jmcquillan

Our Council has been rather unsuccessful to date in getting one of the new WB courses off the ground. It would seem that the 3-day (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) issue is the problem. Getting that Friday time off from work is pretty much a no-go for many, and the courses aren't filling up to the minimum. Anyone else seeing that?

With regard to High School sports, as the SM, I had a policy whereby Scouts would not be required to make the choice between Scouts and sports. When Scouts in High School came to their sports season, they all knew, for I told them, that they were free to take the time and give 100% to their sport. I was, and still am, a believer in giving of yourself 100% in a few things, rather than trying to accomplish many, and only being able to give 75% or less to each. They were required to simply advise me by written note or letter, in advance, that they would be absent from troop activities between the dates that the sport season started and ended. They understood that their advancement and time in office would stop the moment they left, and start again the moment they returned. No credit would be given while they were not an active participating member of the troop.

Parents and Scouts really liked the idea. No major decision was required. They could have both Scouts and sports, with the understanding that something had to give, and that something was their advancement and credit for time in office. Usually, because the boys knew the rules, they knew enough not to try to obtain an position of responsibility in the troop when they knew it would intefere with their sports. This meant that no office would be left mid-way through the term. It also meant that other qualified Scouts had more of an opportunity to get the time in position for rank advancement.

As I recall, we never lost a Scout to sports. Quite frankly, the only Scouts we lost before the age of 18, were those whose families moved out of town. It was the best of both worlds for the Scouts. The leadership skills they learned in both venues were valuable to both groups. The teamwork they learned more about in sports was valuable to them in Scouting, and made quite a difference when they, as older Scouts, were responsible for instilling their younger troop members with the pride and enthusiasm for Scouting.

Well, as I remember it, being responsible for ones own actions, needs, and schedules is something we attempt to instill in the boys who participate in scouting. That doesn't happen overnight, of course.

My policy used to be that New Scouts and younger Scouts were watched and "reminded" by older experienced Scouts, ASM's, and perhaps other interested and trained adult participants at first. As time went by, These new and younger Scouts were left more and more to their own devices to carry the weight of personal responsibility. Of course, that trail left plenty of room for error and failure on the part of the new and younger Scouts, but that's part of what it's all about in Scouting...learning through a little bit of failure...tempered on the part of those who watch with the knowledge of where we were, and how much of a hardship the lesson would present to the challenged Scout. No one was ever "set-up" for failure, but we did let it happen sometimes, even if we saw it coming, but knew that the circumstances did not involve safety issues, and could be remedied or present only minor discomfort to the Scout.

Readiness for camping, attending to sign-offs on advancement, and other parts of the Scouting program offer ample opportunity for Scouts to learn that responsibility by some failure, and by achievement, in a controlled environment. Later, as they become more adept at these skills, they are exposed to environments where that might not be as controlled, but only if and when they're ready...if we've done our jobs right.

Yes, there should be an element of watching and reminding in the beginning. But it shouldn't last long. Scouts need to gain an understanding of the personal responsibility thing and how it coincides with teamwork as soon as we can get them to. Older Scouts and adult leaders are part of the troop for that very reason.

I'm not particularly religious in the standard "organized religion" sense. My wife and I both grew up in a Congregationalist Protestant church and were even married there. In the years since, we've grown somewhat distant from the "church", but not from that which we call God. Our God is not defined in strict terms as organized faiths may define him/her...but he/she is there for us all the time, and we've never questioned his/her existence...just the terms by which he/she might be defined in organized religion. Something is there. Something watches over us. Something guides us, if we ask for guidance. And that something will care for us after this life, wherever that may be...Heaven, as defined in organized religion and the Bible, or somewhere else. We do not feel the need to worship him/her in a specific manner, or in a specific house of worship, or on a specific day. He/she is there all the time, wherever we are. And he/she knows, if he/she is as omnipotent as we think, that we believe, and will follow. Our sons and their wives pretty much follow the same path. Ours are homes of caring, loving, helping, and believing. We just do not believe that centralizing our focus on our God in a specific manner, house of worship, or book is necessary. Are we Christian? Are we Jewish? Are we Muslim? Dunno...! We were brought up Christian, so I suppose you could tack that label to us as much as any.

