NJCubScouter

This relates to something I noticed last week, but I didn't mention it at the time. I was looking at the Guide to Safe Scouting in the section relating to pointing firearms at other people (because someone raised the paintball issue again) and I saw a reference in that section to the "Law Enforcement Venturing program." I thought to myself, What Law Enforcement Venturing program? Isn't "law enforcement" an Exploring program? In fact, I remember reading that when "old Exploring" was abolished, all "career" programs were moved into LFL/Exploring except for religious vocations, which became part of Venturing. In fact I just checked the official BSA web site, Venturing section, and it says that the five Venturing program areas are: high adventure, sports, arts and hobbies, religious life and Sea Scouting. Where does "law enforcement" fall into that? Or firefighting, for that matter? Unless they are considered "hobbies," which they aren't, even though some firefighters are volunteers whose actual "career" is something else. There is also a potential connection here to a discussion currently going on in "Issues and Politics." I don't want to bring that debate in here, but Marcheck, are these "fire halls" public entities, or private? I ask because I believe this varies from place to place. New Jersey has both paid fire departments which are government entities, and volunteer fire companies, which are considered "quasi-public." In terms of chartering a BSA unit, I believe they would be subject to the same limitations as public entities. In fact, it was my understanding that the legal limitations on police and fire departments and other public entities in chartering "traditional" BSA units was one of the main reasons for separating "old Exploring" into Venturing and LFL/Exploring in the first place. I admit up front that I am not an expert on Exploring (new or old) or Venturing, having never been directly involved with either. But I do know what I have read. Can anyone provide any facts to the contrary?

Ed says to me: My answer is the DOD already has another plan in the works to keep BSA units on military bases. Where there is a will there is a way! That's ok with me, but that "plan" is a matter of "access," not of "ownership." I am not trying to keep BSA units from meeting on military bases or keep military personnel from volunteering on their own time. I realize some may not see the legal difference between the "access" and "ownership" issues, but I do, evidently the DoD does, and I am pretty sure the courts would, if given the chance to decide the issue (which is probably why they weren't.) BTW, when did congress enact that law that the ACLU states was violated? Oh, Ed, must we? Again? And again? It's the Constitution, as it has been interpreted. But I know it is futile to say so, because you will just say some version of where does it say, where does it say, where does it say, I don't see where it says, etc. etc. etc. over and over and over again, until the end of time. I guess that's what I like about you, Ed, that kind of persistence is tough to find these days.

OGE says: As I understand law, and mostly I don't, a settlement is what two parties opposing each other in a legal matter do when one side doesn't want the final determination to come down to a judge's or a jury's decision. That is correct except where you say "one side," I would say "both sides" or "all sides." Each side evaluates its likelihood of success, and if it is a case about money, the range of likely outcomes, and has to determine whether what the other side is offering (or will accept) is advantageous. "Let's Make a Deal" is about right but there also is an element of gambling involved. You are trading the possibility of a much better (or much worse) outcome for the certainty of whatever you agree to. Settlements take the control away from the judge and/or jury and put it back with the parties. (If the parties can agree.) In this particular case, the Department of Defense's decision also is sort of a "strategic retreat." Later on in the case, when the judge decides whether the ACLU's legal fees get paid by the government, and how much -- as well as whatever other issues remain in the case -- you can be sure the DoD will remind the judge, Look how reasonable we were, we voluntarily made this change, and the ACLU will respond, Yeah, once you knew for sure you were going to lose. (And each side will of course say other stuff, and then the judge will decide.)

