NJCubScouter

Hey, that last post was pretty poetic, if I do say so myself. The first part, I mean. The last sentence is just a once-in-a-lifetime thing, just remember, you got to see it.

Despite the dire consequences it may have for the geological stability of the world around us, or for "climate control" in the fiery underworld beyond, I must say this:

I agree with Rooster.

BobWhite says:

NJ, you base an erroneous aasumption on an erroneous premise. You suggest that the BSA cannot or has not removed a member of a unit committee from membership. That is incorrect.

Well, I don't think I suggested that. What I actually said was: "They do not replace members of unit committees, they simply revoke (or decline to renew) the charter." As you acknowledge later in your post, "replace" means appointing someone, not just removing someone. So I did not "suggest" that national cannot or has not "removed" anyone. What I did suggest is that it is inconsistent with having a separate (but chartered) organization for national to directly appoint (not just approve the appointment of) a committee member. Apparently, you agree:

When I say that the BSA will replace them I should have said they would approve the membership of new members who would support the rules of the BSA. The new members would be selected by a nominating committee just as the original ones were, in accordance with council by-laws.

Ah, now I see. You made a mistake. When I say something that you believe is erroneous, you say it's erroneous, and a few times you have said that I lack knowledge and just make things up. But when you make an erroneous statement, it's "I should have said..." That's OK, Bob. We're all easier on our own errors than we are on the errors of others. We all make mistakes.

By the way it is not might makes right, it is the excercise of the constitutional rights of a private organization. Granted to the mighty and the weak as citizens of the U.S.A.

Just because you want to swim in your neighbors pool does not give you the right to do so.

This frames the issue as "we vs. them", or "inside vs. outside", or "BSA vs. non-BSA." That's not the issue as far as I am concerned. The BSA itself is divided on this issue, within itself. Some BSA members favor the policy (a majority on the national executive committee, for the time being), and some BSA members do not. I am one who does not.

It's not just some "private organization." It is an organization of which I happen to be a member. I care about it and want to help improve it. I do not care about the membership policies of, say, the Sons of the American Revolution or the Knights of Columbus or Veterans of Foreign Wars, all fine organizations but ones where I would not necessarily be admitted, and if I were I would not fit in, and would not want to impose myself. But the BSA is my organization and more importantly, my son's organization. I have a stake in it. I have the right to have my say, as long as I do not involve the boys in having my say, and I do not.

Or to put it another way: It is not my neighbor's pool. I have a membership card in the pool.

NOT much fun, I meant to type. NOT. I hate it when I do that. And that's a word that it's almost never a good idea to leave out of a sentence.

Aww, DS, you must be much fun at meetings.

Does anyone have any further information regarding the possible schism in the Episcopal/Anglican Church?

It is difficult to get a clear answer (I almost said a straight answer) on the Internet. It appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury has called a special worldwide meeting of "Primates" (not sure who those are, maybe the head archbishop in each country?) for October. I also heard on the radio at some point that the factions in the U.S. are basically sitting tight and not schism-ing anywhere pending that meeting.

Much simpler to do it the way of my religion, where every rabbi is like the head of his/her own little religion as long as the congregation decides to keep him/her employed. Of course there are major "movements" that almost all congregations belong to, but those can be created, merged, changed, whatever without a lot of fuss. Sort of reminds me of something Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Same principle.

By the way, I did find a site that explained the origin of the Life rank and why it is symbolized by a heart. See

http://www.sageventure.com/history/changes/index.htm

Originally Life was the first badge awarded after First Class and was awarded for earning five merit badges dealing with health and fitness (hence the heart and "Life"), namely: First Aid, Athletics, Life-saving, Personal Health, and Public Health. The Star badge was then earned for earning any five more merit badges. In 1927, in recognition of the fact that Star was easier to earn than Life, the order was switched. Or at least that was what this site says.

