KC9DDI

I'm having a difficult time locating Chapter 10 of Title 36 in the most recent US Code? (http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_10.shtml)

What I do know is that taking your hat off during the national anthem is not a tradition, it is a federal law

Which federal law is that?

Yup, that many slides is entirely too many. I think giving a presentation of that length will cause the trainees to believe that a BOR is much more complicated than it actually is. I'd say keep it to 10 slides MAX - break it down into Goals of the BOR, Concrete methods used to reach those goals, and maybe address some specific "myths" or poor practices that may be common in your area. Devote no more than 3 or 4 slides to each topic. If there's more detailed or wordy information you want to convey, you can put it in a handout - but even then, try to keep that handout to less than 2 double-sided pages of fairly large, sparse text.

I really liked the suggestion of doing a "demo" BOR as part of the training. Conducting a "mock" BOR with a narrator who can call out key points, and allowing for some interaction with the trainees asking questions, etc is likely to be a more useful learning experience than Yet Another PowerPoint presentation. If you go this route, be sure to demonstrate good responses to some of the difficult situations, like deciding to delay rank advancement, etc.

Merit badges are part of the program, and there's nothing wrong with being aware of how they can tie in to the larger troop program.

But it's not clear whether the ENTIRE program they developed revolves around MBs (eg, troop meetings to work on MBs, campouts primarily to work on MBs), or if their just thinking of how certain MBs can tie in to program ideas. If it's the first case, it wouldn't be wrong to guide them towards developing a quality troop program which will ENABLE them to work on certain MB requirements, while also not degrading the other methods and goals of the MB program. If it's the later case, I don't see a problem.

It sounds like the family in question, while understandably upset, might not really understand the way individual BSA units operate, in relation to other units and to the district. Basically, that the two packs' treasuries aren't connected.

They don't understand why the other pack is 'getting away with this.'

Do what you can to help them understand. But also offer to help - perhaps contacting the CM, CC, or UC for the other unit yourself might help resolve the situation?

moose - OK, I think I'm getting there. Part of my confusion stems from the fact that your definitions of "God vs god" aren't consistent with any other definition that I've ever heard, religious or secular. I'm also not positive that it's consistent with Skeptic's definition, though I think his explanation is a bit more consistent with what I've heard in other settings. I get the notion that the BSA doesn't necessarily mean the "Catholic God" or the "Jewish God" when they use the word "God" in the DRP and other texts. So I think there's clearer ways to make that distinction other than relying on whether or not the "G" is capitalized.

So help me understand. God is not a physical being, but god can be? So is a rock God or god? Is Yahweh, based on the typical Judeo-Christian understanding, God or god? Are my "beliefs" Gods or gods?

And, how exactly, can the word "self" mean something other than yourself? If you want to express the idea of "humanity," wouldn't it be clearer just to say "humanity?"

and it would then also not bar the atheist who could understand the difference between God vs god

Moose - I'm generally agreeing with what you're saying, but... I'm a Christian and I still have no idea what you mean regarding the "God vs god" issue.

Could you try to clarify it for me? Preferably without attaching non-standard meanings to capitalization?

Not to speak for Merlyn, but those who aren't Scouters because they cannot be Scouters because of their (lack of) religious views are very much affected by the BSA's prohibition.

Your problem, and many others', is that somehow God, and god have become confused. A God is a specific entity in which someone believes, something greater than self, normally a spiritual idea with certain higher power perhaps, or not; while gods are generic.

I honestly can't figure out what you mean here. "entity in which someone believes", "greater than self", "normally a spiritual idea"... all of those terms sound fairly generic to me.

I have no idea what Merlyn's status is with regard to being a registered with the BSA, but that status doesn't affect his ability to understand the BSA's policies on this topic, which are made publicly available to non-members. And I don't see anything inaccurate in his understanding of the BSA's policies.

"This doesn't concern you, so don't talk about it" seems like a pretty juvenile technique to respond to a disagreement :-)

I've found that most self-identified atheists have only rarely studied science and philosophy. Instead, there's a watery, generic "public atheism" which is intellectually insubstantial but, for some, emotionally gratifying.

I've found that most self-identified Christians have only rarely studied science and philosophy and religion and history. Instead, there's a watery, generic "public Christianity" which is intellectually insubstantial but, for some, emotionally gratifying.

E61 - I think there's probably a lot of truth to what you say about SMs viewing the OA as one more time drain to an already overbooked youth and adult membership base.

