emb021

MMhardy- Please don't give me credit for that page & site. That is all the hard work of Craig Murphy. "I stated that I agree with you about alternative pants amd shorts however when I spoke to National Venturing Division that is what I was told directly and succintly, no exceptions" Really? I find that hard to believe. I can ask the people who made up the old division. I find it hard they would say you HAD to get the pants/shorts from NS. They probably said you needed to get pants/shorts of charcoal gray. "It does however raise the issue if you are correct, that if venturers have an option, why does supply make the pants and shorts in the first place?" Simple. To give them a source for them, and a source of revenue for NS. I know when we started out, it was hard to find a decent source for charcoal gray pants/shorts. I was lucky to find a nice pair from Royal Robbins, but they soon dropped that color. LLBean was the source 'semi-official' source for charcoal gray pants (the early pictures of uniformed venturers, that's what they are wearing), but, they too, dropped that color/style. Many of us soon found that Cabela's & Bass Pro Shop were a good source, and so many of us gravited to that. "Secondly, if venturers have the right to alternative pants why shouldn't boy scouts and cub scouts have the same right?" Because Venturing is not cub scouts or boy scouts! From day one, both cub scouts & boy scouts have had a set uniform that all must get. With Venturing, crews can decide their own uniform (a legacy from Exploring). The spruce green shirt is a choice. And as part of that, they didn't mandate from day one that you had to get the pants from NS. Just the right color. Sadly, many crews don't even honor that. Heck, with Venturing it was about a year before NS came out with pants/shorts. Longer for socks. Not sure when belts and hats came out. I've been hearing for several years that zip offs were coming Real Soon Now. If we had to wait for the official stuff, we'd be in big trouble. "Thirdly, unless your crew all get their pants from the same place you would have a myriad of design differences as well as a variety of shades of charcoal grey, not a very "uniform" uniformed crew." So what??? How is that different from a troop that may have different style pants/shorts due to the changing of styles over the years? Or that have scouts in shorts, long pants, and zip offs, which are all a little different. Doesn't sound much different from some scout leaders who wanted to ban their troop from getting the zip offs because they would look different from the current pants/shorts. (and, yes, there were some SM who wanted to do just that...)

"The key to training is to deliver the right training to the right people at the right time (just in time). I think we do a poor job of that." I don't know. I think we do a pretty good job. Better then other groups. Is it perfect, no. Could we do better, yes. But keep in mind we are all volunteers. We have Fast start, job specific training, supplemental/ongoing, and advanced. With FS and several of the supplemental training available on-line, there is little excuse that some people can't get some immediate training. Roundtables are intended to be on-going supplemental training. But if people don't go to them &/or the people running them don't do their job, it can be a problem (one RT commissioner seemed to want to turn RT into nothing more then an announcements session). Councils do need to do a better job of making available job specific training. A good council will make sure they are done about twice a year. So no one should have an excuse of not taking it within a year of joining, if not sooner.

"I meant that the one piece unit number patch is not available online." I don't recall ever seeing those available for order on-line. Like all special orders, you had to order them over the phone. I know you can order one piece green/tan numbers. I would hope this still was doable with one piece red/white numbers.

Yeah, traning is not a panacea. What's the old say of 'if you send a monkey to training, you'll just get a trained monkey'. Some people just go to training with the wrong attitude. They ignoret the information, or just focus on what they want. Somehow the attitude of the participants is never covered in trainer development. Also, having a training syllabus is great. It gives an outline of what needs to be covered. But you need a trainer who is both a good trainer and knowledgable enought about the topic to bring themselves into it. Otherwise, as noted, you just get someone who is reading the script. You have to be careful of not turning the training into a series of 'war stories', but that the trainer is able to engage the participants, bring out their questions and issues, and be able to answer them, either from their knowledge or that of the audience. This is partially why I'm not too keen on self training. Anyone can read a book. But many times true understanding comes from the engagement between the participant and the trainer, and even the participant and other participants. This is lacking in self training. There is nothing there to ensure the trainer is mislearned or misunderstood something.

red and white are still available. Cub scouts still wear those on their blue uniforms. Venturing people need them for their spruce green shirts. My local scout shops have both numerals in stock, and AFAIK, both are still orderable from ScoutStuff.

