NJCubScouter

Scoutfish, I wanted to get back to our apparent disagreement here. I asked who had "decided" that this Scout was done advancing, and you said the Scout had, by "refusing" to learn to swim. First of all, I was talking about an actual conscious decision, not merely a consequence flowing from some action or inaction. Second of all, I do realize that in using the word "refusing" you were referring to pvtjoker's description of the issue as a "refusal (fear based) to learn how to swim." So it's really his description that I have an issue with. I don't necessarily buy that there was a "refusal" here. As is typical in these threads, what we don't know about the real-life situation is much more than what we do know. All we really know is that a boy of unknown age has failed to go in the water at least once. Maybe pvtjoker has more facts available that would paint a different picture. Maybe the boy is 16 and has been simply refusing to even try for five years. Or maybe he is 11 and has a diagnosable phobia of going in the water (in which case I wonder where the BSA's "disability" policies start to kick in.) If he does have a phobia, the best thing obviously would be to help him overcome it so he can learn to swim and, incidentally, advance in Scouting (without having to even think about trying the "disability" route.) There was a whole other thread about a boy who was stuck at Tenderfoot because he couldn't swim, and the main focus of THAT original poster was how to help the boy learn to swim. The original poster in THIS thread does not say anything about any efforts to help the boy learn. We know nothing about what (if anything) has been done to help this boy overcome his fears. The original poster simply asked how to tell the boy he's done advancing. When you tried to actually answer his question, and provide words to use with the boy, I thought your answer was pretty good -- mainly because it included the word "IF", as in, if you do not learn to swim you are not going to advance. I would point the "if" in the other direction and say, in effect, "if you are going to advance, you are going to have to learn to swim, how can we help you do that?" In other words, leave out the word "not." I guess that's a matter of personal style, and different approaches might work better with different boys. As you also said, you set it up as a challenge to be overcome. And you offer help. You don't treat it as a "done deal" as the original poster seemed to suggest.

Pvtjoker, who decided that this Scout is "done with advancing in rank"? Now, if you were to tell us the boy is 16 and has been unsuccessfully trying to learn to swim for 5 years, well, maybe. If he's younger than that, there're no way he should be considered "done."

I agree with Beavah here, although in this particular case I get the sense that the "incident" was much more recent than the person's "youth." My initial thought was that if it were a long-long time ago, perhaps the conviction could be expunged if the applicable state law allows, and then nobody would have to worry about it. But I suspect it may be too recent to qualify for expungement; in my state at least, if it is a "felony" it would have to be at least 10 years ago. But in general, I think it is best to look at most things on a case-by-case basis. Obviously if someone were convicted of murder (which never gets expunged in my state, along with a few other very serious crimes), we can have a "zero tolerance" rule. "Assault" is not in the same league. On the other hand, I couldn't help but notice this statement by Beavah: A Scout is Kind. You mean like you were to that software guy in the other thread?

Yes. It does not matter when the MB's were earned. For the first palm, as long as he has 26 merit badges in total, has satisfied the time and other requirements, and is not yet 18, he should be entitled to the palm. One boy in our troop had about 60 MB's when he earned Eagle (at age 16) and then just started racking up palms, one for each 3-month period before he turned 18. There are other examples in our troop but they are less dramatic.

