CalicoPenn

You say non-sexual YPT violations. So what kind of YPT violations are we, hypothetically, talking about here? Was it only reported to the Council or did someone notify the Chartered Organzation as well? Physical? With witnesses? File an assault and battery complaint with the police and have the Scoutmaster arrested. Sue the Council and, if they were informed as well, the Chartered Organization for not handling it appropriately. Emotional? Tough to prove - find a new unit. Violations of a technical nature (ie...not putting up a curtain between the Scouts and the Adults in a one room cabin). Sounds like a discussion with the committee to make sure that YPT guidelines are being followed. Find a new Troop. All hypothetical of course

As the Inner Circle says, the Groundhog is never wrong - the Groundhog is never specific about where it will be winter, and it's always winter-like somewhere

The groundhog in Woodstock, IL (where Groundhog Day was filmed) says it's going to be an early spring. Phil must have been grumpy this morning.

Ya know, I think we're all missing the bigger picture. The big picture is Poor New Hampshire, forced to survive life with sub-par straight wedding planners (being straight automatically makes them sub-par) rather than be graced with the creme-de-la-creme of wedding planners - gay men.

"I am very aware of all that is posted, the leaders guide will cover that. We will provide the phone (individuals) have provided this...in fact the deal is that they are providing several types...smart, blackberry, and flip." See, now that wasn't too hard, was it? I merely asked some questions as things to consider. It appears you have given thought to them. You'd be surprised at how many people don't stop to think about these kinds of things. If you are going to use the phones to send text messages as part of an event, do it during waking hours. The worst camporee I've ever been to had a UFO landing theme, and each Troop would get some kind of message via walkie-talkie sometime during the night, which required units to post watches throughout the night in order to receive the message, which would go towards overall points. Half the units decided to forgo the points because they felt it was more important for the Scouts to get a good night sleep and for those that did post watch, only a couple of them received the messages because the walkie talkies didn't work well. There were an awful lot of unhappy, and bellowing, Scoutmasters at the next roundtable. Will the phones be enabled to search the web? Have the Scouts do a google search to identify a plant or to find a description on how to tie an uncommon knot and follow the instructions to tie the knot. You could put together a compass course "treasure hunt" with a question to be answered or an object to be described by text at each point. Obviously, Kudu's sarcastic point is well taken - why bother tilting at this particular windmill anymore.

Just a few questions: Are you sure that everyone that needs a cell phone to participate has a cell phone? Seems we're assuming an awful lot here. Are you sure that everyone who will be getting these text messages will have unlimited plans on their phones? Are you prepared to hear the bellowing of a Scoutmaster at the next roundtable when he tells you loudly that he got calls from parents wanting to know why the activities at a camporee caused their cell phone bills to go up? Do you really want to override what may be Troop policies regarding cell phone usage simply to make things more fun? Aren't cell phones already more of a toy to a lot of Scouts rather than a tool? Is it really in our best interests to reinforce that idea? Are you sure you want to be asking Troops to provide the cell phone numbers of YOUTH members to a bunch of adults who may be strangers to them? Sure, sure, I know - they'll be under the control of just a couple of people and protected by super secret passwords. Uh-huh - and rainbows spit flying unicorns out their ends. Are you going to be providing charging stations for all those Scouts who need to recharge their phones?

No - you don't have a responsibility as a Scouter to do any of that. What you describe is more accurately categorized as Living Sustainably rather than Leave No Trace. The BSA doesn't officially teach sustainability the way they do leave no trace. As much as many would like it to be a responsibility just by being a human living on this Earth, it's really more of a matter between you and your own conscience. Now if the BSA were teaching sustainability, it might be a different matter, emphasis on might. I do believe that we doi have a responsibility to model what we teach in front of the Scouts. If we're teaching them LNT concepts and not following them ourselves when camping with the Scouts, then I believethat is a failure of our responsibility. The question becomes, do we have a responsibility as Scouters to follow LNT if we are not with our Scouts but rather on our own or with our families? I'd love to say definitively that yes we do but again, I think this is a matter between you and your own conscience.

