mk9750

Bob, I just scanned all your posts in this thread again and keep missing you saying you didn't know. I'll figure it's buried in there somewhere and apoligize to you for implying you were keeping it a secret. If it's the insurance excuse (shame of it is), then yes, I think I'd have a tough time ignoring what profesional risk managers say about this. If it's the lone camp ranger, or some other similiar reason, I'd feel more comfortable saying yes to a different venue. You seem to think that I am looking for a way to say no. Exactly the opposite. I WANT this to become a part of our prog

Here's a similiar situation to consider: The Patrol develops a duty roster that includes a cook and an assistant cook for the weekend. Tradition dictates that the parents of the cook is responsible for shuttling these two boys to and from the grocery store. When the parent is not registered, there is no real problem here. It's just a mom or dad being a taxi service. But what happens when the mom or dad is registered? What if he / she is the SM or an ASM? Youth protection rules are good. they do a service to both boys and Scouters. But here is a situation that at the least causes

Bob, I agree with your position. I am thrilled that the possiblity exists. But a responsible person who is given the responsiblity to approve or help modify a Patrol's plan for an outing should be considering all of the pertainent information. The BSA made their call based on something significant, I'm sure. I'll also bet that most responsible SMs would be considering the same issues that the BSA did even if they don't know they were. I'm not asking for a reversal, I'm not asking for them to defend why they did it, I just want to know, so that we can be sure the information we

Bob, you know I love ya, man, but I think you bit off more than you can chew here. I am 100% on the side that says we should encourage and allow properly planned Patrol events without adult supervision. but if the BSA doesn't allow them on its own property, my assumption is that they must have a reason. And knowing the BSA, it's probably a good reason. I'd like to hear what it is and consider it before I allowed one of our Patrols to go, if I were the SM. It's just another bit of backround info that would help make a good decision. I don't mean to say that their policy would kee

I've mentioned this in other threads, but our Troop answers this question by deciding what the impetus for the need is. If we are trying to raise money for general needs (like awards, etc.) or special Troop resource needs, like a a trailer, the Committee Chair usually askes someone on the comittee to develop a fundraiser. If the boys want to partake in an activity that is resource intensive, like kayaking or Rapelling and we need equipment to do so, they are responsible for developing a way to pay for it. Might not be the perfect solution, but it works for us. Mark

Fog, I find that some of the things I see on this forum make me feel that my Troop is very odd. Your comment about the number of people wearing complete uniforms is one of them. I just tried to do a mental picture of what I saw at our last Troop meeting, and who was there. We had 31 of 32 Scout at the meeting. 30 of 31 had their complete uniform on correctly (we do have a couple of boys who wear temporary patches incorrectly. I'm not counting them as out of uniform). We had a Scoutmaster and 7 ASMs at the meeting. One of the ASMs arrived late, directly from work, and he was

Ditto to all. To phrase a little differently: Johnny could go to MB Counselor "A" and be told his previous nights camping count. Billy could go to MB Counselor "B" and be told his previous camping nights do not count. Neither is wrong. As to my opinion, I think they should count. However, I also think that a number of people, including the Advancement Chair and some well meaning older Scouts should be pointing out to all new Scouts that if the MB Counselor that most of the Troop's guys go to is a stickler about this, they should be suggesting that these guys get their MB card an

Shell, Like you, I was trying to find a way to get our Scribe more active with the advancement records, without giving away too much of my job, and without turning gray worrying that it would get done correctly. After reading oh, about a billion posts here, I came to realize that turning over work to the boys isn't only OK, it's expected! I have continuously followed a number of posters here. One of them, Eagledad, has spoken about this topic in terms that have really helped me understand that it is our duty NOT to do what a boy could do himself. Now, our Scribe records al

scoutingagain, I think you might be able to hear the palm of my hand slapping my forehead as I say to myself "Why didn't I think of that!" May I borrow your question about what a Scout wants to get out of Scouting for use in BORs I do? What a great question! I ask "What ARE you getting out of Scouting?" all the time. Never occured to me to ask what a Scouted wanted to get. By the way, welcome to you and to Bob Welch. Mark

Eamonn, You raise two issues: 1) Adult volunteers who don't extend themselves into District and Council positions. To this I agree. I know in my situation (and others in my Troop feel the same way), we truly prefer working with our unit to getting involved in the politics of Council relations. We keep our heads down in our own little foxhole. Whenever we've had reason to lift our heads, the crossfire has been scary! I'd give you an example we've got going right now, but it's long (even for my standards!) 2) Keeping volunteeers after their sons are gone. I agree again.

Our rationale for testing at every aquatics event is fairness. Sometimes Scouts just barely pass. We don't think it is good practice to allow a Scout who is a marginal swimmer to automtically be clasified as a swimmer based on one test a year. These guys should get tested more often. How often? I don't know. Every event is probably too much, but how should we know? So we do test at every event. Well, then why test everyone? That's where the fairness doctrine applies. This is an area where a rule made for one or two guys should be applied to all, we think. Sure, we're retesting

big Dog, Welcome, welcome, welcome! If you've been lurking for any length of time, you should know that you've found a great bunch of characters to chat with. Passionate about Scouting, you betcha! Sometimes it spills into a bit of rough housing, but most everyone here is cognizant of the Scout Law. Congrates on the new Troop. I hope you find it, as I do, the single most reqarding thing you'll have ever done outside of family life. Don't be afraid to come and lean of your friends here. There is a lot of wisdom in these masses! I hope you are not to be confused with "Big Dawg" of

