NJCubScouter

::Putting on moderator hat combat helmet:: This discussion of who (if anyone) is "dishonest" is over. Now. The discussion of who or what is a "terrorist" or "terrorist organization," at least in the context of people and groups who have not been convicted of such an offense, is also over. Also Now. Thank you all for your cooperation. @RememberSchiff @LeCastor

I see. "Keep an eye on things" but don't directly supervise. So... what? INdirectly supervise? And what would that look like, exactly? Those are rhetorical questions, and I am mostly joking around at this point. Laughing at yet another example of BSA-speak.

The point is, an Eagle project has not been considered a "unit activity" for very long. I recall some lengthy knock-down-drag-out debates in this forum, say 10-15 years ago, over the relationship between the troop and the Eagle project. Things have changed in the area of leadership/YP, and fairly recently. It has probably been about 10 years since the BSA decided that the YP guidelines applied to merit badge counseling. Before about 15 years ago, there were no nationally mandated criminal background checks, and you didn't have to give National your Social Security Number. On this business of an Eagle project being a "unit activity," the change was made so recently and/or quietly that I didn't know about it, and I am a troop Advancement Chairman, so I should have known about it. Which still leaves the fact that (as far as I know), nowhere in the Eagle project requirement does it say that the Scout must involve his troop, or any of its members or leaders, in his Eagle project (other than the SM's and committee's signatures in the workbook.) In the vast majority of projects that is not an issue, but I strongly suspect it has been an issue occasionally. In those cases, I am not exactly sure how it becomes a "unit activity."

Nine years in this forum and you're just figuring that out now? But seriously, I took it the same way TAHAWK apparently meant it - just another opportunity to poke a little fun at National for something that doesn't really have that much significance.

That's a relief, because I definitely don't remember typing that. Nor doing any of that.

I understand that, but that's what they should have done, and put it in the "responsibilites" section. To talk about maintaining confidentiality as an "ability" is silly.

Maybe also whoever(s) in the current White House decided it was ok for people who can't get permanent security clearances to see tip-top secret documents.

I do not think it is typical for the COR to attend meetings on a regular basis (or at all, probably with an exception for ceremonial occasions), unless of course the COR is also a member of the committee. (In which case they would attend committee meetings, not necessarily troop meetings.) In my experience about half of the COR's also choose to be on the committee. I think the BSA rule of one-COR-per-CO is reasonable. It makes sense to have one person be the official liaison between the CO and all of the CO's Scouting units. Unless there is some unusual situation, the time involved is really not all that substantial. (Unless the COR is also on one or more of the unit committees, which of course is voluntary.) Most of the items are "help" or "assist" with things that are someone else's day-to-day responsibility.

One of our Eagle Scouts did that as his project, about 10 years ago. And he did have us install one of the versions of Linux. (I say "us" because I was one of the "others", as in, give leadership to others in carrying out the project. He typed up a list of instructions for those of us (mostly older Scouts and a couple of adults) who were installing the operating system and some software.)

I don't know why they even bother saying that. How do you know whether an applicant has that "ability," and what's really more to the point, whether they will exercise that "ability" and keep confidential information confidential? The only way to really know for certain is after the person has leaked or misused confidential information.

The article quotes a statement by "the Boy Scouts" (it's unclear whether that is National or a council) but I wonder if that's the entire statement. I wish they were more specific about what portions of the bill they oppose and why - or if they did put that in the statement, I wish the newspaper had printed the entire statement. I think there are other things in the article beside the headline that make the BSA look bad, like: It's not really good journalism to quote one person's negative opinion as if it is a fact. On the other hand, he could be right. There's not enough in the article for readers to decide for themselves.

Well, how about that. Yet another change snuck in by National without adequately informing we who toil in the fields. Not only was I wrong, but the three people who green-arrowed my post were wrong as well. I always thought that the Eagle candidate was supposed to be in charge of his (or her) own project. I guess not. I agree with the idea that projects should follow YP guidelines, but beyond that it kinds of takes away from the idea that the Scout is in charge of the project.