Uncleguinea asks: How is it that a US district judge -- not a federal judge, is able to order the defense department to do anything? A US district judge (formally, a Judge of a United States District Court) IS a "federal judge." The District Courts are the lowest rung of the federal judicial system. That is where all (well, almost all) lawsuits are filed, trials are held, orders are entered, etc. The Courts of Appeal review decisions of the District Courts, and the Supreme Court reviews appellate decisions of the Courts of Appeal and the highest appellate courts in each state. (Generally speaking.) So a District Court was where this case would have started, and where at least part of it has been settled, and the District Court will continue to deal with the other issues. I do not know the answers to your other questions, except that in the third question, a District Court judgment is binding on the parties to the case, even if one of them is the United States government. In most cases if the government appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals, it would probably be able to get a "stay pending appeal," meaning the ruling would not go into effect right away. There can also be (and often are) situations where different District Courts and/or Courts of Appeal can make contradictory rulings, which is one of the reasons we have a Supreme Court. But I think what we are talking about here is a partial settlement, and part of settling a case is that there will be no appeal.

I was wondering if there are any organizations which, at their national level, officially discourage their branches to charter Scout units. Does anyone know if there are? And if so, what are theY? I know of two: The national PTA recommended to its local chapters a number of years ago (say more than 10) that they not be CO's for BSA units, due to concerns about "liability." This recommendation is not followed unanimously, and it does not apply to similar organizations that are not affiliated with the National PTA (such as PTO's, parent-teacher organizations, which came into existence because some chapters got tired of paying dues to the National PTA.) The largest association of Reform Jewish congregations in the U.S., now known as the Union for Reform Judaism (as I just learned by doing to a search to confirm what I thought I remembered) issued a recommendation shortly after the Supreme Court decision in the BSA v. Dale case, stating that due to the exclusion of gay people, congregations are discouraged from being CO's for BSA units. This is a non-binding recommendation, as all Jewish congregations are self-governing. Whether the smaller Reform Jewish groups have done the same, I do not know. I do know that the Conservative and Orthodox Jewish movements do not share this viewpoint and in fact Orthodox Jewish organizations have enthusiastically continued their association with Scouting. None of this is surprising given the fact that Reform Jewish congregations can have gay rabbis (and some do), while Orthodox Judaism is part of the "religious right" on the gay issue. Conservative Jews, paradoxically, are the moderates. And I guess the Department of Defense would now be a third, though I guess the word there would be "command" rather than "discourage."

Acco says: Maybe Bush will become less partisan and go looking for that "legacy" that too many second term presidents look for. Well, if "less partisan" means "less ideological" and willing to compromise on issues, one can always hope, but... when I heard the president's "victory speech" and his comment about "now I have political capital, and I am going to spend it" (or words to that effect), I sort of got the opposite impression. I suppose you could interpret it the other way, but I heard it as a statement that there was going to more of a focus on ideology, not less. I guess by "political capital" he was referring to his 51 percent of the popular vote -- which considering that in the last three elections the winning candidate received 40-something (Clinton), 49-point-something (Clinton), and fewer votes than the "losing" candidate (GWB), 51 percent may seem like a landslide, but it really isn't.

Ed, we have discussed your interpretation of the First Amendment a number of times, and I have no desire to do it again, but let me ask you this: If the Department of Defense felt that there was an argument to be made against the ACLU position on governmental ownershp of Scouting units, don't you think that it would have continued to litigate the case, instead of settling? This is not some "liberal" administration, after all. The president has been a vocal supporter of the Boy Scouts, and I'd guess that his personal interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is about what yours is. If the Department of Defense felt they could have continued to have BSA units chartered directly to military units, they would have continued with that part of the case. But they knew they were going to lose, so they gave in and evidently decided to focus on other aspects of the case. That ought to tell you something.