Zahanda, Sorry that I could not reply through the PM system. For some reason, clicking on the link doesn't get me anywhere. Out of respect for the fact that you responded privately, I won't quote you, but I wish you had posted this publicly. Your comment was really my point though. One person thinks the truth is..., the other thinks it's the opposite. One group of people think what is right is ..., the other... I agree with that. It's really the point that I was trying to make. NJ sees from his his perspective that society has accepted homosexuality. My perception is that it has

I see four issues in the original post: 1) "May not allow..." Ninety - five percent of me understands this to mean very specifically that smoking in front of Scouts is prohibited. Five percent allows for the possiblity that it could mean "are permitted to prohibit it". Given the preceeding text in the Guide, and what I think is everyone's understanding of the intent of the BSA, I think the wording is fine the way it is, but there would be no harm in changing it to "prohibit" 2) The literature request to refrain from smoking for the duration of the event. Given the prohibition on smok

NJ, I disagree with many of your premises here, but the one I want to single out is your contention that homosexuality is no longer considered immoral by societal consesus. I can't for the life of me figure out how you feel that is true. In my circle of friends and aquaintances, I know of VERY FEW who accept homosexuality as moral. Many of my friends refuse to watch Will and Grace and other shows that celebrate homosexuality because we feel they promote immoral behavior. Many of my friends feel that it is likely that homosexuals will meet an Angry God at their Judgement Day. I u

nivipi, Your point certainly is valid. Can there be no doubt that in most cases, boys stand a better chance of being treated properly for medical issues if an adult is available? Of course not. I think we all know that having an adult is more likely to provide a good outcome in a situation like this. But you went on to begin to describe what I think is the flaw in your position. In your soccer example, certainly the boy's leg injury may have been minimized by adult presence. Because that is true, we probably aught to limit the times kids can play soccer to when adults can be present.

Ed, I used the word "hope" more like "wish' than "expect". I might read you wrong, but I think that if you had an 11 year old Patrol Leader, you would "hope" that he got his feet quickly... I see it differently. When we have 11 year old PLs, we know almost for certain that they will not understand their role. We know that they won't know how to lead a group of peers (one of the toughest jobs in the world!). We know that they won't even have the skills to take care of themselves. The difference of opinion between you and me centers, I think, in whether this is acceptable. I don't

Ditto Bob and Ed. Anyone the SM approves to sign off a requirement can sign off a requirement. That means that if the SM approved a tenderfoot to sign it off, from an advancment standpoint he could. Not a very good idea, but as for the advancement, it would be sufficient. I think there are a couple of issues in your question. One is the your idea that the person who signs off the requirement be qualified. That shold be true for any requirement. What makes someone qualified to sign off a requirement? In our Troop, it is generally achieving 1st Class. Once a boy has sufficiently mastered th

If it was Uniontown horse sense, than credit my dad! Most of my few good qualities I inherited from him (unless I'm talking to my mom!). And, As I must have mentioned somewhere before, he is from near Uniontown. A great man, he was. I miss him terribly. Mark

Barry, That is EXCEPTIONALLY kind of you to say that. Thank you! Just to pick out one point from Eammon's post, I like the comment about having more time to get to know boys and become fond of them. I have to say, that among the other 38,000 benefits I have gotten from Scouting (that's about 37,993 more than I have provided the program), the one that has meant the most to me is the friendship I have developed with 9 of the guys who I have had the fortune to serve. These guys are all tremendously different. Each has reached differenet levels of success both in and out of Scouting. Bu

No need to apologize. Heck, you probably are a hero to some. Think about it. I might have said about the same things, but it would have taken me four more paragraphs, and it wouldn't have been nearly as poetic. BTW, I read the small dialog between you and Outdoor Thinker in the other thread. You are right to count that, and her, as a victory. Sounds like you have plenty of reason to be proud if her and your son. You've got reason to be proud of yourself, too. But I suspect that isn't why you're here, is it? Mark

This topic is close to my heart, as I have been trying to get a couple of our PLs to try some form of this. Eagledad made a great point, but it was buried in the middle of a paragraph, so it might not have stood out. He said, in effect, that the unsupervised outing should be something the SM feels is within (I think WELL within) the Patrol's ability. For a brand new New Scout Patrol, this might be limited to doing Putt Putt. For a group of 13 year olds, I think it is very reasonable to think they could do a day hike and cook their own meals without adult supervision. I believe my son's Pa

We have used NSPs and have not used them. It depends to a large extent on the number of boys crossing over. This year, we only had three boys. We don't see the value in a NSP for three boys. Last year, we had 14 cross, and we had two NSPs. As has Laura, we've met with a fair amount of failure, but also a number of major triumphs, too. As to the original question, every one of the times we have had an 11 year old PL (going back 9 years since I've been with the Troop) has been a tremendous success. Almost never successful in the manner I suspect FOG and Ed might hope: An 11 year old finds h

Nice going, OGE. Now there's no need for me to post! Mark

Charity, Call me sappy, but I think this is a wonderful situation. A lot of people are going to learn from this if everyone handles it well. The only "mistake" I see that was made was by the adult leadership. They may well have valid reasons to attempt to steer the Scouts away from biking. the most obvious one to me is making certain the resources exist to do it safely, and mostly, in my mind, that means training in how to safely cycle in groups. If something like this is the issue, than a better way for the SM to handle this may have been asking questions like "Have you considered .