NJCubScouter

That's interesting. So these are casualties from post-WW2 engagements? (Because there was no NATO before that.) Like Kosovo and Afghanistan? As much as I follow the various wars, "operations" etc., I can never keep straight which ones are under the auspices of NATO, which ones are UN and which ones are just us (U.S.) Before I got to the part about NATO in your post I thought you were talking about Americans who volunteered for the Canadian forces before we got involved in the World Wars, i.e. 1914-1917 in WW1 or Sept. 1939-Dec. 1941 in WW2, but evidently not.

And another by the way, I am moving this to Open Discussion/Program. If the discussion goes in certain directions it may end up in I & P, though recently I have learned that I need to put on my battle gear before moving anything there. But I think something from National, by definition, does not go into "Council Relations."

What I see here are vague generalities, platitudes and corporate-speak. I am not sure how you make a "plan" out of this. There certainly isn't a "plan" in this statement. At best, there are some goals. The one thing that is ALMOST specific is questioning programs in some councils that reach out to "younger youth." Younger than what? If I read between the lines, I think he is probably talking about "Lion" (kindergarten) programs, and suggesting that this is not the way to go. I cannot think of anything else that those two sentences could be about. If that is what he is saying, I agree with him. But again it is couched in such general and qualified language that I am not certain that that is what he is even talking about. (By the way, I find it a little odd that the blog post is simply signed "Mike" and I see no mention of his last name anywhere. Presumably, the tiny, tiny little words at the top "Chief's Corner" is supposed to tell us that this is our new Chief Scout Executive, Michael Surbaugh. Hey "Mike", you've only had the job for seven days, you can sign your full name!)

I just want to point out, again, that we have been given no facts whatsoever about the condition of any particular Scout that this thread may be about, other than that it is about Scouts on the "autism scale", which can mean a wide variety of things. In fact, upon re-reading Exibar's two posts in this thread, I realize that there is no clear indication that this IS about any particular Scout, or Scouts. I'm guessing that there is, or are, but guessing does not make for good advice. Without any facts, the rest of us (including me) have discussed a bunch of things that quite possibly having nothing to do with the Scout(s) in question, if any. And, since the question of what a particular Scout "can" and "cannot" do must be addressed for that particular Scout's specific condition, and nobody else's, and must also be evaluated in light of each specific requirement (Scout through 1st Class) or each specific merit badge, I'm not sure what else can be said here to assist the original poster.

It depends on why you "cannot" swim. To make a long story (that I have told before) short, my son "could not" swim when he became a Boy Scout. He tried, and took lessons, but he really "could not" swim. I still don't know exactly why. I believe he barely squeaked by for the Second Class swimming requirement, or maybe he was given a "pass" that he shouldn't have been given. At his third year of summer camp, I guess his physical development had progressed to a point where he was able to pass the First Class swimming requirement (probably not in spectacular fashion) and then a year later he earned the Swimming MB, apparently with flying colors. Most of our Scouts earn Swimming MB at their first summer camp. My son earned it at his fourth, when he "could swim." This issue did delay his making First Class somewhat; I guess he was 14 at the time. But that (at least for First Class and Swimming MB) is the way the system is supposed to work for someone who does not have a permanent disability. He passed when he was able to pass. On the other hand, someone who can NEVER swim, with a doctor attesting to that fact, can make Eagle with alternative MB's if approved by council. As I said before, we had a Scout who was wheelchair-bound with no mobility in his legs and very little in his arms. He was, permanently, unquestionably, unable to swim. He had a doctor's letter that said so, but it was almost superfluous, because his condition was obvious. He did not get Swimming MB and I am fairly certain he did not get Hiking, or Cycling, or Personal Fitness, so he needed at least two substitutes right there. I was on his Eagle BOR but do not remember what the substitute MBs were. The point is, all of the necessary hoops were jumped through, including medical verification and approval by council. It was not a question of informally "bending" requirements. It was a formal (though in this case fairly perfunctory, under the circumstances) process, as it should be when someone is seeking an exception to requirements.

"In part", maybe, but probably not a very large part. I think there were a lot of "parts" that went into that decision. The idea of trying to persuade people who had left the BSA to renew their involvement, in general, was a major part. Within that, the specific focus on a small organization like the BPSA, if any, was probably a pretty small part.

Yes, in a way that's sort of what I have been trying to get at. We don't really know whether he has tried. We haven't really been told anything other than that he is on the autism spectrum (which can range, to my knowledge, from barely being able to speak at all, to having only minor difficulties in dealing with other people) and that someone thinks he might need to have requirements "bent" for him to some degree. It may be that the young man has tried, but the general way in which the question is being asked suggests that perhaps he has not. As I said before, the discussion with the Scout (and his parents if necessary) needs to be very specific and there is no indication that this specific discussion (which should include a process of attempting the requirements) has taken place. It is also noteworthy that the Guide to Advancement says that before asking approval for alternative merit badges for Eagle, the Scout must complete those MB's that he can complete - but that alternatives are available only for whole merit badges, not pieces of merit badges. I think that also suggests trying to do something before you say you can't do it.