Well, this is not going to help you much with your immediate project, but my favorite neckerchief slide was (and is) the "Scout Sign" slide (a hand giving the Scout sign) that my father carved and gave to me one year at summer camp when I was 16 or 17, with my name and the date written on the back. It was from a kit sold by the BSA at the time (though I think the "kit" consisted only of a solid wood block, a little "slide" piece to glue on the back, and the diagrams to make the hand look right.) My son's favorite slide, the one he wears for indoor activities (and carefully removed before doing any running), is the identical slide, also carved by my father, upon my son's return from his first Boy Scout summer camp, with my son's name and the date on the back. (In other words my father carved the same slide for his son, and then for his grandson almost 30 years later. In between, and before and after, I estimate he has carved more than 100 neckerchief slides, including at least 10 of the Scout Sign, and at least one where he modified the original design to make a CUB Scout sign, which he gave to my son while he was a Wolf.) But unless your Wolfs (Wolves? But they're people, not wolves) are unusually proficient with a knife, which I guess they can't carry anyway until they are Bears and get Totin Chip, I don't think this idea will work for your den project.

ridinshotgun says: I really wish people would check their facts before they put it out as a fact, such as President Bush's cabinet resignations showing his administration in crisis. When you say "people," I have to assume you are not referring to anyone in this forum, because the only person to use the word "crisis" so far is you. Backpacker said, of the president, "his cabinet now abandons him right and left." Given at least three cabinet-level resignations within two weeks after the election, including the Attorney General and Secretary of State, I'd say that's a legitimate way of looking at it. Perhaps it is a bit exaggerated. But it is not contrary to any "facts." I said that this combination of resignations within such a short time after an election is "pretty extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented." I think that is true, and I am looking not just at the number (three is not a huge number, and there have been sub-Cabinet-level resignations as well), but the fact that they include two of the three "highest ranking" cabinet members. Combine that with the proximity to the election. Neither ridinshotgun or anyone else has pointed to any facts that would contradict the terms that I used. Reciting how many people resigned in a 4-year or 8-year presidency, as ridinshotgun does, is irrelevant. We are talking about a very brief period, right after an election, with an Attorney General, Secretary of State and one other Cabinet member (so far) resigning. Except when there has been a major scandal (which I am not suggesting is the case now), when has that ever happened before?

OGE, I did not know the answer to your question about the USO, but I figured they probably have a web site. They do and it says this: "A nonprofit, congressionally chartered, private organization, the USO relies on the generosity of individuals, organizations and corporations to support USO activities. The USO is not part of the U.S. Government but is endorsed by the President of the United States and the Department of Defense. Each President has been the Honorary Chairman of the USO since its inception." http://www.uso.org/pubs/8_14_19.cfm Hmm, non-profit, congressionally chartered, private, endorsed by the President of the United States who serves as honorary chairman. Sounds familiar.

I don't see why not. It is a promise, and a statement of fundamental Scouting principles (though I notice it doesn't actually mention Scouting), and saying while giving the Scout sign adds to the solemnity of the words being spoken.

I agree with what Acco says and most of what boleta says. As for what Backpacker says, I suppose there is little point in expressing an opinion at this stage, except I am not sure Backpacker's point about the cabinet "abandoning" the president is necessarily correct. When I heard about Colin Powell and others resigning this morning, following the others who have resigned in the past 10 days, it struck me that this is pretty extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented. I don't remember an exodus of anywhere near this degree when Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton were re-elected, and certainly not compressed into this very short space right after the election. But rather than them abandoning the president, it may be at least partly the other way around. Perhaps the "old" cabinet was the "team" the administration wanted to show the public for re-election purposes, but now that the president is re-elected, he feels he can bring in his "real team." Therefore, he is asking some of his cabinet to resign to make way for the people he (and/or whoever) really want to be in those positions. John Ashcroft is probably an exception. I think he is part of the president's "real team," but he has health issues and probably is a bit overstressed, having been the focal point of controversy for three years (and deservedly so, in my opinion.) Now that his departure would not create a political issue, he has decided to leave as an alternative to collapsing at his desk one day. Now, the following may be getting into "conspiracy theory" territory, but if a few months from now the vice president is reported to have had another "moderately serious heart attack" and resigns, well you heard it here first. That's not a prediction, just a possibility.

