Hunt

Although it is not clearly stated, there is is a strong implication on the Boy Scout Application that the troop decides whether to have a neckerchief at all. It identifies the non-optional parts of the uniform, and then says to check with the SM about the neckerchief--and then in the list of uniform parts, it has "neckerchief (troop option)" and neckerchief slide "if necessary."

"And although scoutldr is correct that the application calls only for references and not letters, some Councils will insist that the Scout arrange for letters." "Wouldn't this be adding to the requirements?" Sure--although I seem to recall some people arguing to the contrary. I'm just pointing out that in the context of a particular boy who is applying, you may not want to challenge this local requirement.

"At last weeks PLC, we had a PL come in with everything on except his scout pants. He had jeans on. The SM asked the PLC if he had not given them his crystal clear expectations on wearing the uniform and was there anything about it they did not understand. Everyone said yes they understood. He then asked the boy why he chose to wear jeans that night. He explained that he had outgrown his pants and his mom was going the next day to buy a new pair. The SM asked if he owned scout shorts. The boy said yes. He had another scout stand who was wearing shorts....his son. He pointed out that he wore shorts rahter than jeans to stay full class A and again asked why he had chosen not to. The boy shot back, because I chose to be warm instead. It was a cold night. The SM kind of looked shocked and dropped it. It is hard to argue with sound logic." I was going to remark that I would have little trouble with this tale if you could replace "SM" with "SPL." Then I noticed that this occurred at the PLC meeting--not the Troop meeting. The SM should have dropped it as soon as the boy said he had outgrown his pants. That's a sensible explanation, and it wasn't worth trying to embarass the boy--an effort which backfired, by the way.

I would also urge you not to write off a church as your CO too quickly--many churches sponsor troops that have boys of many religions--my son's troop is sponsored by a Baptist church (one of the exceptions, I guess), and I don't think there are any Baptists in it. A church can often offer you a good place to meet, and possibly even a place to store your stuff, park your trailer, etc. A PTA or PTO, in my opinion, is generally not a very good CO, because its membership is too transitory, and there are always problems with access to the school for meetings--they're not likely to give you a key, for example. Maybe this would be different in a small town. One question: is there a Cub Scout Pack around? Who's their sponsor? If they don't have a troop, too, that could be a good CO for you.

"I agree that it would be difficult to get people in the Troop to help at an Eagle project if they dont know who you are and that could be an incentive but he wasnt planning on really inviting the Troop to help anyway. He knows he isnt required to have Scout help so he was going to rustle it up somewhere else." Wow...and now you're in the position of trying to get him to allow the Scouts in the troop to help. Perhaps my comments before were too harsh, but I'm still annoyed by the temerity of a boy who behaves this way. If it happened in our troop, I don't know how disgusted I would have to be to actually suggest that the troop shouldn't help--perhaps I would swallow my annoyance and not do anything. I don't think I would be able to resist saying something fairly pointed to him, though. As for the debate over what Scout Spirit is, whether you accept Beavah's argument or FScouter's, it's obvious that it's pretty subjective. It can't be measured like the number of merit badges. The SM who has to sign it off ultimately has to make the decision of whether he feels that the boy's attitude and behavior meets the standard as the SM sees it. If he's not comfortable signing, the boy can appeal and get a BOR, but it would be a more difficult and unpleasant process for him. Perhaps since the boy hasn't been around for a year, the SM should explain to him explicitly what will drive his decision whether to sign off that requirement.

I think there are various ways of showing and measuring esprit, as well--what I see in my son's troop is an esprit based on their shared belief that they can handle what they need to do--hiking, camping, etc., i.e., "we camped in the snow and it was four degrees." I think that's a particular kind of esprit that Scouting is very good at creating.

"I see no purpose in that. Why in the world would a scout leader intentionally try to sabotage a scout's recruitment for his project?" While I would hope that this advice would motivate him to rethink his attitude, I wouldn't feel wrong in declining to encourage the troop to do much to help him, because in my opinion this scout has forfeited the right to expect the other scouts to help him. He's made it clear he won't be around to help them, he's not pulling his weight as a member of the troop, and he doesn't value participation with them. I realize this is harsh, but working on an Eagle project can be a lot of work, and a major sacrifice of time. Last week my son and I spent five hours on a Saturday working (well, he was working) on another Scout's project. The troop also rescheduled a campout so a project could get done on time. Would we have done that for a boy who didn't participate and was just coming back to get his Eagle, and then was "out of here?" Only if he had built up a lot of good will with us while he was active.

