NJCubScouter

I simply state the name of the organization "Boy Scouts of America". If we need to change that, then do it all the way. It is odd that we allow women leaders and not women members. Why don't we allow women members? Because it is the BOY Scouts of America! Jsummerlin, the "Boy" Scouts of America has had female youth members for close to 40 years -- first in coed Explorer Posts and now in coed Venture Crews. So the name of the overall organization has not been fully consistent with its youth membership for a pretty long time. Now, if you're just looking at the BSA's "Boy Scout" program, yes, that's just for boys. And that's what it is -- a program for boys. That fact does not dictate the gender of the leaders. I take it that you were a Scout when there were no female leaders, and that now you find it "strange" and "odd" that there are. Well, so was I, and when I rejoined Scouting with my son, I also found it a little "different" that there could be a female Scoutmaster, Assistant Scoutmaster or Committee Chair. But different, strange or odd does not mean wrong. Give it a chance, you'll get used to it. Personally I think boys benefit from having leaders (and teachers and other role models) of both genders.

LeVoyageur, you talk about a "pretext" for the war in Afghanistan. That word implies that there was a different reason, which is the "real" reason. What do you think that was? I'm not talking about Iraq, where there definitely were a variety of reasons, some pretextual and some real. What was our secret agenda in Afghanistan? Also I don't think throwing around words like hawks and warmongers really contributes to a discussion. Clearly those kinds of people exist in politics and there are probably some in this forum. But based upon my reading of his writings over most of the past 7+ years, I sincerely doubt that Packsaddle is among them. I am sort of a moderate "peacenik" myself. I don't think we should have ever gotten into Iraq (this time, not the Kuwait time), for reasons that are still hanging around in the archives of this forum somewhere, from when I wrote them more than 6 years ago. But Afghanistan? I don't know what else we were supposed to do when we were attacked like that. And I think we could have had a much better shot at achieving our goals there, and then gotten out so we wouldn't even be having this discussion now, if the Previous Administration had kept its eye on the ball and not gotten the military sidetracked elsewhere.

Abel, I think we all need to be sensitive to the needs of people who cannot afford different aspects of the Scouting program, and yet I do not think it's necessary to eliminate swimming as an absolute requirement for Second and First Class. (Nor do I think Swimming should be added back to the absolutely-required list for Eagle, as some suggested in the earlier part of this thread.) Maybe I'm being naive here, but I have to think that some opportunity, some grant, some donation, some program somewhere is available so that inner-city youths can get enough time in a pool to learn to swim. And it also occurs to me that swimming is not the only activity that is required for advancement that costs money. Camping requires money for equipment. First Aid requires some money for supplies. There are probably other and better examples. Are you aware of Scouts who have actually been prevented from advancing because their families could not afford enough "swimming time" for them to learn to swim, and who could not get that through some other program? Doesn't Scouting itself put some money into inner-city Scouting through the Scoutreach program that could pay for things like this? Again, I'm making assumptions here and I don't really know. Maybe I'm just hoping. (But maybe I'm right.) As for the earlier part of this thread in general (which I did not see when it was active over the summer), I can tell you that my son is similar to some of the boys described by others. He started Scouting as a non-swimmer and did not pass the swimmer's test until his third year at summer camp. I remember being concerned that he was never going to make First Class due to the swimming requirements, and that he was going to get frustrated and quit. But guess what, he persevered and made it through. I do not remember the exact sequence of his advancement, but I know he struggled through the Second Class swimming requirement before he could really swim, and about a year later struggled a little less through the more difficult First Class requirement (which probably held him up from making First Class for a few months), and after further practice and growth, finally earned Swimming MB at the age of 14 or 15. So for some boys it's not easy, but it can be done.

When I read that line, I read a fellow who is, maybe, not a gifted and polished speaker. LisaBob, I think you could probably delete "maybe" from that sentence. Being from the state I'm from, I can easily bring a picture of this guy to mind, and I'm probably pretty close. I agree with your interpretation. This was not some carefully thought-out statement by a wordsmith, which you can draw a clear meaning from. It's a blustering statement from a guy who's not exactly the Michelangelo of words, and it's not his job to be. I don't know how else to say it without being insulting.

