CalicoPenn

"We bid farewell with invitations to come on back and help me reassemble the beast on a latter day." I see what you did there. Very clever, Gern, very clever!

Acco wrote: "Scouting is not a democracy. Many folks seem to forget that. " Engineer61 responded: "Here! Here! And the adults are in charge!" Both are wrong. Folks may like to think Scouts's aren't a democracy and that the adults are in charge but ultimately, it's the Scouts and their parents that determine if a unit exists by voting with their feet. Ask around of the old-timers at District and/or Council and I'm sure you'll hear stories of units that folded after the majority of the Scouts up and walked away either to other units or out of Scouting completely.

First, welcome to the forum. I state the next with no intention of being flippant. The Boy Scout rules are pretty easy: Rule 1: Oh my Honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. Rule 2: A Scout is: Trustworthy Loyal Helpful Friendly Courteous Kind Obediant Cheerful Thrifty Brave Clean Reverent That's it - that's the Scout rules. Of course, there are other "rules" as well, such as those found in the Guide to Safe Scouting, but I suspect you're hoping to find some kind of rule from National that will help you deal with situations like this. You may as well stop looking. Unless it's a serious breech of policy that requires a report to the Scout Executive, the BSA prefers that Units handle their own discipline. The Scout Executive doesn't really want to hear of a fist fight between brothers at summer camp. Now if one of those brothers shot the other brother with an arrow at the archery range in a fit of rage, then yeah - that's a call to the SE (who will hear from the Camp Director long before you get to a phone). Now my thoughts, and these are just mine, as to this situation are somewhat similar to Scoutfishes. ASM 1: I'm not a zero tolerance kind of guy, and neither is the BSA (with a couple of notable exceptions). This attitude is very much zero tolerance - caught fighting? You're out! Nope - doesn't work for me - we're about building character - how can we build character if we kick Scouts out who need their characters built? ASM 2: This is an ok answer - IF the unit has the culture where the SM and ASM's abrogate their responsibilities on dealing with youth discipline matters to the Committee. I've never been a big fan of Committees being pressed into service to act as some kind of discipline board. I am a big fan of Committees working with the program leaders (SM & ASM) to develop discipline protocols and serving as a sounding board for SM's and ASM's who need advice. But, with that being said, I know there are units out there that do use their committees as tribunals, and though I disagree with that, there isn't anything that prevents it. ASM 3: Heart in right place, but wrong answer. ADD and Special Needs should never be used as an excuse to avoid giving proper discipline. Can they be used as mitigating factors? Sure, if they were indeed a mitigating factor (and it shouldn't be automatic - many of us have run into situations where a Scout on meds gets tired and cranky with a tendency to lash out without thinking at a certain time of the day - mitigating factor - but if the incident occured 3 hours before without any of these indicators - nope - no playing the ritalin card then). Some kind of discipline in a case like this is always appropriate - even with mitigating factors. SM - got it pretty much right - spoke with the offenders and dealt with the situation, as requested by the SPL. Some may say the PLC should have determined some other sort of "punishment" but in my opinion, once the SPL has to appeal to the SM/ASM for help, it's out of the PLC's hands. Could the SM have done more? Perhaps - but he's also the one who spoke with the fighters so knows what the deal is, and it sounds like he took into account another mitigating factor - they are brothers - while it might not make it right, there is a good chance the scuffle had nothing to do with Scouts and everything to do with them being siblings. It happens - and a wise Scoutmaster is the one that can separate the Scouting from the Family issue. The Former SM - at first glance sounds too laissez faire but to give the benefit of the doubt, it may be a way of expressing that in this Troop, the adults recognize that boys will be boys, that there will be the occassional scuffle, and that the Troop isn't there to make a federal case out of it. I suspect, based on how the SM and the former SM viewed things, that this Troop leaves it to the Program Leaders to deal with discipline matters - my kind of Troop. As for Dad? As Scoutfish noted, he handled it perfectly - stepped aside and let the SM handle it.

