NJCubScouter

Yeah, these kids today. Not like in our day when we walked five miles to school, uphill, both ways. It seems like half the threads in this forum turn into that eventually.

I don't remember those characters. Were those from tv commercials? What decade are those from?

Welcome back, KDD.

I wonder about that too. What is the use of a policy where the operative words are "should not" as opposed to say, "shall not", "will not" or "must not." (And then there is the ever-popular "may not", which in past discussions some members of this forum seem to think means "may or may not", but I think almost always means the same as "must not", when used in a policy. I think that has come up in connection with the BSA's no-smoking policy, or maybe I should call it the sometimes-no-smoking policy.) (I did not see Desertrat's post before I posted this.)

I know it is "politically incorrect" to say so, but I think RichardB has a good point on this one.

If that's the case, I think all of our patrols are evenly matched.

I do see the winky-face, but I'll ask anyway: When he was governor of Georgia?

I think the declining number of births following the peak of the baby boom (1957) may have had more to do with it. (A child born in 1963, by which time the number of births had really started dropping, would have been 11 in 1974.) It's the same reason why, after building tons of schools in the 50's and early 60's, a lot of school districts started closing schools in the late 70's and 80's. But I know it is the conventional wisdom in this forum to blame the "Improved Scouting Program" for the membership losses.

I would think they would want to keep the annual meeting relatively free of controversy this year, after what's gone on the past few years. I have probably said this before, but I think most "strategic planning" is a waste of time and money. As for the location of the meeting, we're lucky they are at least meeting within the confines of the 50 United States and not on some tropical island. Which I guess raises the question, have they ever met in Hawaii? Stosh, if you are going to complain about the moderators (again), I wish you would at least give an accurate picture of what happened. The word in question was removed from a TOPIC HEADING, not from the text of a post. I don't remember if I was the one that did that or not, but I agreed with it, anyway. Readers of the forum didn't necessarily need to see that word "in lights" and it was totally unnecessary to use the word there. I don't think that particular word has ever been removed from the text of a post. And by the way, nobody beat the anything out of you over it. We just removed the word and told you why.

While I am obviously well aware that many of our threads veer off-topic, I think it is especially remarkable that this thread started out being about what reasons justify expelling a Scout from a troop, and is now about... whatever multiple topics it is now about.

I guess I should first acknowledge that the school board I was a member of was not in the state where Stosh lives, it is in the state where I live. So the laws might be different. But in my experience, the school board probably had more "checks and balances" applied to it than any other level of government. State law covered most of the "decisions" we were asked to make, and even in areas like student discipline all of our decisions could be appealed to the state Commissioner of Education. And that is not an "empty" right; I would say somewhere around half the decisions involving students (including special education matters and disciplinary matters) do get appealed. And I don't even want to start on how many people were looking over our shoulders on financial and budgeting matters. Not that I'm complaining, of course. This is the public's money we're talking about and the public has a right to make sure it is spent wisely. But the scrutiny was not consistent, meaning we had MORE levels of government messing around with our budget than any other level of government. There were more than enough "checks and balances."

I think you're missing the point of my question.

I'm not sure what or who you are referring to there. Surely you cannot be referring to members of school boards. Having been there, "absolute power" would be far, far away from an accurate description.

So it was 40 expulsions in 1 year. Wow. Not only would I not want to serve on that board, I sympathize with anyone involved in that school system.

Calico, the problem is that you had the poor judgment to find the wallet of a regular person rather than a celebrity.

Gumbymaster, maybe it is a question of different laws in different states (though a discrimination claim would also be federal.) Otherwise, if your school board is correct and the advice my school board received is also correct, the school district could have liability regardless of what it does. The law usually does not produce such a result. (Not usually.)

