NJCubScouter

The policy regarding leaders only applies to "avowed homosexuals", so based on jblake's first post, Lisabob was correct that there was no indication that "the policy" even comes into play. However, based on the second post indicating that the Eagle Scout has openly announced his orientation and it has been reported in the newspaper, it now appears that he is "openly gay" or in the BSA's words, an "avowed homosexual." I'd be curious to know what exactly he said, and with newspaper reports there is always a question of accuracy, but for purposes of discussion I think we have to assume that he is now openly gay. And I take it that you are talking about a Scout who made Eagle and is still under 18 and still an active Scout. I am not aware of any policy of the BSA that requires you to do anything in this situation. I am pretty sure there is nothing about it in the Scoutmaster's Handbook, the G2SS or the YP Guidelines, and while I am not aware of every statement in every training module, I tend to doubt it's covered there either. There are certain things you can do if you want, but I am not sure what the outcome would be. Several years ago there was a mention in this forum of what the BSA's official position was on youth members who state that they are gay, and it was not exactly the same as the policy regarding leaders. There was something about counseling to find out whether they really mean they are gay, or something like that. The implication was that if they persist in being "openly gay" after being given a chance to "take it back", then their membership would be terminated. Whether that is now or ever was really the "policy", I don't know. And if it really is the "policy", then simply removing the youth from the unit (assuming no misbehavior within the unit) would not seem appropriate. Added note: I searched both this forum and Google to try to find what I was thinking of from years ago, but I don't remember enough of the words used for a search to produce a meaningful result.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I'm trying to see if I can be the last living human being without a Facebook account.

6. While a Star Scout, use the EDGE method to teach a younger Scout the skills from ONE of the following six choices, so that he is prepared to pass those requirements to his unit leader's satisfaction. a. Second Class - 7a and 7c (first aid) b. Second Class - 1a (outdoor skills) c. Second Class - 3c, 3d, 3e, and 3f (cooking/camping) d. First Class - 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d (first aid) e. First Class - 1, 7a, and 7c (outdoor skills) f. First Class - 4a, 4b, and 4d (cooking/camping) I think I would interpret this a little more narrowly than some of you are. The phrase "so that he is prepared to pass those requirements" implies (to me, at least) that we are talking about a Boy Scout of the rank of Scout (I know it's not a rank), Tenderfoot or Second Class who has not passed the particular requirement in question, and who after the teaching session will promptly (within the next meeting or two, or the next camping trip?) go to the unit leader or someone else designated to sign off requirements (which includes some Scouts, but presumably not the Star Scout who did the teaching for his Life requirement, which would kind of defeat the purpose) and pass the requirement. Which leads to the question, if the "younger" Scout is unable to pass the requirement after learning it from the Star Scout, does the latter still get credit for the Life requirement? (If I'm wrong in the first part of the interpretation, this question is moot.) If I'm correct in my narrow interpretation, and there aren't enough "younger" Scouts who need to be taught any of those skills at any given time, maybe the SM could talk to a neighboring SM and arrange for the Star Scout to visit the neighboring troop to teach a younger Scout from that troop. This kind of sharing among troops would have other benefits as well.

One thing I have learned in my years of reading this forum is that when someone says "Council said..." or "District said..." or "Council office said...", the rest of the sentence can range from the most rational, BSA-compliant suggestion to something completely off-the-wall, policy-violating and sometimes counterproductive suggestion. Not much different from "The Government says...", I guess.

