eolesen

Seems like the proposed punishment by a few is a bit overboard, and will only serve to tarnish both leaders reputations more than they may already be. They admitted their mistake, and it should be left at that. If the COR and IH want to institute a stronger punishment, so be it, but I think it's overkill. I've seen leaders sneak a smoke now and then, knowing that they're out of view of any Scouts --- should they be booted from Scouting too?...

For starters, I'd think twice about allowing a SM and ASM to be from the same household... Same thing goes for having a husband-wife team as SM and CC. Familial conflicts of interest are always a no-win situation... My wife is a DL. Not that I have the time, but I wouldn't think of trying to serve as a DL, ACM, or CM with the Pack. I'd have a hard time staying impartial as a committee member... Likewise, she won't wear an ASM patch with the troop, although she has considered committee positions which wouldn't have too much overlap into what I do.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless taxpayers have previously paid for facility costs (which both sides admit they haven't), it is misleading if not dishonest to call $1 rent a subsidy. Where BSA went wrong was deeding the building to the City and accepting their word for the perpetual lease. It just goes to show that trust and honor have no place in the business world.

TJH, I'm not questioning the LDS's influence. They account for 40% of the units in my district, and 30% of the units in our council. But while they were public in their stance, I think you're being a bit naive if you think that other CO's (major and minor) aren't standing in lock-step with the LDS regarding this. The difference is that they haven't been as public about it, so the Mormons get used as a perennial whipping horse. I'm by no means a fan of how the LDS implements Scouting, but the fact is that the entire nation isn't singing Kum-bay-yah when it comes to the gay agenda. Some 80% of states have either statutory or constitutional amendmendments banning gay marriage. Granted, three or four of those states have pending legislation looking to modify that position, but you can't ignore the fact that it's the will of the voting majority in those states. There's never been a referendum by unit or district on either of the controversial stances BSA takes (homosexuality and faith) because BSA isn't a democracy, but it wouldn't surprise me to see similarly large percentages in favor of the status quo if you were to have a way of polling adults in Scouting.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

This is for a 2009 Trek, right? That's still at least 18 months away, and even if $1800 is the actual cost, saving $100 a month for the next 18 months should be attainable for most families, and while $3600 apiece in popcorn is probably a stretch, there's lots of time for doing some year round fundraising.

Scouting would be a great activity if it weren't for the parents.... I'm glad this wasn't one of my units, but there's no way as a UC that you can prevent things like this from happening. Egos are still egos A few of the responses imply that the CM is the reason for this, and that he's the risk. With my ADC patch off, is the CM really the problem, or is it a case of the CM being ganged up on by the CM and COR? When my kids were younger, and one came to me to intervene in whatever spat was underway with their brother or sister, more often than not, both of them were at fault. So, perhaps there's a case to be made with the COR to suggest a fresh start by changing out both positions. If not, it's likely likely there are going to a few (or even more than a few) people sympathetic to the plight of the outgoing CM, in which case this may be far from over. You may be facing another unit forming out of the rubble. Finding a new CO and getting a charter approved isn't too difficult for someone who is really motivated, plus it is the DE's interest to have new units start up, even if they're being done out of revenge. So be prepared for Round Two just in case.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

I have only been following this since July... My brother and nephew were with a troop from NWSC that attends Camp Wolverine each year, and I had to drive up there to pick up my nephew for a family event near Grand Rapids. On the way into the camp, just about all of the houses had "Save Owasippe" signs, and after asking, my brother filled me in on the rest. I can understand why CAC might be reluctant to retain ownership of the camp. At 200 miles and about four hours of driving from Chicago, it's not exactly convenient for use as a council camp. But, it's sad to see land of that size being thrown away for a quick buck or two.

I get silver loops over the counter at the Scout Store, but my guess is that the gold loops are a little more restricted for sale... Since loops identify the role someone is registered for, what is his primary role and who is he representing/serving? If he's representing or serving the area, i.e. committee, he should wear the loops. If he's representing his council at an area function, I'd think silver would be more appropriate...

