NJCubScouter

Liz, I take it from your most recent post that you have some sort of "history" with the DE. It should not matter. DE's love helping new units be formed. It's what they live for. (Or perhaps, "live on" would be better, because it's pretty close to the literal truth.) He should roll out the red carpet, even if he has had (from his perspective) negative dealings with you in the past. And I think it should be you, or some other adult, and not your son. He can be the Crew President, sounds like he is well-suited to the job, but I think actually forming the unit is an adult responsibility. As for whether your Friends group is a suitable CO, I think that's something you need to discuss with the DE.

We have a soccer-and-Scouting program near us but my understanding is that it has not produced any Cub Scouts (past the end of the soccer program.) Apparently the kids want to play soccer, but they are not being "lured" into the full Cub Scouting program. Likewise, the parents want to watch their kids play soccer, and maybe they want to coach soccer, but they do not want to become Den Leaders or otherwise get involved in Cub Scouting.

Scoutfish, haven't you ever heard of the universal translator? (Yeah yeah, I know... but they both have "Star" in the title.)

Yes, I think you do hear "appeal." At least, I think I would recommend one if I were representing the city. I'm really not sure why this case would have gone to a jury. The issue in the case seems to be a legal issue (which are decided by judges) rather than a factual issue (which are, sometimes, decided by juries.)

Eagle92 says: A very nasty rumor I've heard on MyScouting is that the next version of G2SS will no longer have the patrol activities exemption. This comes from a former poster on this forum who has lots of knowledge and connections within the national folks. Well, you know, you can't be too careful these days. I mean, a patrol out on an outing unsupervised might stumble across an atheist, or a drag queen, or horror of horrors, a girl, and there is no way they could protect themselves from these dangers without two trained adults along. As for the "former poster on this forum who has lots of knowledge and connections within the national folks", yeah, and I see he posts under his real name over there, too. I could make a comment about that former poster and the accuracy of some of the reports he has passed along from "national folks" in the past, but I fear I have already raised the eyebrows of some of the moderators and do not want them to have to do forum work on this day of all days. Happy Father's Day everybody!

Do all of you mean that your troop has regular weekly meetings during the summer? We do not, nor am I aware of any troops around here that do. There is some activity over the summer; the troop goes to summer camp for one week and a few boys who want more go provisional for another week or two. Two or three boys go to NYLT. The associated Venture crew, which overlaps about 50 percent with the troop (closer to 80 percent if you count college students who have aged-out of the troop), takes an annual one- or two-week trip, and this year is going to Philmont. There is sometimes an Eagle COH over the summer (including this year, my son's) and sometimes a service project or two. And this year the June camping trip is the weekend after school ends, so technically that is "over the summer" as well. And there is a PLC meeting toward the end of the summer to plan for the following school year, although the troop committee does not meet in July or August. But we don't have weekly troop meetings in the summer.

Dratted double post. But it gives me the chance to say something else. Normally a thread like this would have to be moved to Issues and Politics, in fact I am not sure why it was started here. But I realize that it does not seem so out of place here, because almost every thread under "Council Relations" is controversial in some way. Hmmm. Ponder that. (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

OGE is correct. The agreement (apparently in an ordinance) says the city can terminate the lease on one year's notice, the city gave the one year's notice and the BSA sued to stop the eviction. That is why the BSA is not arguing this on the basis of a breach of contract, because there was no breach of contract. The BSA is therefore forced to argue, and try to prove, that the city is enforcing their right to terminate "selectively." The city argues that it has the right to enforce its anti-discrimination policy. I think the city will win. Narraticong, no, the BSA does not stand for the same ideals it did 100 years ago, actually the BSA has improved its ideals. Racially segregated troops were perfectly acceptable 100 years ago, and more recently. They no longer are. It was only in the 70's that the BSA made clear that troops could not discriminate on the basis of race in selecting youth leaders. 100 years ago (and 40 years ago) females were believed to be unfit as leaders, now they are leaders. The BSA national leadership (which I refer to separately from the BSA, which is us) has come a long way in ending discrimination. They just have a little ways left to go.

I was already working on First Class when skill awards were introduced (in 1972, right?) so I never had to earn them. I did pass younger Scouts on them, which probably included my younger brother, who was in the "new system" from day one and eventually made Eagle. And they were long gone again by the time I "rejoined" Scouting when my son (now 18) crossed over, what seems like many years ago. When I made Second and First Class, the requirements were arranged the same way they are now (for Tenderfoot through 1st), with each rank requiring increasing levels of knowledge of a number of subjects, though the actual requirements have changed quite a bit and there is one additional level (because Tenderfoot was the "joining badge" in my day, there was no "Scout.") I tend to think the current arrangement is better, as it gives the younger Scouts the opportunity to learn a broad range of Scouting skills right from the beginning, and pass requirements of increasing difficulty and responsibility as they learn their way around Boy Scouting and mature a little. At the same time, removing the time requirements for the lower ranks (which existed both in the pre-Skill Awards era and at least in the early part of the post-1972, not sure when they were eliminated) really allows each boy to go at his own pace. In our troop we have a few boys who make First Class in 8 months after joining, a few who take more than 2 years, and the rest in between.