So it is another instance of Scouting facts lost to time. The name "Life" and the heart really have no specific relationship to the rank today. It is sort of like the original meaning of "Webelos," with the consonants spelling Wolf Bear Lion Scout. The Lion was retired about 2 years before I would have been a Lion. Now Webelos stands for We'll Be Loyal Scouts, but that was not the original (or at least not the sole original) meaning.

I love trivia like this. And I think that some trivia can have a place in the program if it is about something in the book and if it is kept in its proper place. I have been part of this sort of thing at the Cub Scout level. I remember at one pack meeting we had a "game show" asking teams from the different dens questions from the handbook at their level. In other words we might have asked a Tiger to say the Tiger Cub Motto, a Wolf to name the wolf in the handbook, a Bear to name the card that entitles Bear and Webelos scouts to carry a knife, and that sort of thing. But if the winners got anything, it was a plastic arrowhead or something like that. Not a rank advancement (if we haven't beaten that subject completely into the hereafter.)

Of course, at that meeting I would have been happier if the Cubmaster, who learned about a week earlier that whatever outside demonstration was planned had fallen through had called me ahead to time to ask me to write questions, and not hand me a bunch of handbooks as I walked in the door on meeting night and say here, you have 10 minutes to come up with questions... But I guess that was fun too, in its own harrowing way...

As it turns out, the BSA archivist was researching A question, but not THE question that Dsteele asked him.

"DS" -- If it were "Dan", then you would be the:

Dan of Steele!

Sorry.

Thanks for the info on the medals. I think I'll stick with the knot, I like the price better.

Scoutldr says:

Try again...the Green Cross is a registered trademark of the National Safety Council. The Safety MB is a white cross on a green background. Clear as mud, eh?

That may be, but the First Aid merit badge is a green cross on a red background. And the Webelos Readyman activity badge (introductory first aid) is just a green cross. And my "quip" about the colors was not just my own invention. At one point the American Red Cross DID care about the thread color, and probably still does.

The following web site

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scouting/rec.scouting.issues/section-9.html

says among other things the following. Sorry for the formatting but that's the way it is.

*The American Red Cross (which keeps other organizations and programs

from

using "Red Cross" and the emblematic red cross; the BSA was caught in

this

and

when the ARC threatened to sue the BSA over this, the BSA changed their

First

Aid Merit badge to a GREEN CROSS with a RED background. This is also

why

the

Safety Merit Badge has a WHITE CROSS (instead of "Green Cross for

Safety{tm}",

which is a registered trademark of the National Safety Council) with a

GREEN

background)

Of course, now that I read that, it does make you wonder how the BSA can use the green cross for First Aid. Maybe the fact that it is for "first aid" and not "safety" means it is outside the scope of the National Safety Council's trademark. That distinction seems a bit "thin" to me. Or perhaps the red background makes a difference.

Why these organizations would bother suing or threatening to sue the BSA over this is another issue. It is not like someone is going to get confused and fail to donate to the Red Cross because the BSA used the international symbol of first aid, a red cross, on a merit badge.

The way Benny has described it, after 6 months, the elected APL automatically becomes PL. So what they are really doing is electing the PL, just having him serve 6 months as APL first to learn the job. That makes some sense, but it also deprives the PL (and the patrol) of the benefits of having the PL choose his own assistant. The working-relationship issue has been mentioned, and also, learning to pick the right person for the right job is part of learning how to be a leader. The BSA gives a boy embarking on what is most likely his first elected leadership position an immediate opportunity to evaluate and select the right person for a job, in a situation that will cause only a minor amount of difficulty if he makes the wrong decision. Otherwise, the first opportunity the boy would get to appoint anyone to anything would be when (if) he is elected SPL. Then, the first people he ever appoints to anything will be ASPL, quartermaster, scribe, troop guide, etc. Sounds to me like giving him a "practice shot" in appointing an APL is a better idea.

