NJCubScouter

Thrifty? Well, they just cost the troop the amount of your son's dues. Not very thrifty. Yes, I know it's a stretch.

Ha. Well, I guess there's no particular harm in doing it in this order... So, is anybody going to the World Jamboree?

That was my thinking, plus as I said, without the year it also opens up the discussion to world jamborees, though the next one is in about a month and a half so there's not a lot of time to talk about it. Right now I think I'm leaning toward "Going to the next Jamboree?", it is the closest thing to what we had, without a specific year. But I want to see what other people think. Let's give it until Thursday night and see what we've got.

I think that by any measure, it is time to change the title of this sub-forum, in which the 2013 Jamboree is still in the future. I will write to Terry about it, but before I do that, we should discuss what the new title should be. Just changing the year to 2017 means that at some point in the future it is just going to have to be changed again, not to mention there is a world jamboree coming up, in July I believe, and someone might want to talk about that. So how about these options: "Going to the next Jamboree?" or since the "next" is pretty-much understood, "Going to the Jamboree?" or since the discussions in the Jamboree thread will also include "during" and "after" the Jamboree itself, and to take a minimalist approach: "Jamboree" or, we could stay with the current pattern, "Going to Jamboree 2017?" Which one (or some other idea I didn't think of) would people prefer?

Eagle77, I suspect the "money" issue is just an excuse for many of the parents. As we have discussed in a number of threads in this forum, it is a matter of the parents' priorities. Scouting can be done as inexpensively, or less expensively, than many other activities. In fact, Scouting is one of the few activities where the participants (both youth members and parents, in the role of leaders) have a say in what the activities are going to be, and therefore what they are going to cost. And how to raise the funds to pay for them. (And if these parents are "tired of fundraising" when their sons are in the fifth grade, they are going to have a rude awakening as their sons get older. In high school, and even at the lower grades, it seems like every activity comes with an expectation that the participants and their parents will do fund-raising.) I also find it interesting that there does not seem to be much consideration by the parents of what their sons want to do, or not do. At least it is not mentioned in your post. It seems to be all about the parents.

imachristian, your post from last night reminded me of something a wise old(er) attorney once told me: "If you're looking for justice, it's in the dictionary, under 'j'." In other words, in any conflict, you may end up with a result that is satisfactory, it might be a compromise, but if you hold out for a result that is completely "fair", you're probably going to be disappointed. In this case, you may be able to have your son stay in this troop, or your son may find another troop to join. You also may be able to get district to take a look at the ASMs' behavior and maybe take some action. The first is a "win" for your son. Add the second and it might be a "win" for both your son and other peoples' sons. These are reasonable goals. But it sounds like you and/or your son are looking for more than that. If I interpret the "stuck" comment correctly, it sounds like your son wants an explanation for why he is being removed from the troop, if that's what happens. And probably not just any old explanation, but an explanation that seems fair and reasonable. You also want the ASMs to "recognize their error." Good luck with these goals, but I think you should consider taking what is possible and moving forward. Justice? It's in the dictionary.

I think I see two different kinds of "pre-requisites" being discussed here. One is the type mentioned in the original post, where a camp establishes a "requirement" that is NOT in the requirements and says that if you want to do the badge here, this is what you have to do first. I do not necessarily have a problem with that. There is a difference between a "local" counselor working with one or two kids, who would be "adding to the requirements" by requiring Swimming MB before Lifesaving, and a camp that is dealing with throngs of Scouts and has to decide how to best allocate its resources. That's my opinion, anyway. The other kind of "pre-requisite" is one that is PART of the requirements, but cannot be earned at summer camp. The summer camp our troop usually attends has lists of these for many of the MB's they offer. The camp does not require that the pre-requisites be done before camp, but strongly recommends that they be, so the Scout can complete the badge at camp. One example is Citizenship in Community - and yes I know that should not be a "camp" MB, but at this camp it is, and I don't decide what camp they go to, and I am not the Scoutmaster - which I believe has a requirement to attend a meeting of some local governing body. (Or maybe that's Communications, or maybe it's both.) That obviously cannot be done at camp, so they call it a "pre-requisite." It is not really a pre-requisite to earning the badge, but it is a pre-requisite to COMPLETING the badge at camp. You can always come home from camp with a partial, but this camp believes that partials are not a good idea, especially in quantity, and I agree. (Another example I recall is from Emergency Prep, which my son did at this camp. He had to prepare an emergency kit, but it had to have so much stuff in it that it could not really be brought to camp, so he had to assemble everything, take a photo of it and bring the photo to camp.)