Point is, we're not aetheist, nor agnostic. We believe. We just don't go to church with y'all, and don't feel the need. And we don't feel particularly bad about that. We are, indeed, quite a happy bunch.

And there's a growing number of folks out there who believe as we do. In Scouting, we need to be aware of that, especially as it pertains to "A Scout is Reverent". A boy or family who proclaims disbelief is quite a far cry from one who proclaims not the need to attend or partake in regular services, no matter how ecumenical they might be. My sons and I always attended whatever services were being offered at whatever Scouting venue we might have been attending at the time, but we did that out of respect for the tradition, the Scouting family, those who felt the need, the companionship, and the love for each other...not the requirement. We fulfilled that in our own way. And we must be always cognisant of the fact that not everyone feels the need to worship as most do in the traditional organized fashion. That does not make them any less in the eyes of whatever God or deity they do worship, in their own way.

Bottom line, we should not be forcing members of our BSA fellowship, young or old, to attend and worship as we might. Ours may be the position to encourage, but it is also the position and responsibility to seek understanding or the ways of others, so that we do not tread unnecessarily on their traditions and beliefs.

The Dad in the initial post identified himself as not being aethiest, just anti-religion. That statement, while perhaps true, may be a little strong. Perhaps he, as do I, has his own way and tradition, and feels not the need, as do I. Perhaps those words were spoken in anger, as were some of yours?

Peace.

Well, I guess the kids I've worked with over the years didn't fit the BSA statistical mold. Sure, we had kids reaching First Class by first years end, but we didn't preach it, and we didn't make it our most important goal. Practically all of our boys made first class by the middle of or end of the second year. And we hardly ever lost a Scout. Our program was pretty impressive, IMHO, and it kept the boys coming back for more, but of course, I'm a little prejudice there. :-)

I may be wrong on this, but it was my understanding that the new policy on merit badge counselors required that names, addresses, and other pertinent information for each and every merit badge counselor be sent to the Council offices both for record, and for distribution to the districts. The districts could then use this information for keeping their lists current and active. It was also my understanding that merit badge counselors could, at their own request and instructions, be listed as "district" counselors, or strictly "troop" counselors (their own troop).

Do I have this correct?

Bob said...

The BSA doesn't say a boy who can't self administer is on his own. They are saying to parents that if your son cannot self administrate,. the leader is not required to, YOU should go camping to help meet the medical needs of your child.

Ed said...

Requiring a parent to go on camping trips just because their son needs his medication could be punishment for both the parent & child. It could also be detrimental to the Troop.

I think we need to make a distinction here between levels and types of medication, and perhaps talk about self-adminstration.

At the beginning of each year, we would ask parents, as part of the "get to know you and your son" process, to tell us everything we needed to know about any medical problems their son might have. Self-administration of medication was always a part of this conversation. Could the boy take the medication by himself? Would he remember when it was time? With adult leaders holding on to the medication, the time issue would, hopefully, always be taken care of, for the adults would see to it that the boy had his medication "on-time". Of course, there still is one heck of a large responsibility placed squarely on the shoulders of the leader just by virtue of that task. The type of medication was even more of an issue. Was it pills that the boy could swallow without trouble? Was it some form of liquid medication requiring measurement? Or, in the worst case, was it some form of injection?

With pills, we would ascertain from Mom & Dad that the boy could take them himself and knew when to take them. We'd work with the boy using this knowledge. With liquid, we could do the same, but liquid medications required careful measurement and then cleaning of the implements used. Still, leaders could handle this, if they felt comfortable with it, and the parents were not required to come. They would, however, be encouraged. With injections, there was never any question. Mom or Dad would be required to go on the trip or outing, unless within the troop, and within the adult leader corp attending the function, there was an doctor, registered nurse, or paramedic professional who could, and would, take that responsibility with written and signed permission of the parents. In other words, the level of type of medication required can force the issue for parents attending and participating. Parents should be taking an active interest in their sons participation in Scouting right from the start, (or so we hope). But beyond parental interest in a sons life, parental participation should be, and must be, commensurate with the needs of the boy, and the boys capacity for taking things into his own hands. Scout leaders don't volunteer to be doctors, and we should not jeopardize ourselves by taking responsibilities that we aren't qualified for. Certain medication types and routines fall into this category.