As for the "bribery," that seems pretty simple. If it is proven, you need to have new elections. Whether the "bribers" are eligible in that election is an interesting question. Maybe they need to "sit out" one 6-month cycle to learn the consequences of their actions. At that point the troop should probably change to having the PL's elected directly anyway. That decision, I believe, belongs to the PLC. I am not sure about the decisions to re-do the election and who is eligible, whether those are made by the PLC, SM or troop committee.

MaineScouter says:

This thread has definately reached the end of its lifespan.

I would say so. I am not sure how many different ways people can say that the youthful victims of this troop leadership should find a different troop, unless the powers that be can be prevailed upon to provide for new leaders. At this point the elephants have knocked over the circus tent on their way out, and the clowns have come piling out of that little car. Unfortunately, a few of the clowns are wearing red shoulder loops.

I hope that the Archivist is able to find an answer and that Dan posts it.

I thought it was Dave.

Some sense of humor you have there, Bob.

I don't think the Cub Scout medals are awarded anymore. I think you just get a certificate. I am waiting for mine for the Cub Scouter Award.

Good point OGE. It sounds like there has been way too much "whisper down the lane" in this situation. It's time for someone to get the straight story.

Does that mean the Red Cross will finally let the First Aid Merit Badge show a red cross instead of that stupid green one?

BobWhite says:

Had the COL Council committee not agreed to follow the national guidelines the BSA would have have merely removed the membership of the Council committe and replaced them with volunteers who would continue to support the program.

First, I have to laugh at yet another statement about "supporting the program," as if the exclusion of gays has anything to do with the BSA "program." The Cradle of Liberty council seems to understand the "program" better than national, at least in this respect. Nevertheless, it is national that has the authority to interpret the Oath and Law, and since the lesson the BSA is apparently trying to teach the boys is "might makes right," it looks like they're succeeding.

All that aside, this is the first time I have ever heard that national has the authority to remove members of a council. A council is not merely a "division" of national. It is a separate corporation. In fact, this statement of yours bears that out:

The Council signs the same charter with the national office that the units do.

This would clearly give national the authority to revoke a charter. But how does national get the authority to replace members of a council committee? They do not replace members of unit committees, they simply revoke (or decline to renew) the charter.

I do understand that replacing council committee members would be a lot "cleaner." Revoking a council's charter and replacing it with a new council would be an administrative and financial nightmare and disruptive to the units. But we're talking principles here, right? Not administrative practicality. I don't see how you can grant an organization a charter and then go in and change their membership... unless the charter says you can, but if it is the "same" as the charter granted to units, that is not the case.

Craneace, although it means that I am coming perilously close to agreeing with Rooster about something, I also have to wonder how you know some of the facts you report. Most particularly, do you know with absolute certainty, not second-hand, that the Scoutmaster actually did receive a call from National (not just someone claiming to be from "national") saying the award was rescinded? I do not see how the answer to that could be yes unless you are the Scoutmaster.

Assuming the answer to that question is no, and also assuming that all the other facts you have related are correct, if I were the boy's parents, here is what I think I would do:

I would call the Scoutmaster and tell him that as far as I was concerned, the award has not been rescinded, and I would not consider it rescinded until I got a letter directly from National (not a phone call through the SM and not even a letter to the SM) saying it has been rescinded. I would hope that what National would actually do is allow a boy to give his side of the story before taking any action, but I will readily admit that I do not know that for certain, since I am not familiar with this aspect of BSA procedure. Logic would suggest that more than a phone call from someone claiming to be a victim, or a victim's relative, when there is no public record of an offense, would be necessary for this type of action.

Perhaps this should be another thread, I'm just concerned that it would get too confusing.

Rooster, I don't see how I am even "interpreting" the policy at all. The statement you quote deals only with adult leaders. The BSA web site has (or had) a different statement about how the BSA would deal with a youth member who states he is openly gay, and although I do not recall the details, I do recall that it does NOT involve an automatic termination. That being the case, it is you who are "interpreting" the policy to deal with a situation it does not deal with, that is, the revocation of an Eagle award. I think you are trying to expand what the policy really means, just like you did a few days ago when you supported the BSA cutting off religions that ordain gay clergy from being CO's. The policy is wrong enough to begin with, it does not need any expansion.

