jmcquillan

Although it made Reuters, it doesn't seem to have made the local news, at least I haven't seen it. But I'm not at all surprised. If you remember "The Tide is Turning" thread I started some time ago, I'm guessing that the meeting spoken of in the original article is where it all started. And Boston Minuteman is the largest Council in the state. I'm not at all surprised. I had a feeling that this would happen. Once the larger and wealthier councils in the country start down this road, BSA national will have no other option but to jump on the wagon quickly, lest they be seen as bucking a national trend, and left in the dust. Although this is only one council at the moment, remember that the original article spoke of many of the largest councils in the country being at the subject meeting where the change of tide was addressed. More may follow soon. This one council seems to be taking a step that some may call bold, others may call foollish and unwarranted, and leading to full acceptance. Who knows? Only time will tell.

Mike, That is truly funny...People Eating Tasty Animals. Well, maybe we just create our own little anacromism...SETA...Scouts Eating Tasty Animals...or...SLETA...Scout Leaders Eating Tasty Animals...or...

Probably would offend someone....hmmmmmmm?

No travel required. Imagine this...individual Scout Troops nationwide holding "The First Annual PETA Fishing Derby and Fish Fry" with media coverage, et al.

Or, would that be just a wee bit too politically incorrect? :-)

Hey Rooster...

I'll bring some fish. Great idea!! I've got extra fishing tackle, perhaps we can have a fishing derby. :-)

"A Scout is humble..."

I like that.

Imagine the damage that might be done to the fishing bait industry. Imagine all those folks out there who "farm" mightcrawlers. Eliminating fishing would put many out of work. Think of the commercial fishing industry. We're talking millions of dollars here. We need to support these folks in these most important industries. We need.....oh, it's time to leave.

I gotta date with my fishing rod and a can of worms. I never hook the worm, ya know. I've taught them how to sit of the hook...and whistle...you know how to whistle, don't you? You just put your lips together and blow...just like my worms.

And, I'm not so sure that the young man understands the WHOLE TRUTH about what, by wearing the uniform, he's doing to the organization that he professes to love and still wants to be part of.

Sorry I can't hang around to give this issue my full attention. I'm going fishing.

Oops, what was I thinking? I obviously can't read at times.:-)

Our troop has been through a couple of changes over the past 20 years or so, trying to find the best make-up for patrols (no matter what Texas says):-).

We've done the patrol make-up where everyone in a patrol is the same age, mostly because they all came into scouting at the same time. But the current method seems to work quite well.

When new scouts come into the troop, they're placed in "new scout" patrols for the remainder of the school year (usually Feb to June). The theory is, and we tell the kids this, that that time period gives them a chance to get to know the scouts in the troop, and give the SPL an idea of which existing patrol they'd like to be a part of. When the new year, and regular meetings start up again, late August of early September, the new scouts are placed in the patrol of their choice, to the degree that the numbers work. But normally with the number of patrols we have, that's not a problem.

This method, as eisely indicated, is a good one for introducing the new scouts both to the older scouts, and to scouting itself.

All time in service and requirements for any rank must be completed prior to the Scoutmaster Conference. Board of Review follows that, and Court of Honor after. But the time-in-service requirement, and all of the rank requirements must be completed before the Scoutamster even gets involved for the SM conference.

Interesting question, eisely...

It's been my experience that if the boy comes from a family that worships often and together, he will either take his part in any scout ceremony with the same degree of faith and surety, or he'll seek to escape participating because Mom & Dad aren't there to say otherwise. As has been said above, our example can serve to reinforce that particular boys participation and understanding of his duty.

For boys who come from a family that hardly ever, or never goes to regular church services, it's usually more difficult to gain his attention. He'll either be with the group as a non-participating bystander, or he'll have just enough interest to try to figure out what's going on. Be that as it may, we really can't, nor should we, expect that we will bring God into a young man's life on the scale of a true believer, if the support and participation of the family at home will not keep the ball rolling. And, we have to be careful about just what God we're attempting to "show" him. I've had many faiths in the troop I've been with, and have found some boys who take it seriously enough to practice their faith everywhere, irregardless of who's watching. Then I've had others who don't show their faith, and unless asked directly, they'll never give a hint as to the family's faith of choice. And trying to "bring God" as I know him, to a boy of a faith quite different, can be a mistake. I wouldn't want to sermonize about my God to one of an Eastern faith quite removed from my own.

I've never seen Scouting as a place to bring God to those that might not have him. I've always seen our place as providing each Scout the opportunity to remember his own God within the arena of activities and events that Scouting does, so the Scout doesn't forget that his God is still there, and not at home waiting for his return. For those who lack a faith, witness to what others do and believe may provide sufficient kindling of interest to find out what it's all about. But if it doesn't exist at home, it's likely not going to go far.