Acco: No, there is no "hard age requirement" for Arrow of Light, either "directly" (in the AoL requirements themselves) or "indirectly" (in the joining age for the Webelos program, which is fourth grade (or completion of third grade, I forget the wording) or age 10. In fact I believe there is no "hard age requirement" for any level of Cub Scouts. I think the BSA addressed the "minimum age" issue in the Boy Scout joining requirements rather than the Arrow of Light or Cub Scout joining requirements, because that is where the issue was arising. There had been one or two posts in this forum with examples of boys (or at least one boy) who had qualified to join a troop before his tenth birthday, and maybe a few more about parents who were pushing their sons toward the Arrow of Light with this in mind. As has been pointed out, a child who has "skipped" a grade could finish fifth grade before the age of 10 without the Arrow of Light even coming into play. I suspect that there were enough instances of boys showing up at troops having qualified to join before the age of 10, that it created enough concern among enough people for national to do something about it. I also think that if there was a similar problem at other levels, something would be done about them, too. For example if a number of 4-year-olds were showing up at Tiger programs, with parental certifications that the boys were in the first grade, eventually national would probably do something about it. It probably doesn't happen because the inappropriateness of a 4-year-old in Tigers must be obvious to all parents, while the inappropriateness of a 9-year-old in a Boy Scout troop is obvious only to almost all parents. I don't have any facts to back that up, it's just my guess.

kraut-60, I find your comment about the flat-hat interesting because a couple of times I have pulled out my own old flat-hat and shown it to my son, and jokingly suggested that maybe the Boy Scouts should go back to that hat. He was appalled. I don't have my old "Smokey the Bear" hat (which became an option, along with the red beret, while I was a Boy Scout), but I don't think the reaction would be much better. My son's troop did recently share a campsite with a troop that wore the red berets. I don't know if they were the official BSA red berets from the "old days" or if there were knockoffs, or a mixture of both. I asked my son what he thought about them, and got a lukewarm reaction. That's better than the reaction to the flat-hat, but I don't think he or any of his troop-mates will be voting to abandon the baseball-cap-type hats anytime soon.

And if a boy genius somehow completes the 4th grade at age 8 or 9 ...? He has to wait. I don't see what the big deal is. When I joined the Boy Scouts (in the dark ages of the 1960's) you had to be 11, period, it didn't matter what grade you were in. (This was changed a few years later, I believe to allow boys to join once they finished fifth grade, if they were 10-and-a-half.) In fact, I am fairly sure that even today, if you are joining a troop chartered to the organization that has the most units in the country, you must be 11 regardless of what grade you are in or when you earn the Arrow of Light. Any LDS members may correct me if I am wrong on that, but I believe I am correct. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the other options that the BSA has provided for joining, but I am pleased with the new change they have made to provide an absolute floor of age 10. I might have gone a bit further than that if I were making the rules, but I understand why they haven't.

ScoutMomAng, not to quibble, but if the grade-level option is used, a boy could earn the Arrow of Light before reaching 10-and-a-half, and that is without skipping any grades or anything like that. I'll use the relevant dates in my school district as an example. The cutoff date for kindergarten is October 1, so say a boy's birthday is October 1, meaning he starts kindergarten almost a month before his fifth birthday. Let's also say, to make life easier on myself, that school ends June 30 the year he finishes fourth grade. He has completed fourth grade at the age of nine years, nine months. He can earn the Arrow of Light six months later, at which point he is ten years, three months old. In most school districts school does not run that late into June, or even into June at all, so now we are down to ten years two months and change, or even less than two months. Now figure a district with a cutoff of December 31 instead of October 1, and in fact the boy could earn the Arrow of Light before reaching age 10 (but not by much.) Where I am, as a practical matter, even the "youngest" of boys will be much closer to ten-and-a-half when joining a troop, because crossover occurs either in late February or in March. That is not to say a boy couldn't choose to cross over when he is eligible, rather than with his den, but I have never seen this happen. In fact, in my son's case, the March crossover meant that he was a few weeks shy of ELEVEN-and-a-half when he became a Boy Scout, since he was born in October and just missed the cutoff for school. (Which I personally think is a good thing for a child, so obviously the BSA did not have me in mind when it changed the rule earlier this year.) I do agree with the rest of your post, ScoutMomAng. There is plenty to do in Webelos for a boy who could otherwise join the Boy Scouts before age ten, but must now wait. In fact, Webelos is where the age-appropriate activities for that boy are to be found, not in the Boy Scouts.

