Hunt

I think he was uncomfortable because the SM was chewing him out. Would he have been less uncomfortable if others had been able to see them, but not hear what they were saying? I understand that there is no such thing as a "minor" YP violation, but surely some violations are more serious than others. I got the feeling from the original posting that the YP point was being used to beat up the SM over other issues. We were then told that there were previous YP violations. If that's true, it does put a different light on the issue. But the YP violation here did not result in the problem the YP provisions are intended to prevent--there was no abuse--there was a one-on-one conversation that the Scout didn't like--and YP doesn't prohibit that.

I don't think it is a violation of YP for a SM to have a conversation with a Scout that nobody else can hear. How could you have a Scoutmaster Conference otherwise? The idea is that they should be visible to others so no improper behavior can occur. I agree that unless this is part of a pattern of YP violations, the YP part of this is really a side issue.

"What do you not understand about the word controlled? We have back up plans like additional raingear. However, if you'll remember, I said the boy WITH the best rain gear walked around soaked all the time. He HAD rain gear. He decided not to wear it. Now, we could have taken a page from Ed's book and made him wear it because it was what we wanted him to do OR we could let him learn that walking around wet for days is miserable and decide on his own.....which he does now......most of the time." I don't disagree with this at all. My only point is that it bears some thought as to just where you're going to position the "safety net." Clearly, you're not going to allow a situation to occur where the boys' safety or health are in danger. On the other hand, if they insist on inconveniencing themselves by not using the equipment they have, that's a good lesson. In between is a gray area--how miserable should they be before you rescue them from their own folly? I guess I'm just saying that if the lesson is too tough, then you might run off a boy who could benefit from the program.

Arguments that BSA isn't a religious organization are just silly. It requires you to believe in God to be a member. Really, that's all it takes. Maybe it's not primarily religious in its goals and activities, but it simply is a religious organization. In fact, some of the same folks who are saying it isn't a religious organization are saying they'd quit if it dropped the belief in God membership requirement. Of course, that still doesn't mean the San Diego case was corretly decided. It wasn't, and I expect it to be reversed on appeal, eventually.

"I don't want to be held to someone elses opinion of being active." There are two aspects to this particular issue. First, there is a need for it to be clear to a Scout to know in advance what "actively serve" means, so he will be able to gauge his own efforts against that standard. Second, there is a need to know what to do if there is a disagreement over whether a particular scout has "actively served." A scout who believes he has been wrongly denied advancement can appeal that through an established appeal process. That appeal process has to look at some kind of standard to resolve the disagreement. Thus, somewhere, there IS a standard that BSA will ulltimately use to make this determination. If troops are putting out by-laws that are inconsistent with that standard, that's a problem for several reasons. This standard doesn't have to be a numerical one--I think that's what's causing some of the disagreement here--it can be a process standard, something like "the SM and Scout will discuss what level of involvement constitutes "active service" in the POR." Then if there is a disagreement later, the factfinder can consider whether the SM and the Scout had the conversation, and whether the Scout lived up to what was agreed. I just think it would be reasonable for BSA to make readily available the official answers to questions like this, especially when there are so many wrong answers floating around.

"Pants and shorts are lightweight, fast drying." Has the fabric changed? My pants are a very heavy material.

I think "willing and able" is the right way to put it. In my personal example, when I first got involved in the troop, I looked through the MBs to see which ones I thought I could effectively counsel. One example was Music. I can read music, and was in the band through college. I listen to all kinds of music, and took a music history course in college. I felt this qualified me to counsel the badge, and I guess the Council agreed, because I was approved. Am I the best possible counselor for Music? I don't think so--a professional musician could be better. He or she could give better tips on the requirement to compose a song. He or she might know a lot more about musical opportunities in the area. He or she might be able to give the Scout access to musical events that I couldn't. But I don't feel guilty for counseling Music--although I'd happily refer Scouts to a better counselor if I knew of one.