Do you think it would have been just as funny if the General's final retort had been: "Well, Ma'am, the boys are already equipped to be rapists, but that doesn't mean they are." Or if the interviewer had been male, and the General had said that about him? Note added: I just read the snopes entry above, and I see that somebody got to this point far ahead of me. But is it really funny? (This message has been edited by Hunt)

In thinking about this some more, I guess I don't see anything intrinsicly wrong with marching, saluting, brass on brass, gig line, etc., if that's what the BOYS want. I would make a few provisos though: I'd only like to see this if there are multiple troops to choose from, and this attitude is made clear to recruits from the start. That would enable people like me and my son to flee. I can attest that if you change a troop to be more like this, boys will leave. In fact, that's essentially why I left my troop, back in 19(mumble). For me, it stopped being fun. If that spit and polish stuff is fun for some boys, I don't mind if they band together. But I think that's pretty rare, and the more common case would be an adult imposing stuff like that.

I believe a parent can also be a religious reference if there is no clergyman. And although scoutldr is correct that the application calls only for references and not letters, some Councils will insist that the Scout arrange for letters. Whether you want to challenge this is up to you, but it might be easier to just get the letters, if that is in the local Council's instructions.

This is different from the boy who did everything but his project at age 15, got busy with other activities, and then came back to finish. I, too, think it's appropriate to help such a boy finish--heck, if he's already almost 18, he's probably doing it because he just feels he's left something important undone, because he's already applied to college. I think it's fine to help such a boy, as long as the demands on the troop aren't unreasonable. But this situation is different. This boy is 15, and has made it clear that he will check out when his project is done, and he's not really participating well. Here's what I would tell him: "Billy, I think you should be aware that it's very difficult to get boys in the troop to help on an Eagle project for a scout who isn't pulling his weight in the troop. I would really hate for you to schedule work days and have nobody show up..." I might even let some of the other scouts overhear this advice.

"A little regimentation/disciple goes a long way to build a esprit-de-corps." But who imposes this regimentation and discipline? If it's imposed by adult leaders, I think the esprit is illusory.

This reminds me of a discussion some time ago about whether Scouting is a "movement." I argued at the time that while it once was a movement, it is now an institution. I guess I would go on to say that Scouting, at least in the U.S., is (at least) two things. First, it is a set of ideas and ideals--the things embodied in the Oath and Law, and the basic elements of the program that have come down through the years. Second, it is an institution that grants franchises, and polices those franchises more or less depending on the particular issue involved. It seems to me that a unit that ignores the ideas and ideals really isn't doing Scouting--even if they are in good standing with the franchisor--I think this is why Beavah felt that way about units that were registered just so they could get access to camps, etc. I guess I would also distinguish between "not doing Scouting" and doing Scouting, but not well. Thus I think a troop that has very lax uniforming, little advancement, cabin camping, etc., may be doing Scouting, but not well. However, I feel the same way about a troop with perfect uniforming, regular advancement, and monthly campouts, but that is totally adult-led.

I agree that I'd rather have a Scout come back to finish his Eagle than not doing it. However, I'm assuming that he finished his requirements for a position of responsibility for six months while a Life Scout (which would also probably satisfy the requirement to be active for six months). We can discuss again (for the nth time) whether just being registered is enough to be considered active, but few would argue that you can get credit for a POR if you never show up for meetings at all.

I think some of us have encountered adult Scout leaders who were former military who focused too much on lines of authority--with the adults at the top of the organizational chart. I think this can manifest itself in things like a lot of adult-imposed uniform inspections, tough BORs that a significant number of Scouts "fail," etc. But these attitudes aren't limited to former military, and there are plenty of former military who don't have this attitude.

I don't know exactly where I would draw the line on uniform deviations, but it seems to me that there is a line--over the line one is showing disrespect to the program that one is supposed to be part of. To me, having a completely different uniform (i.e., green Venturing shirts) is over that line. I would add that anything that is done just to thumb one's nose at BSA is over the line. That being said: "The fact that BSA does not swoop down and knock units that pick, choose, and otherwise redesign the BSA program is not evidence BSA nods in agreement." I have to believe that the contrary is true, at least with respect to the uniform: BSA must have made an executive decision not to try to get units to have more consistent uniforming, because it has done little or nothing to accomplish that goal. They could easily get much better compliance simply by adding a uniform element to the Quality Unit Application. Has anybody ever heard of any consequences from BSA to any unit for uniforming issues? Maybe they would do something if you put a pink triangle patch on there. I will qualify my statement, now that I think about it: BSA has in fact done something that will significantly improve uniforming--it introduced the zip-off pants. That was a step that actually increases the desire of members to wear the uniform--the very best approach.

