CalicoPenn

Step 1: Always wear your full uniform at all meetings and appropriate outings. Step 2: Convince your ASM's to always wear your full uniform at all meetings and appropriate outings. Step 3: Convince your SPL to always wear his full uniforma at all meetings and appropriate outings. Notice a pattern yet? If you want full uniforming, the most effective way to get it is to set the example.

Some would say the GOP convention is itself a terrorist act.

Just as long as you remember that sliding on grass sans pants is not allowed.

Not that any of the other questions posed on the forum aren't great but this is a great question - and you'll likely get 20 different answers. Here's my take, for what it's worth. It's really up to the Merit Badge Counselor at this point. There is nothing that I know of in any official rules that say that he couldn't accept the work that was started under a previous Merit Badge Counselor. If those requirements had been signed off on a blue card, the BSA expects that a second MBC would accept them as done (for instance, a partial from a summer camp, or perhaps a partial because the previous MBC left town, or didn't re-up before the lad was finished). If that was the case, this would be much easier - they were done, an MBC signed off that they were done, and time to complete the rest of the requirements. A Scout can take as long as he wants to complete a merit badge (example - he can get a blue card for Basketry the day he becomes a Scout, complete requirement #1 and #2 the next day, put it aside, and complete requirement #3 the day before his 18th birthday and earn the badge). In your case, you have a Scout that started the work under a different MBC, finished certain requirements, but never had the work signed off on and now wants to finish the work but the original MBC is no longer available. Can the Scout's new Merit Badge Counselor accept the old work, even if it wasn't signed off on and the MBC wasn't even an MBC at the time? I would say Yes. But saying Yes doesn't mean I believe the MBC must accept it. As I said, the MBC gets to make that decision. If the MBC believes the Scout to be Trustworthy and had done the work as expected, then I don't see any reason why he shouldn't sign off. The BSA won't tell the MBC that s/he can't sign off on the work. If I were the new MBC, I think I would give the Scout the benefit of the Scout Law, consider him Trustworthy, and sign off on the requirements that were completed. I'd make sure to ask questions to make sure the Scout understood the point of the requirement and perhaps has put some into practice since the original 13 weeks, and make sure he's knows his stuff, but I'd be inclined not to make the Scout start over on the 13 weeks if it doesn't seem like a blatant attempt to deceive (and based on your wording, it seems as if the Scout did do the requirements and people know he actually did them). That being said, I also wouldn't fault the MBC if s/he did apologetically say the Scout would have to do the requirement over again.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Had to chuckle at the funnel example - and I agree, it is over the top. On the other hand, it just backs up my contention that common sense is not common at all. Directions like these aren't written until someone does something that defies what we would all think of as common sense and gets hurt or killed by it. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't reports in the legal archives of folks filling stoves or lanterns with a funnel while lit and while holding the funnel above the fuel refueling port instead of in it and then catching fire. But I'm still waiting for specific examples of things that have taken the fun out of scouting. Someone mentioned the monkey bridge height requirements. The current on-line G2SS mentions that the height requirements "should" be followed by units. I don't read "should" as must or shall so I consider this a recommendation, not a requirement for units. It may be a requirement for Council's cope courses, but even if it is, I don't see where the fun goes out of anything. Crossing a monket bridge is either fun or isn't fun - wearing a helmet doesn't change that. But I guarantee you that if your Scouts are having fun on a monkey bridge then one of them falls off and gets seriously injured, no one will remember the fun anymore. I believe that safety and fun go hand in hand - they aren't diametrically opposed.

How is this any more disturbing than the people of the United States electing a former "chief spy" as President of the United States (and Commander in Chief of the Military)? Congress has plenty of control over the CIA - all they have to do is exercise it. Congress could, if they wanted, eliminate all funding for the agency or just disband the agency completely tomorrow if they wanted. A bit of history is also in order. Of the original 19 Directors of Central Intelligence (who could all be called the "Chief Spy"), the 1st four were nominated directly from the military and were referred to by their military ranks. There were two others who were also referred to by their military ranks - making 6 of the 19 "military" folk (though most of the Directors had served in the military). Today, the position is known as the Director of Central Intelligence Agency, and the Director reports to the Director of National Intelligence - so the "chief spy" is no longer the head guy at the CIA which technically means Panetta (a former military man himself) was never the "chief spy". More importantly to the original post - George W. Bush appointed General Michael Hayden out of the military and into the position of Director of Central Intelligence Agency, succeeding Porter Goss - who was the last Director of Central Intelligence and the first Director of Central Intelligence Agency. So the precedent is already there for the Director of the CIA to be a military man. So now I'm wondering - why was all of this just fine under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc. and is now all of a sudden not fine under Obama? If you think this cynicism, I'll wear that badge with honor.