As to summer camps, I think that most, if not all, summer camps in our area have at the least, a nurse on staff full-time, and sometimes a doctor. That pretty much takes care of the issue in that venue.

As a side note to the medication issue, in my time in Scouting, I've seen a marked increase in medications that must be kept with the scout at all times; i.e. inhalors and epi-pen injectors. In cases where these items are known to the Scout leaders, we can't take them and store them, neither can any medical staff. These may be life saving items. In those cases, we can do one of two things. We can require a parents attendance, or we can require that the parent sign a statement to the effect that the child knows how, where, and when to use the item. That may satisfy the sadly necessary legal issues. But still, vigilance on the part of adults in the area, who know the circumstances, can't be replaced.

Simple things like some pills can be handled fairly comfortably. But with all the variety of medications that we are all faced with these days, leaders may be increasingly faced with types that are beyond them, and parents may just need to face up to being more active with their sons in Scouting.

I have never been a fan of door to door sales. Neither were any of the adult leaders or other parents in the troop. So...we never did door to door sales. We did, at one time, do candy sales outside places like supermarkets, post office, banks, etc. But never popcorn. We always sold candy. We had the benefit of having Scouts who knew how to make the long, sad face that seemed to say, "Please help us...we're homeless!" Quite amusing to watch, and we did sell a lot of candy, and we did generate a lot of donations.

But, as time went by, we sought other methods of generating funds for the troop that did not involve sales. The town we're in has all too many sales of this sort, for youth sports, Girl Scout cookies (and nobody can compete with them...), church groups, schools, etc. Eventually, as with OGE, we began to settle on service oriented affairs, where no product was sold, manpower was expended (by all - equal opportunity), and service was provided. One event of growing popularity in the area was, and still is, Christmas tree collection after the holidays. The troop collects the trees with trucks and trailers (all donated, by the way), for a mere $5.00 each, and takes them to the local dump where a local tree and landscape company donates manpower and equipment to turn the trees into chips with their machines. That project by itself funds the troop operation and basic needs for the whole year and then some. And it's a service, all volunteer, all profit. All the time and gas and mileage, etc., is donated.

Selling is fine for many, and I wouldn't try to change that. But for those who choose a different road, there's plenty of options out there. And we've heard the argument that the popcorn sales also fund the Council, and our service projects don't. Well, we make our donations to the Council. Every year the troop committee reviews the income after the events, and decides upon a reasonable figure that doesn't hurt the troop needs and program, and that money goes to the Council. It may not be as much as the Council might think they would have gotten on popcorn sales, but the way we look at it, we wouldn't sell popcorn because we don't do sales. And 30% of nothing is still nothing, which is what the council would have gotten. A percentage of our take on service projects is quite a bit better than that.

In other words, I have no idea....but the above makes as much sense as reality most likely.:-)

The art of setting boundaries (gerrymandering) is an ancient political art form still practiced by both the United States Congress, and the House and Senate of each individual state. The object of this practice, is to avoid, at all costs, any logic or sense of continuity. None, on the face of this planet, have mastered the practice better than those who count themselves among the legislators of this great country. The traditions, though, are passed down from those great halls to countless agencies and organizations throughout the country, and the BSA has made the practice of the art a fascinating study, with the opportunities that abound across the nation for Council and District creation. The Great Scouters in the halls of the BSA in the great state of Texas exercise their power of creation by assigning boundaries to Councils in each state. Some councils are quite small, but very heavily populated. This occurence appears mostly in the zones of the country to which the species Homo Sapien have migrated in flocks, herds, and other great numbers. Other councils will be found to extend over vast territories where few of the two legged species dwell. Their unfortunate circumstance falls as enormous distances which must be travelled to come together in the ancient and honorable ceremonies and feasts that the Scouters in those largely unpopulated areas attend regularly.