BadenP- You seem to be trying to pick a fight, and I find that annoying. FYI, I've been involved with Venturing from day one (earlier actually). I've been engaged on-line with many of the top venturing people. If ANY of them had an issue with my statements about uniforming, they could have said something. None have. And in fact, many have echoed what I said on-line when uniforming questions come up. Because 'discussions' on Venturing uniforming was so frequent on-line, several years back I wrote up a Venturing Uniform FAQ, which I still keep up to date. I quoted the national documents (even citing which ones and their printing date). I then answered various questions I've seen and heard about uniforms, given the answer FROM THE DOCUMENTS. In a few cases I gave my opinion, but made it clear it was MY OPINION. I have never had anyone from National have an issue with my FAQ. In fact, my FAQ has been on the USScouting Service Project site for some time. It is ALSO included at the National Venturing Youth Cabinet site as part of a page on uniforming. So while I don't interpret that as approval or endorsement of what I say, the fact that our national youth leadership don't have an issue with my FAQ would seem to indicate they agree with it. (that page is here, by the way: http://www.nationalventuringyouthcabinet.org/uniform.shtml) The simple fact that when I go to the National Jamboree and drop by the Venturing Mine area, and EVERYONE is wearing charcoal gray pants/shorts AND very few of them are National Supply items, I think I'm ok with my Bass Pro Shop charcoal gray shorts... MMhardy- The Northern Tier is within their rights to set the uniforming policy of their staff. If they want to dictate the wearing of the official venturing pants/shorts, that's their right. If a summer camp wants to dictate the same to their staff registered as Venturers, they could do that as well. I really don't have an issue with it. The Florida Sea Base has a totally different staff uniform that not even a BSA uniform, FWIW.

Well, attendence should be discouraged. But if the parents (or other concerned adults) feel they need to watch the ceremony, they may do so. That has been the policy for, I think, at least 20 some years or more. The issue is that the OA ceremonies are to be private (not secret). They should NOT be turned into the equivalent of a high school graduation where you have mom & dad and grandparents and siblings and assorted family members there. The purpose of allowing parents to attend is NOT to be there to 'share the experience' with their son, as in a graduation ceremony, but to alleviate any concerns of improper behavior or the like.

"Personally I think the grey slacks make these guys look like your local sheriff. An identical dark green color pant or short looks more put together. Explorers had this in the 1950s. A white belt (seen on some Ship Crews) really looks sharp!" Maybe so, but that's not what was picked for Venturing. With Explorers, the uniform was the forest green shirt with brown trim. This was used for the hats and pants. For some reason they never created forest green shorts, so they always had to use the scout shorts with the forest green shirt. Belts were white web belts with an explorer brass buckle. When they first dropped the forest green uniform back in the 70s, they never brought back the forest green pants when they brought back the shirt. Instead for Venturing, it was decided to go with charcoal gray pants/shorts instead of forest green. The hats, too, were charcoal gray instead of forest green. No idea who decided that or what their thinking was. Since that is the color specified, we go with it.

