CalicoPenn

Education may come first, but if a teacher in our area assigned a major writing project on a Friday, with no prior warning, requiring research, that was due the next Tuesday, and couldn't be done without disrupting weekend plans, that teacher would be getting career counseling from the Vice Principal or Assistant Superintendent of Academics. I live in the suburbs of Chicago - the school districts here are among the best in the nation - just being a student from our schools provides an intangible advantage in applying for college (in much the same way being an Eagle Scout does). Parents here take education seriously. They also take work/life balance pretty seriously - and this situation would not go unnoticed and uncommented on. The Scout made his own decison - he lives with the consequences - consequences that in the grand scheme of things won't mean a hill of beans. He's not going to fail the class because his assignment was late by a day, he's not going to drop out because his assignment was late by a day. He's not going to have to change college plans because his assignment was late by a day. He's still going to get an education. Interesting that Mama Bear was upset about Scout not getting breakfast because he slept in, but isn't upset with an unreasonable homework assignment (and it was unreasonable if it was a surprise assignment) and hasn't chewed the ear off the Principal of Scout's school.

I'm curious, Is it common for the Troop to plan a campout a week prior? I can understand planning duty rosters, menus, and activities a week prior, but was it not scheduled earlier?

How much time was required? 8 hours? 16 hours? 20 hours? Friday and Monday nights and all day on Saturday and Sunday? Would the assignment have eaten up all possible free time or was there time for other things? If he could get it done on Monday and Tuesday nights, couldn't he get it done on Sunday and Monday nights? How much time is all night on Monday and Tuesday. What age/grade level? Did the Scout believe he could get the assignment done and still go on the campout? If so, what happened to make than not possible? Again, could be a matter of time management.

So let me see if I understand this - a Scout is given a homework assignment on Friday that is due Tuesday and is expected to give up a camping trip that's been planned and prepared for since long before the writing assignment was assigned? I wish we had a few more details about the writing assignment, and why it would take someone 2 nights to complete it. But, without that info, one can only suggest that this isn't a Scout going camping issue, or a get priorities right issue, but a time management issue. Could any of that work have been done while in the car driving back and forth to the campsite? Could any of it have been done during free time? (I remember many a campouts where homework was being done in the car, or during "free time" or "siesta time" - especially by the high school age Scouts). Could any of it been done on Sunday night? Other than camping, what else was the Scout doing that could have been postponed? Playing video games after school for a few hours before starting the assignment? From a different angle, if the writing assignment was complicated, requiring research, was the deadline reasonably able to be achieved without interfering with other activities? Had it not been a Scouting function but a long-planned family weekend away, would you feel the same if the Scout said "Sorry, we can't go on this family trip because I have this homework assignment that was just handed to me today and it's due Tuesday"? I'll bet you'd be on the phone to the teacher wondering just where their head was when they made the assignment. I just don't know if I can buy the "blame it on the campout" scenario being proposed. Isn't is as likely that the Scout still would have been working on the assignment Monday and Tuesday night if he hadn't gone on the campout?

I thought this was an interesting coincidence. In a thread about the rights of adults to attend or not attend unit events, a few mentions were made of the distaste many have for video game weekends as Boy Scout Troop outings. Then on the same day, CNN reports that the BSA has authorized a Video Gaming pin and belt loop program for Cub Scouts. I checked my calendar and lo-and-behold, it's not April 1st, and CNN isn't just some random blog, so I'm thinking they've got it right (especially since they mention that part of the program is for teaching Cubs what kinds of games are appropriate and what kinds of games aren't - sounds like something the BSA would put together). So what say folks - has anyone heard of this? Will your Packs and Dens actively participate in encouraging this award? Should there be a video gaming merit badge? Is this the beginning of the end for the outdoor progamming for Scouting? Is this a good idea? Bad idea? Does this send the right message about Scouting to the world at large? Will our International counterparts be shaking their heads wondering just what the heck the American's are doing now?

I'd vote yes - that would be one of the most honest answers to a question given - and Scouting is nothing if not about character.