But I wonder what you mean about the OA "giving back" to the troops? Not disagreeing with you, but just curious about how you would like to see the OA work more with individual units?

Hmmm... I'm not sure that anyone ever said that "NS Leaders" were ever a problem for the program. I suppose that having been a Scout in a decent troop as a youth might be an advantage when it comes to one or two particular areas of our program, such as the patrol method - but I don't think that not having a Scouting background is a problem in general.

Too much depends on the individual personality. A former Scout might bring with them a strong understanding and commitment to the program, including youth leadership and the patrol method. But that same person might also bring a resistance to changes that have been made in the program in the years since they were members. An "NS Leader" might bring some fresh perspective and enthusiasm to a unit, but may also bring some inexperience and concern regarding parts of the program. A paramedic or soldier may bring some unique and useful background and knowledge/skills/abilities, but may also bring a cocky attitude or unreasonable demands of the youth or of the program.

Every single one of us brings strengths and weaknesses to the table. The individual units need to decide whether the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.

A related issue is the question of why former Scouts don't get back involved in the program. Good question. I know that in my council, we're going to be starting up a program to identify Scouting alumni, and reaching out to them to try to involve them in the program. I believe this may be a National initiative as well. I'm not familiar with all the details yet, but it seems like the goal is to bring people in first at the District or Council level, and then hopefully identify a good area for them to involve themselves with the program - maybe as unit leadership, a UC, at the district or council level, or just as a resource for one-off events. Again, I don't know very much about this program, but it seems like it has potential.

So clothing that's comfortable in warm weather isn't so comfortable in cold weather?

I've seen two general approaches that work well:

1) Have a party or event some time in December. Call it a holiday/Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice party - whatever is going to offend the fewest number of people. Allow individual families to bring food, activities, or show-n-tell items that represent their own traditions, and share with the group.

2) (My favorite): Leave the religious holidays to families and churches. Instead, in Scouting, celebrate American holidays. For example, have a "Thanksgiving feast" some time in November, Memorial Day or Labor Day picnics, 4th of July activities, etc.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

There's a couple of different categories here:

First, you have just generally picky eaters. No medical or religious or any kind of reason for being a picky eater - they just don't like certain food. At a Boy Scout level, this is a perfect problem for the patrol to tackle themselves when planning their menu. Either they come up with meals everyone can enjoy, or they come up with separate meals.

Second, you have Scouts with legitimate dietary needs based on medical or religious reasons. The people needing gluten-free meals, vegetarian meals, mild to moderate food allergies, or religious restrictions. I'd say you handle this roughly the same way as the first category. The only difference might be, in the case of a brand new Scout, it may be appropriate for a parent to be involved in monitoring the menu selection process for the first couple camping trips.

The third category are the Scouts with the severe food allergies. I know that a favorite hypothetical is "what do we do with the Scout who will go into anaphylactic shock 50 milliseconds after passing within a mile of a peanut..." - the reality is, these cases are very very rare. If a Scout with this type of condition does join the troop, I would say it is appropriate, and necessary, to have a frank discussion with the parent on what the needs and expectations regarding food prep are. Often, even young people with such severe allergies are very aware of what they need to avoid, and are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. So don't let fear and ignorance cause you to overreact - if the Scout's fine unless he actually EATS peanuts, there's no need to ban ALL peanut products from troop menus. If he's more sensitive, plan accordingly. Just get the facts on the table, and be sure that the necessary information is conveyed to his patrol, and key adult leaders. Oh, and make sure the Scout carries his EpiPen, if he needs one.

Overall, except in the most severe (and rare) cases, just let the boys work it out in their patrols. There's lessons to be learned in accommodating others' preferences, and lessons to be learned in setting your own preferences aside out of respect for the others in the patrol. Just let the patrol method work.

goes more to the perception that OA is an optional part of Scouting

Well, that's not a perception, that's reality.

I know that among many Scouters, and in many Scouting circles, the OA has earned itself a rather negative reputation. I don't want to get into whether or not that reputation is justified, but it certainly does "turn off" many troops to inviting OA representatives to speak to their youth members.

I personally take a rather dim view towards the OA, due to a number of encounters with them. However, I do get frustrated when Scoutmasters deliberately deny their Scouts an opportunity to be involved in optional parts of Scouting - be it the OA, NYLT, Philmont or High Adventure contingents, Jambo, etc. The Scouts should have the option of "taking or leaving" these programs - they shouldn't have the adult leadership making this decision for them.

