KC9DDI

That's still not the point... I have never disputed a parent's right to observe any part of the Scouting program, or have access to their child at any time on a Scouting event. My question pertains to the act of having a CONVERSATION with a parent, REQUESTING that they not exercise that right for a specific activity, because we feel that the program will be stronger, and the youth will have a better experience, if the parent does not observe or attend. My question is - why is that conversation acceptable, or even encouraged, in certain settings (eg, while camping with the troop); wh

Tampa - That's not the concern (or at least not my concern). I'm NOT saying that we should tolerate prohibiting parents from observing OA ceremonies, or from having access to their children. If a parent demands to attend a ceremony, camp next to their child, whatever - we have to allow that. However, SP and others have equated the act of having a CONVERSATION with the parents on why we would PREFER them not to attend OA ceremonies with a "youth protection violation." What I am asking is, why is it OK to discourage parents from participating in certain activities with their children

Have you ever had a parent attend summer camp with their brand new Scout son? Have you ever explained to the parent the role of the youth and adult leadership in the troop, and how the Scouts are to camp with their patrols, while the adults camp separately from them? Have you ever had to request or remind a parent that they need to give their son and his patrol some space - to let the Scout work with his patrol, and for the adults to stay away from them? How is it that the above example is a perfectly valid way to educate and inform parents how our program works, and why we ask them to

Seems like an excellent program option to offer the Venturing program, or at High Adventure facilities - but I'm not sold on making it part of the mainline Boy Scout program.

Who do I approach( committee or PLC) Your son, the Scout, should work with his PL and PLC if he feels that the current policy is not fair. Changing the name of the party seems fair, if it's a big issue for you. I'm a little surprised to see the word "coerce" juxtaposed with "community service." I'm guessing the issue runs deeper than just a Christmas party...

The fact that you mention that the SPL was involved in the decision (or at least in the explanation of the decision to you) seems like a positive sign. Perhaps your son can discuss with his PL or the PLC about whether the policy on the Christmas party is justified or not. Your post wasn't really clear on the situation, so I can't begin to imagine whether or not the policy is "good" for the troop, but at least it sounds like there's an opportunity for the youth leadership to evaluate the situation, and adjust if they see the need.

My council is currently in the middle of trying to do an overhaul of one of its camp properties. While obviously a much smaller project than the development of a brand new high adventure base, it did provide some perspective as to how quickly costs can grow. It seems like a majority of the time and money spent on the project has been related to compliance with local and state laws and guidelines. Regulations on shower and bathroom facilities, plumbing and septic systems, kitchen and food storage, sleeping facilities, etc... it all adds to the cost of constructing the facility. It's not tha

I think Venturing's great strength is also it's greatest weakness. It's a very, very flexible program, with almost everything presented as an optional component, that individual crews can pick and choose from in order to devise their own program. It's a strength for crews with a strong sense of teamwork, direction, motivation and goals. But it tends to be a weakness for units who are looking for more of a "packaged product" of structured program. I think the overlap in target audience between troops and crews can also be a blessing or a curse, depending on the individual unit. In

Poor spelling and grammar aside, when did it become a "civic duty" to spy on and report your neighbors to Big Brother?

Blanc - That is correct, but it also seems like a matter of word games, as opposed to substance. Yes, being in the country illegally is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. It is, however, a matter of law either way, and the common definition of a crime is an act that violates the law, regardless of whether it is pursued through civil or criminal channels. That's all that I was getting at - wasn't trying to debate the difference between civil and criminal law. It had sounded to me like you were suggesting that violations of civil law were somehow less serious than violations of

Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237?

but just wanted to point out that merely being an illegal alien in the country is not necessarily a crime. How do you figure? I'm a fairly liberal person on the whole immigration issue, and I certainly have no problem with immigrants of any variety working with the Scouting program... but at the same time you need to be realistic about these things.

Without stirring the already overly emotional pot, might I just ask: If all that's standing between the adult and a leadership position is some paperwork and bureaucracy (which I'll admit is a necessary evil in this case)... is that really a good enough reason to exclude him from serving as an ASM in your program? Then again, BartHumphries really asked two separate questions: 1) Can he register as an ASM? The answer is "doubtful," and that's even before you start trying to redefine simple words like "reside." The absence of an SSN that is prerequisite for a background check wi

SM asks the boy how to stop severe bleeding. One wag yells out "use the EDGE method, but make sure he doesn't bleed out before he is enabled!" Funniest (Scouting-related) thing I've heard all year. Also shows how little real buy-in we see from the youth over these foolish acronyms we've used to replace actual training and leadership development in our program.

