John-in-KC

No, Kaji, please do not take my message wrong there. First, the YOUNGEST CUB EVER to earn the old Lion rank is pushing 50... very, very hard!!! Second, I was pointing the irony of "the more things change, the more they stay the same." MY ISSUE: Does National really think stretching the envelope down to 6 year olds will solve the problem? We've all but abandoned the Tiger concept of 1/1 direct involvement. TOO MANY PARENTS WANT BABY-SITTERS OF AMERICA, not another activity demanding their time working with their child While we are at it, I for one, would love to see us go back to the Bobcat pin vice the rank patch!!! (I am, though, just one Scouter).

Eamonn, Here are my points, in question form: $1M + expenses on the Council budget breaks down into gross expense per youth member of $239. Is that a true statement? I counter to you that my Council is using a gross expense per youth member for 2006 of $160 per member. There's a delta between your Council and mine. For someone on a Council Executive Board, a per youth number that's out of line with other Councils of similar size Nationwide is call for some questions. That said, do your Council revenues rely on 3d parties (Community FOS, golf tournaments, planned giving, and Popcorn) or are you looking at the Family FOS campaign to bear the burden? To newbie Den Leader: At the Council level, Scouting is a business as well as a movement. Properly, it should be a non-profit business, with revenues not to exceed actual expenses. There are people you will never see who add $$$ to the expense per youth member in your council: Let's start with the full-time ranger, assistant ranger (if on staff), and maintenance staff at your council scout camp. They are Council-wide expenses. The Council Registrar, the receptionist/secretary, the Scout Shop manager (if your shop is local vice a National supply corp shop) all have to be paid by someone. Fair wear and tear on Council properties has to be planned for, as does life cycle replacement of durable goods. These are what comprise that $120-$239 per year we're talking about here. In my Council, 46% of the annual budget comes from event fees, 25% or so from Community (business) FOS, 15-20% from United Way, and the remainder (14%) from family FOS. $10 annual registration and $12 for Boys Life are in and out enroute to Texas.

Thanks for the input/feedback ... John

Your personal integrity can never be open to negotiation. Once it is, the game is over. You did the right thing.

Kahuna, I know a Repbulican Eagle Scout Congresscritter (Sam Graves, MO-6) who may lose my vote if he just simply rolls over on line item veto legislation, instead of advocating an Amendment. Ditto the Republican Junior Senator from Missouri, Jim Talent. I've already shot them email, as well as one to the Senior Senator, Kit Bond. Since he's on the long cycle to re-election I didn't say this was a gut-check issue for my vote though. I don't expect those I vote fore to fall on their swords on major issues; I do expect them to fight the good fight.

Dan, Concur. That's why I said in my first post in this thread: You have the ability to discuss, program officer to program officer, the PERCEPTIONS of the youth as reported to you. You can make crystal clear your expectations of adult conduct. Cross-communication, effective listening, and feedback are essential. Lisa'bob's comments above are appropo as well. This unit has done things right in the past, and quite possibly is even now, but the youth saw something ... and they reported. My3sons220 has the chance to ask the right questions and listen. If she doesn't hear the right answers, she, more than many parents, is in a good position to be an agent of change. Based on the "no drinking" mandate of BSA, she would be within rights to report a possible incident to the Scout Executive ... and let the chips fall where they may. You and I both know SE's are rather disinclined to risk the Scouting brand name and program. I thought asking her to go one on one as a fellow program officer was a fairly moderate solution

Lynda, It depends. As LongHaul said, Venturers who are young ladies may not use the Boy Scout rank advancement system. Period. Venturers who are young men and who joined before achieving the rank of First Class Scout may not use the Boy Scout rank advancement system in the Crew. Venturers who are young men, who joined after reaching the rank of First Class, AND who are not yet 18 years old may use the Boy Scout rank advancement system. Of course, there is still the small matter of what Crew Members have decided for themselves on advancement. If the Crew decides: Boy Scout work in a Troop, Venturer work in a Crew, that's their call.

fotoscout, That's why I advocate talking with the Chartered Partner and the professional staff even as our Cubmaster lays down the law with the Scoutmaster. Drinking at a BSA youth event is just not acceptable. There is NO WIGGLE ROOM on this. As a Commissioner I know says: This is a time for declarative sentences in one or two syllable words: "If grown-up leaders drink on Scout trips, I will keep my Cubs from your Troop. Do you understand this?"

