CalicoPenn

I doubt one-in-ten of us born in the United States knows what our official nationality is. It sure isn't American. In fact, certain hyphenateds, like Mexican-American, is redundant. Mexicans are Americans - no matter where they are hanging their hat. So are Canadians, and Costa Ricans, and Peruvians, and Brazilians, etc. If you were born on on of the two American continents, you are an American. If you were born in the US, your official nationality is: United States of America. Not even United States of American, no, it is United States of America, and that's what should be entered on paperwork entering another country. "The newest immigrants seem to want to maintain their heritage. Pride in one's heritage is great, but this is America, and I don't think that all of the divisiveness (is that a word?) is doing us a lot of good. I think that our parents' generation tried to become "Americans" as quickly as possible. It was part of achieving the American dream." Historically, immigrants maintained their heritage and did not try to become "Americans" as soon as possible. Folks born in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Italy, etc. etc. worked at maintaining the familiar culture of their home countries. What these immigrants did do was to enourage their children to become "Americans" while trying to instill a sense of pride in the home country. None of that has changed with the newest immigrant groups coming into the country. While we may not identify ourselves as Swedish-Americans, or Scottish-Americans, etc. etc., most of us still follow traditions of our ancestors from "the homeland", especially at Christmas. Think about your family's traditions and see if you can trace it back to those ancestors that brought it here from away. Historically, different immigrant groups have always faced the kind of rhetoric we see being directed towards our latest immigrant groups. THe Irish, the Italians, the Chinese - all have faced anti-immigration forces in the past. Heck, the Dutch hated the English that were invading their turf in the New World back when the Dutch controlled what we now know as New York City and environs. Kind of begs the question, what is an American? I lean towards the "Mutt" answer.

"The first thing that comes to mind is skipping the Jamboree." Then you must really hate Ronald Reagan who didn't personally attend a BSA Jamboree during his two terms of office. President Obama, following a tradition set down by many Presidents before him, sent a personal address that was shown at the Jamboree - and the last time a President attended the Jamboree, it became a security nightmare for the Scouts that were there - I'd think not attending personally at this point is more supportive of the Scouts by not putting them through the security nightmare that is a Presidential visit. The whole non-issue of the President not attending the Jamboree was instigated by right wing bloggers that would find fault with President Obama if he announced tomorrow that he had personally discovered the cure for cancer. They rather conveniently ignored President Obama meeting a Cub Scout, Boy Scout, OA Youth Representative, Venturer (and a female at that) and Sea Scout in the Oval Office just two weeks before celebrating the BSA's 100-year anniversary, the second visit by Boy Scout contingents since taking office at the beginning of 2009. "Calico, "Please be specific about actions and statements directed at the BSA he's made, and not extrapolate based on unrelated policy statements that you think show a lack of support." So you are looking for an actual quote? Not sure he had a hot mic at the time." In other words, you got nothing, you got nada, to support your contention. If I were you, I'd sue your school teachers for not teaching you the skills needed to prevent you from embarassing yourself in public like this.

One of my all-time favorite camping trips taken with my Troop as a lad was the one in our CO's back-yard. Our CO was a church right in the middle of downtown suburbia, with strip malls with grocery stores, etc. on the other three corners, the fire station a block away, and in one troop members case, his home right next door to the church. The COR that year thought it would be a great idea if the Troop would set up camp at the church during one of the weekends we held our annual pumpkin sale at the church to show the public, and the church, just what it is we do - did I mention he happened to work for one of the big Chicago advertising firms? Friday night, we all gathered at the church after dinner, set up camp by Patrols, complete with campfires for cooking (the Church let us dig pits in the grass so we could show how to make them "disappear" at the end of the weekend and the Fire Department gave us permission to have campfires). The church let us use the facilities in the building (which we cleaned throughout the weekend, just as if it were a regular duty roster job). We spent the Saturday selling pumpkins, demonstrating Scout skills, working on advancement, just as if it were a regular camp-out and had a Patrol Pumpkin Carving contest. We even had a hike to the park district pond and creek for a bit of fishing and nature study. We held a Troop campfire at night, complete with singing and skits, and candle-lit jack-o-lanterns of course, having invited members of the church and folks who bought pumpkins to come by that night and join in the fun. Our sister Explorer Post (which was the OA Lodge's de-facto dance team) did a few dances at the campfire (we were camping as part of the Troop anyway) and we did some star watching. On Sunday morning, we made breakfast as a Troop because we had invited the church's Men's Group (our official charter organization) and the Pastor and their spouses for breakfast before services. By pre-arrangement, the Pastor cut short his services that day (he skipped his sermon) and invited the congregation to join the Troop outside for a Scout's Own service run by the Troop's Chaplain and Chaplain Aide to complete that Sunday's church services. Afterwards, we provided coffee, hot cocoa, tea and dutch oven donuts to everyone as part of fellowship with the Church. I can tell you, this event was well received and talked about for a long time afterwards. We even got a couple of new members out of it. Did it count as a camping trip? You betcha! Do I need to mention that not one Scout or Leader went home until the campout ended? I doubt it.