While there is always a "point" to being in Scouting, I can certainly understand the frustration of a 12(or whatever)-year-old who can't do the things he sees his friends doing, whether it be swimming or advancing. If he's "stuck" at Second Class while all his friends are making Star, that might make the whole thing seem a little less "fun." Some boys won't have a problem with that, some will. I agree that there are ways to get this boy swimming instruction. My son had the same problem, and did take longer than to make Second and First Class than he would have otherwise. He did not pass his swimming test for camp (which I believe is equivalent to the First Class requirement) until his third year at camp -- and then he passed it just barely. I recall at least one other boy who dropped out of Scouting because he could not pass the swim test, which was unfortunate. My son did not drop out, he passed the Second and First Class swim tests and eventually -- probably in his fifth year of summer camp -- passed Swimming MB, and went on to earn Eagle. How did he go from a non-swimmer to earning Swimming MB? He had some improvised lessons given by family members, he took instructional swim at camp his first two years, but I think even more important than that, he grew older, larger, stronger and more confident, and when he was ready, decided to do it, and did it. I have to tell you, I was pretty impressed by the way my son overcame this issue. But I can also understand that some kids would get too frustrated and quit before reaching the goal. Hopefully with some help that members of the troop could provide in helping him learn to swim, that won't happen in this case. Maybe knowing that he is not the first Scout who has had this issue might help a little.

Barry, according to the online dictionaries I checked, it basically means "the Jewish people collectively." I think it would somewhat correspond to the word "Christendom" although the latter probably has both a geographic and "people" aspect to it, while the former is basically just "people."

Eagledad says: The was the very nicely dressed southern woman with enough Jewry to anchor a small ship. Barry, I am going to assume that you posted that using a device that has what I call "aggressive spellcheck" such as an iPad, you tried to type "jewelry" but maybe left out one of the middle letters, and it "helpfully" changed it for you to the closest word it had in its tiny dictionary. It even capitalized the "J" for you. And you didn't even notice. I have had this happen as well, sometimes with startling results. I once wrote an email and typoed a word starting with "r", probably "report," and my iPad changed it to "rapist." True story. I wrote the whole rest of the email and just before hitting send, happened to scan what I had already written, and noticed it. I'm glad I did! Of course, you may have meant that the southern woman had several of "my people" with her on the plane.

Well, if Americans and British people (Britons? Britishers?) can't get along on a troop committee, that doesn't say much for the World Brotherhood of Scouting, does it? I mean, what would happen in a unit with Israeli and Syrian members? (I know, there probably wouldn't be such a unit, but I guess that is part of the point.)

Calico, I appreciate what you are saying, but I think everybody knew what was meant by "partial" -- partial completion of a merit badge. Nobody thought we were talking about cutting a slice off the little round piece of material. Words do mean things, but there is also such a thing as jargon, and it is used on this forum all the time. A "partial" is Scouting jargon for a partially completed merit badge.

Scoutbox, when you say they (apparently the CC and the former troop leaders she listens to) are "all English," you mean as in British? And you are the ASM of a BSA troop? And the "old guard" in that troop are "anti-American"? Just out of curiosity, where (generally, not specifically) are you? I know there are some BSA troops in other countries, but I assume the people who join those are Americans overseas and that the "indigenous population" join their own Scouting organization. Or are you somewhere in the U.S. that is somehow dominated by British people? This really has nothing to do with the role of a CC, you just got me curious. On a more relevant point, Moosetracker says: The CC holds no power on their own, their power comes from the group vote of the committee. Technically I don't think that's correct. The authority (a word I prefer to "power") of the CC comes from the COR -- as does the authority of all the other leaders in the troop. As has been discussed in this forum many times, some troop committees operate by voting, some operate by "consensus", some a combination of the two, and in some the decisions are made by the CC. The BSA literature on the subject does not say there should be voting, and it doesn't say there shouldn't. It's up to the unit.

Beavah, you were apparently reacting to what bnelon44 wrote, but did you read what I wrote? (Right above that?) Partials, at least in the context of summer camp, have been part of the official advancement policy book for at least the past few years. The edition I quoted was the 2008 printing of the 1989 book, and there are often changes between printings, so that sentence got into the book sometime between those two years. Personally I would be surprised if the idea of partials is something that suddenly surfaced in 2008. I do not specifically remember it from when I was a Boy Scout in the 60's and 70's. I do specifically remember it from when my son first attended summer camp, which was in 2003. Every year when I went to pick up my son from camp I got to hear the Scoutmaster's standard end-of-camp speech, which always included a mention of how many completed and partial MB's the boys had received and how the Scouts should start working on the partials and get them done as soon as possible so they didn't get forgotten about. So the point is, partials are not some new thing, nor is the BSA's recognition of them a mere "rumor," or something that one office in the BSA is doing without "official" sanction. It is right there in black and white.

