David CO

I did misspeak when I said that the CO doesn't want boys to be doing any other service projects that might compete with their time and energies until after they have received the Sacrament of Confirmation. I shouldn't have said boys. The policy applies to both boys and girls. In my later posts, I used the more correct terms, candidates for Confirmation or Confirmation candidates.

Yes, Stosh. All Confirmation candidates. All service projects.

Don't call me "Sunshine." It's disrespectful.

Our restriction applies to all candidates for Confirmation, not just the Boy Scouts. Our restriction applies to all service projects, not just the Eagle projects. Because our restriction is general, and not specific to scouting, it is not a scouting requirement. Does our restriction discourage community service? Yes. Is it an over reaction? Yes.

I very much doubt that TAHAWK accurately represented my position to Mr. Lo Vecchio.

Hedgehog, The OP was never very specific about the rule change that started this whole mess. The OP only said that it has the effect of requiring his oldest son to complete 10 more days of camping. I don't think I have enough information to judge the reasonableness of the rule. Does the rule require 10 days of camping per year? Does it require 5 days of camping per year, and it is being applied over the past 2 years? I don't know. I do know that the unit committee voted on and approved a unit rule. They approved a rule that applied equally to their sons as well as all of the other scouts in the unit. They must have felt the rule was reasonable. Why did they create a new rule? I don't know. Something must have spurred them to decide that they needed to create a new rule. I have no idea what that might be. I can't judge the reasonableness of a rule unless I know what the rule is and why it was enacted.

What a shock. Religions discriminate on the basis of religion.

Stosh forgot to add "nationalistic" to his list. Since its inception, scouting has promoted nationalism.

That is absolute nonsense. It's double-talk. BSA licenses its methods and materials for use within our Catholic youth ministry programs. BSA knows that we're Catholic. BSA knows that we are promoting Catholicism. If a boy did not identify a religious faith as part of his duty to God and/or did not belong to any religious institution, he would never have to worry about an Eagle BOR. He would never be allowed to register in our unit. Scouting is non-sectarian? That is ridiculous! At the unit level, scouting can be very sectarian.

I think we need a moderator here. TAHAWK has now asked me 3 times for identifying information. Isn't this a breach of this forums rules. If not, it should be.

There is no such thing as a BSA unit. BSA doesn't own units.

One of our boys chose to not get confirmed so that he could do his Eagle project instead. You can imagine how that went over. Now we have a rule.

We have Confirmation in 8th grade. I wouldn't mention it except that you asked for my opinion. I think the whole idea of forced volunteerism through service hours and service projects is idiotic. When you make charity a requirement, it isn't charity anymore. For many kids, it's just jumping through hoops.

Yes. Non-Catholics are also allowed in our school. Our policy clearly states that non-Catholics who attend our school will take the same Religion classes as our Catholic students. Non-Catholic students attend and observe, but do not participate in our sacraments. Non-Catholic students are also required to observe our dietary restrictions at school during Lent.

That's actually a very fair question. If the intent is to create an unauthorized scout rank, I think doing so would be out of line. If, however, "hedgehog" is a term used by the CO to describe someone who has completed its own outdoor education program, independent of scouting, then no problem. I think the CO does have the authority to adapt the scouting program to meet its own goals and objectives. I'll give you an example. My CO has a service requirement that members are expected to complete as part of their preparation for Confirmation. The CO doesn't want boys to be doing any other service projects that might compete with their time and energies until after they have received the Sacrament of Confirmation. We won't approve an Eagle project until after Confirmation.

It may not be hesitation. The CO might not wish to announce a decision until after they have chosen a replacement.

Let me give you an example of what I believe "consistent with" means. Before I formed my unit, back when I was a young Health and Science teacher, I was using some Boy Scout merit badge booklets to teach a certain topic in my class which the text didn't cover very well. I bought them at the council store. The woman in charge of the store noticed that I shopped there a lot, I was one of her best customers, and mentioned it to the DE, who then set up an appointment to meet with me. At the end of that meeting, I was a merit badge counselor. We came to an agreement that day. Boy Scouts who successfully completed my class could be signed off on that merit badge. Now, keep in mind, my class included a lot of other educational materials in addition to what was required by the merit badge. But that was OK. I could require the boys to learn more than the BSA requirements because it was part of a class. In order to get the merit badge, they had to successfully complete the whole class. This type of cooperation and collaboration between BSA and schools was very common back then. It was a good deal for both the school and BSA. This arrangement, in my opinion, was "consistent with" the goals and objectives of both BSA and my school.

Yes, that is funny. In another thread, I was criticizing Stosh for not following the rules. In this thread, I think he's being to rigid. In yet another thread, we were together, shoulder to shoulder. The irony is not lost on me. We do each have our priorities, don't we?

My Chartered Organization already has an anti-bullying policy in place. Since my scout unit is a youth program of the CO, and all of the CO's policies apply to my scout unit, I see no reason to create a separate policy. My advice would be to first check if your CO already has a policy in place.

I totally disagree with you about that, Stosh. Nobody has any legal obligation to provide a scouting program for boys. If Chartered Organizations didn't choose to provide a scouting program, out of the goodness of their hearts, it wouldn't exist. It is an act of pure kindness. I think scouts, parents, and volunteer leaders should consider this before they lawyer up and create a nuisance for the CO.

We have a very strict rule. Only non-scuffing soled shoes may be worn in our gym. I am an absolute tyrant when it comes to this rule. Sure, I can be rigid about some things and lax about others. I don't think it is at all odd that a Chartered Organization would be focused more on its own rules. But it's not just about rules, it's also about priorities. My practical advice to a scout, parent, or volunteer leader would be to find out what priorities the CO has for its unit, and try to accommodate it.

I really like Beavah's comparison to licensing a textbook. I wish I had thought of it. Just read the charter agreement. "One or more" does not mean each and every. "Consistent with" does not mean in strict adherence to. I have sat in many meetings with BSA where we have discussed the charter agreement. I know what it means. The charter is an agreement between BSA and the Chartered Organizations. The parents and volunteers are not parties to this agreement. I would suggest that parents and volunteers leave it to BSA and the Chartered Organizations to work it out themselves.

SSF has convinced me. If the COR has no problem with him, then neither do I. I am astonished that a COR would be hesitant to "go against" the unit leadership. I should think that it would be the other way around. The unit leadership should be hesitant to go against the COR.

I agree with our moderator, John in KC, that this topic is not about the council/CO relationship. We are talking about a parent being banned because of a disagreement over the advancement program. Only the CO can ban someone from the CO's property. This is about the parent/volunteer/CO relationship. Some things are certain. The parent doesn't own the unit, and the SM and CC don't own the unit. In my experience, when parents or volunteers raise the issue of the charter agreement and the council/CO relationship, the real issue has nothing to do with either the charter or the council/CO relationship. It is usually about the parents or volunteers trying to take the ownership and control of the unit away from the Chartered Organization.

How can the Chartered Organization "interfere" with the unit? The CO owns the unit. It is their unit.