Lisabob

Hi Cubleader6, You could probably organize your own Cub Fair, but you may find you have better luck setting up a booth at an established community event. Doing so would probably mean more exposure. Also it would be a lot less work. If your town has some sort of spring or summer fair, a farmer's market, evening concerts in the park, parades, etc., you can start by contacting the organizers (chamber of commerce might be able to help you with this) and explaining what you want to do. Keeping on the straight and narrow: In order to do any fundraising other than popcorn you need to get approval from your council. You should ask for a unit money earning application (also available online at http://www.scouting.org/forms/34427.pdf ). Be sure to read the rules for what is and isn't allowed. I can't see why your idea wouldn't be allowed, but you still need to go through all the proper channels. Good luck! Lisa'bob

Backpacker you appear to be relying on some factual errors. The port management is changing hands, but the rules and regulations passed by Congress and the various states, governing how the ports work and what may or may not be transported through them, have not changed. Further, the company in question (Dubai Ports World) is a major international corporation that has a long record of running ports in many countries around the world without mishap. Further, many of America's ports have been run by foreign-owned companies in the past (hailing from Singapore, South Korea, and Japan as well as Britain, and probably others too). There are good reasons to oppose this current deal. Frankly I can understand people who call for a re-examination of our port management policy, based on fact and sober analysis. Congress has the authority to change the rules if they want to and despite his claim to the contrary, I really doubt President Bush could make a veto stick on this issue right now. And I certainly agree that the political side of this recent deal has been poorly handled. However, I do not understand knee jerk reactions with no basis in fact. I feel it is incumbent on all of us to resist such reactions, as they serve no purpose and certainly don't set good examples for our scouts to follow. I'm no supporter of the Bush administration, never have been. But regardless of whether I voted for him, he's my president too - and yours, if you are a US citizen, even if you dislike him to the extreme. We're all in the same boat. I don't understand where your comments come from when you suggest that Bush is president of those who voted for him only. Lisa'bob

OK Jkhny, I'll bite. You clearly see a problem here. Exactly what are you doing about it, other than posting lengthy diatribes on this site? Venting has a place but after a while it gets old, particularly when there doesn't seem to be anything else happening. Lisa'bob

Right, OGE, but I guess I'm unclear on whether the BOR can, in effect, challenge something that has been signed off. Not so much in a confrontational way, but if it becomes clear that the scout didn't actually do the requirement and somehow got signed off anyway. What I was thinking is more along the lines of, are those sign-offs inviolate, even when everyone involved (scout included) agrees that somehow, the sign off was incorrect. I have limited BOR experience but my impression so far with this is that the BOR acts like a rubber stamp in most cases; if it is signed, they have to accept it as having been done. Scoutldr I agree that this should be dealt with before a BOR. But I can't help but think that it happens occasionally anyway (actually I know it has happened with a couple of younger scouts in our troop and I'm wondering what the BOR could have done). Also in our troop, as long as everything is signed (incl. SM conf) the boys can sign up for BORs. They don't need the SPL's rec at all, and the SM's only in so far as he has to sign off on the conference first. Not sure if this is the same as what you meant? Lisa'bob

In the thread on PLs signing off on rank requirements, Eagle76 wrote: "Also, we recently had a Scout come up for a Scoutmaster Conference for First Class, only to have his advancement postponed because, although the requirement was signed off, he had not yet served as patrol cook on a campout, procured the food, etc. I don't believe this was due to dishonesty; I believe the Scout, a relatively new-but-eager-to-advance Scout, did not understand the requirement, and the Scout signing him off did not take the proper time to verify it had been completed properly. (I know, training and instruction for the older Scouts is needed.) " ------------------------------------------ Let's say that this scout gets to the BOR and it becomes apparent at the BOR that he did not actually do some or all of one (or more) requirement(s). Let's also assume that this was not a nefarious scheme on the scout's part, but as Eagle76 describes, the result of excitement about advancing and/or a misunderstanding of the requirement(s) in question. What can the BOR do? Is it ever appropriate for the BOR to ask a scout how or when he completed a specific requirement, particularly if they have reason to believe that the above situation might be the case? Lisa'bob

