NJCubScouter

I agree with ScoutNut, AlFansome and others who say that there is no way to generalize on this. I don't know if there is even any way to say what is true "most" of the time. Moving from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts as an adult leader can be a tough transition, some do it better than others. I have seen a few still stuck in "Cub Scout mode" where someone coming into it fresh, without any preconceptions, might do a better job, and others make the transition just fine. One comment to Scoutfish, you say you have no intention or plan of being an SM or ASM. I don't think you need to plan that far ahead, one way or the other. When your son is ready to move to a troop, I think that is the time to decide whether you want to become an ASM, or a troop committee member, or wait and be a helpful volunteer parent for awhile, or maybe even some other position. One of the parents in our troop went from being a Cub Scout leader to being a unit commissioner and chair of one of the committees on the district level, and only then (after his son had already been in Boy Scouts for about two years) did he get involved with the troop. I don't think he had any of this planned out, in fact I think it was not until his son was a Bear or Webelos 1 that he took any leadership position at all, even in the pack. So my suggestion is, just relax a little and see what happens.

The issue of using terms like "my troop" in this forum started a few years ago, and it is my recollection that it was one poster in particular (who is not currently active) who objected to it on the grounds that it implied ownership, control, etc. rather than merely membership (which is how I think most people were using it.) There was some debate about it, and some people expressed the opinion (with which I agreed) that it is usually clear that "my" is only expressing membership and not ownership, but that in the particular case of THE unit leader (SM, CM, etc.) and the CC, it could be misinterpreted. Some people started using phrases such as "the troop I serve" to avoid using the word "my." I can't bring myself to use such a cumbersome phrase, but I also do not want to provoke a resurgence of the "'my' police", so I started saying "our troop" when referring to the troop of which I am a committee member. That is not a perfect solution since it is not really grammatically correct and could be ambiguous, but I figured people would know which troop I was referring to. While "our" might still be misinterpreted by some as expressing ownership and control, at least it would be a shared ownership and control of which I was a part (when in fact all I mean is that I am one of many adult members of the troop.) At one point I was saying "my son's troop", which I didn't think would be a problem since presumably people would understand I was not saying my son owns the troop (and he was never SPL so that issue wouldn't come up), but that is worse than "our" since it could imply that I am not part of the troop, when I am. Ironically, all of these linguo-gymnastics (at least on my part) apply only to this forum. When I am speaking in person with leaders and Scouts from other troops (which I often do at high school activities where there are usually members from several troops) and I want to refer to "the troop I serve", I almost always just say "my troop" and they know what I mean. (They also know that I am neither the SM nor the CC so I would not be implying "ownership" anyway.) They usually say the same thing when referring to their own (so to speak) troops, and it is not an issue. We all know what each other means. And some of these folks ARE SM's and CC's of their troops.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I can see why they would be suspicious of this kid, his cap is on crooked. Seriously though, it makes you wonder how much information is on these lists that they give to the airport screeners. If it is just a name, I can see how there would be a problem and the screener might feel compelled (or might be required by their procedures) NOT to assume that an 8-year-old is not the person on the list, without further inquiry. But wouldn't you think that the list would also include the person's birth date? That would make it a little easier to wave the boy through without a lot of delay, if the "listed" person with his name is an adult. But if not, the question is how much of an assumption do you (the traveling public) want the screener to make? Maybe this is an extreme case. But what if he were 16? 14? There are teenagers who can pass for adults, and adults who can pass for teenagers. Where do you draw the line in deciding how much discretion to give to the screener?

...who have been appealing the denial of their son's Eagle for more than a year... ...and wear Inappropriate Adult Knots... ...while spreading the myth that Boy Scouts can't carry Sheath Knives... ...and who take their Tiger Dens to play Laser Tag while Whitewater Rafting... ...and Adding to the Requirements. Are there such people? I don't know. But I do know that a few people have told me they think I have a good sense of humor, so I thought I'd try to prove them wrong.