Is this for real? It almost seems like a parody of a corporate job description. And to follow up on one of Eagle94-A1's points, not only is Scouting experience not required, Scouting is not even mentioned in the overview, primary responsibilities or qualifications/experience. Except for the one mention of the BSA under compensation, and the email address, this could be a posting for a job in any large organization. And by the way, does the BSA really refer to their departments as "business units"? Maybe they do, but it seems a little odd for a non-profit organization.

Ok well you got me on that one, but I think the problem is more severe when you get down below second grade.

No apology necessary. We can't all be as old as I am. Patriots Path Council was created in 2000 by the merger of the Watchung Area Council (most of Somerset and Union Counties and a small piece of Middlesex County) and the Morris-Sussex Area Council (speaks for itself.) When the Central New Jersey Council collapsed a few years ago, most of northern Middlesex County and the rest of Somerset County was absorbed by our council.

There are actually 7 councils that serve New Jersey, two of which are based in Pennsylvania but serve part of NJ. The ones entirely in NJ are Patriots Path, Northern New Jersey, Monmouth County, Jersey Shore and Garden State (far-Southern NJ). Washington's Crossing Council was the Bucks County Council and was entirely in Pa. until it picked up some areas in NJ that were orphaned by the collapse of the Central Jersey Council. Minsi Trails Council (home of the late great Old Grey Eagle) is mainly in Pa. but includes Warren County NJ. When I was a Boy Scout there were probably 20 councils in NJ, but alas.

Too young. Kindergarten is just too young. When I was a Cub Scouter I thought half the Tigers weren't ready, and this is a year earlier than that. And yes I know the Girl Scouts has Daisies, one of my daughters was a Daisy, but that was probably too young too, and from my observation 5-year-old girls are, on average, better at sitting still and paying attention and following instructions than 5-year-old boys. And actually some of these boys will be 4 when they join, depending on the school district's cutoff age. In my school district a boy who joins Lions at the beginning of September and turns 5 on Sept. 30 (cutoff is Oct. 1) will be a 4-year-old Lion for the almost a whole month. Four years old! I know, I know, grumpy old man, etc.

Glad to hear it worked out. Not to be too picky here in the happy aftermath of the project approval, but an Eagle project is not a troop function. It is a function of the Eagle candidate, within the parameters of the approval given by the project beneficiary, and with the assistance of "others" - all of whom, some of whom or none of whom may be Scouts and/or Scouters in the troop. Potentially the candidate could be the only member of the troop who works on the project (although I have never seen this happen.) Of course, there should be coordination between the candidate and the troop, because most times the candidate will be relying on members of the troop to be his "workers," and the workers can't work if they are instead on a camping trip somewhere. But this kind of coordination and cooperation does not make the project a troop function; it is same kind of coordination and cooperation that leads us not to schedule a fundraising activity that would directly compete with a fundraiser of our CO - or any other community group, if we can avoid it. It's just good citizenship.

Brian, are you talking about the Cub Scout summer day camp at Watchung Reservation? (Or at least that's where it was when my son went, but that was 15+ years ago.)

THE CHARTERED ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE GUIDEBOOK, https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/511-421(16)_WEB.pdf, 2015 printing, page 13. Although the printing date is 2015, it is still on the BSA’s official web site. So if we assume that the BSA does not keep publications on their web site with outdated information (more of a hope than an assumption, actually), the one-COR-per-CO rule is still in effect.

Except that in American English he probably wouldn't include the "then."

Them too.

The level of speculation in this thread is astonishing. Now we are up to, what happens if the admission of girls (which has just barely started, and in only one of the two programs in which it will occur) does not work and the BSA tries to change back, what will happen then and what if someone sues? Perhaps we should next consider if, after all of this happens, a huge asteroid collides with the Earth and destroys all life on our little planet. What will the BSA's policy be then? I mean, if you're going to speculate, you may as well speculate.

And yet I have seen documents speaking of "Family Scouting dens" by which they mean girl dens. That doesn't make any sense to me. It is yet another example of the BSA throwing around the phrase "Family Scouting" to mean different things - and none of them really correct, because they are only adding girls. "Family Scouting" would mean, at least, adding parents and girls - and they do not seem to be increasing the role of parents in the program. They are opening membership in certain programs to girls. That is what they should say.

He did, but that’s not what I think of.