This is an argument that has been debated for a very long time, just with a new face to it. Now it's gays and lesbians. In the past it's been blacks, jews, catholics, mormons, muslims, etc. Ironically, it's all in the name of God (or Jesus) and I really have to wonder about anyone who claims that God or Jesus would be supportive of them refusing to provide services for people because they are gay, or black, or muslim, or a woman, or whatever. In what twisted way would the people who want to discriminate because it's against their religion be in any way a person of faith in God or Jesus? "The problem is there are same sex advocates traveling around pretending to want to get married and looking for someone to say no so they can sue them. Some people have already been caught in this web." And this is a problem why? There are laws against housing discrimination and people test those in essentially the same way all the time. Same with ADA compliance. What's the point of having a law on the books if it can't be enforced, either criminally or civilly? I look at this law and I wonder if people's reactions would change if instead of marriage, it said food, or gasoline, or housing, or ??? Must we repeat the 1950's everytime we decide on a new boogieman or is it just impossible for us as a society to actually grow up and learn from the past? I have no sympathy for business owners who want to hide behind their religion, or skin color, or nationality, or language, or whatever and use it as an excuse to discriminate against other people. If you want to own a business but can't, in "good conscience", do so unless you're allowed to discriminate, then you have a choice not be be in business. Depending on how you set your business up, you gain extra protections when you incorporate your business. If you want those extra protections, then stop griping about having to follow the laws. When all is said and done, though, I take heart that more and more people are taking to task those who want to discriminate in the manner. In a way, it makes laws like this one, even if passed, moot.

Simple answer - Yes. Detailed answer: There are two different religious award knots. The youth award knot is a silver knot on a purple background. The adult award knot is a purple knot on a silver background. Which knot you wear depends on when you earned the religious award. If you earned a religious award while a Cub Scout, you wear the Youth Award knot throughout your scouting career. It indicates that you earned a religious award while you were a youth. Yes, if you earned the award while a Cub Scout and have the knot, you can wear that knot as a Boy Scout without having to earn another religious award. The adult knot is to recognize adults who have earned a religious award while they are adults. You don't automatically switch to the adult knot when you turn 18 if you have a youth knot on your uniform. You still wear the youth knot. The point is that the knot will tell you when a person has earned a religious award - as a youth or as an adult. If you earn a religious award as a youth then earn one as an adult, you can wear both knots. You wouldn't add another device to your youth knot for an award you earned as an adult since the you didn't earn that adult award as a youth. Something else to note, as ScoutNut has mentioned - you don't have to earn the religious award as a Scout or Scouter in order to wear the knot. I know a lot of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts work with their churches to earn the award as Scouts - but if you earn it as part of a youth group for the church and not "as a Scout", you can still wear the knot. Interestingly, I've not seen anything that says you had to have at least been a Scout or Scouter when you earned the award in order to wear the knot. I believe that if you were not a Cub Scout and earned the religious award as part of a church youth group at Cub Scout age, then joined a Boy Scout Troop later, (or weren't a Scout, earned the award, then joined Scouting with your son) that you would be able to wear the youth religious award knot.

Yep! One of the methods of Varsity Scouting is the Outdoor Method, and recommended activities for Varsity Scouts include backpacking, whitewater rafting and snow camping - all things with a need for LNT. Thinking abouut Sea Scouts, why couldn't some LNT principles be adapted? Boat it in, boat it out comes to mind.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Yep - mea culpa - my timing for Webelos was off by about 10 years. Cub Scouting started in 1930, Webelos in 1941. Patrol ribbons were still being used at least to 1929, and possibly for some years beyond (the use of ribbons slowly faded after patrol patches were introduced in 1926 but patrol ribbons were authorized at least up to 1929 but given the economic times, likely not pushed out too hard since the ribbons could be "homemade" if neccessary). However, the Webelos Colors were based on the old patrol colors system and the official representation of them were the, now optional, Webelos Colors ribbons that were used to put activity pins on. Just as an aside, Service Stars were introduced in 1923 but the backing colors were'nt standardized for branch of program until 1946. The backing color indicated the length of service since the stars did not have numbers. A green backing meant 1 year of service, a red backing meant 5 years of service, and a purple backing meant 10 years of service. For a short time there was a gray backing that meant 3 years of service. The service stars were gold but for a short time there was a silver service star which indicated 5 years of service - it was used with a red background - I'm guessing someone decided it didn't make sense to have a gold service star for 1 year of service, a silver service star for 5 years of service then a switch back to gold for 10 years - probably someone who realized that it was dumb to carry that kind of inventory.