While the Great Scouters in the halls of the BSA ply their trade with Council creation, they leave to the creatures dwelling within each council they create, the power and authority to sub-divide those councils into smaller and supposedly more manageable sectors called Districts. As with councils, districts too may cover small isolated areas, or huge barren spaces devoid of all but a few inhabitants.

In each case, the shape and form of the entity (council or district) is desired to encompass as many inhabitants as possible using vague and secret formulas and target numbers. The desired boundary lines are set so as to take strange and foreign shapes, as regularity and logic are to be avoided at all costs (as stated at the outset of the witless thesis). Variety is the spice of life, it is said, and the creators of the boundaries we deal with today have taken that to heart.

le Voyageur

Might not this also be a simple case of name recognition? Red Cross and YMCA have a better name recognition out there in the great American public. They've been doing the Lifeguard thing publicly for quite a while. The BSA has been doing it for quite a while, too, but my sense is that we haven't been doing it as publicly. Perhaps within the framework of any proposed change to the program, a greater exposure to the public eye of just what the BSA Lifeguard program entails might do wonders for public and private acceptance of the certification?

Rooster,

So, we are to assume that a pedophile priest is a heterosexual? If we were going to assume anything about his "orientation", it seems to me it would be he is a homosexual. These guys are molesting boys not girls. Regardless, if my presumption is unfair, your presumption is doubly unfair.

My point, if made badly, I apologize, if made well, then....was to illustrate that painting the gay community by virtue of the wrongs done by a few is not acceptable, just as painting the Catholic Church by virtue of the wrongs done by a few would be wrong. You have already made the choice that being gay is wrong, and that's your right. I have made the assumption that it's no more wrong than being blue.

Which television program was that, the Rosie O'Donnell show (self professed homosexual and champion of liberal causes) or the Diane Sawyer news special (another champion of liberal causes). You don't see the bias in their "reporting"? Alas, maybe I am in a minority, but I see a strong bias by these two.

I thought I made that rather clear. It was, of course the Diane Sawyer special. O'Donnell was only a part of the story. But, your comment here only serves to bolster my supposition stated above that being gay is truly evil and abhorent to you. It would also seem fair to say that you might not believe either one of these folks if they told you the earth was round.(?)

Finding supposed good examples of parents, does not prove anything about the morality of homosexuality.

And there, we're on different pages altogether. For I do not look upon the issue of being gay as one of morality or immorality. Such is life....

And as for the rest of the post, Rooster, it's all too apparent to me that you and I are in very different places on the subject. I won't try to argue my point further with you, for I don't really want to follow the trail that would make this a more of a religious debate than it may have already become. On the religious end, you'd likely carry the day. Your beliefs and convictions as far deeper than mine ever were, or may ever be. I repsect your convictions. But I respect my own more, be they less than yours, or just different. You and I have seen the world through very different glasses. But, such is life. And without that variety, we'd be rather boring. I could say the same about gay vs. straight....but...I won't. :-)

Rooster,

1) Your "100 fold" statement isn't very factual.

You're absolutely correct, it's merely a guess on my part. And that guess is based on the local and national news I read everyday. And that news contains far more crimes against children and adults by heterosexuals than gays. Lately it even contains more crimes against children by priests than by gays. But you right, I have no facts to back up my 100 fold guess.

2) While you and others can point to various case studies and make claims about the homosexual community, only those specific families know what is going on in their own homes. We can only guess.

I didn't point to any studies, and I can't remember their names. I only said that certain studies were referred to in the program to support the position that children growing up in a home where the parental adults are gay do not show a propensity for becoming gay themselves. Personally, I don't find that to be an unreasonable assumption. If it is backed up by facts from studies, fine.

