KC9DDI

Is the parent that sent the angry email the same one as who picked up their son early? It sounds like there's a lot of opportunity for improvement in the communication department. Scouts needing to leave events early need to communicate that to their PL, SPL and SM. If those Scouts hold PORs, they need to be sure that their assistants are prepared to take on the responsibility in their absence. Perhaps parents need to be reminded of the responsibilities that their sons have on troop events as well. And, yes, it does sound like the SM should have communicated the change of plans (a

Seems like the ones who demand tolerance have the least tolerance for those that don't agree with them. Do we need to tolerate intolerance? Hmmm... very Zen. Maybe "tolerance" is the wrong word to use. I remember an SNL skit with Tina Fey impersonating Sarah Palin, saying something like "Don't think I don't tolerate gay people. I do. I tolerate them. I tolerate them with all my heart." You'd probably consider me among those who "demand tolerance." To pick an extreme example, on some level I can "tolerate" the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, and neo-Nazis. I "tolerate" t

On a related note, does anyone know how, or if, other countries operate Woodbadge or equivalent courses? Are other countries more true to the original Scoutcraft course content, or has the swing towards management/organizational training been worldwide?

Why do we have to change to accept everyone else's ideals/customs? What exactly are you being asked to change? One course is being run in a different language. How does this effect you, exactly?

Why would the BSA offer a WB course aimed at another country's program?? No clue. But since the original blurb mentioned that the course was to be done in conjunction with Mexico's national Scouting organization, I was just wondering if any of Mexico's Scouting program would be incorporated. It would be no different than if a course was announced that would be held in conjunction with Scouts Canada - it would make me wonder if elements of the Canadian program would be incorporated. Not saying it should or shouldn't be, just wondering...

I'm not familiar with Mexico's Scouts program. I'd be interested to learn if this will just be the BSA's typical WB program translated into Spanish, or if the content will include topics specific to the Mexican Scout program?

What Venividi described is a good leader, not necessarily a natural leader. Is that person that people look to for guidance a good leader because he or she was born with some natural aptitude for leadership? Or because he or she spent several years practicing leadership, making mistakes, learning about leadership, or *gasp* developing leadership skills? Within or outside of Scouting?

JM - Then what distinguishes a "natural leader" from a plain old "leader"? (Or an "unnatural" leader)?

John - I think discussion of the CO model in a separate issue. I know it's been discussed before, but a spun thread couldn't hurt. But, pertaining to this thread, it just seems odd to me that the BSA and local councils affording "voting rights" only to a group of people who generally show little to no interest in exercising that privilege, while denying the privilege to "direct contact" dues paying volunteers. As a result, the professional staff is not being held accountable to the dues paying members in the organization.

How exactly would you define a "natural leader?"

John - Maybe. But, then again, why are those that actually do have direct contact with youth - who are directly carrying out the organizations mission - excluded from having a say at the council or national level?

I think the root cause of these types of issues goes back to "accountability." Who are the professional staff accountable to? As I understand it, only Chartered Organizations have "voting power" at a council level - thus only they have the ability to collectively set goals, guidelines, and provide oversight of the professional staff. Seeing as most COs aren't interested into getting too involved at a council level, the professional staff has very limited accountability to individual units in the council. This, in my opinion, is just one of several deficiencies of the "chartered partner

Again I've had several first responders say they do not want an MD around unless they have an emergency background. They are too set in their ways and cannot adapt. Well, that's not entirely fair, and also not the whole truth. There's really two concerns when a "bystander physician" tries to aid first responders. The first concern isn't at all specific to the doctor-EMS relationship. For example, a neurologist would likely feel a bit out of place if he were suddenly asked to perform cosmetic surgery. Likewise when many doctors suddenly find themselves needing to provide emergency

My knee-jerk response is to just not do them at all. It's not that there's a few "abuses of the MBU concept" - it's that the "MBU concept" is almost completely opposed to the intent, purpose and goals of the Merit Badge program. There are a handful times when I think that "Merit Badge classes" are acceptable, mainly out of respect for the time and generosity of a volunteer counselor. For example, a counselor for a "rare" merit badge in your geographic area volunteers to host a class on a certain date, and offers considerable generosity in terms of preparation, supplies, etc. In a case