Vol - sorry for the late reply - I have been out on a river fishing for trout. Scoutfish pretty much nailed it except in general, and depending on the state, the contract itself does not need to spell out that the improvements become property of the landowner, though most land contracts will spell it out mostly to re-iterate state real estate law. In most states, once a permanent improvement is made to a parcel of land, it becomes, by law, "tied" to the land forever, and it becomes part of the land, and thus owned by the landowner, immediately upon completion, though with some limitations on ownership rights. In this case, the Boy Scouts built the building, but they never really owned the building - as soon as the building was completed, the landowner also owned the building. However, and this is where folks can get confused, although the landowner now owns the building, the rights of ownership may be limited. To illustrate, if you rented a house and the landlord decided he wanted to slap vinyl siding on the house, at his cost, he could do so even if you object. However, if you had a ground lease with the right to build a building and you built a log cabin, and the landowner decided he wanted to slap vinyl siding on it, he would be unable to do so until the ground lease expires - his rights over the building are limited since he did not build the structure, nor did he rent you the structure - he may own the structure but your rights to the structure, as long as you occupy it, are stronger than his. In exchange for limiting the landowners rights to the buildings, the occupant is required to fully maintain the building. If you rent the house and the roof is damaged, the landlord is required to repair the roof - you may carry renters insurance to cover any personal losses, but the landlord must carry property insurance to cover losses to the building. If you have a ground lease and the roof on the house you built is damaged, you have the obligation to repair the roof - you would have to carry property insurance, not the landlord. And if you don't have the insurance or the money and decide to just vacate, the landlord can get a court order requiring you to pay for the repairs. Note the permanent - that's an important distinction. Example - build an in ground pool and it's likely to be considered a permanent improvement and it gets left behind. Put up a fancy above ground pool and it's likely to be considered non-permanent and you can take it with you.

The best definition of Leadership I ever heard is a paraphrase of a saying by a Supreme Court Justice: "I can't define what Leadership is, but I know it when I see it". FScouter states: "There is nothing in the NYLT syllabus about management. There's developing a vision, goals, planning, problem solving, EDGE, conflict resolution. All put into practice with hands-on outdoor activites. No management." However, all of that is Management. None of it is Leadership. Now before anyone get's excited about that statement, let me be clear about what I mean by that. A successful Manager needs to be able to utilize all of those skills to be successful, whether managing people or tasks. What makes it different for Leaders is that a successful Leader may use any or all of those tools, but only one of those tools is truly required - and thats developing a vision. Being a successful Leader does not mean that one neccessarily advances visions and goals of the group, company or organization. A person who succeeds in undermining the group's goals by convincing his peers to follow his own personal vision is a successful Leader - whether we recognize him as a leader or not. Leadership cannot be taught - whether at NYLT or at a Scoutmaster's knee. If you are sending Scouts to NYLT expecting them to learn how to become Leaders, you will be disappointed. Leadership is modeled - and there is a big difference between something being taught and something being modeled. You can read all the Leadership books on the planet, and they won't teach you how to become a Leader, Those leadership books tend to make people more critical of other's leadership skills than improve one's own. Unless someone you have close, regular contact with models any of the behavior in the books, you won't pick it up.

