NJCubScouter

I agree with the general "theme" of the responses above. If your son makes Eagle, its HIS Eagle, not anybody else's. It means what it means. We had a Scout in our troop once who proposed an Eagle project that our SM did not think met the requirements, and did not approve it. Rather than modify the project or choose a new project, the Scout switched troops and got approval from THEIR SM for exactly the same project. (Evidently the district advancement committee had "lower" standards than our SM, because they approved the project.) Some of the kids in our troop were aware of this. Did it diminish the value of Eagle in their eyes? Maybe it did, but I am not aware of anyone giving up on Eagle because of this. And after that, we had a couple of projects that all of us thought were really two or perhaps even three projects, but that is what the Scout wanted to do. So even after the one Scout cut corners, a couple of others not only met the standards, but went way beyond. They did what THEY thought an Eagle should do. Does that help?

AZMike, I must be missing the "in flagrante delicto" part? Unless you are using it to mean something other than what I think it means.

I agree with the others above on the issue of unit bylaws, by the way. I didn't mention it before because I have said it in this forum many times: Unless the CO requires it, there is no need for bylaws, and bylaws often get in the way of the proper running of a unit. Quite frankly, they give an "advantage" to people like me, who make their living in the "laws" business, and in my case, I have written bylaws for non-Scouting local organizations that DID need them. But it's an advantage I don't want and don't need, when dealing with my fellow Scouters. The "book" as provided by the BSA is not perfect, it does not have all the answers to every single question that might arise on the local level, but when applied with common sense and a shared objective, it is good enough that you don't need bylaws. The ONLY exception I could understand would be in the financial area, but my troop has never had bylaws even for that, and we seem to get along okay.

When I first saw this thread near the top of the heap and saw that it was a two-year-old thread (last post more than a year ago, before today), I thought to myself, "What [unkind colorful metaphor deleted] decided to dredge THIS up, and in what terrible direction is this discussion going to go?" Then I saw that the culprit was our esteemed senior Moderator Packsaddle, who always does things with only the best intentions, and who I count as a good friend even though I have never met him. So, okay, I am sure there was a good reason. But as for the direction it has gone in since then, I can only say it is Confusion. There have been about 12 posts in the "new" part of the thread and I cannot even count how many different issues are being discussed already, and am not really sure what some of them are. I do think JBlake makes a good argument for local option on adult leadership, though I suspect that is not what he was trying to do, unless I have misunderstood his position all these years.

Perdidochas, in one place you say "six weeks" and in another you say "six months." What is the actual length of the absence. I think that might make a difference as to whether the SM made the right decision. (And how long is the term of the SPL?) But whether it is the right or wrong decision, as you know and others have said, it is the SM's decision, not the committee's. I do think you may have a problem in "proving" it. BSA literature tends to say what different positions "do", not what they "don't do." I think you will have difficulty finding anything in the Troop Committee Guidebook or the Troop Committee Challenge training, or any other official publication, that specifically says "The Troop Committee does not have the authority to remove the SPL." The fact that they don't have that authority is pieced together logically from the fact that the literature does not say they do, that youth leadership positions are on the "program" side, and that the SM runs the "program" side. But that's just logic, and some people have difficulty with logic, and I'm guessing that some of your Troop Committee members may be among them. They may say, if there's nothing in the book that says we can't do it, we can do it. The fact that BSA literature (at least on this topic) generally doesn't work that way is something that we on this forum know, but you may have difficulty convincing others of that.

Sounds like it could turn into something great. Personally I would keep the first "show" to right around 3 minutes. Always leave the audience wanting more, as they say. And I think you will probably know, pretty much immediately, whether there should be a second show. Oh, and Welcome to the Forums!

Natalie, I may have missed this in your posts, but have you spoken with the Cubmaster to see what he has to say about it? I would "play innocent" as if you have not reached the conclusion you have apparently reached (i.e. that he is "lying.") Just tell him some parents have become aware that the ages of many of the boys as indicated in the council records are inaccurate, and would he like your help in getting the correct information, and fixing it? Then see what he says. Maybe there is an explanation that you have not thought of. (Nor have I, but I believe that almost anything is possible unless and until proven otherwise.)

It's up to each of us to decide what we care enough about to make a big deal of with other people. As quazse said, which hill do you want to die on? JBlake, you can make it your mission in life to make sure all the ladies have their shirts tucked in. Not me.