It comes from the Webelos Colors. For a time in the Boy Scouts, patrols were not identified by patches on the sleeves, but by colored ribbons pinned to the sleeve - the Patrol Colors. The Webelos program was developed during the time period when Boy Scout Patrols were identified by color ribbons. As part of the identification as a transition phase from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts, the program emulated the Boy Scouts by developing a standard set of Webelos Colors, ribbons worn on the sleeve. Those colors are Gold (for Cub Scouts), Green (for Boy Scouts) and Red (for Senior/Explorer Scouts). The Webelos Colors were incorporated into a plaid Neckerchief. According to the BSA's official website, the colors of the Webelos Neckerchief are Gold, Green and Red with no mention of Blue. This does make sense as Blue is not a base color of the plaid neckerchief but is a result of the mixing of the Green and Red.

The fundraising application is not required if the funds come from the beneficiary, the scout, the scout's parents, the scout's relatives, the unit or the chartering organization, or the parents and members of the scout's unit. Here's how I think the answers would shake out based on my reading of the workbook. --- A "free" carwash in which a bunch of boys do a half-way job of bucket washing cars in return for a "donation." Big banner out front says "FREE CAR WASH -- Donations accepted benefitting Billy's Eagle Project and ABC Beneficiary." Average donation is $25 per car. One man give $100 but doesn't want his car washed. Fundraising Application is required as money is coming from the general public and the car wash is being used to raise funds for the project. Any excess funds raised above project cost goes to the beneficiary. --- Billy buys a shop vac, rents a pressure washer, and arranges to pay a business owner to use his parking lot and water. He and his buddies spend two weekends washing cars, charging $15 per car, the same as the car wash across town. Sign out front only says "CAR WASH" but when asked Billy tells folks he's raising money for his Eagle Project. Fundraising Application is required as money is coming from the general public and the car wash is being used to raise funds for the project. Any excess funds raised above project cost goes to the beneficiary. --- Billy works at his troop's annual carwash. A portion of the money raised goes into his Scout account which he designates to be spent his Eagle project. No fundraising application neccessary as it is the Troop that is providing the funds. The Troop needs to approve the use of the funds. There should be no excess funds as the Scout should only need to spend what is needed on the project and is not raising funds separately for the project. --- Billy knocks on doors in his neighborhood and asks if he can earn money by washing cars. He washes a few cars, does some windows, pulls weeds from flower beds and gets hired to paint a garage. The money he earns goes toward his project. Sounds tricky but... If this is something Billy is doing as a fundraiser specifically for his project and is not something he normally does, then the fundraising application is required if the money is coming from the general public (and he's not just knocking on Aunt Sue's, Uncle Bob's and Scout Johnny's Mom's doors). Any excess funds raised above project cost goes to the beneficiary. UNLESS - if this is a regular activity of Billy and is something he often does to make money for himself, then no fundraising application is required and the Scout only spends what is needed on the project - there is no surplus. For instance, if Billy regularly mows lawns for neighbors for extra cash, or shovels driveways, he is not fundraising - he can choose to do whatever he wishes with his money. --- Billy has had his own "mobile detailing" business and spends his weekends running around town doing quality wash jobs for paying clients. He pays for his Eagle project out of the money he makes. No fundraising application needed - this is a regular business of the Scout and he is spending his money on the project. He is not raising funds specifically for the project. There is no surplus because the Scout will spend only what is needed on the project. --- Billy gets a job at the local commercial carwash. He makes minimum wage, plus tips and saves his money to fund his Eagle project. No fundraising application needed - this is a regular job of the Scout and he is spending his money on the project. He is not raising funds specifically for the project, even if that is his stated intent on getting a job. These are wages being earned by Billy and he can do whatever he wishes with his money. There is no surplus because the Scout will spend only what is needed on the project. -- And further, if his approved budget is $500, all of which he is donating out of his own pocket, but the final cost of his project is only $450, does he have to give the $50 surplus to the beneficiary, or can he reduce his "donation" to the actual cost of the project? The Scout reduces the amount of the "donation" to the actual cost of the project. A Budget is not a document that locks one into a set amount of spending (no matter how much some people would like it to be). It is a document that estimates the costs to complete a project, run a property or household for a year, etc. If you estimate that a project takes $500 worth of lumber and you end up needing only $400 worth of lumber, you may have a budget surplus but not neccessarily a revenue surplus. It simply means you need to raise $100 less than you thought you needed. Alternatively, if you budget $500 and end up spending $550, you have a budget deficit but not necessarily a revenue deficit. The Scout can contribute an extra $50 or can try to raise the extra $50 from somewhere. I think the simple way to look at it is if you are raising money specifically for the project and you end up with a revenue surplus (whether through a budget surplus or because you simply raised more money that you budgeted) then the excess belongs to the beneficiary. If you are not raising money specifically for a project but are spending your own (or others within the parameters of gaining funds without requiring a fundraising application), then you should end up with a revenue = expense situation, whether running a budget surplus or a budget deficit, in which case there is no surplus. Just one more item that perhaps should be discussed. In one of the exapmples, Billy buys a shop vac. No mention is made on whether this is a personal purchase or a project expenses. If it's a personal purchase by Billy, then Billy is donating the use of his shop vac at the fundraising event. Billy can not be reimbursed for the cost of the shop vac through the project. If Billy purchases the shop vac as a project expense, whether directly by the project or through reimbursement from the project, the shop vac should become the property of the beneficiary at the end of the project. That should be true of any tool purchased with fundraised project funds. If you raise the funds and have to buy 3 hammers, at the end of the project, the hammers get turned over to the beneficiary, as should any excess materials.

