CalicoPenn

Bylaws? You don't need them - not unless your a "Friends Of" Pack in which case the "Friends of" group needs the Bylaws, not the Pack. You may need Standard Operating Procedures that just tells people the basic how-to's of the Pack (How to set-up the pinewood derby track, how the checking account works, how you gain access to the meeting space, etc.) but you don't need Bylaws. As for the person laying hands on Scouts (and siblings), first thing is to make sure everyone has the proper training. Next, tell this person that under no circumstances is it allowable for an adult to lay hands in a disciplinary manner on any child not their own. Period - no discussion. If the person persists, don't wait for Council to do something about it - go to the COR and have the COR remove the person from the Pack - no second chances. Done and done - and don't look back. If the COR refuses, then every other adult leader tenders their immediate resignation to the COR and goes on and forms a new pack where the COR won't tolerate such nonsense. Again - done and done, and don't look back.

Hmmm - are we that uncreative that we can't figure out alternatives to an evening campfire? Is BSA camping stuck in some kind of scripted rut where every campout has a campfire or it's just not a campout? I'm the first to admit that I like having an eveing campfire when I go camping - but when I'm somewhere it isn't allowed, I can usually find other things to do. Star gazing / meteor counting is certainly one of those. Finding a nice place to watch the sunset (and sticking around for another 45 minutes to and hour after the sun "sets" to watch how the sky still changes) is nice. How about a night hike? It doesn't have to be 10 miles - just a mile or two is fine. Go searching for owls and/or bats. Flashlight tag anyone? If you're going to be at a state park, how about finding out in advance if the park's naturalist, or one of the law enforcement rangers to come by and give a talk. There's plenty of things that can be done instead of a campfire - it's only limited by your imagination.

I think I have to disagree that changing this requirement is somehow making the program weaker. Changing this requirement isn't making the program weaker, it's adjusting the program to the way things are done now. The point of the requirement is to plan and cook a meal. The over an open fire part of the requirement is a holdover from decades ago when camp stoves were for car/family camping and cooking over open fires was still a common practice. Today, cooking over an open fire is no longer a common practice. The common practice now is to use a stove - either a car camping style propane/butane stove or a backpacking stove. Heck, even fishermen (and women) no longer start up a fire to fry up a passle of bluegills - they bring stoves along too. Go to a state park in season and the only thing most people cook over open fires these days are marshmallows. At one time, the practice was to dig a trench around a tent - we no longer do that. Is not trenching a tent weakening the program? Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't still be teaching the skills of cooking over an open fire - how will folks learn that soaping the outside of a pot before putting it over a fire will help in cleanup - but we shouldn't be getting hung up anymore on whether the cooking is done over an open fire or a stove. Note the requirement doesn't say you can't cook over an open fire - just that it's no longer required to use that single method.

What Lisa said.

Greasy, grimy gopher guts should be packed out. Alternatively, they need to be ceremonially buried in a lighting caused hole in the ground at a minimum depth of 300 feet by three shamans and a 90-year old maiden wearing gopher coats. It's easier to pack them out, if only because it's a toss-up on which would be harder to find - a 300 foot deep lighting caused hole in the ground, or a 90-year old maiden. As for fish entrails - what LNT recommends is: 1st: Pack it out (Preferred). 2nd: Bury them in a 6 to 8" deep cathole at least 200 feet from camp and water. 3rd: If legal, deposit in water at least 10 feet deep (not 25), or in moving water. Note, however, that many states with trout and salmon fishing rivers prefer that you don't drop entrails back into the water - one of the things they're trying to manage against is whirling disease, and infected fish entrails can spread the disease. In all cases, check with the land managers and licensing authorities first and do what you are required to do by law and regulation. Some states have laws that will tell you how to dispose of fish. For instance, it's illegal to drop fish entrails into streams and lakes in Minnesota. Some places ban burying entrails and require you to deposit the entrails into water. Yellowstone National Park requires water deposition, at least 100 feet from a backcountry site. Follow the law/regulations first, then use LNT as a guideline if you aren't given specific instructions. Of course the easiest way to deal with this is the ultimate LNT when it comes to fishing - Catch and Release. (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

