CalicoPenn

When the lawyer is a member of the church that sponsors you and does a lot of pro-bono work for that church, you say "Sorry sir, it won't happen again".

What about taking the card and holding it until the Scout re-qualifies for the card by doing all the requirements again? Why does there have to be any form of hazing at all?

Or someone is passing on the Council's policies, which may not be less than National's policies but may be more than National's policies

Which seems like great fun until the Scout answers "No - but I did leave my hat on the table while I went to take a shower and when I got back found that someone had stolen it". If you know who owns the lost item because it has their name on it, then just give it back - I can't think of a single Scout Law that would allow me to interrogate a Scout as to whether they lost something or not. I can find quite a few Scout Laws that would suggest I just hand it back with a friendly smile and a friendly reminder to be more careful with their gear. Real lesson learned? Telling a Scout he can't have something back until he sings for it, the Scout saying go ahead and keep it, and the Dad (who is also a lawyer) coming to the next meeting reading the SM the riot act for stealing his son's gear. Yeah - that really happened - our Troop never did the "I'm a little teapot" thing ever again.

Thanks for the correction Qwazse.

Did anyone else notice that while the CC is said to have been threatening to add to the requirements, it appears that the Troop has already added to the requirements which the Advancement Chair is trying to enforce? Cyber Chip is an optional tool - it is not a requirement for any rank and should not be a requirement to schedule a BOR. Instead of worrying about how many of the 20 committee members make themselves available as a first step, I would suggest figuring out who the core group of BOR volunteers are and getting them trained on how advancement works and how to run a BOR - then once that core group is cooking with gas, figure out how to bring more people to the table.

Geesh - no wonder the SPL lost interest. I would too if the adults were just going to run the Troop the way they want to run the Troop instead of following the Boy Scout program. I'd have a Plan B in place if gunship becomes SM - and that Plan B would mostly consist of having another Troop ready to take on anyone who is ready to bolt because they aren't getting the program they deserve.

Thanks for the additional info LS - unfortunately, it suggests that the BSA still stepped in it big time. And what suggests that is the statement above. If that's what happened, a really clever lawyer (and somehow I suspect the family's lawyer is pretty clever) could have a field day with a discrimination claim. Just a couple of questions in discovery - How many other Scouts have had their standing reviewed and past accomplishments verified before their projects were approved have there been prior to this? - How many were not disabled" - would probably be enough for a BSA attorney to plotz.

One of the best movie lines of all times: "First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have two at twice the price"

The problem with "lack of candor" is that in most cases it boils down to a personal opinion rather than a documented instance of lying. One can be terminated for "lack of candor" simply because someone else believes you aren't telling the truth even if you are, because you aren't giving someone the answers that person has already pre-determined are the answers to their questions. Nothing in this instance suggests that McCabe gave answers that he knew to be untruthful. It appears that his lack of candor was because he gave truthful answers that others didn't think were truthful but really had no evidence to back it up. In the meantime, another Scout in the Trump Cabinet (Zinke) seems to be hanging by a thread and so it might be best if we just didn't make a big deal of how many Scouts the President has in his administration - none of them (except Perry, for now) seem to have thrived.

I'm going to go the other way - the Boy Scouts caved. They heard lawsuit and realized the attorney for the family was smarter than theirs. I don't think the family's attorney exaggerated anything by saying the BSA effectively nullified the already earned awards. It certainly does seem, based on what the father says he was told, that the BSA, while not taking away the merit badges, essentially said they didn't count since the BSA claims they weren't earned following the requirements (which puzzles me - aren't Councils allowed to modify merit badge requirements under these kinds of circumstances and if so, and noting that this family had been working with the Council all along, why would National then second guess the Council?). If the merit badges didn't count, then the attorney is correct, by not allowing the merit badges to be counted towards rank advancement, then they were effectively nullified. I suspect we will never get the whole story. I suspect that someone at National made a decision based on a complaint (I think someone is on the right track when they said they believed someone at the Council went over people's heads to National since no one would usually need to go to National to get approval for an Eagle Scout project beforehand and no one generally goes to National to confirm merit badges and ranks before completing a project) and it was either poorly communicated to the family by the Council or it was reported exactly as it was to the family and when the family hired a lawyer and announced a lawsuit, someone high up in the chain realized this had the potential to become a national story very quickly and it would look really bad for the BSA. I have no facts to back it up but I have a feeling that at that meeting with the family, the BSA quickly signed off on the project that was proposed and the Scout will be an Eagle Scout by the end of the year.