A couple of points that might help this conversation: 1. I assume that everyone agrees that BSA could theoretically make the Eagle requirements "too easy" by standards that current Eagles and non-Eagles alike would apply. 2. Thus, the question is whether BSA in fact, has made the requirements too easy as they have changed over the years. Some people seem to think so, and they point to the existence of very young Eagles as evidence. On the other side, several people have pointed out that there were young Eagles in the past as well. 3. I think it should be clear to anyone who has observed different troops that some troops take collective steps to make it easier for boys to achieve Eagle on a fast track. These steps may not violate any rules, and thus don't require any fraudulent recordkeeping or "fooling" anybody. They are things like very organized merit badge work, 6-month POR terms, close monitoring of Scouts' advancement by adults, frequent reminders, etc. If a troop makes quick advancement a goal, it can achieve this without violating advancement requirements, but it will have a different program from a troop with different goals. 4. I think it is very difficult for a parent who is not himself involved in Scouting to effectively "push" a boy to Eagle. There are just too many things that need to be done, if the boy doesn't have the desire himself. I think it's perhaps a little more possible for a parent who is an active Scouter to "pull" his son through the process, although the son will still have to do the work. 5. I think it might help the discussion if people would specify what specific requirements they think are too lenient, too easy to falsify, or otherwise problematic. For example, you can have a sensible discussion about whether Swimming and Lifesaving should be required for all without alternatives, or (my example) whether the period of POR for Star should be longer than 4 months. It's much harder to talk in the abstract about whether a 13-year-old Eagle is "too young."

I think this idea of allowing a boy to learn from the consequences of mistakes has value, but there is a very fine line here. You don't want him to learn that camping is miserable and uncomfortable, and that the adult leaders are tough and mean. That just results in one less Scout. I imagine the following dramatized conversations: 1. Parent: How was the campout? Scout: OK, but the food was really bad. Just ramen noodles, and they weren't cooked enough. Parent: Who decided that you guys would just eat ramen noodles? Scout: Well, we did, because Joey thought it would be easier. The adults were eating steaks. Parent: What will you do next time? Scout: Not let Joey get the food. I'll get the food, and it won't be ramen. Good lesson learned 2. Parent: How was the campout? Scout: Terrible. I forgot my poncho, and I got totally soaked while we were backpacking. Parent: Didn't anybody have an extra? What did Mr. Scoutmaster say? Scout: I asked if anybody had an extra, and Mr. Scoutmaster said I needed to learn the hard way not to forget my poncho next time. Parent: Well, that'll be easy. Scout: Why is that? Parent: Because there won't be a next time.

"If you expect people to read the bylaws why can't you expect them to read a scout manual?" If this were a matter of "a" manual, then I would agree with you. But on various issues we've discussed, many of them relevant to scouts and scouters in different roles, the answers can be found in the Scout Handbook, the Guide to Safe Scouting, the Advancement Committee Manual, the Requirements Book, or even specialized training material. I submit that the decentralized nature of all this stuff may be one reason why so many people have so many misconceptions. This is why I've come around to thinking that it would be useful to have a FAQ, ideally an official BSA one. If anyone doesn't know, a FAQ is a "frequently asked questions" document which sorts information in a question and answer format. Rather than being a set of rules, it is rather a resource to help people find helpful information more easily. I suppose a troop could create a FAQ, and I repeat my suggestion that if it did so, it would be preferable to include references to the authoritative BSA document, if there is one. Maybe this would also answer Ed's question, since you wouldn't need a "by-law" on routine matters, just an answer to a question. Examples: Q: When does the troop meet? A: Thursdays from 7:15 until 9:00. Q: Can scouts play paintball? A: No. See Guide to Safe Scouting, ___. Q: Can a parent serve as a Merit Badge Counselor for his own son? A: Yes. See Advancement Committee Manual, p. __. Also, putting together a FAQ can be therapeutic, because it can identify questions that aren't adequately answered in existing written materials. Example: Q: Who chooses the Merit Badge Counselor? A: I think the answer should be "The scout, with the assistance of the Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster will identify adults who are authorized to counsel the merit badge, and then the scout contacts a counselor, etc." But there is disagreement about that, and the documents I've seen aren't clear enough. BSA could clear that up in a FAQ.

I was just looking at the official BSA website, and it is full of improper imagery! It depicts both males and females with bare arms and legs, women without head coverings, boys and girls standing improperly close together, etc., etc., etc. Of course, I'm kidding--but in some cultures those things really would be improper. That's why this kind of topic is so difficult.

