NJCubScouter

Rick is correct about the difference between the "official" DRP and what most actual Scouters see, which is what is in the adult leader application. None of the language about the "ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings" (which is what the blogger in question spends most of his time talking about) is on the application.

I had not seen la yazima's request yet and I assume none of the moderators had seen it either. I have complied with his request. Please remember that Terry has asked that complaints about moderation should be made in private messages to him. I am not talking about la yazima, who was not making a complaint, just a request.

Stosh, what and/or who are you talking about, and who are you quoting and from when?

Welcome to the forums Steve! I went to Masawepie for summer camp (as a Scout) in 1975 with my troop. But if I interpret your post correctly, that was long before you were on staff there.

First of all: SnarlyYow, welcome to the forums! I agree with fred johnson that consensus is the way to go when possible. I was addressing the issue of "authority" because it seemed from SnarlyYow's posts (especially the most recent one) that there is already a dispute going on and someone is already "upset". So the ship has probably already sailed on "consensus" in this situation. SnarlyYow, if my assumptions are incorrect I apologize. Maybe it would be helpful if you tell us what is going on so people can try to give you advice that is more specific to your situation.

Those are two different questions. The official, formal authority to appoint all of the leaders in the Troop or Crew rests with the Chartered Organization. The recruitment process is normally delegated to the unit committee, as described in the Troop Committee Guidebook and the other training materials that others have mentioned. But the final decision to appoint belongs to the CO - which in many units, such as mine, is really just a "rubber stamp" of the decisions made by the troop committee. In theory, however, the CO could appoint someone with no input from the committee (which is what I assume you mean by "outside the committee".) But to me, that would indicate that there is a serious problem in the relationship between the CO and the unit. The Scoutmaster/Advisor, on the other hand, has no formal authority to appoint other leaders - even his or her own ASM's or Associate Advisors. In practice, the SM/Advisor's recommendations are usually (actually,always, in my experience) followed when appointing assistants. As for the SM naming his/her own successor, that probably happens a lot too, but the point is that if the committee or the CO wants someone else, the SM has no authority to overrule. And the SM cannot make the appointment on his/her own - the signature lines on the leadership application are for the unit committee chair and CO head or representative.

Perhaps this will surprise some people, but I have serious concerns about this proposal, which have been stated previously by KenD and Sentinel (i.e. "changing the dynamic") and I also share some (but not necessarily all) of Eagledad's concerns as well. I believe that the Girl Scouts (or for those who prefer, American Heritage Girls or other groups) are reasonably corresponding (if not fully "equivalent" groups) for girls of Cub and Boy Scout age. If the problem with Girl Scouts is a lack of outdoor activity, then the parents and girls within that group should agitate for change. My daughters were both Girl Scouts although they quit before having opportunities for the higher awards or any leadership opportunities. I thought it was a pretty good program. It is at least good enough for me to not regard the Boy Scouts' focus on boys as being "exclusionary." As for "changing the dynamic", I have seen what happens in our troop when there are girls around, particularly girls of say 8th grade or older, who might be hanging out with their parents at a troop meeting while waiting to pick up their son, or at a troop family picnic, or whatever. The boys are suddenly unable to do what they are supposed to be doing. Any emerging emotional maturity they may have (which is often in short supply to begin with) goes right out the window. I understand it, I was probably the same way at that age. How these boys function in school where 50% of their fellow students are girls, I don't know. Maybe they don't. The same goes with Venturing, with which I have never been involved. God bless those of you who are leaders in that program. I don't know how you do it. Maybe the fact that the kids are somewhat older helps a little. If I think about what I have seen in our troop, it is probably true that the boys who go really goofy at the sight of a high school girl are more the 12- and 13-year-olds than the high-school-age boys. So that's what I think. Could it be made to work reasonably well? Probably. But I don't see a need for it and I have enough concerns that I hope the BSA can let things settle down a little bit and work on moving forward. (And to Stosh's point about STEM Scouts: To say the BSA already has girls at Cub and Boy Scout ages is a major exaggeration in my opinion. As far as I know STEM Scouts is still a pilot program in about a dozen councils. I have not seen any statistics but I would have to guess that the number of STEM Scouts is a tiny fraction of the number of Cub and Boy Scouts, and even if/when expanded nationally, I see no indication that that will change. For all practical purposes the BSA is still boys-only at ages 6-3.)

I have no further comment on the question of which section this thread should be in, except to say this: Now that it has been moved, I have "un-hidden" a post by SeattlePioneer (on page 2 of the thread) that was hidden by another moderator, apparently on the basis that this thread was (at the time) in Open Discussion and the post in question is clearly (more than any of the other posts in the thread) of a political nature. With the thread now being in "politics" there is no reason for that post to remain hidden, and after obtaining the consent of the moderator who hid it, it is now open for public view. My belief that this particular post should be open for viewing was part of my reason for moving the thread to I&P, but I did not feel free to talk about a hidden post before getting permission from the other moderator to un-hide it.

Well, I am confused. The thread title says "Den meeting agenda" but if it's a den meeting, the Cubmaster isn't there. (Not counting if the Cubmaster is there as the parent of a boy in the den, but the Cubmaster "as" Cubmaster is not there.) And if it is really a pack meeting, I don't understand why so much time is dedicated to breaking out into dens. Unless things have changed drastically in the more-than-10-years since I was a Cub Scout leader, the dens meet separately. I do recall that at pack meetings, the parents of each den would sit together and touch base on whatever needed to be discussed within the den, but the boys were meeting as a pack, not in their dens. The main purpose of the pack meeting (not always fulfilled, but it was the goal) was for each den to present something that was in some way related to whatever they had been doing in their den for the past month, such as a skit, demonstration, display, or something. And there would usually be a game. And there were always announcements, and as usual some leaders are good at making their point and exiting stage left, and others like to hear themselves talk. I always tried for the first style, because usually at the sound of the first word of an announcement, I could see 6- and 7-year-old boys (not to mention some of their parents) already starting to fidget.

