Swim Defense guidelines in all places: "BSA groups shall use Safe Swim Defense for all swimming activities. Adult leaders supervising a swimming activity must have completed Safe Swim Defense training within the previous two years. Safe Swim Defense standards apply at backyard, hotel, apartment, and public pools; at established waterfront swim areas such as beaches at state parks and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lakes; and at all temporary swimming areas such as a lake, river, or ocean." Swim tests are a swimming activity - common sense, and even uncommon sense, tells us that when someone is swimming, even if it's being tested, it's swimming and not boating. Swim tests, even as part of boating merit badges, are not a boating activity and are not covered under Safety Afloat. Heck, Safe Swim Defense rules even apply if you are wading in water over knee deep (and that's knee deep for the shortest person there, not knee deep for the SM). If you could run the swim tests, under Safe Swim Defense rules, off this floating platform, then you're good - but in the Scouts, like it or not, if you can't run safe swim defense off a floating platform in the middle of a pond, then the Scouts can't use the floating platform. Stupid? That's a discussion for another thread (and yes, it probably is stupid but that's the BSA risk management nannies for you).

Are you the Merit Badge Counselor? Then you have the discretion to accept swim tests held previously or to have them complete this as a separate, discrete requirement for the Canoeing Merit Badge. In a summer camp setting, the aquatics staff will generally accept the check-in swim test for a merit badge requirement so wouldn't make the Scout re-do the test. You don't need to give any explanations about not seeing them swim in cooler pond water (frankly, this is a bogus excuse - swimming in cooler pond water for 100 yards isn't all that much different - if anything will affect his ability to swim, it's the initial shock of jumping in cooler water, or swimming in cold water for a long period of time - now if this were a river and they were swimming with and against currents, you might have a better argument). You just tell the Scouts that as MBC, you interpret the requirement to mean that they need to pass this as a requirement of the merit badge, at the time they are doing the merit badge, just like all the other requirements, and that you aren't accepting swim tests done for other merit badges or summer camp check-ins. If the Scout wants to drop out of the merit badge at that point, it's his choice. That being said, a question for you. Does the pond where the merit badge is being worked on have a designated swimming area set up to BSA safe swim defense standards or are you creating one set up to standards? If not, how are you going to conduct your swimming tests in the pond? The pond may be appropriate for canoeing - make sure it's appropriate for swimming if your going to conduct the swim test on it - otherwise, head for the pool.

Does the Camping Merit Badge book explain what is meant by a "long-term camping experience"? Oftentimes, the definitions needed to intepret the requirements are in the body of the merit badge book itself. Someohow, I missed the part that said if the camp provides a tent that has already been pitched, you don't need to pitch your own tent so you should be ok there. The requirement you've got is not the latest - the latest requirement specifies that the long-term camping experience is up to six consecutive nights. Bart has mentioned the definition of resident camp - however, that definition is specific to the eligibility requirements for the Order of the Arrow - it might very well apply here, but there is nothing definitive to say that it does apply here, so it's pretty much left to the discretion of the MBC. If the MBC decides that 6 nights of camping on a Philmont Trek is a long-term camp, then it's a long-term camp - accept it, or find a new MBC.

Chemyst - welcome to the forums - as you can see, you'll get lots of different answers. Sometimes, they'll even differ from what National says when they're asked the same question and folks will still doggedly insist they're right even if what they say disagrees with National. My take follows National. A Scout may use one week of summer camp experience to help meet the requirements. If they intended the requirement to mean a Scout could use only summer camp camping experience to meet the requirement, they wouldn't include this clarification. Note that it is also written in such a manner that it doesn't require that one week be part of a summer camp experience - you may use one (and only one) week of summer camp, but you don't have to use any part of summer camp to meet the requirement. The requirement is also pretty specific that the Scout must sleep each night under the sky or in a tent that they have pitched. It's probable that most MBCs are pretty soft on this when it comes to summer camp, but the reality is an MBC could tell a Scout who camps in tents set up by the summer camp staff that the week doesn't count since the tent wasn't set up by the camper/Scout. (The way around that? Take the tents down, fold them up, the put them back up yourselves - our Troop did that routinely at Ma-Ka-Ja-Wan - partly to make sure any Scout who was working on Camping Merit Badge wouldn't be caught up with that technicality). Remember too that the requirement doesn't say "Camp a total of at least 20 days and 20 nights since starting this Merit Badge". Most MBC's are glad to count camping nights that took place before the Scout officially started working on the Merit Badge, as long as the nights could be verified and that it was a Scouting activity. Now for the esoteric - my interpretation of the requirement is that once you've used a week of long term camp to meet the requirement, no other nights at any other long term camp will count. You can't take credit for one week of summer camp then credit for 2 nights of NYLT long term camp then 2 nights of Philmont then 2 nights of next year's summer camp to build up the nights. Once you've used a long term camp, any other long term camp nights are now off limits.