"From my understanding Cozzens is quite "out there". 60% of priests being gay would be quite an enormous outlier in terms of population. So enormous as to be completely unbelievable without some very strong underlyin' causes, and it's hard to come up with a theory as to what those could be. So this is almost certainly a total BS figure." Not so fast. The percentage may be overstated which is always a risk when dealing with surveys and polls and statistics, but it's quite possible, and quite likely, that there is a rather large outlier of gay priests in comparison to the general population. Is it 60%, probably not, but it's almost certain to be well over the percentage of gay men in the general population (though I would call into question the use of the word "practicing"). I've had the opportunity to speak to a number of gay priests in my professional life and have asked them what led them into the priesthood. The most common theme is that they come from a very Catholic family where the boys are expected to get married and have children or become priests. For many of these gay men, who were also raised to hate the sin, love the sinner, joining the priesthood became a very easy way to accept their homosexuality for themselves while making it easy to both hide their sexuality from their families while making them proud by becoming a Priest. If you're a devout Catholic, would you question your 35 year old son's sexuality if he was a priest? I dare say not.

Mitt Romney is NOT an Eagle Scout - Mitt himself has said this a couple of times. He's stated that his 3 youngest boys became Eagle Scouts but that he and his 2 oldest boys did not become Eagle Scouts. He's admitted that he should have been an Eagle Scout but manipulated his mother into not forcing him to attend Scout meetings (manipulated is his word, not a paraphrase in case any one thinks I'm trying to portray him in a negative light on this). The first mention of Mitt being an Eagle Scout is in Rick Perry's book (an actual Eagle Scout) who took Mitt (a "fellow Eagle Scout") to task for not letting the Boy Scouts volunteer at the Olympics that Romney was in charge of (Mitt's defense, and I accept it, is that the minimum age for volunteers was 18 which made the Scouts too young). So regardless of any "internet disagreements", in Mitt's own words and by his own admission, he is not an Eagle Scout. Now would you care to explain what exactly President Obama has done that makes you think he doesn't support the Boy Scouts? Please be specific about actions and statements directed at the BSA he's made, and not extrapolate based on unrelated policy statements that you think show a lack of support.

"During a meeting an unknown boy sneaks into the hut and defaces another Patrol's Patrol Box." There's one word that just keeps popping out at me - UNKNOWN. Who are you going to discipline if the boy is unknown, everyone? Why would the boys who weren't involved decide to trust you ever again if you have blind discipline? In fact, why have you assumed it is someone from another patrol and not someone from that patrol (maybe a Scout is mad at his PL/Patrol mates and this is how he's lashing out)? Eagledad's Scouting Minute is exactly the way to handle this - though I might add that if someone wants to admit to this, to see me (not the SPL - this is something that deserves a quiet SM conference - if only because this might just as well be a cry for help as it is a simple prank).

