neil_b

I did not notice that, sbemis1. Evidently, boys can also now learn knife, axe and saw without being on a camp out at the time. The frequent changes can be annoying. I sometimes wish we could go back to the 1911 Handbook and/or B-P's Scouting for Boys.

Unlike most other activities, Scouting is a year-round commitment that lasts for years. If a boy plays football, he is very committed in the latter part of summer through fall, but come winter the season ends and he can do something else. However, because he misses some troop meetings during football season, some Scoutmasters want to label the kid a "sloth". Sorry, but that's just not a fair attribution. It sounds like some people would want to create a "select" Scouting troop kind of like the select sports teams that demand 100% of a kid's attention and charge tons of money to go

I have an old 1970 Scoutmaster Handbook which lists requirements for ranks. I thought it was very interesting that for First Class the Scout was required to go on a backpacking trip where they would pack in at least 1 1/2 miles carrying all the equipment and food they needed, tent camp over night, and then pack back out at least another 1 1/2 miles. Evidently, in 1972 the program was revised drastically to make it possible for urban kids to advance without doing any camping at all. As some would say, they took the "outing" out of "scouting". Years later Green Bar Bill came out of retir

Dictionary says double jeopardy is, "the subjecting of a person to a second trial or punishment for the same offense for which the person has already been tried or punished." Don't like arguing about semantics. Not giving an award because you are seeking retribution is punishment. Otherwise I agree.

qwazse - "Returning to the OP's question. Here's another 'stamp stopper': When I cover the scout slogan, if I ask a boy 'so what was your good turn for today?' and he comes up with nothing. That's a definite 'see ya next week.'" I like this, qwazse, and totally agree. I want to draw a distinction here between "see ya next week" vs. "let's give it another six months and see if your Scout Spirt improves". Our troop has a BoR once a month, so delaying a Scoutmaster Conference by a week might or might not actually delay the advancement. Either it will delay it a month (which isn't that

qwazse, Jesus was always getting accused of breaking rules like working on the Sabbath or eating with gentiles. I guess if he was a scout he might get his advancement denied for not being reverent enough. Not saying you shouldn't tell a boy that breaking the 3rd Commandement in your presence is offensive to you, and they are supposed to be sensitive to other people's beliefs. I just am not sure it is grounds for holding back their advancement. Neil

Beav, I didn't say it would be a double jeopardy for the troop to punish a boy for getting into trouble with the law, only meant if the troop punishes him twice. And, no, I don't think delaying advancement for Scout Spirit is always punishment, but it certainly can be used as punishment. In the case of the vandelizing Scout, I believe it is punishment, because it appears they are seeking retribution for this one act and wanting to penalize the boy. The other things like his taking off his uniform shirt quickly are minor things which would have been overlooked if not for the van

qwazse, The BSA definition of reverent is: "A Scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion." There is no mention of not taking God's name in vain. The bit about taking God's name in vain is the 3rd Commandment from the Bible and therefore belongs to a particular set of religions. Scouting is non-sectarian, and that is why they don't get very specific about what it means to be reverent. If the boy feels he is doing his best to satisfy his personal religious obligat

Basement, It had better be something serious. Holding up a 17 year old's advancement who is trying to go for Eagle is big deal. At that point you might as well have kicked him out of the troop. On the other hand, the younger boys may be very sensitive. Holding up a boy's advancement if handled poorly may really upset him and he may quit in shame and frustration. So, never take it lightly. I think if what you're wanting is to punish a boy there are better ways.