Beavah says: In the BSA there's really no such thing as a "partial" merit badge. Actually, there is. I found this in the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures book on page 34 (it happened to be the 2008 edition so it may be on a different page number now): "Partial completion of merit badges should be credited to a Scout on the Application for Merit Badge and given to the Scoutmaster at the end of the week." As the wording may suggest, that statement appears in the section on merit badge work done at summer camp. But I see no reason to believe that "partials" would be allowed only at summer camp. The same principle would apply to merit badge "events" and to special situations where the first merit badge counselor and the Scout are unable (for whatever reason) to complete the merit badge together.

Our troop has weekend camping trips every month except December, July and August plus one week of summer camp in July. There is a district first aid competition in early December but that is a day event. That does not count the Venture Crew that some of the older Scouts also participate in. I am not sure how many camping trips the crew does, but I do know they do at least one week of high adventure in the summer. Troop meetings are held once a week from September through mid-June (the last meeting of this school year was last night), plus in late June or early July there is a "swim meeting" during which the swim tests for summer camp are held.

Personally it is my feeling that if you are writing a post in this forum and you find yourself singling out the ethnicity or religion of another person, or group of people (with the possible exception of your own ethnicity or religion), you should think twice about what you're doing, and then think about it a few more times, and if the ethnic or religious reference is still there, you should probably remove it anyway. But as one of our regular posters likes to say, your mileage may vary. And yes, I am aware that our CSE made a reference to a particular ethnic group. But he doesn't post here, unless its under an assumed name and he disguises himself really well.

Engineer61's jab at the Designated Hitter Rule distracted me from this other statement of his: ...even I am amazed at this blatant "advertisement". It's definitely targeting the parents who see Eagle as a requirement. It's like someone in BSA *wants* to become an Eagle-or-nothing kind of operation. I doubt that your last sentence is true. I don't think there's really any "philosophical push" here on the part of my council or other councils that have similar programs. I think the reason they offer this program is because (1) they want to get more fee-paying kids into the council's camps and (2) they think there will be enough demand for it. I suspect it is entirely a market-driven, dollars-and-cents decision. My council has four different camps, and I am sure they have to look at the numbers on a regular basis to justify continuing to operate all of them. (We know from some past threads in this forum that national has guidelines for deciding whether council camps should continue to operate.) This Trail to Eagle camp is not the only "specialty camp" they are advertising. I also mentioned the program for boys and girls of all ages regardless of whether they are Scouts or not. I did not mention the "Backwoods Engineering Camp" (basically a week devoted to pioneering projects), "Excursion Week" (backpacking, COPE, climbing and ATV's) and the "Great Outdoors Camp" (for both Scouts and non-Scouts.) They also have a Boy Scout Day Camp and a resident "Camp Troop" program (where all the Scouts are there as provisionals), and of course (though not mentioned in this particular flyer) the regular troop resident camping. All of these specialty programs, individual programs and non-Scouting programs are there to try to keep the camps as full as possible. I don't believe the thinking behind them (including the Trail to Eagle) goes any deeper than that.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I kinda feel bad for you old-timers you have to sit and swallow this...kinda like me and the "designated hitter" in baseball. Ok. I would only do this in a thread I started, where I don't have to feel guilty about sending the discussion off in random directions... I love the designated hitter rule. It allows the manager to make pitching decisions based on pitching. Let pitchers pitch and hitters hit. I wish the National League would adopt it too. With Scouting, as with baseball, there are times to be traditional and times to adopt new ideas. (See how I got that back to Scouting, there?)

