jrush

You know, if you want some advice on how to resolve an issue between adult volunteers before initiating a converasation with the COR about removing a volunteer from their position and the unit (because that's often the effect in the end) there are members here with many moons of experience.

But, yes, as others have said, the COR is the "decider" as to who the adult leadership of their pack/troop/etc is.

Well, as long as we've resurrected a 12 year old thread...

If the BSA didn't want 13 year old Eagle Scouts, they would've set a higher age requirement. As it is, the BSA is just fine with a lad being awarded the rank right after he's completed his 6 months' of POR as a Life.

There are PORs completely appropriate to 12 and 13 year olds without a lick of leadership ability; you certainly don't need JLT to be a great historian, librarian or quartermaster. Beyond that, if a boy is a halfway-decent manager, he can do just fine supervising his project.

So, what should he know? He should know to support the izzies regardless of what they do? He should know to throw money at defense programs the DOD itself wants to cut? He should know to make a decision about the historical wisdom of dumping billions of dollars and thousands of lives into Iraq decades before history will decide if we stabilized a region or created a safe haven for extremists? Fork it up....what should he know to make him qualified by your standards? While we're at it, what makes you qualified to render judgement on the person who will set and implement policy for the most expensive, farthest reaching military force on the planet?

the various Laws *are* various, which is why they'll assign the Scout Law to all programs.

The Oath for all programs then becomes "..and to obey the Scout Law"

the various Laws *are* various, which is why they'll assign the Scout Law to all programs.

The Oath for all programs then becomes "..and to obey the Scout Law"

The jac sold at northern tier is the Bemiji, it's just less there than factory direct. Go figure.

But, if you want hand pockets and American made, it's either that or buying an original off ebay and breaking out the sewing machine.

Huh...I can't believe I beat Kudu in here...

I can see plusses and minuses...comes down to how, or even if, the troop employs the SPL.

john, we could do that, or we could participate in a 7 page discussion about what is or is not "proper" versus "authorized", and whether or not which, if any, OA or any other insignia is merely "look at me" fluff that should or shouldn't be on a tan shirt with the words "Boy Scouts of America" over the pocket.

Shortridge, I've made this comment before...

I think a majority of troops have turned the SPL into a "supervisor of patrols" in support of a methodology by which the boys operate as a troop organized into patrols for administrative purposes, rather than stand-alone patrols organized into a troop for administrative purposes.

Those 2-3 patrol troops can only do without an SPL if they operating under the latter method. If the troop operates as a troop of boys who just happen to wear different patrol patches, then, quite frankly, an SPL is an absolutel necessity. Why? In this case, PLs are largely irrelevant.

Even in the case of those 2-3 patrol troops operating under the "true" patrol method, there is a still a great case for a strong SPL: to run interference for the Patrols. E.g., help keep those Webelos III DLs from meddling too much. Nothing wrong with a lad directing a wandering adult back to the coffepot.

Anyhow...the relative usefulness of the SPL is directly related to how that position is used in relation to how the troop operates. Just because troops misuse SPLs doesn't make the position useless.

Desert, what's the difference between that and everything else that goes on the uniform? Everything beyond the council strip, unit number (if applicable), US flag, world crest and Boy Scouts of America is "plummage".

You can make all the excuses for it you want, but fact is, the red wool beret is still the sierra cup of the uniform world.

john (and others in agreement)

I originally had the following comment in one of my posts, and edited it out because I thought it was superfluous:

Yes, other scouts should be able to tell you're in the OA by your actions of cheerful service. They should be able to tell you're a Vigil. They should be able to tell that you're an Eagle Scout, a Silver Beaver recipient, "trained", a WB graduate, an attendee of Philmont, etc, etc, etc, all by your actions. You shouldn't have to have any insignia at all to indicate any of that. Heck, by that standard, you shouldn't even have to have "Boy Scouts of America" on the uniform. We should all be able to wear tan shirts with olive green pants and differentiate ourselves by our actions alone. If you have an issue with insignia, write National and tell them it's unnecessary. No knots. No rank. No WB beads. Why not?