In our district the custom seems to be for the EBOR members not to wear the uniform. The EBOR's and meetings with the District Advancement Committee to get project approval and a post-project review are all held at the same time and in the same place in our district, so during my son's journey through the process I got to "be around" a number of EBOR's. All of the members were in either professional or neat/casual attire, which seemed appropriate. (I think ratty jeans would get looks of disapproval from the other board members, never mind the Scout.) The Scoutmaster, if he is there to "introduce" the Scout, is in uniform, and the Eagle candidate must be also (sorry Ed) but about half the boys I saw did not have sashes, to no apparent detriment to their progress. But not the BOR members. In fact, for my son's BOR, one of the members is a committee member in our troop who I don't think I have ever seen in civvies before. During committee meetings in our troop uniforms are not worn either, even by those of us who normally wear uniforms at troop meetings, and I guess the idea is that at an EBOR member, you dress as if you were at a troop committee meeting. But this custom seems to be the case throughout our district, not just our troop.

TwoCubDad, that is a pretty funny image, especially if your Eagle-son is similarly dimensioned to mine, slightly over 6 feet tall and more than 200 pounds. It would be somewhat amusing to see him on a go-see-it to the firehouse or something, with all the little Tiger Cubs. (As a matter of fact that's just about all I remember from my son's Tiger year, going to a firehouse.) Seriously though, I think the Cub Scout program has always been very clear on the fact that you only earn the badge for the age-appropriate year, with no going back. Back to CNYScouter's post: It should be no surprise that local units sometimes stray away from "the book", when a professional Scouter is giving out such blatantly incorrect information. Actually, several of the DE's I have known wouldn't have known the right answer to a Cub Scout advancement question either, but they knew they didn't know, and would have referred the volunteer to the leader's handbook or other source rather than make something up.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Eamonn, the "conventional wisdom" in my area seems to be NOT to try to have a discussion with the Scouts after the video is shown. Instead, the idea is to try to get at least one parent to attend with every Scout (always a difficult task), then after the video is over everybody goes home and the families can decide for themselves whether and what to discuss about it.

Allowing trolls to remain unmolested is a well established recipe for destroying a discussion forum. "Unmolested", I'd say that's an interesting choice of words for this thread. Since you seem to be referring to Merlyn here, he has been a member of this forum for almost nine years, which I suspect is more than all but about a half-dozen active posters, and he has just over 3000 posts. If his participation were going to destroy the forum, I think it would have happened before now.

"A Time to Tell" is primarily intended for boys 11 to 14 years old. (There is another video for Venturing-age youth, I forget what its title is.) So if you show it to a troop every five years, a lot of the boys in the target audience will never see it at all. Every other year would make sense because most of the boys would see it before they are 12 or so. I would not necessarily expect a boy who has already seen it to watch it again the next time -- unless their parents want them to.

I am not sure that the BSA's ban on homosexuals in our program really has anything to do with Youth Protection. I'm sure -- it doesn't.

I agree with LisaBob. Let's not make this forum into Wikipedia, where people try to personally destroy those who they disagree with. It does give a new meaning to "Keep the outing in Scouting."

It's not about "the birds and the bees", Ed. It's about making sure the Scouts know what they need to know to recognize that there is a particular kind of problem and to deal with it. WAKWIB, I agree that once every 2 or 3 years would be sufficient. But, regardless of the frequency, "ever" would be a good start for most units, including mine.

Dances, first of all it sounds like the questioner meant a youth Eagle Scout, not an adult Eagle. The point being that an adult must supervise a swimming event. I believe that adult also should have completed Safe Swim Defense training. Or is that, "must" have completed? I am not sure whether it is mandatory. It is in our troop.

Acco is correct, and in fact this is the message given to youth members by the BSA on a regular basis. It's in the pamphlet at the beginning of each Cub Scout handbook and the Boy Scout handbook; it's part of the Second Class requirements (to know the 3 R's, recognize, resist and report); and it's in the videos that the BSA makes available to all units to show to the youth and their parents as part of the youth protection program. Unfortunately, most units (including mine) never quite get around to showing the videos, and I think that's due to a feeling of discomfort in dealing with the subject. But there is no way of getting around the pamphlets or the Second Class requirement. So the BSA does "talk" to the kids about this. It's part of the program. (I just noticed what WAKWIB said about this earlier in the thread. Should it be made mandatory for each unit to show the video on a regular, say annual, basis? I don't think it would be a bad idea. I also think the video should be shown to the parents first so they can excuse their child if they wish. I also don't think it's going to become mandatory. And how about this: Mandatory YP training (the adult course) for all parents? Not going to happen either, but something to think about.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

In our council a unit could not get a local tour permit approved without having at least one Youth Protection trained leader on the tour permit. I do not know if that is the case in all councils. I also do not know whether this crew goes "out of town" for its shooting trips, or if so, whether they bother with mere paperwork like tour permits. And, oh boy: Shooting trips. You would kind of want to make sure all your paperwork is in order for those, wouldn't you?