The concensus seems to be that these MBC's are interpreting things the way they see fit and that's ok. It's being suggested that the FA-MBC might have decided Star and above only to limit "class" sizes. I disagree, I think this MBC would still apply the Star and above rule if it were just 2 lads who were second class Scouts. If I were SM, my first reaction after hearing that rule would be to find another FA-MBC to send the unit's lads to and not someone who is going to put an artificial barrier to my Scouts advancement progress. While not adding to the requirements, he is ignoring the rule that a Scout can work on any merit badge at any time without age or pre-requisite limitations, unless those limitations are specifically stated in the requirements of the badge. As Scoutmaster, it would be wrong to deny a Scout a blue card to work on the First Aid Merit Badge because he isn't at least Star. It's no less wrong for the MBC. You had three lads who "qualified" under this MBC's rules then dropped out because the counselor wasn't cutting it. I think that's the only real answer you need - the lads who missed out are better off now anyway - find a counselor who will accept any Scout. As Scoutmaster, I'd find a different PF-MBC as well - not because his requirement that only he do the testing is particularly bad, but because he seems to have no flexibility in his rule and it comes across as miss a week, and you don't get the badge and have to start over. This is one of those cases where a seemingly reasonable "rule" actually holds back a Scout from advancement when there is no purpose to it.

I worked for the Maine National High Adventure Base back when it was a national program and not run by the Katahdin Area Council. Matagamon Base is a beautiful and historical base in one of the most beautiful and isolated places in Maine. If you want to be a guide, make sure your lifeguard certificate is up to date. It helps if you have canoeing experience - most trips are canoe trips or a combination of canoe and backpacking trips. There are some crews that will just do backpacking but if you can't canoe, don't count on being able to get backpacking only crews all summer. If you haven't gone to mainehighadventure.org yet, go to it now - you can read about the base and the staff requirements. Before you send in an application, first thing on Monday, call the Katahdin Area Council office and ask if they still have any job openings left. I'm not sure how old the job posting you saw is and I'm afraid it may be too late - interviews start in December and most are filled by the beginning of March. If there are any openings left, find out if it is one that interests you and apply. If there isn't a position available this year, you might keep it in mind for next year and apply early - and use the year to brush up or learn some skills you might decide would help. You might also ask if there are any openings at Camp Roosevelt, Katahdin Area Councils regular summer camp, and get to know some of the folks there this year that might help next year. Good luck!

This has been an incredibly fascinating look at what goes through people's heads all in the apparent defense of a word. We have folks saying that the the President's statement is unconstitutional, presumably because it violates a churche's 1st Amendment rights? What action has resulted from President Obama's statement, itself guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, that infringes on a Churches 1st Amendment? Are you suggesting that because the President has stated that he now personally supports gay marriage (from the beginning of his political career, he supported gay marriage as public policy - a rare politician who can faithfully represent his constituent's beliefs even if they conflict with his own personal beliefs) that it somehow will prevent churches from opposing gay marriage? Balderdash! We now have folks saying that federal recognition of marriage is unconstitutional. Ok - I might be willing to buy that, if you can tell us how it is unconstitutional without just stating it is and leaving it at that - and no, asking me to prove it is not unconstitutional is not the same as proving it is unconstitutional. Seems a number of posters think the answer is to just eliminate marriage from the governmental sphere and leave it to religions, calling for a separate civil union if one wishes to get governmental benefits that accrue to married couples. So in other words, we'll split the two in order to preserve the word marriage to mean what religious groups says it means. So which religious group gets to define what marriage means? We already have a lot of folks out there who claim Catholics aren't Christian, Mormons aren't Christian, Reformed Jews aren't real Jews, Shi'ite Muslims aren't Muslims, ECLA Lutherans aren't real Lutherans, etc. etc. etc. Now we're going to be faced with all these religious denominations that get along on a rather fine edge fighting over which of their definitions of marriage is real? Do we really want people telling their co-workers that their co-workers aren't really married because they wed in a different faith? We've gotten into what is a legitimate interest of the state which includes a statement that pretty much precludes adoption by same-sex couples. We've gotten statements suggesting that the LGBT community has to rely on the courts rather than the "marketplace of ideas" because it can't succeed in the "marketplace of ideas". Well let's just go ahead and apply that same "let the marketplace of ideas" standard to Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Women, etc. The courts are a safeguard against that "marketplace of ideas" that can, has, and will (every chance it gets) trample on the civil rights of "the other". When the "market place of ideas" decides that American Idol and Fox News are what people want to watch, you have a choice to turn it off if you don't care for what the idiots in the majority have decided. If you are gay, black, Jewish, female, you don't have a choice if the idiots in the majority decide you shouldn't be able to enjoy the same rights they have. We have a question on whether same sex marriage has ever existed in the past that hasn't really been answered - the answer is yes - same sex marriage was legal in ancient Rome and ancient Greece as well as in parts of ancient China. In addition, in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, the Christian Church (and back then, there really was only one Christian Church to speak of) had not one but two liturgical ceremonies for uniting same sex couples - one that applied to males or females and a later one that applied only to males. This whole defense of the word marriage would be comical if it wasn't so absurd - all of the same arguments, including diving into a book that had had so many translations and mistranslations, both accidental and intentional, to justify the arguments have been made in the past when people opposed people of different races marrying and people of different religions marrying, and in some places, people of different classes or castes from marrying. no one - not ONE person, here, or anywhere else for that matter, has ever been able to answer one very simple question: "How would my neighbor (uncle, cousin, brother) Bob marrying his partner John affect MY marriage?" Would it somehow lessen your marriage? That would say a heck of a lot more about the sorry state of your marriage than it would say about your neighbor's marriage. Folks are arguing about a concept - a CONCEPT. I'd like to suggest that folks take some time out this weekend, sit against a tree watching the clouds, or a river, or whatever, and think about that simple little question. How would it affect your marriage - then come back and tell us if the defense of the concept is more important than your actual marriage. On a final note, Oak asks: "On topic: how long will Barack Obama be willing to be the honorary president of an organization that so directly contradicts his personal belief?" I would say until the end of his term. He was certainly willing to support gay marriage as a matter of public policy even when he personally disagreed with it. Why would that change now? How many of us here still support the BSA even when opposing the BSA's policy on the three G's? Why should he be held to a different standard? I would suggest the ball is in the BSA's court - if they want to buck a centuries worth of tradition and declare that President Obama won't be the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America, they're welcome to do so. I doubt they will because they know they would take yet another unneccessary hit to their public image.

