Lisabob

One thing that helps ( a bit) is setting very clear expectations about who will check emails, for what, and when. For example, my son/SPL and his SM do email back and forth, but the SM nearly always calls and say "I am sending you an email about xyz with details." Then my son knows to look for it, will check, and usually answers. Otherwise, he checks email when he gets around to it - but facebook, daily. I don't think kids - who grew up on this technology - understand that most adults are still on email only (at best). Still, I'm not sure I'm excited about using facebook for conveying anything more complicated than basic meeting reminders. It isn't set up for lengthy material, you can't do attachments, etc. My question is, why do we still do old-fashioned routine patrol calls (with dubious results) when all the boys are on FB? Why not just do FB patrol messages? Write on your patrol members' walls, etc.

I don't know that palms mean all that much to a lot of kids (or adults). People make such a big to-do out of Eagle and I suppose that's understandable, but palms are relatively easy to earn, don't get the same recognition/hoopla, and maybe they are kind of an anticlimax.

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the written explanation business only applies when a BOR puts a hold on advancement, and not to the Scoutmaster conference or the SM's decision about signing off on a requirement. Not that it is a bad idea to get this kid to put something on paper for you, Twocub, but I agree with others that the burden is on him to figure out a plan that is acceptable, and not on you to tell him what he has to do (other than in general terms - changing behavior).

The motto for Cub Scouts is "do your best." In keeping with this, there isn't a strict definition of "active" that I'm aware of. Be reasonable about it. A boy who missed a meeting because he was sick should probably not have to worry about that. On the other hand, a boy who goes missing for an entire 3 month period, doesn't attend anything at all even when things don't conflict with sports, well - is he active in your eyes as the den leader? Was he doing his best to make the pack go? That's ultimately going to be your judgment call, and as long as you are reasonable I doubt anybody will give you too much grief.

"Yes, good point. If a council only accepted merit badge counselor applications along with a list of merit badges that the counselor wished to counsel, they could then restrict a counselor to only signing off on five merit badges per Scout, (at least until the Scouter changed his or her registration.) However, this strict limit would be in contradiction of national policy, as I read it. " My council does this. And somebody does check blue cards to match MBC signatures to the list, too - at least some of the time. We've had some kicked back to us.

Boomer, first, this is not a contest to figure out who donates more or who works more at what food banks. I have, I do, and not all food banks work the same way anyway. But I stand by what I said. Scouting should not be relying on food banks to provide meals for camp outs.

I would really strongly object to utilizing a food bank to provide food for a scout outing. Scouting is a worthwhile, yet totally voluntary activity. Food banks around the country are already facing trouble trying to meet demand from people who are not engaging in voluntary activities - but who really and truly cannot afford to feed themselves or their families on a regular basis. Food banks are a last resort for most of their clients, not a convenience. Scouting should be helping community food banks - not serving as a drain on them!

Sigh. Slavery? Really? Isn't there some corollary to Godwin's law about this? Could we *please* try to limit the hyperbole in this debate (isn't there already plenty of that out there).

Well then scoutldr, no problems, no worries. If it is unconstitutional, I'm sure it will be overturned by the Supreme Court in due course.

Yes, my son's troop means a scouting T shirt and scout pants when they say "Class B." Why? Not sure. Since it is a "uniform troop" to begin with, all the guys do own the pants. And with the newer styles, most of the guys also don't mind wearing the pants/shorts. Yet I agree, the pants do not make the scout.

If the bill is indeed unconstitutional then I imagine that sooner or later, somebody with standing will challenge it, it will land in the Supreme Court, and they'll over turn it. Wouldn't be the first time in history you know - and that's one of the beautiful things about our system. So let's not get too carried away with the notion that a bill on health care is going to ruin freedom or any such stuff, hmm? On the other hand, if what you mean is that you disagree with the bill, then how 'bout we don't resort to hyperbole by labeling everything with which we disagree "unconstitutional."