I agree with Barry - I was thinking it might be sexist which some consider a form of bigotry but I like ignorant, prejudicial and intolerant better.

Which is a great time for the Scoutmaster, or better yet, the SPL, to stop the ceremony and announce that it will continue as soon as people are finished with their apparently more important phone calls, texts and e-mails.

Sorry - I have no idea how that happened - I think I'm going to blame Microsoft 10

It can be distinguished and it is an enforceable mark. It can't be copyrighted (because as you point out, it's a common shape that pre-dates the BSA) but it can be made distinctive enough from other fleur-de-lis' to be able to be trademarked. The New Orleans Saints logo, which is also a fleur-de-lis, is also trademarked. While neither the BSA or the NFL can claim all fleur-de-lis fall under their trademark, they can claim their specific designs to be trademarked. This is where it gets a bit esoteric for most of us. Compare the BSA and the Saints' logos - they both look like fleur-de-lis but they are different. The blade on the Saints fleur is longer and narrower than the BSA's. The BSA's is actually quite noticeably squatter - dumpier even. Its these little differences in ratios (in the body of the design, in the size of the blades, in the curvature of the arms, in the distances between the tips of the arms and "feet") that can make something as common as a fleur-de-lis trademarkable - just as McDonalds can trademark what is essentially the letter M - but only in the "golden arches font" that we're all familiar with. It can be distinguished and it is an enforceable mark. It can't be copyrighted (because as you point out, it's a common shape that pre-dates the BSA) but it can be made distinctive enough from other fleur-de-lis' to be able to be trademarked. The New Orleans Saints logo, which is also a fleur-de-lis, is also trademarked. While neither the BSA or the NFL can claim all fleur-de-lis fall under their trademark, they can claim their specific designs to be trademarked. This is where it gets a bit esoteric for most of us. Compare the BSA and the Saints' logos - they both look like fleur-de-lis but they are different. The blade on the Saints fleur is longer and narrower than the BSA's. The BSA's is actually quite noticeably squatter - dumpier even. Its these little differences in ratios (in the body of the design, in the size of the blades, in the curvature of the arms, in the distances between the tips of the arms and "feet") that can make something as common as a fleur-de-lis trademarkable - just as McDonalds can trademark what is essentially the letter M - but only in the "golden arches font" that we're all familiar with.

It can be distinguished and it is an enforceable mark. It can't be copyrighted (because as you point out, it's a common shape that pre-dates the BSA) but it can be made distinctive enough from other fleur-de-lis' to be able to be trademarked. The New Orleans Saints logo, which is also a fleur-de-lis, is also trademarked. While neither the BSA or the NFL can claim all fleur-de-lis fall under their trademark, they can claim their specific designs to be trademarked. This is where it gets a bit esoteric for most of us. Compare the BSA and the Saints' logos - they both look like fleur-de-lis but they are different. The blade on the Saints fleur is longer and narrower than the BSA's. The BSA's is actually quite noticeably squatter - dumpier even. Its these little differences in ratios (in the body of the design, in the size of the blades, in the curvature of the arms, in the distances between the tips of the arms and "feet") that can make something as common as a fleur-de-lis trademarkable - just as McDonalds can trademark what is essentially the letter M - but only in the "golden arches font" that we're all familiar with. It can be distinguished and it is an enforceable mark. It can't be copyrighted (because as you point out, it's a common shape that pre-dates the BSA) but it can be made distinctive enough from other fleur-de-lis' to be able to be trademarked. The New Orleans Saints logo, which is also a fleur-de-lis, is also trademarked. While neither the BSA or the NFL can claim all fleur-de-lis fall under their trademark, they can claim their specific designs to be trademarked. This is where it gets a bit esoteric for most of us. Compare the BSA and the Saints' logos - they both look like fleur-de-lis but they are different. The blade on the Saints fleur is longer and narrower than the BSA's. The BSA's is actually quite noticeably squatter - dumpier even. Its these little differences in ratios (in the body of the design, in the size of the blades, in the curvature of the arms, in the distances between the tips of the arms and "feet") that can make something as common as a fleur-de-lis trademarkable - just as McDonalds can trademark what is essentially the letter M - but only in the "golden arches font" that we're all familiar with.