Perhaps it's just where I live, but there's never been a problem around here with Scouters = female. There's never been enough willing males to fill all the roles that need to be filled, and women have always been welcomed and valued as leaders. Glad to have them. Without them, the program as we know it would not be what it is.

Stick with the system you've already got in place. When all these new boys join, you'll end up with a bunch of new scout patrols. But having been there myself, (with as many as three new scout patrols in one year), it can work. You'll do yourself a favor by having a couple of ASM's to deal with the new patrols specifically. And you can have an experienced and willing older scout serve as a troop guide, one for each of the new patrols.

But I would suggest not trying to change something that works for you just because the numbers are a little higher.

I wouldn't woory about being a few days off in either direction. I've always used the month as my guide, not the day. If the records show the a scout earned a rank towards the end of a month, I'll look for him to finish his nest one "around" the end of the month, also. That's a close as I get. I've worked with the Senior DE responsible for Eagle Advancement in our council, and I know he works that way, too. We're trying to be reasonable here, not sticklers to the day, hour, minute, etc. Just use your best judgement.

eisely said:

"I still come down on the side that believes that homosexuals are inappropriate role models,..."

Yep, I couldn't agree more. But here's the rub...when a don't ask / don't tell philosophy rules the day, (and I'm not saying it's wrong, not at all), who's to know just who's setting the example"? :-)

This story was published on June 12, 2001 by the Rochester Democrat in Rochester, New York.

HEADLINE: Local Scouts avoid ban on gays - Otetiana Council

-----------------------------------------------------------

focuses on behavior rather than sexuality

-----------------------------------------

Homosexuals may be able to serve as Boy Scout leaders in the Rochester area as long as they don't engage in publicly inappropriate behavior, according to a new Otetiana Council, Inc. membership standards statement.

The statement says the council will not inquire about the sexual orientation of current or prospective members, but "will exclude a scoutmaster or member if his or her sexuality or behavior becomes publicly inappropriate as judged by the Otetiana Council."

The position statement does not specifically defy or oppose the national Boy Scouts of America's stance against "avowed homosexuals." However, it does shift the membership criteria from sexual orientation to public behavior -- effectively giving organizations that sponsor troops greater leeway in selecting leaders.

The Otetiana Council has more than 5,000 adult volunteers in the Monroe County area and serves more than 13,000 youths.

This is only part of the story, for the rest see:

http://www.rochesternews.com/0612story1.html

END.

While on the surface it may seem that this is counter to BSA policy, and flies in the face of what the policy tries to achieve, the fact is that as long as the "Don't ask, don't tell" way of doing things is around, those gays who choose to keep their preferences to themselves can quite successfully participate in Scouting, and who's to know? I would not want to think of the alternative, that being a requirement of the BSA that all adult leaders, or prospective leaders, state their sexual preference up front in the process of volunteering.

"Hate", "Attack", "Garbage speech", are all words that should be left to those in opposition to the BSA to use. We, in Scouting, should be tempering our own speech to not include those words in this discussion. Let those who wish to take up the opposition to the BSA use the language of the gutter. We should not. We should hold ourselves above that in order to show that we do, indeed, live and breath by the Scout Oath and Law.

"Discriminate", and "discrimination" are also words that we should not be using other than to say that this case is not about either. It is about the constitutionally guaranteed FREEDOM of Association.

Lowering our standards will only serve to lower us to the level from which the opoosition casts their accusations.

Our council has a camp in which has been established an honor field with the appropriate statuary, plaques, etc., and which is located in a very peaceful section of woodlands nest to the lake in the camp, but separate from the main body of the camp. Thus, peace and solitude is maintained. It is in this field that every year, especially during summer camp, those who have gone before us, and given of themselves to Scouting, are remembered. The Scouts Own philosophy is used for ceremonies, and all are welcomed, especially the families of our lost members. I've never seen ashes scattered there, so I can't address that issue. But you might want to see if your council has a place like that. If they do, you can make your desires known to those who survive you such that they can attend to the requirements of the ceremony after you're gone.

It is, indeed, a subject that few are willing to speak of while still here. And it is more difficult when doing so knowing that the ceremony will likely be attended by many young men and boys for whom death is not a frequent aquaintence, or so we would hope. Thus, ceremonies like this that I've seen are kept as solemn as necessary, without morbidity. And the boys always have a place to go to be near those who have passed on, without being in the cemetery atmosphere.

I wish you well in your search for answers to make your final plans. There may be other information out there, but do not know of it. Perhaps your council might be able to direct you. Be well.

I'm not sure I've ever seen statistics that would support that argument. I have, although, seen statistics that argue that of the 49,000 to 50,000 Catholic priests in this country, somewhere between 3,000 and 8,000 are pedophiles. Does that mean that I should never leave my child in the care of a priest? No.