I'll make it even easier. The Guide to Safe Scouting says: "Pointing any type of firearm (including paintball, dye, or lasers) at any individual is unauthorized." (The next sentence is a very narrow and carefully worded exception that only applies to a particular Venturing program under certain circumstances.) So, no, for a Boy Scout troop paintball is out. One other comment. You say you want to go paintball ing "So we can have more scouts stay in them andotdrop out." I have to wonder, have you really exhausted all of the program options that are permitted within the Boy Scouts? Including "high adventure" for the older boys? And including shooting sports, which I believe all-age Boy Scouts can participate in? (At proper locations and with proper supervision, of course. And that's with real live ammunition, not paintballs -- just at targets, not people.)

ScouterPaul, the information provided by your council is incomplete, and any interpretation of the new joining requirements that would permit all boys to join at age 10, is incorrect. The joining requirements for being a Boy Scout were changed (or "clarified") effective May 15, 2004 and now read as follows "Meet age requirements: Be a boy who has completed the fifth grade and be at least 10 years old, or be 11 years old, or have earned the Arrow of Light Award and be at least 10 years old, and be under 18 years old." Source: http://usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsrank1.html This is an unofficial site, but when they say something is taken verbatim from official BSA sources, I've never seen them be wrong. The BSA's official web site does not have a verbatim statement of the joining requirements, but I did find the following on the web site for the BSA Direct Service (which I suppose amounts to an official BSA web site): "The Boy Scouts of America's National Executive Board has amended the rules and regulations to clarify that no boy may join Boy Scouting until he reaches the age of 10. This does not lower the age requirements. The requirement previously said a boy must have completed the fifth grade or be age 11 or have earned the Arrow of Light Award to be a Boy Scout. The new requirement says he must have completed the fifth grade and be at least 10 years old or be age 11 or have earned the Arrow of Light Award and be at least 10 years old. This clarification will become effective May 15, 2004" http://www.directservicebsa.org/news.html The interpretation on the BSA Direct Service web site confirms what has been discussed in previous threads on this subject (I believe I started the first one about it.) That is, the purpose of the change/clarification is to provide an absolute minimum age (10) for boys who qualify to join a troop by either earning the Arrow of Light, or completing the fifth grade. This is the first time I have seen it suggested that the BSA meant to reduce the joining age to 10. Clearly that is the opposite of what they intended. They intended only to deal with the very rare case in which a boy younger than 10 would qualify for troop membership by earning the Arrow of Light or completing the fifth grade. I say "very rare" because, given the usual minimum age for starting kindergarten of age 5 (or almost 5), a boy will only be less than 10 years when completing fifth grade if he has started a year early, or skipped a grade, whether in "home school" or regular school. The same is true for a boy earning Arrow of Light (because the Arrow of Light requirements include having been active in the Webelos den for at least six months since completing fourth grade or turning 10.) I am pretty sure I have typed out all the mathematical calculations for this in the past, but I don't have time to do it again right now.