Beavah, you're getting awfully cynical. Can you really believe presenting that petition wasn't effective? Sure, it may not have had an immediate effect of changing the policy, but it led to a meeting that has been described as productive and hopeful by the petitioners, it's gotten press, and here we are talking about it. I'd say that's a good start. I don't buy the online petitions being less valid than a paper petition that has been passed around or that people have stood in front of stores to get signatures. The argument against the online petitions (that people can sign it multiple times) is just as valid with a paper petition - the Sierra Club could stand outside 10 stores in my area and I could make a point to go to each of those stores to sign the petition. Unless the petition would lead to a candidacy or a referendum, no one validates these petitions whether online or not. And if it would lead to a referendum or candidacy, an online petition could be validated the same way as a paper petition (and with federal laws on the books allowing typewritten names to be counted as electronic signatures in some instances, I see no reason why an online petition couldn't be used for a candidacy or referendum drive). It's just not the same as an on-line poll - those are often voted on anonomously and are not equivalent to a phone poll - not that phone polls are any more accurate anyway.

I can't help but think that it would take a lot less time to make sure the policies and procedures are followed the way they are written that it does to try to justify why people can't or won't follow the policies and procedures.

"He's kind of like 'Boo the Boy Scouts'" I think the 7-year old said it all.

Well now hold up there a bit. We've now got a specific example: "For example I asked if we were ok with 2Deep for a recent PLC that I could not make and he never really answered. He has suggested that since the PLC starts with the SM & SPL, then the SPL with his leadership team and then a recap with the SM that the ASM is not really needed there. Not 100% sure if he is thinking of flying solo or will ask a parent to stick around." This would NOT, in and of itself, be a violation of GTSS or Youth Protection guidelines. Two deep leadership is specifically required for Trips and Outings. It is not required by the BSA for meetings, merit badge sessions, or gear clean-ups. Now the Troop may make it a policy that no Troop meetings, including PLC's, may occur if there are not at least 2 adults present - but that's not a BSA policy. As long as the adult is not left alone with an individual Scout, then a PLC meeting consisting of the SM, SPL and PLs, with no other adults, is well within the bounds of GTSS and Youth Protection. So in this case, the SM is correct - and you are not. There is no YP violation here - just a misreading of the policy by the ex-SM. "And when asked if a parent was with a Scout working on gear with SM at his house the answer was that he was "Around." I know the parent lives a mile down the road so took it that way for my example." So in other words you assumed the worst and didn't assume that by "around" he meant that dad was hanging out in a lawn chair on the patio. You know what the word assume breaks down to, right? Right now, based on the further information you've shared, I see not one, but two, ex-SMs who don't like changes in boy-led and advancement philosophy and perhaps other changes this SM is sheparding through the Troop and are trying to figure out if the SM can be hung up with a YP violation. And now there is an insinuation of financial irregularities without any specifics. As for parental concern? Its not unusual for parents to talk to former SMs they're used to when changes are made - as a former SM, wouldn't it be more courteous to the current SM to tell those parents that if they have questions and concerns, they should share it with the new SM? Who appointed you to be their sounding board? Sure, you can politely listen, but then you should be steering them towards the new guy - just as the past SMs when you took over should have steered parents to you. Twice now, you've mentioned trying not to be the bitter former SM - and yet you must be coming across as the bitter ex-SM to someone or you wouldn't be so worried about it - the CC and/or COR perhaps? I'll ask again, what is your role in the Troop? Are you the COR or CC? If not, why is it YOUR responsibility to talk to the SM about any of this? Why does another ex-SM and a neighboring SM think it is their right to demand that YOU talk to this SM about anything. Unless you are the CC or COR,then you shouldn't be talking to the SM about this at all, the person(s) you talk to about these things should be the CC and COR - those are the people to express your concerns with. If you have that talk with the SE, the first people he is going to call is the CC and COR - and there is a good chance he's going to tell them to train their parents better in what a YP violation is. Unless you have specific proof of a YP violation that truly is a YP violation, and not either you misunderstanding the policy or you making assumptions, then I'd talk to the CC about your concerns then keep an eye out for anything specific.

