johnponz

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34501.pdf

From page 9 of the "Administration of Commisioner Service","Commissioners must not be registered as unit leaders."(This message has been edited by johnponz)

As far as knots, if you want to wear them and you earned them, you should wear them.

Now the more important aspect of your post, if you are a SM, you cannot be a UC. This is a pretty clear policy. Unit Leaders (which clearly a SM is) cannot serve as a commissioner.

The commissioner role has to be your primary role if you want to do it, and a unit leader just cannot make that happen. The SM position is undoubtedly the most demanding position in Scouting if done correctly. You should have no problem filling up all of your time with the duties of that position.

I am a little shocked that any DC or ADC would even consider allowing you to serve as a UC. The Commissioner Corps main job is to assure the health of the units in their district, council, etc. Allowing a unit leader to serve in a UC position does not accomplish that goal.

On you own personal front, there is plenty of opportunity for burn out in the SM position. Don't push it by doing too much. Welcome back to the fold, and have fun!

BadenP

Assuming your numbers are correct which I doubt (anyone can pull numbers from the air). When you are talking about cost per unit (and manufacturing cost at that) $5 extra is quite a bit. Assuming that the BSA sells 1 million units that equates to $5 million (quite a nice hunk of change). In today's climate even a few cents can lose a contract for a supplier.

You assume that the BSA uses sweat shops. How do you know this? Have you visited the factories that they use? Sounds like you are assuming facts not in evidence. we are living in a global economy and that is not going to change, and there are reputable suppliers based in otehr countries. It sounds like you are the one who may need to get his feet planted on terra firma. I certainly do not go around quaoting numbers without a basis in fact.

The story that I told about my former SM is the reason that I feel like I do about the BSA uniform, but I really do not care that it is made overseas for a lower price.

Here is the rest of the story...

When I was a youth, I was heavily involved in Scouting, and like many other people my biggest role model was a jewel of a Scouter who dedicated much of his life to the troop. He of course was my Scoutmaster, and he was a truly inspiring person. I could go on and on, but I won't as it is way off topic. He was not much for Council or District types of Scouting as he thought there was too much politics and "it wasn't about the boys." (althoguh now I am a District Scouter-but I was always more into that side of Scouting). He was woodbadge trained though and was very proud of that (a beaver).

In any case, he always said that if you do not wear the complete uniform, you should wear no uniform and just go with a T-shirt and jeans. That statement really struck home with me, and I have carried it with me into my Scouter "career."

So this attitude is really a giant nod to my biggest role model in Scouting, and I feel a duty to share that sentiment.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I like all of the current CU pieces. The fact that you have a choice especially with regard to the shorts and pants is great.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

By the way, now that BSA offers nylon zip-offs (like the ones in your chart), there is no reason not to buy the official product. By the way the other products are not even allowed to be worn according to the insignia guide.

The official BSA uniform is the only one authorized, and troops are not allowed to change the uniform in any way. It is our duty as Scouters to comply with these guidelines, and especially when it involves Laws of the land as I mentioned above.

Again, Scouts should not be wearing anything called "Battle Dress Uniforms."

By the way, there were no discussion boards back then, but back in the '70s when I started in Scouting (as a Scout-'76 or so). We all disliked the uniform because we thought they looked like pajamas (and pretty much felt like the summer cotton pajamas kids wear), and were paper thin (even though they were made in the US). They wore through very easily and were less durable then today). The more things change the more they stay the same. Scouters will always complain about the uniforms.

In the '80s when the new uniforms were introduced, it was a vast improvement. although people still complained.

I believe the design sort of lost its way, but am confident in the future based on the canvas shorts that I just bought.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

These are my personal observations:

1. I have been involved in Scouting since the '70s, and I have always found that BSA has high quality merchandise, and they stand behind it with a no questions asked guarantee.

2. I really do not believe that prices are that high considering the high quality of the merchandise.

3. This is the true red-herring argument. Good luck trying to buy all of your appeal from US manufacturers. Go to any store, and the majority of the merchandise is from overseas. It is the reality of living in a global economy. The clock will not go backwards. This point is especially laughable in light of point 1 and 2. It is true that you can buy high quality US merchandise, but oh boy will you pay a premium. US workers are expensive especially US union employees. Finally, there is no guarantee of quality using US manufacturers. It is patriotic yes.

4.Sizing is always an issue with a customer population the size of the BSA. Get your uniforms tailored if this is an issue (first I saw it in this thread)

5. The uniforms that I use and the ones that my son uses are quite durable. I do not see the issue here.

My advice is to wear the official uniform as delineated in the insignia guide. You cannot go wrong that way.

You are all missing the point. It is not BSA that is prohibited from designing the uniforms to look a little bit like the military. Rather it is individual Scouts and Scouters that are prohibited from modifying the uniform so that it looks more military than what is intended.

I believe a poster above mentioned this, but the conversation continues ignoring the comment.

Really, everyone should wear the official uniform (no matter where it is made).

It is not that hard, and you cannot go wrong that way.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Boy did you come to the wrong place to get such a simple question answered. I am going to save you a lot of trouble and give you the likely answers you will get here:

1. Ask the SPL (unless the poster is one of the Scouters who believes in the "real" patrol method in which case the answer is ask the PL)

2. Ask the Unit Leader

3. Teach the Scout to sew it on

Here is my answer. The insignia guide says that rank badges should be sewn on. That being said, you can do what you think is best. If it was me, I would sew them on, but everyone is not as meticulous about uniforming as I am.