First, welcome to the forums. Second, in defense of Narraticong, his gripe was clearly aimed at the concept of a 360 review in Scouting and was not a personal swipe at our new poster. Third, I agree with Narraticong - Green Bar Bill must be rolling in his grave, along with Baden Powell, Daniel Seton, and every Scoutmaster and Scout Leader of the first 80 years of Scouting that has departed this planet we call earth. The last 20 years? A 360 review would have fit in there at any time. I'm not a big fan of using the latest and greatest corporate evaluation tools in a non-profit setting, and especially as an individual evaluation. Does anyone really care about ISO 9000 (or 9001 or 12001) or Six Sigma anymore? If a vendor came in to my office touting that his company was ISO 9001, I'd laugh him out of my office - I don't care what certification the company's office processes has, I care about the quality and usefulness of the equipment they make. How the company files it's paperwork doesn't matter to me. We had a well-meaning board member suggest a 360 review process for individual reviews - what am I supposed to do, ask a suicidal 16 year old how I'm doing? Thankfully, that didn't get far. Everytime I hear about the 360 review, I get an image in my head of former New York City Mayor Ed Koch popping into a diner asking "How am I doing". That said, I wouldn't be opposed to this kind of evaluation being done at a unit level, district level and council level. A Troop or Pack should ask their Chartered Organization, the Scouts and the parents the type of questions that evaluate how the unit is being perceived so it can adjust as needed, on a regular basis - at least annually. Scouts and their parents may give feedback all the time, but doing an annual formal evaluation allows for consolidation. Put together, you might discover that Scout Bill, Scout Jim, Scout Tom, Scout Wes all have the same issues, all expressed those issues individually before, but only by seeing them together do you realize that you, or you and other leaders, have heard the same thing expressed by different Scouts at different times - it's much easier to dismiss one "complaint", it's a lot harder to dismiss 4 "complaints" about the same thing. I'd even survey the Chartered Organization 2 times a year - very informally - the "how are we doing" question put to the Institutional Head and the Chartered Organization Rep may be all you need to start a good conversation. Too many times, units go about their business without checking in with the CO from time to time, and too many CO's just let little gripes build up until one day the inevitable explosion occurs which damages any relationship, often permanently. How many times have we heard of units being kicked out of meeting places, of their own sponsoring institutions, because the sponsor didn't like how the chairs were set up after the Scouts left for the night, without the sponsor ever saying anything to anyone until that final blow-up? You might discover that the CO thinks everything is ok, but it sure would be nice if the Unit would help out with a little service project work every once in a while. As for doing a 360 just for yourself, I'd not sure I'd formalize it as an individual review. Frankly, doing a full 360 as an individual is just corporatism run amuck. You'll have much better results in informal, individual conversations. Around a campfire with your fellow leaders during the day when the Scouts are doing their activities - and be cautious when asking the Scouts - I don't believe it's constructive most times to ask the Scouts how you're doing - you may look at it as a measurement of personal growth, but Scouts likely won't see it that way - they haven't reached that maturity or experience level yet - they're far more likely to see it as an expression of self-doubt - a weakness to be exploited. If you feel the need to ask Scouts, limit it to the older Scouts - and by older, I suggest 16 and up - those who are starting to deal with evaluations by others on a more personal level - the ones asking for and getting feedback at work, at after school activities - who have learned that these evaluations are actually a tool for growth. Give a 14 year old a bad grade and they think of the immediate consequences - being in trouble at home. Give a 16 year old that same bad grade, and he's wondering how to mitigate it so it doesn't screw up college plans.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

Not hair-splitting at all. The Boy Scouts built the building - they paid for all the material (or at least what wasn't donated) and all the labor (at least what wasn't donated) in order to construct the building. No one denies this. However, none of that denotes ownership, which is an entirely different thing. To claim the Boy Scouts owned the building is making a very powerful, incendiary, and inaccurate statement. I merely explained why the statement was inaccurate. It's one thing to be partisan, it's quite another to be partisan and spreading unfactual information that one would expect others to take as truth, even if one isn't aware that one is being unfactual. The first law in the Scout Law is A Scout is Trustworthy. We need to be ready to show that we are trustworthy by making sure we aren't repeating unfactual statements made by others.

I always wondered why they had to drive through Woodstock to get to Chicago from Joliet.

The Boy Scouts never "owned" the building. They built the building. The Boy Scouts got a favorable deal on a ground lease through ordinance and as with any other ground lease, any improvements on the land become tied to the land and therefore become the property of the landowner - in this case the City of Philadephia. The City of Philadelphia has owned the building since the day it was completed (though technically, had the Boy Scouts just put in a foundation and never built the building, the City of Philadelphia would own the foundation. Many ground leases give the landowner the option of requiring the removal of improvements upon the termination of the lease. Most alsor equire the holder of the ground lease to fully maintain the building and pay all taxes on the building, for the term of the ground lease (though since the land and building is property of a government, there is no taxes). I suspected that Philadelphia would have a problem with the attempt to modify the lease to allow the BSA to pay $200,000 per year to stay. I don't believe the city had the option to change the terms of the deal, only the option to terminate. On this point, the City should have lost. I suspect the City will appeal. I'm afraid if the victory for the COL council stands, it will be a pyrhhic victory that will affect every organization that wishes to lease land or buildings from a municipal government. If I'm a municipality, I think I would think thrice before ever leasing to an organization if I can't maintain control over the municipal property.

