NJCubScouter

The camp that my troop usually goes to for summer camp has a science building, and a few other buildings that go beyond Stosh's list. But it is not really up to any of us to decide what facilities "should be" at someone else's camp. If you want to go to a camp with two buildings, go to a camp with two buildings. Others may wish to go to a different camp.

In case anyone wants to talk about it, I am the person who moved this topic from "Open Discussion" to "Issues and Politics." (There is a "redirect" in "Open Discussion" but you probably have to scroll down to find it, because it is in chronological order based on the first post, not the last one, as it probably should be.) I actually thought about moving this topic after the very first post, because it already seemed to be pointing in a "political" direction. Later posts have confirmed that, so I moved it.

Stosh, there is no doubt that if you look at all of the POR's in the book, there are many overlaps in responsibilities, but maybe there is some purpose to that. Learning to divide up responsibilities when it is not perfectly clear who is supposed to do what is part of learning leadership, and part of learning to be part of a common effort. When it comes time to instruct younger Scouts in a skill, it could be their PL or Troop Guide on a patrol basis, or it could be a JASM, Instructor, ASPL or some others on a troop basis. The holders of the different POR's should be talking to each other and figuring out who is going to what, and then maybe take turns and somebody else does it the next time. Being able to do that is a skill in and of itself, which will be very useful later in life.

Have any of them ever actually done so? When I think back on all the Scouts I have known, I think I would have had to have been resuscitated if any of them (including my son) had ever had the presence of mind to offer to pick up a check.

While I often criticize the BSA national leadership for poor communications to the rank-and-file in a number of areas (advancement probably being number one), I have to say that in the area of the two-deep leadership and no one-on-one rules, they do about as good a job as one can do. I think there ARE examples given in the training, aren't there? I don't remember. Plus if people would just read the guidelines, and take them literally, they would understand that two-deep and no one-on-one are different rules (though with similar purposes) and that if you keep them separate and apply each one, you won't end up with ridiculous things like requiring two leaders and two Scouts to walk down the path to the mess hall to pick up a lost item. People get the two rules tangled up, and also don't understand that the "unit of activity" to which two-deep applies is the OUTING, and not every single separate minute or square foot of the outing (while no one-on-one DOES apply everywhere, at all times.)

As for the "new tune"; going along with what I said earlier, my guess is that when the director of field services was happy-go-luckingly saying how great a learning experience this was for the boys, he did not know about the gun-pulling part of the incident. Obviously the SE did know about that when he made his more recent comments. I also suspect that the director of field services got a talking-to about giving media interviews when you don't know all the facts, and maybe also about not smiling so much about an incident where Scouts got stopped by border guards.

Peregrinator: Yes, you have a one-on-one issue, and depending on what kind of "help" is required you may have an issue with at least one of the other guidelines as well.

That is not correct. Two-deep leadership is one of the barriers to abuse, and in this document it is the first one listed: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx I think the problem in the original post is a misunderstanding of the two-deep leadership rule. The policy says this: "Two registered adult leaders, or one registered leader and a parent of a participating Scout or other adult, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required for all trips and outings." That means the two leaders/parent must be on the outing. They need to be in the campsite, or on the hike, or wherever you are going. There may be a question about "side trips," for example if half the troop on a camping trip goes on a five-mile hike from the campsite and then returns, have you created two "outings"? But this was not a side trip. This was a short walk to the latrine. Two adults were not required. (And on the no one-on-one issue, as others have said, this rule does not apply to a parent and his/her own child.)