I don't think you have to go to war with the district or council right now, but I do believe you should be asking the DAC where that rule is coming from since the workbook suggests including food in the budget as a cost (show him the passage). It may very well be a case where he was told about this rule and didn't know enough or couldn't be bothered to question it himself.

I think it's all about timing. In a couple of weeks, when David Letterman tells that same joke, everyone will be cracking up. But this week, when they're still searching the wreck for missing people, it might just be a case of "too soon". (I would have said Jon Stewart but I have a feeling that he might be one of the few comedians where "too soon" doesn't apply). Of course, that assumes people knew the reference in the first place (I got it - I think it's chuckle-worthy).

Well, I sure would like to know where that statement is in the workbook, because I couldn't find it anywhere. As I said, and I'll repeat - plan the budget with your beneficiary - if they say you can use some money to buy food for the crew, then buy food for the crew.

JoeBob - depends on the age of the boy. There are boys 15-18 who could polich off an entire extra large pizza all on their own - and be coming back an hour later looking for more.

The new "Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook" makes it very clear that all funds raised are for the benefit of the beneficiary organization and are to be used for securing materials and otherwise facilitating a project. Seems to me that pizzas (and other foods) are materials that help facilitate a project. But more importantly, the new workbook makes it pretty clear that the funds raised ultimately belong to the beneficiary organization and should either be given to the beneficiary to pay the expenses from, or alternatively, a Troop can hold the funds, pay all the expenses, and anything leftover goes to the beneficiary (which answers the question of what happens when you raise $500 for a project and spend only $450 - the extra $50 goes to the beneficiary). I would have a conversation up front with the beneficiary during the budget planning and let them know that you would like to include in the budget funds for buying pizza's, donuts, snacks, lunch - whatever it will be - for the volunteers. When the benficiary signs off on it (and it will be a rare beneficiary who won't), then it's a done deal - you have their permission to spend "their" money on pizzas. Done deal. If the DAC squawks, you ask him the question "Can you show me a written copy of that policy in the BSA literature" and follow up with "Do you want to call the beneficiary and tell them how they must spend their money?". Now to be fair to the DAC (as Beavah faints since I'm about to defend the DAC), these type of "rules" usually just don't happen willy-nilly. It wouldn't surprise me that this "rule" was created somewhere in Council because someone spent $500 on a 25 pizza lunch and spent just that amount or less on the actual project. So when speaking with the DAC, you might want to sound him/her out on how that rule came about.

