NJCubScouter

Here is what looks like a more official announcement: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wayne-brock-appointed-chief-scout-executive-for-the-boy-scouts-of-america-152532325.html The only direct quote from Wayne Brock is not very specific and is certain to make the Mazzuca-haters very unhappy: "I am honored to be entrusted with the responsibility of leading this great organization at a pivotal time in our history," Brock said. "We will build upon the great vision and strategic direction put forth by Bob Mazzuca to strengthen our organization as we continue to serve our mission, instilling the values of character and integrity in America's youth." I don't see anything in there about changing any controversial membership policies, but then again, I didn't expect to.

The BSA creates leaders by teaching responsibility and ethical/moral behavior...not by teaching "leadership" per se. jrush, I think you are reading too much (or maybe too little) into one word. I think the BSA does intend the SPL to be a "leadership" position, otherwise the word "leader" probably wouldn't be in the title. Also, the BSA teaches "leadership per se" all the time, e.g. Introduction to Leadership Skills for Troops (it replaced Troop Leadership Training and admittedly I had to look up the name, see http://www.scouting.org/Training/Youth.aspx ), National Youth Leadership Training and National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience. Some people may not be happy with the BSA's emphasis on "leadership training" (not mentioning any names here), but it's pretty clear that the emphasis is there.

To 5yearscouter: I am surprised that those packs that do not "cross over" until April or (especially) May have not had a "revolt" on their hands from the parents. There is no reason to keep the "graduating" Webelos around so long, especially if they don't want to be there. And most people I know recommend being done with Webelos and immediately getting active in a troop in the "traditional" February-March time frame anyway, mainly because it allows the Scout to go on two or more weekend camping trips with the troop before they have their first full week away from Mom and Dad at summer camp.

Give BadenP some credit, he gave the new guy almost four hours before starting to bash him.

We are starting a new pack and I was told that a new national requirement is 10 boys to start.Which is what we are doing now, not sure in your neck of the woods. DE told us that studies shown that with more boys the odds of folding is less, so they say..... That last statement, where you quote the DE, strikes me as particularly inane. Of course "with more boys the odds of folding is less"! They needed "studies" for that? But (and bear dad, I am not asking you this question, just asking it rhetorically) how does that justify denying a charter to units with between five and nine boys in them? They are guaranteeing that the unit is going to fail, by denying it a charter, whereas a troop with that many boys can be turned around through successful recruiting so it is less in danger of folding. (Often they aren't turned around, but it is possible and I have seen it happen.) So, I don't get it. And I have to wonder, is that policy being enforced uniformly? The reason I ask is that it was my impression (mainly from reading this board) that there is a particular CO that charters many, many units that routinely got waivers, even from the five-person rule, so that they could maintain their organizational structure of one pack/troop/team/crew per (whatever the relevant corresponding organizational unit is within their church, whoops maybe I gave it away there.) If they had trouble meeting a minimum of five per unit, how are they making out with a minimum of ten? Not mentioning any names of course...

Any of the positions can be difficult to fill successfully (which I would define as filling the position with a person who does the job well and for a long time), but I would have to agree that treasurer is probably the biggest challenge, followed closely by activities coordinator (or camping chair or whatever your troop calls it.) As for Advancement Coordinator (or Chair), Engineer says: Between the data entry, camp scheduling, griping parents and Troopmaster crashes and countless trips to the Scout Store, the AC is the position that will turn over a lot. I must be doing something right, because I am an advancement coordinator/chair and I hardly do any of that stuff. And I don't see on that list the main things that I actually do. I schedule Boards of Review and chair them. (In our troop we try to make a BOR available to a Scout at the troop meeting after their SM Conference for a rank, so this can result in several consecutive meetings with BOR's and sometimes two BOR's in a night, especially when a COH is looming.) I also have conversations and handbook-reviews with Scouts who do not appear to be advancing. (I know the book says there should be non-advancement BOR's for that purpose, but we don't think it's necessary to subject a boy to a "panel" of adults for that purpose. I just have a chat with the Scout on a bench right outside the meeting room so people can see us.) I read pre-project workbooks with Eagle candidates and discuss their projects with them so I can sign the workbook, though the official "mentoring" is done by someone else. When asked, I will review and make suggestions on the Eagle workbooks. When there is an Eagle BOR (which are conducted at district level with troop committee members joining the DAC representative) I will serve if I can. That's about it. Someone else does the data entry, submission of advancement reports and purchasing of awards. I do not understand the mention of "camp scheduling". What does an advancement coordinator have to do with that? Other than that, I realize that the "book" may designate all these tasks as being those of the advancement coordinator, and more power to those in other troops who may do all of it. I think we have it divided about right. On the other hand, I know one troop that has approximately FIVE people doing these tasks: One does the regular BOR's, one takes care of all Eagle-related matters, and they have a lead person and two (or so) assistants handling the record-keeping and badge-obtaining functions. They are better than we are at getting people to volunteer for things, apparently.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I think this is being made more complicated than it needs to be. I would just request the waiver -- without any mention of changing when the boys cross over. Ideally they should cross over when it is traditional for your pack to cross them over, if that is what the boys want. Your "pitch" on the waiver could be something like, as of January 1 the troop will recharter with two boys, but in February (or March) eight others are joining, so the troop will be back up over five, can we just do that so the troop can continue to exist and so the boys' Cub Scout program is not disrupted? (Or something like that.) After you make the request, assuming you make it to the right person (going through the DE sounds right, though he/she may send you to someone else), it shouldn't take too long to get a response. Hopefully a week or so? (I don't really know how long it will take, I'm just hoping.) Meanwhile, you have more than seven months before recharter time. That should be plenty of time to come up with a "Plan B" if your waiver is turned down, and to implement the plan in a way that causes as little disruption to the boys as possible. In my opinion the boys should be shielded from all this bureaucratic stuff as much as possible. Hopefully your council will agree. In the meantime, the troop you are joining may not be very active for a couple of months while it only has two Scouts, but at least it would still exist.

