Hunt

I think there is some confusion in this thread, but I'll jump in. It seems to me that a question for discussion is whether it is OK to say, "On the next outing we have room for 40 scouts and 10 adults--first come first served." Or, do you have to take 25 scouts and 25 adults if they sign up first? In BSA's programs, there are certainly times when the number of adults is limited (i.e., Philmont treks), so I don't see why a troop shouldn't do this if it really has to limit the total number of people who can go. (They could also use a lottery if this happens for a lot of events.) Of course, you also have to square this with the idea that you can never exclude the parent of a scout--I think, unfortunately, this would be a situation in which you would have to say, "Well, Mr. X, you were not one of the first 10 adults who signed up. If you really don't want Johnny to go without you, we'll miss him." The other alternative is to never do events with limited numbers, and that's not reasonable either.

The following is a link to an Oct. 2004 article from Scouting magazine which describes the award as having been offered "since 2001," and referring readers to the same publication noted above for info on earning the award. http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0410/d-famt.html Scouting is published by BSA. A Google search also shows that plenty of Councils, units, and others think the award is available. I certainly wouldn't read the wording in the publication to mean that the award is offered only in 2002--I would have interpreted it to mean that it began then. At the least, there is a communcations problem here. If the award is no longer supported, that fact has not clearly been made known to multiple people who need to know it.

I tried as long as I could to hope that the case was exaggerated, but when I read that this guy was sending and receiving child pornography in e-mails, that left me little room to think it isn't serious. I can't imagine how a person who actually worked in the YP area wouldn't realize that he would get caught doing this. One point, though: when we hear something like this, it's easy to think that the person is a subhuman monster, and that all the good he did was a fraud, and covered up a secret plan to abuse children. The reality may be much more complex. Even if a person does something really bad, that doesn't mean that he never did anything good. I'd also like to say that it's certainly conceivable that BSA was lax about reporting or investigating abuse allegations in the past. I don't think that's the case now, however--Youth Protection is taken very seriously, and leaders can and are banned without being given any benefit of the doubt. I wish other youth programs would also follow the same rules--especially two-deep leadership.

This thread has gotten me to thinking about how to "manage" MBCs associated with the troop. In thinking about my son's troop, the various parents and others who are MBCs will not know that requirements have changed unless somebody tells them. Ideally, they would know to check for themselves, but to expect all of them to do so is probably not realistic. So I guess it is up to somebody to monitor MB changes, and to "push" the changes to the MBCs so they know about them. I guess that somebody is probably the advancement coordinator (and guess who that is...sigh). Is this how other troops handle this issue?

"When I make an FOS donation, I get nothing in return." Not even a patch? Around here, if you give enough you get a nice plaque.

"Heres a thought. Would it make a difference if BSA sold uniforms at cost? Or how about if BSA issued a uniform at no charge to all registered members? Would you all be OK with that arrangement?" Well, sure! That would solve only one problem, though, the high cost. For me, that's not the main problem. In fact, I shelled out extra for the cotton shirt because I like it better--but I have the luxury of being able to afford to do so. But if we're going to talk about cost realistically, what exactly is the reason the cost is higher than comparable clothing on the open market? I see several possibilities, which could be working in combination: 1. The clothing costs more because it is made in USA. I suspect this is the most important factor, and what you think about this may be more philosophical than practical. However, I would suggest that unless you also make sure that all your clothing is made in USA, I can't see why you should urge BSA to do so. 2. BSA takes a big markup. I don't know how much of a markup they take--I do remember that scout stuff was expensive back in the dark ages when my parents were buying it for me, when there was less competition from imports. But if there is a big markup, it seems to me that this would be a situation in which the financial interest of BSA would be in conflict with supporting one of its own methods. 3. The cut and/or design is special somehow. I can't believe this is the reason, because the clothing isn't all that different from other available clothing. It's really the color and the insignia that set off the Scout uniform, and no uniqueness would be lost if the uniform pieces were cut like more standard garments. 4. Long-term contracts with suppliers. Maybe BSA is locked in to certain suppliers, and can't bargain for lower prices.

This thread can go to serious suggestions, or jokey ones. Or both! Serious: Many of the suggestions above really would be better addressed by modifying current MBs. Indeed, many of them really are included in current MBs. I do think it's too bad that you can only earn one Sports MB, except for a few odd additional Sports. Maybe that part of the program could be consolidated, along the lines Torveaux suggests, and allow, say, up to four Sports MBs based on different sports. I'd be against a video game MB that focused on playing games--but how about a Video Game Design MB? In general, there probably should be more technology MBs. One other suggestion--Psychology (or maybe call it Human Behavior). Jokey: Personal Grooming.