I think it is worth repeating that we don't know all the facts here. Even the two articles that have been posted paint a slighly different picture from each other, especially on the subject of the Scout who had the gun pointed at him. The first article said, "Another of the Scouts was taking luggage from the top of a van to be searched when something startling happened." (The startling thing was that he turned around to find himself looking down the wrong end of a gun.) So he was taking down the luggage to be searched - sounds kind of "authorized", doesn't it. But then we have the second article saying, "Volunteers with the scout convoy said the officer pointed a loaded gun at one of the scouts after he reached for his suitcase without authorization." Ah, WITHOUT authorization. After the first post, I said, "nothing in the article provides any explanation for the officer pulling the gun and pointing at the Scout's head." After the second post, Calico says, well, maybe it's not so clear, and I think we're both right. I still think it is highly unlikely that the agent was justified in pulling his gun, but it's not an absolute certainty. We don't have all the facts, and since the border patrol doesn't seem to be talking, we will continue to have only one side of the story. Or one and a half, after the second article. Speaking of not knowing all the facts, after watching the video (from the first article) I have to wonder whether the council spokesman actually knew about the gun-pulling incident when he gave that interview. He's doing an awful lot of smiling for someone who has just had one of his Scouts stare down a loaded weapon while on a Scouting trip. He clearly regards the whole thing rather lightly. (And someone asked whether his quotes in the article may have been taken out of context; I think that if you look at the video, and see his general attitude and sunny disposition, his quotes seem pretty much right in context.) It is difficult for me to imagine that he knew about the gun part at the time. If he did, I have to wonder whether he is in the right profession.

I find it interesting that the council spokesman quoted in the article (who, according to the council's web site, is the director of field service) does not seem very upset about the incident. He says the Scouts learned a "valuable lesson." He seems to be assuming that the Scout who took the photo of the border agent actually violated the law by doing so. I am not so sure, and the writers of the comments below the article (who, of course, are just a bunch of anonymous people on the Internet) are mostly saying it isn't. I think it would depend on the circumstances. But nothing in the article provides any explanation for the officer pulling the gun and pointing at the Scout's head.

Regardless of what the rules may or may not be, it definitely is a good thing for a Scout to work with a variety of counselors.

So, what you're saying is, the good ol' days weren't always as good as some people think they were?

I don't know about that; jp's original post seems to be a sincere question to me. Now, if you want to see some original posts that seem designed mainly to "rattle cages" they are not difficult to find in Issues and Politics. I see one a few entries down about rainbow-colored t-shirts. Fortunately there is no rule in this forum (at least not in this section) about cage-rattling or otherwise provocative topics or posts.

Actually they already do trademark them; see http://www.scouting.org/licensing/Protecting%20the%20Brand/Boy%20Scouts%20of%20America%20Trademark%20Listing.aspx. What makes it a little complicated is that some "marks" are registered (the ones with the R in the circle) and some are claimed as "common-law" (unregistered) trademarks (the TM symbol). It is interesting to look at the list and see what is registered and what is unregistered. "Boy Scouts of America" and BSA are registered, but "Boy Scout" is unregistered. "Cub Scouts" is registered, but "Cub Scout" is unregistered, and "Boy Scouts" (with the "s", but without "of America") is not on the list at all. I would not venture (registered, with the V capitalized) a guess as to the reason for some of these distinctions. I just took a look at the federal statute that provides the "Congressional charter", specifically the section that provides the "exclusive rights", and here is what that section says: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights." (36 U.S. Code section 30905) That is all it says. It does not list any specific words or phrases, not even "Boy Scout." This wording is the result of a 1998 amendment that took the original 1916 language and simplified it, but I think it means the same thing. The second sentence in the quote above is very significant because it means that the BSA cannot simply "take over" a word or phrase that someone already has a legal right to use. I also recall once reading a court decision that said that the BSA has exclusive rights to use certain words as a matter of "common law" even without the charter. So I am not sure (and have never been sure) what the "Congressional charter" really gives the BSA, in terms of the right to use words and phrases and to prevent others from using them, that it would not have under the law anyway. Therefore, I am not convinced that removal of the Congressional charter (which isn't going to happen anyway) would somehow open the floodgates for other youth organizations to call themselves "Boy Scouts." (Or even "Scouts", which I know the BSA claims as its own, with the exception of the rights of the GSUSA; what I have never understood is why the BSA has never sued the "Spiral Scouts", unless they have and I missed it.)