Packsaddle, I think a lot of BSA volunteers view National (and to a degree the councils as well) as sort of a "necessary evil", even though most of them probably don't think of it in those terms. You seem to be challenging the "necessary" part. I guess it depends on what people really value. For example, if people want to use the "Boy Scouts" name and uniforms and have their Scouts earn "Eagle", you have to go through National for that, legally speaking. What the legal situation would be if National suddenly disappeared, I do not know. Since it seems extremely unlikely to happen, I choose not to spend time thinking about it.

Please keep political comments out of threads in Open Discussion.

Stosh, how is this thread any different from the last doom-and-gloom-and-where-do-we-go-from-here thread that you started? And as I look back on that other thread, I see you started it LAST Saturday. Is there something about Saturdays that is getting you down recently? And do you expect the responses to be any different this time? I ask these questions as a fellow forum member, not as a moderator. The 8th point of the Scout Law is generally not enforced in Issues and Politics, otherwise the whole area would have to be shut down. (Somewhere, a couple of my fellow moderators suddenly and inexplicably decide this would be a good time to check up on recent posts - except that this won't appear there.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suppose that dcsimmons was not saying the allegations against Hastert are true (as indeed, none of us know if they are true at this point) but that he was saying it is true that Hastert was an Explorer leader and that this young man was one of the Explorers. There seem to be photos showing this to be true. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether the allegations of sexual misconduct are true, and in all likelihood there will never be a judicial determination of whether they are true. The young man died 20 years ago and even if he was still alive, the statute of limitations would have run out a long time ago. (I know that some states (at least) have extended or eliminated statutes of limitation for prosecution of this type of offense, but that happened after these events would have taken place.) What surprised me in that article is that this is not even the young man who is the source of the allegations mentioned in the indictment, this is another alleged victim. And the indictment has nothing to do with sexual misconduct itself. Hastert was indicted for making false material statements to federal investigators and for structuring currency transactions so as to evade federal reporting requirements.

Stosh, I recall a similarly brief stint as a "patrol boy" though the specific reason(s) why I quit are lost in the mists of time.

blw2, I don't see why the "CM for half a year" issue is such a big problem, at least it wouldn't be for me. I understand you would prefer a "smooth transition" and to avoid disruption, but unfortunately it sounds like the ship has already sailed on that. The fact is that people leave volunteer positions at all possible times based on their own circumstances. Someone could become a Cubmaster and then the next day be informed by their employer that they are being transferred halfway across the country in a month or two. In your case there is much more continuity because you have already been the CM and the only question is whether the transition occurs in June or February - or at all. It seems to me that the disruption caused by a leadership transition in the middle of the school year pales in comparison to the pack folding, which brings a complete halt to the program. Just out of curiosity, how many members are in this pack?

If you are talking about one of the Webelos I leaders, it isn't an optimal solution, but it's better than the pack folding, isn't it? Kicking the can down the road for a year is better than giving up now.

Until I was going into the eighth grade, we lived in a town that had no school buses at all. Everybody walked to school. For me it was probably about three-quarters of a mile. (On days when it was pouring rain, one of my parents would drive us - but it had to be really raining, a drizzle didn't count.) We generally walked with other kids, and there were crossing guards at the busiest streets and "patrol boys" (this was the 60's, so it was all boys) making sure nobody got run over at the less busy crossings. (Somewhat related to the subject of this thread, I wonder whether such things as student safety patrols still exist, at least for public street crossings - I can just imagine some insurance underwriter having a stroke at the idea of 13- and 14-year-olds officially appointed by the school to decide when it is safe for other kids to cross the street.) And generally, I remember walking around a lot as a kid, all by myself, probably from the age of 11 or so. These days it's a different story.

I think I disagree with Calico and TwoCubDad on this one. I think a troop has the right to expect that its leaders/committee members will at least be civil and respectful to each other, especially when they are at a meeting. (In this case they appear to have been right outside the meeting place, right before or right after a meeting, and I would count that as "at a meeting.") They do not necessarily have to be the best of friends, just "courteous." If this committee member is making hurtful comments to this ASM in the presence of his sons, for no apparent good reason, that is something that can disrupt the functioning of the troop and I think it does fall into the "jurisdiction" of the CR. Note that I say "if". We do not have both sides of the story here - nor does the original poster, who was not present when the words in question were spoken. So I agree with some others that the first step is to speak with this committee member and see what SHE says she said, if anything, and what her side of the story may be.

BadWolf, are you saying that the official roster that council has is not being properly updated? Or that the roster is being updated, but the cards are not? If it is the second one, I am surprised because I thought that in this computer age, the cards are being printed from the same database as the roster, so they should match. Or is that just being naive? If it is the first one, you have bigger problems than just incorrect membership cards. We have had problems with rosters not being properly updated in the past, although it seems to be working better in the past few years. That is my impression from listening to those who are directly involved, I have not worked on rechartering directly since I was an Assistant Cubmaster more than 10 years ago.

