emb021

Kahuna- But the problem is that several people have reported that they have received the staff patch, but have NOT yet been selected. Further, if you read the letter included (obviously a generic form letter that everyone got), it speaks of the receipient getting a staff position soon, if not already. (don't have it with me to quote). Its clear from reading the letter, that the patches were sent to people who had submitted an application, paid their $100, but may not have gotten selected for staff. As previously noted, you never got your first jamboree patch until you had been selected and made your first payment (the $100 deposit counts for this). You shouldn't wear the patch until you are officially on staff (or selected to be a participant). All very strange.

Venturing Roundtable was just renamed "Monthly Program Forum". This was done in 2007. They haven't put out new office patches for this yet, and I'm really not holding my breath for them to do so. There are several more important items I am expecting to come out for Venturing. Frankly, is it a major issue??? I know in my area we still call them Venturing Roundtables. That's what most people think of them as.

"Of course, I can't wear it on my Sea Scout uniform, and don't plan to buy any new BSA uniforms (old ones apparently shrunk in storage) until it's entirely clear what they will want us to wear at the Jambo." Well, for me I plan on wearing my Venturing uniforms at Jamboree, as that's the only program I'm involved in. I'm planning on holding off putting the patch on, until I know that we can get multiple staff patches. Last couple of Jamborees its been 2 different borders for youth and adults. Haven't heard what they are doing this time. But am in no real rush...

"1) It seems that most units who have these types of items (bylaws, Codes of Conduct, whatever you want to call them) are larger units who are more prone to organizational/management issues due to their size. Maybe that says something about the pitfalls of joining a large unit." Maybe, maybe not. It could also be the result of people involved with the unit who come in with a certain level of expectation that such information is documents (good or bad), and prehaps also a result of dealing with the consequences of not having much of this information put down in writing. "2) Perhaps a simple unit "FAQ" is more in line for covering things people often need to check out like "what are dues and when are they paid?" rather than some highly formal set of bylaws or troop policy book." Well, what is important that these sorts of things be put down in writing. Doesn't matter to me if its a FAQ, a troop policy document or a troop handbook or the like. Having it down in writing can really avoid a lot of problems. People forget what they are told, and having things down in writing helps. "3) Maybe we need to do a better job of orienting potential new members (and their parents!) to the character and nature of our individual units, if there are frequent problems developing from a lack of shared vision or understanding of the program and the unit's expectations." I'd go beyond that. Troops almost need to have a 'new parent orientation' (they are usually more the cause of problems then the kids), especially when you take in a large influx of them after bridging over from Cub Scouts. In addition to the stuff you mention, you also have parents who really don't 'get' what BOY scouting is all about, especially as compared to Cub scouts. I think most people here knows what I'm talking about.

"Do you guys know if they are still accepting applications for youth or adult staff? I wasn't sure because the website didn't say. And how much would you have to pay total to go there on staff?" AFAIK, they are still accepting staff applications. As its year and a half away, I doubt they've filled all the positions. For adults over 25, its $800, for youth staff and adults under 26, its $400. You are responsible to get yourself there. Different staff groups have different time requirements. Some groups may have you there a couple of days before the troops, and leave after they leave. Others will require you there much further out, and prehaps stay longer.

"The reason is that unit committee was never designed to be determined by a majority, pluralirty , or quorum. The decisions are made by the CR and CC (Charter organization representative and Committee Chair. Then assignments are made to the committee members who act on those assignments and report their progress at the monthly committee meeetings." In parliamentary terms, we would say a unit committee is not a deliberative assembly. It's not a decision-making body. Parliamentary procedure (and hence bylaws) are intended for such groups.

"BSA literature doesn't specify a parliamentary authority / how committee discussions are to be conducted, doesn't specify quorums or voting, doesn't specify committee scope vs. scope of da CO, only offers guidance on how new committee members and adult leaders are to be selected (by the committee or a subcommittee), doesn't specify subcommittees, doesn't specify terms of office or method for selection of officers, etc." And for most groups I would agree that all that sort of things needs to be specified and put into their bylaws. However, BSA doesn't seem to feel that any of that is necessary for a troop committee. Wonder why? But then I've not been impressed with how the BSA seems to set down how elections should be held at the district, council, and regional levels...

