NJCubScouter

Well, MadMax, I think that we in the legal profession can be given "credit" for some things in Scouting that may not seem to make much sense, but I don't think this is one of them. "Advancement chair" (or chairman) is the the traditional term, I don't know whether it was ever contained in official BSA publications or not. Technically I suppose there would be an "Advancement Chair" if there was an "Advancement Committee" for him/her to chair. There is no official "Advancement Committee" prescribed by BSA publications (that I know of), but there also is nothing that says that a unit cannot have other "committees" or "subcommittees" that would report to the unit committee and/or CC. (I.e. membership subcommittee, fundraising subcommittee; we don't have those, though some may.) In my troop I occasionally (2 or 3 times a year) ask the other committee members who regularly serve on BOR's with me to meet during a troop meeting so we can go over issues or questions that have come up regarding advancement, see if newer BOR members have any questions or would like to discuss anything, etc. So I suppose in that sense you might say we have an informal "Advancement Committee," of which I am the chair. But in the end, I don't think the terminology matters that much. They are the same position.

I don't have time to write a whole dissertation in response to Beavah's post right now, so I'll just say that I don't think the "religious viewpoint" in favor of excluding gay people from Scouting (that is what we're talking about here, right? Not abstract concepts like "sin". Right?) is anywhere near as "overwhelming" or "vast" as it used to be. My religion, or to be more precise, the "movement" I associate with in my religion, has openly gay rabbis, supports same-gender marriage, permits rabbis to perform same-gender marriage-like ceremonies (some do, some don't), etc. But what's the point, anyway? The BSA is not merely a collection of religious groups. But even if it were, the idea of an "overwhelming" or "vast" majority in favor of excluding gay people is simply incorrect, today. As someone else pointed out earlier, this change of attitudes is also evident in this forum. When I started posting here, 10 years ago, the majority was clearly opposed to changing the BSA policy. Today, the opposite seems to be true. Someone like DLChris would not have been put on the "defensive" back then, he would have just been one of many voices talking about "sin". Not that he, or anybody else, isn't entitled to his opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine, and a "local option" policy would allow everyone to at least attempt to adhere to their beliefs on this subject, in the context of Scouting.

I noticed the following in that document: "Local Packs, Troops and Crews do not exist without the local council." It's that sort of attitude that makes many people love their councils so much. But taking that statement as a "given", I think it would be a better world if the council-types (and national) recognized that the reverse is true as well. Some do, but some don't.

They are the same position. Officially the name is "Advancement Coordinator", or at least that is what the Troop Committee Guidebook says. Many people call it "Advancement Chair" or "Advancement Chairman", see http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Unit_Advancement_Chair, http://www.usscouts.org/advance/docs/guidelines.asp and many troop web sites that can be found through a Google search. In my troop, where I hold this position, I use the two interchangeably, since nobody really cares. On this forum I am usually careful to say "Advancement Coordinator" because there are several people who will whine at you if you don't. (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

rWhy does your moral code take precedence over mine within Scouting? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. Maybe one day I'll go talk to the National Committee and find out. I think shortridge was asking a rhetorical question. The point is, the BSA teaches that we should have respect for all religions, and that people of any religion (organized or not) can be members, but then gives a preference to the religious beliefs of some religions in imposing a membership requirement on all units. This creates first-class religions and second-class religions, and the Unitarians, Episcopalians, Reform Jews (raising hand) and others, not to mention non-religious groups and individuals who oppose discrimination against gay-people, are riding in the back of the bus. With a local option, we could all sit where we want.

We had a situation in our high school a few years ago, same situation as Eamonn's son, except I think the pocket knife was left in a day pack that the student also used for his books. As I recall, the district superintendent (who I believe had been a Scouter when his sons were growing up) waived the penalties, though technically he was probably violating the district's policies, which were of the "zero tolerance" variety. It's a sad state of affairs. It seems that the question of how a pocket knife was dealt with in the high schools of the mid-70's depends on where you lived. I am of that vintage myself and I do not think there would have been any problem with it, nor was there any specific policy against weapons in school that I can recall. I don't think the idea of someone bringing a weapon to school with the idea of using it to harm someone would have crossed anyone's mind, so things that are mainly tools (like pocket knives) would have been viewed as tools, not as weapons.

