NeilLup

Hello Lynn, Your Commissioner's staff should be able to help you. If you have a good Unit Commissioner, contact him or her. Otherwise, contact your Asst. District Commissioner or District Commissioner. They will give you support on the local level.

Ursus sonorus roarus has given some exceedingly good counsel. The fact that the SM was honored with the Vigil at one time doesn't mean that he or she doesn't have a major hair up their tail about the current OA and/or the current OA leadership. If possible, find out that history. If they are supportive of the OA, then co-opt them. And as USR said, unless you are doing a one-time build of your chapter from scratch, you, as the DE, should not be doing this promotion. That's a volunteer's job.

"1) Really making friends and working with the volunteers, especially if they view you as a "real scout leader." 2)Recruiiting and starting new untis as very fun as I go to see the lookon the faces as people got introduced to the program. I had experienced an especially great pleasure in starting a minority unit in a very under served segment of the population. Working with the leaders, helping them to recruit members, getting sponsors, and seeing them at camp where I introduced them to one of my troop's traditions was an awesome experience. You must weigh the benefits and costs." Eagle92, clearly your District is very fortunate to have you as the District Executive.

From my friends who are pros, comes the following counsel: 1) You will not be working directly with youth except in very rare circumstances 2) Your job will not be primarily working program except in very rare circumstances 3) Your job will largely be working through, recruiting, motivating volunteers unless you have one of the SEs who don't believe in volunteers. Then you will be doing everything yourself or with other pros. 4) You may find that you are doing the less glamorous, less "fun" aspects of Scouting. The pros have a saying "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, if the volunteer won't do it, the professional must." 5) You will be doing a lot of selling and selling related activities -- fund raising, recruiting, etc. If you don't groove on selling, you won't be having fun. But I know a number of great people who are great pros and are very happy doing it. At one time, my wife and I realized that there are somewhat similar personality types that go into "calling" type vocations -- the clergy, the military and professional Scouting If you are interested, give it a try. Something like half or more new DEs leave the profession pretty quickly. Many of those return to Scouting as volunteers. No harm, no foul. It's not for them and it's good training. If you like it, you stay. One of our Council VPs is a former pro. Another district training chairman in our council is a former pro. He got the Silver Beaver last year.

In this vein, I have had a question about the Position of Responsibility "Troop OA Representative." Arguably, during the entire time that the he is performing this POR, he is performing OA service and representing the OA. Does that mean that the Troop OA representative whenever in uniform should be wearing his OA sash and, per the official uniform guidelines, should never be wearing his merit badge sash? Not saying this should be the case, but just wondering if, in effect, the Troop OA Representative is always "on duty" as an OA member and representative and should be uniformed accordingly with OA sash?

Hello Mr. Boyce: "(e) the rate of pedophiliac incidents runs proportionately higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals." May I ask you list references or data to substantiate this statement if possible. I have never heard that individuals who are homosexual in their ADULT sexual orientation are more inclined to pedophilia that persons who are straight in their adult sexual orientation. In fact, I have heard that pedophiles are most commonly males who are straight in their adult sexual orientation. Of course, that doesn't take into account that homosexuals are thought to be (pick a number ) 5-10% of the population and in that group it is possible that pedophilia is proportionately greater. But I have never seen data indicating this.