How did we get from the QM is responsible for making sure all the equipment and the equipment locker is in ship shape and accounted for to the QM is responsible for doing the actual cleaning, drying out, and repairing of the equipment? If you're having problems getting QM's because the Patrols/Scouts are dumping equipment at their feet expecting them to clean it and be maids, then you aren't using the position very effectively. When a Patrol is checking in their cook gear, patrol box, stoves and tents, are they opening everything up for the QM to inspect or are they just dumping it in a pile? If a Patrol drops an uncleaned stove off, are they expecting the QM to clean it because that's his job? Uh uh - they QM's job is to hand that stove right back to the PL and tell them to bring it back next week cleaned - and until then, it's still considered a piece of checked out equipment. Unless you're teaching your QM to do just that, and backing him up, then you're setting the QM up to be the maid. As for the Patrol QMs? They're the QM's assistants - and guess what? At the end of every outing, they divide up the gear among the Patrol members and make sure the Patrol members do their fair share of clean-up work (the PQM and PL should also be taking responsibility for something). Again, they aren't the maid. So if the QM hands a dirty stove back to the Patrol QM, the Patrol QM should know exactly who in their patrol to hand the stove back to to get cleaned - and if neccessary, help that Scout understand what the cleanliness standards are. And again, I ask, how can a Patrol check out equipment from the locker, even if it's the patrol's locker, without the QM being involved? The QM keeps an inventory of the equipment - how can he possibly keep an accurate inventory if he has no idea if a piece of equipment has been checked out or not? It shouldn't matter if the equipment is checked out for a camping trip or for a demonstration at a Troop meeting - any equipment removed from the lockers get signed out through the QM (or his assistants) - always. That would have made TwoCubs dilemma a bit easier to solve then, wouldn't it have? You could look at the QM's sign out sheet and see who checked out the other Patrols stoves that night and hold them responsible. In my Troop as a youth, we had a gear storage locker (but not individual patrol lockers). Also stored in that locker were the US and Troop flags and flagstands used every meeting - guess what was signed in and out by the QM every meeting? Yep - the flags and flag stands. Everything that was pulled out of the locker was signed out and everything put back in the locker was signed in. The Library box was in the locker - when books were taken, they were signed out and in by the Librarian, when he took the box home to reorganize, the box was signed out by the QM and signed in. Does the QM have his own "locker" that he can lock errant equipment in? At the end of the meeting, instead of the SM checking the area for left out equipment, why shouldn't the QM be responsible for doing so - and if he finds something, he can lock it away in his own locker with the same effect. As for the three ring circus, really? Your meetings are that disorganized that you would call them a three ring circus? No one said anything about not moving on to the next activity - we do it all the time, and the folks doing the instructing would hold back and clean-up - but, at the end of the meeting, we check to make sure everything is put away and cleaned up BEFORE the benediction. If chairs were set up, we take them down. If they were taken down, we set them back up. If they were set in a specific pattern, we reset them back in that pattern. The floor is swept (and mopped if needed on rainy or snowy nights). The room is put in to the condition it was in when we started and then we do the benediction - we don't end the meeting then hope enough Scouts will be around to help clean-up.