If you want, you can use this as a teaching opportunity to teach your son to "be prepared" in the field if there is a situation that he needs to sew by teaching him how to sew the patch. If you do not want to teach him, do it yourself or buy the patch holder. The choice is really yours. At the minimum, I would make him buy the patch holder, but that is only me.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

By the way (it is a little off topic), I just received my new canvas uniform shorts that the BSA just released. These are actually really nice. I do not know why they did not release these as the official shorts in the first place.

The location where something is made does not really indicate quality. Quality usually comes from the specs that the customer (in this case BSA) is providing. I believe the polyester/Wool uniforms are also made in Asia but have very high quality (you do pay for that).

It is pretty much good ole USA arrogance to believe that things made here are necessarily higher quality. It is understandable that some may choose to "buy American" to support local jobs and the like. Be aware this does not mean an increase to quality.

You do not have to reinvent the wheel here. National has done the work for you. I suggest that you use the Journey to Excellence program. If you achieve silver you are doing pretty good. If you acheive gold you are doing really good.

You can also use the Unit Self Assessment form to help you in your journey.

You are correct.

I guess it is the term BDU (which is clearly a military term) that bothers me more than anyting. It implies that Scouts are going to a battle.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I really do not understand why people continue to use a term such as "uniform police" which has negative connotations. Any Scouter or Scout should feel free to approach another brother and point out to him/her that their uniform is incorrect and needs adjustment. It is up to the recipient to comply or not, but one should not feel bad about pointing the issue out.

Secondly, while I wear a complete uniform if I am wearing a uniform, I do not much care if others choose not to.

Finally, the military style uniform is one that is specifically banned by law, so I think it is appropriate to point that out. Believe it or not, and it is well documented, a Scouter had his membership revoked by a SE in Alabama for refusing to change his military style pants at a camporee.

This is not your typical uniform issue, but one that some councils and National take seriously.

Do what you want. I just want to make sure that you are educated on the facts.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Military style BDU pants are actually not allowed by the BSA charter. The BSA is not a military organization so anything resembling "Battle Dress Uniforms" should not be worn by its members.

From the insignia guide regarding the charter:

"b) Imitation of United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps or Air Force uniforms is prohibited, in accordance with the provisions of Act of Congress, approved June 3, 1916."

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

As you state, it is your choice if you want to be involved in the OA or not. I believe not being involved is the wrong choice for the boys who may want to be involved, but so be it.

However, don't you think that it would be more respectful and "tolerant" for you to quietly stay in the back, and not leave before the campfire is over rather than leaving prior to the closing. Perhaps, it would be better for you to skip the campfire altogether that evening if you know you will not be staying for the entire program.

I have to agree with Beav here (and I do not always agree with him). I believe that we quote regulations and the like way too much. A lot of times common sense needs to prevail. Remember we are running a Scout program not a law firm. This should not be a case of gotcha. Wait until your the leader who does something a little out of the ordinary trying to handle an unusual situation, and the wrath of the Philadelphia lawyers come down on you. Generaly, we are volunteer leaders trying to do the right thing in changing situations.

These reglations are written to "capture" child predators not to "capture" Scouters doing the right thing. I really believe our foirst reaction should be to assume a Brother Scouter is just trying to do the right thing until the facts really start showing that he/she is not.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Much better background information than what I have...but that was exactly my point.

Just because BP didn't mention it does not mean it is not good Scouting, and some things that he mentioned are no longer good Scouting.

I was trying to have a little fun with my quotes, but alas the meaning was lost. I agree with the patrol method and with putting adventure back into Scouting, and looking at the direction of the upcoming jamboree and the improvements being made at the Summit High Adventure base, I would say that National sees that need as well.

Now to my meaning,I do not believe having an SPL or not having one is a detriment to the patrol method. You can have a good patrol method with or without an SPL.

Whether or not BP mentioned the SPL is not relevent to the discussion. Times change and details such as the SPL concept come and go. To me the SPL position provides the Scout with a chance to manage at the next higher level and direct and mentor the leaders of the troop, the PLs. This can be a great opportunity for a youth who has already served as PL to move to the next level of leadership, and I do not care one iota if BP envisioned the position or not.

I like what I know of "Greenbar" Bill and agree with much that I have read regarding his vision of Scouting. Nowhere can I find where he tried to eliminate the SPL position. The position lived on with his rewrite of the Scout Hsandbook and even the PL Guide that he wrote. I cannot find anything that says that he was against using this position.

The SPL position has its place. It is up to the SM to coach the Scout in the position so that he (the Scout) is performing the duties of the position correctly. Is this a challenge, YES!!!, but we as Scouters should be up to that challenge.

Just because Baden Powell says something does not make it so. BP also said that after a hike the SM should vigourouly massage the Scouts. Do you advocate that Kudu?

He also said that SMs should make sure the Scouts are having the right number of "movements."

I guess it is all Baden Powell Scouting.

Moosetracker, I agree with you. However some people take what they learn in training , and apply it in a way that it is not intended.

I just believe that Basement over reacted in summarily dismissing a volunteer who probably thought he was doing what he was supposed to do. If you look at the Commissioner's Field Manual, it is pretty clear the commissioners are charged with conducting these inspections, and an inexperienced one may place an over importance on that instruction. Commissioner is really one of the hardest jobs in Scouting if one does it correctly, and it takes a lot of experience to learn the right way to do the job.

There would have been better ways for both of these individuals to handle the situation, and I remind everyone that we cannot always control others' behavior, but are responsible to control our own.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

There was a poll published the other day stating that 25% of cell phone owners world wide have nude pictures of themself on their phone. Thats not sexting, but says a lot about our culture.

What does it say about our culture. I do not believe it says anything. If I want to have a nude picture of myself on my phone (which I don't), who cares?

(This message has been edited by johnponz)