Hunt

Well, in my area you list 3 schools--but 2 of them are private schools. So my spot check of your accuracy suggests the true number is much smaller. How did you make sure the units weren't actually sponsored by PTAs?

I don't see ushering or teaching Sunday School or helping with Children's Church, etc., as a "service project." It's service, but it's part of the routine activities of the church the Scout belongs to. I wouldn't count that. However, if the Scout went and served food in a soup kitchen, I would count that even if it was "double-dipping" (i.e., also meeting the requirement for confirmation). Here, all students must have a certain number of "service learning" hours for graduation f

It's time for some close reading of the Handbook's Eagle requirements. On page 446, it seems simple. It says:

While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of 6 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility:

Then it lists the positions,including den chief, but NOT including the leadership project assigned by the Scoutmaster or Bugler.

On page 180, it says something a little different:

While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of 6 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility: (Pages 169, 172)

The list is the same--no leadership project, no bugler. BUT on page 172, entitled "Serve in a position of responsibility," we see the Bugler patch, and a statement that "your Scoutmaster might offer you leadership positions for special projects or events."

What does this mean? I suppose it offers a slender reed for those who want to allow a Scoutmaster-defined leadership project (like Webmaster)(or Bugler) to count for the Eagle POR--because the requirement refers to p. 172. But it's a pretty darn slender reed. Both the Star and Life requirements explicitly state that the SM can assign a project, and the Eagle projects don't say this (same with Bugler, if anybody cares).

(But it also seems to me that "instructor" is vague enough that it could encompass a lot of things that might be leadership projects.)

So it appears that either the schools in Merlyn's own district either don't sponsor any Scouting units, or he doesn't know. He also doesn't know if any students from his district attend the Deaf School, or whether the Deaf School spends any money on sponsoring the unit (although I agree this probably wouldn't affect the legality of the arrangement). So it appears that this is the only school about which Merlyn might have legal standing to complain, and he apparently hasn't done it. Maybe he doesn't relish the idea of suing to take Scouting away from a bunch of deaf students, which I can certainly understand.

And just to belabor the point, while the amount of money the school spends may not be legally relevant, it's practically relevant, since the evil Merlyn complains of can easily be rectified in virtually every conceivable situation by forming a private group to sponsor the unit, and then having it meet in the public location on the same basis as other groups. Since virtually no tax money goes to support these units (often the money flow is in the opposite direction, as units do valuable projects for the school), Merlyn's complaint isn't really about his tax money at all, but about a principle. Although I generally agree with the principle (that a government entity shouldn't sponsor a religious organization), I'm not convinced the problem is all that widespread, and I strongly suspect the trend is away from public sponsorship. When you add in the fact that Scouting does a huge amount of good for many people, including needy people, I just think Merlyn's extreme outlook is misplaced.

I'd like to repeat my question: as long as local COs retain the authority to exclude gay leaders, why is it important to prohibit other COs with different beliefs about homosexuality to from having such leaders? With a very few exceptions, Scouting respects differing religious beliefs (the main exception being belief in a Supreme Being)--what makes this one different? Again, I urge you to answer why this restriction should apply to units other than your own--units in which the members are in agreement that having gay leaders is not contrary to their religious beliefs.

I do think there is some ambiguity in the term "tent of an adult other than..." Does this mean that the parent or guardian must be in the tent, or that only the parent or guardian is in the tent? What if the other adult is the Scout's grandfather or 19-year-old brother? I can certainly imagine a situation in which two fathers and two sons might want to share a large tent. Should this be prohibited?

Believe me, I have nothing against buglers. I will have to look at the handbook when I'm at home, but (unless my eyes are failing me) the 2004 BSA Eagle Scout Rank Application does not list bugler as one of the PORs. It does list den chief, of course.

Merlyn, is the Metro Deaf School in the district where you live and pay taxes? You don't say that it is, and I don't think we can assume it is. Do any students from your district attend the school? And if the School does charter a scouting unit, does it budget any money to support the unit? How much?

Second, where is your evidence that BSA continues to grant new charters to public schools in any significant numbers (or any numbers at all). I would think the BSA would be encouraging those units to be sponsored by PTAs.

C'mon, Ed, you must realize there's a difference between CHARTERING a unit and allowing it to meet in the school. If the school allows the Scouts, Jewish group, KKK, etc., all to use the school on the same basis, there isn't any discrimination. Similarly, if it doesn't charter any of them, there's no discrimination.