The idea is good - provided the case studies being used are from BSA activities where there were parts of SA or SSD that weren't being followed. None of the three (thus far) examples used, though, would meet that criteria. In the first case, we have two adults, one of whom happened to have been an Eagle Scout (and as I've mentioned many times, Eagle Scout is a "hook" for the news media, whether what has occured is related to the Boy Scouts or not), taking a boat out into a harbor at night and, subsequent to an event causing the boat to take on water, drowned. The article doesn't provide a lot of detail on what happened to the boat other than it sank. We have a grieving father who claims that lack of experience was at play, but we don't know for a fact if the pilot of the boat, who appears to be the one that survived, is really that unexperienced. Regardless, nothing in this incident has any application to SA since this was not a Boy Scout outing. The second example may have some promise but we have a serious lack of information on what procedures were being used at this public swimming hole by the Scout leaders. There is no information reported that suggests that the Scouts weren't following SSD so it is just as reasonable to make an assumption that SSD was being used. One of the first things that should be taught is SA and SSD is that following these programs will not guarantee that the Scouts will be 100% safe. At summer camps and high adventure bases with water activities, we practice for those times when some thing goes wrong. A drowning can happen in an instant - I could run a buddy check one minute and see that every one is accounted for and have a Scout slip under water and drown the next. The third incident is apparently at a public pool, or a private guarded pool, and appears to have happened during open swim hours. Again, also not a Scout activity (the person who drowned just happened to be an Eagle Scout - headline hook). I spent most of my waking hours at the public pool in the summer when I was a kid - I rarely had a buddy in the sense of the BSA SSD system. At times I was with friends, at times I was alone. But always, there were guards on duty. Violation of SSD? Nope - because SSD applies to Scouting activities, not what people do on their own time.

Pack, I should have been clearer - by "you", I meant the royal "you" meaning pretty much anyone. I don't think it matters what the subject is, once the "null" hypothesis is brought into play, there is no point attempting to disprove the "null". Sorry if that seemed directed specifically to you. BTW - you're cute - want to spend time in my tent? (stated with a very wide and mischevious grin).

Well then, with that line of reasoning, it would seem that a "null" hypothesis would predict that regardless of any historical evidence, circumstantial or not, placed before you, there would be no influence upon your thinking, therefore the "null" will continue to hold sway. I think I'll skip that game.

Your Honor - I object!!!! "If you want to go that deeply into it then I suppose I should add that scouting is many things but it is not a vehicle for social change." The above statement completely ignores the history of Scouting and the Boy Scouts of America. Baden-Powell founded the Scouting Movement and W.D. Boyce founded the Boy Scouts of America to be vehicles for social change - it was the entire reason that Scouts was created. If, in fact, the Boy Scouts of America is no longer a vehicle for social change, then shame on the current class of professionals and volunteers for turning their backs on the rich history and future potential of the Boy Scouts of America.

Beavah, you're right - Shotgun Shooting MB does offer Hunter Education as an either or - but then there is an awful lot of other safety components in the rest of the requirements so requiring Rifle Shooting MB as a pre-requisite for Shotgun Shooting MB still doesn't make sense - neither from a safety standpoint, nor from a gun handling standpoint - shotguns and rifles are sufficiently different enough from each other that they handle differently. As for swimming to lifesaving or swimming to canoeing progression - sure, outside organizations may show a progression in how they handle things - and maybe we should have a conversation on whether that makes sense for the BSA - but there is nothing in the Swimming Merit Badge requirements that truly apply as skills needed first. The argument that someone holding a swimming merit badge means they are more comfortable in the water just doesn't fly with me. Short - I can't find a thing in Camping MB that requires a Scout to start a fire, or build a lean-to, and frankly, Wilderness Survival should be as much about preparing someone who doesn't have much experience camping to survive as preparing someone who does have experience. Done correctly, a Merit Badge Counselor for Wilderness Survival MB will be able to deal as effectively with younger Scouts with little experience as with older Scouts with more experience. If the younger Scouts were "failing" that says more about the counselors teaching than it does about the younger Scouts.

I believe the "agreement" is in the form of a local ordinance - and that ordinance has been refered to in court filings by both parties. There is no other agreement as far as I know. No matter what happens in this trial, it will be appealed by the losing party.

