fred johnson

CalicoPenn - It's wrong to think someone's expression is not projected to the first amendment just because it's not associated with a specific label. Concepts of faith and spirituality and expression of those can exist outside a specific box and should still be protected and those expressing those opinions should be protected. Targeting BSA without targeting specific faiths is ridiculous. It's like saying a divorce case can not be heard fairly by a Catholic. Or a gender discrimination case can't be heard by a Muslim judge. ​It's a political action. Nothing more. Nothing less.

California's actions scream of judicial activism and a twisted interpretation of the law. BSA has always had a major faith component and to ignore the religious freedom of the organization is an amazing interpretation. The rule also seems to fly directly in the face of the BSA v. Dale where a private organization can choose to associations or reject associations that affect their expressed message. Now, the CA says to be a judge you can't freely associate. Also, it seems the new rule directly does what it wants judges to avoid. The rule exercises personal beliefs to manipulate others and demotes part of society to a 2nd class status. So, you can't be a scout and be a judge. What is next? You can't be a muslim or Catholic or other? Or, you have to be an atheist to be a judge? This is less about good interpretation of the law and more about government supporting some beliefs over others. The new rule is insulting, small minded and petty. Shame. =========================== On the flip side ... BSA does need to change the policy and remove the limitations. Then, let the charter organizations filter based on their beliefs. If a person does not meet the membership criteria of the charter org, the charter does not need to accept them as a member of their scouting unit. The simple fact is the US is a multi-cultural society. The law says organizations need to not discriminate and that is good. But, the law also recognizes religious freedom and religious organizations teach values and do teach right and wrong. The problem is right and wrong are defined differently by different parts of society and different faiths. And BSA exists across faiths and across religious organizations. As such, it needs to stop applying membership filters based on faith and orientation. Unit membership should be left to charter organizations to choose. Parents can then choose a charter that matches their faith. =========================================== BSA can still have God in the Oath and Law and BSA can teach that God, faith and spirituality is important.

SeattlePioneer ... Same here. Quicken works great for the troop and pack.

blw2 ... There is lots of guidance on the part you ask. You always consider significance. It has to be significant enough to provide opportunity to demonstrate leadership and significant enough to be of benefit. Landscaping and benches are common. Though it's usually significant landscaping and often multiple hand built benches. If you saw a plaque on a bench, you may have only seen part of the project. Perhaps another part was a drainage field or something much less visible. The foot bridge one seems doubtful. Eagle projects are not fundraisers and can only raise funds sufficient to do their project. Raising funds to pay someone else to put in a bridge is noble, but sounds out of character for an eagle project. I'd have to learn more on that one. ... One dance I've seen is "a community group wants to put up a bridge" but needs help raising funds. So the eagle scout run some events for the community group. He's not raising funds as much as he's running events. He never touches the funds and is limited to the specific project work he's doing. ... I don't like this dance, but I've seen it a few times to get around the "fundraiser" rule.

GregWilley ... I sent you a private message.

Thanks everyone. Amazingly I'm not surprised at the variety and I'm okay with what jblake47 writes. I just wanted to know what level I should apply. What I'm hearing is I should effectively ... within the boundary of what is written in the Eagle Workbook and the Guide To Advancement ... establish my own level as it's the contribution I'll contribute. Even though it's unique, it's okay as scouts need to deal with a variety of people and I'm just one such variety.

Yeah, BUT ... HOW ??? ... How do you say it's THAT person? ... Or that John Johnson or that Steve Smith ?? Address? Phone? Drivers license? People have multiple phones and often move and sometimes move across states. Or, Jim Jorgenson of Ames, IA is okay, but his distant cousin Jim Jorgenson (also in Ames IA) is a real creep. Less than a finger print or a DNA sample, it's hard to have a unique identifier. It's why it always comes down to SS#. It was part of the problem with the old BSA ineligible volunteer files. Slight name change. Move across state boundaries. It was easy to hide from your past. It is much harder now with SS#s. Not impossible, but harder.

Been there. (and learned to hate 60 page applications.) It explains the caution, but it doesn't give a get-out-of-jail-free card. Working with kids requires a background check. Every background check I've seen requires a SS# and probably a drivers license number too.

Thanks for all the input. I was wondering. I've seen some approved and at Eagle Boards of Review that have egregious spelling, grammatical or punctuation mistakes in them. I talked with a few of the leaders and it sounded like everyone thought it was the other guys role to comment on that. But I've also seen some from scouts that I later learned that was their level of ability for writing either through dyslexia or just slow learning.

He can better protect his registration by handing it right to the registrar in the council office. It's the registrar's job to process and protect the information. Otherwise, NO. Instead, have him do support tasks that do not involve direct contact with children or significant financial or over sight authority.

What do others do when asked to review a scout's Eagle project proposal? With the current process, when would you ask a scout to return for signature AFTER making changes ? WRITING ??? - A few minor writing errors? (capitalization, spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc) - Significant writing errors? (structure, disorganized, etc) - Major writing errors? (concepts not understandable without explanation) CONTENT ??? - Empty spots but the scout can demonstrate that he has the answer? - Shallow answers that show no reflection or thought on the question? OTHER ??? - Parent defending and explaining the proposal instead of the scout? - Proposal quality looks like he would not do a quality job? FOLLOW UP QUESTION ... Would you sign allowing the scout to proceed ON HIS HONOR that he will add what is missing and correct what is wrong? I'm just looking to see when others would NOT sign the Eagle proposal based on the proposal itself ?