Stosh, what's YOUR answer to your question about the older-boy patrol that wants to go to a different summer camp? And while you are answering that hypothetical question (assuming that it's hypothetical), here are one or two more: What about adult leadership? As far as I know, every BSA summer camp requires a group of boys to have adult leadership. Apart from the summer camp scenario, a patrol CAN go on a camping trip without adult supervision, but only if the SM approves. And, back to the summer camp situation, what about cost? Do the parents get some say, if it's going to cost more and they are paying for it? More generally, I think the situation is more complex than you suggest. For one thing, I think you are mixing "information flow", decision-making, and guidance, which can be three different things. Just to keep the examples within the "youth" area, I would say that if a patrol member asks the SPL a question, yes, the SPL should refer the Scout to the PL. But what about an SPL who sees a patrol doing something unwise -- let's say it's not dangerous, just non-productive or something that is not going to achieve the purpose of the activity -- I don't think there's anything wrong with the SPL taking the PL aside and asking some "leadership-type questions" or making some subtle comments to try to guide the PL onto the right path. And then if the SPL sees something dangerous or abusive happening, I think he has the right -- actually the obligation -- to put a stop to it immediately, without worrying about whether the "chain of command" is right-side-up or upside-down.

I think this topic should probably be in the "Open Forum", shouldn't it? Unless there is a specific "Leadership" forum that I've missed.

I think the original poster has the answer by now, but just to add more anecdotal evidence: Our troop Committee Chair is a woman, as is our District Chairman (chairperson?), as was the Scoutmaster of my son's NYLT course. One of our neighboring troops does have a female Scoutmaster, though that is still relatively rare. Women have gone on weekend camping trips in our troop, though not very often, and there is always at least one female leader of our troop in summer camp. For whatever reason, I do not believe our troop has ever had a female Assistant Scoutmaster, and though I suspect that if one volunteered for the job there might be some "chattering" among some parents, I think the person would be accepted unless there was some specific reason not to. It was not always this way; the national policy change occurred in the 70s and 80s. Unfortunately not everybody has caught up with the change, and even among those who understand the current policies, there is still some resistance. The other side of the coin, as some have mentioned, is that the choice of all leaders is made by, or at least subject to the approval of, the chartered organization, which can make its own policies. But "one" troop leader, as you have described in your post, does not make the troop's policy on leadership positions, unless that leader is the Chartered Organization Representative.

I don't think either method (Eagle Scout as "only" the guest of honor, with SPL etc. planning the ceremony, or Eagle Scout planning the ceremony, or other variations on those) is either required or prohibited by any BSA rule. It is left up to the troop. In our troop it is left up to the Eagle Scout to decide (within reason) what and who he wants to be included in the ceremony, and in practice it is the Scout's parents (hopefully with the Scout's input, at least) who plan the details of the ceremony, choose the MC and other speakers, decide whether the "letters of recognition" will be read, etc. Usually, the only role of the SPL (assuming that it is not the SPL who is making Eagle) is to lead the opening and closing ceremonies, which are done with somewhat more fanfare than at regular troop meetings. I have a partial disagreement with Beavah about reading "the letters." Usually there is a mixture of letters from politicians, entertainers, the sports world, military, organizations and others, which gives a good speaker the opportunity to do a presentation that combines entertainment and inspiration. In my time with the troop we have had two committee-persons who have taken on this role at different ceremonies, and one in particular has done a very good job with it, injecting some humor here and there to make it interesting. Neither of these speakers has read all the letters, just a sampling (but almost always including the one from the White House). So it can be done in a good and non-boring manner. I suppose if it's just someone droning through the letters, you might want to skip it. One more difference with Beavah: I think that a "formal" ceremony can still be done well. The plain fact is that a ceremony like this is partly for the guests. In the case of adult guests, many of them have probably helped the Eagle candidate along the path or watched him grow up, etc. And the entire troop should be there, including younger kids who the candidate may hardly even know, so they can see the example set by the Eagle scout. I don't think that anyone who is able to attend the ceremony should be relegated to a reception or open house after the ceremony. The ceremony and whatever social gathering may follow it are all part of the event. (Edited to add last paragraph)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

BDPT00, I have not seen anyone here "insult the efforts of a Scout." Nor has our now-favorite union leader, Mr. Balzano, despite his ill-advised about "looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails." (Gosh, what a stupid thing to say.) His complaint is with the city, and what some people are saying here is, it may be a legitimate complaint, or at the very least, he may be sending a legitimate message about future projects and not letting the volunteer projects get out of hand at a time when city workers are losing their jobs. The first part of that depends on the contract, which of course none of us have seen. The second part does seem to be a reasonable point. It doesn't mean this Scout's project shouldn't have been approved, it just means, let's have some consideration for the overall situation of the community, of which the Scouts are a part.