"If bylaws are needed in a pack or troop no one has ever proven it." Well, I'll put it a little differently. If the BSA felt that packs and troops needed bylaws, they would clearly say so and even provide guidelines/templates for them. They don't. National provides a booklet to define local council bylaws, and (as noted) sets down guidelines for bylaws for OA Lodges, Council VOAs, and Venturing Crews/Ships. Most organizations who expect their subsidiary groups to have bylaws at a minimum mandate they are completed as part of being organized/chartered, and ideally provide guidence as to content.

"Beavah, thanks for the perspective of "what are bylaws." I have had an idea of bylaws based on what I have seen, and it is nothing like what you described (that's not to say you're wrong, only that I had not looked at it that way before)." If you want an understanding of "what are bylaws", I recommend you pull out your copy of "Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised" (you do have a copy of that, and not another spurious version of Robert's?) and read the section on bylaws. As a parliamentarian, I too often have to deal with groups and individuals who have a very 'incorrect' idea of what they are (and aren't). Yes, a lot of troop have put together documents they erronously called 'bylaws', then cram in alot of stuff taken from BSA literature. Usually a big mistake. "Is this really necessary? Not in my opinion, it has already been defined by BSA. Neither the PLC, Troop committee, nor the CO have any authority to change that." Well, yes, which was the point I (and others) were making. "But even with that strong a statement, I am not saying that a troop should not have bylaws. There are some things that I feel should be clarified." Again, yes, but those items that should be clarified DON'T belong in bylaws of any organization. :\ "Another discussed (and this is what bylaws should be, in my opinion) activities and policies, such as dues, participation (based on current dues), transportation expectations for parents, and troop equipment policies (checked out by patrol). It also talked about website policies and photos of youth (another important issue) and how that was handled." Again, NOTHING of the above belong in bylaws. These are not the purpose of bylaws. Do they need to be defined? Probably. But NOT in bylaws. They go into other documents of an organization, called "Standing Rules" or "Policies" (again, read RONR to understand what Standing Rules are and how they are different from and separate from bylaws). "Shouldn't that cover it? If you want to define how to run a committee, buy Robert's Rules of Order, and leave a copy on the table while you meet (I leave mine in the car, but always bring it)." Actually, buy a copy of "Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised" and actually read it. (or if its too hard, get the "In Brief" version). "Venturing (and Sea Scout) bylaws are not the samething at all, being defined and specified in BSA documents, and are to be written and approved by the youth members. But as I said when I began the thread, that is a horse of a different color." Sorry, incorrect. Venturing/Sea Scout bylaws are meant to be 'real' bylaws. They are NOT defined and specified in BSA documents. Instead, what the BSA docs do is specify that certain clauses will be in their bylaws, leaving the rest to be defined by the crew/ship. This is not unusual. Most subsidiary groups are usually provided with a template or guidelines to follow by their parent organization. This is little different, tho how the BSA does it isn't the normal way of handling this (big surprise). It may help to know what the standard article of most bylaws are: I. Name of the organization II. Object/Purpose III. Members (membership classes, rights, how to join, etc) IV. Officers (officers, duties, how selected/elected, etc) V. Meetings (kinds of meetings, how often, who calls them) VI. Executive Committee (who makes up this group, etc) VII. Committees (what are the standing committees of group, etc) VIII. Parliamentary Authority IX. Amendment (how to change the bylaws) As noted, for a Troop Committee, the information that would be in the above is already set down in the Troop Committee Guidebook. For a troop, this is really already defined in the Scoutmaster Handbook and similiar books. Hence why many of us say troops don't need bylaws. Anything else a troop needs to setdown can go into a simple "Troop Policies" document.