I see what you're saying, Beavah. But I'm not here trying to defend specific examples of age-based restrictions - rather I'm arguing that it is acceptable to have age-based restrictions at all. That, I believe, is why you're accusing me of prejudice. There certainly is some inconsistency beyond age-based restrictions applied by different groups regarding different activities - but that's a separate issue from whether or not there's any legitimacy to use age as a consideration in general. And, by nature, some of the age restrictions will be arbitrary - why does Boy Scouts start at age 10.5, why not 9.5, or 11.5? Why does Venturing start at age 14 (or is it 13.5 now?) rather than 13 or 15? Why do we (generally) not accept Eagle candidates following their 18th birthday?

So my position is consistent - that it is acceptable to consider age as one basis for determining whether or not an individual is suited for a particular responsibility.

What I'm still trying to figure out, and what you still have not responded to, is why you are OK with using age restrictions in some cases, but not others. What makes it prejudicial in some cases, but not others? Or do I misunderstand your position, and you in fact would be OK with allowing 7 year olds to vote, 10 year olds to drive, 14 year olds to join Tiger Cubs...

Regarding your hypothetical on the maximum age of Scoutmasters - I'd point out that placing upper age limits on certain functions is not unprecedented. I'd willingly consider the idea of having an upper age limit on some volunteer positions, if it can be shown that the program will be stronger for it.

I'm not trying to be tough on Beavah, but I am trying to be tough on his position. Historically, Beavah makes very "tough" arguments himself, so I feel comfortable being direct in my response to those arguments. And, historically, I've found myself agreeing with many of his positions on other issues. But I apologize if I have come across as rude, as that is not my intent.

OGE - Right, that's the part of the argument the Beavah and those in his camp never respond to. Why is discrimination based on age acceptable in some cases, but not others? A distraction by comparing it to racial prejudice is just an emotional appeal, a logical fallacy, and hardly worth getting frustrated over. An explanation of "you're not old enough to remember/understand" is a cop out at best.

Justification for basing decisions partly on a person's age is similar to racial prejudice only in that the general argument in both cases takes the form of "You can't do X because of Y." That's it. There would be the same similarities between these and an argument for discrimination against a convicted sexual offender applying for a Scoutmaster position. It's a fallacy to conclude that because the argument is invalid in some cases (discrimination based on skin color), that it must be invalid in ALL cases. And I think if Beavah wants to argue that the majority of the medical, psychological and legal communities are in the wrong, and a forum poster named Beavah who deliberately chooses to write using incorrect spelling and grammar is right, he's going to need an argument more convincing than "It sounds like a conversation I heard in the 50s that you're too young to remember."

More interesting to me, returning to the actual topic at hand, is - who is actually running these programs at the council level? Are they being run by the 14 year old CIT, or a more experienced adult? Are there any actual national or even local council policies to regulate who may supervise these activities?

Scouting is a big place. Offering optional, supplemental leadership development courses is not a bad thing for the program. It gets to be a bad thing when we use leadership courses in place of actual opportunities to practice real leadership.

I happen to think NYLT is, in general, a fairly decent program that can be used to build and develop leadership skills. At a higher level, I do believe that leadership techniques can be taught, developed and refined. And Scouting is not a bad place for that to happen.

What bothers me is when we spend all this time and energy providing leadership training and development, but then limit the Scouts' ability to actually engage in leadership. Putting all of the patrols together in one claustrophobic campsite, all within easy snoopy distance of the Webelos-III adult leaders... Doing away with patrol camping and hiking... Having adults leap in to supervise and "lead" anything more complicated than cooking lunch... Makes you wonder why we invest all that time in developing leadership skills in the youth at all.

I think Beavah likes to toss around terms like "prejudice" and "discrimination" just for the shock value, without really understanding what they mean, and how they apply to the point at hand. Or maybe he does understand their meaning, but just prefers to make an emotional attack, rather than a rational one.

Age is a reasonably reliable indicator of various developmental and personality traits and maturity. No, it's not 100% accurate for each and every one of the 7 billion people on the planet, but it's a reliable enough indicator that it's used extensively throughout medicine, the law, psychology, education and other areas. We make generalizations of the behavior we can expect of an individual based on his or her age. Again, the expectation is not that these generalizations are 100% accurate - that's what they're called "generalizations" - but rather that they are accurate enough that we can use them as at least a starting point for making predictions regarding some attributes of a person.