I agree with Venividi and Beavah on this one--this is a question of Scout Spirit. Despite my views on retesting, I don't think a deferral of this boy by the BOR would have been inappropriate. As I quoted in the other thread, the BOR "should attempt to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals." Also, "[a} discussion of the Scout Oath and Law is in keeping with the purpose of the review, to make sure that the candidate recognizes and understands the value of Scouting in his home, unit, school, and community." While these are pretty general standards, it seems pretty clear to me that the scout in this case doesn't meet them. Now that this scout has achieved Life, the SM will have to be the gatekeeper for the next stage. I wonder whether a boy like this would behave that way at an Eagle BOR, or if he would temporarily get his act together?

The Guide says: "Bold type throughout the Guide to Safe Scouting denotes BSA rules and policies." Ergo, stuff not in bold type is not a rule or policy, but is guidance. If you don't follow it, you're not violating a rule, but you're ignoring good advice formulated by experts. In this particular case, though, the basic rule IS in bold type: "The beds of trucks or trailers must never be used for carrying passengers." The parade language is a limited exception to that rule, and I would suggest that you only would avoid violating the underlying rule by following the four provisos.

"But a BOR is also supposed to make sure that the requirements have been done and learned, to an appropriate standard." Right--the standard is that it was signed off by an appropriate leader. Anything else will inevitably lead to retesting and a nervous boy "failing" his BOR because he can't manage to tie a clove hitch on demand. To put it another way, in my opinion a boy should not have to study up for his BOR, except perhaps to refresh his memory on when and how he did the requirements. If boys are showing up for BORs without the ability to perform Scout skills, then the problem is either with the system the Troop has for signing off requirements, or with the activity level of the Troop. Sorry for the rant, but I'm aware of too many cases of tough-guy BOR members "failing" boys over knots and other minor stuff. Just to make this clear, allow me to quote from the BSA Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures: "The review is not an examination; the board does not retest the candidate. Rather, the board should attempt to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals. The board should make sure that good standards have been met in all phases of the Scout's life." The way I interpret this is that it's OK to ask a Scout when and how he learned to tie a clove hitch, not OK to ask him to tie one. I guess I agree with SueM that if he really has no idea what the requirements are or how or when he met them, it may be appropriate to send him back for more work, but that's different from "failing" him because he can't demonstrate the skill on demand.

And for those who think the ACLU is always on the liberal side, check out the position ACLU has taken on legislation designed to stop Phelps' funeral protests.

"One of my goals is that they start to be harder on the boys during the BOR's and stop the "rubber stamping" mentality." Well...just remember that the BOR is not supposed to be a retest. Before a boy goes before the BOR, his requirements have already been signed off, and the BOR is simply supposed to check that they've been done--not make the boy do them again. Then the BOR should address how the boy is doing, what he likes and doesn't like in the Troop, what his goals are, etc. In my opinion, a boy should almost never "fail" a BOR unless the Board discovers that an error has been made in the requirements.

I'd just add that if you have a separate room, there's no reason to discourage parents from hanging out there if they want. Indeed, that's a first step toward sucking them in to getting more involved.

BSALegal has posted the judge's order: http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/Order%20Granting%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20(2).pdf It doesn't really get into the underlying facts, but I don't think the plaintiffs have a chance on appeal.

While there is technically nothing wrong with what you did, I do think that most Scouters think of the SM Conference as occuring after all the requirements are done--usually, that's when "Scout Spirit" is signed off, and the POR requirement is signed off. Completion of the SM conference usually means that the boy is ready for his BOR--this boy wasn't, because he hadn't finished his participation time yet. Since there are pretty good reasons, in my opinion, for waiting, I don't think it would be worth having the question raised in the future. Also, you may well want to have another conference with this boy before he goes up before another BOR to ensure that you and he are on the same page as to whether he has done what he needed to do to satisfy the first Board.

If your physical setup allows, you might try what we do...the adults are in a separate room, and the boys run their own meeting. Adults are only involved in the meeting if they are making an announcement, or teaching something. The SM goes in at the end and closes. The adults are there primarily as a resource (ie, if somebody needs a BOR scheduled, or is working with one of the boys on a Merit Badge).