eolesen

I'm all for reviving Cooking as a white ringer. And while we're at it, there probably needs to be a Laundry MB...

Ditto on ASM's working with their own son's patrol. My previous troop allowed it but it didn't always work well. My current troop discourages it. I don't serve in any advisory position where I could have a conflict of interest with my son. Scoutldr wrote: The SMs primary job is to train and mentor the SPL. THe SPL runs the program, and trains and mentors the other members of the PLC. True in many troops, but it doesn't have to be limited to the SM. Our SM's son was just elected ASPL, which in our troop means that he will be promoted to SPL in six months. So, in order to stay in check with the "no parents advising their own blood" guideline, an experienced ASM will begin working with the SPL and ASPL instead of the SM. And that's OK. One of the aims of Scouting is association with adults. If your son spends a lot of time working with you, that's not happening to the extent that it should. Working with or teaching a relative is an entirely different dynamic than when working with someone unrelated.

I hate to see examples where the boy is being punished for having a mom with poor judgement... This isn't even the father or a step-father we're discussing -- it's the current model year boy-toy... Boys like this are exactly the type of boys who NEED the influence of Scouting, so I'd look for a reasonable compromise -- make it clear that while the boyfriend who has no legal standing are not permitted, the boy and his mom are welcome to participate. That gives her the out to withdraw her son, but also gives her the chance to let the son benefit from the program. Chances are, boy-toy will wind up in jail again, so it might be a moot point.

Cubs is a five year program, and Boys can be up to seven. So, right off the bat you have parents who stick around longer while their boys are in the program. Plus, my perception is that you have more adults stick around Boys after their kids are thru thru the program than you see returning to work with Cubs. With Cubs, the parents bear all of the responsibility, so there's so much to be done that some people just don't notice change happening. Plus, more than half of the program in our unit appears to be executed via the Den Leaders, who have a lot more autonomy than an ASM would. With Boys, the responsibility for executing the program is shared, with the boys having the lion's share if your unit is functioning correctly. What little territory the parents are left with tends to be protected a little more ferociously.

Should they be used? Ask the boys. It's their program.

There are thousands of church congregations who meet in public schools. That doesn't mean that those schools are endorsing the religion, or that they are imposing it. There's no valid argument that can be made for denying law abiding taxpayers access to facilities built and maintained by their tax dollars. That's why so many units still meet in public schools, even though the school district no longer directly charters them. Likewise with units sponsored by fire department auxillaries, As long as other groups aren't denied access to those same facilities, there's nothing wrong with allowing groups who exercise their freedom of association (perhaps the correct description as opposed to the over-use of discriminatory) to be using public facilities. I originally wrote: When San Diego was faced with kicking BSA out of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island a few years ago, the ACLU filed a brief with the court SUPPORTING the BSA (go figure...). Merlyn responded: No they didn't. The ACLU of San Diego has been litigating against the BSA's special lease, e.g.: http://www.aclusandiego.org/issues_item.php?cat_id_sel=001&sub_cat_sel=000011&article_id=000065 My apologies... the brief was labeled as being filed by the ACLU, but was really filed by the American Civil RIGHTS Union... http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/bsa_pdfs/BWPDFS/Amicus_ACLU.pdf

Yep - the only "sacred" WB-only regalia I know of is the tan neckerchief with the tartan & woggle that are presented along with beads. I see boys from different units wearing woggles from time to time, and I know of one troop who used to give them out as internal recognition. Similar question comes to mind, though... what guidelines have you ever seen for wearing the all-tartan necker given to WB21C course participants -prior- to receiving their beads? I've seen them worn to district meetings and events from time to time, but never really saw or heard any guidance on when not to wear them when I took my course. Can it still be worn by someone who took the course but never received their beads?

You can also use the requirements for the Camping MB to simultaneously meet (and exceed) the requirements for First Class: 8c. Prepare a camp menu. Explain how the menu would differ from a menu for a backpacking or float trip. Give recipes and make a food list for your patrol. Plan two breakfasts, three lunches, and two suppers. Discuss how to protect your food against bad weather, animals, and contamination. 8d. Cook at least one breakfast, one lunch, and one dinner for your patrol from the meals you have planned for requirement 8c. At least one of those meals must be a trail meal requiring the use of a lightweight stove. But, as stated, the requirements for Cooking MB cannot be used to meet the cooking requirements in the Camping MB(This message has been edited by eolesen)