Kahuna, I used Jamboree support as a working example. I'm not necessarily against this; I want it fully debated in the public square before we trade so much power between the branches of government. To me, that means amending the Constitution.

From the Guide to Safe Scouting: The Boy Scouts of America prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members. As always, boldface in the Guide is BSA policy. If there was booze, you have another lever: "If I hear of leaders using alcohol in the field again; then I will schedule a meeting with our Council Scout Executive." Let us know how this turns out.

Lots of good advice here. Short Version: As Cubmaster, you have the ability to take this Troop out of play for your Pack if need be. The Long Version: You have an advantage: You're the Cubmaster. YOU are responsible for the Pack's program. You can set ground rules. You have the ability to discuss, program officer to program officer, the PERCEPTIONS of the youth as reported to you. You can make crystal clear your expectations of adult conduct. If the adult leaders in the troop persist in a bad impression to youth, you can tell the Webelos Den Leader: DO NOT VISIT TROOP xxxx under any circumstances. You can also tell Webelos II parents "I believe the adult leadership of Troop xxxx fails to meet the standards set in the "Adult Association" method of Scouting. I strongly recommend you do not send your youth to Troop xxxx." I think the Troops Chartered Partner would be very interested in hearing that you had closed the door to support from, or graduation to, that troop. I think your own Chartered Partner would be very interested in why you "shut out" a Troop ... especially when you report a perception of inappropriate adult behavior when in the field. As an aside, wasn't inappropriate "adult association" risking unsafe scouting the real gut-check we were getting to the sod-surfing thread?

This is the dupe, believe it or not. Long story.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

Do not get me wrong. I have now dropped over $1K into my sons' skills with the tuba. I hope some of that will come back in some form of collegiate support ... especially if he chooses a smaller school that doesn't have a full music conservatory. At the same time, tonight I drive him for another one of his Eagle Leadership Service Project performances ... he's interested in Barbershop quartets, he's providing music as part of the recreational therapy plan to patients at an area pediatrics service and at two VA hospitals. He's about 1/3 done, and is working down his last MB. We're looking at EBOR before the end of summer Scouting helped him with music, and music is helping him with Scouting. As I look at Merlyn's data, and our own anecdotal experiences, I think National needs to re-look three items: - The educational skills gained in the Cubbing program. - The amount of parental participation needed in the Cubbing program (imo more not less) - Some of the vestiges of older camping techniques in the Boy Scout program. We got rid of semaphore signals long ago. In the LNT era, why do we teach so much lashing/pioneering? Maybe we need to migrate more to climbing/rappeling. - Re-evaluating essential life skills in the Eagle requirement set. I for one would love to see Cooking return to mandatory status. I for one would love to see the appropriate religious award be a required part of the trail to Eagle. As to the politics of the United Way, let's cut the strings. Cut them from government, cut them from the United Way. Go to the visibility and exposure required in financial disclosure by various evangelical Christian churches, and go for a coalition of church and civic groups. I think if Mr Williams were to name names of specific United Ways which suppress our freedom of speech and freedom to worship, then there would be some back-spilt blood. Listening to NPR recently, suddenly the pro-Palestine folk are sorta embarrassed about having Hammas as the folks governing the Palestinian Authority. What's the last line of that old song? "... all other ground is sinking sand?" If ethics are not based in bedrock, they're based in sand.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

Take Lisa's words. Apply them to central Flyover Country. The issue, when I talk to parents, is MONEY. You do not know how many 6th, 7th, and 8th grade parents I know who are banking on full ride athletic scholarships for their children. Scouting doesn't generate full-ride $$$. It falls below their cut-line in terms of perceived value added. I think way too many of these parents are due for big disappointments. I further think they are short-sighted in parenting their children. The ratio of college athletic scholarships to graduating HS athletes most certainly is not 1:1. The "whole person" is socially, ethically, and academically, and last athletically well rounded.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