I am the servant of the power behind the Nothing. I was sent to kill the only one who could have stopped the Nothing. I lost him in the Swamps of Sadness. His name...was Atreyu! (the correct answer to that exact question - at least in the Neverending Story). no, I have not met anyone on this forum, as far as I know.

First they go after women's health, then they announce they're going to investigate their nuns, now they're going after Girl Scouts? I thought the US only had room for one whacko church at a time - and that Westboro Baptist was filling that role - I guess I was wrong.

"We ought to have a bright line that excludes organized political violence as an acceptable or excusable political tactic." Maybe - but then again, I don't know of many Americans who would condemn the Sons of Liberty for crossing that bright line and creating the Boston Tea Party.

The Tea Party protestors were peaceful, except when they were screaming at Congressfolks and otherwise disrupting town hall meetings that other folks had come to participate in. They're all a bunch of old folks chanting keep government out of Medicare (apparently not understanding that Medicare is a government program - oops), except when they are a bunch of middle age white folks yelling at and threatening disabled veterans when a veteran dares to hold up a sign in opposition to their beliefs. The Tea Party is a grassroots group, even when it's been co-opted by a major media outlet and a lot of big money behind it. Occupy is a group of younger folks inspired by a magazine out of Canada (Asbusters) to peacefully protest that capitalism has gone too far that would have faded into obscurity until a particular incident of violence perpetrated against a couple of peaceful female protestors by a New York City Police Officer made the national news and spawned additional occupy protests throughout the country. While there were some internicine squabbles, the violence at these rallys were instigated by outsiders, mostly the police, acting on orders by local governmental authorities worried that as they continued, it made their cities look weak to a certain segment of society, namely the folks that backed the tea parties. Some big money folks on the left side of the political spectrum attempted to co-opt Occupy in much the same way as the Tea Party was co-opted, but that never took off. The May Day protestors in Seattle are Anarchists - they've been around and active for many years (surely folks remember the WTO battles in Seattle - which happened loooong before Occupy was even a glimmer in Adbuster's eyes. While it's quite likely that there might be some overlap in participants between these two movements, that doesn't make them equivalent movements, just as an overlap between the Libertarians and the Tea Party doesn't make them the same movement either. Attempting to lump the Anarchists and Occupy together is really just a shallow and disingenuous ploy by people without any honor. As for Godwin's law? This illustrates exactly why Godwin's law exists - because it's too easy (or too lazy) to try to equate thinsg like the may day destruction with an event that took place in the mid-20th century. Do people really believe that these kinds of tactics were first used by the Nazi Party? Apparently folks have forgotten their history. Might want to check out the French revolution to start with.