There is no hard and fast rule on what a quorum is - unless it's in the governing documents of an organization - and an organization may make the quorum number anything they want. Your quorum could be "The Number of Registered Committee Members at the meeting". This means if you have 10 registred committee members, and only 2 show up to a scheduled meeting, the quorum is 2 - and you've met the requirements. I'd suggest listening to what Beavah has to say - just sit down and talk it out. Too often, only one person has a problem with it and it becomes a "controversy" when they start complaining about the decisions. Let the folks who have an issue with the decisions make their case - adjust if you decide you need to. Or don't adjust and stick with the decision. You don't need bylaws (which is probably why you can't find them - the wise folks that preceeded you in this very old Troop were wise indeed by not falling into that trap). All you really need to do is to just get along. If you can't find common ground, then ask for help from the Unit Commissioner, or the COR.

"3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her." Yes - this is true - indeed, it's generally true at least once every winter here in Chicago. It's hard to get a jury in Chicago to convict on these though - that's why they have to import the jurors from the suburbs. One of the best stories of the great Chicago blizzard this year is of a woman who was caught on video taking shovel from a neighbor's porch. Had she returned the shovel, the guy wouldn't have cared much. But since the guy was using the shovel to build his young daughter a quinzhee in his yard, and she didn't bring the shovel back, he decided to get even. His tapes showed the woman shoveling out her car - then taking the shovel with her to wherever she lived. He got out the old snowblower, and, as any good citizen would do, did his civic duty and cleared the sidewalk - all over her car. She didn't have the shovel the next day when she had to clear her car off again.

So can you provide independent verification from other sources that the flowchart does indeed represent what a discussion is, or is it just the opinion of an online magazine, presented as indisputable fact?

Since I usually ran elections dressed in blue jeans, I probably would give the election teams a lot of slack. A lot of election teams are comprised of older scouts that are often running from one activity to another - in my day, it wasn't unusual to see the election team putting on a shirt while walking through the front door after having driven from an after school activity, or from a part time job, to a unit's meeting. In my case, I was in full uniform - Explorer Posts had options. The only time we had a unit leader complain about how an election team was dressed was when they showed up not even wearing the shirt. Maybe our standards were lower at the tail end of the 70's, but as long as the team was at least wearing the shirt and sash, and clean jeans, no one had an issue. We did learn that one thing that helped mitigate the wearing of jeans in the eyes of the Scouts was by our wearing our "dirty" sashes - not only did we talk about how we provided service to our camps and to others, the sashes showed that we did. I know that one of the methods of the Boy Scouts is uniforming. What I want to know is when did uniforms become required. If Scouts from one unit come in to mine, and aren't fully dressed, I'm not about to pass judgement, even if my unit is a full uniform unit.

Back in the good/bad old days, when Explorers could be elected into the OA (my election to the OA was through my Explorer Post, not my (the sister) Boy Scout Troop), there was still another requirement that had to be met by all youths - and it's still the same requirement today: Must have earned the BSA rank of First Class (or higher - a redundancy that isn't neccessary). If you were an Explorer, and had earned Exploring's highest award, without having earned the First Class rank (which meant you had to be a Boy Scout at one time), you were not eligable for election into the OA. In other words, girls were not eligible since they could never earn First Class. If we extend eligibility to Venturers, girls will still not be eligable - because they could never earn First Class.

It's pretty rare in school board elections to see candidates running on educational issues these days. For those that do, they tend to be one-issue candidates (abstinence only education, school vouchers, teach creationism in science class, or remove the Harry Potter books from schools). Challengers tend to focus on taxes, incumbents have to defend themselves against charges of wasting taxpayer dollars. For the last 30 years, "teacher's unions" have been a boogieman of choice for the folks trying to manipulate the voter (err, I mean for the folks campaigning).