NJ, I feel rejuvenated, too, and am willing to go a few more rounds on this. I largely agree with you, and think the best course would be for BSA to allow COs to decide this particular membership question. However, I think your argument cuts too broadly. It suggests, I think, that BSA can't have a "moral" position unless it is really a "religious" position. I'm not sure I agree with this, and I'm not sure that a particular moral position is disqualified as sectarian just because you can find a sect that disagrees with it. There are certainly sects with views that come into conflict with other positions of BSA (racial purity, sacramental drug use probably), and I don't think you would accuse BSA of being sectarian if it enforced its standards in the face of claims from such groups. I'm not sure why it matters that those are fringe groups, while more mainstream groups disagree about whether homosexuality is moral or not. To make it more concrete: currently, it would be unthinkable for BSA to allow an Aryan Church with racist religious views to be a CO at all, much less to enforce racial membership and leadership requirements. Our society reached a "tipping point" in which the broad culture accepts that racist viewpoint as immoral, even if there are some people who hold it as a relgious belief. If the Aryan Church claimed that BSA was being "sectarian" by not letting them participate, we'd all scoff.

"I think if you go back to the early part of the thread the topic was abandoned when a number of misreprentions were attributed to the Uniform Method. That was the beginning of the course that has lead us here." Tut, tut. The only thing that could remotely be called a "misrepresentation" in the post to which you first objected was a claim that the pants and shirt each cost $50. The other statements you didn't like were opinions about the quality of the uniform. There was nothing about the uniform method until you introduced it, and it was off-topic when you did. This thread was, and is, about whether BSA should change the current pants. (And with tax, the adult pants are near enough $50.)

I don't have strong feelings about this either way, but I do think that with respect to troop campouts this decision should be made by the PLC, not the SM, since it's not a safety issue. For long-term camp, the unit should obviously abide by the camp rules, and if they don't cover it, the PLC should decide.

Well, you certainly have to be Brave to criticize the uniform around here. I assume Bob is not questioning my "stability and capacity" because I happen to think BSA could and should improve the uniform pants! He seems to be saying that it is futile to complain about that here. When somebody else made that point in another thread, I started this thread--which described how you can make at least some form of comment at Supply Division. If somebody wants to identify an e-mail or mailing address of somebody else who is specifically interested in receiving such comments, that would be helpful. Telling us that our training should allow us to find the address of National is not very helpful. I think it is true that we should be careful how we criticize BSA and its programs, because this is a publicly available forum that can be read by young scouts and others. But that point cuts both ways--casting snide aspersions on untrained, ignorant Scouters doesn't create a positive image, either, especially when it's irrelevant to something like whether the pants can be improved.

Elsewhere there is a thread touching on whether "camping" in a hotel can count toward rank requirements or the Camping MB. All right-thinking people scoff at such an idea. But here's a corollary question--what about open-sided trail shelters such as those along the Appalachian Trail? Does the presence of a roof mean it's not "under the sky," even if it's still largely exposed to the elements? I hate to say this isn't camping, but it isn't sleeping on the open ground either. To add yet another wrinkle, the Backpacking MB calls for treks that use 2 or 3 "campsites." Is an AT trail shelter a "campsite?" (On this I'd say yes, for Camping, I'm not so sure.) I'm aware these decisions are for the MB counselor to make--these questions are for those of us who either want to make good decisions as counselors, or to help counselors who want advice, or to help guide boys in avoiding potential problems (i.e., if you're not going to count nights in shelters toward either merit badge, you should tell boys that before they go on an AT trek).

I was trying to think of a way to develop statistics that might help tell you if getting the Eagle rank has really gotten easier. Perhaps you could look at how many boys leave scouting with the rank of Life as opposed to how many did so 20 years ago or whatever. But however you slice it, even if more boys are making Eagle now than did in the past, that just may mean that the boys who are joining scouting and staying in now are, on the average, more serious about it.

NJ, I see your point, but I think the legislation was written in a cagy way to allow DOD to say that their directive was simply reminding units of a constitutional limitation, and thus did not make a change. I think what this bill is trying to head off (assuming anybody really intends to try to pass it) is efforts to exclude Scouting from access to government facilities (i.e., Jamboree) on the grounds that it is discriminatory. But I don't disagree that somebody might run with the interpretation you suggest. I predict, however, that the bill will sink into procedural obscurity and fade from memory. It's already served its primary purpose.