I think we're missing something here and that's even if it is his parents pushing him to get Eagle, he still needs to be somewhat active in order to earn it. Oak doesn't tell us if this is a newly minted Star Scout or a soon to be newly minted Life Scout. Either way, he's going to have to serve a POR for at least 6 months, if not longer, and will be active that way, and depending on what POR it is, he may be more active than he hopes or a little less active than the adults hope. Has he earned Camping Merit Badge? Then he's really got no more camping requirements to meet, does he? If he isn't liking camping anymore, why force him to camp at this point - unless he's ASPL, PL or SPL, in which case he should be camping as part of leadership to the Troop (if he's a Den Chief, does he really need to go camping with the Troop?) Sure, we might like him to go camping, but every scout's journey is different - if his no longer includes camping, so what? He's already camped quite a bit to get to where he is. And maybe it's a friend issue when camping, or maybe he's just outgrown the camping trips that the Troop does - been there, done that, got the t-shirt, can I go now kind of thing. It's not unusual for Scouts of a certain age to lose interest but even if its for the "wrong" reasons, he'll still be around, and might just surprise everyone in a few months with a renewed vigor. Sometimes I think a lot of the adult angst over Eagle Scout and "is a Scout doing enough" is just adults forgetting to look at the bigger picture and forgetting that there are natural transistions built into advancement - after First Class, we're moving away from learning basic skills and moving towards using those skills to lead and teach (and despite what folks like Kudu think, leadership and teaching are skills that are just as important to learn as tying a bowline). Somtimes I think the angst is because many adults are unable to adjust to the needs of different age levels - the program is for 11-17 year olds but an 11 year old is a whole different animal from a 14 year old which is a whole different animal from a 17 year old. And sometime I think its because we, as adults, fear failure more than Scouts do sometimes - we try to force Scouts to follow our paths because we know that we can be successful when they do and are afraid to let Scouts follow their own paths because we're unfamiliar with them, are afraid to change, and fear that if the Scout's path doesn't lead to Eagle, we're the ones that have failed. Whether he's a Star or Life scout, he's still got a lot left in his journey to Eagle - so even if he "just" does Eagle requirements, he's still going to be doing a lot. Come at it with that understanding and attitude, instead of an attitude of disappointment, and I think you'll be much happier.

First, answers to the quiz: 1) False. 2) False as written (however, an adult may drive 2 or more unrelated youth on trips and outings or other events - the driver doe not have to be accompanied by a son or sibling - as long as there are at least 2 youth - no one on one). 3) False - and should never happen at all - no one on one driving. 4) False 5) False as written only because it doesn't matter if the event is official or not, otherwise True. 6) False 7) True BUT with a caveat - a SM and SPL (or any other youth) can meet one-on-one and "alone" provided that it is within view of another adult or Scout. In other words, the SM and SPL can meet one-on-one at one end of a meeting hall as long as someone else is in the meeting room with them - they don't have to be part of the meeting, and can be at the other end of the hall where they can't hear what's being said, but they have to be in view of each other at all times - it allows for privacy while maintaining 2-deep. 8) False - the BSA and Order make clear that youth protection policies apply on OA events. 9) False and True (huh, your asking?). The DE can not change any youth protection policies or waive any policies so that part is false. However, the DE is not the person to bring YP issues to - the Scout Executive is - so that part is true. 10) False So now to the rest of the story. Is your new SM violating any of these precepts? There really is no gray areas in YP. He's either following them, or he's not. If he's regularly meeting with any Scouts one-on-one, inviting them to his home, driving them separately to campsites, etc., then that should be a major red flag to any parent. Are you the CC or COR? If not, why are you the one discussing this with the Scoutmaster? If this were happening in my Troop, the COR would be letting this SM know right now that his services are no longer needed and that the Scout Executive will be informed that he was removed from his post for these specific violations of YP, even if there is no evidence or complaints that something untoward has occured, but because this unit takes YP seriously and does not take chances.

Has a patrol mate who was in charge of cooking Saturday breakfast - the menu was blueberry pancakes. He didn't drain the blueberries and the pancakes turned a rather sickening color of green. We ate them anyway though we didn't have enough syrup to mask the taste, which was not great.

