Lisabob

Hey Gern - You might really enjoy a book called "Deliver the Vote" which chronicles election fraud all the way back to our colonial era. Surprisingly, it is an amusing and enjoyable read despite the topic, and you get a good bit of history mixed in to the litany of electoral abuses. As for me: I've been introducing "unknown candidate of the day" to my students. I couldn't care less who they vote for or even if they vote. But I would like them to know what a broad range of options really exist. Project Vote Smart is a gem for this sort of thing. Check it out here: http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha

My son is happily working on a "killer" menu for an upcoming Iron Chef patrol cooking competition. He's found a couple of recipes he likes and wants to make, but these recipes are designed to be made at home in an oven. They're mainly simple things (skillet corn bread, baked in an oven, or sweet potato pie is another). How do you convert these kinds of things to outdoor cooking, for those of us with little experience? Also he only has one dutch oven at his disposal, so if there's an alternate way to cook these kinds of things outside, that would be helpful to know too. If you have advice, I'll print it out and pass on to him (at his request).

I'm in agreement with John, Gonzo, and mlg on this one, actually, but I can see where a scout might ask the question the original poster started with (or the other way around). And as I watch my son work his way through the cooking MB, I'm finding he is taking a lot more interest in how his patrol does menu planning and cooking, AS WELL AS cooking at home (oh joy!). He already has the sign offs for his rank but somehow, working on the MB, it is all just coming together for him. I'm glad he is doing these separately.

I think it might be useful for this dad to sit down with the Scoutmaster and have this discussion. Some of what he is seeing might really be a safety issue, and in that case, the SM may be grateful for the additional set of eyes. On the other hand, some of this may be the natural tendency of any parent of a 12 year old to be protective. For example, cooking is dangerous (hot stuff, knives, heavy cast iron pans, potentially under-cooked food, etc.). If his solution is to do it for the boys, then that's not a good thing. On the other hand, if his solution is to help troop leadership teach the boys how to cook more safely, that's another matter and again, the SM might be thrilled to help him find his role as an ASM. In my experience though, it is really hard for most people to be ASMs assigned specifically to work with their own kids. He might do better to be a sort of general ASM for the next several months, with an eye toward working with the new scouts who cross into the troop in Feb/March? Just a couple of thoughts.

local1400, it all depends on how the patrol positions are used. From what I see in my son's troop, I'd agree that patrol scribe is an under-utilized position, but boy those patrol QMs get a work out. But to respond to the original question - no, the patrol positions don't have their own patches.

Thank you, OGE. You said what I've been thinking for some time as I've read through a few of these related threads. I came to this board looking for information, when my own son was miserable and begging to quit scouting, as a first year boy scout. What I found here backed up my perception at the time, that the troop, for all of its good qualities, did not have a very strong first year program. Symptoms included the fact that the entire cohort of first year scouts from the year before my son, and all but one of the boys who preceded my son's group by two years, had dropped out of the troop. By the time I'd found this board, 8 months into my son's first year with the troop, about half of my son's cohort had left scouting too and I didn't want my son to be the next to go! I know that some people felt I came across as a "griping parent" to use Beavah's term. And sure, I agree that there were things that I understand better now, close to three years on. But you know what? I learned a lot here, including about how other troops handle some of the issues and problems I saw with our troop's first year program. And I'm happy to say I think we've improved our program somewhat as a result. At the very least, we no longer lose half or more of the boys that cross over within the first year! We do a better job communicating with webelos leaders and parents, and "selling" our troop in a way that reflects who and what we're really about. We hold new parent/new scout sessions to introduce the parents/scouts to the troop right after they join. We teach the new cross overs how to prepare for winter camping more than two days (which is what my son got) before we send them off on their first camp out. And we do a gear shake down designed to make sure they're reasonably prepared. We do a scout skill camp out shortly after cross overs to help those new scouts build their basic skills right away and get them started on the right footing. We use troop guides more effectively and have an ASM for new scouts/patrol advisor (adult)assigned to the new patrol(s). NONE of this was happening when my son joined the troop. I think if parents who are new-ish to boy scouting or to a specific troop/pack/crew/ship/team/whatever take the time and energy to find this forum and post their concerns in a reasonable manner, then they deserve a response *besides* "you don't know what you're talking about - quit hovering - stop griping." After all, these people are a step away from becoming leaders, themselves, if they've already gone to this much trouble. And let's be honest, if a boy quits a troop because he's that miserable, or because of some silly rules that the adults put in place that fly in the face of BSA policy, the chances of him finding another troop are pretty low. In reality, that's yet another boy who is probably done with scouting. So I want to thank all the people who have given me good advice, including both practical suggestions, points of comparison (this is how we do it...), and occasionally, perspective on choosing battles wisely. It is in no small part thanks to your responses that I've seen some changes for the better with my son's troop, AND that I've come to understand how to help my son grapple with some of the challenges that a more or less "boy led" program brings with it for the participants. And I'm happy to say he has grown and found his place in the program these days, after all.