We did ours as dessert at the Blue & Gold. The kids had a blast with it, and it saved the pack a lot of money in terms of having to provide dessert for 100+ people. Definitely do find a name that doesn't automatically exclude (or appear to exclude) kids whose dads are not in the picture for whatever reason.

"BSA would also have to drop the B and become Scouts America or something else that is more encompassing of a coed organization." Well then. For those who have had the misfortune to have the "Boy" part of the red lettering on their new uniform shirts come off, just think - you're already prepared for the eventual change! Here we all thought it was poor workmanship when in reality, it was just the BSA beginning to prepare us all for the change to co-ed scouting. Those clever dogs.

After many months of discussion, I hardly think things are being rushed any more. THat charge might have had some truth if things were rammed through in August, as the original game plan called for. As it is, a vote in the Senate on the actual bill is unlikely to occur before mid December. True, the bill is very large and complicated. On the other hand, I'd be awfully worried about any bill that was ten pages long and written so that the average 6th grader fully comprehended everything in it. Health care *is* complicated. No surprise that any comprehensive effort to address the topic would also be complicated.

In most cases I am with SR540Beaver that discipline should be a SM and committee issue, especially when things escalate beyond minor squabbles and when facts are disputed. I have seen ham-handed attempts to have the SPL or PLC handle those sorts of issues and it often backfires. It isn't just angry parents/friends, but a question of justice and of understanding the appropriate use of disciplinary action. For example: in my son's troop, one year at summer camp, several boys were major pains in the rear. They threw stones at others all week long, used foul language all week long, intentionally broke one guy's equipment, sexually taunted and harassed a young scout, and generally behaved terribly. I still do not understand why the SM didn't just send them home. I certainly would have. Things came to a head at the end of the week when one of the persistent victims got hit in the head with a rock one time too many and went out after one of the kids. A minor fist fight ensued. The SPL's solution (3 months later) was to ban both boys in the fist fight from an event that would occur 6 months later. The parent of the boy who tried all week long to play by the rules was mad. To them, it made no sense that it took three months to decide there should be equal punishment, and that the kids who broke his stuff would not be expected to make restitution. The parent of the kid who was sexually taunted was mad. To them, the punishment was insufficient. The parent of the kids who had been chucking rocks, breaking things, and harassing scouts all week were mad. To them, they believed their boy(s) version of events and didn't think other boys should tell them what to do. The parents of everyone involved felt the SPL's choice to wait 3 months and then ban kids from an event 6 months in the future was too far removed from the problem behavior. The SPL's decision was over-turned. I'm sure this left the SPL feeling undermined. It also caused a lot of hard feelings among many adults. Having witnessed that whole mess, I would say the poor SPL was not well equipped to recognize and handle the blow back that resulted. He did not understand that to be effective, discipline needs to be fairly immediate, progressive, and proportionate. He certainly wasn't prepared for some of the parent responses he got. I think he was set up to fail by the SM in that case. This should have been a committee issue from the beginning, though perhaps with some input from the SPL. So if you plan to have the SPL and PLC handle disciplinary issues, tread very carefully. Be sure they get excellent guidelines first. And it will probably help if the parents of the accused scouts are on board. Otherwise, the chances of backfire are high.

Yikes. I'm sure his local's president was unhappy about this. On the other hand, the guy has the right to express his personal view. It would've been nice if the initial news report had clearly indicated that he was "just" a union member, not a union leader though. Perhaps this is an example of poor journalism there. But look at that last point - the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the area increased by 4% in the last year. Ouch. (I notice it is still well below the unemployment rate in my state though. Lucky dogs... only 9.5%...)

