Hunt

Have the advancement reports for the palms been turned in? If so, your son has earned the palms. You can go to the Scout Shop and buy them, and forget the COH, if you wish. As for the Silver palm, it is clear that the SM has something against your son. We can't judge from you story whether there is any justification for it or not, but he shouldn't deal with it by adding requirements. I will suggest, however, that at this point you are unlikely to reconcile with this particular SM.

My opinion is: BALONEY! The few valid points in this piece are overwhelmed by the general ignorance of our history, our values, and our nation.

TheFourGuardians, there was no reason for you to apologize for stating your views. You did so calmly, and with an attempt to see both sides. BrentAllen, I'm sorry to say that your response did seem aimed at what TheFourGuardians had to say, and did read like an attack. Your response "I can't help you with that" is pretty rude, too. Maybe you could have said, "I certainly didn't mean my post as an attack--I'm sorry if you took it that way." On the merits, TheFourGuardians was making the clear point that many youth don't consider Scouting to be "cool," and this may inhibit younger scouts from wanting to tell others about it. Anybody who can't see this is ignoring reality. The whole purpose of this new requirement is clearly to recruit, and you don't recruit 6th and 7th graders by telling them about the character-building elements of scouting--you do it by telling them that it's fun and has cool activities. In other words, Scouting IS cool, if it's done right--it's just a false impression that it isn't cool.

Here's another article with just a few more details: http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051004/NEWS01/510040361 You'd have to know many more facts to evaluate whether there is a valid claim here or not. Obviously, nobody can prevent all bad acts by others; on the other hand, it's possible there was inadequate supervision.

I guess it is the cheesiness of the way this is done more than the beer-selling part that bothers me. It sounds like everybody knows that Troop 123 sells the beer and soda at this fair, but that a polite fiction is used to disguise that fact. I think you should only do what you can do entirely above-board. And maybe you can do this, too, but I think you might have to form an actual non-profit intermediary.

I would just point out to these Scouts that the COH doesn't only honor the scout receiving rank. It is also an opportunity for the Scout (especially if he is receiving Eagle) to recognize and thank those who have helped him on his way, including adult leaders, parents, and other scouts. It's a bit like deciding whether to attend your high school graduation ceremony--even if it may not mean much to you, there are other people to whom it may mean a great deal, because of their investment in you. Just to go on a bit more in this vein--if the Scout doesn't like to be the center of attention, let him turn the attention to somebody else, perhaps the Scoutmaster who volunteered his time, or another Scout who showed him the way.

Here's my suggestion: suggest that the troop officially staff the soda booths only, and get the Council to approve it as a money-raising activity. I see no reason they shouldn't do so. I'm a bit on the fence as to what you tell the adult leaders who have been selling beer. My strongest feeling is that they should let somebody else sell beer, although I can see an argument that if adults want to do this and then donate their earnings to the troop, it's not really illegal or immoral. (Further, complicating note: if these folks are "earning" wages and tips, that's taxable income, even if they donate it afterwards--unless the "intermediary" is also a nonprofit.)

For this forum, we'd also have: A poster explaining how Baden Powell changed light bulbs, and arguing that the newfangled ways of doing it are stupid. Several posters explaining that selling lightbulbs is a better way of raising money than selling popcorn. Several heart-warming reminiscences about how Scoutmaster Joe taught us to screw in lightbulbs back in the old days. 20 posts about whether the activity or field uniform is appropriate for changing lightbulbs. 10 posts on whether Changing Light Bulbs should be an Eagle Required Merit Badge. A post explaining that BSA's method of changing lightbulbs is DEEPLY FLAWED and reveals a PERNICIOUS CONSPIRACY. A poster saying that if you haven't been properly trained to change light bulbs, and aren't following the proper procedures, you aren't really changing lightbulbs at all. A poster claiming that BSA is dishonest for saying that it knows best how to screw in a lightbulb, and 30 responses that BSA's method of screwing in lightbulbs is based on time-honored values. A poster reminding us that light bulbs have no place at campouts.