The idea of "Traditional" is interesting. To me, the tradition of Scouting is embodied in the Scout Oath and Law. The traditional idea of Scouting was, I believe, that one pledged oneself to doing ones best to following the Scout Oath and Law (On MY Honor, I will do MY best). Scouting welcomed anyone who agreed to do that and wasn't guilty of certain rather grievous felonies or other sins against society. One was one's own judge of whether one met the standard and striving to meet the standard was what was expected. There were, I believe, always gay leaders. They stayed in the closet. I knew some of them. Some were particularly effective as Scout leaders because of the time that they had to spend. What is different is individuals wanting to proclaim loudly that they are gay and that being gay is OK and still be Scout leaders. Of course in "traditional" times if one has said "I'm homosexual and I want to be your Scoutmaster" if they were lucky they would have gotten a 10 second head start out of town. So there are at least two things happening that are non-traditional. 1) An individual's own adherence to the Scout Oath and Law not being deemed a sufficient standard for being a Scout or Scout leader. A 3rd party standard has been imposed where a person can do something that is not illegal and in some areas not contrary to community standards and still be disqualified from Scout leadership. Selection by the chartered organization is not sufficient. A person can say "Yes, I agree to do my best to adhere to the Scout Oath and law" and be told that's not good enough, their publicly proclaimed sexual orientation disqualifies them. 2) Persons who are openly gay wanting to be Scout leaders Thus far, as best I can tell, Scouting has reacted to non-traditional influence 2) by no longer honoring traditional precept 1) which was, I believe, one of the very basic principles of BP and the other founders of Scouting and the BSA. The result has been that the composition of the membership of Scouting has remained what it traditionally was but, I believe, a significant amount of the traditional societal privileges and benefits Scouting has enjoyed and societal respect it has enjoyed have been compromised or lost. What would have happened if Scouting had reacted differently can only be a matter of speculation. Changes in societal norms in the past have forced re-evaluation of Scout membership and leadership. One example is woman leaders. Another obvious example is racial segregation. At one time, I believe that there were not only segregated units but even segregated councils. That changed as society changed. Scouting, particularly in the US, has been a consensus organization rather than a lead organization in social areas. This may be somewhat different from the original Scouting of BP which was really pretty radical in terms of mixing and inclusion of different social classes.

"whoops...back on topic... going out of council for summer camp doesn't mean you don't support council. telling everyone that will listen that you'd never ever consider going to the council summer camp does mean you don't support council though." Here are some things. Would you consider these not supporting the council? 1) You sold MYYYYYYYY camp!!! I'll never, never, never go to yours!!! 2) Working as Program Director for a camp from an adjoining council 3) In connection with 2, consistently and always taking your unit to that camp 4) In connection with 2 and 3, doing every thing you can to recruit units from your council to go out of council to that camp 5) In connection with 2,3 and 4, for a 50 boy very wealthy active Troop, "generously" contributing $500 to FOS from the Troop treasury and then refusing to allow a family FOS campaign. You get the idea. In the case above, there were over 10 units recruited to go to this "competing" camp which is, by the way, an outstanding camp.

From the current, official, on-line BSA insignia guide comes the answer to the original question: "(OA sash is never worn on belt or with merit badge sash.)" and "The OA sash is not worn with the merit badge sash." http://www.scouting.org/media/insigniaguide/10L.aspx

"I found it difficult to accept records that show boys passing all the requirements for a merit badge and new boy requirements and the boy didn't even attend camp." Depending upon your relationship with your council leadership, I would share this information as high in your council's leadership structure as you can get. I would not do it to embarrass anyone but as a quality control measure on your council's camping and advancement program. When I was Council Commissioner, I would have wanted to know thia right away. Now that I am VP program for my council, I would want to know this right away. Not at tne end of the camping season. Right away! Call me on my cell phone tonight. Anybody can make a mistake. However, having a boy who did not attend camp approved for a merit badge represents the kind of error that compromises the integrity of our entire program. I would want to take responsibility for fixing it immediately.

Hello artjrk, A reminder that, with the approval of your Scout Executive, you can have an additional 6 months to complete your ticket. Before concluding that you won't finish, I would have a serious counseling session with my ticket counselor. If someone is doing good work in Scouting and in their unit and is doing their best on behalf of youth and to apply what they have learned at Wood Badge, they should finish and get their beads. The ticket should, if necessary, be amended to reflect the good work they are doing. The ticket should be an enabling document, not a pair of handcuffs.

Hello diogenes, In cases of multiple "rescuers" or candidates for National Court of Honor recognition, please note that a separate nomination needs to be filled out for each person although copies of the same substantiating material can be used for each. Also, please note that each person is considered on a reasonable standard for their age, status, etc. In other words, something that might get an adult a sincere "thank you" might qualify a Tiger Cub for an Honor Medal. In filling out the nominations, please be sure to list separately what each person did individually. Presumably, what the SM did was different from what the Scout did. I know of one case where there wre four Scouts involved in an extremely ugly incident of the rescue of a newborn infant who was born in a latrine and then dropped in a plastic bag into the back of the latrine. The parents involved were dangerous felons from Mexico. The infant was successfully rescued. Each Scout had his own part in rescuing the infant and in helping apprehend the felons and I believe there were 1 Medal of Merit and 3 Heroism Awards given.