Basementdweller, your post about summer camp costs made my curious as to what "my" troop is now paying, which I didn't really know since my son's last summer camp year was two years ago and that year we used his "troop account" to pay for part of it... so it has been at least three years since I paid full price. Turns out that this camp (in eastern Pa.) is only a little less than my own council's regular camp: $354 for the regular rate, $335 if you pay before Feb. 28 (that deadline is much later for kids who have just crossed over from Webelos), and then the discounted rate is further reduced to $319 if your troop is attending the camp for at least the second year in a row. I hope I'm not hijacking my own thread.

Oh, when I Googled it, somewhere down the list I found my own council's listing, which led to some more information. $390 a week! Which admittedly is only $15 more than the regular week at summer camp, but that is significantly more than the camp my troop (er, the troop I serve; can't call it my son's troop anymore) is attending. It's a little less if you register early in the spring. But what really caught my eye was, a Scout can attend more than one week (I hadn't realized that before), and if you attend all four weeks, they only charge the low-low discounted price of $1,380! Old OX, I have always liked the line about how I walked to school uphill... both ways! But let's give credit where credit is due, when I say it I always preface it with "As Bill Cosby once said..."

Google trail to eagle camp.......It is amazingly common. Yes Basementdweller, I did not mean to suggest that this is something unique. It may not even be the first time my council has done it. It is just the first time I have noticed it.

I don't see how this is possible, when I keep hearing from certain talk radio hosts that our "socialist" president doesn't care anything about defense and protecting our national interests. These don't sound like the actions of a president who doesn't care anything about defense and protecting our national interests. Or could it be that these radio talk show hosts are wrong? Is that possible? By the way, I find it amusing that the Republican Congressional leaders have suddenly discovered the War Powers Act. (Regarding the situation in Libya.) When Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush were in office, the Republican Congressional leaders didn't seem to have heard of it.

So today I (and presumably everybody else on my council's mailing list) get an email which is basically an advertisement for various council programs, especially summer camp programs. Not surprising at this time of year, and I have been receiving similar emails about once a week recently. The programs are more varied than they used to be. For example, they have one week (probably the last week of the camp season) for a non-Scouting camp program for anyone (boys and girls) in grades 2 through 12. "Age appropriate activities include swimming, boating, first aid, ecology, outdoor skills, hiking, crafts, rock climbing, shooting sports, COPE, sports, games, songs, campfires and a Thursday night dance with a DJ." Ok as far as I am concerned. They don't have enough Scout troops to fill up the summer, so for the last week they run a non-Scouting program so the camp doesn't sit there not earning money. I get it. That's not what this post is about. What this post is about, is the section printed below. (It's a straight cut and paste except I deleted the name of the camp and unfortunately the picture of an Eagle wouldn't transfer over.) Somehow I thought some people in this forum would have something to say about it. I may have something to say about it later, but for now I will say, every Eagle-required merit badge? The out-of-council camp my troop attends has most of them, including the "Cits" and Communications, which to me are not really summer camp badges. But not Family Life, which this camp apparently does have for that week. How do you offer Family Life merit badge at summer camp? Anyway, here it is for your enjoyment: Specialty Resident Camp Programs Trail to Eagle Camp Weeklong resident camp at [name of camp deleted] - 4 sessions Trail to Eagle Camp is designed to help you achieve the goal of attaining the Eagle rank. The program guides you through the advancement process and prepares you for your service project. Focused discussions help explore your challenges and drive toward your scouting goals. All Eagle required merit badges are offered. The program has four sessions from July 3 to July 30. Each week is limited to 24 Star or Life scouts who will be at least 13 years old by July 1, 2011, so register today! (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I hope the BSA does not go national with a kindergarten program. I think many of the Tigers are "too young" to be in such a program as it is, and they are in first grade. Now the packs are going to have a bunch of five-year-olds... just too young in my opinion. And yes, Girl Scouts have Daisies. One of my daughters was a Daisy (she quit after her second Brownie year if I recall correctly; my other daughter quit in the 7th grade, whatever level that is.) I thought that was a little too young as well, but there is also a slight difference in maturity level at that stage, in favor of the girls. I just don't think this is a good thing for the Cub Scouts.