Well, as much as I like and respect Sentinel, I am afraid his answer seems to be out of date. The current version of the BSA Guide to Advancement, section 7.0.1.4, third paragraph (ridiculously bureaucratic, I know, but here is what it says) says, and I put part of it in bold: So what I get from this is, a Scoutmaster CAN place a limit on how many MB's a Scout may get from one counselor, as long as the limit is applied uniformly. And later in the paragraph, while there is no rule against a parent counseling his child on a merit badge, the BSA encourages Scouts to work with a wide variety of counselors. (Thinking back, my father (a Scouter for more than 60 years) applied this to his own family, long before the BSA put it in a book; I earned Architecture MB with him, but for everything else he was a counselor for, he told me to find another counselor.) The other thing I know about this is that in my council, one of the things the chair of an Eagle BOR has on his checklist is that the MB's on the Scout's Eagle application were obtained from a "variety" of counselors, or words to that effect. It is not exactly clear what this rule really means. I think that if 4 or 5 badges on the application are from one counselor, that's not a problem. If all 21 are from one counselor, by definition that would not be a variety, but I am not sure what the EBOR, the chairman or the council could actually do about it since the Guide to Advancement says there is no limit on the number of badges a Scout may get from one counselor, unless the unit leader imposes a limit. And the EBOR would not be the time to start telling the Scout about that "rule" anyway, especially they are almost (or already) 18 at the time.

Just a note to AZMike and Merlyn and anyone who was interested in their most recent exchange regarding "where do you draw the line": In light of the issues with this thread as identified by several people, and most recently and comprehensively, Sentinel947, I decided to make a bold move and split the thread. (Especially bold considering that based on recent experience using the moderator's tools, there was a chance that the posts would end up in oblivion or in some other forum elsewhere on the Internet. But, despite the fact that I got an error message while moving the posts, it appears to have worked.) The discussion between AZMike and Merlyn was on a perfectly reasonable topic (it's one that has been discussed here approximately 1,000 times, but still reasonable and relevant) and the two of them have been sticking to the issues and not personalities, which of course everyone will continue to do in the NEW thread, called "Where do you draw the line?" I am writing this because it might seem a little confusing when people see that AZMike created a new thread this afternoon that has posts from yesterday. Of course, AZMike did not start the thread at all, it is just patched together from his and Merlyn's posts; AZMike is listed as the thread creator because his post happens to be the first one there. Everyone (not just AZMike and Merlyn of course) may feel free to continue that discussion there. And just to make clear, no posts were harmed in this process, they were just moved to a new thread. (Update: Hmmm, now the new thread has backdated itself and shows that it was created yesterday at the same time the first post in it was created. Maybe we don't give the forum software enough credit sometimes; in this case it seems to have actually changed its mind.)

Well, quazse, I did say "maybe." And I did kind of ask where it could be found in the book. But I fear I have inadvertently sent this thread off-topic, which I try not to do.

Ok, I had the impression that this was a more recent phenomenon. At least that makes some sense. I have passed along this information and hopefully something can be done.

Fred, I agree. Let's forget about the parades and just have local option.

For any or all of you who have been unable to access that forum, when did this start? In other words, when was the last time you saw it and were able to get into it? Estimates would be fine. It might help track down the problem.

Well, maybe you got me on that one. And I haven't actually been in a position to attend a PLC meeting since approximately 1975, which was before the YP guidelines were adopted. So, I am sure there are many of you out there who have the current Scoutmaster's Handbook, which I don't. Who does it say should attend a PLC meeting? But assuming two adults are required, I would still say, that should be it. The kids don't need a crowd of adults at the meeting. It is almost inevitable that the adults will take over at some point.

I think the main reason Family Life, Personal Fitness and Personal Management often get put off until nearly the end is because of the "time requirements." As for Christine not having a choice, that may well be, but the Scoutmaster of her troop does have a choice, and his choice does not seem to be consistent with the merit badge program as I understand it.