Really. Unlike Eagledad, I have never heard of a troop that does that, and I wish I hadn't now. It is difficult for me to picture how that works. The advancement requirements cover all kinds of things that are supposed to be happening on a regular basis anyway. As one of many examples, if you're going on a camping trip, someone has to make a menu, use it to make a shopping list and go shopping. It just happens that when a Scout does those things, there are requirements (or sub-parts of requirements) that can be checked off. So what happens in your troop, these things happen but they don't get signed off? How do you even DO the shopping requirement at summer camp, anyway? And to pick another one that I am fond of, there is a requirement to discuss with an attorney, teacher, elected official (or 2 or 3 other kinds of people), your rights and obligations as a citizen. In our troop, it happens that three of the adult leaders or committee members who regularly attend troop (including me) fall into one of those categories. (Used to be two, for me.) Here we are, talk to one of us (usually me), pass the requirement. But guess what, none of us go to summer camp anymore. So what do the kids have to do, hope there is a lawyer or mayor or teacher wandering around at summer camp looking for someone to talk to? And I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Which probably makes all the rest of this moot, as far as your son is concerned. Maybe as he gets a little older he and his friends will have a better understanding of how things are supposed to work and will push for change within the troop. It depends how much of a self-starter he is - and even if he isn't now, that can (though doesn't always) improve with age. And if he's mainly just having fun with his friends, well, there are worse things than that.

Ok good.

Mom2a, are you sure that what your son is working on is a "merit badge"? What he should be working on is the advancement requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class. Is it possible that he and/or you, both being new to the Boy Scout program, and being unfamiliar with the terminology, are "translating" one to the other? If he is actually working on the advancement requirements for the ranks that I mentioned, that is ok - though ideally, the people who should be working with him on learning and passing those requirements should be the older Scouts, who are instead playing basketball. Our troop has a "game night" once in awhile and if the kids want to play basketball during that particular meeting, that's ok - but everybody needs to be included, not the younger guys watching the older guys. For regular meetings, our PLC is encouraged to choose a game from the official BSA publication (I forget the name of it - at one time it was called troop program features or something like that) that gives suggestions for games - and NOT to repeat games from week to week. But as others have suggested, you son is the key here. Is he having fun? Is he learning new skills? If not, it is time to look for a new troop. If he wants to stay where he is, now that you know that what he is experiencing is not what Scouting is supposed to be, you might want to talk to the Scoutmaster and see why the meetings are as they are.

There also is a "preview" option that makes it easier to see what your post is going to look like, especially if there is any "coding" in the post. You have to click "More Reply Options" to get to the "preview" feature. I agree with Packsaddle that the ability to edit posts sometimes creates an issue if someone has already responded to your post and you change what they have responded to. On the other hand, it is good to be able to go back to something you have just posted and fix things that you missed, or add something that you thought of right after you posted it (although in the latter case you can just write another post.) The time limit is a good... well, there's that word again... compromise.

The meal itself was not particularly memorable. I don't want to give the impression that listening to Justice Scalia was a bad way to spend 30 minutes of my life. He is an intelligent man, and I like listening to intelligent people speak. I even enjoy listening, in moderate doses at least, to political views that I disagree with, and this was a mostly political speech that I mostly disagreed with. He is, well, also a Supreme Court justice, and the opportunities to attend a speech by one of those don't come along every day.

Well, having been there, I can tell you I don't think it was intended to be polite. It was intended to make a political point. I shouldn't give the impression that this subject was the focal point of the speech. The focal point was his ideas on interpreting legal texts (which consists mainly of not interpreting them, or so he claims), which by remarkable coincidence is the subject of one of his books, which was being sold by friendly folks at the back table for only $40 a shot. One of his other major points was that one of the big problems in this country is the 17th Amendment, which he thinks should be repealed. (As Casey Stengel used to say, you could look it up.)

Now that someone has mentioned the Dale decision, I guess it is time for me to tell my Antonin Scalia story. A few weeks ago, I met Justice Scalia, although our face-to-face interaction lasted about five seconds. He was the guest speaker at a lunch I attended. When I report on something he said in his speech I am not telling any secrets, because I saw newspaper stories about the speech, although not about the specific thing I am about to relate. He was discussing some past decisions, and at one point he was talking about now-unconstitutional statutes that outlawed gay sexual conduct. But he didn't say "gay sexual conduct". He said "homosexual sodomy." There you are, eating lunch (actually probably finishing up dessert at that point) in a very nice setting (it was actually in a museum) with a bunch of very well-dressed people (mostly lawyers) and the words "homosexual sodomy" go floating by. From a Supreme Court justice no less. I am fairly certain I have never heard those words at lunch before.

I hope you realize you are responding to a series of jokes.