I hope they just give bokris the waiver rather than having boys be Boy Scouts "on paper" but still Webelos "in person." Although I realize the good intentions behind the latter route, it sounds vaguely reminiscent of the kinds of "games" that have caused scandals in the past. Not to mention with a December recharter date, it would only work if the Webelos den happens to have enough boys with birthdays before the recharter date. You could have a den-full of boys with birthdays in the spring (I've seen it happen.) Although I suppose that even before they are 11, they could "cross over" (on paper) once they have earned the AoL, and (the last time I looked) the time requirement for that is 6 months since completion of the fourth grade, so as of December 31 it would just barely work. Not a good way to do things, in my opinion, but again I realize it is suggested with the best of intentions.

Pack, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulligan_(games) It is a term originating in golf and is equivalent to what most people call a "do over." I am not exactly sure how it relates to DLChris's question.

Beavah, you are the only one who engages in the precise type of behavior (and I am not talking here about your "accent") that you engage in, so if I am discussing that behavior (not you individually, that would be ad hominem), why would I be talking about anyone else? By the way, your silly word games don't work with me. Haven't you figured that out by now?

I agree that in this situation, one patrol is the way to go until your next group crosses over. If that point you find that you will have at least 12 boys who are going to stick around, then you can split into two patrols. I also think that having an SPL is something you can transition into. With one patrol, there is nothing for an SPL to do. It would either be a meaningless position, or the SPL would end up being the real PL, and the holder of the PL title would really be an APL. No point to that. Even with two patrols, you might not need a separate SPL; one of the PL's could be the acting SPL, as someone else suggested. When you have a third patrol, then it's definitely time for an SPL and maybe an ASPL. If you have one patrol, I see nothing wrong with them all doing the planning together. It will be good training for what hopefully will happen in 3 years or so: Your current 11-year-old Scouts, at least those who stick around, will be the 14-year-old SPL, ASPL, PL's etc. -- in other words, the PLC -- of your 25-35 Scout troop.

Beavah says: Yeh don't really think that any of us folks who argue from a religious perspective believe what yeh just claimed, right? Wrong. I think it is implied in many of your statements. But I am not talking about "us folks", I am talking about you individually. As for a "religious perspective," I don't necessarily know that you are arguing from a religious perspective. I think Eagledad is, and I think DLChris is, but I would say you argue more from a political perspective. When you start counting up (or miscounting, as the case may be) different religions, or placing your reliance on how many CO's vote one way or the other, that sounds more like politics to me. Of course, there has always been an overlap between religion and politics, but in your case the emphasis is definitely more on the political side. Even when we disagree with a policy adopted by da majority, in almost all cases we agree with the process, and believe that destroyin' the process is generally worse than the bad policy. We call that good citizenship, and it's even consistent with Natural and Divine Law in most cases, because tearin' down the system does greater harm than the bad policy. I have never advocated destroyinG or tearinG down anythin(g). I'd like to see the majority make the right decision. Might makes right in a democratic context means yeh use da levers in the system to force a result that yeh want instead of convincing people. Says you. "Might makes right" can be done by "majority rule", and often is. And the majority is not always supposed to rule, see U.S. Constitution, Amendments 1 through 10 as well as various other anti-majoritarian provisions in the original constitution and later amendments. Of course, "might makes right" can also be exercised by a "minority", but usually it's the kind of minority that's in control of an army or nuclear weapons or something like that. Going to court over an issue of rights is not "might makes right," it's using the legal system as it is intended to be used. (I find it interesting that you don't seem to believe in our legal system, but that is a discussion for another time.) Yeh use da courts to try to force a private policy change in this case, rather than usin' argument and example to convince people to change. I've never been involved in a lawsuit against the BSA. So if yeh want to change da BSA policy, become an active, large, enthusiastic charterin' partner and exercise your right to vote. Show up and convince others that are on the fence of the rightness of your position. Or I could express my opinions in the manner and in the venue I see fit. Which, on the 2G issues (I don't regard the "g"irl issue as an issue), is basically this forum. I almost never talk about these issues in real life. I have no illusion that the policy is going to change because I say it should, although I do think it will eventually change because the BSA would eventually find itself vanishing if it doesn't change, though it may take 20 or 30 years. In the meantime, I pick and choose the causes I fight for, and they are all on the local level and outside the BSA. In the BSA I just do my little job as a troop committee member and advancement coordinator. Or, otherwise, go start your own organization and compete in da market. Nobody's stoppin' yeh. Yeah, yeah. I have been being invited to leave the BSA in this forum since before you were even here. Nothing new. It's like respondin' to arguments rather than takin' shots at people for perceived airs of superiority, or their rural upbringing, or their funny accent. It takes integrity and a good argument. Name callin' or ad hominem stuff requires neither. Of course, you just made an ad hominem attack right there, you just couch it so cleverly (you think) that you can deny it later. As for your "accent", you don't have one, in writing. Whether you have one in spoken English, I have no idea. (I have been told that I do, but it's probably not the same one.) I usually just ignore your affected spelling and make believe the words are spelled correctly. Most of the other forum members seem to think it's "cute" or something, so who am I to argue?