Each patrol has their own "locked" locker for their patrol gear? Really?? So how does anyone advance in your Troop if they can't live by the first point of the Scout Law - a Scout is Trustworthy. Did you actually watch the demonstration? If you did, you would know if the instructor used more than one stove, wouldn't you? Did the SPL watch the demonstration? If he did, he would know that the instructor used more than one stove. If you know the instructor used more than one stove, then you can pretty much corner the instructor (and using that word - Trustworthy), and ask him to explain why you witnessed him using more than one stove and ask why he shouldn't be responsible for making sure all the stoves were put away in the right place. If neither of you watched the demonstration, was it because you had something more important to do? Someone must have noticed whether the demonstration was using more than one stove, and just what the demonstration was about. What were the other stoves used for? Practice on safe lighting of the stoves? Regardless, the instructor should have made sure that all the gear was put back in it's place, even if Scouts from other patrols took out their stoves to practice with (since the instructor was the one with control of the meeting at that point). Why was clean-up aborted? The benediction should never have been started and the meeting should never have ended until the clean-up was complete. Would you stop taking down a campsite and leave the remains just because the time was up? The Troop Quartermaster is ultimately responsible for all Troop equipment. In most cases, Patrol Equipment is borrowed from the Troop. They may have specific equipment assigned to them, but the Patrol doesn't generally own the equipment, the Troop does. The Troop Quartermaster, if he was there, has the responsibility to make sure the equipment locker is in ship shape and that there is no gear left outside. I don't think he needs to be the one who is responsible for clean-up and putting the gear away if left out (he should be rounding up the instructor for that job) but he should have noticed that equipment was not properly put away. In fact, how did the instructor, and the "unknown stove users" get into the locker area without the Quartermaster being present and letting them in? Why isn't it part of the QM's job to check the gear locker to make sure it's locked up and there is no gear left out when the locker is accessed during a meeting? How is the ASPL/Program responsible at all? He missed the meeting - he wasn't there. Would it have been his job to make sure that the instructor had cleaned up and had only used his own stoves? Are you suggesting that if he isn't there, then no one does his job? Uh uh - its the SPL's responsibility to make sure that the ASPL's job is done by someone that night, even if he does it himself. Just as the ASPL will take the responsibility to act as SPL if the SPL can't make it. Now we come to discover that not only did you see it on Wednesday, you noticed it the night before - and left the gear out anyway. If it had gotten stolen, after you, personally, saw that the gear was left out, I would, as COR or CC, expect you, personally, to reimburse the Troop for the cost of the replacements because as the last person to see the gear, you now have a responsibility to ensure that it's locked away. Maybe locked away in your own locker, but locked away anyway. I understand your desire to get the Scouts to live up to their responsibilities, but don't you have a responsibility here as well? TwoCubSon is correct on this whole issue of you witholding their stove, and the new scout patrol's stove - the folks who borrowed the stoves for the demonstration were the one's responsible for making sure they got put back in the right place. Why, then, are you punishing the people who weren't responsible for this mess? It's like taking Jimmy's knife away from him because Bobby carved his initials in a tree. There are plenty of errors in this mess - including some of your own - don't compound it by passing the blame to folks who aren't responsible for any of the mess, including the ASPL/Program and Patrol #2 and #6. PS - a message to TCS: From TCS: "I was never informed that they wanted to use our patrol stove nor was I asked about it ( and for that matter would have told them to use their own patrol stove had I known it was being used)." Really? You would have told them to use their own stove and not let them use your patrol's stove? How is that Helpful, Friendly, Courteous and Kind? I can understand being a bit miffed that no one had asked first, but once asked, I would certainly have said yes.

It may not put a dent in the budget problem or the deficit problem but it's a good start to the debt issue - spending cuts alone won't do it - we need to inrease revenue as well, and I'd rather increase taxes for the 1% before increasing the taxes of the 99% - and I'd like to see taxes on capital gains increased to 36% as well.