Rooster asks me:

Do you believe that there is a moral distinction between an avowed homosexual and a closet homosexual?

No, I don't. (Of course, I assume it is clear by now that I do not think that either is "immoral.") But I do know that the BSA policy deals only with avowed gays, not "closet" ones. I do understand that the BSA national executive committee (or at least the current majority of it) believes homosexuality is immoral, whether it is open or "closeted." The difference is that they have a membership policy dealing with the former and not with the latter. I do not see why a policy barring openly gay leaders would in any way require the retroactive revocation of an Eagle award earned before a Scout "came out." (By the way, do you know if Mr. Dale himself had discovered he was gay when he earned his Eagle? I don't know if the facts of the case go into that detail.)

Your slam at "liberal lawyers" does not bother me, I hear it all the time. In this case, it is you who are trying to give the policy a "spirit" it does not have, because anything that constitutes an attack on a gay person seems to win your approval.

I guess this would fall under the category of "Issues" as opposed to "Politics"... unless you count the fact that there is an option for Irish whiskey but none for Scotch.

Oops, now I read the other thread. I guess that answers my question to Craneace. (Though not my question to Dsteele.)

Craneace, are you just making an academic inquiry here? (Which would be fine, naturally.) Or are you aware of it happening to someone you know? Or that someone thinks it might happen? Or should happen? No names, of course.

Dsteele says:

It was not done even in the Dale Case although, arguably, it should have.

Well, I understand you have hedged your bets here by saying "arguably," but just out of curiosity, what would the "argument" have been? My recollection of the facts is that Mr. Dale earned his Eagle, turned 18, registered as an Assistant Scoutmaster with his troop, graduated high school, went to college, and there he "came out" -- in other words, became "openly gay -- all in that order. That being the case, he was not openly gay -- or in the words of the BSA, an "avowed homosexual" when he earned his Eagle. Even if he had been, it is not at all clear that that would be grounds to rescind an Eagle award. But since he was not, that isn't even an issue in his case.

What other reason could there be? That after earning Eagle, turning 18 and becoming an adult leader and then a former adult leader, he sued the BSA? That can't be what you mean, can it?

LOL, I guess my son should have answered, "Which Star rank, the one from 1911-1924 or the one from 1924 to the present?"

Good answer, or maybe your son should have said the five points stand for the five principal compass directions: North, south, east, west, and the fastest way out of this troop...

In most law schools, a typical kind of question to find on a final exam is called an "issue-spotting" question. It consists of a series of facts, often a completely ridiculous scenario with all kinds of wacky events happening on top of each other, and it is the student's job to write an essay applying the legal principles learned in the particular class to those facts -- first identifying ("spotting") the issues raised by the facts and the types of legal claims that could be pursued, and if the professor asks, what the likely resolution of those claims would be.

As I said, it's often a completely ridiculous scenario. A steals a car owned by B, drives it 5 miles and parks it, where C who is driving down the road swerves to avoid a dog and accidentally hits the car, and D, a police officer who arrived to investigate, is hit on the head by a brick dropped off an adjoining building by E... you get the idea. The actual questions are usually a lot zanier than that, but that's the best I could do on the spur of the moment.

That's what I feel like when reading what MaineScouter has written in these various posts. There are just so many things going on here that are either wrong, or officially acceptable but probably not a good idea, that it's tough to catch them all. (An example of the "not a good idea" category, in my opinion, would be the CC being the sister of the SM. I almost fell off my chair when I read that they are TWINS -- not that that makes a difference once you know they are brother-sister, but it just makes the whole thing that much crazier. I am half-expecting MaineScouter's next post to involve the circus going through town and an an elephant stepping on the troop trailer...)