"Why should we have them? What should they cover? Dues? Equipment fees? Registration expectations? Participation? Website policies? PLC responsibilities? Conduct? Punishment?" Well, here's the thing. The purpose of bylaws (that's one word, no hyphen) is to define how an organization is organized. Troops don't need this, because this information is already set down in BSA documents. What you list above have nothing to do with how your troop is organized. These are other items an organization needs to be defined, but this would NOT be placed in a org's bylaws, but be placed into other documents known as "Standing Rules" or "Policies" and the like. If you feel the need to document these things, and I'm not saying that a bad idea, please don't think of these as bylaws. They are your troop policies. These should be kept up to date, and every member (or atleast every family) should be provided a copy (and any updates). Be sure that whatever you do put in your troop policies are NOT in violation of BSA policies (which happens more often then you think). I.e. participation rules are a bad idea, because per statements of BSA National, 'be active in your troop' means being registered. So trying to put down that boys have to attend a certain number of events/meetings to be considered active will not be supported by National. (this is something that comes up about every few months on-line).

"By the way, the $100 deposit is considered the first installment." Fine. But I find it strange that people who haven't yet been given an assignment have received a staff patch. You had to have both: first installment AND been accepted, before you got your first Jambo patch. And does this mean we are getting more then one staff patch? If we only get one, I'm not going to sew it on a uniform.

"Mike Judge, creator of "King of the Hill," is an Eagle Scout." You sure about that? Any proof/evidence? This was something discusse on his wikipedia article, and he's not listed as an Eagle Scout because no one could find proof of this.

"As for what the city of Philadelphia wants, it is the same thing many United Ways have wanted, and what a number of other governmental and non-governmental organizations have wanted: To enforce their own non-discrimination policies. The BSA is free to enforce their membership policies within the BSA, but they cannot impose their membership policies on other organizations or the government." But the BSA isn't trying to impose their membership policies on other organizations. The same is not true of the city of Philidelphia. As is typical of such government bodies, they think they can impose their rules on other groups, especially if said group wants something from that government body. In a similiar way, my Fraternity has had a long-time association with the BSA. Our two organizations are independent of each other, and have different membership policies. My Fraternity, because of how most universities are, has never had a policy barring gays or atheists from our organization. Yet we still have an association with the BSA. Sadly, this has lead some of our members who are involved with the BSA to disassociate, because we don't bar gays, and for some of our members to try to sever our connection with the BSA, due to their policies about gays/atheists. I guess the idea that two organizations with different membership policies working together is too much for some people...

Strange. I had heard others had received theirs, but figured they only sent them to those who had received appointments. (haven't yet gotten mine) In the past, you didn't get your first regular jamboree patch until you had been accepted and paid your first installment. You received your second patch when you made your final payment. You could, of course, order as many patches as you wanted from NS once the catalog came out. Staff patches have only been given out at the last 2 jamborees, and then only at the end.

I'll say you're way behind. Most councils already picked their leadership months ago and are rapidly filling their troops. I really expect the two councils I work with to have their troops filled within the next month or so. Promos. Well, not sure what 'cartoonish' video you speak of. The one on-line seems nice. You can also get the souvenir DVD from past jamborees to show segments. But I prefer more then a video. How about setting up a 'science fair' display, with pictures and other items from the past jamboree (pictures of kids doing stuff, especially if its of your council's past contingents). Also include either patches (or pictures of them) of the JSP, Jambo patch, segments, and have other items from past jamborees (neckerchiefs, t-shirts, etc). I find kids respond better to seeing actual items vs pictures of them.

"But if a LDS youth joins a non-LDS Troop, I think it is absurd of anyone to expect you to alter your activities to fit *just* them." Why would you expect that if an LDS youth joins a non-LDS Troop that there would be such an expectation? As I noted, my troop (chartered to a UM Church) had an LDS SM along with his son, who became our SPL. This did not change how we run as a troop. We still camped out till sunday around noon. It was never an issue for us. My Lodge advisor around the same time was LDS. This didn't change our how lodge functioned.