I hope this comes out the way I mean to say it. For the most part, the suggestion, on the face of it, makes sense. Swimming before Lifesaving, Swimming before Canoeing, First Aid before Lifesaving. They all seem to be natural pre-req's, but looking deeper, one has to wonder if that's really the case. Canoeing MB has a swimming test that needs to be passed before doing any of the water portions of the merit badge. Does a Scout taking Canoeing MB really need Swimming MB then? As long as they can pass the swim test of the merit badge, they're ready. Lifesaving MB requires the passage of the 2nd and 1st class swim tests before any other requirements are worked on. Swimming MB or not, they still have to be able to swim in order to complete the merit badge. All the other water sports type merit badges or special badges (Kayaking) also require passing the BSA swimmer's test. There really isn't too much more in Swimming MB as far as swimming goes that isn't already covered in the 1st and 2nd class requirements, and the BSA swimmer's test is sufficient to qualify someone as a swimmer at a summer camp waterfront. Is it really neccessary to know how to surface dive, or swim a competitive swim stroke in order to canoe? Interestingly, Swimming MB IS a pre-requisite for Scuba Diving MB. But then Swimming MB has a few requirements, ether as required for all or as options, that have skills that apply to scuba diving. First Aid MB for Lifesaving MB? Lifesaving MB has first aid requirements that apply specifically to a water rescue situation, including things that are common to First Aid MB. I don't know what the First Aid MB offers that would justify making it a pre-req. Seems to me if you can pass the swim tests, and can swim, it really shouldn't matter if you take Swimming MB or Canoeing MB or Lifesaving MB first. Then I thought Rifle Shooting MB before Shotgun Shooting MB makes sense. (Side note - both Rifle and Shotgun offer an option for Black Powder - there is no separate Black Powder MB as far as I know). So I checked into the requirements. Shotgun Shooting MB has a requirement that the Scout successfully complete a Hunter's Education course. Hmm, thought I - a hunter's education course is usually pretty comprehensive on safety, especially for youth, so is there really a need for Rifle Shooting MB first? I don't think so - safety should be well and truly covered. Ironically, Rifle Shooting MB does NOT require the completion of a hunter's education course - so I guess the question becomes, which merit badge is better for safety training? Maybe Shotgun Shooting MB should be a pre-requisite for Rifle Shooting MB. Of course, Rifle Shooting presents more information about safety on a rifle range, which is a slightly different animal than safety on a shotgun range. So what makes Whitewater MB (or Scuba Diving MB) different? It seems to me that Whitewater MB is building on skills from a previously earned merit badge - and maybe that should be the true measurement of a pre-requisite merit badge - is there a natural skills progression? There really is no skills progression from Swimming to Lifesaving or Canoeing. There really is no skills progression from First Aid to Lifesaving. They may share similar skills, but they don't add new skills to the previous merit badge. Same for Wilderness Survival - it's a completely different animal from camping - it doesn't provide a progression of skills, it provides different skills, though some of those skill may be shared. But there is clearly a progression from Canoeing (Kayaking) to Whitewater - using old skills to build on. Same with Swimming to Scuba - using old skills to build on. So those pre-requisites make sense (at least for Whitewater MB). So I guess that puts me in the "we don't need endless pre-requisites" camp - the merit badges all pretty much stand alone. I'd even argue that making the Swimming MB a pre-requisite for Scuba Diving MB doesn't make much sense either - you're going to have to know how to swim and dive in order to get this badge no matter what - I see nothing wrong with requiring the BSA swim test as part of the badge and adding a requirement on surface dives as part of dive training - which you'll get anyway, Swimming MB or not. If that's the case, then the only merit badge it makes sense to have a pre-requisite for is Whitewater MB - because if you don't have the Canoeing MB or the Kayaking Award, you're going to have to learn all of those skills anyway to earn the Whitewater MB - the BSA would just have to add those requirements in - making for one long list of requirements. May as well get two merit badges out of the deal. As for why the pre-reqisites were dropped? I can't say but I think the merit badge program is better off without them. (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

It may be a restriction that applies to summer camps, day camps and/or council/national activities only and not to Troop, Team and Crew shoots (Packs aren't allowed to have their own shoots). If that's the case, then it won't be a restriction in G2SS. Instead, it may be a restriction mentioned in the Camp Program and Property Management manual, which is the manual for long-term camp management. It's been a long time since I went to National Camp School (for Cub Scout Day Camps) but in the dim recesses of my memory, I seem to remember a restriction on using targets that depicted humans or animals (or for that matter trees) for the BB gun and Archery ranges and that the rationale is that we were teaching safe AND responsible shooting, and shooting at people, animals and trees was not responsible shooting. But that's my memory and not a document talking. I don't have a copy of Camp Program and Property Management, but I'm guessing someone on the forum does.