The land was acquired almost a century ago, BSA paid for all of the construction costs, and after 30 years, I'm pretty certain that's all been fully amortized. It's now a sunk cost. BSA pays for all of the upkeep and recurring costs. So, if there's no out of pocket cost to the city for leaving them where they are, what is your reasoning for saying that the city's taxpayers are subsidizing BSA? Granted, allowing the city to lease the property out at a market rate would add money to the City's coffers, but that's not using tax dollars in any way. It's just allowing the City to spend more than they currently do, and $200K won't go very far towards reducing the tax burden for Philly taxpayers. It is just the opposite of Owasipe... Here the City wants to cash out at BSA's expense, and in Owasipe, BSA wants to cash out at the county's expense. It's all about greed. Plain and simple. That's why it's wrong.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

LDS is indeed the largest single CO, but they're not anywhere near half the membership. They're about 12-15% of the registered members, and about 25-30% of the registered units. But, their members do make up about 50% or more of the FOS contributions and bequeathments to Scouting, so you're correct that they have a larger voice at the table than some of the more liberal CO's. On a membership basis, both the United Methodist Church and Catholic Church have almost as much influence, so it's not just the LDS throwing their weight around where issues of faith and morality are concerned. (This message has been edited by eolesen)

..and a good old Bobwhite, too..... Still working my ticket as well, but closing in on it...

...it should be obvious that the BSA's freedom of association is often in direct conflict with their own sponsors, or potential sponsors, freedom of association and that when those sponsors, especially those sponsors that are a tight knit community such as Community Day hear from their members, the BSA loses sponsors and potential members. I am not a member of the Assemblies of God, but there's a quote that was forwarded to me once that pretty much sums up why BSA shouldn't be budging on this issue: Today, families with members who choose a homosexual lifestyle sometimes call for social acceptance of the deviant lifestyle. Some churches hearing this cry or impacted by revelations of homosexual clergy within their ranks have responded by advocating a gay-friendly theology of compassion. But lowering Gods holy standards to mankinds sinful preferences is an abomination in Gods sight. As members of the body of Christ, we must not ignore Gods clear admonitions. I would rather see BSA shrink and stand their ground on what they see as moral issues, than to cave into pressure and lower their standards. Lowering our standards because of public pressure has created far more problems in this country than not. Just look at our schools....

It's a temporary patch, so right pocket, ideally for no more than six months but only the Uniform Police are going to actually keep track how long it stays there...

Repenting for past behavior is one thing, but this guy started making threats to the unit leaders when told he couldn't go on the outing. That isn't exactly conducive to a positive Scouting environment for anyone. If he already served his time, I can understand some resentment for being held to a different standard than loser parents without criminal records are held to. I do agree that his participating with pseudo-step-son could have a positive rub-off effect on him once it's a little clearer that he's changing his ways a bit... Jeff, has anyone addressed the question about what happens if he ever marries the boy's mom, or more responsibly, adopts the boy or otherwise becomes his legal guardian? Not to open a new can of worms, but a previous discussion on another forum asked the question "would you award Eagle to a boy who had been involved in an underage DUI?" Some people said "never" and others said "perhaps, if it was clear that he recognized how his actions were inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Law." After days of debate, many of us agreed that it would be best to reconvene his Board of Review after six months or so, to see if he really had learned from the experience and changed his ways. So... to bring it back to this topic... Perhaps pseudo-step-dad's status should be reviewed in six months or a year. It's possible that he may change. And, it's possible that the review will simply reinforce the current decision. But don't just close the door on it indefinitely. Not yet, at least.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

"Because it is the policy and when we signed up we agreed to abide by BSA's rules." That sums it up for me... We don't get to pick and choose which policies are to be enforced and which ones aren't. I might not agree with every policy or law that I encounter in Scouting, my company, my church, or my country. There's a lot I don't agree with, and I will gladly voice my opposition when asked or in a discussion, but that still doesn't absolve me from having to adhering to such policy/law. I don't like the idea of an income tax. But I still pay them... I'm not a fan of 65mph speed limits in the middle of nowhere. But I do follow them, and when I don't, I expect to pay the consequences for my actions... Now.... to go back four or five pages.... I made the observation that Wicca and Unitarians were non-theist. As pointed out by others, that's an error on my part. I intended to write non-monotheist, and that got overlooked. I'd correct it, but the problem with apostrophes and editing are still persisting and I don't want to reword the entire post again. It's pretty clear that this topic has been beaten to death and then some. I don't think it has made anyone change their mind though, so perhaps the time has come to just let it wind down since it isn't winding down on its own........

