NJCubScouter

EagleinKY says: The G2SS, probably one of the most legally scrutinized documents the BSA publishes, establishes the fact that a "leader" need not be a "registered leader". Where does it establish that? It may be implied, because otherwise portions of sentences (and the sentence in the Venture Leader Manual) are either in conflict with each other, or have no meaning. But I don't think it is made clear. What I find sort of humorous about this discussion is that we are in effect using age-old principles of statutory interpretation that I learned in law school, to try to interpret these BSA documents. Some of you are doing a good job of "statutory interpretation" without the benefit of having learned this in a formal setting. Among the principles I am talking about are: A specific rule takes precedence over a general rule; it is presumed that every word has a meaning (in other words, an interpretation should be avoided if it means there is "surplusage" or meaningless words); that if a word (such as "registered") is omitted, the omission has a meaning; and that if all else fails, you look to the intent and purpose of the rule-making body. In this case, the problem in my opinion is that none of these rules really solves the issue because some of them are in conflict with each other and you are still left arguing about what was intended. More importantly, I do not think this is how rules should be set up in a volunteer organization. I really don't think the BSA intended that volunteers, most of whom are not lawyers, be left to puzzle over meanings and discuss things in terms of legal principles of interpretation. Any leader (registered!) should be able to open up the G2SS, Venture Leader Manual and other manuals, and find a clear answer that has only one possible meaning, and is not contradicted in another book. I would say that if it is possible to interpret a rule in two or more different ways, it should be rewritten. And frankly I also think that if the person in command of BSA publications were to be shown this thread and the particular sentences in question, he/she would be more likely to say, "Oops, better fix that" than "No, well, you see, this could be interpreted to mean that, and..." At least, I hope so.

If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there. Everybody's got to be somewhere. It's always something.

Warning, thread hijack in progress... TrailPounder and OGE: I am not familiar enough with Venturing to express an opinion on what you have said, but I have a question for you: If female Venturers should be able to join OA, should they also be able to earn Eagle? And if not, why not? Maybe there is a difference between the two issues, but I do not know what it is. On a related note, how would female Venturers satisfy the requirement of having earned First Class before being eligible for OA? Would you allow them to earn all the ranks as Venturers? Or would you eliminate the requirement of being First Class before being eligible for OA? Would you substitute in some other eligibility requirement? (This is related to the Eagle issue because the same "First Class" impediment exists; in other words if a female Venturer could be OA-eligible without earning First Class, then why shouldn't she also be (say) Star-eligible and eventually Eagle-eligible without earning First Class?) I am not expressing my opinion, I am just asking for yours...

Here is a link to a "Mike Walton page" which is primarily about the way the flag patch is designed, but the fifth bullet point down (if I counted correctly) explains that some boys' religious beliefs will not permit them to wear the flag, and that is why it is not mandatory: http://www.mninter.net/~blkeagle/usflag.htm This discussion mentions "several religious organizations and faiths" that have this belief but does not say who they are. I am fairly certain that one of them is the Society of Friends (Quakers.) I know that Quakers also will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will they "swear oaths." (Which is one of the reasons that the "Scout Oath (or Promise)" is not just the "Scout Oath," and why when someone takes an oath of office or is sworn in as a witness, they are permitted to "affirm" rather than to "swear.") I know that there are other groups who share some or all of these beliefs, but I don't know who they are. I think I heard the Jehovah's Witnesses mentioned in this regard once, but I cannot swear (ha ha) to that. As to the reasons for these beliefs, I have an idea but I do not feel knowledgeable enough to try to explain it. I looked at www.quaker.org but there did not seem to be a quick and easy explanation on the front page. There may also be something on this site www.pym.org

Whifflepoof! (As opposed to wiffenpoof, which is different.) I was trying to remember what that thing was called. It was the log or board with nails stuck in to make marks on the ground, right? And now I remember noticing back in 72-73 or whenever that they had taken the stalking and whifflepoof out. I seem to recall a de-emphasis on map and compass as well... it was still in the book but it was stuck into one of the Skill Awards so you didn't have to learn it as early as under the old requirements... or maybe not at all. It's a little hazy from 30 years ago... I'm amazed I remember any of this at all!