"was rather suprised that they did go into some of the issues that have previously been deemed as "controvercial." " And what controversial issues where those? I did like the fact they had some mention of the ABS/USBS group, including some pics of them. These where 2 pics I had never seen before. Its my understanding that Boyce was in London on his way to Africa for a trip when the boy scout helped him, and that on his return to London on his way back to the US, made further inquiries about scouting. Its my understanding also that other scouting historians have looked into it and found that during the time he was in London, there was no fog. I'd have to check the Boyce bio if they have more solid info on this. I also look forward to the several scouting books promised by your company as well, as I've been reading your articles in the ASTA Journal. While very slickly designed, I would have liked to have seen something more in depth along the lines of the Murray history (tho even that one has its issues IMO).

All this is documented at my site devoted to Senior Scouting programs of the BSA. I was involved as a Boy Scout leader when the Venture/Varsity in-troop program was rolled out, and we formed our older boys into a Venture Crew. I was also around when Varsity Scouts were rolled out as an official program in 1985, and saw a few Teams get formed, all as spinoffs of troops (and which subsequently died when all the boys aged out). I have kept abreast of the changes in all these programs, and documented them at my site. I was involved in Exploring when Venturing was about to be rolled out. I learned of the roll out prior to it happening, thanks to being involved in Scouts-L and other on-line forums. When I heard they wanted to call the units "Crews" I disagreed on several points: * "Crew" to me was always a patrol-sides subdivision of a unit. The old Explorer Scout Posts and Sea Scout Ships were divided into Crews. This is why the groups at Philmont are called "Crews": they are small, patrol-sided groups of older scouts. * "Venturing Crew" would be too easily confused with "Venture Crew" (they hadn't yet renamed that group), which continues to this day, despite the fact the "Venture Patrols" are that widely used. I personally suggested they instead call them "Outfits". Outfits was the unit named used in the old Senior Scout program of 1945-49. Senior Scout Outfits allowed boys to experience Explorer Scout/Air Scout/Sea Scout programs in one unit. And bring back the name would avoid the confusion. Further, I suggested the "Venturing Outfits" allow for 2 styles of organization: 1) the club-style organization of President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer or 2) more traditional patrol-like organization used in most scouting units of Ventuiring Outfits being subdivided into Crews lead by Crew Leaders, with a Senior Crew Leader and the like. Each Venturing Outfit would decided which organizational style worked for them. Needless to say, neither happened...

Some other things to keep in mind. Many churches sponsor scout troops. Most run them to be open to all youth, not just members of their faith/church. This is because most churches run the troop as part of their 'outreach' effort instead of their church youth group effort. I was involved in a troop at a United Methodist church. I and my brothers were the only members of that church who were involved in the troop, and the religious backgrounds of the other members varied. We had a scoutmaster who was a Mormon, whose son was also in the troop. The local LDS church later started a troop, but he didn't get involved until he was 'called' to be their SM (that means the Bishop gave him that assignment to do). His son still remained with our troop by his decision to get his Eagle. While he was our SM, we never had an issue with being away on Sunday (we always had done an ecumenical church service on Sunday). The LDS church's troop was the only one in that particular area of my town, so a lot of non-LDS kids were in the troop. This caused some friction, due to the way the LDS Church runs their troops (as previously mentioned). Eventually, the non-LDS kids were spun off in their own troop.

"he said that the Silver Award is now Scouting's highest honor, supplanting Eagle. Sorry but Eagle is still the highest, with Quartermaster and Silver being EQUIVELENT to Eagle." Well, he's right and wrong. None of them are 'scouting's highest honor'. Eagle is the highest Boy Scout award Silver is the highest Venturing award Quartermaster is the highest Sea Scout award IMO, its improper to claim that any of them is 'scouting's highest honor', because that diminishes the rest. Keep in mind if they are equivalent, then Eagle can't be THE highest. I have a great scan of the cover of a scouting publication from the late 40s that shows the highest awards of the time (Ranger, Ace, Eagle, and Quartermaster), with the obvious message that ALL are the highest awards of scouting.