3) If every example provided was conclusive evidence regarding a particular person or trait, then nearly all things can be proven as good or bad (depending one's perspective). As TJ would surely point out, all of morality becomes relative.

You lost me there...huh?

4) The debate is not about parenting skills; it's about the morality of being homosexual. While I will not make graphic statements about homosexuals (as Dedicated Dad so aptly did), I do encourage you to think about their behavior. Do you really believe this what God wants?

I'm not the same God-fearing individual that you are. And I respect you for who and what you appear to be. I also expect that you will respect me for the same. We'll leave the other guy out of this, as he's history.

And I do think about behavior and gays. And my wife and I have known quite a few, personally and professionally. We've never known any to take the path of attempting to raise children, but that does not take away from our collective respect for those who do. I'll leave God out of this discussion, for he does not "tell" me that this behavior is right or wrong. He and I have a relationship that goes back a long way, and culminated with some rather heated discussions as I lay in the jungle just north of LZ English. There's a mutual respect there, but we still don't totally agree on things. Maybe we never will. As to your question about what God wants, I'd rather hear from you what you think God wants for the kids who lie dying and orphaned from HIV of their heterosexual parents designs, or all the others for whom heterosexual parents can't or won't appear. Do we just leave them? Were there sufficient heterosexual adults willing to take these children and raise them, there would be no orphanages, or foster children. I'd rather that some willing and able adult take them and raise them. I don't fear the gay community as do some, perhaps yourself included. But that aside, what would you do for these kids? Our God leaves us to our own devices to solve the problem. He will not provide parents, only we will.

5) I don't place much stock in the opinion of Rosie O'Donnell. Nice face. Nice personality. Can't say too much about her beyond that. I know she doesn't claim to be a journalist so I guess we shouldn't judge her by that standard. Know this though: She invited Tom Selleck to be a celebrity guest on her show and then attacked him on the air for being a member of the NRA. I never heard her apologize for that so I must assume she feels pretty righteous about her causes. Would it be assuming too much to think she views homosexual rights as one of her causes?

I don't have much respect for her as an entertainer. Never have. But I won't sit in judgement of her personal life other than to say that her lifestyle is not mine. But her apparent concern for children is one I would share.

6) I don't place much stock in Diane Sawyer as a journalist. She has all the appearances of being impartial (initially), but she will never ask the tough follow up question unless she's interviewing a conservative. How many examples of child molestation was she able to provide in this story? Maybe, zero. I guess that doesn't happen with homosexual couples? All of their motives are pure, right? How many Scouters really believe that is reflective of the reality? If God asked you to make sure a particular child was given a loving and protective home, would you place that child in the care of two homosexuals? Afterwards, would you ask God to search your heart and judge you on your efforts?

I would refer you to my query above. What would you propose for all the children without parents otherwise? Did Diane Sawyer provide examples of child molestation in this story? I really can't remember, but I think it was discussed. I also think that for every example of child molestation one could dig up where a member of the gay community was held accountable, one would be able to find two where a heterosexual pervert was held accountable. The news is sadly full of those stories...witness the terrible news from Texas recently. There was no homosexuality in that house that we know of, yet the deeds were horrible. Are the motives of the folks interviewed in the story pure? I'd be more than willing to bet they are. If God asked me to make sure a particular child was given a loving and protective home, would I place that child in the care of two homosexuals? If the only people to come forward were gay and had the interest and desire and wherewithall to do the job? Yes. If there were heterosexual candidates? I don't know. I can't say for sure. But I'd be more than willing to review the qualifications of all of them, regardless of sexual preference. Afterwards, would I ask God to search my heart and judge me on my efforts? No. I wouldn't look for his blessings or a pat on the back. I'd know whether or not I did my level best for the children.

OGE

My Question is, does anybody know if there has been a study on the sexual orientation of the children of gay couples? And next, depending on the outcome would that prove/disprove the inborn trait/consious choice argument?