My, my, my... How did we all survive, and even thrive, without e-mail alerts every other day regarding activities, events, meetings, etc. If your sole source of communications to parents and Scouts is e-mail and you have a Scout without effective access to e-mail, then YOU are FAILING that Scout. NOT the other way around. You need to figure out a way to communicate with this family that which you communicate by e-mail to every one else. There should be no need for a parent to have to attend a weekly meeting to get the information or to have to go to a local library to open an e-mail account and have to trek there on a regular basis just to check it. A well-run unit will have a calendar pretty well set for the year - a hard copy of which can easily be given to the Scouts or mailed to the Scout's homes. Any changes throughout the year should be communicated in a variety of ways. Any additional information should be communicated through the Den Leader or Patrol Leader - they're the one's who are the folks that should be regularly communicating with the Scouts - and they're the ones who need to figure out how to do it. If they're relying on just e-mail, and one of the Cubs or Scouts isn't getting the messages, then they aren't being effective in their jobs. 70 people in a unit is a lot of folks to have to communicate with all at once, but communicating with a patrol or den of about 8 people isn't that difficult, even by "old fashioned" telephone calls. At the Scout level, an 11 year old should be able to take all the notes needed on upcoming events. For a Scouter to take the attitude that relying on a Scout to take notes is "not recommended" says an aful lot more about that Scouter than anything else. It suggests to me that being in the Scouter's unit is "not recommended". E-mail is a tool - and like every tool, even those that seem to be perfect for the job will have some drawbacks. A smart Scout/Scouter will understand that e-mail is just ONE of the tools in their quiver, and will endeavour to utilize as many tools as needed to make sure that communications get to everyone in the unit.

"A person being the Pack Leader and the Asst. Pack Leader.. How do you do that?" The answer's obvious: Conjoined Twins. Billy Bob - Bob for short, and Joe Bob - Bob for short.

Define "hate organization". As much as we'd all like to believe there is a universal definition, there isn't. There are people who would define the Republican Party as a hate organization, there are people who would define the ACLU as a hate organization, there are people who would define the Boy Scouts of America as a hate organization. By the same token, there is no universal definition of offensive or questionable. There are people who would consider boys joining the cheerleading squad to be a questionable choice. So too, I find it to be offensive when people protest outside and abortion clinic holding pictures of fetuses (foeti?) - and others do not. So really, the best answer is to just let the Scouts be Scouts and stop letting adult hang-ups get in the way of delivering a good program.

So you don't have the tact? Yet you have the perfect response: "tell these parents their sons were not interested - and it isn't their place to volunteer their sons for these things - and i really don't have the patience to counsel those that have no interest." So I'm thinking you take another route. You were nice enough to do as the Scoutmaster asked - made it known you would be counseling a merit badge for any interested Scout (though you have every right to say "No" to such a request, making the announcement showed the spirit of the Scout Law). Now it's time for the Scoutmaster to return the favor so-to-speak. Ask him/her to help you convey your message to the parents in a way that helps break the parents of Cub Scout mode.

Yep - Troop24 is right - you aren't supposed to wear your sash folded on your belt. But if you are at an event that calls for the wearing of the sash, and you become involved in something that would require you to remove the sash (say cleaning up after a dinner when wearing the sash would get in the way, or be potentially dangerous) then the most logical thing to do is fold the sash over the belt, or put it in a pocket - and putting it in a pocket also needs the sash to be folded.