John, Were it only that simple... What do you do when Adult A finds a joke by Conan O'Brien on Scout B's personal (non-Scout) facebook page making fun of Politician C, without the use of any questionable language, that Adult A finds offensive because s/he supports Politican C, then insists the Scout be punished for not following the BSA social media guidelines? What do you do if Adult A is the CC, or the COR?

In the thread this is spun off from, the discussion is what happens to boys that aren't "Natural Born Leaders". I'd be interested to know what makes someone a "natural born leader" in your eyes. How do you define it and know it when you see it? What is a "Natural Born Leader" Or is there really such a thing as a "Natural Born Leader"? I have my own opinion on that (and you can probably guess what that is based on my liberal use of quotation marks) but I'd like to hear other's opinions first.

A trail full of freshly fallen leaves The call of an owl at night The first time I notice Orion in the winter Finding a salamander under a log

"Do you think the BSA (social) Media Guidelines should control the content of your personal non scout web page?" In a word - No. I also don't think my employer's (or school's, or church's, or the fire department's or my neighbor's) social media guidelines should control the content of my personal pages. The Social Media Guidelines should be read as guidelines to units who want to create a facebook page or twitter account for their unit. It should not be read in any way to be a document meant to control a Scout's or Scout Leader's personal web pages, facebook pages, twitter accounts, etc. At the end of the document, it suggests language to be used on a "personal" account to the effect that the site is not an official site of the Boy Scouts of America. In this instance, the word "personal" should be read to mean the Pack's or Troop's website - not an individual Scout's website (with the understanding that the exception to that is if it's a site of a PL or SPL that is solely and strictly used for Scouting purposes, and is identified as such (something like SPL Bobby's Troop XXX Facebook) which he may be using as a communication's tool to keep the PLC and the membes of the Troop informed of what's going on in the Troop). How do you police it, anyway? Do you make the Scout submit what he's going to post on his personal web site to a committee of decency in advance? This is a telling sentence: "I know some BSA leaders who think that if a few words or pictures are used by a scout on a personal web page that they deem a "offensive" media conversation or video...". I'd like to know who made them the arbiter of what is and isn't offensive to society? They may have their own personal ideas of what is offensive, but I find it far more offensive for someone like that to insist that what they find offensive must be offensive to all. "Anybody remember the book "1984" by George Orwell?" It seems to me you already know what the answer should be, and more importantly, why that should be the answer. It's time to stand up to these bullies (and that's what they've become at this point) and tell them to knock it off or go play in their own sandbox. By this time, you should have spoken with the institutional head and made sure he is at least figuratively standing beside you in support so that you can make it very clear to those 'leaders' that it is time for them to go - and if s/he isn't firmly at your side, then it's time to turn the reins over to someone else.

Can I suggest a compromise here? Boston Butt is most commonly used as the meat in BBQ Pulled Pork. BBQ Pulled Pork can now be bought pre-made at most grocery stores. No need to spend hours smoking them yourselves - and, at least in my neck of the woods, kids like to eat pulled pork - it's kind of a sloppy joe with pork instead of ground beef. Is it expensive? Not really much more than a pound of ground beef nowadays. I have a hunch that will satisfy your eager volunteer and everyone will enjoy a much nicer dinner than chicken nuggets. Pulled Pork doesn't have to be the entire meal either - it can be one of a couple of options available - heck, if it were me, I'd offer up either pulled pork sandwiches or sloppy joe sandwiches. Chicken Nuggets? Really?? How do you cook Chicken Nuggets on a campout? I consider them microwave food - and I'm not sure I should use the term "Food" when refering to Chicken Nuggets. I imagine you're deep frying them - and I think deep frying something on a campout is as absurd as spending 5 hours smoking boston butts on a campout.