Nldscout says: If the scouts want to cross District, council or any other imagionary line that is their choice. Who are we to tell them no? We have boys in our troop from another district, one driving close to 30 miles because they like our program. One boy was in his local troop and was unhappy with it so asked if he could join us. One comes 30 miles and bypasses 3 or 4 troops that are in between. But Nld, I don't think anyone has said that if a boy who lives in another district shows up on your doorstep and wants to join, that you have to turn them away. (Someone may think it, but nobody has said it.) Hunt and I and several others have drawn the distinction between active recruiting efforts (aimed at a particular school, neighborhood, whatever) in another district, and the case-by-case situations that result in a boy or two (or several) from another district or council joining your troop at different times. This thread, originally, was about active recruiting efforts -- although I am fairly sure that we still don't know if the schools cajuncody was talking about are actually in another district, we have just been discussing this as if they are. Maybe a rationale for the distinction is this: The "recruiting" situation is a situation in which boys at a particular school do not have a Scouting program conveniently available to them. What Bob was saying, and Hunt and I and maybe others agreed, was that in that case, the preference is for a Scouting program to be made available to them in their district (presumably by starting a new unit, or I could see a situation where families are not aware that there actually are existing troops within a reasonable distance, even if not right at the school or in the same town.) However, the case-by-case situation will usually be one where there is a troop available, but the individual boy for whatever reason does not want to be a member of it. This may be a boy who wants to change troops and knows of your program, either because he has a relative in your troop (like the real-life example I gave) or some other way. Or it may be a boy who was a member of your troop but moved away, but does not want to change troops, which I remember happening when I was a Boy Scout. So it's not that an area is not being served, it's that an individual boy has a preference, and hopefully Scouting can accommodate that without regard to district or council lines.

Oops, now I see BadenP's later post. Beat me by 2 minutes. If I could edit my post, I would, but I can't.

This issue of who selects the SE has come up before in this forum and the consensus has always been as ProudEagle describes it: The council executive board selects the SE from among eligible candidates identified by the regional office. BadenP is the first person I have seen say the decision is made by regional. I have no doubt, however, that an SE can be REMOVED by national/regional for wrongdoing. Whether anything described in this thread constitutes such wrongdoing, I express no opinion on, except that if he knowingly allowed or directed Scouts (who by definition are under-age) to be assigned to serve alcoholic beverages (while in uniform??? the post does not say), that would seem to be pretty good cause for termination or at least some lesser but significant "consequence." That aspect of the story seems so bizarre I have to wonder whether there has been a miscommunication somewhere in how it is being reported. (Not to say anyone's not telling the truth.)

Hunt, when you say "no outings" over the summer, do you mean the troop does not go to summer camp? My son's troop also does not meet during the summer, and their only summer activity is one week of summer camp. Virtually every boy goes to summer camp, and for each of the past few years several of the older boys have done an additional week as provisionals (I guess you might call it semi-provisional since they are all together and two of our leaders go also.) I am fairly certain that the troop counts the two months during the summer as part of the four or six months for advancement, even though for the troop as a whole there is only one week of actual activity. I could see an issue being raised for a boy who does not go to summer camp, but I have not seen it come up. Otherwise, I don't think it's a problem. The boy is doing every activity that the troop is doing for those two months, even if it is one week of camping.

I just looked at the G2SS updates and, interestingly, they are dated yesterday. What I'd like to know is, how would I as a unit Scouter know there are updates, if I didn't see it in this forum? When I attended "Risk Zone" training, they confirmed basically what Bob has said, that the most up to date edition is the online version and that you should "check now and then" for new versions. But there has to be a better system than "check now and then" for letting people know these things, isn't there? Especially on something as important as safety? (Before anyone asks, "Risk Zone" is a course that I do not believe has gone nationwide yet. It is essentially an introduction to the Guide to Safe Scouting. When I attended it, they said the course had been created in our council and was being "looked at" by national. Other councils may have something similar under other names. The training is optional, except that our council's version of the Local Tour Permit requires that at least the leader of the outing have taken Risk Zone training, so they offer it fairly often, sometimes in conjunction with Youth Protection.)

ProudEagle, you are still ahead of my son's troop on the "program resources," they are still using "Woods Wisdom"...

I'm speechless. Gee, that was certainly helpful advice, Bob. Fortunately for Proud Eagle, someone else wasn't speechless, knew the answer (or found it), and pointed out to Proud Eagle what he had missed when reading it the first time.