First of all, make sure you really know the facts. Not knowing all the facts about this vandalizing incident, I am not quick to pass judgement. I have heard of people pressing charges for somebody writing on their car window with a washable marker even though there was no permanent damange to the vehicle. Personally, I would not hold back a boy's advancement because of a harmless prank that somebody got upset over (if that is the case). Also, the fact (from the previous thread) that the dad of the boy who was offended is active in the troop should not be an issue. Nor would I

I agree with others that "unit leader" means Scoutmaster, not CC. I don't think a boy not liking the uniform is an issue. Evidently he wears it when he is required to, and if he takes it off at the first opportunity that's his business. The vandalism is upsetting, but if it wasn't sufficient to kick him out of the troop why are you bringing it up now? You say you "goofed up", well two wrongs don't make a right. It would not be fair to approve his project and let him stay in the troop only to hold this past stuff against him right at the end. BTW, how can you be both COR and CC

I like the sunrise story. I heard a similar story about a boy who had a kind of religious experience when hiking on a mountain side. On the other hand, there is no way to know the boy will ever change his mind. I have a cousin whose parents are very religious but he ended up being an outspoken atheist. I don't know why exactly. Maybe other influences in his life including the music he listened to, drinking and drugs, role playing games, or maybe rebellion because his parents were so religious. Maybe none of the above. Atheism has become very socially acceptable. Christians are often

If you have new scout patrols, it doesn't make sense to say that a PL has to have previously been an APL. Unfortunately, the adults can sometimes over-think these things. Setting the bar for SPL too high can backfire as it did once in our troop when the only boy who met all the adult-imposed requirements didn't really want the job. He got talked into it, and he did a terrible job and didn't get along with the Scoutmaster. Regarding the job of the SPL, Stosh has some good points. However, according to the literature, the SPL is supposed to run all the troop meetings, events, ac

I would say that such a boy cannot join as a Tiger Cub but could as a Wolf. However, the parent should be told the Scouters will not be responsible for the boy's transportation to den and pack meetings. It is a slippery slope.

Well, I have read that the SPL should be at least 1st class, and our troop has a requirement that preference is given to boys that are NYLT trained. We also at one time had an age requirement which got us into trouble, because we have a small troop and haven't always had very many older boys in the troop. I have an older edition of the Scoutmaster Handbook mostly written by Green Bar Bill (his picture is all over scouter.com). He says the SPL is somewhat paradoxically both elected and appointed. If you don't have access Bill Hillcourt's writings, I strongly suggest you buy a copy of a

Just wanted to add in a few years hopefully your boy will be crossing over into a troop, so if you change packs join one that has a good troop. That way your boy can stay with the same group when they move up. Find out how many older boys the troop has. If the oldest active boy is 14 you probably have a troop that has problems and people drop out quickly. If there are several active boys of high school age it is a good sign the troop is doing something right or they wouldn't still be hanging around.

"...'boy-led' used as an excuse to be 'do-nothing' leaders..." Just curious. How do you know it was just an excuse?

Seattle is absolutely right. It's one thing to let an ASM have a vote in committee when he's not supposed to. It's quite another to put somebody down as Scoutmaster on the form that has to be turned in to national. When they go to type it into the computer it will surely get flagged that the person is not 21. Then the only way to get around that is to put a different name on the form, and that is just dishonest. I don't think anybody has mentioned legal ramifications here. If somehow it were possible that somebody became Scoutmaster who did not meet the BSA's qualificatons, and a dis

The BSA web site says one of the Committee Chair's jobs is "Assigning duties to committee members." It doesn't say the CC has to announce all open positions in advance and interview all interested parties or that he has to inform the COR every time he assigns duties. You have to choose your battles. If you complain about things that are not real problems or minor issues he will be less likely to listen to you about the big issues. I think the really big issue is that he is bossy, condescending, and not willing to listen to ideas, etc. I can sympathize, because we had problems wit

I like Stosh's idea. I just had to order some special patrol patches off the internet. Fortunately, patchtown.com had what I was looking for in their stock selection. They have a much larger selection than the BSA supply division.

Sorry. You said "go badly". I don't know where I got the word "disaster" from. Didn't mean to mis-quote you. I would re-phrase, who are you afraid it will go badly for? I am not trying to be smart. Just saying if it goes badly that is still opportunity for learning, so don't stress.

Disaster for who? For you? For the adults? If you want everything to go smoothly you are in the wrong organization. A big part of Boy Scouts is to let the youth learn from their own mistakes.