I have never seen anything that says a Scout MUST wear a particular patch. I'd say a boy is not properly uniformed without a council patch, unit numeral, position patch (if any) and rank badge... I guess the World Crest is required now... the American flag comes with the shirt but may be removed for religious reasons... and that's it as far as I know. For other patches, the uniform and insignia guide says WHERE you must wear them, but I don't know that it says you MUST wear them. Plus, if the boy was admitted to membership in the OA but has decided not to be active, that should be the end of it in my opinion. If he IS active in the OA, I think someone could legitimately question why he isn't wearing the flap.

You are too funny, FOG. So if the knots are worth "slightly less than nothing" then YOU wear "a couple" of them... why, exactly? Because you like how nice the colors look on your shirt? Or is this just one of those things you say just to yank peoples' chains, and that you don't really mean? (Those are rhetorical questions, by the way. I already know the answer.)

And just to make clear, what I have said does NOT deal directly with the situation that started this thread. I think I said that early in the thread. If there is at least one male and one female Venturing youths present, there must be a male "leader" and a female "leader" present. In this case, the girl's dad is not enough. The issue is with what "leader" means.

Oh boy. Here is what the G2SS says: Coed overnight activities require male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA. And here is Bob's quote from the Venturing Leader Manual, page 333: Co-ed overnight activities require male and female adult leaders. Whether anybody likes it or not, and I suspect someone won't, it seems to me that there are only 3 possibilities here: 1. "Leader" as used in both passages means an adult leader registered with the BSA, in which case there is a contradiction in the language. Stated another way, the passage "one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA" is incorrect, because they BOTH must be registered members of the BSA. 2. "Leader" as used in both passages can mean someone who is NOT an adult leader registered with the BSA. In other words, "leader" is being used in the generic sense, as someone who is leading at a particular time, rather than a registered BSA leader. I can't buy this possibility, as it probably conflicts with every other use of the word "leader" in every other publication of the BSA. 3. The passage in the Venturing Leader Manual applies to Venturing, while the passage in G2SS applies to something else. But what else could it apply to? Where else besides Venturing are there "Coed overnight activities"? (I think it is clear that "coed" applies to youth, not adults; otherwise you could not have a non-leader mother attend a camping trip that is otherwise all-male, and you CAN do that; in fact, because all the youths are male, the non-leader mother could be the "second adult.") Therefore there are no "coed" outings in a Boy Scout troop, and as Neil explained, "family outings" in a troop or pack don't count because every child (BSA member or not) will have a parent along. So the "coed overnight activities" in the G2SS MUST apply to Venturing, and therefore you have one passage that says only one of the male-female adult team must be a registered leader, and two that imply otherwise because "leader" implies "registered." So the only logical answer is number 1: There is a conflict in the language. It needs to be fixed. As I said, I don't expect full agreement with that, but it seems clear to me.

The celery stalks at midnight.

Think they're angling for Superbowl Tickets? I think the president could probably get 2 tickets if he wanted, without going through one of the players. He probably wouldn't even have to pay. Makes me wonder, though, do presidents attend the Super Bowl? I can't recall, but then again I usually ignore all the hoop-de-do on tv as much as possible, like who is in the stands and how great the new commercials are, and what Britney Spears is (or isn't) wearing during the halftime show, and just pay attention to the actual game. I try, anyway. Seems like it would be tough to guarantee the safety of the president in a stadium, but I know they attend baseball games...