No problem, BW, I am envious that you are Sea Scouting and I live a quarter mile from the ocean. I completely agree that, as I remember the handbooks, they say that Scouts should not be involved in discipline. And if so, I agree with that too. But having said that, I would argue that a PL, SPL etc. is involved with getting Scouts to do things, keeping order, etc. Ideally that does not mean discipline but that could be a matter of definition.

Thank you, FScouter. I would only add "particularly in the area of discipline." BW, I read through my post again and can only come up with four items that might be considered "methods" 1) Youth leaders need to know where their authority starts and stops 2) Youth leaders need to know when to involve adult leaders 3) Youth leaders need to know they can always come to the SM and other adults for advice and counsel 4) Youth leaders need to be trained that they should not hipshoot an answer but should think it through I guess based on your post that in the current SPL and PL manual, it is said that either: 1) Youth leaders should not know where their authority starts and stops 2) Youth leaders should not know when to involve adult leaders 3) Youth leaders should not feel that they can always come to the SM or other adult leaders for advice and counsel or 4) Youth leaders should hipshoot answers and not think them through Hmmmm. Somehow, I find it a bit hard to believe that is what is in the National literature. If I have posted something that is not what is in the official National literature, that neither surprises nor bothers me. If a reader finds what I have posted useful, it is available to them. If not, then they should disregard it. They are the leader of their unit, not me. My objective is to be Helpful, Friendly and Courteous.(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

I concur with what Bob White and others have said with this addition. I don't believe that it is fair or proper to expect the PL or the SPL etc. to know, a priori, how to assess and create discipline and correction. This is an area where those leaders need to be trained by the SM and other adult leaders. They also need to know, I would suggest, where their authority starts and stops and when they need to involve the adult leaders. Finally, they need to know, I would suggest, that they can always come to the SM for counsel and guidance in how to address discipline problems. They need to be trained that they should not hipshoot an answer but should think it through. I suggest this because I have found that many Scouts have no experience with peer discipline and corrections. Their only experience is adult (parents and teachers) to child and in many cases, the adult is not that skillful. They need to be taught and guided how to do it better and do it right.

Hello BW, Your last post is one with which I am reasonably comfortable. I disagree with your conclusions for me personally, but that's OK. One of the things that I learned long ago was the "principle of completed staff work." This means that in presenting something to your boss or other person in authority, you present to them a finished package ready to go with just their signature. If there are options, you may in a separate document present those options but you still have recommended the one that you most believe is appropriate. The organizational structure in Scouting is complex to say the least with a formal delineation of "who's in charge here" and then the actual power and authority structure in each unit determined far more by personalities, history, etc. than by formal lines. To say that it is more mature to talk initially to the person in authority is, I believe, overstating matters. Actually, that is something I would likely have done and did do when I was much younger. On more than one occasion, I initiated an uproar to the disadvantage of both the organization and myself. Now, as I have gotten more mature, I have learned to take counsel with other persons whom I trust before ringing the bell. This both enabled me to ensure that action was needed, identify the correct action, and permit me to follow the principle of completed staff work when I did approach the individual with authority. The forum here can be another such source of wise counsel since it is reasonably anonymous. But that's why they make vanilla and chocolate. I believe that it is more mature and more efficient to seek counsel before doing something that may require the authority to take action which will make someone and possible several people unhappy. You disagree. I do not think that the word "wrong" applies to either of us.

Hello Dengar, It sounds as if you are proceeding reasonably. As others have said, if the Scout demands a Board of Review, he is entitled to it. You do not need to approve his application for that to happen. Similarly, he is not required to "pass" the Scoutmaster"s Conference, only to participate in it. And it does not need to be after all other requirements are done? He might even argue that some of the conversations you have already had are a "Scoutmaster's Conference." I might only suggest that you document your dissatisfaction with his performance up to now in a letter and back that up with a copy of items available to him (the Advancement Requirements and the Eagle Workbook) annotated to show where you believe he has not met the requirements. When the time that he would go before the Board of Review, you can share that material with the Board. They can agree or disagree but you have followed the very important principle of "no surprises." You will have told the Scout exactly where he stands and what he needs to do.