Gag, your statement about the youth protection guidelines is not correct. No one-on-one contact and two-deep leadership are both part of the youth protection guidelines. Additionally, youth protection is not something separate from the Guide to Safe Scouting -- in fact Chapter I of the G2SS is entitled "Youth Protection and Adult Leadership" and contains the youth protection guidelines. (Or it might be more technically accurate to say that the G2SS is not a separate policy on any subject, but rather is a compilation and guide to BSA policies, guidelines, advice, etc. on a variety of safety-related subjects including youth protection as well as aquatics, climbing, transportation, camping safety etc. etc.)

NE-IV, I agree. People are going to want to take the course online instead of in person. In fact, as I suggested before, I think it has now become impractical to REQUIRE the in-person course. (Though I still need to get clarification from my council as to whether they are sticking with this requirement anyway, so I can advise people in "my" troop.) Otherwise, I can see a common scenario, you recruit a new Assistant Scoutmaster, ok, you have to take YP before you register and it has to be an in-person course, well, the next regular course at council is in a month, oops you say you have to work that night, now we're out to 2 months or more... so now you have to wait MONTHS to register? Hey, maybe good old Mr. NJCubScouter (who doesn't even have a son in the troop anymore) can do the course in-house again. Really, for one person? And then probably another person in another month, and then... (Fact is, I'd probably do it, but I shouldn't really be put in the position of being asked to do it so often, and most people aren't me.) I think the bottom line is that the councils that require the in-person course are going to encounter these kinds of problems and will quickly drop the requirement. When I facilitate a YP course, the packet of handouts includes at least one piece of paper that is council-specific. That is a sheet that gives the procedures for reporting an incident within our council, it has the name of the SE and his phone number and it says what to do if an incident occurs on weekends or at night. I make it a point to call attention to this piece of paper, because the attendees hear people on the tape say, call the Scout Executive, call the Scout Executive, well ok, here's how you do that. I think the council is going to need to somehow get that piece of paper into the hands of every new volunteer if they drop the in-person YP requirement. All of us old fogies may be able to figure out who to call, what to do, etc., but remember we are talking about new leaders. The average new assistant den leader or assistant scoutmaster, especially one who has NOT EVEN REGISTERED YET and therefore probably does not have even the New Leader Basic training (or whatever it is called now) does not know what an SE is or what a council is. You can hand out copies at roundtable, but what percentage of new leaders are actually going to get the thing that way? And then there is some other information in the handouts that is New Jersey-specific. That includes information on the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (what the YP tape calls "child protective services or similar agency in your area", good grief I have parts of it memorized), what they do, how to contact them, etc., and another sheet on Megan's Law (community notification requirements for sex offenders). Are these absolutely required for YP training? No, but they are nice to have and I think it is good that our council goes the extra mile to provide this information. But you don't get any of it if you take the course online. I hope something in authority has actually thought about these things before putting in a new policy like this.

I assume by Pack Leader you mean Cubmaster. Not only does it make no logical sense for one person to be both Cubmaster and Assistant Cubmaster, it is prohibited by the rules (which I'll get back to in a second) and there isn't even a practical reason to do so. There are some positions that are necessary in order for a unit to be chartered, but as far as I know, NO Assistant positions are on the required list for any unit. (For troops the required positions are SM, CC, at least two MC's and a CR which may be a double for the CC or one of the MC's; Cub Scouts is similar with CM instead of SM, plus every age group of boys (Tiger, Cub or Webelos) must have a separate den leader.) The rules for multiple positions are stated in the current Adult Application, here: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/28-501.pdf (Actually it's no longer completely current on the subject of when YP training must be taken, which changed yesterday, but that's a different page of the application.) If your district roster is produced by computer, I don't understand why it wouldn't kick out charters that have invalid multiple positions such as the ones you describe. Though I notice something odd in the application. It says the CR may be the CC or an MC. In the SAME SENTENCE it says the ScoutParent unit coordinator may multiple as the CR, assistant den leader, assistant Webelos Den Leader and assistant scoutmaster. (I left out positions in Varsity Scouting, Sea Scouting and a position that seems to be an LDS Scouting position.) It doesn't say the SPUC (just made up my own abbreviation, the real code is PC) may also be CC or MC. But if the SPUC may be CR, and the CR may be CC, doesn't that also mean the SPUC may be also be both CR and CC? Does the transitive property apply? Or does the fact that CC is not mentioned mean it was meant to be excluded? Or did nobody really think it through? (That would be my guess.) And why can the SPUC be an assistant scoutmaster but not an assistant cubmaster? (And before you say that an assistant cubmaster needs to give that position his/her undivided attention, I would answer that that is not true because there can be more than one of them, and I'd also say it is at least as important that an assistant Webelos den leader give THAT position his/her undivided attention than an assistant cubmaster, probably more so.)