Peregrinator, the funny thing about the "accent" is that I always thought that accents applied to written language, not to spoken language. There was that novelist (whose name I forget) whose work included some writing with an accent (not just "quoting" characters speaking in an accent, but actually written in the author's voice, with an accent.) Of course, that was fiction. (There is a next sentence that is almost bursting out of my keyboard to get into this post, but I am refraining per my previous post.)

On the issue of "might makes right", Packsaddle is correct; Beavah's notion of what this means is completely upside-down. Obviously a majority may be the "might" that makes "right," and that is true in this case. If people want to argue that the exclusion of openly gay people is the right policy, that's fine. Obviously I disagree. But to say, essentially, that the policy is right because it was adopted by a majority of those who get to vote, there I really disagree. The process for devising and preserving a bad policy is somewhat beside the point. It would still be a bad and wrong policy even if it were adopted unanimously. As for the name-calling... sure, people shouldn't be doing it. However, I do think that there have been a few forum members (not mentioning any names) who have (by conduct such as repeatedly making ridiculous assertions and adopting an air of superiority while doing it; again, not mentioning any name here, really) pushed things past the point where they may no longer be entitled to the "usual courtesies." I have occasionally been tempted to let loose with a colorful adjective or two, or more frequently, to give my honest opinion of someone and their mode of "debating" issues. However, I remind myself that although the person in question might "deserve it", it is not really courteous to the rest of the forum members who would see it. (And I also give some consideration to guys like OGE and Packsaddle, getting home after a long day at work and seeing a "borderline" post that they then have to decide whether to delete or not, and I don't want to make them do that, so I refrain.)

So John, does that mean the BSA motto should be changed to "Might makes right?" Or maybe "My way or the highway?" That's what it sounds like. I suppose that either one would be more in keeping with the current political climate than "Be prepared." Of course, I always thought the BSA was supposed to be a youth organization rather than a political organization.

Mistakes were made, huh? (I almost said "eh" at the end there, but I didn't want to confuse people.) That sounds familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made Have you had a political career you haven't told us about?

I find the use of the word "prank" in this thread (by Beavah and others) to be troubling. It is a very vague term, and can be used to refer to a very wide range of behavior, that can have a wide range of results, from the truly harmless to the emotionally damaging to the physically dangerous or even lethal. Saying that there is nothing wrong with a prank, or that pranks are not prohibited, is meaningless without a description of the actual conduct you are talking about. I would say two other things: 1, If the SOLE purpose of an act is to trick or deceive or humiliate another person, especially someone who is "new" or younger or smaller or etc., it has no place in Scouting. If you want people to laugh, tell some funny stories around the campfire so everybody can join in. (Although the recently-discussed list of topics you can't deal with in campfire skits kind of cuts down on that. I still want to know whether the "important papers" skit is banned now.) 2, If a swim test creates the kind of bad feelings that Beavah describes, I'd say you probably aren't doing it right. By the way, I am happy to see from dfolson that it all turned out to be nothing. Of course, that doesn't really affect this discussion, as this forum has had many, many threads about nothing.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I don't think the BSA is going to kick him out, and I don't think he'd do anything prior to the election, but if he's elected for a second term, I wouldn't be shocked if he decided to step down as honorary president. I have insufficient information to make a prediction either way, so I guess my response would be that I would not be "shocked" either way. But since your speculation involves a second term for the President, given the other choices I am willing to do what it takes to find out.