"The beret is without a doubt the single most impractical garment ever invented by man." Depends on what you consider practical. The Beret is wool, which will keep your head warm in cool, rainy weather and if big enough, you could pull it down to cover at least the top part of the ears, which seems to be the part that is most susceptible to frost bite. Can't do that with a partol cap or baseball cap. Berets make fine makeshift frisbies - Campaign hats do to but parents tend to be vocal when Junior is using an expensive campaign hat in an impromptu round of frisbee golf. Berets make fine pot holders, and are stored in a convenient place to be out of the way, yet handy - the top of ones head. Berets make great kickball/baseball/softball bases - the red color is a decided advantage over other hats - sure, you could use a boonie cap but it's more likely to blend in with the ground. Berets can be used to haul water short distances - almost 50 yards. Berets make great emergency first aid pads for burns and wounds and are big enough to handle fairly large wounds. Berets make great emergency marker flags - again, that red really stands out Berets are second only to the campaign hat in making an entire group of scouts stand out and look good. Need an emergency trivet so as not to mar a countertop with a hot pot? A beret is the answer. Impractical? Hardly. Ok, so it doesn't have a brim - that's what sunglasses are for. The single most impractical garment ever invented by man? i'd have to say the Fez.

I think the only subject you shouldn't bring up is the toilet paper over/under controversy - otherwise, everything is fair game and don't worry about whether what you ask or post will result in someone getting sore because you can bring up fluffy bunnies and run the risk of upsetting someone. Heck, I'll even put my money where my mouth is and bring up the most controversial subject you'll ever see discussed here - even more controversial than the Three G's - and will succeed in inflaming some folks with just two words: . . . . . . . . Red Berets

I see some red flags here. The first, and most obvious, is the use of the term "core group of arrowman" to refer to adult members of the Lodge. Adult members are NEVER a core group of a Lodge - it is always the Youth that is the core group - and its a group that is ever changing. The second is that this "core group" of adults is keeping the Lodge moving. You're doing it wrong then - the adults "keep it moving" by assisting the youth, and helping to identify and develop the real leaders - the Youth. The third is that adults are running activities, keeping track of membership, fundraising for the Lodge, etc. at low points. Adults should never run activities, keep track of members, etc. - if you don't have youth to do it, it doesn't get done. The fourth is that at some point a strong youth leader comes in and starts "'taking back'" youth functions. With the quotation marks aroung "taking back" in the OP, I get a sense that there may have been conflicts between the "core group" and these Lodge Chiefs, with a sense of reluctance by the "core group" to let the youth take things backs. The fifth is this idea of there being an "adult leader" role and a separate "adviser" role. There is no such thing as an adult "leader" in the OA - you are either an adviser, or you are a worker bee. Advisers don't lead, they advise, and worker bees work, they don't lead. The sixth is that you are starting yet another "dry spell" Well of course you are, with the "core group" of adults doing everything, why do you even need youth members - and no doubt, they probably wonder the same thing and are reacting by just not taking part. The seventh is the quotaton marks around "youth run". The OA IS Youth Run - it is not a Troop, there isn't supposed to be any lingering "boy led, boy run" arguments from the unit level - it is run by the youth, not the adults. Is it any wonder why the Lodge is having issues? Looking at this, I believe most of us who have been involved with OA would say this is just not right - but at the same time, would be tempted to cut y'all some slack because you're just trying to keep the Lodge afloat. Sorry, I won't cut some slack - but I won't turn around and blame the majority of the "core group" for this problem either. This problem lays square in the lap of the Lodge Advisers and the Scout Executive because they allowed this to happen the first time - and unfortunately, it has led to the cycle you've described. Someone, somewhere down the line, decided that it was a good idea to let the adults swoop in to the rescue of the Lodge - which very likely led to weak or non-existent youth leadership much of the time with the occasional strong youth leader coming in and probably facing resistance from the "core group" of adult arrowmen reluctant to let the LEC "take back" their responsibilities which would lead to - you guessed it - weak leadership. Whoever first allowed that failed the Lodge, the youth and the adults - and that's leading to the failure of the Lodge. So what happens if you abandon the "adult leader" role and go into advisor mode and back to youth run? You either save the Lodge by letting it get back on track or the Lodge dies. It's not your responsibility to keep the Lodge alive, and by doing so, you're making it easier for the Supreme Chief of the Fire, the Deputy Chief of the Fire and the Chief of the Fire not to do their jobs right. By doing so, you're making it easier for the youth to not take responsibility, if they even want to try to take responsibility with a core group" of adults running things the way they see fit. The first thing y'all need to do is refresh your undestanding of what the role of adults are in the OA and with that, the understanding that "youth run" is really Youth Run. Next, you help identify and develop the Youth Leaders, as advisers, not as leaders, and if certain things fall by the wayside at first, let them. Throughout this whole time, you have to resist the temptation to swoop in to the rescue. You're Lodge may need to scale back, alot, from what it's doing right now, if it's as bad as you say it is - the next few Lodge Chiefs and LEC may want to concentrate on elections and one Ordeal/Brotherhood/Vigil Honor/Work Weekend per year until they can develop enough new, excited membership to start doing more. As adults, let that process take place - don't rush in to plan a Winter Banquest because y'all will miss it - if it's not in the cards, it's not in the cards - it can grow back again - but the "adult core" will have to either adjust their ways, or step completely out of it if they can't.