It is always a good day when I can completely agree with a post by Stosh and have nothing to add, so I guess today is a good day.

It has nothing to do with my "patience" or lack thereof. People can use whatever words they want, and argue over their meaning if they want, but I can also make a comment that attempts to promote good communications in the forum. In my opinion, an argument over the meaning of a word, when that word is not even necessary to use in discussing the subject, does not promote good communications. I was making a suggestion that would, if people were interested, allow them to stop what I think is a meaningless argument over the meaning of a word. But if you want to keep arguing, it's your dime, as they used to say.

I understand their attitude. But the BSA just ended a policy where other religious organizations were basically able to tell the UCC, and the UU's, and the Episcopalians, and the Reform Jews, and others, who those groups could and couldn't have as leaders of units they charter. That was a bad and wrong policy. It forced people to violate their own religious beliefs, and as a result these groups largely gave up on the BSA. But I don't think it would be any better to just have people change places and for the UCC (etc.) to be able to tell those other religious organizations who they can and can't have as leaders. That is why the local option is the right policy. Now everybody can follow their own religious beliefs. It would be great if everybody was in agreement on this subject, but the practical fact is that they aren't, and if the BSA is going to continue to be a viable nationwide organization it needs to accommodate both groups. I personally believe that at some point, this will no longer be an issue in our society, but I also think that for those of us who are older than, say, 30 years old, it is very unlikely that we will see that day for ourselves.

I think a great deal of time and a large number of words have been wasted over the years in this forum (and elsewhere) discussing the meaning and applicability of that one word, "discrimination" (and its variants). I think it is beside the point, unnecessary to the discussion, and only gets things muddled up. It (and its variants) can be used as a positive word, neutral or negative. Some people use it only in the negative sense; others do not. There are better words to use when discussing the BSA membership policies. Like this: In the past the BSA excluded openly gay people and required local units to exclude them. Some people thought that was the right thing to do. Others thought it was the wrong thing to do. Now it's been changed, and the BSA no longer excludes people based on avowed sexual orientation, but the BSA recognizes the right of religious chartering organizations to follow their own religious principles in deciding whether to exclude adult leaders on that basis. See, I just wrapped up 30+ years of this issue in three sentences, and didn't use the word in question once.

I'm very sorry to hear that. Your mother's posts were always very interesting to read and she gave great service to Scouting for many years, and was a good example for service for you and other members of your family. She will be missed around here. My condolences to you and your family. Moderator Note: I have "pinned" this thread for greater visibility.

Krampus, I am not an expert in the subject, but I think you are talking about a different church organization than the one that is the subject of this thread. A church that was in the United Church of Christ would not be likely to drop BSA units due to the 2013 policy change. Just the opposite, though apparently they decided to wait until the policy was changed for adults as well.

I suppose this is not really the thread to get into this, but 6 (first grade) is old enough because National says it is old enough. In my experience, some are ready at that age and some are not. I saw too many Tigers who clearly were not ready, and they were not really getting anything out of the program. They barely, if at all, understood why they were there. Parental supervision does not solve that problem.

I think the first question that needs to be answered by a Scout in this situation (and those advising him) is: What requirement(s), for what merit badge, can I NOT do because of my disability? It can't just be that the requirement is more difficult than it would be for other Scouts. I think the point of the GTA is that you have to do it anyway. So it's not an issue of "bending" or "relaxing" requirements in general. Is there anything that this particular Scout CANNOT do, and if so, what is it, and will a medical professional back that up? If the answers to those questions are all yes for one or more merit badges, then you move on to the next steps in the process. If not, then the Scout needs to pass all the requirements. Now, this does not necessarily mean that every Scout will do exactly the same thing to pass any particular requirement. There are Scouts who go "above and beyond" and those that don't. I think sometimes the Scouts who do go "above and beyond" impress the leaders and counselors so much that "above and beyond" becomes the "standard." At least, it is what we would "like" the Scouts to be able to do. But what we would like them to do, or hope they can do, is not necessarily what the requirement actually says. If they do what the requirement says, they pass. If the requirement says "explain", one Scout may give a lengthy explanation and one might give a brief explanation. One might be articulate and organized in his explanation, the other might not. The Scouts are not supposed to be measured against each other in passing merit badge requirements, or at least that is my understanding. Did the Scout "explain" what he was supposed to explain? If so, he met that requirement.

Would that be any particular youth organization?