One of the lessons I've learned along the way is that packs change fairly easily, while troops typically do not. In a pack, all it takes is one or a couple of dynamic, high energy people with a strong desire to improve things, and BAMN! it happens. Not so, in a troop, where sometimes it seems like people are expected to spend years observing and quietly toiling in order to earn the privilege to make the smallest suggestion. Is this a good thing? I'm not entirely sure and I wish for some middle ground. On one hand, pack leadership may change so often that stability can be a problem. On the other hand, troop leadership tends to get so entrenched that some pretty weird "local interpretations" of the program end up becoming "the way we've always done it" and are really hard to combat. In another thread somebody encouraged readers to take the long view and there's something to be said for that, but how long is too long, and how long is reasonable?

I'm in complete agreement with Aquila Calva that this family needs to be removed from your pack, and it is a very rare thing that I'd ever support removing a boy from a unit. But, the letter needs to come from the institutional head of your charter organization (CO) - NOT FROM YOU JeffD. The CO has the ultimate say-so in terms of who may be a member of their pack. You, as a leader, do not. (Nor does your council, whose incentive is to enroll as many boys as possible in scouting.) In reality, this may mean that you have to find out who the Institutional Head of your CO is and tell him or her what to do because they may be clueless to the point that they barely know they charter your pack. Yet, this is still their responsibility - not Council's and not National's. And if you wait for National to act, well you might as well wait for the cow to jump over the moon. While you're at it, document in writing everything that's going on and it might not be a bad idea to make sure the probation officer is well aware of the threats you are receiving.

Joni - based on your most recent post it sounds like everybody did pretty much the right thing at this point. (the post before last had me thinking it had still gone unreported so I'm glad to hear that's not the case.) What a messy situation. I know you'll keep close tabs on all of the participants going forward.

Let me try that the other way around. If they did it for the MB (say, at summer camp) does it automatically "count" for the 1st cl req. too?

Joni, now that you understand the process, this would be a great topic for a roundtable presentation...

Indeed you're correct, it was a XP (hey, it's all Greek to me...)

FScouter, you're right (as far as I can tell) that the folks in Irving are not whining about the situation in Philadelphia - at least, not in public. Rather, I should have said that some BSA members are. I stand corrected, and thank you. So then, to take the logic of at least one poster, if National is ok with it, then we should all be lock-step behind National's view on this issue, right?

When one has a philosophical difference with an organization that otherwise does so much good, one is placed into a difficult position. One has to weigh how much the problem impinges on the everyday workings of the group, to what extent the problem is causing harm to others, and whether change is more likely to come from within or from without, or from a combination of the two. In weighing these matters, some will choose to leave - or, not join to start with. Some will choose to enroll their kids, but not be active themselves, as adult scouters in support of the program their kids are in (which I find the most problematic of all possible positions, personally). Some will choose to be active but with a mind toward at least raising the issues in question where the opportunity is appropriate and fruitful to do so. And still others will just bite their tongue. We all have to make those choices for ourselves, onehouraweekmy. Personally, I will not defend the BSA's exclusionary policies because I think they're both morally wrong and short sighted. When my child came home from school with a flyer advertizing cub scouts, I was hesitant to let him join because of these policies. I envisioned a bunch of adults foaming at the mouth against gays (I didn't know, at the time, about the atheist issue) and passing on their homophobic intolerance to my elementary school aged son through lessons of indoctrination at every turn. In that, I don't think I'm too different from a lot of parents these days, who have a pretty negative image of scouting even if they know little about the bigger picture of the BSA program. In fact, the main reason I was willing to give it a try was because my husband had been a scout and my dad was a scout and my godfather was a scout, and they all turned out to be pretty decent people in no small part because of their scouting experiences. When my husband started regaling me with stories of the fun he'd had as a boy scout (in an otherwise somewhat troubled childhood) I thought, ok, we'll see. And when I discovered that individual units are run by local parents and NOT (mostly) people with any kind of political agenda except to raise healthy, happy, well-adjusted young men of character, then I had to weigh my response on the basis of everything I mentioned above. Not to mention that practically every little boy in my son's class was joining, that we had just moved here and my son was having a hard time adjusting and getting to know kids, and that there weren't any other options in town for little boys. There is no perfect group that meets every member's every need. I find more good than not good about BSA, and frankly, most of the "not good" has practically no bearing on how any of the packs, troops, crews, ships, or teams I've met function. No one asked whether my son was gay (or atheist) when he joined cub scouts. It never once came up in the pack we were in and it is a rare thing to have even a philosophical discussion of these issues in the troop he's part of, either. To the extent that happens at all, it is generally late at night around a camp fire with a cup of coffee in hand, talking about would-could-should kinds of things. The same is true of the many other units I've become familiar with over the last several years. While I wish BSA National would screw its head on straight and realize what a major negative their membership policies are (IMO), in the meantime I prefer to work within the system. Others can choose otherwise, and I respect those choices. But please don't tell me what I have to do. It isn't going to work anyway. And so - if BSA wants to qualify for the cheap non-profit rate, great. Let it meet the legal criteria as set forth by the city of Philadelphia. If it is unwilling to do so, fine, that's the BSA's choice and one of the great things about freedom - the BSA has the ability to decide for itself what its membership criteria will be (however misguided I personally think those criteria are). But then quit whining about having to pay more because of those choices. You can't have it both ways.