Eagle76 we've faced that same problems: poor quality sign offs and repeated put-offs due to lack of time (by both youth and adult leaders). IMO this jeopardizes key parts of the program and can lead to frustrated boys, which is never good. We've been discussing this on and off for a couple of months in our troop. One thought is to encourage more instant sign offs (as soon as a skill is demonstrated). That would reduce the put-offs, which are especially problematic for the younger boys. But the potential downside to that seems to be that it might encourage sign offs for things the boy really hasn't mastered and couldn't repeat a day/week/month later. As to quality, aside from more training I think this one's really tough, especially when some of scouts (and sometimes adults too) who are signing off on lower rank requirements are, themselves, not terribly proficient in some of the skills in question. And why aren't they proficient? Perhaps because somebody wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to their sign offs at the lower ranks either. Seems like this problem tends to perpetuate itself. Of course it could also be that some skills are forgotten because they don't get used very often, rather than because they weren't learned well to start with (knot tying comes to mind here). Here are a couple of questions in terms of "best practice" for other troops: Does anybody build specific sign-off time into their meetings? Does anybody do any kind of "skill refresher" specifically for those scouts (or adults) who are in a position to be signing the books? Lisa'bob

Gern: No, American companies are not barred from bidding on jobs like this. However, there are very few American companies in this business. Most American ports have been operated by foreign companies for about the last 20 years. Further, this was not a bidding situation in the case of the 6 east coast ports in question; a company (British) already had the contract, and that company was sold to another company (Dubai Ports World), along with the contracts. LongHaul: One might argue that Arab countries are justified in lending half-hearted support to the methods that the US has used in our "war on terror" because those methods are perceived as inadequate and ill-considered. I'm not an apologist for repression or under-the-table supporters of terrorism. The Saudi strategy in the 1990s in particular appears to have been short sighted (active gov't support for wahabi sects of Islam, which tended to be virulently anti-western in tone, was apparently calculated to deflect criticism of the Saudi regime. In the meantime, crackdowns on political dissidents who wanted something closer to democracy didn't help either.) However I can see why they don't agree with our approach to global terrorism, particularly Guantanamo Bay, whatever "secret prisons" may be proven to exist in the future, and the Iraq war and aftermath. As for "friendly" Arab countries, yes I think there are several who none the less disagree with the way the Bush admin. handles itself. Jordan is the first one I'd name. Still, I agree with Gern that there was an element of tone deafness on the admin's part if they didn't think that this current deal would get a lot of scrutiny. Lisa'bob

Welcome to the group, Cubleader6. I hope you will post your questions, comments, thoughts, etc.. Personally I've found the forum to be a great place to bounce ideas, receive feedback, and learn new things. Also I think Semper's right about Ed... Lisa'bob

Ed, if you feel it is worth discussing then I suggest you go back and look through the thread again. There are several people (myself included) who express the view that the lyrics of the original post send a variety of unwelcome messages to kids. You need not agree but if you want to discuss further, I think it would be helpful for you to see the other side of the discussion. On the other hand, if you don't think this is worth further discussion then let me suggest you ignore this thread. That's one of the nice things about a forum like this. You don't have to read or respond to anything that doesn't interest you. Peronally I find that preferable to spending one's time telling everybody else that they're wasting their time. Lisa'bob

Sorry, I don't know that skit. I'll take your word for it though, that it might be inappropriate. Ed, I'm not arguing for political correctness here. I agree with you that one could go overboard in that direction. But if people in the unit find something offensive (and if you go back and follow the thread, you'll find the original poster did say some people in the unit are uncomfortable with the message this song sends) then they have every right to talk about the issue and perhaps, change things. Suggesting that this is a waste of time, as you have, strikes me as being a bit arrogant. If it bugs them then they should deal with it; it's their unit. You said that perhaps they should do nothing about this song and instead focus on what matters. My point: why can't they do both? This is hardly an either/or proposition. Lisa'bob