100% with Beavah on what trumps what when you're on that excursion. But - even though the Captains will trump the BSA, that doesn't mean you can ignore BSA policy - and I sincerely doubt the BSA would look at a charter fishing boat as being equivalent in any way to a ferry or cruise ship - so what is your responsibility? Neither Safety Afloat nor the G2SS say anything about needing 2 adults on every boat - someone is misreading what it does say. What it does say, in a rather convoluted way, is that for any one group you need 1 supervisor trained in safety afloat and safe swim defense (and all the "willing to take responsibility" stuff) for every 10 people in the group, with at least 2 supervisors per group regardless of size, as long as one of the supervisors is at least 21 with the rest being at least 18. So what does that mean? First, it says group, not boat - if you have 40 people in your "group" taking a rafting trip and 20 people go in the morning and 20 people go in the afternoon, you have TWO groups - a morning group and an afternoon group - if all 40 go in the morning at the same time you have ONE group. Second, it says at least 2 supervisors regardless of group size but 1 supervisor per 10 people so a group of 20 or less would need 2 supervisors and a group of 8 would also need 2 supervisors. So what does that mean for you? Well, if I did my math right, you have at least 28 boys signed up to go - if each boat holds 8, including the captain and mate, you'll have 6 boats going out (figuring at least one adult from your troop on each boat). If all 6 boats are leaving the docks at about the same time, you have ONE group. With 28 boys, and presumably at least 6 adults, you have 34 people (not including the Captains and Mate - they aren't your responsibility). 34 people? You need 4 supervisors (I would read it as rounding up, not down) trained in safety afloat and safe swim defense. You don't need 2 per boat, or even 1 per boat - just as long as you have 1 for every 10 people.

I may have mentioned once along time ago, when our Council had scout shows, the Lodge did their annual officer elections throughout the weekend, and a lot of folks wore their sashes because it had now become, in addition to the scout show, an offical OA event for the lodge. Since the scout show was always held in April, it gave a lot of chapter and lodge officers a chance to talk to folks wearing Ordeal sashes about taking the next step to Brotherhood.