Ian, wouldn't the Scout have immediately noticed the difference in weight if his wallet had 10 pounds in it instead of 20? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

When I was on my local school board I believe we were advised that "zero tolerance" was in conflict with state law and that every case of discipline had to be determined on its own merits. Some people would sometimes advocate "zero tolerance" policies but it would be shot down fairly quickly. And personally I think that most people who do advocate "zero tolerance" don't really know what it means. If you ask them a "But what if..." question you will usually find that there is almost always the possibility of extenuating circumstances. (Obviously I am not talking about violent criminal acts here.) And if you phrase the issue in terms of "taking all the circumstances into account", I find that most people agree with that, even if they think they favor "zero tolerance." As an aside to DavidCO, I find it astonishing that you sat on 40 expulsion hearings in one term on a local school board. I assume this was a 3- or 4-year term in a public school district. I think that in my almost 4 years on the board (I was appointed to fill a vacancy and then elected to a 3-year term) our district did not expel anybody. We did have some appeals of suspensions to deal with, but I think there were only 2 or 3 of those. And this is in a district approaching 10,000 students with a high school approaching 3,000 students. I can't imagine having to deal with expulsions on approximately a monthly basis. I would have hated being on a board like that too. (As it was, I didn't hate it, and would have happily served a second full term, but the voters decided otherwise. I was a better board member than I was a politician.)

Well, first of all, the W.D. Boyce story is just that, a story, and it's a nice story to tell the kids, and there is at least some truth to it - I think it has been verified that a Scout pointed Boyce in the direction of his hotel (not Scout Headquarters) and refused a tip - but beyond that there has been quite a bit of "embellishment" along the way. As I said, it is a good story with a good lesson, and I am not suggesting that it be expunged from the Scout Handbook after all these years (or at least I assume it is still there), but let's not take it as "history." Other than that, I think you make a good point. I think the reason why a big deal is made of something like this, and rewards are offered and accepted, has a lot to do with our 24/7/365 celebrity/news culture, where everybody is famous for 15 minutes. (And that time estimate is getting closer and closer to being literally true.) Why turn down a chance to be on tv? And the reward that goes with it? Maybe the kid donated a big chunk of the money to charity. (I might know if I actually read the article. Perhaps I just want to believe there is a possibility of that, and the reading the article might just dash my hopes.)

I have never heard of that specifically (and I was not involved in Scouting in the late 70s), but I do have a Scout shirt from around 1973-74 that says "Scouts BSA" over the pocket, where it now says (and previously said) "Boy Scouts of America." I remember there was some speculation at the time that this was in preparation for the BSA and GSUSA to merge. Hasn't happened yet.

If the question is, what would get someone expelled from a troop all by itself - in other words, "one strike and you're out", as opposed to the culmination of a series of bad acts, warnings, progressive discipline, etc. - in our troop it would probably have to be an act of serious violence (more than just a punch, a shove, etc.) or deliberate destruction of someone else's property. And, obviously, criminal acts more serious than those. Anything less than that, at most the person is going to get a suspension, and if appropriate there will be conditions for their return from the suspension. I do not think anyone has actually been expelled in the 12+ years I have been involved. One was suspended for threats made to another Scout and his mother was asked to speak with the SM to discuss what would happen next; instead she pulled him out of the troop because he was being "wrongfully accused." (He wasn't.) There were also three kids who got into some horseplay at a Klondike Derby with a member of another troop, which ended in the other Scout's patrol's sled ending up in a ditch and being damaged. Several conditions were placed on their coming back, including going to a meeting of the other troop and apologizing. Two of them did what they were asked to do, and one of those later became SPL; the third couldn't be bothered and never came back. Then, way back, there was one kid who stabbed another Scout with a plastic fork - and broke the skin. I think his parents immediately removed him from the troop, so there was never a question of what happens next.

I don't think I have ever seen "co-ed" used as a verb before. Is that an invention of yours, Stosh?

Another option to achieve that is for the GSUSA to offer that opportunity, or increase the availability of that opportunity, or publicize the existence of that opportunity better than they do now, or whatever else they need to do so that girls get the outdoor activities they want within that organization. As I have said before, if the girls and parents in the GSUSA want their program to change, they can change it.

That is true, but qwasze, do my eyes deceive me or are you (of all people) calling Venturing a "tangential program"? Of course, that characterization is still not what is at issue in this thread - it is about Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts.

Walk in the Woods, I would, hypothetically*, put up $1 (my standard bet) of "my money" against $1 of "your money" that the gender requirement for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts in 2019 will be the same as it is now. With our respective wives' permission, of course. *So as not to run afoul of any Internet gambling laws.