I continue to think that the worst vice of by-laws is the really large number of wrong ones. But as you discovered, that vice can be just as bad--if not worse--if the by-law is an unwritten one. You're going to have to tease out all the bad rules over time, whereas if they were all written down, you could go after them all at once. I think Eisely's example is something that often causes people to move to by-laws. Nobody thinks about it until a boy shows up for a rank BOR, and the adult leaders don't really feel that he "actively served" in his POR. But he was never told in specific terms what would qualify as "actively serve" and what would not. I don't have the references that Bob mentioned here, but in previous discussions of this I believe he has advocated the idea that the SM needs to go over what are the responsibilities of the POR when it is assumed by the Scout, and then that this understanding will constitute the criteria for whether he "actively served" or not. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). So I suppose you could write a by-law that says, "When a position of responsibility is accepted, the SM will discuss with the scout what the responsibilities of the position are, and what will constitute active service in the position" and then cite the materials Bob has mentioned. But that bylaw isn't really for the scouts--it's more to remind the SM that he needs to have the conversation. So is it necessary? I don't know. One thought--if you are going to have by-laws, maybe having a citation to the relevant BSA rule, regulation, requirement, GTSS, or other document would help avoid problems.

It seems to me that the issue of whether boys are earning Eagle "too young" really contains a couple of other questions: 1. Does the current advancement system provide the right mix and sequence of experiences and achievements that will allow a boy to develop into a Scout deserving of Eagle rank? 2. Are there flaws in the advancement review system that allow boys to "slip through" who haven't really achieved what is necessary to deserve Eagle rank? On the first question, I think the answer, in general, is yes. The only thing I might change (if I had the power to do so, which I don't, not even for my son's troop), which would have the effect of slowing boys down, would be to extend the period of time to serve in a POR, especially for Star. If a troop really uses FCFY, you can have some very young Star and Life scouts, many of whom won't be ready for the more responsible PORs until they are older. And you can get the odd situation of ONLY the younger boys serving in PORs, because they "need" them for rank, and the older boys don't. I don't see anything wrong with FCFY, because it really gets the Scout skills established, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for it to take another nine months or so, each, to reach Star, Life, and Eagle (really, many--maybe most--boys don't achieve those ranks that quickly). I don't think it's an issue of maturity, exactly, but more an issue of "seasoning" in leadership roles and in just doing Scout stuff over a period of time. A 12 or 13 year old Eagle may be highly motivated and very mature, but he hasn't been on any High Adventure outings (too young), probably hasn't been SPL, has only been to summer camp a couple of times, etc. I'm not saying that any of that stuff should be required--it's just that those experiences help produce a "seasoned" scout. I think the vast majority of Eagle Scouts are already seasoned in this way, and hopefully the young Eagles will stay in the program and get their seasoning afterwards. On the second point, I do think there are opportunities for boys to slip through at various points in the advancement review system. However, I think that is inevitable unless you want to have a much more rigorous system--and I don't. Probably most of us have seen a few Eagles who were a little short of what we'd like to see--but maybe not enough to want to upset the system in ways that might block some really deserving boys.

I don't think fscouter is attacking you exactly, csfunder. However, my experience in discussing this topic is that some people have trouble accepting that complaints about the pants are JUST about the pants. Complaints about the pants tend to be interpreted as an attack on the uniform method as a whole. It's kind of a domino theory. Personally, I like the (cotton) shirt. I like the socks. I have no beef with the belt. I just don't like the pants, primarly because of the fabric. I think they could be at least a little more versatile (although I agree with the inevitable comment that they can't serve every purpose). I also think that it's too bad that currently about the only time scouts are seen in uniform is when only other scouts are around--they don't wear them when hiking, camping, climbing, etc.

Let me clarify a bit what happens in my son's troop--I suspect it is common. We don't do merit badge work at troop meetings (or only very rarely). However, a substantial number of adults are present at troop meetings (in a separate room), so it is fairly easy for scouts to approach them before or after meetings to arrange MB counseling. Most of the requests to counsel are initiated by the scouts, but they are not completely "cold," because the scouts know the adults already. (In some cases, a scouter who prefers to counsel several scouts at a time will put out the word that he's ready and willing to do that, and the scouts will organize a group to do the MB together.) For a number of MBs, we have several adults affiliated with the troop registered to counsel them. While we have a list of all registered counselors in the district, I just can't imagine a scout approaching a stranger when he knows an adult who counsels the badge. Indeed, usually the scout already knows who counsels the badge, and names the person when he asks the SM for the blue card. In my experience, it just hasn't happened that a Scout has approached the SM and said, "I want to do Farm Animal Care (or whatever it's called)--can you identify counselors for me?" The district gives the advancement coordinator two lists: all the MBCs registered in the district, by badge, and all the MBCs who are affiliated with the unit. I'm the advancement coordinator for the troop, and I give the lists to everyone when I get them, so there's no mystery about who the counselors are. Is there anything that I (or the SM) could or should do to change the situation? I suppose we could encourage the boys, in general, to consider pursuing MBs that aren't necessarily counseled by someone in the troop. But as I mentioned, most of them already do that, but in the context of organized settings. I don't suppose anybody thinks that the adults affiliated with the troop should stop counseling MBs? (We do have a few gaps--they have to do Swimming and Lifesaving somewhere else--usually they do it at camp.)

