eolesen

I asked because we have a very deserving scout in our troop. He needs to be recognized, but he would feel uncomfortable wearing a kerchief that is different from everyone else (too noticeable) I thought the epaulette would be more discrete, yet I know he would be proud to wear them.

If you want to recognize the Scout, consider a different necker slide. I've done some handmade ones I've given to Scouts thru the years for quiet recognition.

The Scout knows why it was given, as do I. If others ask, it's his choice on how he wants to handle it.

Once in a while, maybe. Not on a regular basis, though. It may wind up reinforcing the idea that your den is really just a feeder pack, which in our area is not the case.

I still think the best bridge to bringing Web2's over is still a good Den Chief.

Cchoat, thanks for pointing out the financial facts about the improvements to AP Hill and the training opportunity it presents for the armed forces who are learning realistic crowd control.

And yes, it is a recruiting bonanza. Go look at the fact that 25-30% of those attending the service academies are Eagle Scouts, and another significant percentage of enlisted recruits came up thru Scouting, including my Life for life Marine.

I'm just playing Devils Advocate regarding the branding vs. program... The brand is indeed powerful.

I'll argue that the brand protected thru regular trademark laws, not by virtue of the Charter. What they're doing is no different than Coca Cola owning "It's the real thing!"

The word "Scout" is a universal and internationally recognized term, and I'm sure dozens of organizations could try and lay claim to it. Likewise, the FDL is universally recognized as the symbol of Scouting.

If another organization were to surface and petition for membership in the WOSM, it would make for a most interesting situation, especially if they wound up with more critical mass than BSA.

But that brings me back to the original question... is the Charter a trump card here, or just a piece of history?

So, is the brand really what matters? Not the program?

In the original thread, the question came up regarding who would own the Congressional Charter IF BSA were to fracture due to a change in its membership policies...

I've suggested that the Charter is fluff, and not required to operate the organization.

Others have disagreed with that... example...

So you *would* ignore/gloss over any promises/expectations implied by the granting of a Congressional Charter, correct?

To that, I have to respond with the question in the title...

Is the Charter codified by Congress critical to delivering a successful program?

To me, ALL that is really necessary for the organization is to deliver on the three aims, using the eight methods, and following the twelve points of the Scout Law.

I don't find any reference to the Congressional Charter in the Scoutmaster Handbook.

I don't find any reference to the Congressional Charter in the Scout Handbook.

And I don't find any reference to the Charter in the Scout Law.

If you haven't read it, it's pretty dull reading, and focused on corporate governance, trademarks, and the right to own property. Boys are only mentioned twice.

http://usscouts.org/aboutbsa/bsacharter.asp

(This message has been edited by eolesen)(This message has been edited by eolesen)

Spinning into a new thread to discuss the Charter...(This message has been edited by eolesen)

The Congressional Charter is fluff?! Well, if you wish to ignore/gloss over any promises or expectations implied in the issue of such a Charter, then I guess that is what you would say.

An organization can meet all of the same goals and transparency without having a Congressional Charter. The fact that it is a Congressional Charter doesn't give you anything extra but some prestige.

Again, Congress hasn't issued any new charters in almost 20 years. Did that stop youth organizations and not-for-profits from being launched? Does that make the ones launched in the last 20 years less worthy than those who have one issued before 1992?

(This message has been edited by Eolesen)

The Scoutmaster Emeritus patch is the Unit Commissioner or other district leadership patch.

No, it's not. I've been a UC and a ADC.From experience, both positions are like a death sentence if you enjoy being a unit Scouter.

If you don't want to be tied to a unit anymore, go for it. Be a district or council Scouter. You don't have to wait until your kids age out. You don't even need to have been a Scoutmaster. Some of the best UC's I've seen came out of Committee positions, since shuffling paperwork is 90% of the job...

If a unit Scouter wishes to stay in a contact position after stepping back from the SM position, you'd be a fool not to let them stay on as an ASM, even if they aren't going to be as active. You can never have too much experience available to pull from, regardless of what their patch says.(This message has been edited by Eolesen)

BadenP, or anyone, if BSA did split with LDS taking out one chunk and the remainder being the rest of us, which part would the Congressional Charter go with I wonder?

The Charter is fluff. Congress stopped issuing them in the 1990's.

Personally, I don't think it would be an insult to wear an ASM patch as a previous SM. Two of the three previous SM's from our troop did just that. If anything, it's a relief to be able to step back into the ASM job and let someone else take all the heat...

I think a large part of the perception of self-segregation comes from the units that have voluntold leaders.

While some called leaders evolve into highly energized Scouters, and stick around, too many seem to serve their term and move on. Because it's an assigned position, they're either not as motivated to put in the extra time during the week, or simply don't know what they don't know.

When I went thru Wood Badge, many of the LDS participants in my course were told they were going, as opposed to it being a deliberate stop on a personal journey. One said he hadn't even been thru the required pre-requisite training.

To wit, of the four LDS members from my 1997 WB patrol, I know of only one who may still be involved in Scouting. One is now a bishop (too busy to be involved with the troop) and the rest have likely served their time and moved on to other callings.

I'm not sure how you overcome that, short of using volunteers instead of voluntolds. Consolidating units in the smaller wards and having units at the stake level might also help.

It has been an official threat from Salt Lake that the LDS will leave,

In Rolling Stone's July 6, 2000 issue:

In 1995, Elder Jack Goaslind, a national BSA Executive Board member and president of the Mormon's youth organization, was asked during a civil hearing why the top leaders of the church were willing to leave BSA if it becomes accepting of gays. "Well, to be direct with you, it was because of the number of cases that have come before the courts on different homosexual-conduct acts that it's been discussed thoroughly there. And the decision has been reached," Goaslind said.