I think you'd better get a second legal opinion before you drop her on those grounds--she might sue you for slander. (I'm assuming that the only "exposure" is a clothed but braless bust.) If you really don't think she's a good example for the youth, that's the reason for dropping her.

It's been stated here that BSA will, on appeal, say that a boy is "active" if he is registered, for purposes of rank. Is this true for Eagle Palms? In my son's troop, there are a couple of boys who earned Eagle last spring with enough MBs for at least one palm--but they haven't reappeared. It would be my idea, if they do appear to ask for a palm, to say, "Great! We'll do that after you've been active for another three months." While there can be all sorts of issues about what level of activity is enough for other ranks, isn't one of the purposes of the Palm to keep the scout involved after he has received his Eagle? Has anybody encountered this issue?

Obviously, there is disagreement about whether this is a big deal or not. This is why I think it's best to talk to your COR about institutional standards. If your pack is sponsored by the Earth Mother Commune you'll probably get one answer, and a different one if it's sponsered by the Cotton Mather Puritan Church. In between, it's hard to say. There's really no point polling people here. One practical point: would you rather have this leader as she is, or not have her (and her son) at all? That may well be the choice you make if you decide to say something to her about it.

Another vote for whitewater rafting--this was the most popular event across age groups last year.

Addressing only the no-bra part of this issue, here's a serious answer: this is an issue that is really outside of BSA rules and procedures, and thus is a question for the Charter Organization. Talk to the Chartered Organziation Representative, and ask if this mode of dress comports with the CO's standards. If it doesn't, then there is a simple way to explain the issue to the lady. If the CO doesn't object, then that's really the end of it. The unit belongs to the CO.

Yeah, you could get a bunch of those styrofoam heads and put a neckerchief with a slide on each one. Line 'em up. It would take more space, sure, but it would be kewl. (By the way, that dinosaur egg slide looks great. How difficult did you find making it?)

Maybe she doesn't want to mix non-uniform items with the uniform. Seriously, I don't think there is much to be done, unless the uncleanliness is really egregious.

I know that whether to have a troop neckerchief is optional to the troop. I'm wondering, though, if there are personal options if the troop chooses NOT to include a neckerchief. For example, would a Scout (or leader) be guilty of inproper uniforming if he wears a BSA bolo in such a troop, or if he wears a neckerchief of some kind (maybe a commemmorative one or something)?

The choice of whether the troop's uniform includes the neckerchief is optional to the troop, not the individual scout. Therefore, if he wants to be in full uniform for his BOR, he should wear the neckerchief. But your question is whether you should push the issue and make him wear the neckerchief. I would say no. You might remind him of what the uniform standards are, but if he still wants to wear the bolo, I would suggest leaving the rest to the leaders who will be conducting the BOR.

I continue to think that we are often at odds over terminology and semantics. For example, take the discussion of "virtual patrols." That term was a red flag to a number of people--but what if the question had been phrased as, "What do you guys do when only one or two members of a patrol are able to go along on a particular campout?" That topic can be discussed without anybody denigrating the patrol method, or being accused of denigrating it. You can talk about whether it is a better delivery of the patrol method for the two boys to cook alone, or whether it is reasonable for them to join forces temporarily with another patrol. As I suggested, neither approach violates any BSA rules that I'm aware of, so the discussion really should be about the best way to deliver program elements. This can be done without all the angst.

No, this isn't based on membership discrimination, but rather on viewpoint. Remember, the Girl Scouts don't have the same membership issues, and they're affected just as Boy Scouts. And it's not sex discrimination, because they let Pop Warner football in. To give Merlyn his due, he has always said that he has no problem with equal access. I'm not sure exactly what to make of this distinction between groups with a viewpoint and those that supposedly don't have one, like youth sports leagues. I don't see it, myself. Again, though, if you fight it, you're probably just making the youth leagues pay too, and I'm not sure that would be worth the effort.