At least at one point, there was a T-2-1 requirement to participate in a school or community drug free awareness program, or something to that effect. So often the DARE program at school was used to fulfill this requirement. There is no condition on advancement requiring that the work be done only for Scouting. I honestly see it as kind of silly if we make a Scout do the exact same requirement over and over - once for Scouts, once for school, once for church, etc etc. I don't see the "spirit" of the advancement program as being one that's going to hold up Scouts based on technicalities

I can see both sides of the issue. The troop that I was involved in as a youth put a lot of emphasis on fund raising. We'd do the Popcorn and Wreath sales during the winter, and then a handful of other fundraisers throughout the year - probably 5-6 per year. The nice part of that was that out-of-pocket expenses were pretty minimal for annual dues and events. Dues were whatever National was charging at the time ($12 or so), campouts were generally in the $10-$12 range. Summer camp cost whatever the camp charged - the troop didn't add on anything on top of that. Everything else was pai

FScouter - That's my guess too. Interesting point though, as far as trust goes. People typically distrust things that they don't understand. And this thread (and some other threads going on simultaneously) have shown that there's a lot that people just don't understand about the BSA as a national organization - certain people don't understand the definition of a non-profit organization, don't understand the roles and responsibilities of volunteer vs. paid staff, don't understand how the BSA is funded, don't understand the name of the National Council, etc. Not surprisingly, the result

I agree with Eagle92 - You just basically described Venturing. I think Venturing is a fantastic program, but: 1) It has a slightly different goal and focus from Boy Scouts and 2) Venturing hasn't really taken off. Now I don't think the reason that Venturing hasn't taken off is entirely due to an absence of a rigid advancement structure (the reasons for that could be a separate discussion), but I do think that the boys place more emphasis on advancement than we may give them credit for. I think many boys that age DO enjoy earning achievements and being recognized for them, and the A

Tampa - Fair point, but I don't believe the professional staff provide program leadership in most cases. Scout Executives and other supervisory staff may provide leadership to the other professionals in a business sense, but leadership of the Scouting program is almost always provided by volunteers. Look at the Key 3 of every district, council, and on up - you have 1 professional, and 2 volunteers. Not to mention the entirely volunteer district committee, council committee, etc. Professionals are being paid to provide support, logistics and resources for the volunteer-led program. If the

I don't know FScouter - Maybe some facts might change the level of trust we place in various organizations and entities. 'Round here, "BSA National" (I'm assuming you mean the National Council), takes 0% of popcorn sales proceeds - the money is split roughly equally between the manufacturer, the council, and the unit. If $0 is "too much" compared to what you're unit is making, that get's back to the question of how you expect the BSA, as a business, to spend more money than it takes in. At Jambo, the professionals are being paid to do a job. They are not participants or volunteers

How about instead of knots we start handing out brightly colored feathers that can be attached to the Scouters' hats?

When I said "what if every boy turns into a 13 year old Eagle?" I got "whats wrong with that?" Just playing devil's advocate, but... what is wrong with that? If a Scout is working hard and mastering the skills in question, what basis do you have for not signing off on the requirements? I obviously disagree with the idea that this four-month program was "suggested." And I think the Advancement method needs to be balanced with all of the other methods we use in Scouting - Advancement exists as part of a bigger overall program; the program DOESN'T exist just for the purpose of fac

Eagle92 - Con-ed is also an excellent idea, and RT fills that role quite well, but that's not quite what I was talking about. I could be wrong, but I believe you need to re-take your YPT training every 2 years. What I'm proposing is, rather than re-taking the entire course, just present a quick refresher, followed by any new policies or relevant information that have been developed since the last YPT training you took. Similar to how the AHA treats CPR, PALS and ACLS classes. The first time you take the class it's a two-day affair, but your subsequent refreshers are only a few hours lo

Eagle92 - When FCFY came out in 1989, the rationale behind it was that research showed that those scouts who achieved FC within 1 year of becoming a Boy Scout tended to remain in scouting That's also what heard, but I thought that the rationale behind the poor retention was due to a weak program, and/or not providing positive re-enforcement and recognition of the boys' early accomplishments in the Boy Scout program. I have no official source for that, but I guess it makes sense as a plausible explanation. But I think it's a theory that only works if you recognize the Scouts for

Jay - It's not a problem for one Scout or another. What I was trying to get at is that there may be some amount of validity to using FCFY as a metric to evaluate a troop's advancement program, and maybe even their overall program. So if a handful of Scouts take 2-3 years or so to reach 1st Class, I agree that it's not a problem. But if nearly every Scout can't reach First Class in less than 3 years, then I think that indicates a problem in the troop - maybe in that the troop isn't offering enough variety in their program, or that they're being too strict with their interpretation of the