If the "Scout Account' is paying part of a Scout's camp fee, then the reality is the Troop is paying part of a Scout's camp fee since the Scout Account holds Troop money, not the Scout's money, unless the Scout and/or his family have directly contributed to it (and I don't mean by participating in fundraising - I mean by handing you cash or a check to hold in his "scout account" for Scouting expenses). Trailer issue? Unless you have a physical address in Maine, you won't be able to register the Troop Trailer in Maine. Doing so without one is likely to be considered a form of fraud by both Maine and New York. Register it in New York. Falsify Doctor's signature? That is a crime - I'd refuse it and give them the opportunity to retract and get a real signature. Insurance covers an examination only every 5 years? Then they have really (really, really) bad insurance - the vast majority of insurance companies will cover an annual examination, they encourageit - it's less expensive for them in the long run - the every 5-year thing sounds like someone may be misinterpreting their coverage - there are some specialty exams that may not be covered on an annual basis, but annual physicals? Not very likely. Car insurance? The tour permits will be your friend, but the reality is if you asked, they said they had it, and they ended up in an accident and didn't have it, the liability falls to the driver. Waiving certain requirements? Before you send a lad to the BOR, make sure he's actually passed the requirements - if someone else has "waived" them beyond policy, you don't have to accept it - the Scout can go back and do the requirement. Smoking in front of Scouts? Don't allow it - we don't allow drinking in front of Scouts either. Scout Parent? What's a Scout Parent?? Is that some kind of new registration? The BSA has a ScoutParent description on their website but they never mention it being a registred position - it's more of a way to remind parents that even if they aren't registered volunteers, they are still expected to be involved. If they want to be a Scout Parent, that's fine - they can assist where they can, but get no say in Committee or Program - if they want to be involved in Program, they can become ASM's, if they want to be involved in Program Support (aka Committee), they can register as Committee Members. Don't set yourself up with your own, separate "Scout Parent" registrations that don't go through National - you really don't want the liability if something goes wrong that could have been prevented by a background check which you likely won't run on your own. As for District (sure you don't mean Council) required insurance minimums, if they meet state minimums, I'm fine with it - if they exceed state minimums, the District can pound sand and find new drivers unless they're going to provde the vehicle I'm going to drive.

I don't have it in front of me but I believe you can find the rationale in the OA Handbook which spells out that the OA Sash is to be worn only at OA functions, or, if worn to other functions, when serving as a member of the OA. It is not meant to be worn at Troop meetings, including the COH, it is not meant to be worn at Summer Camp (unless it's worn to an OA function like a call-out ceremony), it is not meant to be worn on a campout, or Scout Sunday, or community flag raising or- well, anything that isn't an OA function or where you aren't representing the OA. When to wear it? OA Ordeal/Brotherhood/Work Weekends, OA Banquet, Chapter Meetings, Lodge Meetings, OA Ceremonies, OA Elections (the election team should be wearing their sashes and I wouldn't find fault if the OA members in the unit wore their sashes for that meeting), Webelos Cross-over Ceremonies (if the OA is doing the ceremony - with one caveat, the ceremony folks from the OA should be wearing the sashes, the receiving unit's SPL & SM, and the sending units CM & WDL (if members) should not since they aren't actually representing the OA), and anytime one is representing the OA. For instance, your Troop's OA Representative (if you have one), may do a camp promotion at a COH (what? You mean you've never thought of having your OA Representative do the camp promotion at a COH? Why, that's one of the things the OA does!) and he should wear the sash while doing so - but none of the other OA members of the Troop should be wearing their sashes, and since they have no reason to be wearing the sash, why do they have it with them? I'm not a big fan of the sash being worn over the belt, but I'll admit I've done it, as have a lot of folks I know, when attending a function wearing a couple of different hats - I would tend to give a lot of leeway to a member wearing the sash over the belt until they performed in their OA role then putting it back over the belt when done with that role. Wearing it over a merit badge sash? Well, that's just plain bad fashion sense.

How does having "adult committee" work days and "adult committee" picnics help the adults fulfill their role in assisting the Youth leaders and members of the Lodge? What, exactly, is an "adult committee" anyway? My council had a separate adult only service group that operated in much the same way as I suspect your "adult committee" would work for about 4 years - and it was started for much the same reasoning. The first two years they had separate work weekends up at camp - the third year, many of the folks complained about the burden of driving 7 hours round trip two weekends in a row so they could do their work and then bring folks up to do the OA work weekend the next week so the work weekend dates were combined. That led to a different set of problems as the Ordeal candidates ended up mostly being gophers for the adult projects. In the 4th year, the Lodge refused to mingle the work projects and made sure that no one served as gophers for the service club's projects and that led to some hard feelings, particularly when the Lodge Chief, backed 100% by both Lodge Advisers, wouldn't allow the service club to use the banquet as a forum for their own announcements and awards, rightfully stating that the banquet is, first and foremost, a celebration of the achievements of the Ordeal and Brotherhood candidates and the new Vigil Honor members. It was decided that while the intentions were good, the execution just wasn't going to work so the service club folded back into the OA - who now made a point of keeping lists of adults by skill so they could be called on if their particular skill (electrician, carpenter, welder, plumber, etc.) was especially needed for a project.