Well, my council has now joined those who are doing what some say cannot be done. Today I paid a visit to my council's web site and as the "lead story" was: "A Special Message To All: Executive Officers of Chartering Organizations Chartered Organization Representatives Committee Chairman Unit Leaders" It is a letter signed on behalf of the Council Executive Board and dated January 5, but I think it just hit the web site in the last couple days as I was on it over the weekend and didn't see this. The heart of the letter is below, and it is a direct cut and paste though I did put in italics parts that I thought were especially interesting: 1) As of September 30, 2004, all new Cubmasters, Scoutmasters, Crew Leaders, Ship and Post Advisors, must complete Essentials and Specific Training prior to assuming the position. All Scoutmasters should complete Outdoor Leader Skills Training prior to assuming the position. If scheduling prevents that, then they must attend the next available course. 2) As of September 30, 2004, all other new leaders; Den Leaders and Assistants, Webelos Den Leaders and Assistants, Assistant Scoutmasters, Assistant Cubmasters, Assistant Crew Leaders and Assistant Ship / Post Advisors must be trained within 3 months of being recruited for their position. 3) All new units must have a fully trained team of required leaders in place before they can receive their charter. 4) As of the next recharter period, 2005, the unit must have a fully trained team of required leaders in place. It also discusses "strategic goals" that have been adopted for the council training committee, which the above rules are intended to accomplish, the goals being these: 1) 95% of all Top Leaders will be fully trained by 2006. This includes: Cubmasters, Scoutmasters, Crew Leaders, Ship and Post Advisors. 2) 75% of all leaders, who are in contact with the youth, will be fully trained by 2006. This includes: Den Leaders and Assistants, Webelos Den Leaders and Assistants, Assistant Scoutmasters, Assistant Cubmasters, Assistant Crew Leaders and Assistant Ship / Post Advisors. 3) Beginning in 2006, every 5 years the Top Leaders will be required to attend a "Specific" update session to make their training current. The update will be determined by changes in B.S.A. policy or to the "Specific" Syllabus. Although there has been some disagreement in this thread about what councils can and cannot do, I think that everything in this letter is consistent with what DS has said. These new rules are clearly being imposed by the council. There is no mention of national at all, including in the parts I cut out. Now, I have no doubt that the training committee looked around to see what other councils were doing, just as when my school board is considering adopting a new policy, we see what other boards in the area are doing. Sometimes we "follow" and sometimes we go off on our own, and sometimes a combination of the two. That is what the councils are probably doing, so the similarity in some of the new rules is not really a "coincidence," but it also does not necessarily signal some controlling force behind it all. The more important point is that regardless of the origin of the rule, this is now the rule in my council. I think it will make for a better program overall. I do think they need to do one other thing, and that is to create a Troop Committee specific course that an individual can take, and add that position to the list. When I was becoming an MC I asked at council about training, and was told that the only thing available is Troop Committee Challenge which is done by a committee as a whole and not as individuals. I have suggested this to my CC and basically got a "We'll see." The result, for me, is that I am not "basic trained" in my position, and I don't like it, but at present there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to change it. (And as it happens, last night I attended a committee meeting, and I can tell you that we definitely need something to improve our meetings. I am going to raise this to the full committee next month.)

FOG says: Why should there be an award for doing what you are supposed to do in the first place? I guess the easy answer would be, don't ask me, ask the BSA. They created the award, I just earned it. But I think the reason why the BSA has a leader recognition program is obvious. It is just a little recognition for doing something, and doing it at a particular level of "quality", on a voluntary basis. Not everybody who serves in a position earns the award. (By the way when I say "voluntary" I realize there are personal "recognitions" for professionals as well, just as there are in many businesses and professions. You could just as easily ask, why should a company have an "employee of the month" award? It's just a little recognition.) I have a couple awards and I wear the knots but they really don't mean that much because all I did was my job. Well, when you say they don't mean "that much," that is what makes me wonder why you are even bothering to make this point. How much is "that much"? It means something, that's all it's supposed to mean. It means what it means. You could say that the Cub Scouter Award or the Den Leader Award do not "mean" as much as, say, the Silver Beaver, and if I were to have a need to compare the "service" of different Scouters, I would agree. But that's why the knots look different, so that everybody who knows one knot from another will be able to tell their significance. When someone sees me in my uniform, with my Arrow of Light knot and Cub Scouter Award knot and that's it, if I happen to be standing next to one of our assistant scoutmasters who never left Scouting between when he went to college and when he had a son in the program, and he has every knot from the Silver Beaver and the one you get for saving someone's life (he once saved his Scoutmaster from drowning), on "down" to what you call the ticket-punching awards, they are going to know he has "done more" in Scouting than I have. And he has, and he has the knots to show it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Eamonn, you seem to be suggesting that only the parents of current pack members really have an interest in the pack and its success. If that is what you are suggesting, I disagree. "Family and neighborhood oriented" does not mean that parents whose sons have graduated no longer have something to offer. This is especially true if they are experienced leaders who are willing to stay on as committee members in order to give "younger" leaders the benefit of their experience... or perhaps just to help run some even with which they have had some success. In fact, when I was a den leader and assistant cubmaster we welcomed any of these former den leaders or cubmasters to continue as committee members. Very few were interested. And I have to say that when my son went from pack to troop, I too decided that what little time I have to devote to Scouting (particularly as far as going to meetings at night), was going to be with the unit that my son is in at present. But for those who can be involved in both, what's wrong with that? And the Webelos-to-Scout transition process can only benefit from liaisons between units who are registered members of both. And besides all that, when you say "family oriented"... well over time the leaders in the pack become sort of an "extended family," or develop an attachment to the pack, or however you wish to say it. There's no reason to boot them out of the family just because their son is no longer a member.