I've got some questions. You say the church is chartered by a church but that is not the church the Scouts are taken to at campouts - by that do you mean the denomination of the chartering organization is different from the denomination of the church the Scouts are brought to (ie - Methodist charter, Lutheran church)? Are they being brought to the same church (by that I mean building) every Sunday and if so, how does that work - you stop on the way home or you just camp at the same place all the time? Is there a reason the SM won't do a Scout's Own on Sunday mornings at the camp site? Does the chartering organization know the Scoutmaster is bringing the Scouts to church on Sunday mornings? Is it at their request? Do they know it's a different denomination (if that is the case)? Most importantly, what do the Parents of the Scouts think? Are the ones that don't like it just taking their sons out of the program? Are there parents who are bothered by it and just don't want to rock the boat? Have the parents given express permission to the Scoutmaster to bring their children to a church that may not be their own? If I were a parent of one of those Scouts, the Scoutmaster would be facing some pretty tough questions - expecially if I happened to be a member of the Chartering Organization.

Owl, My Eagle was awarded to me on appeal - after "solid dedicated Scouters, with decades of experience, reviewed this information and found (me) unworthy of the award" on a "technicality" (that technicality being that those dedicated Scouters were ignorant, bigoted knuckleheads that had no clue what the 12th point of the Scout Law is all about, and had no understanding of the DRP, and denied me based on my religion - because it wasn't a Judeo/Islamic/Christian religion). I got help from my parents, Post Advisor and a former Scoutmaster. Should I go ahead and hand over the medal to them because they got the award, and not me? So what, exactly, was the Scoutmaster bending over backwards to prevent? The appeal? Denying a Scoutmaster's Conference is not a good start at bending over backwards.

Congrats to Justin - and to mdsummer for persevering. Congrats to National, for taking their time and doing right by the Scout. It seems there are a couple of folks deserving of a heaping helping of crow - I hope (without holding my breath) that we'll see apologies from them for their rather unscoutlike behavior.

Back in the day, Wood Badge was seen by many as elitist and not worth the time and effort by those "on the line" (the folks actually working with the Scouts). The impression was that the folks that took Wood Badge were District and Council Scouters, not Unit Scouters - and that's the way that Wood Badgers wanted it. Many saw it as some kind of secret, inside club among adults who thought they were more important than others. I knew an awful lot of old timers that never went to Wood Badge, never would go to Wood Badge, and would toss anyone who came in to their campsite spewing "Wood Badge Nonsense" out on their ears. As I recall, the reason for this push back was because of a general sense of secrecy that some in Wood Badge expressed, and a general lack of sharing of the wealth, as it were. Whether any of these complaints were legitimate isn't the point. What is the point is that too many people felt there were too many secrets about the whole Wood Badge training. The attitude around Wood Badge seems to have changed for the better since those days - it would be a shame if a sense of secrecy started popping up about it again. edited to remove a hanging sentence fragment(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

Albert, Sounds to me as if everything has worked out ok. Also sounds like there is some hyper-awareness there - not neccessarily a bad thing, but sure can lead to some misunderstandings and mis-interpretations. One great thing about these forums is that while what has been answered may turn out not to apply to the original poster's question, those answers may apply to folks who have similar situations but haven't asked, or for folks who have never had the situation but may in the future. Your question is a great one for all of us to think about, even if we never face it, and to get all the different perspectives. Thanks for it!

Pre-camp swim checks in a swimming pool and the camp uses a swimming pool? Ok - I can buy that - if it's made clear that any liability issues that might arise out of an incident that could have been prevented if the judgment of the swimming pool staff (and Camp School trained Aquatics Director) had prevailed during a swim test defers to the Unit and not the Council and Camp. Pre-camp swim checks in a swimming pool and the camp uses a good old fashioned lake or river waterfront? Nope - take a new swim test - different conditions entirely. I've seen strong pool swimmers fail lakeside swim tests because of other issues (couldn't see the bottom of the lake, afraid of fish, minor chop to the water). Sure, it takes time, but a well run camp will have strictly scheduled, staggered times for swim tests, with enough scheduled time prior to and after so that the unit isn't rushing about trying to make their rounds, and a well run waterfront staff can run a scheduled unit through in the time alloted. One of the best run camps I saw was one that refused to allow the schedule to be pushed because a unit was late to the waterfront. If you have a 30 minute swim test period and show up with 10 minutes left, sorry - make arrangements for a swim test after all the others are done - potentially the next day (even 6 AM if you have Scouts starting waterfront merit badge work). It also serves to strengthen the Troops knowledge of the abilities of their Scouts. Passing a pool swim test before a canoe trip is fine. Passing that same test on a lake should give the leaders greater confidence in the abilities of the Scouts.

Ok - before we get too far, I want to clarify. Yes, it's possible (though remote) that it's the complainer that may be tempted, but it's more likely that the complainer has trust issues, doesn't know the other adults well enough or is just hyper-aware and is worried about someone else being tempted. Just want to make sure all bases are covered. That and it's even more likely that it's a moral/religious difference.