Tampa, many moons ago, OA members wore a pocket flap as their OA "insignia". They wore sashes at OA events/activities, just as a matter of tradition. You had different color borders on flaps to signify whether the wearer was a ordeal, brotherhood or vigil member whether the sash was worn or not. Several moons ago, the OA eliminated the differentiated flaps. hence, the appearance of the little "pocket rockets", the little mini-sash you'll see hung from a pocket button.

As a matter of tradition, the pocket flap was "reserved" for the OA flap. If there was a pocket flap, the wearer was OA.

Fast forward some moons. The pocket flap is no longer considered sacred territory. There are several different patches shaped to go on the pocket flap. Just off the top of my head, totin chit, fire chit, woodsman are all "flap shaped", and I've seen them all attached to the pocket flap. Yes, yes, they are "temporary patches", but they are shaped like a pocket flap, and the cool kids have patches on their pocket flaps. As a result, the OA lodge flap is no longer distinctive insignia, and to be distinctive, OA members have taken to wearing their sashes.

IMO, it looks sharp and will remain distinctive, at least until the BSA starts selling totin chit sashes.

(This message has been edited by jrush)

Quaze, one thing you could do to make lodge flaps "catch the eye" is not have any more pocket-flap shaped patches.

IMO, since there are other patches on that pocket flap, the lodge flap doesn't stand out anymore and the sash is thus a far more effective piece of OA insignia.

If anything I would re-tailor the MB sash so the OA sash can be worn over it, with both of them running under the epaulette.

NJ, the point I was making was a) "leadership positions" and "leadership training" are offered, but not mandatory (or even encouraged in some troops), and b) the SPL isn't a leadership position in a troop which executes the "GBB Patrol Method", because he isn't actually "leading" anything...his job is to essentially seperate the adults and patrols from each other.

Think about it like this...can a scout go from cubs to Eagle, never have a "leadership" position in the troop, never do any formalized "leadership" training, and yet still become one of those "leaders of tomorrow"?

Next, in the classic "GBB patrol Method" troop, the patrols plan what they want to do, tell the SPL what they're going to do, and then go do it with no supervision from the SPL. What exactly is the SPL "leading"?

SM, keep in mind the difference between a leadership position and a management position.

The reason some scouters are waxing eloquent here is the extent to which the troop uses the "true" (i.e., the GBB) patrol method will actually define which of those the SPL is. In a "GBB troop", leadership is at the PL level. The SPL is simply the "firewall" between the adults and the patrol leaders. He doesn't actually "lead" anything. He's a manager...he manages the adult involvement. The ASPL(s) don't "lead" anything, either. They are the "firewalls" between adults and the instructors, TG, QM, historian, etc.

Other troops have modified the "GBB patrol method", and while the troops are organized into patrols, the SPL is used a leader, up front just like a platoon leader leads squads in the military. The upside to this method is as you've stated...it increases leadership training opportunities. The downside is that it gives every adult in the troop a direct line to influence/meddle/etc in the affairs of patrols. How many times has Mr Smith said "hey SPL, what's the Peanut Patrol doing?" "looks like they're getting a class on preventing hot spots" "well, shouldn't they be doing XYZ?" "Okay, I'll go tell them". Since the SPL is the "senior leader", when he goes over there, the lashing class comes to an end and the patrol gets redirected onto whatever the Mr Smith wants them to do, rather than the PL saying "I'm teaching my patrol how to prevent hot spots before we take our patrol hike, how about you go back and enjoy your coffee with Mr Smith...we'll be back in 8 hours"

Remember, the positions are called positions of responsibility, not leadership positions. A scout can go all the way to Eagle and never have a "leadership" position. The BSA creates leaders by teaching responsibility and ethical/moral behavior...not by teaching "leadership" per se.

Oldscout, your issue has been brought up more than once in the OA forum, but bottom line, how visible is your lodge? If every year the scouts come back from summer camp, wowed by a call out or other ceremony, talking nonstop to the SM about this cool thing called the "OA" and how do they get in it, I expect you'll get a different response from the one you're getting now.