billandt says: The Committee Chair would like to email the COR and attach a typed up list of the issues with this leader and hope he will at least look at it. Yes, THAT'S the next step. In fact, that should have been done immediately after the committee took its "vote" (which is really just an advisory vote since it doesn't have the authority to dismiss a Den Leader). At the very latest, it should have been done immediately after the COR said he "didn't want to hear about it." Before you go having meetings (or trying to have meetings) with everybody or even get the IH/EO involved, I don't think you're done with the COR yet. Someone hearing unpleasant news and saying they don't want to hear about it is an instinctive reaction with some people, and I don't think it should be taken as the "final answer." As you say, he doesn't even know what the problems are, and the fact that that is mostly his fault (because he wouldn't listen) doesn't change the fact that he doesn't know. So, yes, the CC should put together an e-mail, and at the top of the e-mail he can say that the CC, CM and pack committee of Pack 123 recommend that Mr. X be removed as a den leader for the following reasons, and then have it "signed" by both the CC and CM (you.) And the CC needs to include not only what the problems are, but what steps have been taken to correct the problems, and what the DL's reaction was to those steps. (And if the CC finds that he has little or nothing to say about corrective measures, maybe you have a different kind of problem and need to go back a few steps.) Assuming that this is done, and the COR still "doesn't want to hear about it" after having it all laid out in front of him, then you can get others (such as the IH/EO) involved, probably by forwarding him/her the same e-mail with a notation at the top that this was sent to the COR but was ignored. I also wonder whether anyone has asked (not told) this person to resign. But that is the most that the CC/CM/committee can do on their own. You should not do what Beavah suggests (essentially, tell the DL he is dismissed) because you have no authority to do so. In fact, doing so at this point would be pretty strong grounds for the COR to remove you, and the IH/EO might back him up.

And the EBOR will have no idea who signed off on the merit badges unless they request this information from the council. Except in my district, and I assume we are not unique, where the Eagle candidate MUST bring to the EBOR all of his signed blue cards. It doesn't matter that the Merit Badges appear on the computerized report from national, the blue cards must be there for the EBOR to review. And one of the things on their checklist (I have a copy) is "Good mix of merit badge counselors." I know this does not appear in the requirements, but I have to assume that if they decide that criterion is not met, they are not going to sign the application, and leave it to the appeal process. That may be an incorrect assumption, but then why would it be on the checklist in the first place? I'm not sure exactly what a "good mix" is, but I'm pretty sure that a Scoutmaster signing off on EVERY merit badge (see Basementdweller's post) would not be it. A Scout's father signing off on every merit badge would not be it either, and combine the two and obviously there would be a big problem. And then what happens if the Scout is already 18 at the time of the EBOR? (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Oh, and I wouldn't tell the Scouts anything other than that their friends family decided not to participate in Scouting. It isn't anybody's business.

To clarify...according to the parents, to swear a duty to God under the Oath was forbidden. As such, the entirety of the Oath then became tainted. I don't know whether this would help, but someone should point out to the parents that it is NOT an Oath. It's an "Oath or Promise", or at least it was the last time I looked. And the word "swear" appears nowhere in it. The BSA did that specifically so religious groups that do not believe in the swearing of oaths (such as Quakers and I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses, and apparently some Buddhists as well) would not have to do so. They're merely making a commitment. If that doesn't help, then I'm kind of curious as to how thousands (hundreds of thousands? More?) of Buddhists have participated in Scouting over the years.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

jhankins says: In 2008, President Neider of the General YM Presidency instructed the church leaders here and all the pros that all youth members to age 17 will be registered in Scouting, active or not. Can you explain what that means, that they "will be registered"? A parent's signature is required on the youth membership application. What if the parent doesn't sign the application? The youth can't be registered then, right?

Excellent question, Packsaddle... and welcome back!

Since I have had almost no direct contact with LDS Scout units -- we have exactly 1 in our district -- all I "know" about LDS Scouting is what I have read in this forum. (OGE notice the quotation marks around "know", in other words I really don't know anything about it.) So all I have are questions: 1. Bacchus, rather than us guessing about what you mean by number 5, could you say what you really mean? It's not a matter of "thinking about it", it's a matter of imagining what you might mean, which I'd rather not do. 2. Your number 6 strikes me as odd, but the oddity really applies to non-LDS units, so I am on firmer ground here. You seem to assume it is somewhat common for a boy (non-LDS) to leave Scouting for a "couple years" and then come back. In reality I think this is pretty rare. If a Scout has been out for a "couple years" I think the chances of him coming back are fairly slim. It does happen, but not often. 3. This is something not on your list, and it is something I "know" only from this forum, so if it is not true, I hope the LDS Scouters here will correct me. It is my understanding that EVERY LDS youth is enrolled in Scouting, whether they want to be or not. Is this true? Is there any consequence if, once enrolled, they do not participate? Or in other words, which sounds like a strange question, are you allowed to quit? In my troop we have the annual pre-charter exercise of going through the roster and picking out boys who have disappeared, haven't paid their dues, etc., contacting them, and then if they have quit or seem to have quit, crossing them off the charter. Does this same thing happen in LDS units? 4. Another one not on your list, I have read in this forum that many LDS units are very small, meaning 5 Scouts or slightly more, and in some cases even less. Is this true? And if it is true, why are units not combined?