Did you have a chance to watch the entire show with Rosie O'Donnell, et al? During that show, the couple you refer to was interviewed, as were the children they've adopted (outside of Florida) and the foster care children they have, including the one the state is trying to take away. A couple of "experts" interviewed during that program stated quite unequivocally, that studies they were aware of showed that children of gay couples showed no overwhelming propensity for growing up gay. If I remember correctly, the studies they referred to showed that only 5%, or so, of the children studied went on to a gay lifestyle. The others grew up heterosexual.

Diane Sawyer was quite good, I thought, in her fairly intense questioning. When this subject was discussed, she repeatedly beat the trail to the "wouldn't children of gay parents have a greater likelyhood of growing up gay?" question. The answer seemed to bear out the results of the studies. One might suppose that there are studies out there that may say just the opposite, but they were not presented. So, the answer to your second question may be a big....dunno??

One interesting point that was made by Rosie O'Donnell was when she said, "I grew up in a heterosexual family. My parents were heterosexual." That may attend more to your second question, but perhaps not. Until this day and age, few children have grown up in a gay family, at least, few that we know of. Back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, we didn't really discuss this stuff, so who knew? Now it's in the papers and in our faces daily. Gay parents can't have children of their own (without outside help), so a major factor that would seem to lead to a child growing up gay would be the environment. Genes from the parents would not play a part, right? In a heterosexual relationship, genes may very well play a part, and the environment would seem to play a very different part. Follow me? Does that make the case for learned vs. inherited? Who knows? I don't.

I will say this one thing, though. I have long stood for the BSA and it's freedom of association and choice. And unless some bonehead does something to make the BSA stance more than that, I probably always will. But on the other hand, the gay parents issue, I will side with the gay parents. (This probably makes me a target and more of a hypocrite than I think I am.) Why will I stand there. Probably only for one reason...the children.

I think of the number of children out there in foster care or institutions, for whom parents aren't there. I think of the number of HIV positive children out there who had no choice in their condition and future. Then I think of all the adults across this country, even many within the BSA, who would not do what these two gentlemen in Florida are doing. They're giving these kids a home that seems loving, nuturing, and one full of hope for the future. Lord knows, I don't know if I'd have the strength of character to do that. So I give them a huge amount of credit. Without adults like that, straight or gay, what would become of the children? I fear the answer to that question. I'd rather the answer be that any adult, gay or straight, willing to take on the roll of loving, nuturing, and raising a child who might otherwise fall between the systems and societies cracks, be congratulated for their efforts and choice in that matter, but I know better. A lot of us don't think that way. While this may disqualify the adult for service in the BSA, I would hope that it does not disqualify the child by itself. If it did, I would walk, and very quickly change sides. Were the child to declare a gay lifestyle at some point down the road, well, I don't know.....that's a difficult question for me, it seems, and I know that seems at odds with my support of the BSA. But on this one, I seem to be finding myself more on the side of having every child live in a home that can provide for them, love them, nuture them, and raise them to adulthood as valuable members of society. Without parents, straight or gay, that isn't going to happen for a lot of kids.

I know this will be heresy, here, but kids don't need scouting. It's not a required life experience, as valuable as we all know the program is, it's not a required endeavor like school, church, and family. Kids can add greatly to their life experience and future by the adventure of Scouting, but they can also do just fine without it. If parentless and sick children can only be given a chance at a future by those that the BSA rules prohibit as members and leaders, then I'd side against the state of Florida, with the gay parents, but still, for the moment, with the BSA and the program they maintain, and rules they set.

Inborn trait or consious choice, I think the issue isn't one the BSA should attend to, unless the BSA is prepared to help all the orphans and foster children, healthy or sick, across the country, find loving parents and homes. The goals we share as Scouters all include seeing each succeeding generation become the best they can be as they grow, and as adults. If we share part of that experience with young men as Scouts, we do our part. But we should not, as as adults, leaders, an organization, or just plain good folks, seek to stymie the efforts of those our organization excludes, to help other children reach the same goals. In many discussions here, and elsewhere, there appears the notion that the gay lifestyle is inherently evil. My own take is that, while there are bad examples out there, there are probably 100 fold heterosexual bad examples for every gay bad example. We don't discuss those, do we? There are far too many heterosexual adults having kids that end up in foster homes or orphanages or wandering the streets. Gay parents don't create these kids. So if gay adults, like the two gentlemen in Florida, want to spend their lives raising and caring for those children cast off by their heterosexual parents, then I'd say let it be so.