"But emb021 if you follow the exact wording if you elect to wear the green venturing shirt you must also wear the OFFICIAL venturing shorts or pants." No, that't not what it says. It mearly says you must wear charcoal gray pants/shorts. It was never written and never intended that you must get the shorts/pants from National Supply. Heck, NS never made pants/shorts for Venturing for several years at the begining. We had to go elsewhere. The ones worn in the early pictures came from LL Bean. And many of the national people have worn them from Cabela's, Bass Pro Shop etc. "However, does a crew have complete freedom to do whatever they want with the official uniform parts? Could a crew elect to wear the blue Cub Scout shirts as their uniform? Could a crew's uniform be the official green venture shirt but with the patches sown in all kinds of crazy places (not following the insignia guide)? Could a venture crew (including the female members) elect to wear the tan Boy Scout shirt and green pants? If a crew opts to use the official uniform, do they have to follow the rules that go with it?" No, a crew does NOT have complete freedom. (btw, its "Venturing crew"). It clearly states that the tan uniform is not for Venturers to wear. IF you wear the green venturing shirt, you MUST following the insignia guide. This is stated in the literature. Heck, this is what is stated: "uniforms and insignia (BSA). The BSA green Venturing shirt is available for wear by Venturers and adult leaders. The green Venturing short-sleeve shirt with green shoulder loops will be worn with charcoal gray shorts or long pants as the recommended field uniform for Venturers. Male and female Venturers should not wear the BSA tan shirt with green shoulder loops. Existing insignia placement policies related to BSA uniforms shall apply to the green Venturing shirt. Crews choosing to wear a patch related to their specialty may do so on the right shoulder sleeve. District, division, council, and national adult leaders related to Venturing may wear the green, silver, or gold shoulder loops with the green Venturing shirt. Sea Scouts may choose to wear nautical-style uniforms using Sea Scouting insignia available from the BSA Supply Division. For further information on BSA uniforms and insignia, contact your BSA local council or refer to the Venturer Handbook. A uniform, if any, is the choice of the crew." Nothing is said about the source of the charcoal gray pants/shorts. Nothing is said about belt/socks. Obviously, belts should be scouting related.

Well, the Jamboree Staff Guide that just came out this month refers to the "Jamboree Division", with Groups within it. But then later on, refer to the "Jamboree Group", but still refer to the subgroups as "Groups". However, this may just be stuff they didn't edit out from the prior staff guide. Maybe the org levels are department-group-team.

"I've been told, by thems who says they know, that the uniform guide is fraught with errors." Sure, there are errors. Is it 'fraught with errors', I don't think so. Just minor ones here and there. "This does bring up an interesting point. If its the Uniform Guide, how can it have errors? If the Guide is the source, then even when its wrong, its right, after all it is the basic reference, right." Well, its the result of a committee, so what do you expect? Some stuff gets left out. Some stuff isn't clear. I sometimes think the best think they could have done with the Insignia Guide would be to add a one page section at the begining explaing "How to use this guide". Some people just misread the guide. Worse are the people who demand 'tell me were it says I can't wear X'. Well, the guide isn't written that way. Its written to say WHO can wear WHAT WHERE. If you're not one of the people the guide says can wear that item, you can't wear it. If you're wearing in a location that's not specified by the guide, you're wearing it in the wrong location. I think there are only a handful of instances where the guide says that something can't be worn. There's times when I've thought I ought to site down with the Guide and write up a detailed report on the errors I see, and recommendations on how best to address some issues. But I've just never taken the time.

"The Venturer Handbook says on page 6 that the "recommended" uniform is the over priced pants, shorts, shirt, socks and hat. However it goes on to say that the uniform, if any, is the choice of the crew." That's isn't QUITE what it says. the comment about 'over priced' is out of line. You don't need to get the pants/shorts from National Supply, you just need to get charcoal gray ones from any source. I have several, all I paid less then $20 for. My belt is my leather philmont belt. Before they came out with the venturing socks, I wore a pair of gray socks. What is left out is the statement that Venturers CAN'T wear the tan BSA uniform. While Venturing Crews can pick their own uniform, if Venturers attend events in which a BSA uniform is expected or required, they WILL have to get the above specified uniform. So if they serve on staff at National Jamboree, or attend OA events, etc, they will need that. There is a reason the National Venturing Cabinet ALL wear the green/gray venturing uniform. Its because of these persistent 'discussions' about Venturing uniforms that I wrote the Venturing Uniform FAQ that available at the USScouting Service project site.

Eagle92- I already noted the exception for elangomats in my original message. I'll probably pull out my collection of OA Handbooks and see what they say. May be interesting to see if the policy changed over the years.