(Eliminate double post; I think this is the first time that's ever happened to me.) (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

In one sense this is not a big change for our troop. All of our registered leaders presumably already have YP training since our CO requires it. Since I am the certified YP facilitator in the troop I have done the training for about half the leaders myself. Generally I do it about once a year for the new leaders in both the troop and the associated Cub pack. What will change, obviously, is the timing, but whether this becomes a problem depends on one unknown factor. To date our council's policy has been that the INITIAL training must be an in-person course, not online, with renewals being done online. The material I am seeing from national is promoting the online option, but I am not sure whether that overrides the council requirement for the in-person course. If everything can be done online from the beginning that does make life easier and eliminates any excuses that a new leader might have about not being able to get to a course. My experience suggests that it really is better to take the course in person the first time, but if it's being required prior to registration that's not really practical anymore.

Our troop charges annual dues (currently at $50/year). It also has 2 or 3 fundraisers (1 holiday item sale and 1 or 2 meal-type fundraisers (chili dinner, pancake breakfast etc.) per year. About 20 percent of the fundraising funds are credited to the boys to be used for camping fees or equipment, and are generally used for summer camp. The dues pay for registration and whatever is left, plus the net fundraising funds, covers advancements, equipment replacements and whatever else I am forgetting. For weekend camping trips there is a flat $10 fee that pays for food, plus for the occasional trip that requires buying tickets on a per-Scout basis (such as a battleship trip or a trip to one of the military academies where the troop attends a football game), the parents pay the ticket price.

Mr. Boyce says: Over the past two years or so, I"ve lost a great deal of sympathy for the homosexuals due to their antagonist activism. I try hard to overlook their aggressive, stop-my-fingers-in-my-ears approach when it comes to dealing with any reasonable objection to their desires and political whims! Yes Mr. Boyce, it sounds like you were a great advocate for fairness and equality for gay people before you lost sympathy for them. Imagine the nerve of them, wanting to be treated like everybody else.

moosetracker says: Atheism I take to mean that they put their faith in science rather than a higher being. That's not what atheism is. Atheism is a non-belief in a higher being. You can believe in a higher being without necessarily putting "faith" in a higher being. And you can believe that there is (or eventually will be) a scientific explanation for everything (or almost everything) and still believe in a higher being. Or, as the Borg Queen said in "Star Trek:First Contact", "You imply a disparity where none exists."

I want to thank those of you who have posted about Facebook (and Myspace, etc.) in this thread and the earlier one, for confirming my belief that a "social networking" account is something that I don't want, don't need, and will continue not to have. If anyone wants to communicate with me (meaning the real-life me, not the anonymous NJCubScouter me), they can do it the old-fashioned way: By e-mail! (I say that last part only half-jokingly. I have actually been told recently, by several people, that e-mail (as well as "traditional" web sites, such as a troop web site where a calendar is posted) are "old-fashioned" and that the current "mainstream" is Facebook and other social networking sites. Teenagers don't even check their "regular" e-mail regularly anymore, they mainly use Facebook, I am told. I find this kind of ironic since at one time, I was sort of on the "cutting edge" or close to it, having been "online" for almost 20 years, and having used the "Internet" when that term meant Usenet, Gopher, FTP etc. and the "web" was unknown except maybe to a few scientists. In fact, in my son's troop, it's really only been about 5 years since e-mail (and checking it regularly!) has become universal enough that announcing things by e-mail alone is really practical. Now e-mail is old-fashioned? Or maybe it's just me that's old-fashioned...)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Ignoring all the stuff about Facebook (which I have so far resisted having an account on), this discussion once again brings us around to the age-old question of what the policy IS, exactly. Eagledad thinks that a gay Scout is being dishonest under the policy, but that can only be true if the policy says "a gay person cannot be a Scout." If you can find a policy that says that, please share it with us, along with the source. The statements and press releases from the BSA that I have read say that an "avowed homosexual" (youth or adult) cannot be a leader. None of them say, or imply, that a youth who is gay, or thinks he's gay, or is in the process of discovering he's gay, is supposed to quit. The attitude of the BSA is that if you're gay, you should stay in the closet -- which for youth members, is probably what the vast majority of them would do anyway, Scouting or no Scouting. Now some people come along and say that if you do what the BSA wants you to do, and keep quiet about your orientation, you're being dishonest. Where is the fairness here? And where is the evidence, Eagledad, that supports your "interpretation" of the policy? Or should I say, as I have in the past, "policy." I also think it is a mistake to equate the BSA and military policies, because they are not the same. From what I have read about the military policy, it is really not a "don't ask don't tell" policy, it is more a "we won't ask unless you give us reason to investigate, and the reason may not involve actually telling anyone" policy. The BSA policy actually is a "don't ask don't tell" policy in my opinion, but the terminology is confusing. Instead of calling the policy by a slogan that just creates confusion, let's talk about what the policy actually is. The BSA policy deals with "avowed homosexuals." While it may not be perfectly clear in any given case whether a person is an "avowed homosexual", it is clear that someone who keeps quiet about their orientation is not violating the policy. I mean, the policy is bad enough as it is without people trying to make it worse.