Basementdweller, I think the point people are making is that the "district" doesn't pay anything for anything. The district does not employ the DE, the council does. Same for the rest of the staff. If your "district" is going to charge units a fee, I would ask what it's going to be used for, too. At best, the answer would be that it is going to be used for things (like expenses for events) that the council now pays for, or should be paying for, or that should be coming out of the event fees. At worst, someone is trying to start their own little fiefdom and use the units' money to do it. Well, at worst-worst, someone is trying to line their pockets, hopefully that is not the case.

Here are some responses to some of DLChris's points several posts back. I don't have time to respond to all of them. So we have one group that is taking part in an act and another group that says that it's immoral. If the "act" you are talking about is homosexuality, I would point out that there are many, many people (including a number of regular posters in this forum) who do not fall into either of those two groups. Or so it would seem -- I guess I can only speak with absolute certainty about myself. In fact, I think it's that group -- those of us who are not gay but do not think that being gay is immoral -- that is primarily responsible for the recent changes in society's attitudes toward gay people; why discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been outlawed in many places, why gay marriage is being recognized in some states, why gay people are now allowed in the military, etc. A code of morality can not stand if we pick and choose. "We", as a society and as members of various religious groups, actually "pick and choose" all the time. It's been going on since the beginning of time, and it's still going on. I've never been able to sit down with an atheist to find out where they think their moral code comes from, that point has always been a minor interest to me. I'm not an atheist (not since I was in college, anyway), but I think if you had such a conversation, you'd find for most atheists, their moral code comes from an innate sense of right and wrong, which all of us (or most of us) have. It would be a moral code based on not hurting others, respecting others, acting honorably, etc. A lot of it is in the Scout Oath and Law. So, it has been said that BSA doesn't "discriminate" against other immoral acts. But what then about the criminal background check, the approval of the CO, the approval of the committee. If a person is an active thief, even a boy, isn't he brought up before the Committee, or turned over to the police if they refuse to repent. How many of us would let a drunk, drive our kids to events or lead a meeting if they showed up drunk? Adultery and homosexuality are no longer, for the most part, criminalized. But every time I hear about adultery on these forums taking place between scouters/parents I hear nothing about positive outcomes. If a CO hears about adultery, especially a situation that disrupts the unit, wouldn't they remove the offending people. I think you're missing the whole point. Nobody is saying that EVERYBODY can be a leader, regardless of their past behavior. A murderer, rapist, armed robber, etc. will get kicked out through the national criminal background check. An adulterer, drunk driver, habitually intoxicated person, will be dealt with by the unit. Some CO's will remove a leader whose reputation around town is as an adulterer, but some will not. It probably depends on the circumstances. Same goes for the person with a drinking problem. I think there was a discussion on here once of a female leader who had been a stripper, though I don't quite remember whether that was a hypothetical, or an April Fool's joke, or what. The point is, there is "local option" for all these things, and there should be for openly gay leaders as well. Another thing I would point out is that, if that was the policy, the "local option" should apply to gay leaders the same way it does for everybody else. If a gay leader is married or in a civil union and cheats on his/spouse, and the unit would kick out a heterosexual cheater, they should kick out the gay cheater as well. Same goes for the habitually drunken gay person. And on and on. The person's orientation just wouldn't be a factor, positive or negative. Homosexuals would like to go through life appreciated for who they are and what they do. I understand. So do thieves, liars, and murderers too. Others have addressed this, but I will just say, the difference is that the first group has not done anything NOT be "appreciated", or at least accepted, while the second group has. But, you know, nobody is asking you to be in a unit where gay leaders are accepted, if you don't want to be. Some of us would just like for local units to have the choice.

My father got the District Award of Merit and Silver Beaver and I am pretty sure he never contributed anything (or at least nothing noteworthy) to the council in terms of money. That was about 30 years ago, but I don't think the emphasis on money in the BSA was any different back then. I remember my father complaining about it when I was a Scout. There are three people active in my troop now who have the Silver Beaver, and I don't know them as well as I knew my father, but I doubt they have contributed anything significant either. In money, that is. Time, energy, dedication, etc., yes, but not money.

I will resist the temptation to, again, mention the requirements that my council adds to what national requires for Eagle. (Including SR540Beaver's example of the Scout collecting the letters and bringing them to the BOR, and several others.) Fortunately our council does not seem to have a "rule" similar to the one from Winston's troop, and actually they are pretty good about which projects are approved and not approved. (Meaning, they generally seem to follow the requirements.) The "council rules" for Eagle all seem to deal with subjects other than the project itself.