The Order of the Arrow used to be a camper's honor socirty. The OA changed that in 1998 and became the BSA's "National Honor Society" to better reflect the broader scope of the OA (not just camping, but service to others as well). I believe that 1998 was also when Exploring was split into Exploring as we now know it and Venturing. Prior to that time, Explorer Scouts were eligable for election into the Order of the Arrow. Why that wasn't continued with Venturing is unclear. To say it's because girls would be eligible then ignores the fact that Exploring was co-ed long before 1998, and girl's weren't eligible then. Frankly, I question why OA, which is now clearly available only to Boy Scouts, would still have "youth" members from age 18 to 20, when folks of that age are not youth in the Boy Scouts. Defining those ages as "youth" when Explorer Scouts were eligible made sense since 18-20 year old Explorer Scouts were also "youth". I see no reason not to allow Venturing back in to the fold, just as Exploring used to be.

If I remember my history right, we fought in Tripoli before we fought in Mexico. Jefferson was President at the time - indeed, it was because Jefferson refused to make a payment of $225,000 to Tripoli that Tripoli declared war on the US (by cutting down the flagpole in front of the consulate - now that's an interesting way to declare war).

Well since some folks are still insisting that salaries paid to teachers is still taxpayer dollars, and not the teachers, then we're going to have to set up a "Department of Personal Expenditure Approval" for public employees that requires all public employees to spend money only on those things, and only at those places, the government say's it's ok to spend money at. Eventually, with the government taking the lead, Corporations will start requiring their employees to get permission to donate money to causes.

"Unions have negotiated pension deals with government where the bill doesn't come due for decades." What deals are unions cutting with government where they agree that the government doesn't have to fund their pension obligations until the pension is actually due the worker? That's not what's been going on. They negotiate deals where an employee pays a percentage of their salary into a pension fund annually and the government pays a percentage of the employee salary into the pension fund annually. The bill is due immediately, not 40 years later. The pension "crisis" is due to government "borrowing" their portion of the pension funding obligation and using it for other things, thus not paying their bills on time. The unions aren't agreeing to the government doing so - the government just gave themselves the power to do so. If that isn't what you mean, then please tell us how you think pension plans work.

"The union dues are currently being paid by the taxpayers because the money is taken out of the checks by the state government." The employees pension contributions are being taken out of their paychecks and paid by the State to the pension fund. The employees health care contributions are being taken out of their paychecks and paid by the State to the insurance company. The employees State Income Taxes are being taken out of their paychecks and paid by the State to the State (gee - the taxpayers are paying themselves!). The employees Federal Income Taxes are being taken out of their paychecks and paid by the State to the US Government. Do you really want to argue that it is Taxpayers paying these amounts, and not the Employees? The employees are paying for these, and their union dues, out of their paychecks. Not the taxpayers. It doesn't matter if the employees are writing the check or the State is writing the check - it's the employees who are paying - and it's no different than in the private sector. When your company takes money out of your paycheck for health insurance premiums, YOU are paying the insurance company, not the company. As I said - it's a silly and nonsensical argument to state that the taxpayers are paying the union dues when it comes from the employees pay.

I'm not going to buy the "It's disruptive" line just yet. Not without more information. Are they speaking at the table during an activity when no one else is chatting with each other? Then it's disruptive, and it doesn't matter what language one is speaking. If, however, it's an activity time where parents and children are engaged with each other, and informally chatting with each other, then what is being described as "disruptive" is not that the parents are speaking to each other, but that they're speaking in a different language. That's not being disruptive, that's just participating in the activity the same as everyone else is, and who really cares if they speaking in a different language. For all you know, they're talking about their bunions - and I'd be grateful is I didn't have to hear that conversation. If these parents are doing the same as every other parent in the room, just in a different language, then let them be. If other parents complain, I'd tell them that you aren't the language police. The only time it becomes an issue is if they're in the back of the room talking loudly while others are trying to listen. That's when it's time to speak up. Frankly, I find the following to be the most disturbing part of all this: "I did so, and at first the Cubmaster agreed. But after speaking to the Polish moms (one of whom is a very close friend of his - maybe beyond friendship)" And I don't mean on the Cubmaster's part - but on your part. Maybe beyond friendship? You're an ACM - if you aren't on the same page as the CM - and if you're entertaining these kinds of thoughts about the CM, then perhaps you'd be best to move on to another Pack - before you let something like that slip out in front of other leaders/parents. Whether your instincts are right or wrong, if you think the language issue is a hot issue, just wait until this hits your fan blades.