First of all, on this idea that a uniform is not required at a BOR, does anyone actually have any BSA literature that says the Troop Committee CANNOT require a uniform? In our troop, no Scout would show up at a BOR without a uniform. I don't recall any BORs being postponed due to lack of uniform; the issue just doesn't come up. I can see making an exception if a boy DOES NOT OWN a uniform, but there is no reason for that to be the case either, because we have a uniform closet and even families that would have no problem paying for a uniform are welcome to take from the uniform closet. If we happened to be out of a particular size and a parent came to the SM or CC and said they were unable to afford a uniform, a uniform would "appear" one way or another. So I really have no problem with saying that the boys need to show up for their BORs in uniform. Another thing is that we will have BOR's "on demand" so if the boy was unable to stop at home after band practice or whatever and is not in uniform, he can usually have his BOR the next week. If that ever turned out not to be good enough for someone, and they appealed to National and we were told officially that boys don't need to be in uniform for their BORs, we would change our practices. But I don't see that happening. As far as the patch hanging off the pocket by a pin, I do not think this Scout's BOR was necessarily wrong to require a neat and clean appearance to the uniform. Personally I would NOT tell the boy to come back another time. I would probably remark on the patch and gently suggest that the NEXT time he has a BOR, the patch be sewed on. This is especially true for a Life BOR, where the boy's next BOR is going to be held at a district location and will not be chaired by someone from our troop. We have had situations where a boy shows up for a Star BOR and still has his Second Class patch on, for example. Again, I will gently suggest to the boy that when he receives his Star patch, it go on the uniform right away. We recently had a boy show up for his Tenderfoot BOR with his Webelos rank patch still on his shirt (not the Arrow of Light, the oval one that boys generally earn in the 4th grade), and I suspect he probably still had his pack numerals on his sleeve and no patrol patch. Again, we did not send him away; actually I just pointed at the patch and he knew what the issue was and I think when he shows up for his Second Class BOR, he will look like a Boy Scout rather than a Cub Scout. So I think my approach to these things is better, but I don't necessarily think it is the only approach.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Let me see if I have this straight: You DON'T want this man to be a den leader, but you don't want the pack to turn him down, you want the pack to approve him but then have the council turn him down so he will keep his kids in your pack so you can "keep an eye" on them to see if they are being abused? Wow. Very creative. One might even say Machiavellian. But there are two issues here, and you need to keep them separate. One issue is, should this person be a den leader. That is a decision to be made (at least formally, though others may have input) by the COR and CC, who sign leadership applications before they go to council. If "you" (meaning the COR and CC) do not believe he would be a suitable leader, you don't sign the application and you appoint someone else as den leader. I do not think you should "pass the buck" to council, first because it's the wrong thing to do if you don't want him as a leader, and second because you really don't know what will happen to the application if it goes to council. Maybe when he mentioned his criminal conviction to someone, he didn't mention that he is in the process of having the conviction expunged from his record (a legal process available in the majority of (and maybe all) states, though it's not an easy process and not always available depending on the circumstances of the case), so by the time he fills out the application he won't even have to put that down, and it won't show up on the official background check. (I realize that's a stretch, but the point is, anything is possible.) So, YOU (meaning the appropriate people in the unit) need to make this decision. And then the second issue is, do you have a reasonable suspicion that this person has abused or neglected his children? If so, you report him, if not, you don't. Only you can decide that based on what you see and hear. But using the BSA leadership selection process to keep the kids in a position where you can "keep an eye on them", that just doesn't seem right.

Former Life Scout? They say once an Eagle, always an Eagle, so I sometimes say I'm a "Life for Life." Welcome to the forums, fellow Life for Life.