"15% off camp sounds like a resonable incentive. Resident summer camp runs around $300 in my area. That could mean a $45 discount." Hmmm - Just doing a bit of back of the napkin math that a parent just might do. Camp costs $300. If I give a $100 donation to FOS, I get a 15% discount on camp - a savings of $45. Now I'm paying $255 for camp instead of $300 but I spent $100 to get $45 off so now I've spent $355 for camp and FOS ($100 + $300 - $45 = $355). The cynical side of me looks at that and thinks - gee, I'll save $55 by paying just for camp. BTW - what incentivizes the parents that won't be sending their sons to camp in the first place to donate $100 to make sure that everyone who is sending their sons to camp get a 15% discount? The way I read those goals is that $100 ($75 for Cubs) has to be raised per scout. To keep the math easy, if you have a Troop of 5, you need to raise $500 - and the way you'll get it is $100 per family - but what if one family isn't going to take advantage of the camp discount and gives nothing? Now the other 4 have to kick in $125 each to meet the $100 per Scout goal - that $45 discount now became a $20 discount. All that being said, I wouldn't have a problem with a Council making the suggestion that the standard donation is $75 per Cub; $100 per Scout. Other non-profits do it all the time. Look at their solicitations sometimes - how many suggest you give a donation of $5? It seems the standard donation suggestion is between $50 and $100 - but there's always higher levels suggested and always a line for "whatever you can give - everything helps." Listen to a public radio station pledge drive - they come right out and ask that you give $50 or some other set amount, often with an incentive for some physical knick-knack that cost them a couple of bucks, but urging you to call even if you can only give $1. I'd also rethink the incentive. The discount idea is a) lazy and b) too easy to calculate that there is no value (as I've shown above). Take a page from public radio - people will donate $100 to get a tote-bag with the NPR logo on it and we all know, but won't verbalize or we just don't care, that the bag is worth $3 - maybe - and that's with shipping! An FOS patch? Maybe fine for a Scouter with a uniform - but not for most parents - but I've got a hunch that if they got one of those "green" shopping bags with the BSA logo on it, the Council's name, and in big letters "I helped the Scouts of XYZ Council" on it, for giving at a certain level, people would gladly pay it without thinking of the value-proposition because while giving until it makes us feel good is a great position, it's also human nature to want to be able to brag about giving to charities without wanting to be viewed as so gauche as to be bragging about giving to charities. Yellow rubber wrist bands for Lance Armstrong's "Live Strong"? Ultimately, that wa bragging - it was saying "look at me everybody, I gave money to Lance Armstrong's charity". NPR tote bags, bumper/window stickers, etc. etc. - bragging. And what makes the bragging a bit more palatable, on a subconcious level (imho) is that it does provide another intangible benefit to the organization - publicity. What mother wouldn't light up if given the opportunity to brag about their cub/boy scout when a food store cashier says something about the bag (and the cashiers/baggers will - at least in my experience)?

Meatless Chili - Serves about 6. 1 small onion , chopped 1 large green bell pepper , chopped 3/4 cup chopped celery 3/4 cup water 3 garlic cloves , finely chopped 2 (14 1/2 ounce) cans recipe-ready diced tomatoes , undrained 1 1/2 cups water 1/4 cup tomato paste 2 vegetarian vegetable flavor bouillon cubes 1 tablespoon chopped fresh cilantro 1 tablespoon chili powder 1/2 teaspoon cumin 2 (15 ounce) cans canned kidney beans , rinsed and drained Directions: 1) COMBINE onion, bell pepper, celery, 3/4 cup water and garlic in large saucepan. Cook over medium-high heat, stirring occasionally, for 6 to 8 minutes or until vegetables are tender. 2) ADD tomatoes and juice, water, tomato paste, boullion, cilantro, chili powder and cumin; stir well. Stir in beans. Bring to a boil; cover. Reduce heat to low; cook, stirring occasionally, for 45 minutes (so that it's more of a chili consistency than a soup consistency).