The idea has always been that a small percentage of boys who join Scouting will eventually become Eagle. While I think that's still true, there are a couple of questions I would ask: 1. What percentage of boys who are still members of a troop or crew at age 18 are Eagles? I'll bet it's a pretty large percentage, perhaps more than half. I think the main reason a boy doesn't make Eagle is that he drops out earlier. 2. As total enrollment in Scouting has dropped, has retention gone down or up? Perhaps those who join Scouts are more likely to stay in Scouts than before. These factors could explain an increase in the percentage of Scouts becoming Eagles, even if there is no weakening of Eagle standards.

I think the more appropriate "scare quotes" in my post were around the term "flamebait." Merlyn, there is perhaps the tiniest justification for your behavior in threads that relate to your specific jihad against BSA--government sponsorship of units--but when you inject yourself into other threads just to sow discord, that's just trolling, and you should knock it off.

The text of the bill is below. All it would do, in my opinion, would be to ensure that federal facilities allow access to Scouting units. It would not reinstate military units as COs. Its statement of equal access requirements for local government units is merely a restatement of what the law currently is. In other words, it won't really do anything--especially since most of the attacks are based on Constitutional law, which Congress can't override anyway. One possible exception that I haven't thought through fully yet: It might affect a situation in which a local school district, for example, limits access to its facilities to groups that do not discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. But even this could just be considered a codification of the Dale case, which is already the law. Bottom line: If it passes, it will be of no more value than a resolution of support. (Note: if it's true that Frist won't run for the Senate again, that's just because he wants to run for President. He's pandering to the right wing constituency more and more every day just for that reason.) A BILL To support certain national youth organizations, including the Boy Scouts of America, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Support our Scouts Act of 2005'. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS. (a) Definitions- In this section-- (1) the term `Federal agency' means each department, agency, instrumentality, or other entity of the United States Government; and (2) the term `youth organization' means any organization described under part B of subtitle II of title 36, United States Code, that is intended to serve individuals under the age of 21 years. (b) In General- (1) SUPPORT FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS- No Federal law (including any rule, regulation, directive, instruction, or order) shall be construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form of support for a youth organization (including the Boy Scouts of America or any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America) that would result in that Federal agency providing less support to that youth organization (or any similar organization chartered under the chapter of title 36, United States Code, relating to that youth organization) than was provided during each of the preceding 4 fiscal years. (2) TYPES OF SUPPORT - Support described under paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) holding meetings, camping events, or other activities on Federal property; and (B) hosting any official event of such organization. SEC. 3. EQUAL ACCESS FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5309) is amended-- (1) in the first sentence of subsection (b) by inserting `or (e)' after `subsection (a)'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: `(e) Equal Access- `(1) DEFINITION- The term `youth organization' means any organization described under part B of subtitle II of title 36, United States Code, that is intended to serve individuals under the age of 21 years. `(2) IN GENERAL- No State or unit of general local government that has a designated open forum, limited public forum, or nonpublic forum and that is a recipient of assistance under this chapter shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any youth organization, including the Boy Scouts of America or any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, that wishes to conduct a meeting or otherwise participate in that designated open forum, limited public forum, or nonpublic forum.'.

Merlyn's post was "flamebait," and BadenP's reaction was the kind of thing he was looking for. It was an insidious piece of flamebait, because if the same post had been made by somebody else, it could have been taken as simply advancing a discussion of whether BSA is shrinking or growing. But we've all seen enough of Merlyn's posts about how "dishonest" BSA is to know what he was gettng at with his post. I just point this out for the possible new reader who might find BadenP's reaction disproportionate, when it's really quite understandable.

I guess the yellow ribbons do send a somewhat ambiguous message--do they mean that you just support the troops, or do you support the war, too? But stealing them is a cowardly act--I can imagine the author's outrage if somebody defaced his anti-war bumper sticker. What does it mean to support the troops if you oppose the war? I think it means, at least, that you respect their willingness to serve their country, and that you wish that they not suffer harm. In the case of the Iraq war, I think that many people (including me) who think that it was a mistake to get into the war nevertheless want our troops to defeat the enemy (I can imagine a war so unjust that I might not feel that way, but this isn't it).