Statistics can be bent to favor whatever side of the argument one tends towards. "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."

I would not say that it's an impossibility for a gay person to be a pedophile. But I doubt that that tendency is significantly higher than statistics might show for heterosexuals.

I get a little nervous when people start talking about the BSA stand on gays in terms of the pedophile issue. I like to think that this whole event, and the history leading up to it has more to do with example than fear.

To me, the BSA stand on gays has everything to do with the lifestyle homosexuals choose to lead, not the fear that they're pedophiles seeking easy targets, for I don't think that's the issue. In fact, I believe that that bearing on the issue does the gay community a disservice. I'm quite sure that most in the gay community are really no different than you and I, except for the partners they choose. To put it in simple terms, I chose to marry, sleep with, and raise children with a woman. I guess that's traditional, to me. For those men who choose to live with, sleep with, and perhaps raise shildren with another man, or for those women who choose to live with, sleep with, and perhaps raise children with another woman, that's all fine with me. What I object to, is the example. I wanted my sons to have the example of a mother/father relationship in the traditional sense. I'm sure that most of those who want their sons in Scouting are looking for that same example to be set by the adults leaders in their troops. To me, it's as simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm perfectly fine with the fact that some in our society choose a lifestyle quite different than that. I just wouldn't want that lifestyle as the example for my sons. And I'm quite sure that many in the gay community share many of the base "traditional" values that we share in Scouting, just not the ones about mother/father, and who you sleep with.

And, quite frankly, this whole thing only applies to those who run around waving the flag of homosexuality in an in-your-face manner. I don't run around waving a banner that states my heterosexuality. I don't need to see the other banner. I can understand that gays sometimes feel the need to wave that banner, because if they don't and their preference is "discovered", that can be a huge issue for them in nothing but negative terms. And being forced to "live in the closet" can likely be quite challenging and unnerving. Existing within the Scouting environment on false premises (not telling anyone) would be mentally exhausting, not to mention the internal struggle of bearing false witness to oneself. Add to that the impression that if one is gay, one is thought more likely to be a pedophile. That offends me, never mind the gay community.

So, I would think it might be in all of our collective better interests to put this issue in the light of example, not fear. For the fear is mostly unfounded. The example is right there for all to see, like it, or not.

Certainly an interesting turn of events. It seems to me that the shoe may be on the other foot now for groups who have been challenging the BSA access to public facilities.

Michael Resnick, executive director of the National School Board Assocation (NSBA) stated that this bill now takes the right to decide who uses facilities away from the local school districts.

Well, well, well. It seems to me that the NSBA, and their evil partners, the ACLU, were using the argument that school districts that received federal funding must adhere to either local or some national standard of non-discrimination in order to keep getting those funds. Now the provider of those funds is setting the stage to say that they will define how access will be defined. That seems in order to me. It takes the ACLU right out of the scenario, doesn't it? Their argument is down the drain, for the government which provides the funding is saying that they want a say in how access to public facilities is handled if they are to continue giving those funds.

The NSBA and the ACLU can't have it both ways. They're speaking out of a different side of the mouth now, for sure.

This is a copy of an article that has been circulating here in the Boston area via internet Scout sites. It deals with the recent National Meeting here in Boston, and a significant change in attitude among some big players in the scene. Apparently, the recommendations of this meeting are being forwarded to National for consideration. It will be interesting to see where it all goes. But the bottom line seems to be that the tide is turning, and the change is coming from within.

A Boston Globe Article relating to an action taken at the National BSA Conference.

Boston Globe, June 8, 2001

Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107

Fax 617-929-2098

E-MAIL: letter@globe.com

http://www.boston.com/globe

HEADLINE: Opening the door to gay Boy Scouts

--------------------------------------------

By Derrick Z. Jackson

In a quiet flex of muscle, with the hope that the sheer size of their cities signals an urgent need for compromise, nine council presidents and board chairmans, including the chairman of Boston's Minuteman Council, have positioned the Boy Scouts of America to open up its policy banning gay Scouts.

At the Scouts' national meeting last week in Boston, leaders of the councils of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, West Los Angeles, Orange County, Calif., San Francisco, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Boston proposed that the Scouts allow churches, schools, and other chartering organizations to decide for themselves whether to have gay scout members and leaders.

The current national policy of the Boy Scouts of America, upheld last year by a narrowly divided Supreme Court, is to ban gay males. The Scouts have said, "an avowed homosexual is not a role model." In many cities and towns, the Boy Scouts' policy has resulted in an erosion of support from city agencies and funding sources that have nondiscrimination policies, most notably the United Way.