A couple of things: "For forty years or so labor unions have been making monkeys out of the taxpayers by negotiating deals with politicans that created long term unfunded pension liabilities." Unions aren't responsible for creating long term unfunded pension liabilities. The politicians are. It is the politicians that used money that should have been sent to the pension funds all along on other things - essentially borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Now, because the politicians failed to live up to their end of the bargain, some are trying to blame the unions for the financial mismanagement of the politicians. Shame on anyone who buys those politician's deflection of their own ineptness. The union members, all of whom also contribute to their pension funds, didn't have the option of deciding that they were going to spend their pension contribution on a new car - the politicians should never have been allowed to do so either. "Futher, by the collection of involuntary dues, the unions are allowed to take tax dollars from me and funnel them to politicians whom I don't support" This is a nonsensical argument that frankly deserves nothing but scorn. Tax dollars may be paying public employees, but once those employees are paid, you, as a taxpayer, have no say, and should never have a say, in how those employees spend their money. Let me emphasize - THEIR money. Union dues are paid by the members of the union, with THEIR money. If you really want to play the "taxpayer dollars" game when it comes to employee's salaries, then you better be prepared to apply that principle to everything a public employee uses their money for, and not just a select something. Are you ready to tell a public school teacher she can't buy a Nissan because you don't want taxpayer dollars being used to buy anything but US brand autos? Are you ready to tell a firefighter he can't buy a Playboy because you don't want taxpayer dollars being used to buy smut? Are you ready to tell a police officer he can't buy toys made in China for his children because you don't want taxpayer dollars being used to support China? Of course not - and you probably think that's silly. And that's exactly the point - it's just as silly to tell a public employee he can't pay union dues as it is to tell a public employee he can't donate to the Boy Scouts. As to whose that argue that State employees shouldn't have collective bargaining rights (and I do consider it a right, not a privilege, protected under the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") as an unenumerated right) because Federal employees don't have collective bargaining rights, I say that just because the Federal government has it wrong, doesn't mean the State's should be allowed to get it wrong too. Federal government union employees should have the same collective bargaining rights as every other union protected by Federal laws have. To do that, we should be demanding that there be an amendment to the US Constitution that bans the US Government, including the legislature, from exempting itself from the laws of the United States.

"1) The NPR guy, Schiller, who in a private meeting said 'Well, if I take off my NPR hat and just offer my personal opinion, I think the Tea Partiers are a bunch of racists, and we need more well-educated citizens'. Or somethin' like that." ok, since we're Boy Scouts, it seems to me we need to be fair to Mr. Schiller and also mention that the above quote isn't an actual quote (as is recognized by the "or somethin' like that",) and that the sentiment expressed and attributed to Mr. Schiller was the result of an editing hatchet job that fully took what was being said completely off the rails of context. When Mr. Schiller was talking about the tea party being full of racists, it is clear in the unedited tapes that he was repeating the sentiments of what two GOP donors to NPR (one apparently an ex-ambassador) said to him as opposed to delivering a personal opinion. That portion ends with what could be interpreted as agreement by Mr. Schiller with those views, but could also be viewed as just another way of stating what he was told. Indeed, since Mr. Schiller makes clear his personal opinions, by prefacing with "in my personal opinion", and this preface wasn't there, it's reasonable to believe that Mr. Schiller was not personally referring to the tea party folks as racists. As to the well-educated part - here, Mr. Schiller does admit to a personal opinion - that in his personal opinion, liberals seem more well educated and intelligent these days than conservatives. Agree or not, it certainly doesn't seem to be an inflammatory statement. BTW - to give full credit where credit is due - the criticism of the editing job comes from a conservative website, the Blaze - which is associated with Glen Beck.