"Please point me to the pages and paragraphs in the Insignia Guide which only authorize the sash with the Class A/field uniform." It doesn't say anything in the Insignia Guide. It's a mistake to assume that everything related to uniforms is in that guide, tho it would be nice. As noted by Crew21_Adv, it is stated in the OA Handbook that the sash is only worn with the class a/field uniform & indian garb (for ceremonies). Am well aware of many lodges having arrowmen wear sash in their work clothes. But like a lot of traditions in the OA, its one that's probably not backed up by what's in the Handbook. Am sure the recent ones say no. Not sure about older ones (tho I can check my collection).

"I always thought there was a once-a-uniform, always-a-uniform rule - i.e., I could wear an old Explorer outfit today and be OK." That rule applies, but only if you are still in that program. So if you're involved in Venturing, and want to wear your old Explorer outfit with the appropriate CURRENT insignia, go ahead. But if you're only involved in, say, Boy Scouting, then no. "Is there a different rule in Sea Scouts?" To a degree. There is a set of nationally-approved Sea Scout uniforms. Some have been dropped (the black uniform, which I mainly see from people in the NW, and using the 'summer white' by youth, which I still see a little in my area). As noted, each ship can come up with its own uniform. Most follow the standards. If you attend some region events and any national events (basically the Koch Cup and the Sea Scout exhibit at Jambo), be expected to adhere to the uniforming rules or else... I don't understand the logic for some of the recent changes in the sea scout uniform, such as the dropping of the unit numbers (in place since, oh, the 1920...). Why no world crest on the uniform, etc. So the comments by Eagle92 and Kahuna has me noding my head. Me, I'm only a Council Sea Scout Committee person. Am no expert, other then what I've learned, so I don't fully understand some of it. I've been thinking of writting up something about sea scout uniforms to give to the new national commodore. Maybe he'll make some needed (IMO) changes in that area...

"1) Is it "legal" to wear the sash without a unform." No, tho its done. Some lodges have a tradition of doing so in their class B. There IS an exception for those in ceremonial garb, either for the ceremony or elangomats. "2) Is it appropriate to wear the sash with the green venturing uniform?" YES. The green Venturing uniform is a BSA uniform. Of course you can. I thought the FAQ at the OA site answered these, but I only see questions regarding wearing the flap, not the sash. I'll have to double check my OA handbook. (the insignia guide doesn't answer these)

"Is it appropriate (and/or "legal") to mix parts of the Boy Scout uniform and the Venturing uniform?" No. The venturing uniform is the forest green shirt with charcoal gray pants/shorts (they do NOT have to be from National Supply). Venturing has their own belt, hats, and socks. Venturers are actually barred from wearing the tan BSA uniform (including the olive shorts/pants). If all of the staff are Boy Scouts, then having them wear only their boy scout uniforms while 'on duty' is fine. However, if he has any Venturers who are NOT Boy Scouts (say, female Venturers), requiring them to wear Boy Scout uniforms isn't fair (also costly for them, as they probably don't have any and would have to buy them). That said, I don't get bent out of shape about it. There are bigger fish to fry.

In Sea Scouts, the tan uniform is viewed as a 'work uniform' and its felt that very little should be on it, including knots. My view is that's a mistake, as we then look too much like navy uniforms, and the navy DOES wear ribbons on the tan uniform. I have seen some ships wearing the chambray blue uniform. As noted, its really only for youth to wear that. The 'answer' I got was that the adults wanted to be in the same uniform as the kids. They don't get it that in Sea Scouts, the kids wear uniforms based on enlisted navy personnel, and the adults wear uniforms based on officer uniforms, so they aren't alike. I also see some sea scout leaders wearing the black uniform that was dropped about 10 years back. Oh, well...

