NJCubScouter

I didn't care for her "interpretation", but on the other hand I don't really like her singing in general. My idea of a female singer is more like Pat Benatar, Ann Wilson, and going back a little further, Linda Ronstadt, Aretha Franklin, etc. It could have a tiny bit to do with how old I am. The point is, a substantial part of the "audience" today DOES like her style of singing, so that is what you're going to end up with singing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl. Can't say I'm a big fan of the group that did the halftime show either, but again, I'm not in the record-buying (MP3-downloading?? I'm still waiting for cassettes to come back) demographic anymore. As for her losing her place in the song... has anyone here ever done any acting? I have done a little, and it is perfectly understandable to me that no matter how well someone might know a song, or their lines, or whatever, the human brain is perfectly capable of skipping a track every now and then and landing on the wrong line in the song. I mean, I have probably said the Pledge of Allegiance several million times, but every hundredth time or so, I find myself quickly thinking, um... where am I? And letting the rest of the group do the next line, and joining in again once I've found my place again. Of course, that may just be because I'm getting old... though for some reason this never happens with the Scout Oath or Law.

If this is supposed to take effect within a few weeks, I have to wonder how well our council is doing in getting the word out. From what I can tell (without me actually intruding on someone else's turf, which I try not to do), our activities coordinator seems blissfully unaware that something new is in the works. The only place I have heard about it is in this forum.

I have never heard of a Venture Crew participating in a competitive district event. I don't think it happens in our district. I have seen individual Venturers on staff, and of course if they are cross-registered as a Boy Scout they can compete with their patrol, but as a crew competing with Boy Scout patrols, no. At least I have never seen it. Not that it necessarily would be a huge deal in our district, because the competitions are already divided between senior patrols and junior patrols. (They seem to do the division differently for different events, but one example is "averaging" the ranks of the boys in a patrol and if the average is higher than (usually) First Class it is a senior patrol, otherwise it is a junior patrol. All patrols have to complete the same tasks in the competition, but the senior patrols and junior patrols are ranked separately and two sets of awards are given out. I guess putting a Venture Crew (under 18 only) in the senior category wouldn't be too far out of line, at least in terms of the age range. As far as the gender issue... well, although Boy Scouts is still all-boy, the BSA ended the absolutist gender separation (among youth) about 40 years ago, when Explorer posts were allowed to go coed, so my attitude is that nobody should fall over in shock if a teenage girl is seen participating in a Scouting-related activity.

There also are National publications for each position, in a Boy Scout troop they would be the Scoutmaster's Handbook for the SM and ASM's and the Troop Committee Guidebook for committee members. Each of these books sets out the roles, expectation and guidance for the positions they cover. Whether a unit also needs its own set of bylaws has been a subject of ongoing discussion in this forum for years. Some units have them, and some don't. My troop... er, the troop I serve, has been around for 80 years, does not have bylaws and as far as I know it never has, so that says something.

As has been discussed in previous threads on this group, it is a little more complicated than the AHG simply being a group for those who think the Girl Scouts is too "radical." It also does not seem quite correct to say -- as AHG does in the press release that the original poster linked to -- that the BSA and AHG are "perfect bookend programs to one another." Here is what the AHG says in their "Statement of Faith" on their web site: American Heritage Girls is a Christ-centered leadership and character development ministry. The following Statement of Faith applies to all American Heritage Girls' Charter Organizations, Adult Members and Adult Leaders. "We believe that there is One Triune God Father, Jesus Christ His one and only Son, and the Holy Spirit Creator of the universe and eternally existent. We believe the Holy Scriptures (Old/New Testament) to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God. We believe each person is created in His image for the purpose of communing with and worshipping God. We believe in the ministry of the Holy Spirit who enables us to live a Godly life. We believe that each individual is called to love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength; and to love their neighbors as themselves. We believe that each individual is called to live a life of purity, service, stewardship and integrity." It's not exactly the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle, is it? The AHG has a specifically Christian focus. Now, that is fine if you want to be involved in a youth organization with that specific religious focus. But that's not what the BSA is. I am not sure what the "memorandum of mutual support" between the two organizations really involves, but any notion that these are two "mirror" organizations, one for boys and one for girls, would not be correct.

The "conventional wisdom" in my district is that a project of less than 100 hours (some say it should be at least 120 just to be on the safe side) will not get approval. So it is not just a "guideline" or a "goal", but rather a number used to determine whether the project is "sufficient" to show leadership, planning and organizing. To address an issue in SR540Beaver's post, in our district there is no problem with projects to benefit the troop's CO, and we seem to have one of these projects in our troop every few years. It is understood that it cannot solely benefit the troop.