I agree with Eamonn. I don't think the union leader's issue is really with this trail. I think he is making a legitimate point about the situation going forward -- however clumsily and inarticulately he may be going about it.

I think the analogy between spacecraft and ships, and BSA advancement requirements, is starting to take on water... or to vent oxygen into space... or something...

Regardless of the merits of the issue, I think it's safe to say that Mr. "There's to be no volunteers" and "We'll be taking a look at little Johnny" was not at the top of the class in How to Win Friends and Influence People. I don't think we'll be seeing him being appointed to any diplomatic posts anytime soon.

OGE asks: Didn't we go to the moon using equipment that barely met the minimum? Well, six times out of seven, anyway. The other time (the third time), they didn't make it there and they came very close to not making it back. I think there was a movie made about this. But when it comes to the "philosophy of advancement", I think we are in agreement. The requirements are the requirements, and nobody should be adding to them on the local level.

This is the problem sometimes with topics in this forum, people try to look behind the facts presented and come up with other issues. I probably did it a few times myself in my previous incarnations in this forum. But in this case, I don't think it gets us anywhere to debate whether the project is a proper project or was properly approved. The fact is, it was approved, and by definition some authorized representative of the city had to approve it. The question presented, as I understood it, was, does the municipal employees union that has lost 39 members to layoffs, have a legitimate complaint about an Eagle candidate and his volunteers doing work that might otherwise have been done by the laid-off workers. My guess is that the union would not succeed with a grievance in this situation, but that is a legal issue. I can see their perspective, up to a point, and I don't really blame the union for bringing up the issue. They do not want a situation where the city is getting volunteers to do a substantial amount of the work that the laid-off workers would have done. On the other hand the position that "there's to be no volunteers," emphasis on the word "no", is a little extreme. The people of the city also have some right to volunteer to help their city, whether it's an Eagle Scout or someone else. If business was booming and there had been no layoffs of city workers, it wouldn't even be an issue. So I guess what I am saying is, there should be a reasonable balancing of the interests, but I think that having a Life Scout and his volunteers create a trail is reasonable. Two Life Scouts and two trails might also be reasonable. But there is a line somewhere, and I don't know where it is.

Also, we never seem to have the problem of not enough POR's to go around for Scouts going for Star, Life and Eagle. The only elected positions are SPL and PL. For the rest, a boy can be appointed, or move on to a different position, at any time. Usually the ASPL's are the same for the entire year, but not always, and sometimes an ASPL is added during the year. We usually have two or three ASPL's. (Technically there is no limit on the number of ASPL's, but if you have too many, it is difficult for them to have enough to do.) And then you can have a couple of Troop Guides, and there is no limit to the number of Instructors. We have dual Quartermasters sometimes, though one might argue that that isn't a good idea. A troop can also have multiple JASM's, though we have not had more than one of those at a time recently. Then there are the "Scoutmaster-created positions", whatever the exact terminology is. I am not sure how much use our Scoutmaster makes of that. I do know that the POR thing never seems to be an issue.

I find that the time requirements for Star, Life and Eagle rarely come into play, simply because it almost always takes longer than that for the Scouts to complete the rank requirements. For Star and Life, part of the reason is that many of the boys seem to finish up their requirements for the previous rank at summer camp, and our troop has BOR's at camp. Then there always seems to be a lull in advancement activity for a few months, first with the boys taking advantage of the rest of their summer vacation, and then in the fall the focus is on starting the year, getting settled in at school and in the troop, detailed planning for coming meetings, elections and reorganizing, etc. So by the time a boy is ready for their Star or Life BOR, it's the spring or following summer and the 4 or 6 months are past anyway. (I find that when there are exceptions, they are usually for Life. We have some boys who seem to build up a bunch of Eagle-required merit badges while going for Star so that by the time of their Star BOR, they only need one more for Life, so the time requirements do come into play now and then.) For Eagle, of course, it's the project. Since the project process begins after the Life BOR, in order for the time requirements to come into play, the Scout would have to go from project idea to completed, signed-off project and post-writeup, plus all remaining required MB's, plus any odds and ends like the life goals, in 6 months. I have never seen it happen in 6 years in our troop. I know a guy from another troop whose son did it in just about 6 months, but that was because he had to: He did not make Life until 6-and-a-half months before his 18th birthday, and I think he finished his Eagle requirements with a couple of weeks to spare, so in that case it was done in 6 months out of necessity. But other than those rare instances, this just isn't a problem we seem to have.