Yes, Eamonn, we'd still have the Queen's Award. And I guess the certificate would be signed (in recent years) by Brian May, CBE. Oh, wait, does that refer to a different Queen? On a more serious note, as I said when this thread was first active, I do wish my son's Eagle certificate (received about a month ago) had the Honorary President's signature on it. Oh well.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I agree with OGE. I think it would be reasonable for you (CNY) to go to your DC (or whoever assigned you to be UC for these units), and tell him you do not think you can be of any benefit to these units, and tell him why, and ask to be reassigned to "real" units that you can actually help. And I would make sure the DE also knows what you are doing, and why. There is no reason why you should waste your time and energy in a situation where the unit does not want your help and the district (in the person of the DE) is fine with what is happening. Maybe the DC, if he/she has some backbone, will try to do something about it. If not, you will have done all you can. (Edit: Expand and clarify)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Ok Avid, I'm glad we agree.

AvidSM, I'm still not completely sure you're serious about this. If you're not, I guess I am "taking the bait" to at least some extent. I'm not going to write a whole essay here, but for a variety of reasons, it would be completely inappropriate (not to mention completely unnecessary) for a Scoutmaster to "find out" a Scout's sexual orientation (if any), whether by direct questions, indirect questions or otherwise. (We're not talking here about a Scout who is openly gay, which is a whole different subject. I'm also not addressing the issue of belief in God.) Asking the "gay" question directly also would be a violation of BSA policy, or at the very least it would be contrary to statements that the BSA has issued on the subject. Asking "indirectly" is, at the very least, an invasion of the young man's privacy for no valid reason. I also regret that this discussion is kind of a distraction from Buffalo Skipper's question, and doesn't help him at all. I couldn't just let this go by, though.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

AvidSM says: Make sure you confirm, very briefly and with tact, that he belives in God and that he is not gay. Avid, please tell me you're kidding about the "gay" part of that sentence. You don't really do that in a Scoutmaster conference, right?

Great thing about SMCs is that they can be done at ANYTIME whle a scout is workign on advancement, not necessarily the last thing they do as is usually practiced. Eagle92, I have seen that comment made in these forums before, and I understand that the requirements do not specifically require the SM conference to be "last" (other than the BOR), but that is how it is always done in my troop and I suspect most others. My council seems to be assuming that as well, otherwise the "new policy" that I quoted would make no sense at all. I am sure what they mean is that all rank requirements (other than the BOR) must be completed by April 1, and they are equating that with completion of the SM conference. Technically they may be incorrect, but that is what they seem to be assuming. For our troop, at least, they would be correct.

While the wording is not crystal clear, I think the use of the phrase "that rank only" strongly implies that ONE rank that is incomplete as of 1/1/01 -- the "next" rank -- may be completed under the old requirements, and that the new requirements apply for all ranks after that. In theory, I agree with FScouter that there may be some situations in which it would be unfair to limit the "grandfathering" to only one rank. However, I think that in deciding whether that unfairness exists in a given case, one must consider the nature of that particular "round" of changes. The changes this time are not very onerous. (I would say they are "minor", but that's questionable in the case of the Second Class and maybe the Life changes.) The changes are all additions of new requirements here and there, expansions of existing requirements and clarifications -- no requirements have been eliminated. For that reason, the concern about requiring a boy to "start all over" does not really apply this time. If a Scout misses the cutoff for a particular rank, he just has to do a little more work; none of what he has already done is "wasted." So I don't think there is really a fairness problem presented this time, even if the rule is applied the way I think national meant it. I do see some possible fairness issues in the additional rule that my council has adopted, which I mentioned in the last thread on this subject: "A boy who has not completed a Scoutmaster Conference under the old requirements by 4/1/2010 must use the 2010 requirements for all ranks." First of all, I'm not sure how a council gets to adopt a policy like that, unless they got national approval, but the material that I read says that the Council Advancement Committee adopted it, with no mention of national. Second, for the lower ranks, if someone made a new rank in December, completing the next one by the end of March may not be easy -- though, maybe, that's part of the point, and they just don't want Scouts "hanging around" under the old requirements for an indefinite period. If I were going to create a policy like that, though, I would have made the deadline July 1 rather than April 1. Third, a Scout who made First Class after December 1, or Star or Life after October 1, will need to use the new requirements for their next rank without regard to the January 1 cutoff, because the 4- and 6-month time requirements cannot be completed by April 1. But as it turns out, there are no new requirements for Star or Eagle, and the new requirement for Life really is not that burdensome.