Anyone care to take a stab at a comparison between the various programs (YMCA, Red Cross, BSA, and others)? I'm no expert in the area, and would be quite interested in how the BSA program stacks up against the others. Where do the others surpass the BSA, if at all? Where does BSA do a better job? Etc?

I don't know of any BSA prohibitions on serving in both capacities. In fact, I know two gentlemen here in Massachusetts who do just that. They're both retired, though, and have ample time to devote to the needs of the positions. As FScouter indicated, it's a whole lot of work to commit yourself to , even if you're blessed with a multitude of others willing to serve as Assistants to you.

Good Luck, but be sure of how much you're biting off, here.

The lack of individual testing at your summer camp is less a comment on the valitity of the BSA merit badge methods and more a question of the quality of instruction allowed at your summer camp. Remember there are hundreds of summer camps in the country and most follow these rules without any problem.

I do not doubt that there are summer camps out there that have sufficient staffing to provide the individual attention necessary during merit badge sessions, and testing. I've seen at least 3 that would qualify. But I also know, from personal experience, having visited 27 summer camps in my years in Scouting, that the staff available is more often than not, insufficient to do justice, as defined by individual attention, to the needs of the badge. It's not just "my" summer camp.

"The problem with group instruction is that it often leads to group testing and evaluation. The Advancement Policies states specifically that all testing is to be done on an individual basis."

One wonders how this can be, in light of the standard "group" merit badge instruction associated with just about every BSA Council Summer Camp? I would agree that individual testing is best, but would also argue that individual testing at summer camps, while desirable, is not reality.

LongHaul,

Do you have a direct link to information that would support the statement that BSA policy says that earning Eagle required merit badges within the troop is NOT encouraged? I did a quick websearch and only found a reference by the following statement:

"Working with a merit badge counselor gives Scouts contact with an adult with whom they might not be acquainted. This is a valuable experience. The Scouts could be shy and fearful in this new situation, so the counselor must see that the counseling session is relaxed, informal, and friendly."

That statement would indicate that merit badges can be earned within the troop, for the counselor may be someone in the troop that the Scout does not know. I couldn't find anything specific to encouraging Eagle required badges to be earned outside the troop. Anyone else have that information?

There are a lot of services like that out there, but I don't have one with me. They're referred to as "Scouts Own" services, and can be found on the web quite easily by using those keywords in any good search engine.

Here's a link to one:

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

I'll second Bob's last post. The goal is not to fill each and every position available to the Scouts...especially in small troops. Small troop, and all troops for that matter, should focus on the positions that are quite necessary for the running of the troop. Bugler, Historian, and Librarian are not quite as important as SPL, ASPL, and PL. If the troop gains sufficient numbers to man all the positions, that's wonderful. Otherwise, focus on those that are necessary, and the number of Scout available to fill them. Let the others go until numbers and experience are available for them. Doubling up on positions is something I've seen, but I discourage. The Scout should focus on the needs of his one and only position, even if it's seen as a no-brainer. Doing the one job very well is better than doing two at less than 100%.

I'd have to agree with the others. Don't do it.

We don't even assign ASMs to "active" duty with patrols...any patrols...not even new patrols. We're blessed with quite a few Scouts, and our retention of older Scouts is good. Our SPL has 5 ASPLs, and 8 Troop Guides. The Troop uses the Troop Guide position as "older Scout mentors" for each and every Patrol Leader and the New Scout Patrol. Boys leading boys. There is one ASM who is asked to keep an eye on the New Scout patrol, but from a distance so the Scouts can perform the duties of their positions. Adding Dad's to the mix only drags along the notion of still being in Cubs. In Scouts, it's boys leading boys, and adults watching...if the adults have done their job right in mentoring and teaching.

