eisely

Steel may not burn but it does lose strength from extended exposure to high temperatures. Hence the collapse of 8 World Trade Center the afternoon nine eleven. Of course, the noted metallurgist, Rosie O'Donnell has a different view of that incident.

But I digress...

I would be reluctant to use any steel components salvaged from a fire. Such steel needs to be recycled, re melted, and made into something new.

Personally I have taken that goal as aspirational. Our troop does not go camping every month, but tries to execute a significant outing every month, which may or may not involve camping. For example, it is difficult to organize a camping trip between Thanksgiving and New Year's due to the number of family and other competing events during that season. We usually calendar an urban hike or similar activity during that period.

Similarly, we usually do not put anything on the calendar during August other than possibly a backpacking trip. We normally calendar two backpacking expeditions each summer and resident summer camp in July. Often the second trip will fall in August, but not always. About every other year the second back back expedition is an expedition to Philmont and it is very difficult to influence that calendar. If we miss an outing in August does that make us a less active troop? Hardly.

During the school year we will often do two events during some months, not necessarily camping.

I agree that the only concern is the signature of completion by the representative of the project beneficiary. Even without that signature, I would be inclined to go forward and request a board of review. There are plenty of witnesses to the work being done, photographs, and publicity regarding the fire to allay any concerns by a fair EBOR.

Just for clarity, I was contributing to this discussion based purely on my army experience.

I was unaware that any of the other services used a command such as "hand salute" instead of "present arms". The notion of incorporating a preparatory command such as "ready" is consistent with past and current practice in all the services as I understand them.

Looks like three of us were responding simultaneously.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the military command to salute is "present arms". This is clearly stated in a cadence that lets the people in the ranks know what is happening with a preparatory command and an execution command built in. The word "present" is given followed by a full count. Eveyone knows that the next word will be "arms" and that is when you actually salute. If you are actually carrying a rifle there is a prescribed series of steps to bring the rifle to a vertical position in front of you. Thus being in the position of "present arms" is a form of salute

The command to stop saluting is "order arms" in which the prepartory command is "order" and the execution command is "arms". Again, if you are actually carrying a rifle you return the rifle to the position it was in originally; on your shoulder, held with butt resting on ground, etc." Those who are not carrying a rifle simply return to the position of attention.

This notion is difficult to translate into BSA when no one is carrying weapons at all. How the word "two" came to be used I do not know. To me, if one thinks of the command to salute as the first in a sequence of commands for which there is only one possible second command in the sequence, then the word "two" may simply signify the second step.

The main difference between social security and a ponzi scheme is that participation in social security is mandatory. You can always walk away from somebody peddling a private sector ponzi scheme.

Private sector retirement plans, insurance contracts, etc are not ponzi schemes since they are based on contracts and have to meet standards of actuarial soundness. This is not to say that all private sector retirement plans are well managed or even honestly managed, but at least there is some disclosure to beneficiaries and regulatory authorities.

All of the above are correct. There is no rule about this.

I suggest that you place the person giving the commands where he can not only be heard, but also seen, since the audience will be looking to him for visual cues as well.

Interesting story from SR540Beaver.

I had not considered the possible impact of a committee meeting spilling over into a troop meeting. Beaver's point is well taken.

Also well taken is the insistence by the CC on a report from the treasurer. I have taught Troop Committee Challenge for several years, and one point I make about the treasurer is requiring regular reports. The form and content of a treasurer report can vary, but just requiring the treasurer to provide current information in a written format helps ensure sound management of the troop finances. When someone goes four months without rendering a report and then goes ballistic, there is a problem. Ya think?

Ironically, in the really old days, this used to be covered in the Boy Scout Handbook and one needed to know this stuff in order to advance in rank. Requirements have gotten more complex over time. The best solution is a separate storage shed of some kind, sufficiently distant from other structures, dedicated to this purpose and properly marked. However, many families and scout units do not have the necessary land available for this kind of thing.

There is no easy solution to this problem. In my current troop, every other troop with which I have been affiliated, and most troops where I have had some contact or had occasion to observe, the tents are not owned by the troop. I suspect that this results in parents doing most of the maintenance. Few troops, including ours, have a facility where tents can be spread out or hung up to dry. When a troop does own tents, some kind of accountability has to be maintained. The quartermaster administers this, but you cannot expect the quartermaster to do all the work. As suggested by several posts in this thread, some boys will behave irresponsibly and ownership and accountability are necessary to instill the proper respect for the equipment.