Jblake, I think you have shown incredibly poor judgment by posting a link to the article which identifies this young man by name, and then also making statements about other things that you say he has done. The link the article by itself wouldn't be so bad, since it has already been in a public newspaper and on the Internet (which shows poor judgment by the writer of the article.) Your other statements wouldn't be so bad, IF there was no association with the young man's name. Together, there is a big problem. You have published private information about an identified youth member on the Internet. If I were in your unit or council, I wouldn't be looking at this young man, so much as looking at you to determine whether some action needed to be taken.

As in past discussions of this topic, I see no need for the competition. Young men benefit the most from association with responsible, caring adults of both genders.

So Stosh, you are saying the "friend" mentioned in the article is not gay? He just went to this dance out of friendship for Nathaniel? This really makes me question the whole article, because this writer seems be implying things that are not true, and perhaps to be making other questionable implications. In fact the whole article seems dicey to me. Why is she publishing these kids' names? (Well I guess it is just the one who is under 18.) Did she get his parents' permission? He has not done anything newsworthy. He went to a dance, and now his privacy is being invaded. I see nothing that confirms that he is openly gay. Now you say there is other stuff on Facebook, but you don't even hint about what it says. It's difficult to know what to believe here; before you posted the article you said he "made the newspaper touting his orientation", which turns out not to be the case. And anyway, if the council already knows about it, I am sure they will handle it in the same sensitive and fair way that councils always handle things. (Sarcasm off) Either the wheels are already in motion to "do something", or they're not.

Well, I didn't see Lisabob's and CalicoPenn's posts before I hit "send" on mine, but obviously I agree with them. I don't think you even have to be an opponent of "the policy" to question whether this young man has done anything to result in him being kicked out of Scouting.

Hmmm. I'm assuming that the Eagle Scout in question is the Nathaniel (age 16) in this article. If that's the case, I don't see him "touting" anything. The article (which is actually labeled an opinion column, though I don't see anything in it beyond reporting of the facts, using very careful language) does not say the young man is gay, though it certainly does imply it. Nathaniel is not directly quoted in the article at all. His paraphrased statements are about how he has met new people in this group and his life has "changed" with the support of his friends. He's not saying "Ha ha, I fooled the Boy Scouts." The only mention of Boy Scouts is a statement by the reporter based on an apparently overheard conversation. I certainly don't see anything here that makes Nathanial a bad role model. He's just a teenager being honest, and not even saying anything specific or offensive to anybody. Then again, I don't support the anti-gay policy anyway. But even if we accept the policy for purposes of discussion, I don't necessarily think this kid has "violated" it. He attended a dance with a person identified only as his "friend", though based on the circumstances one can fill in the blanks. He won the unfortunately-named "Fairy of the Ball" award (well, it's only unfortunate because a newspaper reporter was there.) Is he, based on what it says in this article, an "avowed homosexual"? I'm not sure. We know he's probably gay, because he did not attempt to hide the fact that he was there, and gave the reporter his real name. But does the BSA really have a policy that throws people out because they fail to hide, even if they don't actually say anything that indicates they are violating the policy? I guess my question is, even if one accepts the policy, what has this kid done to deserve getting thrown out of anything? And my other question is, jblake, why would you say he is "touting his orientation" based on what it says in this article?

Horizon, I have seen all or part of that statement before, but I am not sure where it comes from. Where did you get it? It really does not sound like an official pronouncement of BSA National to me. But let's assume (or pretend) for a minute that it is the official policy. In the case of jblake's Scout who makes Eagle and then becomes "openly" gay, it would mean that he could stay in the troop, he'd still be Eagle, but he could not hold a POR. Of course, for purposes of rank, he doesn't need a POR anymore. Could he earn palms? One of the requirements is: "Make a satisfactory effort to develop and demonstrate leadership ability." It doesn't say you have to have a POR, but what Horizon quoted does make one wonder whether the openly gay Eagle Scout would be permitted to "demonstrate leadership ability" within the troop. Personally I think this is all academic because I have serious doubts about whether Horizon's quotation is the actual policy.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)