The BSA reglating the fun out of Scouting is rather a broad statement - what fun things are you being kept from doing? If you're not able to go on a canoe trip or a climbing trip because you don't have the proper training, how is that the BSA regulating the fun out of Scouting as opposed to you not doing what is required to make sure you can do these fun things. No offense intended but the vast majority of Scouters aren't experienced enough to take a group of 14 Scouts and Scouters on a weekend canoe trip down a river, let alone a week long trip in the Boundary Waters. That's why the emphasis on training. It may seem ridiculous to people with boatloads of experience, but the training isn't really geared to you anyway - it's geared to the guys who have dipped their toes in the water, found that this could be a cool thing for their Scouts, and gives them at least a modicum of the tools needed to be successful. I know climbers that could climb rings around most BSA climbing instructors, but I'd still expect them to go through the Scouting training, so that they're familiar with what the BSA's expectations are and to make sure they can actually teach what it is they can do. So tell me what regulations have taken the "fun" out of Scouting. As you're coming up with that list, think about whether the regulation is really coming from the Boy Scouts (I'm thinking some may say "can't build a campfire" which is more likely to be a directive from the fire department or forest service), whether the activity just requires more training, or whether the activity that is banned really takes away from the fun of Boy Scouts (ie laser tag - yeah, it's fun, but really, is it Scouting and isn't Capture the Flag a lot more challenging and fun because it's an outdoor activity?). A side note to Beavah - I can tell you from experience (having worked at a 4H resident summer camp in Maine, the kind with cabins) that the BSA is not the only place that the first day is spent 'doing the paperwork". Our first day was taken up with greeting the campers, making sure the medical paperwork was in order, collecting medicines, getting the campers into their groups, getting them to their cabins, organizing the cabins (including refereeing squabbles over who gets the top bunks), heading down to the river front for swim tests, taking a tour of the camp so folks knew where everything was (from showers and bathrooms to the various activity buildings and making sure they knew the right path to take from the cabin area to the main lodge), to discussing the camp rules (in small groups). What games we did play (just before dinner) was designed to help people learn who their cabin mates and camp mates were. Seems to be a pretty common first day for most summer camps - even the long-term ones.

Without trying to be critical, because all of us have gone through it, I wonder how many of us go into "carrier pigeon" mode or act on the belief that "it's my game, my ball and I call the plays" because we're afraid that if the PLC fails (and it will, many many times) it will be a personal embarrassment to us, as if we failed - and if we feel that way because our society no longer sees the value in failure. Imagine if Orville and Wilbur Wright had given up after their first public failures trying to fly an airplane. Do we step in too quickly to salvage an outing at the last minute because we already made the reservation at the camp ground rather than just letting it flop and letting the Scouts know that the reason the camping trip was cancelled was because they failed to plan and perform? Are we too quick to take on the Scout's failures as our own? Do we try to hard to make every thing perfect to keep the parents happy - especially the parent's whose only participation is to drop-off and pick-up their Scouts? In my experience, most parents who are also active in the Troop and get the program are far more understanding than those that aren't. Perhaps we need to change the culture - maybe cancelling an outing is too big at first, but if the PLC and SPL hasn't got the Troop meeting planned out well, wouldn't it be better to just pull the plug at the beginning than trying to salvage the meeting with last minute ideas or letting the meeting devolove into an hour long kickball tournament? If we're ready to jump in to save the day, what message does that send to the PLC - that they can do a half-donkeyed plan and Mr. SM will rescue us? Maybe we need to be more willing to take some heat from the parents to give the Scouts a better oporrtunity to grow.