Once it is approved, the district advancement chairman is contacted and assigns the packet to a district Eagle board representative. The district contacts the troop and schedules the board of review. It's up to the troop to work out a convenient time between the Scout, the board and the district rep. TwoCub, I have to laugh a little because in our district this part of the process is pretty much the opposite of that, although I don't think the variations cause any harm. When the council office has approved the application (under Requirement 6), the application and original workbook are given back to the applicant (you have to go back two days after dropping it off and get it, unless you have persuaded them to check it and sign it on the spot, because there's no time to wait two days.) Along with the application and workbook the applicant is given a letter instructing him to contact the Eagle coordinator for the district (which I think is also the DAC chair.) The Scout does that, and the Eagle coordinator and the Scout agree on a date for the BOR. (All Eagle BOR's are held in a central location on a specific day every two weeks.) It is then the Scout's responsibility to contact at least three members of the troop committee and arrange for them to be present at the central district location at the right day and time, and to also inform the Scoutmaster and the troop advancement committee chair, if the latter is not already one of the chosen BOR members. (I have a feeling that other troops may have the troop advancement chair select the BOR members from the troop, but ours leaves it up to the Scout, which I found somewhat surprising when I found out about it.) The troop committee members, the Scout and the Scoutmaster then appear at the district location at the appropriate time. At that meeting there are usually a number of Scouts present, some with appointments for project pre-approval, others for post-project reviews, and others for BOR's. The DAC chair sees who's there, assigns one of the DAC members present to chair the BOR for that particular Scout, and that person sits down with the troop committee members and they conduct the BOR. I think it's just a different way of doing it. I suppose technically it is a "troop BOR" but it is held "at" the district, probably so that the DAC members don't have to travel all over the place. And this way, one DAC member could chair 3 or 4 BOR's in one night, if necessary.

Here is a larger image of the stamp: http://tinyurl.com/yc599bt In this image the hat (on the smaller figure) seems to be tan-colored. I don't THINK these two figures are supposed to be the same person, at least not at the same time: The silhouette does not seem to be wearing any pack, while the smaller figure seems to be wearing a day-pack. (With something dangling from it.) The silhouette's hat has a brim all the way around but the smaller figure's hat seems to have a brim only in the front. And the tails of the silhouette's bandana (that backward neckerchief) are not visible on the smaller figure. I kind of like this image as a piece of art, but it's not a BSA Centennial stamp.

They could have at least turned the neckerchief around on the silhouette. One person's backward uniform neckerchief is another person's non-uniform bandana, I guess. Seriously, though, there is nothing being worn by either of the figures in the picture (or is it supposed to be the same person?) that is necessarily a BSA uniform item. I am not even sure what kind of hat that is supposed to be (on the silhouette). It seems to have a brim all the way around. The smaller figure may be wearing some kind of baseball cap. It's too small to really tell what it looks like, but it seems to be yellow. So I see hiking and maybe birdwatching in this picture, but I don't see the BSA or its centennial. (Edit: Correcting descriptions of the hat(s))(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

That photo does take me back. I wore those garters with the green fringe, and the the shirt does seem to have the "Scout BSA" label on it. My younger brother wore that kind of cap, which I think was the first baseball-type cap to be used in the BSA. (I could be wrong about that, but before that it was the overseas cap and before that it was the campaign hat. In the early 70's they gave troops the option of the re-introduced campaign hat, the red beret or the baseball cap; I'm not sure if the overseas cap was still an option. Our troop voted for the campaign hat but within a couple of years the younger kids started wearing the baseball cap, not sure if there was a second vote or what, and then those of us who had been to Philmont started wearing the Philmont baseball hat.) And yes, that is a big backpack for the kid, but that part reminds me of my younger brother too. Of course, "the kid" in this photo is now almost 50. Maybe he's even reading this.