Our old troop presented the veteran pins for adults during our once-a-year formal COH. On entering the troop, we entered in youth years and previous adult years into Troopmaster, so it was fairly easy to keep track of who hit the milestone years. Personally, it's not something I wear, but the recognition is still appreciated.

Where I would expect near 100% participation at meetings and activities is from a boy who accepts the challenge of being a PL, ASPL, or SPL. If they're in the position but unable to make time available to actually perform, they need to step back from the position (sounds a lot like a WB exercise...) because they're letting other people down (whether the others realise it or not. For a rank-and-file Scout? You have to talk with the individual involved each time you try to measure whether or not they're committed. That's a good use for a Scoutmaster conference. They're not just for rank advancement... Adults aren't much different... We have several committee chairs who rarely attend committee meetings, much less troop meetings, which leads me to the question of why they're a chair and don't try to step back and be a member at-large.

I think Kudu's on to something...

Eric is right on the money with regard to how current courts are implementing their view of the Establishment clause vs. how it is actually worded... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Supporting religion and establishing a national religion are two different things. It's possible to be supportive of various faith based organizations without promoting one over the other. Merlyn wrote "I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support." You're wrong in that statement as well. While an overwhelming majority of BSA members are monotheist, there are also religious emblem programs available for BSA members who follow both the Hindu and Buddhist faiths, neither of which are what are considered monotheist. There are documented Wiccans who belong to BSA, which is about as far away as theist as you can get, but they don't have a recognized religious emblem program (Wicca has no national organization to stand behind the program). That doesn't prevent a follower of Wicca from joining BSA, however. Unitarians, equally about as far away from being theist as organized religions get, are also active in BSA. Their religious emblem program was revoked when they added language inconsistent with BSA's policy on homosexualtiy into their "Religion in Life" handbook, but Unitarians are still welcomed as members.

Again... what do the boys want to do? Do they want to have everyone feel as though they're not just participants, or do they want to reserve the patch for only those in POR's at the troop/PLC level? Since it isn't defined, it's theirs to interpret.

Sheesh... Boys whack each other all the time with sticks and stuff. It doesn't make it right, but if that was really the extent of the incident, the parents over-reacted, and are the ones who need to grow up...

John, that quote from the Gazette is paraphrased from the WB Admin Guide, Appendix, Sample Bead Presentation (Page A-20 in publication 18-591) "To prepare a candidate for acceptance into Wood Badge, we must first remove the Troop 1 neckerchief. This neckerchief has symbolized service to all that have seen it worn: service to the unit, the district, and the council. Wherever Scouters gather, at camporees, summer camp, Order of the Arrowlook aroundtheres a Troop 1 neckerchief at work. To the candidate, the Troop 1 neckerchief is a reminder of so much more: of joining together as a den, bridging to become a Scout, coming together as a patrol and as a team, and experiencing a Venturing ceremony; learning skills, working and camping together, and growing in Scout spirit. So well have these Troop 1 neckerchiefs served that now they need not be retired, but rather they may now be worn with pride any time the Wood Badge Scouter answers the call for service." So I guess that answered the first question -- is there any restriction on wearing it after beading. The second question... can someone who attended but didn't finish their ticket still wear the Troop 1 necker?? I know several people who never finished their ticket for one reason or another.

Merlyn wrote And I'll think for you, eolesen. Strangely, you doing the thinking for anyone is scarier than the image of the 400 lb Harley babe with her top pulled up...

I'll be praying for you, Merlyn. Really.

And all this time I assumed that Merlyn was someone who was trying to effect change from within... Since he's clearly out to remove one of the core principles of Scouting, I don't see any value in debating issues with him any further. DanKroh asks "eolesen, can you give an example of a scout unit being denied access to public facilities that other groups are still allowed to use? Not a scout unit being denied a special rate (i.e. special lease rate) to use that facility, but being told that they do not have the same access to that public facility that other groups have?" Kind of. Our pack is allowed to use the school free of charge, yet in order to have our committee meetings, we were being charged $150 a month for "utilities and custodial services" that other groups didn't appear to be charged for. We now use the public library, who doesn't charge residents for meeting rooms... Where I see hypocracy in that my son's HS doesn't think twice about allowing the "Rainbow Club" (comprised of gay/lesbian/transgender leaning minors and their friends, led by school staffers, and given full access to student activity funds) to exist and promote itself, but organizations like Fellowship of Christian Atheletes and Scouts are seen as evil because their association is based entirely or in part on a belief in God.