I just checked usscouts.org and it is there as well. Can't they leave the requirements alone for one year? I understand that improvement is good, but every time they revise the requirements outside of a new edition of the handbook, they create communications issues with the troops. Does National think every Scout goes out and buys a new Requirements Book every year? I doubt that ANY of the Scouts in our troop even owns one; some adults do, but I don't think they get a new one every year. The one in our troop library is probably 10 years old. The boys rely on their handbooks -- usually the one that was purchased for them when they joined the troop, usually when they were 10 or 11 years old. This means that as of now, NONE (or maybe one) of the boys going for Life even own an edition of the handbook that has the EDGE requirement for Life at all, much less this new version of it. I have taken to passing out copies of pages from the new handbook to boys when they pass their Star BOR, which is probably a copyright violation, but it's the only practical way I see to make sure they know what the new requirement is and what they are supposed to do.

Neither. We have never had a single problem in our troop. (Serious answer: If the troops I read about in this forum are typical, we are very fortunate in our troop to have had only a very small number of "issues" over the years. I actually can think of only one "complaining parent." We have had a few discussions in the committee that have been irritating. We have had a couple of parent-Scout combinations find troops more to their liking, but I would count that as subtracting trouble rather than adding to it. As for youths (or is that utes?) we have had a few persistent disciplinary problems (as in recurring "minor" incidents) as well as one incident I would have to call "major", but that took care of itself as the parents withdrew the Scout from the troop before any disciplinary action was taken -- actually, about 3 hours after the incident. So adding all that up, I would say it's about equal between youth and adults. Now, if you are talking about Cub Scouts, that's much easier -- in my experience it was the parents, hands down. Even the few issues I saw with the Cubs themselves were at their parents' instigation. And I am not counting Cub Scouts talking out of turn, not paying attention, or wandering off -- all of that just goes with the age group.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Eagle92, although the COR is considered a council/district position and may wear the silver shoulder loops, isn't it also a unit position? I have seen the COR position listed on our troop's charter roster and I assume the person's annual registration fee is charged to the troop. Am I incorrect about that? To bsasfl: Are you also planning on becoming the CC for your units, in addition to the COR and District Chair? You mentioned something about that in your original post but it was not clear. Obviously CC would be a unit position (regardless of the classification of COR) and would be a mark against your district (but not your units, presumably) in the Journey to Excellence ratings. (Not that I really think those are a big deal, and as far as I know at this point my troop isn't planning to participate, although we almost always made Quality Unit under the old system.)

I have never heard of such a thing, but on the other hand there has not been a serious injury in the troop or pack during my involvement, so there have been no claims. (I guess I should say "knock on wood" there.) I have a vague recollection that when I was a Scout, a young Scout broke his leg on a camping trip, but seeing as how the boy was the Scoutmaster's son and the injury occurred in full view of both the Scoutmaster and other leaders (including my father) and Scouts (including me), meaning that it would have been clear to everybody that if there was any "failure to supervise", it was by the boy's own father, there was no lawsuit.

Basementdweller, we all have our "styles" of doing things, and what I would do and what you or someone else in the forum might do are not necessarily the same. Having said that, if I were in your position, with the other parents and even the district making your experience as CM a miserable, my conclusion would probably be that my "commitment" had been fulfilled. (I would not have made a specific time commitment in the first place, but you did, and now you have to decide whether it is still valid.) It also would not be my "style" to "threaten" to step down unless the other parents stepped up to support you. I would set a departure date, whether it be 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, whatever, and have a meeting with the other parents and tell them this, and why you are doing it. As I see it, there are three major possibilities after that: One, someone(s) step up and continue the pack. Two, everybody (or almost everybody) steps up and promises to help you or at least not hinder you, and they also ask you to stay as CM, which you can either accept or decline. Three, nobody steps up and after you leave, the pack disintegrates. Even if the third possibility is what happens, you have done your job. A unit should not depend entirely on one person.