Many of the same arguments about a future Mars mission was said after JFK announced that man would walk on the moon. One common argument was that we wouldn't be able to get a man off the moon (sound familiar, Gonzo?). And they were right - at the time of the announcement, we couldn't get a man off the surface of the moon. Heck, we could barely get a man off the surface of the Earth, let alone on a long journey to the moon and back. But, faced with such an intriguing challenge, we managed to do both. A mission to Mars presents the same kinds of challenges, just magnified. We're farther along in figuring out how to get people to Mars and back, and farther along on figuring out how to land and take off from the surface of Mars when the first moon missions were announced - and the goal for doing so is over 20 years, when JFK made his announcement, the goal was about 10 years. Since NASA was created, it has invented, developed, or refined a number of things that impact our daily life. Use an ear thermometer to measure body temperature? Thank NASA. Lightweight, cordless power tools? Thank NASA (Black and Decker invented a battery powered tool, but it was heavy and the charge didn't last long - it was NASA that tweaked the technology to give us the Dustbuster). Wear lightweight glasses with scratch-resistance plastic lenses? Thank Nasa. Use a Brita water filter? Thank Nasa. Smoke detectors in your home? Thank NASA. Comfortable atheltic shoes? Thank NASA for their insole technology. Invisible braces? Thank NASA. Need Kidney Dialysis? Thank NASA that it's available. CAT or MRI scans? Thanks, NASA. Tang? That poor imitation of orange juice made from an orange powder? Not NASA - that's a myth. Came from General Foods back in 1957 - it just became associated with the space program because it was a dehydrated drink mix sent in to space with astronauts and adverstised as being sent in to space with astronauts by General Foods. Throughout the history of NASA, that "moneypit" has generated an awful lot of things that have benefitted us, and may never have been developed had NASA not needed it. We can only imagine what kind of tools and innovations will result from us attempting a nearly 1 1/2 year manned mission to Mars. NASA deserves all the support we can give it. I'm much more concerned about the money pit that is the US Department of Commerce.

Hate to bring it up but there may be a much deeper issue here than micro-managing or control, and that's either a potential clash of moral values (where some see being shirtless to be the equivalent of being in league with the devil and others see it as no big deal) or (and I'll express it as delicately as I can) a fear that either he, or one of his fellow leaders, will see the shirtlessness in the boys as being a temptation that will lead someone into more nefarious activities with a boy. I hope that neither is the issue, but we can't discount that either are a possibility. The best way to handle this is as others have suggested - drop it in the PLC's lap - let them make the decision.

David, In a perfect world, that's exactly what a Scout Account should be (in my opinion). More like an Xmas Club account where a Scout deposits a small amount of money every week or month to be put towards the cost of a future trip (like summer camp, or Philmont) or future Scouting need. I fully advocate the use of this kind of Scout account - it fits perfectly in line with the point of the Scout Law that reads "A Scout is Thrifty" - and as the funds really are the Scouts, when the Scout leaves the unit, he gets the funds. Unfortunately, more and more units deposit a share of Fundraising moneys into a Scout Account, while never collecting any funds from the Scouts (driven, in my opinion, by parents who insist that their children be compensated in some way for their fundraising work). For instance, a Boy Scout sells $900 worth of popcorn and the unit "deposits" $150 of the unit's share into the Scout's account because "he earned it". It is these kinds of Scout Accounts I am referring to. It could be argued that the Scout is being personally enriched by the fundraising, and this could cause all kinds of problems. A unit is much better off using unit funds to fully pay for some trips, or providing camperships to Scouts.

Is there anything in particular you're wondering about and why? Usually the question comes up because a unit is failing and the leaders of the unit want to merge with another unit and take everything with them. In general, the CO owns everything, including the equipment and the funds in the bank account - especially if the funds and equipment purchased with raised funds are raised under the CO's tax identification number. Unless the CO is dissolving the unit, everthing (pinewood derby track, tents, stoves, dutch ovens, even the library of merit badge pamphlets) belongs and stays with the unit. If the CO is dissolving the unit, then the Charter Agreement comes in to play - I'd be very surprised if the Charter Agreement doesn't contain some kind of clause requiring/requesting that all equipment and funds of the unit, if dissolved by the CO, be transferred to the BSA. Even then, State law could be written/interpreted in such a manner that such a clause is not enforceable. If the volunteers are "dissolving" the unit, the unit doesn't really go away until the CO gives up the unit, or the right to have a charter. The CO may bid the volunteers fare-thee-well and try to re-boot the unit. Advantage to the CO since they keep all the money and equipment (and yes, the CO could come after the other unit if the old leaders get clever and transfer "Scout account" money to the new unit - The Scouts may have raised the money, but since no one can individually benefit financially from non-profit fundraising, and if you're using your CO's TIN, then that money technically and legally belongs to the CO to distribute. Hopefully, you maintain a good relationship with the CO and they'll be willing to allow such a transfer, but if not, CO's ownership trumps.)