This week in Massachusetts, the Hampshire County United Way dropped its support of the Great Trails Council because the council would not sign a nondiscrimination policy. Last year, the United Way of Massachusetts Bay ended direct funding of the Minuteman Council, shifting support to the Scouts' Learning for Life Program. That program promotes leadership skills in the schools to boys and girls and has no gay discrimination policy. The resolution by the big city presidents asks that the Scouts adopt a policy that states that "membership and leadership positions are open to persons regardless of their sexual orientation," subject to compliance with Scouting's standards of conduct, and that "a Scout treat all people with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation."

The resolution asks the Boy Scouts to accept local rules of the sponsoring organizations that select Scout leaders. A troop could ban gay leaders if it wished. But a troop whose sponsor explicitly forbids discrimination would face no action from the Boy Scouts. This year, the Scouts, based in Irving, Texas, revoked the charter of several Cub Scout packs in Oak Park, Ill., because the sponsors, a parent-teacher group, adhered to a nondiscrimination policy.

"We're not a bunch of wild guys out here doing a palace revolt," said Mike Harrison, past chairman of the board of the Orange County Council. "We're trying to find another path that respects the beliefs of all Scouts and shows a truly tolerant attitude instead of one with broad stereotypical labels.

"There are troops sponsored by religious institutions, such as Mormons, Catholics, and others, where there is no way they are going to pick someone who has indicated they have a homosexual orientation. . . But many of us value Scouting also precisely because it values tolerance and diversity and that the Scouts' interpretation of 'morally straight' meaning only straight people is out to lunch."

Boy Scouts national spokesman Gregg Shields said the proposal will be taken up by its relationships committee. However, Shields said of the signatories, "These still represent a minority of councils. We have nearly 320 councils around the country. I think the majority want the policy that is currently in place. I would foresee that the existing policy would continue."

Shields' claim that the big city councils represent a "minority" is a risky brushoff given that the metropolitan areas are a quarter of the nation's population and are huge media centers. It is also risky because his prediction that the existing policy would continue flies in the face of the optimistic diplomacy of the signatories. They hold no press conferences to announce the proposal. They want the Boy Scouts to be able to save face over a position it has bitterly defended.

Minuteman Council executive Brock Bigsby said, "It was pretty easy for us to be part of this. I'd like to think one of the things our council is most known for is its diversity."

Don York, director of field services for the New York City Councils, said, "Let's not close the door up front" on gay Scouts.

Lew Greenblatt, president of the Chicago Area council, said, "If you believe in an organization, you want to make it as good as it can be. This is a way it can be better. Unfortunately, it is the kids who are suffering from the national policy."

Harrison said, "When I read the Supreme Court decision, I was appalled at the arguments the Boy Scout lawyers made. But I've had some good conversations with Catholic liaisons and some of our LDS [Latter-day Saints] cohorts. I'm encouraged that we'll get to where we need to be, whether it takes six months or a year."

A fellow by the name of George Hutcheson created an on-line document about all the POR's in a troop. It's quite good, and our troop has used this document as our own base for those positions. We've edited it slightly, but mainly only in the suggested attendance requirements for each position. You can see it at:

http://usscouts.org/clipart/ScoutDoc/Troops/TroopPositions.doc

It's best if the SM doesn't make up his own definitions for each position. It's better to stay with what BSA has published and go from there. In cases where a position doesn't seem to fit the bill, that position doesn't need to be filled at all. This usually happens when there's not enough Scouts in the troop to fill them all. Not every troop has a Bugler. Not every troop has a Historian. But troops that do, usually go by the definitions already published.

By the way, the biggest difference between what BSA publishes and the on-line document (above) is the insertion of suggested attendance percentages for each position. Although some troop don't use this, like yours, we've found it to be quite an asset when taking stock of Scout Spirit, participation, etc. The SM can't possibly know what each Scout is doing all the time...especially with 50-60 boys or more. Thus attendance and the eyes of other adult leaders helps quite a bit. AND...those that are given a position of responsibility need to understand that there is work within the position they hold. They can't just waer the patch and fulfill the requirements. They need to DO the job. Attendance requirements tend to help reinforce this with the Scouts.

In answer to your question about resources, try this link:

http://www.macscouter.com/ScoutsOwn/

There is a caveat to "opening Woodbadge" up to the masses in Scouting, though. I was on staff in one course where the recruitment was not going well. The course was eventually cancelled. But what I saw as really wrong, when it became apparent that the participants weren't going to be as numerous as necessary, was an attempt to recruit folks right out of Scoutmaster Fundamentals. That, I thought, was totally inappropriate. Folks just completing Fundamentals need time to practice what they've just learned and come to terms with how that information can change their troop and themselves for the better. Not having that time is a disservice to the participating leaders.