Scouters, I think over the past months most who know me at here know Im a conservative, Christian, most of the time Republican. I actively believe in God and Christ's saving work, BSA, America's youth, and our Constitution. Tonight, I write this because I believe both the President and several senior Members of Congress are off in left field. Today, listening to All Things Considered on NPR, I heard a news blivet where President Bush wants a line item veto. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5246868 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5247305 You can use google news to find more as well. Now, weve been there before. I know President Reagan asked for this authority, and President Clinton was the first to actually be granted it by the Congress. The US Supreme Court, however, found a line item veto unconstitutional. As an irony, Senator Kerry is the one introducing the legislation into the Congress. To me, Congress passing a line item veto is Congress surrendering part of the Constitutional separation of powers. The President has the right to veto but its a big, blunt instrument. It was designed that way deliberately by the Framers. They observed, often first-hand, the consequences of George III with-holding final enactment of legislation. The veto is a CHECK on Congress ability to pass legislation. The BALANCES are the all or nothing aspect of the veto, and the override provisions in Article I. What does this have to do with BSA, you ask? I believe most of us are good citizens, and I believe many of us understand the theory of processes in our Government at least as well as the folks we elect. Suppose Congress, in the DOD and Army appropriations, includes $25 million for support of a National Jamboree. Imagine a future President, not supportive of Scouting, zeroes the line out. He signs a line item veto. ARE YOU CERTAIN BSA has a 2/3 super majority in the House (~292 votes). What about the Senate (67 votes)? In case you have questions, were talking about Article I, Section 7. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html I am against this shift of Constitutional authority without the full process of amending the Constitution. Whether you are or are not, I believe this is an issue worthy of contacting your Representative and Senators: http://www.house.gov/writerep http://www.senate.gov Thank you for reading, and YIS, John

From G2SS: 6 When staying in tents, no youth will stay in the tent of an adult other than his or her parent or guardian. As always, boldface represents BSA policy.

Lisa, In point of fact, with rare exceptions, once a youth (or his parents) decide on sports, and he drops out of ANY Scouting unit for a semester, he's pretty close to gone forever. Thankfully, son's Crew Advisor in his Crew understands his Eagle project, and understands son is off doing chunks of his project on meeting nights

Lisa, Your point is well-taken. The unit hosting the ceremony has responsibility for the agenda. They may or may not also have all the "stuff" that goes with the ceremony. I note in this case the Troop receiving most of the boys held the ceremony at the front end of their campout. That works as well. You are SPOT ON on "keep the adult politics out of delivering program to the youth." BTW, I think I finally have this Scout math figured out: It's 168 minus ANOTHER hour a week. YIS

The short version: Once a Scout or Scouter has completed the Ordeal Ceremony, their membership in the Order depends only upon: - Their being registered youth/adults in a Pack, Troop, Team, or Crew. - Their paying annual dues to their Lodge. Note: So far as I know, a member of a Learning For Life Post Post must have a registration in a Pack, Troop, Team, or Crew to be eligible for retaining Lodge and Order membership. I was a youth member, a long... time ago. When I changed programs from a Troop to (at the time ... 1971) Explorer Post, I retained my status in the Order so long as I paid my dues. When I came back to Scouting, joining my sons' Pack, I rejoined the local Lodge. Bought a new flap and wore it. HTH. ICS, John a Good Old Owl Too Ordeal: Walika 228, 1970 Brotherhood Ceremony: Walika 228, 1971

