NJCubScouter

My experience with the OA is not very extensive (the last contact I had with it was about 40 years ago when I became an Ordeal member and really had nothing to do with it after that), so I have a question, and this is really about the current situation, not the new rules. So here's the question: When a Scout who is a member of the OA turns 18, I understand they can continue to be a member of the OA. But, I am assuming they must also continue their registration in a unit, right? Or wrong? And if I am right, does that mean that in order to continue as a member of the OA after turning 18, one must become an Assistant Scoutmaster, or else register as a "youth" in a Venture Crew? Or is there some special registration status where an "adult youth" (i.e. age 18, 19 or 20) may continue as a "youth" member of OA but have NO other affiliation with a Scouting unit?

Obviously it is a parody, but there is a serious issue that goes with it. A lot of states (including NJ) are about to administer a new standardized test, which isn't really ready for prime time. In our school district, it is going to take away a lot of teaching time so they can have these tests that are of doubtful value.

Tahawk, your rewrite of the sentence is better, but it's for the reason Pack says. I don't think there is an infinitive in that sentence to be split... er, an infinitive to be split in that sentence... whatever.

Doesn't the BSA do that anyway, by charging an annual registration fee for each adult leaders? Admittedly most of those fees are paid by the respective units, but that is not universal, and even if the unit does pay it, it's not "free money." the unit had to get it in order to pay it. So some Scout sold a few Christmas wreaths in our fund-raiser, and that went to pay the annual fee for me to be a committee member. Does that make it better, or worse?

But a Girl Scout troop is about the same size as a patrol in Boy Scouts, right? Or is that just a local custom here? (And I may not be recalling this with complete clarity; both of my daughters were in Girl Scouts, but they both quit about 20 years ago. I think one was in 7th grade, whatever the level is there, and the other was a Brownie.)

I will say this, when this goes into effect it will solve one issue that I have mentioned in the past. Under the still-current rules, you can have the following situation: Joe and Charlie are (to start with) both 17, though Joe is actually a few months older. They were in the same den, now the same patrol, and have been sharing a tent for years. They are also cross-registered in the same Venture Crew, where they also usually tent together. Now Joe turns 18, takes YP training and registers as an ASM in the troop while remaining a youth member of the crew. The following week, there is a crew camping trip, and Joe and Charlie can still tent together, because they are both youth members. The following weekend, there is a troop camping trip but Joe cannot tent with Charlie because Joe is an adult leader while Charlie is still a youth member. It doesn't make sense. If it is "safe" for Charlie to share a tent with Joe when the event is called a "crew activity", why does it suddenly become "unsafe" for EXACTLY THE SAME TWO PEOPLE to share a tent when the event is called a "crew activity"? (I don't even want to think about what would happen if the crew and troop went on a joint outing. Maybe every molecule in the universe would implode at the speed of light, if you'll excuse the Ghostbusters reference.) But now THAT problem will be solved: 18 year old Joe and 17 year old Charlie will not be able to share a tent on EITHER trip. So we gain a little bit of consistency. But it doesn't make up for the overall illogic of the new system. Now, instead of being an "adult" in one unit and a "youth" in another, at the same time, Joe will be an "adult" and a "youth" in the SAME unit at the same time. And all because... Nah, I don't need to say it again.

Thank you, BSA National, for adopting a rule that you apparently need degrees in both law and complex mathematics to fully understand. I only have one. Maybe my son can help me, he wasn't a math major but he did get 800 on the math SAT... And now that this has been moved to Issues and Politics, I will say this: And it's all to protect a policy that should not exist in the first place.

LeCastor, you can get into Issues and Politics territory, because right after I finish typing this I am moving this thread to I & P. It has nothing to do with what you or TwoCubDad posted. The reference to "adult membership standards" in the initial post is enough for me. I will try to leave a "permanent redirect" under "Venturing Program" so people will still see this here and follow the thread to its new home if they wish.

Heh. There goes Pack, the eternal optimist. Seems more like the sweet sound of complete confusion and poor communications at every level, to me.

SP, everything you say there sounds right. But in the units I have been involved with, the "problem" with the treasurer position is not getting an "old" treasurer out of the way to make room for a new one, but the opposite: Finding a new treasurer when the old one quits. I've seen treasurers have to quit because of job transfers, or choose to quit because their sons aged out of the troop, or have a big argument with the SM (not over money, in the one case that I saw) and storm out. There never seems to be anyone clamoring to take their place, but there has (almost) always been someone who, if asked the right way, will take the job.

Eagle94: What is Frontier Girls? I went to their web site but the difference between them and, say, the Girl Scouts was not immediately apparent. I did see a reference to "Traditional Values" but when I clicked on that the values I saw listed were "life skills, leadership, character building, teamwork and service to others." Nothing that really sets them apart. Nothing about... well, you know. And nothing about how leaders need to be members of a particular religion. I don't want to send this thread into Issues and Politics territory, just trying to get some idea of what this group is about. And Eagle, it is not clear from your post, does this Frontier Girls have some sort of agreement or understanding with the BSA, like AHG did? (Before, well, you know...)