Pie? Shame. We're scouts. We call it cobbler.

Well written. "I believe" BSA has always meant it to be this way, but BSA had gave scoutmasters some latitude. "I believe" BSA updates removed any such discretion are triggered by scoutmasters having an inch and taking a mile. I've seen things such as "you already have four merit badges in progress. Finish one before I give you another." ... "You're too young." ... "I want you to learn ### first." There is much to be improved in the current merit badge process, but the scoutmaster signature on the blue card is not one of them.

Well, some areas of the country have not done the best teaching basic biology.

jencon143 ... No offense, but this just seems baiting another long debate on BSA's policies. Or, it's a natural question driven the mismatch between modern society defaults and BSA expectations.

Fully agree on the noise issue. That's why we don't like large tents or large cabins. Other than that, we let the scouts choose who and how many are in their tent. All our tents are 4 person tents. Same make and model.

... this reminds me of a joke my son told me this weekend about his homework as he didn't like having homework this weekend. Those who learn history are doomed to repeat it.

So from what I understand, in two more years, the criminal background reports will no longer show that I voted for Ross Perot twice ???

Each year, do you have the parents re-negotiate their numbers? That's the main issue I see. First time you can get people to help but the next year is harder. I am not saying it won't work. Just never seen it done.

I think this is an EXCELLENT approach. To succeed, you need to do it right away when the kids first sign up for Cubs. But if you do that, I think it's an absolute great idea !!!!!!! And if you lose a few, well ... On the flip side, it gets more invested earlier. Being invested increases retention. So, any change is going to keep some and lose some. I think on the whole, this is a big big gain. Nice approach. I think BSA should strongly think about developing an approach like this.

twocubdad ... And your point is? ========================= ... You updated ... And I agree. This thread has been dealt with multiple times. And like you, I view this situation the same as if a scout and his friends started drinking and started sneaking it on camp outs. It's a big time deal breaker. I wrote the previous because "dealing" is inflammatory and makes the whole situation incomprehensible. Why did the council let a would-be felon stay in scouting? Yet, that's apparently what's happened. I see it as the far more common issue of youth testing limits and experimenting with more mature habits. In this case, habits that are 100% incompatible with scouting and limits that once crossed are always very tempting to cross again. In my book, I would have a hard time letting them continue. But it was decided and this poster accepted being SM as part of the situation. --- I do believe it is unfair and self-destructive to revisit the mess. --- I do believe it would unethical to throw the kid out because it would help recuitment. --- I do believe this is 100% okay topic for his Eagle SMC. --- I do believe it is valid to address current attitudes. Though I'd avoid attendance topics as he's already sounding like he'd transition on and out. --- I would have a boundary that is zero tolerance for them. --- I would not feel obligated to sign his Eagle paperwork ... and I'd let him know that now.

I wasn't going to say anything as I am not sure I had anything unique or different to add. .... but ... "Dealing" ... This is very inflammatory word. It may be right but it can be a wide range of scope. Given what's happened, I suspect the situation is one scout started experimenting. Then, he mentioned it and more friends tried it. And so on. Then, they used one person to get more by one person taking the money and purchasing and handing it out. This is "dealing" but it's also the same way we bought concert tickets when I was a kid or bought many other things our parents didn't know about. ... I'm betting he would not be back in scouts if he was making money or recruiting new users or the TV version of a drug dealer. At least in my area which is a very upper end city, pot is easily available in school. People know who and where to get it. Every middle and high school has police officers and locker inspections with dogs. If you are caught, it is an "arrest", but you never leave the school. You go to the principals office with the officer. Your parents are called and you are routed through an intervention program run by other youth .... and as part of the penalty you have to serve on it. If you complete the program and stay good, it all falls off your record. I'm just saying this scenario is very very common. These kids have already had the legal system serve judgement. And, the local BSA council serve judgement. And, you accepted the situation by stepping up as SM. I do not think it would be fair to hand out more "punishment". If it was such that they should not have the change to get Eagle, they should probably have been removed from the troop. But they weren't. You can address current attitude or attendance. But the incident is now in the past. Recent past, but still the past. Still though ... You have to decide your own situation. The details and the individuals are more important than the general situation. I'm just saying "Dealing" is inflammatory and wanted to provide another view. And as always in scouting, each and every moment gives you an educational opportunity with the scouts. But you can't if you push them away. I'm not saying I'd go either direction. I wish you the best.

Sqyire21 ... I wrote the original question. It was based on their not needing to earn the Webelos rank ... and that so many people call them Webelos 1 & Webelos 2 ... which is wrong and drives me crazy ... but I understand because it communicates if they are in the first year or the second year of the program ... which is a key point and would always be asked next. I've been looking at this presentation, slide "Directly to AOL" in the "Program Overview Powerpoint" on this site. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/programupdates.aspx The only clear point is that I don't see a book for AOL, just Webelos. So that sort of answers that question. It is interesting though. If a boy joining in 5th grade can go direct to AOL, then "I assume" an existing scout can be inactive and become active again and skip earning his Webelos rank.

Excellent point and great idea. Just be careful as you've listed 18 questions and some of them are really big. Let the SM know the issue and know what you're trying to find a solution too. Get him in the picture so he can work with the scout appropriately.