I actually don't believe that, if the BSA were to changes its policy on Homosexuality, the Catholic Church in America would necessarily change its support of scouting in a significant way. I'm not so sure that the Catholic Church is the only concern -- they're still a large contingent, but they're not the largest CO who has spoken out against changing the policy. Based on a 2004 presentation, the top four chartering organizations for BSA are: 1) LDS Church, 401,000 Youth 2) United Methodist Church, 390,000 Youth 3) PTA/PTO/Public/Private Schools 370,000 Youth 4) Catholic Church 325,000 Youth Following that, you have PTA/PTO's, several other Protestant churches, and other groups such as the Masons, VFW/American Legion, and community groups like the Lions' Clubs. If anyone has a more current or inclusive list, I'd love to see it... Both the UMC and LDS have views in alignment with the BSA on homosexuality, as do most of the major Protestant religions. If they believe that scripture is the Word of God, then it's pretty hard to tell them they have to adopt a position that goes entirely against that of God. The LDS has gone public on their stance -- they'll no longer charter BSA units. That's a 30% loss in terms of units, 13% in terms of members, and something around 40-50% of FOS contributions. While some folks I know would welcome the departure of the LDS's interpretations of Scouting, you can't ignore the imact that it could have on the organization as a whole. I'm not so sure about the Catholic Church, UMC or other major CO's, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that several had already done so privately. Back to the topic... When San Diego was faced with kicking BSA out of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island a few years ago, the ACLU filed a brief with the court SUPPORTING the BSA (go figure...). They made a case that the below-market lease San Diego was extending to the Scouts was more than offset by facility improvements and maintenance costs. ACLU also made a case that the only likely candidates to occupying either facility were other non-profits, so it would be difficult to justify market-rate leases when the facility had limited commercial appeal. So the questions in my mind aren't whether or not the City should offer a reduced rate to the BSA or any other not-for-profit, but whether or not the proposed lease is comparable to the cost BSA has incurred maintaining the facility, and whether or not there's someone else likely to be able to occupy the facility at rates comparable to what is being extended to BSA or who is able to assume the cost of maintenance/upkeep. If the cost of kicking them out on principle winds up costing the PHL taxpayers more, it's the wrong decision from a fiscal standpoint.

And let's not forget that Kinky Friedman was not only a contender for Gov. of Texas in 2006, but he actually got 13% of the vote.

Maybe I'm just a little paranoid and yes, she could have made the whole thing up. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day... You've already told us that you and a few other adults (and Scouts?) had seen the boy's MySpace page, and coupled with things you state he has personally said, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a more serious situation being dismissed in the rush to deal with the psycho woman.

This topic came up on another forum last month, and there were lots of passionate arguments on what the right and wrong way. If the wording were as explicit as some interpret it to be, there'd be a lot less arguing over it... If you go read a blue card, the Scout handbook, and the advancement guide, neither of them really says who is responsible for picking the counselor. They only say that the the SM will give the Scout the name (and I believe at least one publication has said "name(s)") of a registered counselor. None of the forms say who is responsible for filling out the counselor's information on the inside of the blue card. It could be the SM, it could be the MBC, it could be the Scout. So, if you as a SM give the boy the name of a counselor, but he works with another registered counselor, are you going to deny him the badge? Probably not. Troop policy may dictate here, but it's not as clear cut in the program documentation as some might want it to be. Personally, I only care that they work with a registered counselor. If I don't like a particular MBC, it's not my place to steer the boy away from them -- it's possible that they have better chemistry and the boy will learn better from that MBC. Likewise, I may think one of the MBC's is the best one ever, yet if the boy had a bad experience with that leader at one point in his Scouting career, it's not my place to force the boy to work with that adult.

I feel your pain. I have seen units where the boys are treated like Webelos 3 thru 6 instead of Boy Scouts... I would look for a smaller unit that is more in line with what boy led really means. Another option is to perhaps volunteer to be a unit commissioner, with the understanding that your DC or ADC would be able to assign someone to take a look at this unit. The lack of oversight is a big part of the problem. If their policies are indeed adding requirements to advancement, you might also want to chat with a DE, especially if you know one personally. That is more likely to cause alarm than it would by not allowing the boys to run their own program.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

Advancement policy requires the SM to approve of the selection of the MBC, and to give his permission to start MB work. Are you certain about that? The signature by the SM is permission to start work, and he's to give the name of a registered MBC, but I don't know anywhere where it is stated that the SM has to approve the selection of the MBC. How many trained leaders are in this unit?...

If the other scouts are questioning it, that's a good thing... The PLC in my son's troop came to the conclusion that buying food that wasn't being eaten by a picky eater was a waste of their money. So, they decided (and was reasonably able to enforce) that the only food brought on campouts was the what menu. Scouts could still bring along personal stuff (jerky, trail mix) within reason. If the empty calories aren't there to be eaten, eventually they'll have to eat the good ones. It also forced the picky eaters to participate more in the menu planning process.