OGE, US companies aren't interested in being in this business and my guess is that they wouldn't make enough profit to make it worthwhile (in their eyes). I think this whole deal has been mis-handled by the exec. branch. With careful investigation and appropriate communication, many of the perhaps unjustified fears that are now swirling around could have been laid to rest. But this was sprung on an unsuspecting Congress too - including the leaders of the Republican majority, who might have at least expected better communication within their own party in the exec branch. In my view this speaks as much to the bungling of communication and hording of information (heck, even the president seemed to be out of the loop on this one) that seems pervasive in this administration, as to any major national security issues. Either way, at this point I really doubt that the president could make a veto stick. If nothing else, all those members of Congress who are up for re-election are unlikely to want to be in a position where they have to explain to angry constituents why they supported this deal. Lisa'bob

Oh C'mon now Ed. While I can agree that this song is not the end-all of teaching ethical behavior, I still think it is worth discussion. We're talking about teaching cub scouts that it is ok to border on swearing and that insulting or being rude to people (you're so boring) is funny. Don't you think that these kids learn ethics and respect and manners from actions (and songs they're taught by the adults leading them) just as much, if not more than, from formal lessons? Your argument, logically extended, would mean it is also ok to let little kids watch shows like South Park because hey, it's just entertainment. (Now I happen to like South Park but I wouldn't let my child watch it!) As for your comment that people should spend as much time "helping boys make ethical decisions," what makes you think we don't? Whatever it is that makes you think that, I'd wager you're wrong in the vast majority of instances of people in this forum. We're here precisely because we care a great deal about the development of these kids. Lisa'bob

No need to apologize to me Trev, even in very small font. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv either. (I do teach political science but my degree isn't a law degree, it is a political science degree) Lisa'bob

Thanks everyone, that's what I thought. I did find some photos on the web in various places. My son left his book at someone's house so it wasn't a ready reference for us. However, not long ago there was a thread about how the scout catalog had all kinds of uniforming mistakes. And my husband was pretty insistant. So I figured I'd better check. As for my husband...well he was a scout back in the dark ages...so I'll grant him a little lee way here. Thanks again for verifying the correct information for me. Lisa'bob

John, I agree completely that scouts should take every available opportunity to meet and talk with elected officials. I'd have no problem at all with any Senator (or Representative, state, local gov't leaders, etc.) visiting any scout group. I do have a problem with using scouts as political pawns in one's partisan games though, and from the sounds of it, that's what happened here. No politician should ask scouts to be part of a rally for or against a political issue, and no scout unit should attempt to do so IN UNIFORM. To do otherwise lends credence to the suspicion that scouting is just a front for a particular political view, and that's wrong. Lisa'bob

OK before we start sewing on mb's could anybody clarify for me which shoulder the MB sash goes on? I think it should go over the right shoulder (with the point over the left hip); my husband, who after all was a boy scout, says it goes over the left shoulder with the point over the right hip. My son is all excited about wearing it - properly - to assist with a B&G cross over in a couple days so we need to get it right, and fairly quickly. Thanks Lisa'bob

I'm not one to buy the "boys will be boys" attitude toward bullying so please, don't anybody misinterpret what follows as being permissive in that sense. But... Sometimes the kid in question truly does not realize how he is coming across. In my experience over years of working at summer camps, this is especially true with kids who are big for their age. I know we've had that happen in our troop as well with one boy who is generally a nice kid but, at age 13 he's almost twice the height and weight of most of his peers (let alone in comparison to the 10 and 11 year olds) and probably that much stronger. Playful "wrestling" type behavior that involves both him and smaller boys sometimes spills over into problem behavior because he just doesn't recognize his own strength or the difference between him and his peers. The smaller kid who ends up on the ground sometimes sees this as aggression but I don't think it is intended that way. And honestly sometimes the smaller guys do set things up to get out of hand. For example, they seem to love to rough house with this kid because beating him carries a certain cache, given his size. But then when he's the "winner" they often end up with sore behinds (from landing on them) and hurt feelings. At any rate I'd start out with a discussion of perception and unintentional harm. Maybe this is a good scoutmaster minute kind of thing too, not just for discussion with this one boy. If this kid is acting the part of the bully on the sly, at least you are letting him know you're on to the problem (and of course you'll need to follow up on it). On the other hand if he really has no idea, then it is time to clue him in. Lisa'bob