Nope - nothing you posted would even hint at you being ahelicopter parent. Looks to me like you're doing it just right.

Winston, Welcome to the forums! You are reading the requirements correctly - an Eagle Project may be funded by the Scout or his relatives and there is nothing in any policies or rules that amends to with a "if allowed by your local council, district, unit - so yes, per the rules and regs, your son can't be forced to hold a fundraiser in order to complete the project. The question is, how should this be handled. Beavah suggests it may be a local interpretation. He's right, it may very well be so now the question is where did that interpretation come from. Before going full bore against folks, the first thing to do is find out where it is coming from. The Scoutmaster may just be the messenger here - he may have gotten that from the District Advancement Chair who may have gotten it from the Council Advancement Chair. Or it may be something the Troop Committee decided. Whoever came up with it is still wrong, but before going full bore against the first person you hear it from, do some investigation first. Have a friendly chat with the Scoutmaster - yes, you can do this - sometimes it's hard for Adults to take questions about things like this from Youth. A simple question is all that needs to be asked - where did this come from? Don't ask him to show it to you in writing - just ask where he heard it from and be guided by that. If it's coming from your Unit, then you work with them to make sure they understand they can't make that kind of policy. If it comes from District or Council, then ask them to show you, in writing, where they are allowed to make these kinds of rules and make them prove it up.

Thanks for posting the link, Pack - I've added my signature. There's an old saying - there's no such thing as bad publicity. Well, actually there is - and this is bad publicity for the BSA as it does make it appear as if the BSA is mired in a past that's not going to come back. Heck, when the Mormons, which funded approximately 40% of the Proposition 8 fight in California, comes out in favor, a few years later in support of legislation in Utah to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment, and when Archie Comics, that bastion of American Wholesomeness, introduces a gay character, giving him his own comic book, and marrying him off as an adult/soldier in another series, you know the tide has turned. This isn't a James Dale, who was sympathetic enough as an Eagle Scout who was liked and respected by his unit - this is a Mother, who joined with her 7-year old son. This is sympathy plus. I just don't see most of the public sympathizing with the BSA's standard arguments in cases like these - and I suspect there will be more like this - particularly when more and more people are believing it is just not morally straight to discriminate against anyone.

The OA has guidelines for adult membership selection (selection of adults to become members of the OA who were not already members of the OA as youth). Of the 4 qualifications, three are relevant here (the fourth is the camping requirements): 1) Selection of the adult is based on the ability to perform the necessary functions to help the Order fulfill its purposes and is not for recognition of service. 2) The individual will be an asset to the Order because of demonstrated abilities that fulfill the purpose of the Order. 3) The adults leader's membership will provide a positive example for the growth and development of youth members of the lodge. I've always read this as the adult is able to provide service to the lodge and it's youth members, which is quite a bit different from the admonition to the youth membership that service in the OA means service to one's unit first and foremost. The OA doesn't really do a good job of explaining what happens when a member transitions from youth member to adult member but I think we can look to the adult membership qualifications for what it should entail. Your role, as an adult member of the lodge, is to provide service to the lodge and it's youth members in whatever manner you can. That doesn't necessarily mean diving right in and getting fully involved in the OA by being an advisor to a chapter or committee (indeed, I'd recommend against this unless you have a good grasp of how the OA works). If you can attend a work day, I'm sure that would be most welcome (if you do intend to go on to Brotherhood, it's likely you'll attend at least one). So what, as a Cubmaster, can you offer? I think you're already doing it. One of the ways adults provide service to the lodge is by providing a positive example for the growth and development of the youth members of the lodge. I consider the most important aspect of the OA to be its emphasis on service to others - and that's exactly what you, as Cubmaster, are doing - you've come back to Scouting and are providing an example of giving back to the community and Scouting by doing the job of and wearing the most important adult leadership patch on your left sleeve - Cubmaster (Scoutmaster and Adviser are included in that description of most important job).