National Supply only stocks the most recent QU award, and they may have the prior year. After that, you'll need to go elsewhere. Unless you were a member of the unit during the time they earned the QU, you really shouldn't wear it. And I wouldn't wear a QU that's too old, it would be embarrasing (what, your unit hasn't earned one in 5 years, etc?), so not sure why one would look for a 98 QU patch to wear. When this was rolled out in the 70s as the honor unit award, the patches were about a third the size of the current Centennial QU patch, and you were allowed to wear previous ones. After a few years of it, when people started wearing every one (and about the time people were going to double rows), National said only wear the most recent one. Didn't stop some leaders who I'd see with double rows (about 6 or so). the larger QU that replace them (about half the size of the Centennial QU) seemed to put a stop to that, as it was too difficult to wear in double rows...

Hate to re-iterate what some of the other say, but my take is this. * sit down with the committee and find out what the issues are. Could be a legitamate issue, but could also be they just aren't doing their job, the COR was trying to get them to do it, and they got their noses bent out of shape. * set down that with yourself as CC, things will be different. Make it clear that (both to the committee and the COR), that the COR will deal with you and only you and not the committee. You will run the committee. (but give this a positive spin, and not sound like your laying down the law to a bunch of misbehaving children). * make sure everyone gets training. Make sure your COR gets training and does their job (which is more of representing what the CO to the council), and let you do your job of oversight of the committee and unit. Make sure your committee gets training, done by the district.

Hazardous Weather isn't that new. Its been there a few months. I had to go thru the MyScouting portal to see the new training. The OLC website doesn't list the new courses. I wiped thru both COS & TS, but then I've gone thru the live courses a few times.

Sorry, but why is the CAC making you do a SMC & BOR??? If he's unhappy with the dad, then he should support what you've done, as the dad is going around the troop. Making you do a SMC/BOR just seems to permit this going on. Were I the CAC, I'd tell the dad to follow protocol, and leave it to the units to handle SMCs & BOR. The boy needs to come to the unit to get those if he wants to advance.

In regards to the answer you got back from the council. 1. The answer regarding active is the standard one, and am not surprised. 2. The SM controls the SMC. No ASM should be doing SMC without approval of the SM. They really didn't address this. 3. Eagle Palm BOR should be done by the troop. Districts have no business doing this. They never said a thing about this. 4. Troops submit advancement forms for Eagle Palms. If its not the troop, signed off by the troop leadership, who is doing it and under whose authority? They never really addressed this.

Was wondering the same thing. Who is this parent that he has such pull with the council??? What 'can of worms' might you open by putting your foot down on such shady behavior? Very strange. To my mind, even if req 1 is covered by the fact that he's still registered (no, I don't care for the 'active=registered' attitude put forth by National), certainly req 3 should be hard to pass if he's not showing up. The district has no business doing Eagle Palm BOR. That's strictly the domain of troop BORs. And it would have to go on the troop advancement report, which shouldn't happen unless the troop did a BOR.

Sorry to hear of your experience. As someone who has long been involved as a trainer in scouting (and other groups I'm in), I've long been annoyed by such poor behavior given to my fellow trainers and myself. From your note, it sounds like you've involved time and effort into preparing for your session, which is now all for not. I've had the same experiences, so I can sympathise. I even put down my frustations in a series of 'notes' on Facebook. Some of the recent experiences I've had: For a sizable state-wide scouting event, I've long been a trainer, and even had to organize my fellow trainers in a certain program area. After a particular disasterous event (somehow the host group were never informed we were doing classes), I was informed that those in the state-wide group would take on organizing the classes, so I won't have to. So I awaited being contacted. When I didn't hear, I sent out emails. No response. Finally I was contacted and told that 'all the sessions had been assigned'. One I normally do was given to someone else who had never done a session. Oh, but I could 'assist' him. I said fine, tho I felt very insulted by that. I get to the event and find that the other guy wasn't coming, so I'd have to do the session by myself. Well, fine, expect as I was the assistant (and was never contacted by him) I had not brought any materials. I did a decent job, but it could have been better. At another state-wide event, I get contacted about 4 days before the event telling me I was scheduled to do one of the classes. Gives me a lot of time to prepare.