It's possible they might have a new revelation on the issue 17 years later, but I doubt it. Since there's so little interaction between the LDS and traditional troops already, I don't think most of us would notice.

Financially, losing the LDS would be a huge hit to Scouting in AZ, UT, NV, and ID. FOS contributions are compulsory in some wards. Without that, we'd see several councils forced into mergers. But it would survive. Merging with GSUSA might be an answer and a financial offset.(This message has been edited by Eolesen)

Im not so sure people are as quick to do the automatic MC or SA anymore, since having trained leaders is part of the "used to be Quality Unit" criteria (too many name changes in the past few years to keep track of).

When I first registered as an adult, I was asked if I wanted to be on committee or be an ASM... I told them I didn't have patience for someone who couldn't make a decision in less than 30 seconds, so they just handed me the ASM patch...

In all the units I've worked with since then, the SM had final say over who was an ASM, for the reason mentioned above -- they have to be aligned with how the SM is wired, and they need to be able to step into his shoes on a moments notice.

I wouldn't dismiss him quite so quickly until I found out why this guy decided he wanted to be an ASM.

Had he done the job before? Does he have the outdoor skills knowledge necessary? In my book, you can never have too many ASMs.

I usually invite them over to Chick-Fil-A to discuss it over a coffee.

"And you mention this because Scouters shouldn't play with Trains? "

They should not play with real trains.... They're power tools and wheeled vehicles, which are all more or less now banned in G2SS.

But as a Railroading MBC, I'm all for Scouts learning about them.

SP, the injunction was only granted for 36 hours, and nothing else was discovered underneath. The lawyers convinced a judge that UP might be destroying evidence critical to their case. Kinda worked in the railroad's favor, in that both sides captured lots of photographic evidence supporting the argument that the bridge hadn't failed.

No part of the victim's car was higher than 27" when it was recovered. A couple hundred tons of coal raining down from 15' above the road will do that....(This message has been edited by Eolesen)

1) this article is three weeks old, and has nothing to do with Scouting, religion or politics... Why is it here?... spambot?

2) the bridge apparently didn't fail or collapse -- the moving train pulled the bridge off the supporting abutment. The engineering firm investigating for the railroad says that the bridge itself was intact.

3) there were five derailments nationally due to rail warping/kinking during that heat wave

It's a tragic event, and I'm sure the railroad will ultimately settle with the estate, but to say it was negligence vs. an act of God is a stretch....

Acco, the only problem I see with your latter statement is where you exclude someone based on the actions of their parents (broken homes or born out of wedlock).

Haven't had Sunday troop meetings, but two of the three troops I've been part of had committee or ASM/SM meetings on Sunday nights. Worked well, and never conflicted with troop events.

Obese people tend to pass more "intestinal gas" due to poor metabolisms or eating habits, so there may be breathing impacts on others......

I'm assuming this only applies to camp-provided tents. Wall tents should meet this requirement, although Velcro isn't exactly critter proof...

A troop should still be able to provision their own tents which use zippers and have a bathtub bottom.(This message has been edited by Eolesen)

Google Sites in conjunction with Google Groups works pretty well. You can limit access to private information/pages to only those who are members of the group, and have public information shared with the world. And, you can use a custom domain name.

As for the spreadsheets... I love 'em. For summer camp this year, I was able to make a form which had the merit badge offers by time slot, and let the boys work out their own schedule. That flowed into a spreadsheet we were able to keep as a master schedule.

Likewise, signups for other events which require data to be collected can be managed this way.

Scoutlander has some good functionality for troop management, and having targeted emails to a Patrol. The only thing I dont like is the use of Cub Scout colors on the Troop emails and web pages. Itbisna not, but i find it to be a bit detracting. The support folks so far haven't responded to a request to update the style sheet used for troop pages or email templates...

(This message has been edited by Eolesen)

I'm 6' 2", and an adult large would not even be long enough to tuck in. Has nothing to do with my waistline, either.

But yes, this is trolling.

Fat people can lose weight. Smokers can quit. What is the alternative for one's preference?

Oh, and if you quote the Scout Law as a reason, which of the 12 Points is violated by fat people?(This message has been edited by Eolesen)

Our troop near Fort Worth had a great time at the following camps:

-- BTSR (near Fort Davis, TX), hotter than blazes but the kids were used to heat...

-- Frank Rand/GSR (north of Santa Fe, NM) but that was 10 years ago...

-- Camp Orr (near Harrison, AR) -- that was the one my son liked the most. Canoeing and camping for those who can't get up to Northern Tier...

-- Chisolm at SR2 / Sid Richardson Scout Reservation ( near Bridgeport, TX)

There's also a camp I drove thru near Kerrville next to the Guadeloupe River that looked promising, but we never saw their program info. Lots of shade, but still hot.....

In AZ:

-- Geronimo (near Payson, AZ)

-- Raymond (near Flagstaff, AZ)

Both are probably a bit too far from TX, but not if you have a bus. Add in a stop or two at the Grand Canyon; on the way, both Petrified Forest/Painted Desert, and Walnut Canyon are quick exits off I-40.

The bus option worked well for us going to GSR -- all our footlockers, chairs, and sleeping bags fit underneath with room for stoves, lantern trees, and propane tanks (bus company may or may not allow that...).