"Generalizations" are not the same as "prejudice." Even Beavah makes generalizations all the time - that councils will run less effective programs that units or third party outfitters, that council summer camp staff are typically younger people, that there's more risk of behavior problems at council level events, that liberals and conservatives hold different view points.... And that's just from this thread! And there's nothing wrong with that - we use generalizations all the time to make decisions.

Beav - a couple posts back, didn't you opine:

Da council staff are typically young folk, don't know the boys or families, and they usually don't know as much about an activity as a competent adult hobbyist.

So... is the supposed youth of the council instructors a problem or not?

The Three Fires Council operates Camp Freeland Leslie in Oxford, WI, which is about 45 minutes north of Cascade Mountain. They do offer a cabin for camping. But it's a very popular base for Scouts to use while visiting some of the Dells attractions, including Cascade Mountain, so it too may be booked through the winter. But maybe worth a try.

Hmmm... So I went back and re-read this thread, and what strikes me the most is the small amount of information we have on this situation. Based on what the OP posted, we know that 1) Scouts who participated in a certain service project are invited to a Christmas party, and 2) The troop committee provided the party's meeting space.

Unless I missed something, it would seem that we don't even know for sure if this is in fact a "troop" event (maybe it's the Salvation Army or a private individual offering to host the party, and the troop just offered a "donation" to cover the party space). We don't know whether the specifics on the party were advertised in advance.

Now, I understand that on this forum we very rarely get to hear both sides of the story -- but in this case, we're not even hearing very much about one side! It does sound like there's an axe being ground (grinded?), and that there's some background issues that are coloring noname's perspective on this issue. I certainly don't think the facts that have been presented justify condemning the troop or the SM.

That said, I guess I still don't see what the big deal is? You had to chose between school activities and Scouting activities in this case. You chose to do the school activities, and pass on the Scouting activities. A consequence of that decision was that you wouldn't be able to attend one particular party. Theoretically when making your decision, you should have taken that into account. So what's the problem? Part of making choices, making sacrifices, is that sometimes we have to deal with a negative consequence.

In my area:

Scout shops do keep "unit accounts."

Statements are sent yearly, but can also be printed at any time upon request.

The unit may give the council permission to deposit/withdraw funds to cover registration discrepancies. AFAIK, it's only used for registration purposes, and the transactions are rarely more than a few dollars. If the unit does not expressly give permission, the council can't touch the money.

The unit can provide a list of up to 3 or 4 people who are authorized to make purchases using the account. Most "problems" that develop involve either an authorized person spending more than the unit allows, or issues with people not getting added/removed from the account quickly enough. I'm not aware of any enormous problems to develop, mainly just minor clerical/logistical issues.

All of the ideas you mention warrant some investigation.

How much are your troop dues, and what do they cover?

What other expenses that aren't charged by the troop are of concern (eg, does the Scout need camping gear, a uniform, etc?)

Many councils do have campership programs, but they are typically operated on a per-event basis (eg, camperships for summer camp, training courses, etc - rather than just a general year-round fund). This might be an option for getting the Scout to summer camp, if nothing else.

Asking for participation in fundraising is usually a good idea in these cases - but, remember, there are factors which can make effective fundraising difficult or impossible (living in a poor neighborhood, not having time for fundraising due to other family priorities, etc).

Having the troop subsidize or write off certain expenses for this Scout can be a good option, especially if this situation is expected to be temporary. But such things must be handled privately and with discretion, for obvious reasons. Also, such things can unfortunately be cause for drama and hurt feelings, so you may want to size up the dynamics and maturity of your adult committee before going down that road.

My advice - have a discrete meeting between the SM, CC and maybe COR and the boy's family. Get an idea of how high priority Scouting is for them, and determine financially what they can contribute. Determine what, if anything, the unit can subsidize. Come up with some options for making up the difference.

By all means, do everything in your power to keep the boy in Scouting. Some things do cost money, and may be out of reach for this family, and that's unfortunate. But I'd hope that you could at least devise a way to allow the Scout to continue to participate in meetings and at least some outings.

Thunder - Why not? I don't see what's wrong with offering a polite explanation, followed by a polite request. If the parent doesn't want to do what you're asking them to do, you can't force the issue beyond that. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with providing information about our program, our goals and our preferences.

Dennis - how exactly is that intimidation? What am I going to "intimidate" them WITH? The conversation should, of course, occur politely and courteously.

Don't schools do this all the time by discouraging parents from sitting in the classroom with their children?