I'm not sure if I'm a scholar, a hack or an oracle. I suppose we're about to find out. Probation - I don't really care for the use of probation. Either a Scout has done something egregrious enough to be suspended or he hasn't. If what has been done doesn't merit suspension, then a Scoutmaster's conference or a form of proper discipline should be immediate with no further consequence (unless a pattern is developing). Too often, a Scout will do something stupid at an outing, but not serious enough to warrant suspension, will be disciplined, then some other adults will chime in and demand some kind of further retribution in the form of a double-secret probationary status. Such after the fact retribution has no place in Scouting - it's just a power trip by some adults. Otherwise, probation just seems to me to be a way for adult leaders to express displeasure at a serious breech without willing to stand up and administer a suspension as warranted - it speaks volumes about the character and courage of the adult leaders (A Scout is Brave but apparently that doesn't need to apply to adults). (Of course, I'm sure I'll get a mild tongue lashing from some for waying this - especially of the "let's not judge adults who are doing their best variety - heard it, don't disagree, but I still hold the above opinion). As for suspension - if a Troop is suspending a Scout, he's being suspended from the Troop - not from Scouting. If Philmont Crew or Jamboree Troop is not a Troop funtion, there is nothing to keep the Scout from continuing to particpate in those activities. If a Scout has a dual registration with a Venture Crew, the Troop suspending has no effect on his participation with the Crew. Of course, I imagine that the Troop may make the suspension known to the leaders of the other activities, but it is up to those leaders to decide if they will also suspend the Scout. I know if I were the Venture Crew Advisor, or Jamboree or Philmont adult leader, I doubt I would honor the Troop's suspension in my own unit/activity, unless the suspension had something to do with a serious breech of safe scouting (in all it's meaning). To my way of thinking, the suspension is between the Troop and the Scout, for behavior at the Troop level, and has no bearing on his participation elesewhere. By the same token, I wouldn't expect the Troop to honor a suspension if the Venture Crew suspended him. I might have a Scoutmasters (Advisors) conference with the Scout to let him know I know what's going on, but that's about as far as I'd go. Den Chief - interesting twist - If he's going for rank through the Troop and is using Den Chief, then I wouldn't give him credit for POR time served during the suspension - but I also wouldn't stop him from serving - he just needs to know that this month is on him, and not part of his POR time. If he's truly repentant, and wants to return, I think he'd still serve as a Den Chief during that month without credit, as a way to prove his sincerity (of course, I may be projecting, or being optimistic). Coming back right away for a BOR? I might counsel the lad to give it a couple months.

As others have pointed out, there are no requirements that a Den Chief come from an associated Troop. As others have pointed out, there are no rules that require anyone in the Pack to bridge over to an associated Troop. Every Cub Scout, and their parent(s), make the determination of which Troop they decide to join. In most cases, Webelos Den Leaders will make the effort to have the Webelos visit at least a couple of Troops, not just the associated Troop. Now how to deal with the District Commissioner. How strong is your Committee Chair and/or Cubmaster and how strong is their relationship with the COR for the Pack. There's only one way to deal with a District Commissioner who is demanding that your Pack "fire" a Den Chief that you folks obviously like and that's for the COR, Committee Chair and Cubmaster to contact the District Commissioner and tell him/her, in no uncertain terms, that s/he is no longer welcome to contact anyone from the Pack, ever - and that requires a stiff backbone and willingness to not give in. Then inform the DE, the District Chair and the Council Commissioner that the District Commissioner is persona non-grata in your Pack and that if he sends any Unit Commissioners to your Pack that have the same attitude, they will not be welcome either. Then the next thing to do is for the Cubmaster and the Scoutmaster of the associated Troop to have a friendly cup of coffee to discuss why the associated Troop has not volunteered to send any Den Chiefs your way, and to make clear that the Pack will not force any parent or Cub to join the associated Troop. The Troop has to earn the Cubs, just like the other Troop has to earn the Cubs. Then, as has been suggested, the Cubmaster and the Scoutmaster from the Den Chief's Troop should have a friendly cup of coffee to look at the requirements for the Den Chief Service Award to see if your Den Chief has earned it - chances are very good that in the past three years, without deliberately working toward it, that he has completed all the requirements and has earned the award. Imagine the last Pack Meeting of the year - all the Cubs and their parents gathered for one last hurrah before Summer, and the Den Chief's Scoutmaster and Senior Patrol Leader "mysteriously" being at the Pack Meeting, then the Cubmaster, Scoutmaster and Senior Patrol Leader calling the Den Chief up in front of the Pack and surprising him with the awarding of the Den Chief Service Award.