The BSA does a poor job of outlining any policy on how units are to handle funds and while some may think it's because the BSA is thinking of unit flexibility, I believe it's because they don't want to give guidance that could run afoul of federal and state laws and would just as well have the units and CO's muddle through the issues so they can claim ignorance if something happens. The federal government, and most states, have laws that detail what can and can't be done with charitable contributions - and if you're raising funds through a popcorn sale, the proceeds will fall into the realm of charitable contribution. To make matters more complicated, when you're raising funds for your unit, whether it's a pancake breakfast, a car wash, or popcorn sales, you aren't doing it under the aegis of the BSA's (or your Council's) Tax ID, you're doing it under the aegis of your chartering organization's Tax ID. The Council may be running popcorn sales, but they're only providing you with the opportunity to participate in a fundraising venture - it's still done by the unit, under the chartering organization's Tax ID number. Why is that important? Because the chartering organization has to file taxes every year (even if they're non-profit) and they have to include any revenue and expenses of the units they charter in their tax filings. That should be a clue as to who ultimately controls the funds you raise for your unit. I've never been a proponent of Scout Accounts, and the reason is because the BSA doesn't provide any guidance on how to make sure they're done correctly which leads to opportunities to do it very wrong. The US Government, and most states, do not allow for charitable contributions to financially benefit an individual. In other words, you can't run a car wash under the Tax ID to pay your mortgage. Where it get's tricky is what qualifies as an individual benefit. Scout accounts tend to skate right on that line and you need to be cautious on how you handle them. So far it appears that the IRS and the states aren't paying much attention to scout accounts though it's likely that a technical argument could be made that a Scout is getting an individual benefit if fundraised money is being used to offset his costs to attend camp, particularly if the funds are divided up in an uneven way (such as based on participation or sales made). In general, it doesn't matter if Scout A brought in $1,000 and Scout B brought in $500 - the funds are raised for the entire unit and are intended to be spent equally to benefit all of the Scouts. So far, this has been overlooked - and will likely to remain so as long as it isn't taken too far. So what will take it too far? The example of a Scout wanting to use his "scout account" money to make a down payment on a car is taking it too far. There is no legitimate scouting purpose for such an expense. If a Scout drops out of the unit and you write him a check for the balance of his Scout Account (and he or his family has not put any of their own money in), that would be taking it to far and would be illegal. It's not the Scout's money - its the Unit's money (and by extension the CO's money - though I believe the charter signed between the Council and the CO specifies that money raised by the Unit is to be spent on the Unit). The only exception is if the Scout/Family has put in their own money. There are still a few units out there that will take payments every month to be applied to summer camp (for some families, it's easier to pay $30 per month than $300 at one shot) - those are true Scout Accounts - very similar to a Christmas Club account at a bank. If a Scout drops out, it's incumbent on the unit to return those funds immediately - however, if a Scout has a credit of $160 in his Scout Account but only paid in $120 (with the remaining money coming from fundraising credits) the Scout only gets the $120. That $40 must go to the Unit's general fund. Remember, the key is that a Scout (or family) can't be personally enriched by a fundraiser. Transfering funds from a Cub Scout Pack to a Boy Scout Troop is also problematic in many instances. Transferring funds between units of different CO's? You better make sure your CO is on board with that if you're the one writing that check. That money is for the CO's scouting program, no matter how much you couch it in "individual scout accounts". If the Pack and the Troop are sponsored by the same CO, it may be less problematic as the money was still raised under the auspices of the CO's tax id number - though even then there is an ethical consideration of the donor to consider - donors aren't supporting individual Scouts, they supporting the program - but since we don't ask if they're supporting the BSA in general when they buy popcorn, or a chartering organization's Scout program, it's safest, and most ethical, to assume that that they are supporting the Cub Scout Pack that sold the popcorn. Sure, most of the time they probably don't care as long as it goes to Scouting, but unless they specifically state that, you're best not to assume it. There will be some folks that will donate to Cub Scouts but not to Boy Scouts for whatever reason. If you insist on having ISU's, decide right now what that money can be used for. Dues, Boy's Life Subscriptions, Chartering Fees, Campout fees (including summer camp fees) are probably safe - for now - and you're still skating on the edge. Spending it on handbooks and uniform parts is probably just over the edge but will likely be overlooked since those are only used in the program. Using it to buy personal tents, sleeping bads, sleeping pads - that's pretty much crossed the line on personal enrichment since these items can be used outside the Scouting program as well. I'm sure someone is going to respond that Scout Accounts have been used for years with no problems so why worry about it - and the answer is because the IRS is starting to take a closer look at the non-profit world, and don't believe for a second that the BSA is going to be exempt from that closer look. Over the past few years, the IRS has been notifying non-profits that have not filed their tax returns that they will lose their non-profit status. This year, they eliminated hundreds of thousands of organizations from the non-profit rolls. Their working assumption has been that these organizations have just ceased operations and no longer exist - but they were all given a grace period to file past returns and keep their status up. This was done as a prelude to cracking down on non-profits - both to crack down on those operating without a Tax ID # and to make sure those that are operating are doing so within the laws.

Does that mean if you don't have a cell phone you can't go to Jambo?

Tents were inspected by camp staff prior to unit check in, at unit check in with the SM, once during the unit's stay (twice if the unit was staying 2 weeks), and at unit check out with the SM. The check in and check out inspections were to ensure that the tents were received and given back in the same condition. Tents were inspected during the stay to make sure there were no problems developing. If a tent started developing a mildew/mold problem, a crew from the quartermaster's shop would appear with a replacement tent, take down the old tent and put up the new (for the site - army surplus is never new) tent. If nothing is hanging from anything, it's a site to behold as they replace the tent without touching anything that is on or under the bed, or on the floor. If a knife slice was discovered, the quartermaster would supply the unit with a repair kit and instructions on repairing the tent. If there was a broken plank in the tent floor, the maintenance techs would be there that day to replace the plank. If the kybos weren't being cleaned well enough, extra cleaning supplies would be brought to the unit by a camp commissioner during the siesta period after lunch - without saying anything, the message became pretty clear. Today. most units bring their own gear. I'd suggest that the SM and SPL conduct a couple of inspections during the week, not to harp on the Scout's messiness, but to make sure that the tents and gear are holding up - even if the tent is the Scout's own. You want to make sure that the scouts haven't just tossed a pair of wet socks or shorts into a corner of the tent for a couple of days - it doesn't take long for mildew to start growing. If you're experiencing rain, you might want to make sure that everything is dry inside. I once had a Scout on the smaller side keep using a sleeping bag that was damp at the foot end because of a leak because he curled up while sleeping and didn't have to touch the wet part, rather than getting it aired out and dried. Trust me when I tell you that it's far better to have a Scout get mad at you for inspecting his tent than to have a Scout get seriously ill after breating in mold spores because he didn't pay attention to the patch of mildew in a corner that you would have caught had you inspected the tent.