I can imagine where such a "rule" probably came from. Most likely, someone in Winston's district (and/or troop) paid a couple of thousand dollars for construction materials for their son's bridge or pavilion or whatever, and this didn't sit well with some people, so now there's a "rule" that is not authorized by national. If the parents had paid $50 or $100, nobody would have said anything -- and they often do, and nobody does. The total cost of my son's project (he wasn't building anything) was about $50 (not counting some safety equipment loaned by the local government department for which the project was done) and I footed the bill. And I still have five or six cheap plastic clipboards left over from the experience. (Not to mention a few more gray hairs, but that had nothing to do with the money part.)

I haven't signed the petition, because I don't sign petitions (except for candidates who I support for public office, to get them on the ballot, but that's different.) I just don't think they are an effective way to bring about change. I do, however, oppose the BSA policy on openly gay leaders, as I have been posting here for a little over ten years. I think there should be local option on the subject (which there is not currently), which exists on almost every other leadership issue. Once-Eagle-Always-Eagle, I don't think you have to worry too much about the BSA "caving to societal pressure" as a result of this petition, or the next one or the one after that. The BSA has been defending its position on this subject for many years, and as someone else said, they are well aware that there is opposition to it. I do think that ''eventually'', the balance of societal opinion will shift so strongly against the BSA's policy that if they want to continue to have enough members to remain viable, they will adopt a local option. It's not going to happen this year or next year. Five years? Ten years? Twenty? I don't know. I suspect that when my oldest child's generation (she's in her late 20's) "takes over", there will be no stopping the change. It's just going to happen. But probably too late for the gay moms from Bridgeport, Ohio, and their 7-year-old son.

Peregrinator says: I don't think hiking necessarily involves a wilderness setting, I think one can do an urban hike but ISTM it should involve getting to a particular point and returning. Very true, in fact two of my favorite hikes as a Scout (glad I can still remember back that far, though I'm not sure where I put a file about 10 minutes ago...) were historic trail hikes (about 12-15 miles in one day if I remember correctly, though I might not) in New York City (lower Manhattan, where there are still some traces of the Revolutionary War hanging around) and Washington, D.C. Even if it's not a "historic trail," the general idea of an "urban hike" is still a good one to mix in with the more backwoods settings.

Jtex, Have you spoken directly with the Scoutmaster and asked if you, specifically, can attend the camping trip, and why it would be awkward, in your position as den leader, not to attend? P.S., I suppose that when I am responding to posts that relate to Cub Scouting, I probably should explain that although my account name includes "CubScouter," the "Cub" part has been out of date for almost 10 years. Scouter-Terry (the site owner) told me way back when that I could get my account name changed, but I never did.

Games design, programming and animation seem a little unlikely to me, but the writer of this blog does claim to be the senior editor of Scouting magazine, which sounds kind of authoritative, so I guess we'll find out.

...or can he organize and delegate his patrol in a "You bring this, you bring that" method. If the Scout actually did that, I would say yes, that is "securing the ingredients" and meets the requirement.

"Using the menu planned in requirement 4a, make a list showing the cost and food amounts needed to feed three or more boys and secure the ingredients." Hmm. I think we have always assumed in our troop that "secure the ingredients" means the Scout has to go shopping for them. (Generally this has meant that two Scouts go together, with their parents, since nowhere does it say that the "securing" must be a solitary experience. I think the point is that a boy experiences the joy of turning a shopping list into items in a cart, within budget, something they will no doubt repeat many times in later life at the behest of their spouse. ("Honey, on your way home, please...)) But I digress. I don't really think the goal of the requirement is met if you can "secure the ingredients" merely by asking some other person for the items that they shopped for. On the other hand, would we allow requirements 4a, b, c and e to be done piecemeal, on different camping trips? Yeah, probably. I don't think it is subtracting from the requirements.

DLChris, do you truly believe that the only difference between BSA and "Campfire" is who the BSA excludes? Or in other words, that the BSA is defined by who it doesn't let in? If so, we have vastly different conceptions of what this organization is all about. As for what they do or don't do in England or Scotland, I don't think it has much impact on what we do here. As Moggie points out, they have some different "constitutional" issues to deal with than we do. Of course, there are some aspects of our constitution (small "c" on purpose) and society that are a direct reaction to the situation in the UK at the time our country was founded.