SSScout - isn't the first requirement for First Aid Merit Badge to satisfy your counselor that you have current knowledge of the first aid requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class ranks? In working with the Scoutmaster and with the Merit Badge Counselor in earning the First Aid Merit Badge, did he not demonstrate that he has current knowledge of the First Aid Requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class ranks? If I were that Scoutmaster, I would have signed off on them as the class was being done. I noticed you didn't mention Tenderfoot so perhaps the question is more about timing - unless they've changed it again, and I didn't see that, a Scout can work on any requirement for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class at anytime during his journey to First Class. You don't have to earn Tenderfoot before you start working on Second Class requirements so a Scout could do all the First Aid requirements and get signed off for all three ranks.

These are the kind of statistics that partisan organizations and clueless media like to use because they tell a story that they want people to believe without telling anything behind that story - so let's take a look behind that story. The mean income for the under 50% (2009) is $16,198. Easy to get it, it's the midpoint between $0.00 and $32,396 which the National Taxpayers Union uses as the ceiling income for the under 50%. The lowest income amount for the top 1% is $343,927 (2009), again, according to the NTU. Let's say that both taxpayers pay 36% in income taxes. The 1%er pays $123,813 in taxes (without deductions) leaving him a net income of $220,114 - pretty livable. Our 50%er pays $5,831 in taxes, leaving her $10,367 to live on - good luck! It would take 21 people paying $5,831 to equal the amount of taxes paid by the 1%er. However, the 1%er has a bunch of deductions that will drop his taxes down - he may still end up paying from the high 90's to low 100's, but he's still has a good net income. The 50%er, as has been pointed out, is as likely have an earned income credit that not only eliminates taxes, but results in more money coming to her in her refund than she paid. No wonder the percentages are the way they are. Of course, another way to look at it is that the bottom 99%, the Upper Middle Class to the Poor, pay 62% of the taxes. As a middle class tax payer, I'd welcome some tax relief, but not at the expense of the poor - I'd rather see the percentages go to 50/50, with the top 1% paying 50% of all federal personal income taxes and the bottom 99% paying 50%. And since Corporations are now People, I say we re-write the tax laws so that Corporations can only get the same tax credits and write-offs as the People.

Maybe it will make a bit more sense when we explore the history a bit. Before there were people like District Executives, there were volunteers who were responsible for helping to create new units, and recruiting new youth, and recruiting Scoutmasters, and Chartered Organizations, and Committees. We called them Commissioners. Why were they called Commissioners? Because they COMMISSIONED new units! Your friendly, local Neighborhood Commissioner would identify a number of youth in a neighborhood who could use Scouting, then identified a partner to charter the unit. Working with the charter partner, the Neihborhood commissioner would identify people in the community to serve on the unit's committee - often, they would be members of the chartered organization, but sometimes, it might be the owner of the insurance company, or the bank manager, or a local store owner. It was actually rare at the time for a parent of a Scout to be a member of the unit's committee. Working with the committee, the Commissioner and Committee would identify and recruit the Scoutmaster and his assistants, to run the Troop program. That leads to Boards of Review. Remember, at one time it was rare for parents to be members of their son's Troop Committee. The BOR was one way that the Troop Committee - made up of august men (and sometimes a woman) of the Community (and they were truly members of the community at large) - could review the progress of their Troop. To this day, we still say the BOR is the opportunity for the Troop Committee to see how the program is going through the boy's eyes. So why aren't SM's and ASM's supposed to be part of their unit's BORs? Because the BOR is partly a performance review of them. Just as we would presume that a Parent would not be neutral when it comes to their own child, we must presume that a SM or an ASM can not be neutral when it comes to the unit's program. That's why they aren't members of the BOR. I know, I know - things have changed, most committees are made up of parents now, and we can't expect parents to know anything about Scouting, can we? So since things have changed, other things have naturally changed. Well I have this to say about that - a certain ancient maritime retail store (think about it) has been selling $5 4th of July T-shirts since their founding which seems to me is a violation of the Flag Code (I know, it's just a guideline) - they've sold millions of these shirts - things have changed - still doesn't make it right.