Merlyn, do you have proof that "thousands" of Scouting units are chartered by the schools themselves? If you're including units chartered by PTAs, I think your argument is significantly weakened. The fact that you continually mention only a few school districts suggests to me that you may not have the actual facts to back up your assertions. Furthermore, are there scouting units chartered by public schools in the school district where you live--where you pay taxes?

He can't be bugler. That's the only change from the Star-Life list I see.

I can understand why many people feel strongly that they wouldn't want their own children to be in a unit with gay leaders--I kind of feel that way myself. But that's because my religion teaches me that this is an immoral lifestyle. But not all religions--not even all branches of my own religion--teach that. So why shouldn't this issue be left up to the chartering organizations of units, as other leadership issues are? As I understand it, units can ban female leaders, can require that all members belong to a particular religion, etc. What is the factor that makes this different? If your child's troop is sponsored by the local Baptist Church and forbids gay leaders, why is it a problem for you if the local Episcopal Church allows such leaders? And can you answer in a way that doesn't require others to simply accept your own religious views on the subject as correct?

I was disappointed in her performance, too--but I do think she acted out of principle at the end. I have no doubt she would have won if she had chosen the final other competitor differently. I'd give her a C, maybe a C+.

I'm sure the producers were determined to have her wear that uniform during the competition--I suppose we should choose to believe that she didn't know it.

Well, I suggested that Merlyn should go away (or be asked to leave) if he persisted in namecalling. I don't like that kind of behavior, and I'm not afraid to say so. I would never ask him to leave just based on his point of view. However, I have said before that I think he's wasting his time here. Finding one or two examples of the behavior he objects to across the many thousands of Scout units just isn't very persuasive--and he's talking here to people who aren't that receptive to his message in the first place.

Another reason to hesitate to step in is that you might be wrong about what you think you know. Kids will sometimes surprise you and make something work that you were sure would fail. Obviously, that doesn't apply to something like forgetting the food, but it might apply to a boy-planned activity that you think will fail.

Again, I don't agree with what Adrian is saying, and he may indeed not grasp what Merlyn is saying. However, both what he and Merlyn are saying is here for anybody to read. Thus, Merlyn, I urge you to stop accusing him of lying. If you don't, I (with regret) would urge the moderators to ban you from this forum. I like to read spirited discussions, but I'm tired of personal attacks.

I think it's absurd to claim that science clubs discriminate against people based on their views.

On the other hand, Merlyn is too quick to brand people as "liars" when they try to challenge or draw out his views. Merlyn, I haven't called you a liar when you repeatedly claim that the Boy Scouts had a "sweetheart deal" with San Diego, even though I think you know what you're saying isn't true. So please give the name-calling a rest.

My son's pack went through this--the pack was small, the CM was moving away, virtually all the involved leaders had Webelos-aged scouts, etc. The CO was an uninvolved PTA, a number of active scouts quit en masse (over the Dale decision), etc., etc., etc. Those of us who remained approached another pack at a local church about merging. The district authorities STRONGLY urged us not to merge, but to maintain both packs and just meet jointly. This was really a fiction, because only the pack at the church truly functioned after that, although there were boys in both "packs." In retrospect, it would have been better to simply transfer those who were interested in continuing into the church pack--we would have avoided a lot of hassles.

I just thought I'd follow up here with some info on how our recruiting effort went, and some lessons learned. We were able to leave flyers in schools (on shelves, etc.), but we couldn't use backpack mail. The PTA would not allow us to use addresses in the school directory to write to prospects. We got lists of all of last year's 2nd-year Webelos from the district, and wrote to them. We put up a banner touting our open house. We urged all the scouts to invite boys they knew. At the open house, we had two new scouts who had visited before, and 5 new prospects. But here's the kicker--all 5 new prospects had been personally invited by my son and/or me. So we learned a few things:

1. Personal invitations are, by far, the recruiting method with the highest percentage yield. But you really have to press people to do it.

2. Even if the troop really starts its program in the fall, that's way too late to recruit Webelos--we got a number of calls that the boys have already joined troops. So we will recruit again in the Spring, and do it right.