Beavah, While I thank you for the compliment, I think you missed the part where I also said "no matter what "policies" or "requirements" the unit has, it's the BSA's requirements that must be followed - no additions, subtractions or substitutions". Now I agree with you that a CO or unit can have their own definition of what active means - but where I disagree is that the unit can't apply that definition to "active" in advancement. The BSA has their policy of what active means, and provides their interpretation of what that means. It's the BSA's interpretation that prevails when it comes to awarding rank. CO's, Units, Districts, Councils, etc., can not add, substitute, subtract, change or modify the requirements, except in very specific circumstances meant to provide a smoother path for Scouts with different abilities. Since the BSA has provided, in the Advancement Policies and Procedures Manual just how the term active is meant to be interpreted, we are to use that interpretation. So what do you do with a Unit's/CO's policies? Apply them to retention and rechartering. If a Scout isn't meeting the CO's/Unit's policies, you either simply not recharter them, or ask them to find a unit they'll be a better fit for. I suppose you could just not let them serve in a POR, but frankly, I don't think unit's like that should be held up as a shining example of what Scouting is all about. If a Scout hasn't lived up to a Unit's definition of active, and the Unit has just let it slide until BOR time, then shame on the Unit Leaders - and don't take it out on the Scout. I'd be looking long and hard at any Unit that came up with a definition of active of their own (I think it would be pretty rare for a CO to have a definition of active - I think the exceptions might be a religious organization that is using the unit as their youth program and is requiring their youth to be a part of the organization - I just can't see an American Legion laying down a rule that says Scout's in their sponsored unit must attend 85% of meetings, and 3 outings per quarter). If you're in a unit where you have inherited such a rule and no one remembers why it was put in place, I'd be willing to wager a donut that sometime in the past, the unit had a really poor, boring program, and the adults at the time put such a rule in place because they weren't capable of figuring out a better way to improve attendance. If you're thinking about adding an active definition now, I'd suggest you take a long look at your program and ask yourself why you need it. If you're running a good program, that keep's the lad's interest - you don't need an attendance requirement. It makes me wonder if we're seeing a number of parents pushing their kids into getting Eagle Scout early because they read the rules of the unit and know that by High School, their kid is going to have far less time.

Dave, Did he complete his POR? Keep in mind, he may have been a Life Scout for 2 years and completed the POR in the first 6 months - it still counts. It even counts if he did his POR in the Troop then moved on to a Crew and never held a POR in the Crew - he still meets the requirement because he held a POR as a Life Scout for 6 months (and you might see where this is going - if he was a Life Scout at 14, did his 6 months POR, then dropped out until he was 16, he's already met the requirement - he doesn't have to start over). POR done? Check and move on. The big question is "active in the Troop". Here's the entire requirement for Eagle Scout: "Be active in your troop, team, crew, or ship for a period of at least 6 months after you have achieved the rank of Life Scout." So it doesn't matter if he was active in the Crew and not the Troop - he can be active in any of these. Generally, the BSA treats "or" as any one of these for any amount of time at any time as long as it totals 6 months. In other words, if he was active in a Troop for 3 months, then active in a Crew for 3 months, he meets the at least 6 months active requirement - provided they are not concurrent months. Being active in a Troop and a Crew for 3 months at the same time does not equal 6 months. Being active in a Troop from January to March then a Crew from May to July is 6 months. I deliberately put in the time gap to make a point - the time active doesn't have to be consecutive either - the requirement does not say 6 consecutive months - it just says 6 months. Yes, it could potentially lead to a Scout being active in Jan, Mar, May, July, Sept, Nov but not active at all in the other 6 months reaching that point but that's not likely to happen since one of the keys of being active is being registered and I don't know of anyone who whould register and quit in such a pattern. Quitting a Troop after three months and joing a crew a few months later - quite possible - and if he's a Life Scout, the clock doesn't start over on 6 months active, it starts with the end of the last point active since rank. It'll lead to another conundrum too - it's possible for a Scout to have earned Life at 14, held a POR for 6 months and be active during that time, earn most of his merit badges, drop out, re-sign up at 17 to do the project and any stray merit badges, and meet the requirements without holding any additional POR or "active" requirements. The BSA typically interprets "at least" 6 months to mean 6 full months and not a day less with anything beyond that to be a bonus. Of course, if you're the Scoutmaster of the Troop that the 17 year old is joining, you're going to make sure the lad is participating somehow, even without a formal POR, if you're going to put forth the effort to guide him in the last part of the journey. So has he been active in the Troop and/or the Crew for 6 discrete months? You can check this one off too. Once you do that, the only real question is should the Troop or the Crew take the lead at this point? If he's more active in the Crew, can't the Crew handle the project mentoring, the BOR and the Court of Honor? I'd think so. BTW - a Crew member can't just go from First Class to Eagle Scout as a member of a Crew - they still have to earn Star and Life - and although these requirements state "be active in your Troop and Patrol" (which is different from the requirement for Eagle Scout), the BSA has said that if someone is a member of a Crew or Ship, that Troop means Crew (or Ship)and that the POR requirements can be met with Crew/Ship POR's. If a Star Scout is active in the Crew and not the Troop, he is going to have to hold a Crew leadership position. BTW - no gauntlet needed - if the candidate has met the BSA's requirements (no matter what "policies" or "requirements" the unit has, it's the BSA's requirements that must be followed - no additions, subtractions or substitutions) then there should be no need to form some kind of gauntlet. I'd suggest in this case, let the Crew committee handle the BOR.