"Regardless of what any Supreme Court ruling says, I teach my sons that discrimination is wrong. It's wrong in general society and it's wrong within BSA." I want to challenge this a bit--I think what you really mean is that the particular discriminatory lines BSA has drawn are wrong, not that "discrimination" in general is wrong. For example, surely you don't think BSA is wrong for discriminating against would-be leaders with criminal records and the like. I assume also, for another example, that you would not criticize the Roman Catholic Church for discriminating against non-Catholics when it chooses priests. What people really mean when they say discrimination is wrong is "discrimination is wrong when it is based on characteristics that I don't think should affect the decision involved." To put it another way--any rational person would have to agree that BSA should discriminate in certain ways, at least in selecting adult leaders--the disagreement is over where to draw the line.

I'm pretty skeptical about the survey on Scoutstuff--as somebody pointed out, it lists five possible changes to the pants, and you can only pick one. I can envision somebody saying as a result, "There was no clear agreement among respondents on how the pants should be changed." What I did was go to the FAQ page and made my more direct comments in the block where you could suggest an additional question for the FAQ. I didn't find anyplace that general comments were being solicited. If somebody has an actual e-mail address of a real person who is interested in reading comments, I'd be happy to make a comment. I have to take issue with one thing FScouter said, that he does not "know better" than BSA. I don't accept this--BSA is run by human beings, who may or may not know better than anybody else on any particular topic. They may have reasons for their decisions that we don't know about, but we might or might not think those are good reasons if we did know about them. Certainly, their experience deserves great deference, but history shows that even the greatest and wisest of men often do not know best on every occasion.

One of the methods of Scouting is Adult Association, and urging a scout to work with MBCs other than his parents promotes that method. This is what's wrong with the mother advising a large number of merit badges--I'd say it's also the problem if a troop uses just one or two advisors to advise a large number of badges--while there's no rule against it, and the scouts can certainly do all the work, it dilutes the adult association benefit that comes from using multiple advisors. What's more, starting parents off as MBCs is a good way to get the more reluctant started helping with the unit--if the SM advises all the badges, you lose that adult leadership recruiting tool. But I continue to think that the best way to deal with this is for an alert SM, perhaps with the help of the Advancement Coordinator, to say, "Jack, how about doing Citizenship in the Community with Mr. Jones instead of [me/your dad/Mr. X]? He needs the experience!"

"How can adults not grasp the concept of "uniform"." It's very easy to grasp--but it's not the subject of this conversation. Neither I nor anybody else in this thread has evidenced any failure to understand this concept. What this conversation is about is whether an element of the uniform should be changed. To make such a suggestion is not an assault on the uniform method or on Scouting in general. And I admit I was whining, but when somebody pointed that out to me I went to the Supply Division website to register my comments. Isn't complaining the right thing to do when something should be changed? The Army's new ACU was developed after years of complaints and hundreds of comments from soldiers about deficiencies in the prior uniform. Don't you want to help BSA have the best possible uniform, based on the experience of its members?

I agree with letting the counselor counsel--the purpose of the question was to help those of us who do counsel think about the best way of handling some of these issues. For example, I counsel Music, and I have simply accepted boys' word that they are in the school band--I didn't require them to show me documentation. But they had to perform a song for me--I wouldn't have accepted a statement from somebody else that they could do it. Here are some principles I think I would derive from the discussion so far: 1. As a counselor, you should ask for the level of verification of a requirement that satisfies you that the scout has actually performed the requirement. That may vary depending on what the requirement is. (Further question: could it vary depending on what you know about the scout?) 2. If the requirement calls for the scout to show, tell, or demonstrate something to the counselor, I wouldn't accept a statement that somebody else has seen it. The only possible exception would be if another registered MBC has signed off part of the card. (Even then, I would probably question the scout about it, especially if it was done at camp, and even more so if I can't make out the name of the counselor, which is pretty common on the blue cards we get back from camp).

A couple of points here: Trevorum's original post makes it clear that UUSO is not affiliated with UUA. It seems to me that if BSA wants to recognize a religious award designed by a scouter group it can do so. I do think it should be clear who does and does not support the award. I would like to suggest to anybody connected with the UUA that it is dishonest to urge scouts to wear the emblem on their uniforms if you know that BSA does not recognize the emblem for uniform wear. At the very least, you should acknowledge that you are asking the boys to violate the rules of BSA. My bottom line on this is that if UUA and BSA can't agree on the religious award, so be it.