"In reference to Varsity Scouts, do the pics show tan shorts and I believe a tan polo? In the early to mid 1990s national came out with an 'activity uniform" consisting of tan shorts, a red polo for Scouts, a maroon polo for Venture Crews (I know what you are thinking, but trust me. I am going to post on this one in the Venturing Section tonite), and the tan polo for varsity. The idea was that this would be a uniform to wear in the field doing activities where the ODL uniform was not practical." Those aren't the uniforms I was refering to. Before Varsity Scouts was rolled out officially in 1985, it went thru a 4-5 year experimental phase. During that time, the Varsity Scouts did NOT wear the BSA tan uniform at all, but had special polo shirts. These shirts were different from the mid-90s activity polos you mention. These experimental phase uniforms are documented on my Senior Scouting history website, and you can also see them pictures in the VS manuals that came out during the experimental phase.

Actually, Venturing was in the works for a couple of years before the split. But I think things were pushed out sooner due to the forced split. Also, as I understood it, the first Venturing Director was apparently a bit of a control freak, and delayed the rollout of a lot of stuff that should have come out in August of 1998. (Charles Holmes replaced him sometime in early 1999).

I ordered and recently received the BSA's Centennial History book (http://www.scoutstuff.org/BSASupply/ItemDetail.aspx?cat=01RTL&ctgy=PRODUCTS&c2=NEW&C3=&C4=&LV=2&item=34556&prodid=34556^8^01RTL&) The item costs $300. I'm not sure its worth that. Its a large book, about 2 inchs deep, with a slipcase and DVD. The cost is probably do the the large amount of reproduction items included in the book (either affixed in certain places, or in special sleeves). The items are reproductions of sheets and certificates, whereas some are larger, more brochure size items. I haven't had the chance to check out the DVD. My comments are based on a preliminary read-thru of the book. Overall, while the book is pretty nice, I don't think it holds a candle to the depth of the BSA's first official history book by Murray (but even that work had some flaws). Certainly I found a few flaws in this one. Some areas aren't given much depth, and I found a few errors. These are some of the issues I saw: * the story of Boyce being lost in the fog of London is repeated (twice). The problem is that we now know there was no fog when he was there. But atleast the author didn't claim he met B-P as the Scout Association office, and gave better info on when these events occured. * the author claimed that Seton was the first and only Chief Scout of the BSA. Sorry, incorrect. Both James West and his successor were given that title after they retired as CSE. * Some of the smaller programs of the BSA were given only a cursory look. Rovers are mentioned briefly. Air Scouts, even less. Varsity Scouts are mentioned, but the work that went into establishing them was not delved into. I found that disappointing, considering some of the pictures of Varsity Scouts was from their experiemental phase when they wore special polo shirts and not BSA uniforms. Sea Scouts were mentioned, but the author makes it seem like Arthur Carey established Sea Scouts and ignored the most signifcate contributions of James Wilder and especially Thomas Keane who set down the Sea Scout program as we know it today. * I saw several errors with the notations about pictures and other items. * there is no index * the bibliography is disappointing. While I was pleased that the author did consult non-BSA works, I was diappointed by the absense of several books. He didn't check out the recent bios of West and Boyce. He only consulted Boys Life and Scouting magazines since the 1980s on (I would have reviewed, if cursory, all of them where I the author). When I get the chance to review the DVD, will add comments about that.

The LDS actually publishs a booklet on how they manage their scouting program. I'm non a Mormon, but have had some exposure to things. The Mormon's run their scout troops as part of their overall program for youth boys. Because of how they divide their young men, this does present some problems. Thus the 11 years olds are put in a special Blazer Patrol, and most troops are for 12-13 year olds. 14-15 are in Varsity Teams, and 16-17 are in Venturing Crews (which are not co-ed). Because the units are part of their boy's youth program, the boys have responsibilities at church on sunday, hence why they don't camp on sunday expect for special occasions. So the troops usually leave on Saturday night to be back home for Sunday, WB courses for LDS scouters end on Saturday, etc. Hope this helps. Any LDS scouters, please feel free to correct any mistakes I made.

I find that VERY hard to believe. The reason the Exploring program was split into Exploring and Venturing, was that most of the career-oriented Exploring Posts (which became Exploring by itself after 1998) were chartered to government bodies. The BSA's policies regarding faith and homosexuality was a major issue for these groups. So the only way these posts could survive (along with the career-oriented part of Exploring) was to move it to LFL.