I think there is a "wrinkle" here that affects whether you need to have Parts A and B of the medical form on file for every Scout, and it has nothing to do with the definition of "activity." Requirement 2 for the Scout badge (joining requirements) says: "Complete a Boy Scout application and health history signed by your parent or guardian." Requirement 10 says: "Turn in your Boy Scout application and health history form signed by your parent or guardian, then participate in a Scoutmaster conference. What "health history form" are they talking about? There used to be one on the back of the youth membership application, so that is what they were talking about, but it isn't there anymore. The helpful (though unofficial) web site usscouts.org contains this explanatory note: (See http://usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsrank1.asp) That sounds like good advice to me. If it is followed, every new Scout will have handed in Parts A and B of the medical form, signed by their parent or guardian at the time they joined. (Parts A and B do not require a physical examination nor any signature by a medical professional; Part C does.) Now, that covers the new Scouts. However, to be a Tenderfoot a Scout needs to have gone on at least one camping trips, which is clearly an "activity", so their Parts A and B should be on file with the troop as well. (Not to mention that in most troops, all but the brand-newest Scouts have been on at least one camping trip anyway, and probably many more.) So I think that covers everybody. All Scouts should have submitted a "health history" with their application, either the one on the back of the application, or Parts A and B with their application, and older Scouts should have submitted Parts A and B to go on camping trips. Or am I missing something?

I am not aware of any packs that do that. Are you?

SlowDerbyRacer: To be fair to the leaders of CherokeeScouter's troop, I doesn't sound like their concern was what religion or denomination the boys were practicing. It sounds like they wanted as many Scouts as possible at their Chartering Organization's church, in order to show support and appreciation to the CO. But the bottom line is, they can't tell the boys what church to go to - nor for that matter, can anyone really be required to go to any specific event or activity.

Radical Brownies, that seems like a good name for a rock band. Or would it go over like a led zeppelin?

Troop185's suggestion sounds like it is worth exploring. Where I am, a troop with 15 Scouts would be considered to be in some danger of extinction, to say nothing of one with 8 Scouts. Put them together and you have 23 Scouts, which is a good size to build on. Of course, there could be some local conditions such as distance or whatever that might not make it a good idea. But it seems worth looking into. Assuming that doesn't work out, I agree with others, you need to do what is best for your sons, over and above anything else. If they want to change troops, what happens to the troop after you leave is not your responsibility. (You are a good person for worrying about it, but it is not your responsibility.) Your two sons leaving is not what would really kill the troop. It is really more the fact that of the 8 Scouts, 5 of them are right around 17 years old. It reminds me of the (now defunct) nearby troop that stopped attracting new crossovers and did not succeed in recruiting otherwise. I think the last time I saw that troop at an event (this is going back 7-8 years), they had 5 or 6 Scouts but they all looked like they should be in college, they were all Life and half of them were wearing JASM patches. The troop never really disbanded - the last few remaining kids stuck it out with that troop to complete their Eagle requirements, they aged out one by one, and there was nobody left to put on a charter. I think the last one had his (last-minute) Eagle BOR the same night as my son, and that was it for them. It was a shame, I think that troop had been around for 70 or 80 years. But it happens.

Again assuming that this is not one of those things someone made up on their computer, I have a suspicion that the GSUSA is not aware of this use of (what I am presuming is) one of their trademarks, or at least they weren't until the recent publicity over this. (Though I was unaware of it myself until I read this thread. However, I googled it and there seems to have been some attention to it over the past couple of weeks.) I would imagine (without actually knowing for certain) that the GSUSA is just as aggressive as the BSA when it comes to this sort of thing, otherwise you end up with a lot of confusion, not to mention you can lose the right to exclusive use of your trademarks.

It seems to me that questions like this come up so often, it would be a good idea for the BSA to come with a better and/or simpler way to explain this to unit Scouters. I am not sure what way that would be, but the fact that so many people seem to misunderstand the relationship between two-deep leadership and no-one-on-one - particularly (it seems) in the vehicle context - suggests that more needs to be done. I don't know whether we have heard from National's health and safety coordinator lately - hopefully he has not tired of the "welcome" he sometimes receives from some in this forum - but perhaps he would like to address that issue and tell us whether anything is "in the works" on this front.

I'm not sure I'm buying this. I mean, the article is there... but there are a lot of pages on the Internet, and they aren't all true.

There are at least two adults going on the camping trip, right? That should be fine for the tour permit (or whatever it is called now.) You seem to be treating the ride to camp as an "activity" that is separate from the camping trip itself.

CalicoPenn, See, this is part of the problem I have with all this. I compare this "mapping" to my own family, and I know one family is not statistically significant, but that's what I have to work with. I have two younger brothers. By any standard, Brothers #1 (me) and #2 are "late Baby Boomers." Brother #3 is six years younger than I am, which on your chart puts him in Generation X, and not even in the two-year "transition area." And yet, I regard his attitudes and behavior as much more a part of the "60's generation" than either of his two older brothers. He is certainly furthest to the political "left" of all of us, by a considerable distance. And then there is my father. To me, he was part of the "World War II generation", whatever the label for that may be, and yet this has him in the "Silent Generation" (though in the transitional area at the beginning.) That seems really, really arbitrary to me. And then there is my oldest child, who seems to be in the "transitional area" between Generations X and Y. So, first of all, if you include the "transitional area", she is supposed to share some generational characteristics with my younger brother, which I don't think is the case. And then there is the fact that she is supposed to be a mixture of two kinds of attitudes, but I am not sure what. If there really is an academic basis for all of this, I will defer to the superior knowledge of those who have spent their time studying it. But I just don't see it.