My problem is that there are knots and medals for "ticket punching" like the "Cub Scouter Training Award"... By remarkable coincidence, last week I received my certificate and knot for the Cub Scouter Training Award. I don't think it's a question of whether this is more "significant" than any other award or whether there should be knots for other awards. The question is whether the BSA should recognize, in a "wearable" manner, past unit service of a particular duration and level of "accomplishment", accompanied by the training associated with the positions held. Why shouldn't it? You can belittle the award as "ticket punching," but what it means for me is that I did a bunch of different things for the boys in the pack, and I got trained so I would do the best job I could. I didn't do these things so I could wear a knot, but now I get to wear the knot as a sort of side-effect of what I did. Seems reasonable to me.

As of the last time I attended a district-level meeting where charters and adult applications were discussed, the "rule" in our council was said to be that new applications are required if an existing leader is becoming a unit leader (CM/SM), CC or CR, but not for other positions. The reason given was that this way, they would make sure that the right "official mailings" from the council/district would go to the right people. Almost nothing was said about the CO's other than to make sure you get the right signatures. When I went from being DL to Assistant Cubmaster I remember calling the registrar to see what she needed in writing, and was basically told, nothing, just make sure it is changed on the next re-charter. I know that when we had leaders "aging" from one den-level to the next, we just changed it on the charter, same with people going on or off the committee to/from another position. However, this was all before the "criminal background check" came into existence, which I believe was April 2003. Whether this has now caused our council to require new applications for all new position changes, I do not know. And by the way, half the time when we changed things on the charter, when we got the charter back we found that changes were transposed from one leader to another, or simply ignored. But that is another thread I guess...

SA says: I watched some of the pundits last night after the President's speech and even Pat Buchanan described the President as vulnerable. While I agree that Bush is "vulnerable" -- mainly if the economy is perceived as weak as of the late summer -- I find the word "even" amusing as applied to Pat Buchanan. Don't forget that Buchanan ran against GW Bush the last time and could potentially be a candidate this year (though he probably would have started already), so he has his own motivations for saying what he says. That's a pretty neat career he has somehow arranged for himself, running for president every (or almost every) 4 years and then going back to being a "pundit" between elections so he can comment on the people he ran against and try to "set up" the issues and potential candidates for when he decides to run the next time. But I agree that the Democrats, if they are to have any chance of defeating GW Bush, have to nominate someone who is at least perceived as being a "centrist." However, figuring out who in the current field is a "centrist" is more a matter of perspective than reality. Lieberman is certainly at least a "centrist" and many Democrats consider him to be conservative, which is one of the reasons he is unlikely to be nominated. Edwards seems to be trying to be a centrist and a "populist" at the same time. I don't think Kerry will be able to escape the "liberal" label. Clark probably is a centrist but I don't think he's getting the nomination either. If I had to guess right now it would be that the Iowa results suggest a natural ticket: Kerry for president and Edwards for vice president. It's going to take several rounds of primaries to get to that point, however; not like a few weeks ago when all the "pundits" had Dean sweeping to the nomination...

Although I suspect that not very many of the regular posters here had Congressman Gephardt on their short list of presidential candidates to vote for this year, I'd like to express my regrets (condolences did not seem like the right word) to Outdoor Thinker for the withdrawal of her chosen candidate (and employer.) I think we have a pretty nutty nominating system where someone's candidacy rises or falls on what a few thousand people in a relatively small state decide to do. I have always thought that people who live in states that actually have people in them should ignore what Iowa and New Hampshire do. (To anyone who does live in one of those states, I didn't mean it.)