Sorry, Moose - when followed by Not, May and Can very much become definitive directions as the word Not siginificantly modifies the words May and Can. When the advancement guide states that a SM or ASM may not serve on the BOR for a member of his/her unit, or a Parent may not serve on the BOR for his/her own child, it means just that - they are not allowed to serve on those BORs. May gives you the option of doing something or not doing something - just because you may do something doesn't mean you have to do something. Using the word not after may removes the option. May not is treated in the same fashion as shall - it is a directive that must be followed. Or do you want to be the person to explain to a parent who just told their son that he may not go swimming why their son decided that was just a suggestion from mom and dad?

You were right to advance him to his Eagle BOR. He met the requirements. The Active requirement, which now allows units to develop reasonable participation guidelines, also only require the Scout to be Active for 6 months, and the Scout can piece those 6 months together however he wishes, which pretty much negates the whole idea of units developing reasonable participation guidelines, doesn't it? He could be 100% active for 3 months, then not active at all for 6 months, then 100% active for 3 months, and Viola!, he's met the Active for 6 months requirement! Now I have a couple of questions - when he came aboard, what did you do with him? How did you fail to use a Scout who was a Life Scout for at least 6 months (per your statement that he completed ALL of the requirements except the project and some merit badges) be a resource for the Troop? Did you just drop him in a patrol with no leadership position? Was he ever made to feel that his experience, skills and input was welcome? Or was he shut out of the crowd? Sometimes, when a Scout transfers in at that level, neither the youth leaders or the adult leaders figure out a good place for him, and that will certainly lead a Scout to treat himself as a bit separate from the Troop, because that's the message they're getting. You say that the Scoutmaster met with him and asked that he plan a weekend trip and a day trip. Was that done with the knowledge of the PLC and if not, why not?

I prefer an internal frame pack because it does integrate into one's body much better than an external frame pack. I think it also makes one more thoughtful when packing. Sure, it can be "hotter" but I sweat a lot anyway so that won't make a difference. I used an external frame pack once - hated it every step of the way. The next backpacking trip, I used my Boy Scout rucksack without a frame, rigged a way to attach my tent, sleeping bag and sleeping pad on the bottom using straps and has a much better experience - of course, this was a few years before internal frme packs became widely available. However, that's all personal choice. Regardless of which pack you get, I'd like to discourage you from hanging anything from carabiners off your pack. It either goes in the pack or is tied tightly to the pack. Items swinging from a pack on carabiners mean that your pack is never balanced from one step to another as the weight keeps shifting. The only exceptions I would make is maybe a compass hanging from a small carabiner attacked to one strap and a watch (maybe the kind that clips to your belt with an integrated carabiner) to the other strap. Otherwise, there really isn't anything that you need to have so handy that you need to clip it to your backpack.

Lisa, Does the Council Rep that signed the fundraising application truly have authorization to give Authorized Council Approval to the fundraising application? If so, then I think you've just run into something that is likely to be relatively rare, especially if the Authorized Council Rep signed it without it having been submitted to the council service center. The reason for the two weeks is to give time for the council service center to route the form to whomever is responsible for approval and to get it back from them. It may be a district executive, another council staff member, a council or district advancement committee, a finance committee, or whomever else the Scout Executive might designate. Some Councils may review and send to different people depending on the extent of the fundraiser - for instance, there might be a dollar limit of approval (not affecting the Scout) that might go something like this - approval under $1,000 can be signed by the District Executive but over $1,000 needs to be signed by a Senior District Executive or even the Scout Executive. And sure,some could say 2 weeks is more than enough time to get approval but I think it's a safe hedge against others schedules - maybe you send it in on a Wednesday to hold the fundraiser on Saturday but the person authorized to sign it is on vacation and there is no other designated person - it won't get signed in time. It might also be routed to a volunteer - so the service center mails it to the volunteer, who may or may not sign it right away, who then mails it back - now you've got mailing times added to the potential time it takes to get the signature. I think the 2 weeks is just a safe bet cushion the BSA has chosen. Once the form is signed by an authorized council approver, I think you can start your fundraiser right then and not wait 2 weeks. I don't see it saying wait two weeks after getting approval, I see it saying, it might take us 2 weeks to get approval.