Hops_Scout writes "It upsets me to see the City of Philadelphia doing this to the local council there, but laws are laws. The BSA is the one who decided to go against the law. Sure the Supreme Court decided that the BSA has the right to do it. Point of order 1: I suspect the BSA policy pre-dates the City policy/ordinances by a fair margin. Point of order 2: The BSA is not in violation of any laws -- they have a lease that the city has approved, and are in compliance with the terms of that lease. The city is stating that they will not renew the lease at below-market rates without "violating" their anti-discriminatory fair-practices ordinance. If the City Council really wanted to, they can permit variances to ordinances, just as state and federal legislatures can write amendments to laws which permit variances to already established laws. I share the opinion voiced by others that the City is chosing not to in order to placate special interest groups who believe sexual preference deserves the same level of protected status that gender or race do.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

1) CPAP machines. I participate on a RV forum, and several members there use CPAP machines. Many members have units with both a 110V and a 12V plug, so that they can operate off of a car battery without the need for an inverter. You'll get a lot more battery life that way, since you're not wasting any power in the inversion process. 2) I've owned popups, fifth wheels, tow trailers, and a motorhome. The only time any one of those entered a Scout camp was when we were picking up our son at Camp Frank Rand on our way to Colorado (we lived in Texas and the troop was doing some mountain camping). At our last Camporee, two of the commissioner staff brought RV's, but they were being used as part of the HDQ setup (one was for First Aid), and not by individual units. That's the only way I'd consider bringing mine in the future. One of the cub packs did have a pop-up, but they became the butt of a few jokes as a result. If you bring a full size inflatable mattress, be sure to have some insulation between you and the ground and/or mattress. They have zero insulating value. I've made do with a Thermarest pad for the past few years, but I'm still on the uphill side of 50.

The smart organizations either own their own facilies or have arranged for 99 year leases (very popular earlier in the century...). My former employer was the beneficiary of a 99 year lease in New York City, and with 20 years left to go, was paying about 25% of the market rate for the real estate they occupied.

"I owe the CC at least an ounce of respect, to let them handle this THEIR WAY" In most situations, yes, you do need to let the CC lead. I'm still of the opinion that this is in the rare exception where you can't do it your way -- you have to do it the YPT way. I do not envy what is about to descend upon your unit by any means, and hope that it doesn't impact the rest of your program. Please do let us know the outcome...

Totally agree... I'm council-wide as well.

I don't disagree, but the unique factor here is that BSA funded the construction of the landmark building, not the city. I'm sure there is a community somewhere more than willing to welcome having a Service Center, or maybe even a chartering organization who is willing to sublease space or land for a new building. Heck, call the guys in Salt Lake City or Rome. If they're really that influential in BSA's national policy, they may be willing to pony up some land and/or an existing facility...

I would expect an Eagle candidate to be in full uniform, but I've always been under the impression that Scouts are not required to own a uniform, and I don't think I'd be requiring a boy to borrow one if they couldn't afford one or if the troop's clothes closed didn't have anything in his size. Scouts isn't the military. I really hate it when I hear of units or even districts trying to treat it as though it were.

Follow up, since edit isn't working... I also don't think it's just the mainstream churches and the LDS who are influencing the decision to hold firm on the policy concerning faith and orientation. If you were to poll active adult leaders and parents of Scouts nationwide, you'd probably find that a overwhelming majority support the current positions, and it would be that way across pretty consistently if you divided it up by the predominant chartering organizations.

"I think it is a shame that the BSA is willing to throw an entire Council under the bus lest their religious mega-sponsors get pissed off and withdraw support." And I think it is a shame that a very vocal and politically connected/media savvy minority has the ability to strong-arm organizations like the BSA, the church, and private business just because those organizations are opposed to their lifestyle. The council doesn't have to be in a landmark building in order to achieve the same purpose. If consolidating into the VF offices isn't practical, I'd make a point of finding office space outside the Philly city limits.

Joni, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the notification needs to take place NOW. Your unit has a huge legal (and PR) liability on your hands, and it needs to be self-disclosed immediately to the Council. This is not a situation where the committee is empowered to make any decisions. If you were the parent of the other Scout that he "experimented" (a politically correct way of dressing up a predator/victim event??) with, how would you feel about another leader being hesitant to report it until a week or two later? Even if it did turn out to be just heresay, you can't let something like this go without a phone call.