I had a somewhat related experience last week, also relating to rechartering and to proof of YPT, that leads me to wonder why the BSA does not make things a little easier on we who volunteer our time and energy at the local level. All of the registered adults in my troop received an email from our CC saying that she needs all of our YPT certificates (and if they are more than 2 years old as of the Dec. 31 recharter date, we need to renew our training) because they need to be attached to our charter paperwork to be submitted to council. Now, I know that I had done my two-year renewal in September 2013, and I know my certificate was attached to LAST year's charter paperwork, so the next night at a committee meeting I asked the CC whether they can just look at last year's. Nope, it doesn't work that way, they need it again. Okay, fine. So the next day I tried to sign on to the myscouting site to get my certificate from last year. Apparently I had forgotten my username, and didn't have my I.D. number with me, so I had to go through a whole rigamarole and tell the system the name of my mother-in-law's second cousin's dog (or whatever) in order to get onto the system, where I had to hunt around and figure out where the certificate was, and which certificate I should print, since I have taken YPT online multiple times. What should have taken 30 seconds took about 15 minutes, which I didn't have to spare at the time. But okay, so far it's just the usual bureaucracy of life, and it's not their fault that I hadn't written down my username and don't carry around my i.d. card. But then I realized what I had done. I had just asked BSA National for a document, which I then have to give my CC, which she then HAS TO GIVE TO COUNCIL, where presumably it will be entered into some computer somewhere, and eventually this information will be transmitted to National. So basically I just got a document from the BSA, and print it out so someone else can give it BACK to the BSA. Isn't there an easier way to do this? (As in, easier for ME, but still not too burdensome on the BSA?) My "profile" on National's computer has the name of my council, it has my i.d. number (of which I seem to have, thankfully, only one), of course it has my real name, and it has all the records of online training I have taken. So isn't there some way that National's computer can tell council's computer that person number 12345 (whose name for verification purposes is Mr. X of Troop 123) took YPT in September 2013? And leave me out of it? I wasn't going to regale you all with this story, but this thread prompted me to do it.

Parents and Scouts balance the different activities if they want to, at least most of the time. There are some sports coaches (especially at the high school level) who make it extremely difficult for their team members to do anything else, but most of the time the other activities become an excuse for parents who do not really see the value in Scouting and do not want to devote the additional time to getting their sons to Scouting activities and any additional time that is required.

First of all, as Merlyn points out, the BSA has played both sides of the "for all boys" issue. The recruiting literature that is handed out in public schools says nothing about a religious requirement. That is only mentioned later, if at all. If a parent signs a leadership application, the summary of the Declaration of Religious Principle is part of the dense fine print, but I don't know that parents are informed about it otherwise. Second of all, not that we enforce "on-topic" in threads here, but this thread started out being about Scouting in another country, not the BSA. I mentioned the BSA in my previous post only to draw the distinction. Well, in practice it currently requires a belief in a "higher power" and this can apparently be satisfied by a spiritual belief that does not necessarily involve a deity, such as some forms of Buddhism. That does not necessarily equate to "a religious adherence", and I am not even sure what that phrase means. Clearly the BSA does not currently require a belief in any specific religion.

I'm hoping that is not a serious comment. You wouldn't advise someone to "get rid" of another Scouter based on one post that is, frankly, vague about what the actual problem is, right? (And that is leaving aside the fact that unless the original poster is the IH or CR, he cannot "get rid" of the CC in any event.)

Went through that once, six years ago. Just reading the words causes me pain. I don't remember what medication I was given for the pain, but I am pretty sure I was not driving while taking it.

It's a confusing discussion over there, that's for sure.

Does anybody have a link to the actual requirements? Have they gone into effect? I have heard new "faith" requirements are on the way for both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, and there have been some discussions on here about them, but they all seem to be in the abstract.

If my math is correct, if this young man stays with his grade-level peers all the way through the end of Webelos (or "Arrow of Light" as I guess it will then be called), he would still be in the pack at time of his 13th birthday - or right before it, or as late as 2 or 3 months after it, depending on local practice and the impact of the coming changes in the Cub Scout program. But leaving aside the precise details, we are basically talking about a crossover at age 13. Is that what his parents are planning? And doesn't the council's computer system start coughing and spewing black smoke and kicking back the pack's charter, before that point is reached?

I agree with all of the above, except for JoeBob's suggestion that an appropriate response in this situation would include a dose of military-grade CS gas in the guy's face. Hopefully these situations can be resolved short of actual combat.

To the above responses, I can only add: Welcome to the Forums!

What Tahawk posted above, and the Google search I just did, suggests that "fun with a purpose" as used in Scouting comes from a misquoting of Bill Hillcourt's "game with a purpose" and that B-P probably did not actually say either one. Which does not change the fact that right now, even as we speak, my council's web site includes a page that says, "As Lord Baden-Powell said, 'Scouting is fun with a purpose.'" Oh well, it's probably not the only incorrect statement on that web site, though it may be the only one that is incorrect two different ways.

I think that's it. Personally I don't think a phrase like that would stand up as a trademark if there was litigation, but this is a fight the BSA doesn't need. Besides, people in Scouting will continue to use "fun with a purpose," but now the BSA National is covered (more or less) because it instructed its units and volunteers to stop using it, and Highlights can say that it enforced its trademark, so it isn't vulnerable to someone who starts the "Fun With a Purpose" magazine for 5-10 year olds and claims there is no valid trademark because Highlights didn't do anything about the BSA's use of it.

Fred, I wasn't "hung up" on anything, as indicated by the smiley face at the end of my post. I actually agree with you that "Arrow of Light den" (if that is part of the new terminology) will probably be confusing to new parents at first. This seems like yet another chapter in the decades-long struggle by the BSA to reduce attrition during the transition from Cubs/Webelos to Boy Scouts, without actually making Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts part of the same unit. When my son was around that age they came up with a new Webelos hat where most of the hat was the same color as the standard Boy Scout baseball cap. As if the color of a hat would make a difference.