What I meant by "authority" was, who has the power to enforce the uniforming standards in this situation, other than the Eagle candidate himself? Again, I suppose the SM, or anybody else, could say, "Wear what you want, but if you're wearing the kilt, I won't be participating in your ceremony." And maybe they should say that.

It's true, there does seem to be little middle ground on Napoleon Dynamite--either you love it or despise it. What I like about it is that it shows a real outsider having a positive influence on his community, basically as a result of an act of kindness he performs for a friend.

I think one source of disagreement here is use of terms. Methods, rules, program elements, and values are all related, but they are not the same things. Thus, Advancement is a Method. There are rules related to it, such as who should serve on a BOR. There are also program elements as to how it is delivered--such as where and when MBs are offered, or what specific activities will be done at what campouts. It seems to me that if somebody accepts the validity of the Method, and follows the rules, there can still be a wide variety of program elements from unit to unit. The Outdoor method will be very different for different troops, for example, but they can both be following the rules. Another way of putting this is that the Method is not every detail of every suggestion in every BSA document. It is an overall approach, shaped by certain rules, which is then delivered through a program which is more or less prescribed. Some of the Methods are more prescribed (Advancement, Uniform), while others less so (Outdoor). I say all this to suggest that most of these discussions about methods have really boiled down into two main categories: 1. Whether it's OK to ignore some of the rules; and 2. Whether some particular way of delivering the program is close enough to the way it's described in BSA materials. But these aren't the same. While we can argue about whether a troop that only does car camping is adequately delivering the Outdoor method, that's a different discussion from one about a troop that uses scouts to run BORs.

I'm in full agreement that this Scout should not wear the kilt, and that he should be counselled to wear his trousers instead. But who has the authority to tell him what to wear? I guess anybody who objects to his plans could opt not to participate. Hopefully, moral suasion will be enough to get him to change his mind. (As an aside, what's wrong with orange tennis shoes (or sandals)? If they're made of canvas or leather, they comply with the uniform inspection sheet. They just have to be "neat and clean." In fact, if you're wearing shoes made of a synthetic material, they don't qualify.)

"How can 38,000 different units write their own version of aims and methods and each one have the best version? If unit 999's version is "best", 37,999 other methods must be wrong." This assumes that all the units are the same, or that there are not multiple equally good ways of doing something. "As a unit leader myself, I don't have time to evaluate 38,000 other aims and methods. BSA has already done that." This, I think, is a better argument. If the methods have been devised by experts and honed by decades of trial and error in many units, they probably work pretty well. "Who am I to second guess?" But I think you should second guess--you might have a new, better idea. It's what you do with it that creates dissension here. If you had an idea for a new merit badge, you wouldn't just start offering it to your troop--you'd go through channels to try to get it added. On the other hand, I wouldn't respect somebody who told you to forget it because the experts hadn't come up with the same idea. So I personally am in favor of following the methods. I do think that sometimes local circumstances affect how you apply them. For example, I would not expect a very small troop with only one new recruit to put him into a New Scout Patrol all by himself--I wouldn't say that such a troop is refusing to follow the Patrol Method. That's a far cry from simply ditching methods because you think your idea is better (ie., letting Scouts hold BORs or something like that).

This article: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20050912-9999-1m12scouts.html describes a situation in San Diego in which Boy and Girl Scout units that were previously allowed to meet in schools for free now must pay a fee. What makes it a new twist is that this comes not as a result of a challenge by the ACLU, but because of a challenge by the Good News Club, an evangelical Christian group that was getting charged while other groups were not. The school system responded by deciding to charge fees to groups that are meeting for "pure speech" or to further a point of view. Other groups, like youth sports leagues and senior citizens groups, will still be able to meet for free. I question whether this is an appropriate distinction, either, but I supposed if pushed again, they could simply charge everybody, except maybe the PTA.