I agree that the best way is to lead by example, rather than by requirement. However, the requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class all require "cooking" (and I think the First Class req. says "hot meals"). Passing out Pop Tarts is not "cooking," and thus would not qualify for these requirements. In my mind, putting boiling water into a ramen cup is also not "cooking," and would not qualify. Eating food prepared at home is not "cooking." Indeed, I'm not sure heating up Chef Boy-Ar-Dee is cooking either--it's reheating precooked food. Since there will often be scouts needing to complete these requirements, simple reminders of what constitutes "cooking" might be enough to avoid some of the worst meals.

"The scout should not be learning how to make decisions based on my opinion." Why not? What's wrong with your opinion? Why isn't that just one piece of useful information for him to process in coming to a decision? Sensible people seek the opinions of more knowledgeable and experienced people. If you just think the scout should ask for your opinion, I guess I can understand the lesson there. You do give your opinion when asked, right? Maybe we have a semantic issue here between "information" and "opinion." I take it you think that "the counselor lives near you" is information and "the counselor is terrific" is opinion. What about, "when Joe and Bob went to that counselor, they had a hard time getting in touch with him."--? That information, while probably not enough for you to try to get that counselor bounced from the list, would certainly be helpful for the scout to know.

This is related, somewhat, to a thread on the general discussion board about merit badge counselors. Here's the real-life situation, at least in my son's troop. For many merit badges, and just about all the Eagle-required badges, there is an adult affiliated with the troop registered to advise the badge. While there are other registered MBCs in the district, I can't imagine any boy in the troop ever choosing an unknown person to approach as an advisor. The only time they will do this is if the MB is being offered at a merit badge day, or as part of a special program (i.e., a local college offers the Chemistry MB, and a local nature center offers several MBs). I have to say that it is very rare for a scout to approach the SM or the Advancement Coordinator to ask about any MB other than the Eagle-required ones. They tend to get their non-required MBs at camp, or from the special programs, or, more rarely, when they are told that somebody affiliated with the troop was registered to counsel the badge. (For example, when the SM told the boys that I was registered to counsel music, several did approach me and did the badge.) Most of them can get "enough" non-Eagle required MBs from these sources. I'm not sure that there is a problem here, exactly, but the reality deviates from the idea of scouts calling up adults they don't know to arrange MB counseling. I certainly don't want to address the issue by asking people affiliated with the troop not to advise, or by having the SM assign MBCs outside the troop. I guess my question is this: are there troops in which boys do routinely make these "cold calls" to MBCs, and if so, what was done to encourage this, if anything?

"Could a boy get a positive learning experience by doing the same thing? Is it really better to do this work for him and simply hand him a pre-selected counselor? By doing so, I believe we miss a learning opportunity." So I take it you wouldn't give the scout advice on what counselor to use even if he asks for it, because you'd rather let him build character by finding out for himself which ones are best? I'm sorry, I just don't get this. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing in the Handbook, the Requirements book, or anywhere else that I know of that suggest the SM shouldn't advise the scout on what MBC to use. "Is it really our objective to ensure that the boy gets the "best" counselor." Can I say yes? I thought the purpose of the merit badge was to learn something about the material, and secondarily to enhance adult association. If there are three counselors listed, what is the Scout going to "learn" if he chooses one that doesn't counsel as well as the others--which you knew, but didn't tell him? When he comes back later and says, "Mr. SM, I had all kinds of trouble doing the MB with Mr. X, because he was so hard to reach. I found out that Billy and Bobby had the same trouble. Why didn't you tell me?"--what are you going to say, "You didn't ask"--? Maybe what you and Bob are really saying is that the Scout should learn to ask you for advice, and that you're not going to volunteer it. OK, I guess--as long as they understand that. Eamonn, I have no problem with scouts using their own parents as MBCs--I've done it with my own son, and probably will do so again. However, it continues to be my opinion that a scout should avail himself of the opportunity to work with other adults, especially if they are equally as qualified as his parent. I see nothing wrong with sharing that advice with a scout--it isn't criticism, it isn't an effort to control him, it is simply giving him a tip that I think will be helpful to him. To take another example, I offer my unsolicited opinion to scouts that they should consider doing MBs at camp that they cannot do easily elsewhere, and also urge them to do MBs that get them outside. They are perfectly free to ignore my advice, and may well do so (including my own son).