Clemlaw, my recollection of my youth Scouting experience is extremely similar to yours. I must have made First Class before the cutoff date; if I recall correctly I had only a couple of First Class requirements to finish when the new requirements came out, and was able to finish under the old requirements. I assume I had to earn the increased number of MB's that were required for Star and Life, and did not make Eagle. I am sure that nobody made Eagle in troop without doing a lot of camping; whether they all earned Camping MB before that it was put back on the Eagle required list (1979 I think) I do not know, since I was out of Scouting by the mid-70's. I do know that in the troop I currently serve, a majority of boys (including my son) have made Eagle without earning Lifesaving, as they earn Emergency Prep. I have spoken with leaders in other troops, and some troops seem to have "traditions" that encourage more boys to earn Lifesaving. I am not aware of any boys (in the present day) who have made Eagle without earning Swimming MB. This may have something to do with the fact that the other MB's in that "group", Cycling and Hiking, have requirements that are pretty difficult. (I do know of several who have earned Cycling, and a couple who have earned Hiking, in addition to Swimming.) I would not see a big problem with someone earning Eagle without Swimming MB -- they still have to pass the Second and First Class swimming requirements. One can debate what was done in the 70's. My difficulty is with the belief that the entire program just collapsed into nothing, because I don't think it did. If, as Eagle92 says, some troops stopped going camping and some do little camping today, well, that just wasn't (and isn't) my experience. In the troops that I knew about (and know about), outdoor activities remained the focus of the program, and remain the focus today.

Unless you have a huge troop, I'm not sure why this issue comes up. If you add up the POR requirements for all the ranks it comes to 1 year and 4 months. We don't limit it that way, and I'm not suggesting that anybody should. But even if you were to view POR's as simply an advancement requirement, there should still be plenty of opportunity to go around. As OGE points out, Instructor is a multiple position. In a huge troop, where this would be more of a problem, you can have a number of ASPL's. (Of course, as with Instructors, they should be ready, able and willing to do the job, and there should be specific tasks for them to do.) Does your troop really have all the other "staff" positions filled? (Not just Quartermaster and Scribe, but also Historian, Librarian, Webmaster, Troop Guide(s), OA rep if applicable, Den Chiefs for all the dens in the nearest pack(s), and others.) And in a large troop, where positions are more likely to be scarce, I see nothing wrong with two Quartermasters, two Scribes, etc. and possibly others, as long as there is a clear job description for each "half" of the job. (I realize some might disagree on that last sentence.) There really should not be a need to have some boys sitting on the sideline and slowed down in advancement because of this requirement.

Eagle92 says: As I stated previously, we have a new generation of leaders who either were never involved in Scouting as a youth, or were involved during the 1970s and have little to no expereince on how the program was meant to be. I am getting a little tired of reading statements like this in this forum. (And I know I have said this before, but I'm saying it again.) At best, a statement like this is an overgeneralization, and at worst, simply wrong. I was a Scout both before and after 1972, and from my perspective, nothing really changed. (And I think I was part of enough district and council activities, not to mention going to Philmont and having some contact with Scouts from all over the country, that my perspective is larger than just the troop I was in.) So the handbook was changed so there wasn't as much about camping, and the requirements were changed so camping was not an absolute requirement for the lower ranks (for about five years) and Camping MB was not required for Eagle (for about seven years I believe.) It doesn't mean people stopped camping. Please also realize that the adult leadership in the troops -- where Scouting actually takes place, as opposed to National -- did not suddenly change in 1972. The Scoutmasters and ASM's were still the same guys who were Scouts in the 30s and 40s and leaders in the 50s and 60s (generally speaking.) They knew what Scouting was all about and continued to pass on that knowledge, regardless of how many pages were devoted to camping in the handbook and what you had to (or didn't have to) do to make First Class. The patrol method was still there. We didn't suddenly abolish patrols and start doing everything as a troop. People didn't stop camping, hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, building towers with lashings and all the other stuff. Philmont did not shut down (and as I said, I know because I was there, after 1972.) So to say that people who were Scouts in the 70's "have little to no expereince on how the program was meant to be", I think is really not correct. If someone who was a Scout during the same period I was has a different viewpoint and really believes Scouting stopped being the program it was "meant to be" during that period -- and I mean "on the ground", in troops, not just in books issued by National -- I would be interested in hearing it. Maybe my patrol, my troop(s), my Scoutmasters, my district and council, and the troops I saw at Philmont and at out-of-council summer camps were atypical. But I doubt it.

Sorry to "borrow" the thread, but that's a great movie. When my son did Law Merit Badge at summer camp one year (I know that sounds strange, but it did happen), the counselor (an attorney) showed them excerpts of that movie, not just for its comedic value, but the courtroom scenes do have some resemblance to how things actually work (though there are fewer jokes in real life, of course.) If you are going to show kids part of a movie to show them what happens in a courtroom, I'm not sure what a better choice would be. The courtroom scenes in "Caine Mutiny" are great, but take awhile to get to the point, and "A Few Good Men" is great but some of the language is not youth-friendly. As for the actual subject of this thread, I seem to recall from when the new "Strategic Plan" was being discussed, something about making the transition from one unit to another more "seamless." It would be nice if they would make the transition from youth to adult status "seamless" as well.