"But ---- wait a minute. Unions are big advocates of collective bargaining, but now they don't want to bargain about paying those promised benefits? They seem to want to negotiate INCREASES in pensions but say that negotiating CUTS in pensions isn't allowed. How is that fair? Why shouldn't collective bargaining work both ways? Unions have negotiated the promise of those pensions, but they also need to be able to get political support to increase taxes or cut programs to fund those promises. If they aren't doing that, it's the unions that aren't doing collective bargaining." Except that's not what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and other states. The government isn't going to the unions and saying we want to open up the bargaining process to negotiate cuts in pensions. The government is simply taking the collective bargaining rights away and saying "we're going to cut your pensions, AND we're going to eliminate your ability to collectively bargain with us in order to get to those pension cuts". It isn't the unions that are not acting in good faith here, it's the government.

Is it published by the Boy Scouts of America? Does it have a copyright by the Boy Scouts of America? Does it have the Boy Scouts of America logo/seal on it? Then it's part of the literature, just as the Boy Scout Handbook is. Is it a policy document? Nope. Does it have policies from a/the policy document in it that must be followed? Yep. Does it have guidelines? Yep. Can everything in the guidebook just be treated as a guideline because it's not a policy document? Nope. It's not unusual for handbooks and guides to have both recommended guidelines and required policies and requirements in them. The Boy Scout Handbook has requirements for ranks in it. It would be silly to argue that because the Boy Scout Handbook isn't a policy book, that the rank requirements are mere guidelines. It's just as silly to argue that because the Guide to Safe Scouting is just a guide book and not a policy document, that the policies it does contain, which the guide book identifies as being in bold type, are mere guidelines. As the guide states: "The Guide to Safe Scouting provides an overview of Scouting policies and procedures rather than comprehensive, standalone documentation." It seems that when the G2SS states that fireworks are not allowed, it's an overview of a Scouting policy (and if you need a more thorough documentation of what "fireworks" means, the official policy quite likely lists it). But let's not forget that "For some items, the policy statements are complete." Looking them up in the offical policy book, and you won't see a difference. Methinks too much credence is being given to the title of the book, rather than the contents.

"it should be driven by market value for the service we provide." My area got hit with a 24" snowstorm at the beginning of February. The streets AND sidewalks in my town were clear within 24 hours of the storms end. The work was all done by public employees - all union members. They got salary plus overtime - and worked as many hours in 2 days as most of us work in one week. How do we determine the market value for the work they did? Plowing a street is much different from plowing a commercial parking lot. Do we really want to pay the guys that plow our streets the same amount that we're paying a mope with a plow on a pick-up truck to plow out a 7-11? If your answer is yes, do me a favor - please don't run for office in my town. What is the market value for a police officer? Is it the same as the cost for a private security guard at Walmart? What is the market value of a fire fighter? What is the market value of a teacher? Is the market value of a public school teacher with a Master's degree and 25 years of experience really the same as the market value of a private school teacher just out of college? Want to hear a little secret? A lot of private school teachers are folks that weren't good enough to get a job at a public school. It's not the other way around.

It's going to be a struggle but I've given up pie until March 14, 2015. (3.1415....)