Blue - welcome to the forums. It sounds as if your Scoutmaster has said you need to find the counselor and that you contacted the council and they suggested you need to talk to your Scoutmaster - is that correct? I'm guessing (and only guessing but giving your Scoutmaster the benefit of the doubt) that your district doesn't have anyone on their list that is a Fingerprinting Merit Badge counselor which has stumped your Scoutmaster. Do you know if your Troop has an Advancement Committee Chair (someone who keeps all the records)? If so, you should start by asking this person if they can contact the District Advancement Chair to find out if maybe there is a Fingerprinting Merit Badge Counselor in another district. The District Advancement Chair should have contacts with the other District Advancement Chairs and should be able to find out. If you're not getting anywhere with your Troop leadership, then you may need to call your Council office again, explain that you're looking for a Fingerprinting Merit Badge Counselor, that your Scoutmaster isn't able to help, and could you please get the phone number for the District Advancement Chair so you can ask for his/her help. There is another option. Is one of your buddies interested in earning this merit badge? It's possible that the district just doesn't have one but that's not something that should prevent you from earning the merit badge. With your buddy and an adult from the Troop (and ASM, the Scoutmaster, a member of the committee, even one of your parents), you could call the La Crescenta station of the Los Angeles Conty Sheriff's Department and make an appointment to see someone in charge - bring them a Fingerprinting Merit Badge book, and Merit badge Counselor application (you can get that from your Scoutmaster) at the appointment and explain that you're interested in earning this Merit Badge but your district doesn't have any counselors for it and ask if someone at the sub-station might be interested in being the Merit Badge Counselor for the badge. If I know my law enforcement officers, someone will jump at the chance to help out the Boy Scouts (chances are pretty darn good that a number of the officers were Boy Scouts one themselves). It might take a little time, but the effort will be worth it, and you'll not only be helping yourself, but any other Scout in your district that might want to earn the badge.

Is it common for Councils to print the requirements for badges, awards, etc. in their summer camp manuals, or do they, like mine, just do a list of what's offered? It's one thing if a Council has a requirement that a lad must be at least 14 to take Climbing through their program becuase that's not a requirement of the actual badge, but is a camp sepcific requirement based on some attorney's liability panic (and no, it doesn't add to the requirements - the Council isn't saying you must be 14 to get Climbing MB - they're saying you can't do their camp program until you're 14). It's quite another thing to hold them responsible for people knowing that one of the requirements of the award is being 15 if that requirement is printed in the BSA literature (is it in the handbook? Then the Scouts should have known).

I don't think I would read too much into this as far as values go. "Finders Keepers" has been a meme in many societies for a very long time - yet I believe few people really follow that line of thinking. It seems to me (and I'm just extrapolating here based on what I've seen) that during economic downturns, we're more likely to repeat the "finders keepers" mantra than when we feel economically confident. If your co-workers have spent the last 3 years putting off vacation trips farther than the next state over, or that new car purchase, etc., then I wonder if it would mean they'd be more likely to bring up "finders keepers" more as a fantasy, but would still do the right thing anyway. More importantly, Senor Tacos is one of the best Mexican Restaurants in the area - though you wouldn't know it by it's mini-strip mall location. And Robert Adams is pretty representative of the folks that live in the Rolling Meadows/Arlington Heights/Palatine area. I know him as an aquaintance at a restaurant we both frequent (brief chats about the weather, the Bears, the Cubs, the Hawks and the Wolves) and I am not surprised by this at all.