Well first, I'm a little surprised that the Greater Cleveland Council has a representation of the sash back legends patch on their website since it's not an official patch of the BSA. My recollection is that it's also a private issue patch - meaning it didn't even originate with the BSA. Next - what do you mean by what do we think of the patch? Do you mean what do we think of wearing it? That answer's simple - there is no where to wear it. The OA makes it quite clear that sash back patches are not allowed to be sewn and worn on the OA sash, and there is really nothing else that it could be worn on without looking, well....stupid. It's a long, narrow patch - wouldn't make a good back patch on a jaket, and wearing it on a sleeve would be just, well, MTVtrashy (fka Eurotrashy). Besides, why would anyone want to wear it on the back of a sash - it makes the sash hard to fold and wear on a belt or put in a pocket or backpack, and for those who know they shouldn't wear it (I give allowances for folks that don't know better because they haven't been told) it shows a certain disrespect for the Order. Or do you mean, what do we think of it as a patch? Well, it's long, and narrow, and expensive, and for the vast majority of people, just a meaningless line of meaningless symbolism. How many people can read the patch and tell you what all the items mean? Now, I happen to have one of these patches - it was presented as a gift to me by my Chapter Chief after a particularly memorable call-out ceremony where I stood on the small, artificial lifeguard hill at a river bend water front reciting the legend to the gathered camp below me (from memory - and yes, it was a violation of ceremonial timing), with my 17-year old, theater trained, deep booming voice, while "heat" lightning flashed behind me the whole time. I can still read what it say's now - it's a great memory jogger - but I never wore it on a sash, and I would not have bought it for myself. For it's time, it was a neat looking patch - for what the times are now, it seems a bit dated. Here's the challenge - ask anyone that is wearing the patch to use it to recite the legend - I'd be surprised if 1 out of 50 can do it - then I think the question would be "why wear a patch that one can't interpret into something meaningful"? It's like wearing a shark lodge flap from Malibu when you were born and raised in New Jersey and the closest you've been to Malibu is the car (or the Barbie) - sure, it looks cool, but what personal meaning does it have?

Frankly, if you can't trust the Scouts (or their parents) with the merchandise before hand, then you have no business doing a fundraiser like this at all. Our council used to hold an annual Scout Show - Scout-O-Rama. Prior to the event, the Scout units would ge given tickets to sell (door to door, Dad at office (yes - I said Dad - the world wasn't very enlightened in the early 70's). Prizes could be won with different prizes at different levels. Most units followed the suggested way of handling sales - give the lad an initial amount of tickets (usually 20) and if he thought he could sell more, sign out more to him as requested. Sure, the tickets were only $1.00 per, but there were boys (and parents) selling a few hundred of them - and $500 in 1971 was real money - (not that it isn't now but these days, you're lucky if $500 will buy you 4 replacement tires for your car - in 1971, you could buy 4 new tires, and new rims to mount them on, and get a brake job, and still have money left over for a full tank of gas and lunch for the family at Jack-in-the-Box.) Trustworthy? You can't get trust if you don't show trust. If you go in to a situation with an attitude of mistrust towards your Scouts and their parents, then that's what will be reflected right back at you. Make it clear up front that lost tickets are the responsibility of the Scout and stick to it, and they won't lose the tickets. If the Scouts aren't turning in the money or unsold tickets, then get tough with them - It's amazing how quickly action gets taken when you say "No, Mrs. Scout's Mom - Billy can't go on the canoe trip next Saturday until he turns his ticket money in" or "That's right, Mr. Scout's Dad - if Jimmy doesn't turn in his ticket money and/or unused tickets by next Monday, we'll be cancelling his spot for Summer Camp" and then you stick to what you say.

Stosh, I read the article - I'm assuming the named 16 year old is the Scout in question. I searched and searched the article for any mention of the lads sexual orientation or for any quote by the lad that he is gay. I suppose I can keep searching till the moon turns pink but I'm pretty sure I'll never find an admission by the lad in the paper that he is gay, straight, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered or questioning. Any assumption of the lads sexual orientation is yours and the other folks who read the newspaper article. Of course, the assumption may be true - but absent any admission, it is still just an assumption on other's parts. As Scouter's we don't ask Scouts what their sexual orientation is - even when faced with a newspaper article like this. So now the question on what to do becomes easy to answer: You hold this lads Eagle Court of Honor, celebrate his life thus far in Scouts, and if he decides to leave Scouts, mourn his leaving but take pride in knowing that you've done a fine job in instilling the positive values of the Boy Scouts in another young man, and wish him well with his life, and offer support for his future struggles. Surely, you all know this lad and found him to be a good kid who deserved the Eagle Scout award - and if he someday does decide to "come out" and that changes your opinion, I think some serious soul searching should be done by those who now want to abandon the lad.