Bob, I don't think there was anything wrong with "appealing to inner-city populations," it's just that they took it too far. For example, it was good that for the first time, the adults and Scouts pictured in the Scout Handbook relected a bit of diversity instead of being 100 percent white as in previous handbooks. Whether they needed to add first aid for rat bites to the section on dog bites is somewhat more questionable. (When my father is doing some reminiscing about Scouting Past he will mention the "rat bite handbook" and I know exactly what he is talking about.) I believe it is also at that time that, for example, they introduced things like "communications" in a more modern way. On one hand you could say they could have left all the old stuff in together with the new stuff; on the other hand they couldn't let the book be 2,000 pages so they had to make some decisions, and as I said, they went too far in taking out some of the old stuff. On the third hand, it wouldn't have taken up any extra pages to leave "Camping" as an Eagle-required MB. (That mistake was one of the things that was corrected at the end of the 70's but I was not around to see it.)

Do you make this stuff up? Nah. The truth is strange enough without making anything up.

Why are you waiting 2 weeks for elections? What I gleaned from his first thread is that these are all new Scouts and the oldest is 12. They may have never seen an SPL run a meeting before, so he wants to give them a couple of chances to see a meeting run properly before one of them actually has to do it himself. Also, while this was not specifically mentioned, apparently these boys are from 2 different packs and some of them may not know each other. Being together for a couple of meetings would give the boys some rational basis for voting for one of them as SPL.

The only current "practical" use of semaphore of which I am aware is if you were looking at the cover of the Beatles' "Help!" album (or CD) and wanted to know what they are signalling. (No, not the obvious answer, which would put 4 Beatles plus 4 letters in "Help" and come up with the wrong answer. Although I have never verified this myself, since I don't know semaphore anymore and probably didn't have the album while I did know it, supposedly the Beatles are signalling the letters "LPUS" ('elp us.)

Based on the facts you give, it sounds like the boy probably has passed the "position of responsibility" requirement. There is no specific standard for attendance. It sounds like he does attend troop meetings, and he attended half of the PLC meetings. "Scout spirit" is another story, but I am more curious about why this boy's regular pinning of younger boys to the floor is being treated simply as an "advancement issue." This is not acceptable behavior, and from what you say the SM has talked to the boy and his parents about it, and that's it. In a lot of troops this boy would have been suspended or even removed if he could not control his potentially harmful conduct.

Your post brings to mind a number of questions, some of which are relevant to the question you asked, and some of which are relevant to other questions: What position of responsibility has he held for the six months? (At one point you say "as his patrols leader", is he a patrol leader? Or is he something else?) Which requirement are you referring to? The one that says to be active in the troop and patrol for 6 months? The position of responsibility requirement? Or the Scout Spirit requirement? Or all 3. They are 3 separate requirements and based on the facts you have given it is POSSIBLE that he may satisfy 2 but not all 3. (I'm not making a definite statement though.) Does this boy attend troop meetings? And if he is a patrol leader, apart from his attendance at PLCs, does he provide leadership to the boys in his patrol at troop meetings? And/or on the one camping trip he did attend? Has an adult leader raised a question as to whether the Scout has satisfied one or more of the requirements listed above? Or is it just something that you are concerned about, for a fellow Scout? Don't take this the wrong way; and this is another way of stating the questions in the previous paragraph: Is the advancement of this other Scout something that you need to be concerned with? Is an adult leader aware that this Scout "tends to be physically rough with younger boys"? And, how rough are we talking about? Just to give a hint of what I think, the paragraph before this one is probably the most important thing about your post, and it has little or nothing to do with whether this boy has "acted in a position of leadership for 6 months."

TwoCubDad says: Of course that's not to suggest that presidential politics would ever be a factor in the War on Terrorism. There you go again. By the way, you refer to Andrew Johnson's "1868 re-relection effort." It had always been my impression that he didn't run in 1868, and after searching about this on the Internet, I am pretty close. He was pretty much a man without a party at that point, the Democrats distrusting him because he had run with Lincoln on a bipartisan ticket (temporarily named the "Unionist Party") in 1864. (The losing Democratic candidate in 1864 being New Jersey's own General George McClellan.) The closest thing I found to an answer was that he "did not actively campaign" for the Democratic nomination in 1868, though he did "figure in the balloting." However, I found a list of top 2 or 3 candidates on each of the many ballots at that convention, and John son was not on the list. At the time of the convention, he had just narrowly escaped removal in a Senate impeachment trial. I suppose it is possible, however, that for some period shortly after he took over for Lincoln, that he had some hope of being re-nominated, and that the pardons were part of that effort.