SctDad, Interesting about the strip reading Explorer. It suggests that whoever purchased the shirt for their Leadership Corps son picked up a forest green shirt and didn't know that there were two different strips which indicated which program one was in. Exploring has never had a Leadership Corps so there wouldn't be a Leadership Corps patch on an Explorer's uniform. But it would not be surprising to find shirts with Leadership Corps patches and Explorer strips on them since the shirts were the same. I wouldn't be surprised to find shirts out there with the Exploring insignia but with a Scout USA strip on it. Sounds like you've got a hybrid.

The one consistent thing I disagree with Beavah on is the need for " troop bylaws" and "troop guidebooks" and all that other sort of nonsense rather than just using the information the BSA already provides. And yes, I think of it as nonsense because it leads to statements such as the following: "COR and CC are actually just figureheads in my honest opinion, all the power is in the committee members with the old fogey loudmouths often swaying all votes in their direction." and "They are very Roberts Rules of order- move, 2nd and vote on everything that happens including approving the boy's choice of activities and changing or cancelling activities when they want to (not due to unresolveable financial or planning issues, jsut they don't like the event)." and "right now the bylaws say that they choose COR, and annually vote for committee chair, co-chair, secretary and treasurer. CC can then appoint other people as standing committee chairs." These are the kinds of things that you get when the adults put together a set of by-laws - they do things contrary to what the BSA has set forth. All these by-laws end up doing is contradicting the BSA program, because obviously the people who put together the by-laws know better than the BSA, and the thousands of hours of work the BSA has put in, using volunteers and professional staff, to develop the program and materials. Read the Troop Committee Guidebook and point out where the COR is a figurehead, point out where the Committee elects the COR, point out where the committee votes on the program the PLC creates. You won't find it in there and not because the BSA "forgot" to put it in there. It's not in there because that is just not how it works. Yes, for many units, the COR is just a figurehead - but for those chartering organizations that are more than just a rubber stamp, the COR is the second most powerful person involved with the unit (guess who is first? Nope- not the SM or the CC - it's the Institutional Head (or governing board) because they can fire the COR). The COR "hires" (appoints) the CC. The COR "hires" (appoints) the SM. The COR approves of all the leaders. The COR can swoop in and give the Unit policy directions. Yes, there are a lot of books - but you don't have to read them all - as CC, read the Troop Committee Guidebook and follow it. The SM reads the Scoutmaster's Handbook andd follows it. The BSA isn't printing these things up because they look pretty and want to make suggestions - they're printing them up because they are the program materials that the CO has agreed to follow when accepting a charter. Follow them, and you'll be better off. And really, is there any reason to waste your time, the committee's time, or someone elses time taking the information from those books and putting them into yet another "book"? It's like merging the Dictionary, Roget's Thesaurus, all of the Peterson's Field Guides and a set of Encyclopedias on your own so that you have just one source book.