As for A & B, these things are going to happen all the time, especially with new scouts entering the troop yearly, and others not yet being quite up to snuff on procedures. Having witnessed these things myself, I've simply asked the nearest Scout to find the SPL and ask him to see me. Then I'd explain what I had seen, and ask him what he thought should be done, and if I agreed with his assessment, I'd ask him to see that things were fixed, and that the guilty parties be shown the correct ways of doing things, so that they might not do it again, and explanations be made regarding sanitation and care of gear. And, I'd always remind the SPL that if any of the things he needed to do were beyond his ability to do so, (like a thorough explanation of sanitation and cleaning), then he was to seek out resources (SM, ASM's, JASM, etc) to help him get things done correctly. (This was part of my methodology for attending to knowing ones resources, and knowing ones limits.)

As to the sleepy Scout....haven't seen that one, so I can't comment. All the SPL's I've ever dealt with had fairly efficient and reasonable methods of getting the troop up and rady by the time necessary.

The only time I've ever "appointed" and SPL was when I was asked to serve as SM for a troop other than my own to try to help save the troop from an oncoming demise. Circumstances, that I will not go into, left a troop in a nearby town with little but first and second year Scouts, and their parents. Some of the parents had gone to training, but none were ready to "jump-in" and follow the trail alone. I was asked to help. So, along with two other volunteer adult leaders from my own troop, and two older Scouts from our troop, we jumped in feet first to get them back on their feet. At the first meeting we went to, there were 15 Scouts in the troop, we surveyed the talent and level of experience for the troop, and I made a decision to provide the example the Scouts needed by "appointing" one of my own Scouts as SPL, and the other as ASPL. Then, we went to work. Each meeting was spent teaching by example, and by the end of three months, my own adult leaders and Scouts, and the adults from the other troop met and decided that some of the young second year Scouts were now ready to take the reigns. We held elections and my Scouts ceremoniously returned control to the Scouts who would now lead their own troop. I only served with that troop for another 6 months, by which time there were two adults there who felt confident enough to take the SM and CC positions. They've been just fine ever since.

Point was, and is, in an extreme situation where no experience or example exists, a temporary appointment of a Scout with good experience to the SPL position can provide the example to follow.

Boy...I'm glad I'm not in troops where you guys are. There seems to be an awful lot of attendance to the "nobility" of the SM...and the sacrifices made by the SM....what about the "nobility", and "sacrifices" made by the young man who has worked hard to get to the point he's at? What about a little respect for the Scout that has all but made it? Or, is that respect only earned at the point of a pair of scissors? How sad that some feel that way.

Just what does any of that have to do with the Scout and his long hair? Please...tell me. Are you saying that although the Scout is admirable and well deserving of the Eagle, he does not respect his SM because he does not get his hair cut? Are you saying that the SM's desires and edicts are more relevant and deserving of attention than the boys principles, and the admiration of his parents for who he is, regardless of long hair, short hair, blad head? Are you saying that the Scout is that boy who has all the characteristics of the Eagle, and should have it, but without the hair? I don't believe I've seen that in any BSA publications, nor have I seen anything that would indicate that the BSA believes that a boy with long hair is less deserving of an Eagle than a boy with short hair. As to the Scout getting the haircut because it's "the right thing to do", well, that's all personal taste, and nothing more.

"Whether or not you get a haircut is your choice. But ask yourself some questions before you refuse. Is my Scoutmaster more than just an acquaintance with a title? Has he truly been a mentor? What kind of friend has he been? Do I want to have a relationship with my Scoutmaster that I can look back on fondly?"

Geez Rooster, talk about laying it on thick. How about a little undue pressure on the kid, huh? It's hair for pete's sake. If you really love me...if you really respect me...you'll get your hair cut! Wow! You're all but saying that if the Scout does not get his hair cut, then none of his Scouting experience counts for anything. He's lost it all and the respect of his SM, because he wouldn't get his hair cut. I'm aghast that anyone could propose such a choice to an Eagle candidate.