I knew a number of kids in that situation. My son was on the opposite end of the year, because his birthday was less than 2 weeks after the cutoff for school. He was always one of the 2 or 3 oldest kids in his class. So when he was a Webelos 2 he had the opposite issue. Crossover was going to be in March but he turned 11 the previous October, so he could have joined a troop then, with or without the Arrow of Light. We told him he had the choice of earning AOL at an accelerated rate and becoming a Boy Scout in October, or not earning it at all, or waiting and crossing over in March with everybody else. He chose to wait. (Of course it turned out that when he was 17 and 11 months, he could have used those extra 5 months, but I'm sure it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.)

Now that I have learned, from past posts in this forum, what "bless their hearts" REALLY means, I will say that I think you may need to also bless our hearts up here in the Northeast and probably some other parts of the country as well. And maybe there's a rural vs. urban/suburban dimension at work here as well. We are talking about different U.S. regional dialects here, not just U.S. v. U.K.

Presumably that is in response to the original question, not the tangent this thread has taken. (Hmm, an ON-topic post, are those allowed here?) While a wide variety of things may be barbecued (or, if you are in the South, barbecue), ice cream would not seem to be one of them.

After browsing in the Guide to Advancement a bit, I would suggest sections 10.2.2.0 and 10.2.2.3 as the most directly relevant provisions. I think the first one gives some indication of how much things can be "bent", which is to say, not much. "Explain" means explain, "demonstrate" means demonstrate, and so on. But there are explanations and then there are explanations. The second section I mention makes clear that individual requirements in MB's cannot be waived. One MB may be substituted for another, but you have to go through the procedures first.

Exibar, can you give an example or two of a requirement that might need to be "bent", and how you would suggest it could be "bent." It is not clear from your post whether you are asking about excusing the Scout from certain requirements or just interpreting them differently. As Eagledad said, this is not within the SM's discretion, it is in the counselor's discretion, but only up to a point. That point is that the Scout must still pass each requirement. The counselor has the discretion to determine whether the Scout has passed the requirement, but may not excuse passage of the requirement. It is my understanding (though I could be wrong) that nobody - not council and not National - will excuse the passage of a requirement. (As I said, I could be wrong - there may be instances in which National will waive an MB requirement but I have never heard of it happening.) What CAN be requested of council is the substitution of one merit badge for another if the Scout cannot pass the required badge due to a documented disability. We had a Scout who was wheelchair-bound with no use of his legs and very limited use of his arms. He made Eagle. He could not swim, hike or cycle, so there must have been some substitute merit badge approved for that one. There were parts of Personal Fitness he could not do, so I am sure there was another substitution there. There were some substitute requirements for the lower ranks as well. For example, there is no way he could hike 5 miles (or 5 feet) for Second Class but I am sure something was set up where he "traveled" a certain distance. Obviously the situation is different from the one you ask about, but the fact that council must be involved in any changes is the same.

I don't think your issue really has anything to do with the age of the young man. If he is in the first grade, he is the proper age to be a Tiger - and there doesn't seem to be an issue here of skipping a grade or starting school early or anything like that. If he turned 6 in August of the year he started first grade, that is the "right" age to be in first grade. My oldest child also turned 6 in August of the year she started first grade. In fact, in my school district the kids start kindergarten if they turn 5 by Sept. 30 of that year, which means they can actually still be 5 in the FIRST grade, for almost a month. So in my school district, depending on when in August the boy turned 6, he would still be older than about 10-15 percent of the other kids in his class. When I was in school, the "deadline" was December 31, so you could have a first grader who didn't turn 6 until almost halfway through the school year. It may well be that this young man is not "ready" to be in a group such as Tigers, but that is a problem that the BSA has created by having a program for first graders. When I was a Tiger parent and Cub Scout leader, I saw a number of Tigers who were not "ready", especially at the beginning of the "Tiger year." I'm not sure my son (now an Eagle Scout) was ready then. But that's the program, and the kids (and their parents and leaders) almost all get through the initial bumps in the road. As for the specific issues of dealing with this young man and his mother, I will leave that for others to comment on. P.S. To answer the first question you asked (and the question in the topic title), my son's former pack is a "grade level" pack. In fact all packs I am aware of are "grade level" packs. I know that LDS packs are "age level" but they don't have Tigers anyway.

Not Hebrew National brand. They answer to a Higher Authority.

So far we have at least THREE different (though overlapping) definitions of "barbecue". By the way, I just Googled "barbecue sauce for chicken." I think it is safe to say that a lot of other people share my belief that an animal need not have a curly tail to be barbecued.

blw2 and Hedgehog: Just like some other terms, it depends on what part of the country you grew up in. My definition of "a barbecue" is the pretty much the same as Hedgehog's. Under our meaning, the term really describes a type of event; the food could be anything you could cook on a grill, usually hamburgers and hot dogs but there could be other stuff in addition, i.e. chicken, sausage (for sausage and pepper sandwiches), etc. It seems that in the South and maybe some other parts of the country, "barbecue" means the food itself. There, people say "We are eating barbecue." Where I'm from, people say "We are eating at a barbecue."