It's my understanding that the BSA has a ground lease with the right to build on the property but that anything they build on the property becomes part of the land and is owned by the lessor (City of Philadelphia) and not the lessee (CofL Council BSA), without any requirement for compensation of construction and maintenance costs to the lessee. The compensation for the construction and maintenance of the building has already been received by the BSA in that they have not had to pay market rents for the building throughout the history of the ground lease.

My first was Dog Care. My second was Stamp Collecting. My third was Swimming. My favorite was Landscape Architecture - both fun and challenging. There was only one counselor for the badge in the entire Council because so very few Scouts tried to earn it. The MBC had been counseling the badge since it's creation in 1967 and I was only the 5th Scout ever(and this was in 1975) to call him so he was very excited and that showed in his enthusiasm. (According to him, there were 4 counselors at first but only 11 people had earned the badge by 1972). The Council had to special order the Merit Badge Book for me since they didn't keep any in stock, then had to special order the merit badge for me when I completed it. I think that's part of why it's my favorite - I was the only Scout in my council to have the merit badge for a time - and I think it's one of the best looking merit badges - so a lot of people asked about it - even some grizzled old-timers who thought they knew all of the merit badges.

Clorox recommends 1 Tablespoon per Gallon of water. Most camping recommendations I've seen use this recommendation. The State of Washington recommends 1 Teaspoon per Gallon of water. Most government and academic recommendations I've seen use this recommendation. There are some that suggest 2 to 3 Tablespoons per Gallon is needed, and some that suggest that 5 drops per Gallon is all that is needed. I think you're probably safe with an amount between 1 teaspoon and 1 tablespoon per gallon of liquid bleach. And make sure it's just plain, ordinary bleach - not one of those color-fast bleaches or other formulations that Clorox has.

Well Beavah, I'll take you at your word that the Ordeal may meet the legal definition of hazing in some states. But that leads me to wonder if the people defining it that way are still traumatized by what they had to go through to have their Bar Mitzvah, which is also an initiation. A pretty fair number of my friends who had a Bar Mitzvah have said many times that Hebrew studies, which is required in order to have a Bar Mitzvah, was pure torture. Surely something that is pure torture as part of an initiation rite would be considered hazing.

The Ordeal is not an initiation - it is a day of service and quiet reflection which preceeds the Ordeal Ceremony, which is an initiation. As such, the Ordeal, by itself, is not hazing. That's not to say that hazing couldn't occur during the Ordeal, but such hazing would be actions outside the constructs of the Ordeal. Limiting a candidate to a hard boiled egg, piece of toast and cup of juice for breakfast is not hazing. Tossing the hard boiled egg into a mud puddle and forcing the candidate to retrieve and eat it would be hazing. Observing a day of silent service (except for needed communications for safety or the like) is not hazing. Forcing a candidate to put a stick in his mouth for 20 minutes because he spoke is hazing. In a situation where there are two older Scouts giving a younger Scout a bottle of urine and having that Scout try to get another younger Scout to drink it might be considered a form of initiation and therefore hazing. What's worse, and something that seems to be missed is that in this case, if indeed the older Scouts did pressure the younger Scout into this, then there are two victims, muddled because one of the vicitms is also a perpetrator. The Scout given the bottle to drink is a victim of the other 3 Scouts, and the Scout coerced into giving the bottle is a victim of the 2 oldest Scouts. Though the punishment of the younger Scout is appropriate, I don't see how it is appropriate to let the older Scouts off with no consequences, if they were, in fact, the instigators.

The Harlem Globetrotters cheat, steal and lie to win basketball games. Is that really the kind of sponsor we want for a Boy Scout Troop?