Every professional sporting event I have ever attended has had beer sold during the game, and all of them encourage Scouting groups to attend, and many of them (usually more at the minor league level) have "Scout night" or something similar. I have noticed that the Harlem Globetrotters have full-page ads in Scouting magazine encouraging Scouting groups to attend their games. I have to assume beer is being sold during the games. I think the policy has to be applied with a dose of common sense. A leader (or parent) who is accompanying a Scouting unit at such an activity should not be partaking of the alcohol. The kids obviously cannot be involved in selling/serving it. But the fact that there is beer being sold somewhere in the vicinity does not violate the policy, in my opinion.

But I believe the itunes version is the handbook and that it is available in other e-book formats as well. I believe.

It was an accumulation of comments over time. I am not going to identify specific posts that contributed to my decision. As I assume (or at least hope) you understand, these things are not a matter of precise mathematical certainty. I will also say that to my recollection, virtually all past discussions of the "girls" issue have either started out or ended up in the I&P section. This thread has been mostly about "program" but I decided there was enough about "issues" that it needed to be moved.

I think this thread has probably crossed the border into "Issues and Politics" territory (or at least, "Issues"), so I am moving it. There will still be a "redirect" from the original location but future posts will not be featured in the "Recent Posts" listing.

I've never seen a beneficiary back out after signing the candidate's workbook. We have had a couple where things were moving along toward completion of the proposal, including discussions with the beneficiary, and the contact for the beneficiary suddenly stopped returning returning the Scout's calls and emails, and other efforts at contact were unsuccessful. In each case the Scout was starting to run out of time and had to select another project.

I do not have a list. Maybe Merlyn has a list. But this isn't really about individual names. Are you denying that the BSA's current policy is that belief in a higher power is required in order to be a member? I have never "painted" the BSA as a "bad program." I have never believed it is a "bad program." If I did I would not be involved with it. I have criticized certain actions and policies, and at times I have criticized the National leadership, but I have never said it is a "bad program." I like the BSA. My family has a 77-year history with the BSA. If I didn't feel so close to it, I would not care what it does. I hope not. I think it remains to be seen. As I have said, my prediction is that if the BSA (mostly meaning the volunteers on the unit/CO/district/council levels) want to make the new policy work, it will work, and the BSA will be strengthened. If people don't want to make it work, it won't work, and the BSA will suffer.

Yes, that was a good one. I especially liked these parts of what Grylls said: In other words, Scouting can still lean on the side of faith and belief, and promote those values, without kicking out kids who are still trying to figure out what they believe.

What if it's both? (My answer is, it probably is both, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is natural that if a politician does good things for his/her constituents, he wants it known that he/she did them.)

I don't know about President, he probably would not want to take the pay cut. I do think he would be a good candidate for the Silver Buffalo award. I suspect that most of the recipients are big contributors, former officers at National, etc., but Rowe has done a lot to promote and support Scouting, mainly just by being publicly identified with it.

The new requirements will not necessarily be effective with the "next rank". It depends on what rank the Scout is working on on Jan. 1, 2016. If that rank is Scout, First Class, Star or Life, then yes, for the "next rank" (Tenderfoot, Star, Life or Eagle respectively) they must start using the new requirements. But if the rank they are working on is Tenderfoot or Second Class, they may continue to use the old requirements until they make First Class. In other words, they have grouped Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class together, probably for just the reason you mention: A young man can be working on the requirements for all three at the same time. Nevertheless, I agree with you that this change will cause some issues, and I think that (at least in our troop) some adult leader involvement will be necessary to make sure that each Scout is working on the correct requirements.

Bad Wolf, nobody has been "silenced." And anyone looking for the topic can still find it since there is a "redirect" in the Training section. I would also say that on a personal note, the melodrama when a moderator makes a judgment call, including phrases like "silence debate", is really not necessary.

And yet my recollection is that STEM Scouts recite the Scout Oath and Law, presumably including the words in question. I also did not think the schools were directly involved, although I could be wrong about that. If they are just using school buildings after school, without the school being a CO, that should be fine. My son's old Cub pack meets in a public school but presumably recites the Scout Oath and Law (which have replaced the Cub Scout Promise and Law of the Pack, I believe) at their meetings. I think this discussion is teetering on the edge of Issues and Politics, but I am not going to move it based on what we have so far. Other moderators may feel free to do so.

blw2, I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I did notice that the new requirements for Scout are a lot more numerous than the old requirements. They are (very roughly) double the previous requirements. They have moved the taut line hitch and two half hitches and whipping a rope from Tenderfoot to Scout. Instead of just "understand and agree to live by" the Oath, Law, etc., now it will be "Repeat from memory." And they have added some other things that were not there at all. So if someone was trying to give the new Scouts (maybe we need to call them something else now to avoid confusion - new recruits? new crossovers?) a break by squeaking them in under the old requirements for the first rank, that would be the way to do it. Personally I don't think it's worth rushing a crossover over, but maybe that's just me.

It may be easier to administer, but I think the transition rules would allow the Scout to choose the old requirements if they make Scout before Jan. 1.

BadWolf, actually I think that if a new Scout joins in December, earns the Scout badge in December (and is then considered to be "working on Tenderfoot"), it would be up to that Scout (not the PLC) to choose the new or old requirements through First Class.

There have been a couple of threads about this program over the past year or so.