Actually, they aren't in the public domain. Don't confuse the current branding guidelines with actual trademarks. While the current Eagle/Star/Fleur-De-Lis branding is trademarked, the basic shape of this particular design of a fleur-de-lis is separately trademarked so that no one can take the BSA-designed fleur-de-lis and add something to it to call it their own. This basic shape is readily identifiable as the BSA fleur-de-lis. This particular plain design was used extensively in the 1970's - it is the fleur-de-lis of the baseball cap and the red beret. It is still part of the BSA trademarks and is still BSA brand property. In this case, it appears that Northern Star decided to just update the compass and just kept the BSA trademarked fleur-de-lis without the additional branding stuff superimposed on it. I imagine that someone at National would have had to sign off on the new design.

Hard to tell. The Girl Scouts claim to have served around 50 million girls since their founding. The Boy Scouts claim to have served around 110 million people. Note the use of people and not boys. The BSA has often included adult volunteers in their numbers when they make broad statements like that about their membership numbers. However, even if the BSA numbers include adult volunteers, I suspect if you strip the adults out of the number, the BSA's number would still be quite a bit higher than the Girls Scout's number.

They are still using the BSA Fleur-De-Lis so the national branding is still part of the logo. The legal name is still Northern Star Council Boy Scouts of America. Jameson76 asks about non-member programs - it depends on the Council - in this particular Council's case, they run an after school program that doesn't appear to require membership in the BSA and more significantly (and rather interesting), they run a Juvenile Diversion program to keep young teens and adults from jail. I like the new logo - it looks sharp. Calling themselves Northern Star Scouting in public seems like a reasonable idea to me. I know they don't like to hear it but mention the word Scouting to most people and the first thing they think about is Boy Scouts, not Girl Scouts. As for National (to Old Buzzards point), I don't think that Scouting America or Scouts America is in the cards. Instead, I have a hunch that the BSA may resurrect an oldie but goodie: Scouting USA. The BSA still holds the trademark on that name, and it more specifically identifies it as being USA based. I imagine the folks in Canada, Mexico, Central and South America might get just a bit peeved if National tried branding themselves as Scouting America.

This one time.....at Scout Camp.....

It really depends on the culture of the Troop and the demands on the SPL's time as a result. It may very well be that the person who became SPL realized that it would be a full-time job and spending time with the OA ceremonies team was just not going to be possible - and for that I applaud him. After all, when it comes to the Order of the Arrow, the OA itself states quite plainly that one's obligations to one's unit comes first - always.

As an Earthling..... Or if that's too Marvin Martian for you As a Terran....

For a new down bag, you shouldn't need it. The bag should already be "waterproof" enough as long as it is clean. The outershell will already have the same "waterproofing" as you would get with a Nikwax treatment. Keep in mind that when we talk about "water-proofing", we're really talking about protection against humidity and cold-weather condensation - not rain or puddles in the tent. What damages the "waterproofing" the most is dirt - when the sleeping bag gets dirty, washing it using the Nikwax cleaning product should be enough to bring back the "waterproofing" of the bag. Only if the bag is really well-used (like say after a through-hike on the AT), should you need to go with the full Nikwax treatment. I don't use it myself (mainly because I no longer use sleeping bags at all) but one of my friends does and swears by Nikwax - he believes it has extended the life of his down bag though he has never had to do the "full" treatment - he just washes the sleeping bag about once a year.

There's been an undercurrent over the years that even if National fails, the Councils and Units can keep the BSA alive. It's a good thought, and a pleasant dream, that comes against the hard realty that if National does fail, that certain things go away - no more Eagle Scout. No more ranks as we know them, no more merit badges. The BSA can survive - but yeah, maybe it needs to restructure - and lets face it, if they do restructure to "save" the organization, there are going to be a lot of people who don't like that either.

I believe we call it a "Pie Iron" here in the states.