"What? What was that word? 'Ute'?"

Patrol outings in the sense of literally youth only hiking the Appalachian trail is in process of being removed as a conflict in the literature quoted with the safety rule of four, minimum two adults, two youth. Rather than trying to figure out exactly what that means, I would focus on the words "in process." It is not a policy at this time. Hopefully (I was going to say presumably, but I shouldn't presume this), when the actual policy is announced, it will have some clarity to it. Then we can talk about it, laugh about it, cry about it, complain that it's the end of Scouting as we know it, or whatever seems appropriate to each of us at the time. On the example used, it's kind of amusing because we did once have something like that happen in our troop at least once. It was not a full-day patrol hike on the Appalachian Trail, but was a side hike (from a camping trip in one of the many camps near the AT) in which a carefully chosen group of boys with a carefully chosen leader (the SPL at the time) was permitted to split off on their own and did about 2 miles on the AT before meeting up with the rest of us. It was not a "natural" patrol, and the leader was the SPL. Whether it was a good idea or not, or allowed by BSA policy, remains unclear to me, but fortunately there was no problem. But ok, say it's not the Appalachian Trail. We have the Watchung Mountains in our area, and while in most states they would be considered more hills than mountains, parts of it can be somewhat rugged. I think our "older boy" patrol could handle most of it without any problem, although there never has been such a hike without adults in our troop. We'll see how specific the new policy is, if there turns out to be one.

I read the FAQ and the form fairly quickly, but I did not see anywhere that SPECIFICALLY says that this replaces the local tour permit. Maybe that is implied, but I like it better when things are made very clear. The "At a councils request" part is also potentially troublesome. Some councils may request that this form be required in all cases in which a local tour permit is now required -- which I guess they have the right to do, but I hope all councils that go beyond what National is requiring will make that very, very clear to all units. (You may be noticing a theme in my comments here; I really think the BSA needs to greatly improve its communications with the units in general, and on day-to-day things like tour permits in particular. This is not a knock on the BSA in particular, as every organization I have ever been involved with has had problems with communication, but its a particular problem in a large organization where the "end users" of the information are volunteers.) Also, is it made clear when this new form goes into effect? (I just asked the same question about the new-improved health form.)

I wish that when "they" put a new form on the web site, the accompanying explanation would include a clear statement about when the new form takes effect. Actually it's two questions, one is when it becomes permissible to use the new form, and the second is when it becomes mandatory to use the new form (or in other words on what date councils will start rejecting the old forms.) Sometimes these two dates will be the same and sometimes they will not be -- if indeed any dates are provided at all.

Has anyone compared the "old" new form with the "new" new form to see what the differences are? The height-weight chart does not seem to have changed, at least for my height, which are the only numbers I remember from the "old" new form. I understand the BSA's statement that this needs to be a "living" document, but I hope they are not planning to change it once a year (or even more often than that.) I think the confusion of which form is which, how long can the "old" form be used, etc. would outweigh the benefit of the updated form, unless an immediate update is really necessary for the protection of Scouts and Scouters.