Go ahead and be annoyed with me - and while you're at it, try to figure out what, and who, you're really annoyed with. You (and not the rhetorical you) came in and started out by identifying a scout as psycho. I think it's safe to say that we already knew you thought the Scout is a punk and the family are jerks and that you might hold some kind of personal animosity towards them. You (again, not the rhetorical you) suggested that unrolling a tent was "helping" and was enough to qualify for a sign off. I simply believe that this standard is too low. From my point of view, helping means working with the entire process - putting together the poles, threading pole sleeves, pounding in stakes, raising the tent, putting the fly on the tent. Whatever it takes to get the tent from a rolled up in the sack position to a fully set up tent. If a dad came up to me and said his son deserves a sign-off on putting up a tent because his help consisted of unrolling the tent, I would be rolling on the ground (metaphorically) laughing. If someone else signed off on the basis that unrolling a tent was enough to qualify, then it seems to me the program staff (SM & ASM's) need to get together and get on the same page on what the standards are. (aside - the requirement is that the Scout pitched the tent - not "helped"). This Scout and father has been allowed to change the culture of the Troop and has been granted privileges other Scouts didn't get (waving steaks under other scout's noses certainly is not scout-like behavior - we agree on that - but the Troop allowed that Scout to be put in a position to do just that). It is the Troop's leaders that have done this - and it's just as apparent that you (again, not the rhetorical you) don't agree with how the Troop's leaders have handled this. You asked what is Scout Spirit? My opinion is Scout Spirit is a nebulous term that can mean different things to different people. Perhaps the best way to put it is a paraphrase: "I can't define what Scout Spirit is, but I know it when I see it". I imagine most of us think "living the Scout Oath and Law" is a big part of having Scout Spirit. It's probably much easier to articulate what Scout Spirit is not. IMHO, calling a Scout a psycho and a punk, and calling a Scout's family jerks, is not Scout Spirit. For that matter, letting one Scout and his family change the culture of a Troop is not Scout Spirit either. So sure, go ahead and be annoyed with me - I can take it. But before you slam the Scout for Scout Spirit in a BOR, make sure the Troop hasn't contributed to the problems first. Make sure that the Troop's standards have been clearly explained and that the proper expectations have been set. If someone signed off on the Scout's service project requirement, and camping requirement, you need to be looking at the standards of the folks doing the sign-off. Finally, if you have as much personal animosity towards this boy and family as it comes across here, you might be best not to be involved at all when it comes to this lad's advancement and activities. It might be you ending up on the outside looking in.

Granted, I may have been a bit harsh in my assessment, but too often we see unit leaders trying to use Scout Spirit as the catch-all to solve problems they themselves have created. It's a nifty way to try to absolve oneself of the responsibility for getting to this point. The adult leaders have already let this family change the culture of the Troop. They did it by not sitting down with the dad (and the son) to provide clear expectations of how things work in the Troop. They did it by letting this family do things their way. The adult leaders have now instituted a policy where the SM signs off on everything. Until this time, what they were doing was probably working out very well. They've now taken responsibilities that were entrusted with the PL's and SPL (and ASM's) - how does that show that the adults find these lads to be trustworthy? Who failed in this case - the PL's and SPL or the Adult Leaders? Hint - the folks that failed aren't under eighteen. "Show me in the requirement, that he can't sleep with DAD, he helped set the tent up, I think he unrolled it, but that is still helping." Yep, it may not be in the requirements but is it typical in the unit for boys to sleep in the same tents as their dads? Is it typical in the unit for boys not to tent with their patrols? If not, congratulations, a new tradition has been created for the Troop. And unrolling a tent is helping to set it up? Is that the same standard that has been set for the other boys, or is this a new, lower standard? Heck, if that's the standard, I'd start signing off the boys who carried the tent from the car to the campsite - that's helping too, isn't it? I may be reading it wrongly, but my impression of dad and son being kicked out of the eating area isn't because they cooked their own food, but because they had the audacity to cook steaks, while everyone else was eating something much less "fancy". I just don't get the impression that the problem was that they cooked for themselves. Indeed, it appears that they have cooked for themselves a number of times, and it was only the time they cooked steaks that caused a reaction from the adult leaders. I'd melt down too if no one ever had a problem with it before then. the Troop created an acceptablity for them to cook for themselves before they cooked the steaks. And now - now that another rank advancement is coming up - you want to use Scout Spirit to make your point? You're not ready to have that conversation yet. You need to get the house back in order before you have that conversation. If the leaders aren't ready to accept the responsibility they have for starting this mess, how can they expect the Scout to take any responsibility for "Scout Spirit"? (This message has been edited by calicopenn)