In the 1970's, the dark (forest) green exploring shirt was authorized for wear by the Leadership Corps in Boy Scout Troops. The Leadership Corps was made up of "senior" level Boy Scouts, boys 14 and older who were at least First Class. The Leadership Corps was essentially a patrol of older, more experienced Scouts. Initially, the age was 14-15 because the expectation was that at 16, a Scout would become a Junior Assistant Scoutmaster (as long as he was at least First Class)or be moved to Exploring but that eventally changed and the Leadership Corps could be made up of any Scout 14 or above. Leadership Corps members were expected to provide leadership and instruction to the Troop as needed, but were also encouraged to do their own things. You'll recognize these same functions today with "high adventure" patrols of older Scouts, Troop Guides, Troop Instructors, etc. The Senior Patrol Leader was the head of the Leadership Corps (but could appoint an ASPL to run the Corps) which gave rise to some believing that there really was such a thing as a Senior Patrol and that the function of the Senior Patrol Leader changed from running the Troop to just running the Senior Patrol (adult led, here we come!). The Leadership Corps (created in 1972) nominally replaced the "Senior Scouts" which was a replacement for the Explorers which started out as a division of a Troop but when it was separated into it's own discrete program, the Senior Scouts was created for boys over 14 who stayed with their Troops - all this really meant is that you could put a strip that said "senior" above the Boy Scout Strip. Nothing else was ever really done with it. Creation of the Leadership Corps was meant to address that deficiency. Based on your description, what you have is a Boy Scout Leadership Corps uniform and not an Exploring uniform. Take a look at the BSA Strip - with a Leadership Corps emblem on the shirt, it should read Scout B.S.A. or similar. If it's an Exploring uniform, it would read Explorers. Something many people aren't aware of - the infamous Red Beret could only be worn, initially, by members of the Leadership Corps. With the forest green shirt, the red beret looked particularly sharp. BTW, the rest of the uniform for the Leadership Corps remained as it was for Boy Scouts. The khaki green pants and matching belt, though leadership corps members wore red tabs for their socks and not the green tabs when they wore shorts. But what about the Explorer uniform? It had the same forest green shirt but with a strip that read Explorer, forest green pants, and white web belt. Explorers didn't wear neckerchiefs, they wore brown neckties. The white web belt was meant to go with white spats that was part of the uniform. In 1969, Exploring became a co-ed program. Around that time, there was a change in uniforming policy for Exploring. Individual Explorer Posts could now determine what their uniforms would be. The forest green Exploring uniform was no longer the only option. As long as the post members all wore the same thing, as agreed upon by the post, it was that post's uniform. In a lot of units (including my own Explorer posts), the uniform pants were blue jeans. Police and Fire posts often adopted uniforms similar to their sponsoring departments. The big "E" became the prime identifier of Exploring and it was requested that any uniforms have that identifier on it. So in the 1970's, the uniform varied by Post. Their were some Posts that still wore the "traditional" Explorer uniform but most that I'm aware of dumped the tie, an changed the white web belt to a brown leather belt, and burned the spats. One of my posts uniforms was a dark blue work shirt with the insignia on it along with jeans. Since that was my primary unit when I was a Lodge Vice Chief, thats the uniform I wore, much to the continuing chagrin of the Lodge Chief. After attempting to guilt me in to buying a Boy Scout uniform to wear to OA functions, he tried to embarass me into it by having the Council Commission hold a sample uniform inspection as part of an OA Work Weekend banquet - the Commissioner was a pretty sharp cookie and asked if the uniform I was wearing was the uniform that my Post had chosen - I said yes - and was the only person to get a 100% on the inspection, despite me wearing jeans. Not even the Lodge Chief got 100%. (Sorry, digressing). The Leadership Corps patch should be a trapezoid - it changed to a round patch in 1987, two years before the BSA dumped the program for the in troop Venture/Varsity program. The forest green shirt was completely dropped in 1979 - most Explorer Posts had stopped using them by this time and there just weren't enough Scouts in the Leadership Corps to justify the continued cost of supplying them.

There's quite a bit of overthinking on this and part of that is because the form is trying to be all things to all people. At the unit level, do you really need a medical form to tell you who one of your Scouts can be released to at the end (or in the middle) of an outing? If there is an issue in a family and dad, or mom, or grandma, or Uncle Joe or etc. isn't allowed to take custody of a Scout, you're going to know that because the custodial parent or guardian is going to tell that to you in person. If they can't make it, they're going to give you a call and tell you who will be there. I'd still have them fill out the "who's authorized" and "who's unauthorized" portion and as an example, if dad is not, he should be clearly listed as unauthorized (and if it's part of a court order - the words "under court order" should be added) and I would also state "anyone not on the authorized list". What this does is if dad shows up in the middle of an outing, while one adult is slowing things up, the other is calling law enforcement, and has a copy of the form showing that you are following the custodial parents instructions - at the very least, it will cause the officer to put a release on hold until he get's in touch with the custodial parent to verify dad's ability to pick up the Scout. For the most part though, it's meant as a resource for people like the summer camp director. When dad shows up in midweek and say's he's there to pick up his son, the camp director can check the medical form to see if he's authorized rather than having to send someone out to find a unit's leader to see if he knows what's going on. If dad is specifically listed in the unauthorized section, the Camp Director just isn't going to waste time tracking the lad and adult leader's down - he's telling dad he can't pick up his son and giving him a couple of minutes to leave camp. He'll follow-up with the unit after dad leaves, but he's not going to release anyone midweek to an unauthorized person.

5year, You've just made it much easier, provided you have, as they say, the backbone to stand by your decisions because you are in a great position to make the changes that you know in your heart need to be changed. Take the job as Committee Chair. Once you've done that, you tell the three members of the "old guard" that the Troop has greatly valued their services in the past, but you've decided it's time for them to retire. You are the Committee Chair - it's your job to recruit and appoint the Committee Members. Note that I did not say preside over an election of Committee Members - you don't elect Committee Members - you appoint them. You're simply not going to re-appoint these old guard members - that resolves that problem. Now you're going to be appointed by the COR, right? That's right, there is no election for Committee Chair. The Committee Chair is appointed by the COR (and why is the Troop "electing" the COR? The COR is appointed by the Institutional Head (or governing board) of the Chartered Organization - the Committee/Troop has no say in this process). So when you accept the appointment by the COR, you make sure the COR has your back so that when the "old guard" complains to the COR, the COR tells them that s/he supports the Committee Chair's Committee staffing decisions and it's done. When they try to become ASM's (and chances are that they will try), the COR needs to put a stop on that too - again, your service is invaluable, thank you for all your time, but it's time to retire - might we suggest you put that experience to higher use and consider working with the District, or becoming a Merit Badge Counselor? Then as Committee Chair, you get your new Committee, the folks that you've appointed, fully trained. Then hold an informal backyard get together (Maybe a potluck BBQ - you supply burgers/brats, everyone else supplies sides, buns, etc.) for the Committee members and Program leaders (SM & ASM's) and as part of the festivities, ceremonially burn the current set of "Bylaws" and announce a fresh start. If someone asks about a new set of "Bylaws", hold up a Troop Committee Guidebook, Scoutmaster's Handbook, Patrol Leader's Handbook, Senior Patrol Leader's Handbook and Boy Scout Handbook and announce "These are the new Bylaws" - then just move on.