Our troop does not have bylaws, but in general I think it's good for the boys to know that any ideas they may have are welcome. Of the two questions that I have asked in every Board of Review that I have chaired is, "Is there anything you would like to change about the troop, and if so, what is it?" Any answer is correct in my view, but I am more impressed when someone has an actual idea for improving something, because it shows he is paying attention to what's going on around him, and now having heard himself say the idea, might take the initiative to actually do it. (Of course, this tends to be more the case with the older boys, the 11 and 12 year olds usually answer "No, everything's great." And by the way, my other universal question is, logically enough, "What is your favorite thing about this troop"? I remember being intrigued at the answers of one boy whose answers to both questions was essentially the same thing, though I don't know if he realized it and I don't recall what they were.) Where was I? Oh. I think the amount of "leeway" (by which I mean the likelihood that a rule proposed by the boys would be accepted by the Troop Committee) would depend on what the subject is. We do have some "rules" and "policies", all of which are unwritten and most of which concern money. I think the boys know there is probably little point in suggesting lower dues, or something like that. I'd like to see the boys come up with an idea for a new and different kind of fundraiser they (underline "they") would like to do, because in my opinion the adults are kind of stuck in a rut on that subject. I guess we also have some rules regarding electronics on camping trips, although I am a little vague on what those rules are these days. (I think electronic games are still prohibited, but cell phones have moved into the "discouraged" category, including the rule of "If you lose it, I don't want to hear about it.") A suggestion from the boys to allow game devices on camping trips probably would not go very far. A suggestion by the boys to BAN cell phones might get a more interested audience, but I'm not holding my breath. One thing that I think would be nipped in the bud is anything that goes against clear BSA policies, such as adding to (or subtracting from) the advancement requirements. Voting to decide who makes Eagle is one of those things. (Our Troop Committee (not the boys) actually does "vote" (really more by consensus) to approve concept plans for Eagle projects, but that is because a committee member (which usually works out to being the advancement coordinator) must sign off on the project plan in the workbook and we want to give the rest of the committee input into whether the idea is acceptable, the basic plan is viable, etc., as well as to give the Scout feedback on how he might his improve his plan, presentation, responses to questions, etc. before he meets with the District Advancement Committee. It also has the benefit of, if the idea is something that we know is just not going to fly with the district (like a blood drive), it's more effective if the boy hears it from several people rather than just one. But I think this is all consistent with the requirements.) In response to one of Beavah's comments, I think it is one thing to let the boys "discover and explore" and another thing to let them spin their wheels and waste time developing and refining ideas that that have absolutely no chance of going anywhere. On advancement ideas in particular, it is difficult enough for adults to really know all the do's and don'ts. Most people don't have a copy of the BSA advancement policies booklet and a lot of people don't even know it exists. If the boys start talking about requiring a vote by the boys on Eagle candidates, I think it is reasonable to show them the "book" and point out why that isn't allowed. If, armed with that information, they then decide to launch a letter-writing campaign to National to try to get the rules changed, more power to them. But lets at least make sure they know what the current rules are before they devote too much time and energy to something that isn't permitted. Another kind-of fanciful example that occurs to me is if the boys who have driver's licenses decide they want to have a Troop Road Race and see who can drive the fastest. Before they start getting into a discussion of where the start and finish lines should be, it's probably better to inform them that this idea isn't happening, and why.

"She", 83Eagle says in his most recent post. I said "he" in my post as well. It's funny, I usually say "he or she" when I don't know, but for some reason when reading the initial post I got this impression of the CC/COR being a grizzled old guy who was a Scout "back in the day" and has now been a Scouter so long that he has become an institution in the community. Now I have gone back and read the initial post, and realized that 83Eagle never said "he." Of course, a woman can be an institution too.

I agree with Eagledad and Twocubdad. In this case it is probably better to work within the situation you have been handed rather than to rock the boat. Of course you need to get the COR's approval to appoint a new assistant cubmaster(s), but I assume he is not going to have a problem with it if he is a hands-off COR/CC. Be up-front with him and tell he that the new ACM is going to be helping you with some of the administrative stuff, recruiting new volunteers, etc. If he has a problem with that, then you know you have a bigger problem than just a hands-off COR/CC, because then you have someone who will neither do the CC job nor allow other people (aside from you) to do any of it. At that point you might have to tell the COR/CC, "I can't do this job like this", and be prepared for the possible consequences, which include him giving in, but also include you not being CM anymore. But from the way you are describing this, my guess he is just going to sign the leader application for your new ACM. My original thought before reading Eagledad's post was that your newly recruited leader be registered as a Committee Member, and be the de facto CC instead of you, but that might seem a little threatening to your COR/CC. In fact, if he suddenly decided to go by the book, his reaction to the appointment of the new ACM might be that the person should instead be a Committee Member, and "report" to him as the CC. If that were to happen, it could be a good thing, as it could mean the CC was re-engaging with the pack to some extent. Or he could just want someone else to do the CC job while he keeps the title. If he has been around forever and is considered such a "fixture" in the community, maybe that isn't such a bad thing for a couple years until he decides to "retire." But of course it requires that you find someone who is willing to do the job without the title.

Clem makes a good point; while communicating "through" the pack is obviously more convenient, if that isn't working, there's always the good-old-fashioned mail for direct contact with the parents in the pack. (Or the telephone, but I think letters would be better in this case.) GWL, you say "District Commissioners" are aware of the situation, but if they have not done anything about I would call the District Executive. The approach I would take (assuming that you can truthfully make the following statement is: Our troop is NOT GOING TO SURVIVE if this situation is not corrected. (You don't actually have to shout but those capitalized words are the ones you really want to get across -- again, if they are true.) Presumably your DE was very happy when the new troop was formed. Formation of new units looks good in a DE's job evaluation. For the same reason, presumably your DE would be very UNhappy if your troop were to dry up and disappear because you had no or few incoming Cub Scouts. Putting the issue in that light might prompt some action. But you might want to first try the "direct communication" route first and see what happens.

Vol_scouter, I have not "condemned" anyone, at least not for this (aside from the guy who massacred those people.) If you wish to "condemn" people, that's your choice.