Ranger Joes, the US Cavalry Store, lots of places sell battle dress. Some of them are to US DoD spec, others are rejects off the line. We wore woodland camouflage for almost 25 years. That a lot of time for it to be accepted as a universal article. Mind you, as my generation went to college (and very few of us found our way to the Armed Forces), Vietnam jungle fatigues were the surplus item of the day. My Dad, a veteran of Japanese PW camps in the Phillipines, the Hell Ships, and the Home Islands, out and out forbade me their wear. It's one of my quirks, especially when I feel the BDU clothing PATTERN, albeit in commercial Khaki color (several police and prison force use this for their uniforms) is in-bounds for tough, abusable, field gear. US Army Natick Labs developed the woodland camouflage scheme, as they did the new ACU scheme, the "chocolate chip cookie" desert BDU scheme, and the current desert BDU scheme. Enough of this I gotta tell my District FOS Chairman that the District Eagle BOR Guest Coordinator and I cut a deal: The FOS guy will be my sons' Eagle guest... bwoooohahahahaha.... I knew doing FOS pitches paid off somehow

OK.... If a youth, Scouter, or units chooses to wear garments with a camouflage pattern commercially available (read Cabela's or Bass Pro) whilst out for an autumn or winter camp, I don't think anyones going to raise an eye. BSA hasn't had cold/wet or cold/dry outdoor apparel for years. The wool coat is the best thing in the inventory, and it only works as an element of a layering system. If, however, you or your youth choose to wear: - The current version of the USMC camouflage combat uniform. - The (now only made for USAF) Battle Dress Uniform. - The Army Combat Uniform AND you're not - a veteran or a retiree of the Armed Forces... - performing a legitimate historic re-enactment I respectfully submit you or your Scouts are conciously committing disrespect upon those who served or are serving. My 27 years of service to this Nation included the PRIVILEGE of wearing the uniforms of the US Army. We're Scouts and Scouters here. While the BSA field uniform is of fabric, fit and finish for Parlor Scouts, it is ok at troop meetings. In the field, by season, appropriate cold/hot and wet/dry clothing combinations are best suited for each camp, hike, or service activity. A Scout is Courteous. Please honor those who served. Thank you.

Two comments. Agree with Semper and the others. Get those last two boys across the bridge. Let them camp and learn as guests of the Troop most of the boys are going. I rather suspect they'll pick up a skill or two that weekend! As to everyone saying "AOL is a Pack Ceremony", "Bridging is a Pack Ceremony", and/or "Bridging is a Troop Ceremony", can you please point these statements out in a BSA publication for me? Last time I checked, who did what, especially in bridging, was SHARED! OTOH, I do know of youth who said goodbye to the pack, waited a few weeks, and then formally said hello to the Troop. I know of NO advancement requirement for the AOL, joining a Troop, or the rank of Scout that says "Participate in a ceremony." Do you?

Duplicate post....(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

Welcome to the forums! Mr RK France gave you a very detailed view of things. If I may, I'll approach this from a different perspective: The Committee Chairman of a Pack, Troop, Team, or Crew (your case, Pack) is the leader of SUPPORT SIDE VOLUNTEERS in the unit. He or she, working with the Chartered Organization Representative makes sure the PROGRAM SIDE VOLUNTEERS (your case: Cubmaster, Den Leaders) have the resources they need, when they need them. Your unit is licensed (chartered) by your local Scout Council to a church, school, civic club, or even business. That entity is the CHARTERED PARTNER. There are two officers who matter in the Chartered Partner: The Executive Officer, or Institutional Head, and the Chartered Organization Representative. Together, they represent the ownership of the unit by the chartered partner. Good communication is always essential in a unit, both in the program volunteers and the support volunteers. There are reasons the Committee Chair can call for the books: One would be that the Chartered Partner mandates an audit of the records. Another could be that it IS tax time, and the Chartered Partner has to account for the units' funds as well (remember the charereing concept). There may be other reasons, as you have implied, since he/she also seems to want to be not only Chairman, but Secretary. Talk to the Chairman. If necessary, talk to the Chartered Organization Representative. Life is lots smoother when we're all pulling as a team to raise our youth. I hope this helps (This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

Considering that the picture of the Chief Scout Executive used in the current Boy Scout Handbook - has Mr Williams wearing the beads - with an open collar shirt - and no neckerchief I am not going to pole vault over mouse turds.