The BSA is on the hook for being criminally negligent. Technically, "criminally" would apply only in a criminal case, and this was a civil case. But the BSA was found liable not only for negligence, but also for "reckless and outrageous conduct", or at least that is the phrase used in the article linked above. And that finding is what permitted the jury to proceed to consider evidence of the BSA's ability to pay punitive damages, and ultimately to award punitive damages. If it had "only" been negligence, the BSA would have been responsible for "only" the $1.4 in damages found by the jury about 10 days earlier, and not for punitive damages.

Here's the kicker: "In determining the award, the jury was allowed to consider the wealth of the Boy Scouts to decide the amount of punitive damages." That's not unusual. As far as I know it is the law in every state (and definitely in NJ but there's no reason why it would be different anywhere else) that when a jury is considering an award of punitive damages, the financial condition of the defendant must be taken into consideration. If this sounds unreasonable, it also needs to be understood that just because a plaintiff seeks punitive damages, doesn't mean a jury necessarily even gets to consider awarding them. The judge would first have to decide that the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence by which a jury could decide that the criteria for punitive damages have been met, and those criteria always include a degree of wrongdoing higher than "negligence." (Well, except maybe sometimes in products liability cases, but that's a special kind of case and beyond the scope of tonight's class.) I haven't read the article yet to see if it indicates what kind of evidence led the judge to that conclusion in this case.

Oh happy day! (For the Scout, his parents and this forum.)

This thread is sinking fast. (Water, sinking, get it?)

For the conspiracy theorists among us, how about: Citizenship in the Nation + Citizenship in the World = The New World Order Merit Badge

Guarantee, Mr. Boyce? I seem to recall someone saying that the only things that are certain are death and taxes. Other than that, there are no guarantees of anything. If we wait until something is absolutely guaranteed before taking action, we never do anything.

Eamonn, since this is a Scouting forum, naturally you mean root beer, Pepsi, ice tea, orange juice, etc.

One of the oldest jokes on the Internet.

OGE, you're in good company, the judge in the case couldn't understand it either (nor do I.) Here is an article about it from the Associated Press: http://tinyurl.com/y2adu6h. It's probably safe to say that this will be appealed, and it probably will reach the Supreme Court. It will probably be yet another close Supreme Court decision on a First Amendment religion case. If people are going to start debating this (which really hasn't happened yet), maybe this should be a new topic. It's really a different issue from whether BSA units can be chartered by the government.

This whole irrelevant excursion into the foot baths is yet another reason why I think the primary argument against public charters of BSA units should be "equal protection" (14th amendment) rather than "establishment of religion" (1st and 14th amendments.) It would be so simple. A publicly provided program discriminating on the basis of religion is clearly a violation of equal protection. The foot baths thing could never even come up, because that is something that is available to everybody, and the Court wouldn't need to worry about whether it was particularly intended to benefit one religious group, and whether that violates the establishment clause. (Personally I doubt that it does, and even if it does, it does not excuse a public entity's violation of the establishment clause by chartering a BSA unit. I just think the equal protection argument is "cleaner" -- so to speak.)

Eagle, maybe so, but I'm not that interested. I am sure the attorneys for the BSA and the city are each doing a fine job representing their clients. We should probably all let them do their jobs and not try the case here.

Does anyone have a link to the actual contract? I see a lot of speculation here about what it might or might not say, and what it might or might not mean, but it's all meaningless without seeing the actual contract.

Hmm. Assuming the blue thing is supposed to be a bird, is the yellowish blotch in the middle of the blue area supposed to be the bird's eye, with the beak on the right? If so, I can see how that's supposed to be a bird, even though it's poorly done. The first few times I looked at it, I had no idea how it could be a bird. They really ought to fix that.

GernBlansten asks: How can a BSA unit be owned by a public school, but not allow atheist or gay students to be served? That's it. It's so simple. All the legalistic acrobatics in the world cannot produce a satisfactory answer to that question.