I think the school day is long enough. I think the school YEAR is NOT long enough. My understanding, or at least the folk lore of the subject, is that in the "old days" the kids needed their summers off to help Dad and Mom bring in the crops. I don't see kids doing a lot of harvesting these days, so I see no need for two months off. But that's a whole other can of worms.

I think most Scouts do not choose Cycling or Hiking MB because the number and length of the hikes/trips required for those badges make them much more challenging and time-consuming than Swimming. (Assuming that the Scout can swim.) Not that there is anything wrong with challenging and time-consuming, but it's natural that a majority is not going to choose that path. (There are exceptions for units with a concerted program and/or tradition directed at those merit badges.) Our troop has had some boys earn all three; we had a parent a few years ago who organized some bike trips planned around the Cycling MB requirements, and probably about 10 boys earned that badge, plus a few them were in the group that went to Philmont and earned Hiking, and I think all of those boys earned Swimming as well since in our troop that is usually done in first-year summer camp. Maybe there should be a special award for Scouts who earn Swimming, Hiking and Cycling, and maybe throw Lifesaving in there too, another "optional required" badge that most Scouts in our troop do not earn.

I think that basically our Scouts who have gone/are going to Philmont earn the Hiking MB, I don't think anybody else does.

It's true, Mr. Boyce, these days if you talk about discrimination as a bad thing, more and more people just kind of scoff at you. Call me old-fashioned, though.

Dwalt, now that I have read your later posts, I have another question. You have "a bunch of boys who have no father in their life," yet at the same time you have "a line of other men" who would love to be ASM but not enough spots for them to fill. I am not doubting you, but something in there does not compute, as they used to say. At the very least, you have an unusual situation. In my experience (including reading these forums), it is usually the troops with a lot of single-female-parent Scouts that have female SMs/ASMs by necessity, because there aren't enough men around to do it. And yet your troop, with many "fatherless" boys, doesn't have enough ASM spots for all the men willing to fill them? As I said, if the answer is "yes," ok, but it sounds like a unique situation to me.

dwalto02, First of all, welcome to the forums. Second of all, just so you're aware of it, you have resurrected a thread that had its last post more than two years ago. There's nothing wrong with that, just wanted you to be aware of it. Some of those who posted in 2009 may not be particularly active currently. (That's just a general statement, I don't track what other posters are doing.) Third of all, I am wondering how the ASM positions in your troop can be "full." How many do you have, for a troop of what size? I am not aware of any limit on the number of ASMs a troop can have. In our troop, its the more the merrier. (I suppose there is some logical limit where the number of uniformed adults hanging around becomes ridiculous, but I'm not sure what that number is and certainly haven't see it approached in my troop.) Personally, I see nothing wrong with having female ASMs, or a female SM for that matter. I also think it is a good idea, if you can arrange it, to have leaders of both genders. (In our troop it happens that all of the female Scouters are on the committee, including the CC; the troop has never had a female SM/ASM, but the "troop next door" had a female SM for several years.) But it's not up to me to make that decision for your troop. It is, however, up to your CO to make that decision for your troop. There should not be any "fighting" required. The chartered organization head or rep can sign the application and then ask the CC to sign it, and if the CC refuses, the CO can appoint a new CC. Another question, why do you think the "wonderful troop" would be "dismantled because of this"? What harm do you think would result from having a single female ASM? Or is it the "fighting" that would result in the "dismantling"? And if that's the case, maybe you should just stop fighting. (Disclaimer: The above comment is based only on the facts presented. If there are other or different facts that we don't know about, my opinion might be different.) (Added note: If my post seems somewhat "behind the times," when I started writing it there were no responses to dwalt's post. Several have snuck in in the time it took me to write my post, bit by bit, with actual work intervening several times along the way.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I just did a little math on this. The Scouts in our troop, in total, probably average somewhere around 150 merit badges a year. That's a fairly large but manageable number of cards for us to maintain. But now multiply that by 25 troops in our district (I just made that number up, but it's probably low) and five districts in the council, and now you're up to 18,750 additional pieces of paper going into the council office every year. There's just no way. If they were going in the front door, they would probably be going out the back door just as quickly. But I don't think they're even going in the front door.