Hey Calico, I had that same thought about electioneering so I checked. Talent won't be up for re-election until 2008. But I guess he could be either a) positioning himself early or b) trying to help his fellow party members who are facing re-election in 2006 by staging a vote that they can use for obvious political purposes. Or maybe both. Lisa'bob

Scoutnut, I understand where you're coming from. But on occasion, packs do have leaders to whom the pack is happy to say goodbye. In many cases, this is the result of poor leader selection to start with (the warm body approach) and then packs end up riding things out until that person crosses over, rather than getting into the issue of replacing an unsuitable leader. Perhaps that isn't how the pack ought to handle things, but reality seems to be that many packs do act exactly like this. In such a situation, packs might be unenthusiastic about having such a person return to them as a leader. Lisa'bob

Fscouter, with due respect you (and the BSA!) are missing the point. Yes, there are lots of "women's" sizes available. However, they are not cut to actually fit women's bodies. THAT'S the gripe most women have. The women's shirt, for example, is not cut in a way that takes into account the fact that most women are not flat chested like most guys are. Consequently, the women's shirts don't fit women well and we're left with a set of bad (and expensive) choices regarding uniforming. Similarly with the pants, though personally I find the shirts more problematic. If the BSA wants to market "women's" uniforms then they darn tootin' ought to actually make uniforms that fit women's body types. Lisa'bob

Egads Brian, this is something the pack can and should fix. Next time you do a sale, have the committee agree upon some procedures regarding access to and responsibility for the product. We have used a sign out sheet for any family that wants to take product, either to do show & deliver or to deliver on orders previously taken. This cuts down on questions of who has which products in their possession. As part of our sign out we document in writing that once you sign it out, you are responsible for it financially. If you take more than you need you can return it (within the pack - not the district level) but until you do, you get charged for the product. We also set an end date on our sale so people can't return it 6-8-10 months later. We did this because of a problem where someone had a lot of popcorn and "lost track" of it. Nowhere near the $700 you're talking about but still enough money to cause concern. Frankly, a $700 deficit would've stretched our pack's budget to the limits. By the way - we also must sign paperwork with council in order to collect our pack's popcorn order. So there's a clear paper trail documenting who has what, when, and where. Lisa'bob

I gotta go with Scoutnut on this one. I can just picture my 11yo (tenderfoot), gleefully exclaiming that "hey, we don't need to use soap!" Soap is not a substance with which many boys that age willingingly interact. Lisa'bob

The leader knots are great but in many cases they do take time to earn (two years for some committee positions as I recall). In the meantime, have some fun with the adults too. Give them "local" awards like "top banana" or whatever to recognize the time and effort they are putting in. Recognize those who go to training at a pack meeting, just like you would when the boys earn something. Keep it light hearted but make it noticable and you might find more adults ask you about training. Then...well hey, you're the training chair. Promote the next training session tirelessly. Others are right, a one-on-one approach often works best here, but make sure to make some group announcements too. I was surprised sometimes and was approached by people I might not have asked if I'd done the one on one approach only. By the way, I'd start by asking the committee to agree that ALL adult leaders in the unit should have Youth Protection training. It is free, available on line, and really just so common sense that it is impossible to argue against doing it. Good luck! Lisa'bob

Well I'd be a little ticked off. Yes of course everyone should always have a back up plan and 12 hours is better than no notice at all. But still. I've organized B&Gs and I know that 12 hours before, there are three things I don't want to hear. 1. The food isn't going to be there; 2. The awards aren't going to be there; and 3. A major portion of the program/entertainment/ceremony isn't going to be there. Our B&Gs were always on a weeknight (usually Friday) so with 12 hours notice, I'd have time to deal with this problem on my way from work to the B&G. Not a good thing! And unless there were some extremely extenuating circumstances, you can bet the OA folks would be hearing from me. Lisa'bob

Welcome to the group from another former WNY'er. Lisa'bob