Does anybody really determine their vote based on who did or didn't personally attend a Jamboree? I never saw the President's speech that was shown at the last Jamboree. Did he say nice, supportive things about the Boy Scouts?

Mr Boyce: So if you don't want to read it, don't read it. It's a legitimate topic for "Issues and Politics", even if Merlyn had not cleverly tied the subject to the BSA. As for "trolling" -- meaning starting a thread for the purpose of getting a reaction -- I'd say at least half the threads started in "Issues and Politics" fall into that category to one degree or another. What else is new?

I have seen a troop or two with a "Duct Tape Patrol." No sewing or drawing schools needed to make the patrol flag.

I would complete the sentence that is started in the subject line of this thread as follows: ...left alone for awhile, preferably until the NEXT new addition of the handbook comes out. And more generally, I wish they would leave ALL the rank requirements alone for awhile. This does not mean I think the requirements are perfect. Some of the changes suggested above might be an improvement. However, for me, the benefits of most "improvements" to the rank requirements are outweighed by the difficulty the BSA has communicating those changes to the "field." Right now we've got some boys with the 11th edition of the handbook, some with the 12th, and every annual printing seems to change the requirements a little, or add a new one here or there. So we have Scouts who have up to seven different versions of the requirements in their books (and I'd bet that the actual number is at least five) but for their next rank they are all supposedly following the requirements in the current printing of the current handbook - a book most of them don't have. All of the kids who have made Star in the last 2 years or so have been working out of a book that does not have one of the major requirements for their next rank (the EDGE requirement for Life, which I know is a favorite in this forum, but it is still a requirement.) I realize that sometimes National comes up with a really nifty idea and wants to get it into the requirements right away, but I wish they would resist the temptation (unless it is really, really necessary) until the next handbook comes out (at least.) So for those you who are suggesting a major rewrite of the requirements for Tenderfoot, or any other rank, well, the 13th edition of the handbook should be out in 8 to 10 years or so. There's your chance.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Engineer61, I think that a meeting of your group #3 could probably be held in a phone booth -- and you can't even find a phone booth anymore. Anyone who is not voting for Romney specifically because he is LDS is not likely to be voting for Obama either. They are much more likely either stay home on election to to vote for some third-party fringe candidate. I suspect, however, that most of those who are prejudiced against LDS'ers will probably put that issue aside for the moment and vote for Romney anyway.

scoutingagain says: Yep, more than one talking head has implied Obama came out in favor of gay marriage because it was politically expedient to do so and distracts voters from the real issues of a sluggish economy. And it's the Republicans that want to get the campaign discussion back on the economy and away from social issues. I realize that. I guess I was just a little surprised to see an "actual person", rather than a tv "talking head", express that opinion. The "talking heads" think that voters are distracted from the economy by things like gay marriage, because the "talking heads" themselves are distracted by it. I doubt that most actual people are distracted by it. Maybe it's just where I live. Maybe if I lived where Packsaddle lived, I would see a lot more concern about it. Here in this "blue state" (although we have a Republican governor), I don't think people devote a lot of their time to thinking about who else can and can't get married. So the chances of most people around me being distracted from the economy by something like gay marriage just seem pretty remote. Also, what would such a distracted voter look like? Would they be someone who is really very worried about the economy, but they are in favor of gay marriage, so they forget about the economy and vote for the President because of gay marriage? That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And if they are against gay marriage, they probably weren't going to be voting for the President anyway. Now they are even more against him. Where's the distraction? That speculation alone indicates a sea change in societies outlook on gay marriage compared to how the gay marriage issue was viewed during the mid-term election in 2004. You mean 2010, I'm guessing. And yes, I agree with that, which was my real point to Engineer61. If support for gay marriage is anything but a negative for a presidential candidate, things have certainly moved a lot in just a couple of years. I don't think a major-party nominee for president has ever supported marriage equality before. And I see while Mitt doesn't support gay marriage he seems to think they would make fine parents of adoptive children. So if he believes they can be parents, how would he feel about a gay scout leader? I don't really see a great deal of consistency in Romney's views on much of anything, so I'm probably not the right person to comment. Not that the incumbent has always been a perfect model of consistency either, but I think he's better than Romney in that department (and most others) and I also think he just took a small step toward a greater degree of coherence overall.

Sounds familiar, Pack. I disable the wifi on my iPad before I let my almost-3-year-old grandson use it. I don't need him being one not-very-strong password away from accessing my bank account. I have downloaded enough "toddler" apps and drawing programs to keep him busy so he doesn't need the Internet anyway. (Of course, I don't get to check my email on it when he's around, but the tradeoff is worth it.)