Oh my,packs (pax?) of raving atheists! Better start guarding the streets folks, lock up your women and children...though I have yet to be accosted by these hordes while doing my grocery shopping. Personally I find it more annoying that people can't be bothered to spell things out properly on signs and in advertising - perhaps they think it is "cute" to name their day care center "Kozy Kidz Kare" and maybe it saves a couple of dimes to write Xmas instead of Christmas. Me, I just think it makes them look illiterate. But as for the "X" thing, hey, the church I grew up in as a child used it - in fact I recall there being one stained glass window with a great big XR (chi rho) in the middle of it. If it was good enough for them, it doesn't bother me. And I think it is easy to see insult where none is really intended.

While we're clarifying things: Freedom of association does NOT mean extending a ridiculously cheap lease deal. Freedom of association means the gov't cannot bar you from meeting with other people, under most reasonable circumstances (courts have ok'd certain restrictions for public safety, like riots, demonstrations in public areas without permits, etc.) The city of Philadelphia is NOT telling boy scouts that they may not meet with other boy scouts. They ARE telling the non-profit org (not the scouts themselves) that, as an organization, they do not meet the legal criteria for incredibly cheap-o rent. Our rights and freedoms are indeed precious, but let's not stretch them out of all recognition just for convenience sake. Is what Phillie is doing legal? Almost certainly, and this is a predictable upshot of the BSA's policy. Is what Phillie is doing "right" or "just?" Depends on your viewpoint, but you cannot seriously expect a city to just ignore a law on as high profile a case as this one, especially when there's a significant amount of revenue involved. Here's one irony for you - taxpayer watchdog groups (which tend to be Republican and generally socially conservative) would tear the city a new one if they found that the city was NOT charging market value rent and instead, illegally subsidizing BSA HQ with tax dollars.

Hey Joni, I know this is probably kind of low on your list of district and council things to deal with right now! But I'm really curious to know what would be said if you contacted your district advancement chair and asked them why EVERYONE is registered troop-only?! There has to be a story here.

Where ever it ends up... In our council, units get a standard 30% no matter what and an ADDITIONAL 3% for doing the things you mentioned. So I think your council is skimming off the top here. This is something worth questioning. However, as to why sell popcorn - even at 27% your pack is making a lot of profit and you are doing a great job of helping pay upkeep on council properties taht you (hopefully) well benefit from using for a long time to come.

Joni, eoleson is correct here. As a scout leader, your first and most important responsibility is to the boys - to keep them safe, and to speak out when they are not safe or there is a problem. The allegiance you owe your CC is secondary in this instance. You may owe your CC a head's up that you cannot sit on this any further, but that's about it. You've already said that the CC has had this info for at least a week. Call your CC and tell them to put a call in TODAY to the SE. There's nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost, by waiting until Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday. Supposing that your CC is an honorable and reasonable person (and of course he is!) then he will get over it and perhaps even thank you, down the road. But adult friendships should not stand in the way of reporting alleged child sexual molestation, and that is what you're dealing with here. And I hate to say this, but while you've said you don't want to play the drama game, think what the DE is now imagining, based on the teaser preview he got from you. He knows something ugly is going to happen but he has no details on what that may be.

I'd say it is about 60-40 around here, with the majority being open to all. This might be a good thing to point out to your district advancement chair. Along with the rest of the council advancement folks, he or she may be able to get a campaign going to convince more people to register council-wide. If not, keep in mind that you are not limited to only your council! You can always contact another council to see whether they have MBCs available for popular MBs.