I'm wondering why this type of interview would be required at all? Is there a cross section of non-candidate ASMs, committee members and parents that are fairly heavily involved in the program, and can provide feedback on each candidate? Actions speak louder than words, and I would hope you would already have a good idea of each candidates' strengths and weaknesses without needing to ask specific "interview" questions. If you absolutely feel the need to do an interview, I'd say follow two general guidelines: 1) Don't bother asking questions you already know the answer to. Don't ask "

When you agreed to volunteer in BSA, you also agreed to participate in BSA programs (maybe not explicitly but by association) Participation in JTE is not a condition of membership, neither explicitly nor by association. Just like participation in Woodbadge, OA, NYLT, Jamboree, Cub Scout Day Camp, etc are all optional. Maybe recommended, maybe a good idea, maybe strongly encouraged... but definitely not required. Asking people to leave Scouting based on lack of participation in an optional program is a bit extreme, don't you think? (And do you think that the numbers-focused profess

Not trying to pick a fight at all, Fred, but maybe I'm just not understanding where you're coming from. Cause and effect? The BSA does not allow homosexuals and atheists to serve as adult leaders. Thus, I'm not surprised to learn that an atheist who is unhappy about the BSA's discriminatory policies is not a Scouter. The insinuation seems to be that because he is not a Scouter, he should not be permitted to voice his opinion regarding Scouting-related topics. Even when one of those topics is the very reason that he is not permitted to be a Scouter. You can't just respond to ideas

All over, really. Dublin, Waterford and Galway areas for sure, as well as Belfast and Derry in Northern Ireland. But I'd be willing to take a detour if there's somewhere else worth visiting for Scouting-related reasons :-).

He's a member on scoutingforall.org and an atheist social networking site And, he's not even a scouter I wonder if there's a cause-and-effect relationship buried in there somewhere? He's just hear [sic] to tell us what BSA is doing wrong How else can the BSA (or US Scouting in general) improve, unless it's weaknesses are identified? Now many of us wish BSA would get out of these political firestorms as it's not really an internal issue in scouting. It's not an "internal issue" because of the established discriminatory policies which keep certain people external to

I think it may be worthwhile to separate the perceived "problems" and consider them one-by-one. Based on what you posted, it looks like you're dealing with (in no particular order): 1) Some naughty words on Facebook 2) Some difficulty in working with adults respectfully 3) Doing a not-so-great job in a position of responsibility that he doesn't even have (Chaplain's Aide) Taken individually, I don't think any of these "problems" are particularly problematic. Just the typical stuff you would expect to see in a 16 year old. It seems like problem #1 and #2 can easily be solve

I have the opportunity to visit Ireland next week, and I'm wondering if any Irish Scouters can recommend any Scouting-related places worth visiting while I'm there?

Nope, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. We sometimes joke about our Scouts being pyromaniacs, but pyromania can be a legitimate psychiatric problem that needs to be diagnosed and managed just like other mental illnesses. If this young man's condition is as serious as its made out to be here, maybe it needs to be treated medically/psychologically. Or maybe mom just needs to relax - hard to tell without knowing more about the situation. Probably has nothing to do with Scouting, IMHO.

BD - I think you miss my point. I'm certainly not trying to defend anyone's bad behavior, and I'm definitely not defending your specific district. All that I'm saying is that 1) Often (but not always), accusations of not "being in it for the boys" are both inaccurate, and somewhat arrogant. 2) None of us are in Scouting only for the boys - and that's OK.

And people that forget that the ONLY reason we are here is THE BOYS. Period. Dot dash. This quote got me thinking. It seems popular for us to dismiss people or ideas we don't agree with by claiming that they're "not in it for the boys." The helicopter parent who goes overboard worrying about THE BOYS' safety? Not in it for the boys. The adult leader who chooses to serve at a district or council level, to help plan programs to reach THE BOYS in multiple units? Not in it for the boys. The DE doing his job to raise funds to support camp facilities used by THE BOYS, or S

So I linked to the wrong part of the US Code - the correct link is http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_36.shtml But there still doesn't seem to be a Chapter 10?