Yeah - about that Gold Standard. The Great Depression was mostly spread worldwide because of the rigidity of the Gold Standard. When countries abandoned the Gold Standard, their recoveries were jump started. The earlier a country abandoned the Gold Standard, the earlier they began to recover. The Gold Standard was a significant factor in the downturn in the Great Depression era and abandoning the Gold Standard was a siginificant factor in the recovery of the economy. Interestingly, countries that were on the Silver Standard avoided the Great Depression. Let's not return to the Gold Standard - it's already been shown it is a hindrance and not a help. We conducted an experiment with our economy for around 30 years starting with the Reagan presidency - and it brought us to the brink of another Great Depression. Let's not go backwards to that failed experiment. It's time to move forward. Shelby should never have been allowed to derail this nomination - Unless there is a demonstrably provable history of criminality and malfeasance in a candidate, a President - ANY President, should have his nominees approved by the Senate without making a political game of it.

It's only fair to point out that just like in the BSA, there is plenty of opposition to the position the NAGAAA has taken within the gay community, and even within the membership of the NAGAAA, to the point that they, and their affiliated softball leagues, are losing sponsors and players. With this ruling, a number of sponsors and affiliated leagues that have been on the fence hoping that the court would rule against the NAGAAA are likely to pull their support now unless the NAGAAA declares victory but immediately change the policy. The sponsors and affiliated leagues are getting an awful lot of pressure from groups and individuals fighting to end discrimination to stop supporting the NAGAAA because the NAGAAA's policy leads to charges of hypocrisy.

Not a bad idea to have a set of standard operating procedures when it comes to finances (requirements for 2 signatures on checks, etc.) Beyond that, you don't need a constitution, you don't need by-laws, you don't need calendar events set in stone. But if they insist, then make is short and simple. Start off with the Scout Oath and Scout Law as Shortridge suggests. Simply state that the Scout Oath and Law governs the operations of the Troop in all respects and applies equally to the Scouts, Program Leaders, Committee Members, Parents, and Siblings when they are in attendance. Next, state that the program will be developed and run by the Patrol Leader's Council under the guidance of the Scoutmaster and his assistants, and the Committee's sole responsibility is to support the program that the Scouts come up with, and that they do not have veto power over the program decided on by the PLC. Next, state that operations of the Troop will be run in accordance with the following BSA guides: G2SS, Scoutmasters Handbook, Troop Committee Guidebook, Senior Patrol Leaders Handbook, Insignia Guide, Boy Scout Handbook, Den Chiefs Handbook, Advancement Requirements Guide, any and all current Merit Badge Pamphlets, Patrol Leaders Handbook, and any other official BSA publications and any questions will be answered by referring to the appropriate BSA publication. Put that on one page - put a fancy Troop XXX heading on it if you desire, and viola - je suis finis. Hand it out and stick to it - if any parent complains, suggest they find a new Troop, because frankly, they're going to be a barrier and problem to the rest of the boys, who are now going to get the program as the program is intended to be run, and who needs some schmuck who can't handle simplicity and collaboration without a detailed list of rules ruining it for the boys.

It seems everyone is ignoring a rather relevant point that was made about this particular study - that it doesn't measure long-term effects. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a divorce will take a short term toll on a child. But we have no idea what the long-term effect is on that child. Beavah points out that the loss of a parent to an accident or illness is hard on a child but the child gets through it. In the short term, the effects are likely to be similar to what was described in this study - but how long does it take for the child to get through such a trauma? 1 month? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? If a child can get through the trauma of the loss of a parent through accident or illness, what makes folks think a child can't get through the loss of a parent through divorce? What about the loss of a parent to prison? What about the child going through their own traumatic illness/injury? How long does it take to get through that? Trauma of any kind like this will affect a child - it doesn't matter what the cause is, the key to getting them through it is love and support - by parents, neighbors, friends, teachers, grandparents, etc. Could one of the factors be that when a parent dies, those surrounding the child are less judgemental that when parents divorce? Instead of standing at the top of a mountain declaring that divorce is a sin, how about keeping that opinion to yourself and support the child when they need it the most. Parents divorce, there is no reason at all that anyone should make the children suffer because they don't like divorce.