The lodge has to be it's best recruiter for the OA, because it's typically the only recruiter for the OA.

As far as wearing sashes at COAs, Baden P made a good point: the OA needs all the help it can get.

Brotherhood, so does nearly every other POR...quartermaster, historian, instructor, JASM, etc, etc.

The "need" for ASPL is (IMO) better based off the size of the troop, and the relative size/scope of the SPL's "staff". So, you could have an ASPL over "training" (TG, Instructors, etc) and one over "logistics" (QM, Historian, Librarian, etc). There's no absolute that you have only one ASPL, or have one at all. What I wouldn't do (again, IMO) is assign ASPLs over patrols.

Basement, what's wrong with a PLC of one?

What's the point of a PLC in the first place? IMO, one of it's most important functions is to be the firewall between the adults and the boys. A PLC of one doesn't stop the patrol from planning activities as a group, but it does set the precedent that the adults go to the young man wearing the green bars. When the boys see that their PL is the "go to guy" for the adults, they will certainly see him as the "go to guy" for themselves.

I agree, the SPL is unnecessary until the troop has multiple patrols.

Honestly, if you have a truly oddball-shaped foot, you need to look into a couple of manufacturers who will custom make you a pair. I note that you didn't put "under $200" on your list of requirements.

Google up some custom hiking boot makers who are in your neck of the woods or who will send you a sizing kit.

KC9, I'm not taking any "liberties" with that part of the Oath...that's the second half of how the BSA defines "Duty to God"...the first half being "live up to the religious teachings of your parents, religious institution, etc".

Next, you are correct. Many religions do not respect the religious beliefs of others as a matter of principle, and many followers of some religions do not respect the beliefs of others, regardless of what their religion actually teaches.

If you think the Earth is the higher power, well that could make you a follower of any sort of nature-centric/worshipping religion, and thus, not an atheist. I have no issue with that, and neither should any scouter.

The problem with the BSA's definition of "Duty to God" isn't that it needs to be changed, but that it simply needs to be followed. It's actually quite liberal and welcoming.

Fish, actually, "religion neutral" isn't a bad thing when scouters can take a long view.

As has been said, "duty to God" does not mean "must believe in God". In short, it is summed up as "respect the beliefs of others". I grant you, atheists should be barred because atheists hold that NO religion is valid. You don't have to believe in a religion yourself, you simply have to acknowledge that others' religions are valid for them.

If your son says "I respect everyone's religious choice", that's not atheism, and he shouldn't ever have a problem.

The only problem with the model 700 is the number of ignorant fools who own one.

Rifles, not even the model 700, don't just spontaneously discharge.

Disassembling the trigger group to clean it isn't considered "operator level care", not by Remington or any other gunmaker. No, not even for members of the US military with their M16s and M4s. Matter of fact, it is strongly discouraged.

It isn't exactly rocket science to keep your booger hook out of the trigger guard and watch where the muzzle is.

If no youth...not Webelos, not 6th graders who rejected cubs, not 15 year olds craving high adventure are joining, I think there's an issue here that won't be addressed by simply opening the door to girls.(This message has been edited by jrush)

Jeff, I think it has less to do with a failure to recognize the part Cub Scouts play and the involvement required, but rather that some Boy Scout leaders see Cub Scout leaders intentionally or inadvertently turning Boy Scouts into Webelos III.

Think about like this: for as many BS leaders want to see Webelos adults crossing over with their sons to take positions in the Troop, there are others who think a mandatory 1 year break between CS and BS is necessary to "de-cub" the CS adults. So, in their view, CS leaders are appreciated as long as they are confined to Cub Scout Land...the moment they enter Boy Scout Land they are a distractor, if not an outright threat to the Patrol Method and the Boy Led Troop.

The troops I've been involved with have great relationships with their packs and their Webelos dens...but I can see the other point of view as well if that relationship isn't mutually supporting.