3. The boys who signed up said they chose this troop over others because the boys were friendly.

I think a lawsuit against a PTA for sponsoring a Scout unit would fail, unless the PTA receives public funds-most don't. Nevertheless, a PTA might give in rather than defend such a suit. In addition, I don't think a PTA makes a very good CO because of the constantly changing cast of characters in the PTA. Furthermore, I don't think a school is the best place to meet, because access is generally limited. Accordingly, I don't think BSA should go to the barricades to defend public schools' ability to sponsor units--BSA would probably lose the case, and the value of those sponsorships is questionable in the first place. If you really want to meet in the school, get some other group to be the CO and just rent the school space.

If I were BSA, I would be quietly suggesting that units chartered by schools and other public entities be switched over to PTAs, FOS groups, and the like. They might have to start paying the schools the going rate for using the space, but they could avoid a lot of potential problems. Maybe this is happening?

In this kind of discussion, we often get different concepts mixed up.

In the case of Norwalk, it is clear (as Merlyn recognizes) that if you let all groups use a public area, you can't exclude one with a message or policy you don't like. The same is true of public schools--if they let all groups use the school facilities, they can't exclude the Boy Scouts. It's different, however, when the government entity is actually sponsoring the activity. I predict that the courts would rule that schools can't sponsor Scouting organizations--just as the school couldn't sponsor a Baptist organization. The possibility that a majority of people in the school might wish otherwise is irrelevant when a Constitutional question is involved. Many schools avoid this problem by having the units sponsored by the PTA, a private organization.

In the case of Balboa, I have read the decision, and related material, and continue to believe that the Boy Scouts didn't receive a sweetheart deal, and that the judge ignored the actual facts of the case. As I've said repeatedly when this comes up, the judge's (and Merlyn's) argument that the leases should have been put out for competitive bidding is just silly, considering that the Scouts approached the city with the money for the project in hand. I guess we'll see what happens on appeal, if it ever gets decided. But the fact that Merlyn keeps bringing it up over and over suggests that there aren't all that many cases of government goodies to the Boy Scouts for him to criticize.

Sometimes I think BSA would be better off if it more forcefully defined itself as a religious organization. Can you imagine the City of Norwalk making such statements if the local Catholic Church wanted to use the park for a sunrise service? I predict this story will disappear when the lawyers tell the city leaders that they would have to deny permits to just about everybody.

I've sort of been assuming that by "quality leadership" we were talking about people with the personal qualities needed to be good leaders. Bob seems to be suggesting now that quality leader means trained leader. It seems to me, though, that training is not enough to produce a quality leader, and that some people without training will nevertheless be able to provide a quality program, if they follow the methods provided in BSA materials (I guess you could say they are "self-trained"). I certainly know people who have never been formally trained to perform tasks, but who nevertheless do them well, because they observed others, did some research, etc. I certainly think everybody should get training, but I think what makes a "quality leader" is a lot harder to pin down than that.

This statement: "If you aren't using the methods of the program you are not scouting...you are just doing stuff in a scout uniform" is kind of like the horse-suit comment. I think people may read you to say, "If you aren't using ALL of the methods of the program EXACTLY AS LAID DOWN BY BSA you are not scouting...you are just doing stuff in a scout uniform." I hope that's not what you mean--I choose to interpret your statement to mean that you think the best possible program can be delivered by adhering as closely as possible to BSA's methods, and that at some point deviation from those methods is no longer "scouting." I think most people would agree with that, and could discuss where that point is.

As for leadership, I agree that it must have a basic level of "quality" in order for the program to be successful. Does that mean that every leader must be fully trained, fully uniformed, and totally committed to the BSA way from day 1? I don't think so, although that's a goal. But there do have to be leaders who are willing to do their best and to learn.

Well, for what it's worth, Bob, I found your comparison between a horse and a person dressed up as a horse somewhat offensive as well. It seemed a bit unkind. Maybe I didn't really understand what you meant by it.

I can understand that you object to people who know what the program is and choose not to deliver it. Maybe that's what you really mean by a person dressed up as a horse.

But there are a lot of leaders who are still learning how to do it, who are juggling lots of other responsibilities, and are really trying to do the very best they can with the time and resources they have. If you think people like that are "dressed up as horses," I can't agree. Those people need encouragement, not criticism.

To put it concretely, there's a big difference between somebody who says, "We don't have full uniforming in our troop because the boys think the uniform is lame, and besides I hate the pants," and "We don't have full uniforming in our troop because it's too expensive for the boys in our area." The first guy needs the sermon, the second guy needs suggestions.