I've been watching this thread with some amusement. I have to smile at the back-handed suggestion by some that women are acceptable as leaders primarily because not enough men are stepping forward (good to be wanted as something other than a last resort). And I admit that I have never really understood why, upon reaching age 11, it is suddenly so much more imperative (to some) that boys have exclusively male leaders. After all, a large % of cub leaders are women, and children are so incredibly impressionable at those younger ages. If anything, you'd think there would be a huge clamor (from those same circles) to have 100% male Cub leaders. Oh but wait - the care of young children - that's "women's work," right? (Look at the % of male elementary teachers and daycare workers.) Makes no sense to me though. But I also understand that people are hesitant to embrace change and it is true that women have been active as Cub leaders for longer than they have as Troop leaders. Personally, I am in favor of allowing co-ed boy scout troops, along the same lines that we now allow for co-ed crews (ie, make it up to the CO to decide whether they will sponsor a single-sex or a co-ed group). That allows people to have choices in terms of the types of programs they want their child to be in. But in the meantime, the BSA youth membership policy is what it is. Jsummerlin, your argument would have the practical effect of excluding women leaders until the BSA changes its membership policy. While you may be right about the consistency angle, you would effectively shut out women for the foreseeable future. I imagine you can see where that might be problematic.

My son's troop does this. The color guard commander announces "Audience, please rise for the pledge of allegiance." He does the same thing at the end of the meeting "Audience, please rise for the retiring of the colors." What irks me are the parents who insist on talking during the prayer requests. Although I am not one to wear religion on my sleeve, I just think that's really rude. Every once in a while one of the senior scouts will call them on it, too.

Sorry pack but I really think you are twisting what was said. However, twist away and I'll say no more on this. I'm also quite sure Voyager can defend his own words.

That is not a statement that indicates 9/11 was spin.

Wait, what? I missed how a comparison of US and Soviet positions in Afghanistan relates to whether or not 9/11 actually happened. I do not believe anybody was suggesting 9/11 is a conspiracy or spin. I do believe that making a direct comparison between the US position in Afghanistan and the Soviet position in Afghanistan in the 80s is problematic. If people are going to do that - and if we're going to then proclaim alternately that "it can't be done" because the Soviets failed, and because it is "another Vietnam," OR that it can only be done when/if we blast every last one of those suckers (etc) then the details matter. Otherwise we're not evaluating from a position of fact, but instead from a position of emotion.

Sorry pack, le Voyager has the scoop on this one. I would add that the Soviet military was not in great shape in terms of morale. In the early 90s I met a number of ex-Soviet conscripts who had been sent to Afghanistan. The stories they told of their treatment within the military were harrowing. They all believed that the low morale of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan was a major issue. They also all knew quite a few people who had defected, and the civilian pressure on the Soviet gov't over the treatment of conscripts (especially ethnically non-Russian conscripts) was tremendous. In that regard, the Soviet situation in Afghanistan was quite different from our current occupation where, at least, our soldiers are volunteers who have some clue about what they are getting into. (Well, mostly - setting aside crazy stop loss policies)

John, maybe it is a matter of inference here. When I read that line, I read a fellow who is, maybe, not a gifted and polished speaker. I read that the union will be looking into the situation by which the city gov't allowed this to happen - not that he's directly attacking the young man in question.

eghiglie- interesting point. Maybe that's the basis for a good scoutmaster's minute on the importance of striving for ideals. We certainly have fallen short of the "liberty and justice for all" bit in our history. That doesn't mean we should stop trying, right? Teens (esp young teens) can be so absolute in their thinking sometimes.

Boomer, the point of that story was not that unions are "county royalty." The point was that there are times and places where unions are attacked, and where some management tactics include eliminating job classifications - not because the work doesn't need to be done, but in order to get rid of the union. That, my friend, is union busting plain and simple. Again I say that the city gov't had a clear option to propose different terms of the contract back when they last negotiated. But, having signed the contract with the SEIU, the city is obligated to actually follow it. The grievance process is typically used when the union believes the contract is not being implemented correctly. There is nothing wrong about using this conflict resolution process that both sides mutually agreed upon. I see no one attacking or insulting the scout in any of this. In fact it is really unfortunate that he's caught up in this at all. But that doesn't make the union's concern (however inelegantly expressed) invalid, per se.