OGE, I agree. I have said previously in this thread though, that if the policy in question were changed, there might be some hypothetical situations in which it might be reasonable (and maybe advisable) for a leader to step in even without any evidence of what I would call "improper conduct", but "canoodling" will do also. Let's remember that the policy only deals with "avowed homosexuals", meaning those who are "openly" gay. In other words, they tell others about it and don't try to keep it a secret. (That is why all this is so "hypothetical", because to my knowledge, most gay teenagers tend not to be "open" about it, for reasons that have been discussed previously in this thread.) But let's say you did have two openly gay Scouts in your troop. If they wanted to share a tent, wouldn't some sort of warning light start flashing in your mind? Maybe I'm not as "liberal" as some people in this forum think I am, but I think I would see flashing lights. Yes, we trust the boys, but on the other hand, why invite trouble? It would probably depend on how much I know about the particular boys. And we would not be prying into the boys' personal lives, since in this scenario they have identified themselves as being gay. And then, as I mentioned once before, there is the perception issue. We don't need other boys walking past the tent at night and saying "Ooooh, I wonder what's going on in there." So I would probably have to think about it, but I do see the possibility that in at least some versions of this situation, some action might be warranted. At the same time, I don't think a national rule would be needed. It really depends on the particular situation.

BadenP says: It amazes me that so many of you think that a local option on this issue is the answer or is even possible. I think most (if not all) of us who believe the policy should be changed realize that it is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. But you shouldn't be so amazed; since you joined this forum in 2004 you must know that "local option" has been a topic of discussion for years. In fact it was already being discussed when I joined the forum in early 2002, and I suspect it will continue to be discussed for more years, until it happens. I can tell you after working for CSE Mazzucca for years that in NO WAY would he ever allow a local or unit option concerning homosexuals in scouting, so you can laud its merits all you want but it isn't ever going to happen on Bob's watch. Why, because Bob is a devout Catholic, and second the LDS hold more power than most of you know in the BSA as far as policy decisions such as this one. I understand (at least in general) the power of the LDS and the other religious organizations that charter many units and would oppose a change. Maybe I am being overly idealistic, but I'd like to think that the main reason they hold so much power is that their large numbers of units (and, therefore, CO's) give them the ability to vote in their representatives to the various boards and committees in the hierarchy, up to whichever national decision making body is ultimately responsible for making (and retaining) the policy in question. But your post suggests that the personal opinions and religious beliefs of one person, the CSE, are also a major factor in why the policy won't change in the short term. If that's the case, it's kind of disturbing. If an elected group of people votes and makes a decision, even if it's a decision I disagree with, at least there has been a process. But it shouldn't be up to one person, regardless of what his title is. OGE, in our troop it is basically left up to the boys as to which tent they are going to sleep in. But I do seem to recall one incident in which a boy was asked to move to a different tent in order to reduce the "noise level" coming from that tent, after all "conventional measures" to get the boys to keep it down did not succeed. So I guess that means the "policy", if there is one, is that the boys get to choose, but that under unusual circumstances the adult leader could step in and move people around if necessary. As far as I know, it has only happened that one time.

Well wouldn't POR be applicable to all adult leadership positions? It could be, if that is what the accepted terminology was. As OakTree points out, the term "positions of responsibility" is used for the youth positions because it appears in the requirements for Star, Life and Eagle. Are CC, SM, ASM etc. "positions of responsibility"? In the non-jargon sense, yes they are. They are positions, and they involve responsibilities. It just isn't the way the term is usually used or understood.