CNY, It was my understanding that the BOR cannot be scheduled until the council signature (under Requirement 6, not Requirement 7) is on the application. Did your son's app get that signature? I had understood from one of your posts that this was a problem. (The application doesn't actually say that the BOR can't be scheduled until the council signs it under Requirement 6, but it does say that in step 7 of the "12 steps from Life to Eagle" which is the last page of the official project workbook. (Or at least, it is strongly implied. It depends on whose signature is being referred to in the words "appropriately signed" in the first sentence of step 7. Since, at the time of step 7, the application is in the hands of the council service center, I think it can only mean, signed by someone at the service center.) Later in the same sentence it says that the application, workbook, and "references" are "returned from the council service center to the chairman of the Eagle Board of Review so that a board of review may be scheduled. Under no circumstances should a board of review be scheduled until the application is returned to the chairman of the Eagle board of review." It doesn't actually happen that way in my council -- after the Eagle registrar at the council office signs the application, and makes a copy of the workbook, she hands the original application and workbook back to the applicant (or whoever handed it in, such as the Scout's father trying to get this done at lunchtime), with a letter saying "Call (name of DAC chair) to schedule a board of review." The applicant then calls (or e-mails) the DAC chair, makes the appointment for the BOR, then arranges for at least two troop committee members to be there on that date, then brings the application and original workbook (with photocopies for the BOR members) to the BOR. The Scoutmaster brings the letters of reference that the Scout has arranged to be sent to him. Of course, we already know that part of this process is different in your council, and others.)

Aha, I found an example of the mid-70's uniform, it's even from 1974: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boy_Scout_uniform_1974.jpg . (That is one large neckerchief, compared to the kid wearing it. And check out those skill awards. Fortunately my only connection with the skill awards was to pass younger kids on them, since I made First Class before the whole system changed.) So, is THAT what you want to go back to? (Edit: Trying to fix the link.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Mr Boyce, Here is what I don't understand in this discussion: How would a collarless shirt make the uniform look MORE like the "Norman Rockwell" model of Scouting? Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly here, but it seems to me that when I became a Boy Scout (late 60's), the shirts had collars, and most of the Rockwell Scouting paintings that I have seen show shirts with collars (though in many cases it's difficult to really tell because of the large neckerchief!) Unless I'm mistaken, it was only in the early 70's when the collarless shirt came out. The uniform that I have hanging up in my closet from my Scouting days (which I don't even come close to fitting into these days) was probably purchased around 1974. It is a collarless shirt and has "Scout BSA" above the pocket (rather than Boy Scouts of America.) It is green, I am not sure what shade you'd call it. Is THAT what you want to go back to? It doesn't look very Rockwell-esque to me. Since I was out of Scouting by the late 70's, I don't really know when the current-style shirts came in. I take it that these are the "Oscar de la Renta" shirts that people talk about. When my son started as a Tiger in the late 90's and I saw leaders wearing uniforms (and a couple years later, bought one myself), I didn't realize that some major style revolution had occurred. I figured it was just a new shirt. And I do like the two-tone of the shirt and pants. If you are trying to stay away from a military look, it seems to me the LAST thing you want to do is make the shirt and pants the same color. The late-60's style uniform that I started with definitely had a military look to it, especially with that "flat hat" (I think it is officially called the overseas cap.)

Eatmorefrogs, it seems to me that the person who started this thread thought he was designing a Class A uniform, not a "Class B uniform." As for epaulets, you may think they look good. I don't think they necessarily look either good or bad. But I do think that if there's going to be something on the uniform, it ought to have some purpose. If one believes (as I do) that the loops that go on the epaulets are silly and unnecessary -- and in the case of the new green (if that's what it is) loop, DON'T look good -- then the epaulets are unnecessary as well. (I can think of ways of making the loops more informative, but they would REALLY make it look more military-like and I don't think national would want to do that.) But I think Scouting will go on with or without the loops.

I agree with Sherminator and Beavah. The president is trying to fix a problem that was left for him by the previous administration. It's a very difficult problem. Hindsight is always 20-20, as they say, but I can't help thinking that the previous administration should have been tougher with the government of Pakistan about going after the Taliban and other forces who found shelter across the border. I also think that the previous administration took its focus off Afghanistan (which had harbored the people who attacked us on 9/11, and other times) and put it on Iraq (which had not) and kept it there even after the "bad guys" were quickly removed. For years after the war in Iraq started, it was like Afghanistan didn't exist anymore. I think most Americans (including me) sort of had this vague idea that things were going ok in Afghanistan, because we weren't really hearing anything about it. But in fact things were getting worse and worse, and now the president has to choose among several bad options, one worse than the other. Personally I think he should put more troops in there, but coupled with a clear exit strategy, which is what he seems to be working on.