Having once seen one of our council committee chairmen/board members wearing a little less than Scout uniform, I referred to her a couple of times as Lydia. She laughed and understood. Groucho Marx fans will too. She is a 3 bead Wood Badger, Silver Beaver holder and grandmother.

" heck, the new DE of my district has a tattoo on the small of her back, of course its in the shape of the Venuring symbol, but still its a tattoo." She had better hope that what happened to Exploring doesn't happen to Venturing. Or that the symbol gets changed.

Respectfully disagree, OGE. It says ALL. That should mean all. In my reading, the third sentence adds an additional requirement for coed Venturing crews but does not eliminate the "all" of the first sentence. I remember the discussion of a few years ago where it was asked if female leaders on a Boy Scout outing made the outing coed. The specific question was whether it would be permissible to have a Boy Scout outing with only female adults as leaders. Not a discussion of whether it is prudent, only whether it is permissible or whether it would be a "coed" event requiring both male and female leaders.

I once was with a member who said that in his lodge, the custom was that you kept the sash of your current honor of membership clean and pristine and wore it only with the uniform, etc. If you were doing work or other activities where the sash might get dirty, you wore the sash of your previous honor. In other words, if you are currently a Brotherhood Honor member, you would wear your older Ordeal sash when doing work.

Are you suggesting that it is possible that in Scouting literature, even the Guide to Safe Scouting that there is an inconsistency, even an error?????? I am shocked, SHOCKED!!!!! Of course, it's possible that there is an error or an inconsistency. Believe it or not, these documents are written by mortal human beings and sometimes, different sections and even different paragraphs are written by different people who aren't able to crosscheck every other word written in every other Scouting document. This particularly can happen when two documents are being revised separately by two different Scouting divisions. They try to coordinate but don't always succeed perfectly. What to do about it? I would write to the National Council pointing out the inconsistency stating that in one place, it appears to say that if only two leaders are on a unit trip or outing, if only one is registered, the other must be parent. In the other place, it appears that the non-registered adult does not need to be a parent. Suggest that the item be clarified. That is how these things get resolved. As a practical matter in a unit, it would seem simplest to have any non-parent be registered. That's not a big problem. And for that matter, to have any parent be registered too. Again, not a big problem.

I agree, Ed. In fact, I would consider the former response to be "blowing them off" and might expect it to provoke that old bugaboo response "The council never does anything for us."

Thank you for your concurrance, ASM. Another reason for talking with District/Council is that there may be some misunderstanding on the part of someone of what the job really is and that can be quickly straightened out. Imagine, for example, if the statement were: "Our Scoutmaster isn't doing the job at all. All he does is sit around. He's so lazy that the boys have to do everything. I was a leader in Cub Scouts and I know that's wrong. He's got to go." This is perhaps a silly example, but I can tell you that I've heard that more than once in my time. Scouting really only works well as a consensus organization. I have learned that whenever I hear the words "Who has the authority to ...." that is an air raid siren, warning klaxon, etc. There's trouble in the immediate future and possibly big trouble. It's not like the military or even like many jobs where the person in charge gives orders and everybody else obeys. And in the military or in business if there is a problem with the person in charge, that's a common enough situation that there's a clearcut procedure for resolving the problem and changing the person in charge. Not so in Scouting. We often hear "the council doesn't do anything for us." Here is a case where the district/council CAN do something for you and yet there is the suggestion that they should not be involved. Don't expect the district/council to solve the problem, that's the job of the unit. But the district/council can provide aid, support, counsel and, if necessary, be ready to pick up the pieces.

To Bob White and ScoutNut: There's a difference between authority and wise counsel. Commissioners and DEs are trained to be friends and supporters of units and to help resolve disagreements, disputes and conflicts. Ultimately, the decision rests with the unit and the chartered organization. But the district and counsel can provide support and help. There is another reason to involve the district. If things go bad, the district/council will be expected to come in and clean up. I can tell you from painful experience that it is extremely frustrating as a council level volunteer (I get paid as much as you do ) to have to try to settle matters after the material has hit the fan when earlier involvement by the district/council could likely have avoided the problems in the first place. Another reason is that if rumors start, there likely will be phone calls to the council office by parents, etc. No body benefits if the DE has to say "I have no idea what you're talking about."