This defies common sense. Either someone is incredibly incompetent or there was genuine ill will intended. If anyone on the committee had any reason, inluding second hand information, to seek your removal, the committee as a whole had an obligation to talk to you first. If there was a different understanding regarding your intentions and the intentions of the committee at the time that you and the other person volunteered her services, then this is organizational incompetence reflecting very badly on the CC. The CC owes you an explanation. At a minimum the removal, justified or not, was handled very badly.

It is correct that there can be no such thing as "co scoutmasters." Your council should register only one scoutmaster and any number of assistant scoutmasters. The entire concept is flawed. If the CC really thought this was a valid concept, then the CC is truly ignorant of the structure of a properly organized troop.(This message has been edited by eisely)

Our committee meets monthly separate from troop meetings. The scoutmaster routinely attends all committee meetings.

I don't have any problem in principle with having the scout make presentations to committees at either the unit or district level. Actually preparing and giving a formal presentation would be a valuable learning experience for the scout.

The biggest difficulties with this are dragging the process out over time and making more demands on the time of adult volunteers. Our district relies on a single adult volunteer to review and approve the projects. There is an alternative volunteer available when the designated district volunteer is not available.

(This message has been edited by eisely)

Nothing against either Earl Grey or campfire coffee, but in this situation I would be reaching for the Johnny Walker, assuming no scouts are present.

It seems to me you handled things just right. The biger issue is the apparent lack of awareness on the part of other adult leaders of the mere existence of safety rules and policies. The most informative part of the newer versions of G2SS are the pages showing what activities are permitted for different levels in the scouting program. Maybe you ought to hand out copies of those graphics at your next meeting.

Of course we always follow our paint ball outings with cliff diving at 50 feet.

I have never encountered this situation. As Packsaddle suggests the logic of the situation would indicate the driver's not the owner's DL number.

To the best of my knowledge, the requirement for a signature from someone at either the council or district level has been a requirement for many years. This approval must be obtained before the project is undertaken. In my experience this devolves down to the district advancement committee. I have never seen it done at the council level, but then there are some very small councils that may not have districts at all.

Doesn't this thread belong under the cub scout category of subjects?

It sounds to me like you have given enough to this family already. Give yourself and your troop a break and say no to the transfer.

As Beavah points out, many units do not adhere to this requirement. That is fine as long as every thing goes along smoothly. I can see a source of controversy arising when a BOR turns down a boy for rank advancement and that board composition does not meet the formal requirements. If there is a shortage of registered committee members, then I would suggest registering more parents, if only to meet this need.

It sounds like the issue is more with the dad than the boy. Boys do stupid things from time to time. One of our responsibilities is to help the boys understand when they make a mistake and help them to correct that behavior.

Dad on the other hand, to borrow a phrase from the general who took the 82d airborne into New Orleans during the Katrina episode, seems "stuck on stupid." Someone needs to have a serious talk with the dad.

A few years ago we had a new scout with the peanut allergy. The lad's mom showed up for a committee meeting to find out what the troop would be willing to do. The entire troop went on a peanut free regimen for a few years. The boy was equipped with an epi pen and knew how to use it. We burdened the mom with providing us with comprehensive lists of peanut free products. It all worked out well and the rest of the boys learned a lot about food that they never would have learned otherwise.

I would be reluctant to volunteer derogatory information. If I was asked I would answer truthfully and factually. We still do not know enough of the facts regarding the incident that triggered this thread. If the incident was sufficiently bad to warrant reporting to the council and the SE decided not to throw the boy out of scouts altogether, then I would not want to unduly prejudice the boy's relationship with his new scoutmaster, but I would defer to the SE's judgment in allowing the boy to continue.

Interesting discussion.

One thing that concerns me in the push for ever more training is where are the volunteer trainers going to come from? At this stage of my life, most of my volunteer effort is devoted to participating in the BSA training program as a trainer. On the whole I think the syllabi are well conceived and we do a pretty decent job delivering the training in the local programs in which I participate. We are fortunate to have sufficient volunteer resources upon which to draw.

We have an effective district level program in which three districts collaborate. We also have advanced skills training at the council level in our High Adventure Training program.

Having said all that, my sense is that we would have a great deal of difficulty implementing ever more training programs. There is only so much volunteer time to go around and the other necessary resources are also costly.

I also believe that many of the additional training sugar plums dancing in some folks' heads are unnecessary. We can bring new volunteers up to a minimum level of understanding and competence and the troops will do just fine. We are not talking about rocket science here or planning the Normandy invasion. Most people can do this stuff.