Joni, I get your point about disliking the drama. I work in a male-dominated field and while I've discovered that men can be petty drama (er...) kings too, I usually have a good laugh when other women start to go on about how hard it must be to work with all those guys. Nothing like working with a bunch of other women! There's little value that I can see in having this meeting with your CC and SM before bringing the SE into the loop, and every single day that the information is held on to, is another day where this "whack job and a half" can essentially pull the rug out from under you by going to the SE herself. Or worse, going to the media. Or who knows what else. Even more importantly, it is another day where either this young man in question is unjustly under a cloud of suspicion, or another day where the other boy he may have victimized at one of your scouting events is being ignored, all for the convenience and short-term comfort of a few adults who are twisting their hands instead of acting as they're bound to do. No matter how things break, waiting is not fair to the boy(s) here. What I DO think there may be some value in, is having the CC and SM sit down to figure out how they're going to bring the CO into this discussion. I know you've said the COR is totally out of the loop, but that isn't likely to last once the SE is informed. And far better that troop leadership (CC and SM) present a clear and united picture to the CO - this is what is alleged to have occurred, these are the steps we are required to take, and we're taking them now; we want to keep you (CO) informed as things progress - , than that the CO gets wind of a bunch of wild rumors and calls you all up short on it. That's the kind of thing that could realistically result in the CO deciding they no longer want to be involved in sponsoring a troop at all!

Congrats to you and the troop! May you have many more successful meetings to come.

About this: The candidates have to consider "party policy" if they want to survive in "party politics." Well yes and no. The national parties do not have nearly as much hold over the candidates as they might like. Supposing that Obama or Biden or Edwards (three who are boycotting MI) wins the Dem nomination, the likelihood of the national party refusing to back or fund them is less than zero. Won''t happen, because the decentralized party needs the candidates as much or more than the candidates need anything other than the basic name recognition that goes along with being in the party. And no way is the party going to kick them out! And run who instead...Kucinich? So the national parties play this game where they pretend to have control (via money) over the candidates, but at least the front runners can call that bluff any time they want to.

Sure Longhaul, that was part of the motivation and Granholm hasn''t been shy about saying so. She has, however, also made public statements to the effect that the current primary system is broken and needs fixing, and that she doesn''t see why MI or FL should sit around waiting for a solution when the national party organizations seem so content not to bother finding one. No, I''m not fond of the approach Granholm has championed on this issue, although in general, I like her. I''d like to see a national process for scheduling primaries, rather than a patchwork mess as we have now. And there have been several potential blueprints floating around for years now, so it could be done. In fact I fully expect one upshot of the current MI/FL mess to be that in 2012 the parties will come to some big agreements on how to re-do the primary schedules. But in the meantime, I think it is fair to say that the Dem party is giving the short end of the stick to its own potential voters in two pretty big states, by encouraging candidates to boycott these primaries. I believe this election is more important than the 2004 election in many ways and while I realize I probably can''t change things, I''ll be darned if I''m going to sit idly by and quietly accept it while my own party''s candidates boycott my vote! Seriously, McCain did pretty well among Democrats in MI in 2000 and I think he could again, given the Dems'' apparent disdain for us up here. And while it would be a cold day down under before I personally would vote for Rudy for dog catcher, let alone president, I know a lot of other Dems who might.

Hoo boy Joni, I don''t envy you. Question - has anyone in this whole mess asked the boy and his parents to sit down and talk about this? Here''s where I think Beavah''s advice and John''s advice come into play, as to how to do that. Supposing that his myspace page includes information on activity that is either harmful or illegal (or both), this young man needs help from caring individuals before he finds himself attracting the kind of attention he doesn''t want. If his myspace page included info about under age binge drinking or drug use, one might expect caring scout leaders and CO members to (at the very least) reach out to him - as a youth, regardless of his position in scouting, which might be a lesser concern. Same ought to be true if he''s advertising a wild and unsafe sex life (gay or straight). Another question - did I understand correctly that he is allegedly engaging in sexual behavior with another of your scouts? Great big Youth Protection red flags here. That worries me far more - is this allegedly taking place while under troop supervision (camp outs)? If the other scout''s parents find out about this, assuming they aren''t aware already, both you and the boy in question may have all kinds of very unpleasant questions to answer from those parents. I know if my kid came home from a scout event with tales of sexual experience (even consensual) I''d be way beyond livid - that''s not the safe environment parents expect from scouting! If I understood this part right, I think you absolutely have to act. If I''ve misunderstood, well I''ll be relieved.