tortdog, it may be that those units meeting in the schools have already undergone the transition of shifting their sponsorship from the school to a private entity. Most of the cubs and their parents will never even notice the difference. This is probably one reason BSA decided to stop fighting this battle--the disruption is minimal. Most schools provide nothing to units beyond a free place to meet. I think most will be better off with a private CO that might offer some additional support. The only downside I see is that they might have to pay a fee to use the school if other community groups are charged. But hey, schools are often not a very good place to meet anyway--you can't store your stuff, you may not have a key, it may be closed in the summer and other times, and you may get bumped for school activities.

The ACLU doesn't sue the government to get money--it sues the government because that's who you sue when the government is trampling on civil rights. If people suing the government had to pay the government's legal costs if they lost, then essentially nobody (except giant corporations, maybe) could afford to risk suing the government, and the government could do whatever it wants. The ability to sue the government and have the case decided by an independent judiciary is one of the most important bulwarks of freedom we have in this country. The risk that the government will have to defend some meritless lawsuits and absorb the cost is well worth it. If you don't like what the ACLU is doing, go support some other group with opposite ideas. That group may want to sue the government about something, too.

I'm sorry, Bob, but I think your objection to the Scouter who wants to control the Scouts has led you astray in this case. I just can't see how giving advice--even unsolicited advice--in this situation could possibly considered interfering with the scout's ability to make an ethical decision. (And what is the potentially unethical decision you are worried about in the choice of a MBC? I don't get why you keep mentioning this.) Also, you don't need to see things in totally black and white terms. You imply that either a counselor is totally unfit and should be removed from the rolls, or he is equal in quality to all the other counselors. That isn't reality, and ignores all sorts of facts that you may know and that the scout has no way to know unless you tell him--like how busy the counselor is, how much experience he has in the area, whether he likes to do the badge with two scouts or with a larger group, whether he's available in the summer, and to me the most important, whether in your opinion he's a really excellent counselor. And on the issue of parents as counselors, I guess you've been fortunate in never facing the situation of a Scout who was doing "too many" MBs with his dad (however you might define "too many"). I have encountered that situation, and felt that I would be derelict in my obligations if I didn't give the scout some friendly advice. Just because something is allowed doesn't mean that it is equally beneficial as something else.

My doctor has been on my case the last few times I've seen him to lose weight and lower my cholesterol. The last time I saw him, he laid it on the line and said if I don't do something, I'll die prematurely. That got my attention. I also went to see a cardiologist to adjust meds for cholesterol. The cardiologist also scolded me, but not as sternly, perhaps because he is about as overweight as I am. For now, my diet plan is simple: no more eating after dinner. In my case, that was amounting to the equivalent of a fourth meal. I'm also trying to eat healthier the rest of the day. My exercise plan is to ride the exercise bike at least 4 times a week. My top weight was about 240, and right now I'm at about 235 (so I'm really just starting). If I lose another 10 pounds or so, I'll no longer be officially "obese" but only "overweight." Can I keep posting here if that happens?

"Counselor A lives on your street. Colunselor B is a teacher at your school Counselor C is an Eagle Scout Counselor D works at________ Counselor E is your Mother. Who would you like to use?" So, Bob, if the Scout already has five merit badges, all counseled by his mother, you would say nothing? If you personally know Counselor C and think he's a terrific counselor, you would say nothing? Why would you want to imply that they are all equal, when you may have good reason to know they aren't? It seems to me that this is a situation in which the SM can and should offer helpful advice. I understand that you strongly believe that the SM should not "assign" the MBC, but it sure seems to me that the more natural middle ground would be to go through the list of counselors with the scout and tell him what you know about them. And specifically, don't you think a scout should be counseled to consider doing MBs with counselors other than his parent? We actually had this in my son's troop--a boy who did his first five merit badges with his father. Nobody criticized him for this, but we did chat about it at one of his rank BORs, and suggested he should broaden his horizon and work with some other adults for the experience. I think this was helpful advice for him, even if he didn't ask for it.

I continue to think that a Scouter who is overweight and/or out of shape (like me) fails to set the best possible example for Scouts IN THAT LIMITED RESPECT. After all, I too am a wonderful person in almost every way, and I don't want to be judged just on my appearance, and Scouting should be grateful to have me as a volunteer, etc., etc., etc. Still IN THE LIMITED RESPECT of fitness, I know that I can set a better example than I am doing.