NJCubScouter

Actually, an 18-to-20-year-old (male or female) can hold any of the "assistant" positions in a Cub Scout pack: Assistant Cubmaster, Assistant Den Leader, Assistant Webelos Den Leader. (Someday I'd like someone to explain why, when they officially created the position of Tiger Cub Den Leader about 2 years ago, they did not create a corresponding "assistant" position. Maybe they thought that those working with the youngest Cubs should be 21 or over, but I don't see how that applies any more to a 6-year-old Tiger than a 7-year-old in a Wolf den.) As for a female Venturer under the age of 18, I do know that she cannot be a den chief. As the official den chief qualifications state: "Be an older, experienced Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or Venturer who has been a Boy Scout." Since a female Venturer cannot have been a Boy Scout, she cannot be a den chief. I am fairly sure that that result is intentional, even though it is produced by indirect wording. I am not familiar enough with Venturing to know whether there are other legitimate ways that a female Venturer could "work with" a Cub Scout pack. For example, if Venturers do "service projects," perhaps she could work with the Cubs as a service project. That would probably only be valid up to the age of 18, at that point she should be registered in one of the positions mentioned above. As an adult, working with boys, she needs to subscribe to the responsibilities of an adult leader and receive the appropriate training, starting with Youth Protection.

Well Bob, Mark does not want this thread to become a "platform for debate." On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with debate. I will just say this: The problem arises from the BSA policy itself. If it did not have the policy, or allowed local option, it would not be in a position to ban what would otherwise be a perfectly legitimate chartering organization. And you don't have to keep repeating the fact that the BSA has the right to have this policy. That is irrelevant. The policy itself is wrong. And your comments about the BSA "program" are irrelevant as well. The BSA program has nothing to do with excluding gay people. It does not promote the values of the BSA. As I have said before, if I really thought that the true values of the BSA required the exclusion of gays from all units, with no local option, I (and my son) would be gone in a minute. That will not happen, because I know that the current policy is a misinterpretation of the Scout Oath and Law, and that eventually that misinterpretation will be reversed. By the way, the church that is CO for my son's troop has a fairly new-looking sign out front that says "A Welcoming Church." My understanding is that that phrase has become a "code" for acceptance of gays. I haven't asked if that is the case, because in my "real life" as a father and troop committee member, I do not discuss this issue with anyone. But I wonder, after the BSA gets done with the UU's and the Wiccans and whoever else they don't like, is this church next? My son's troop has been at this church (a Presbyterian church) for at least 75 years. Are they next? And what about Reform Jewish congregations, are they next? They also are welcoming of gays, and some are led by openly gay rabbis. Will the BSA allow an organization to be a CO if their IH is openly gay? How far down this road is the current BSA leadership going to go, before they end up destroying the organization that I grew up with, and that I would like my son to grow up with? Why don't the people who want a discriminatory organization leave and form their own group, and leave me and those who represent Scouting's true values alone? If you dislike how I have turned around a statement that has often been directed at me, then there is only one answer: Local option. Then we can all be happy, or at least equally unhappy. Sorry, Mark... I just got going...

I tried to heavily edit that post because I realized you said "unbiased" and the UUA web site by definition could be no more unbiased than the BSA web site on the subject. But the editing function isn't working, at least for me.

Well, a web search on "unitarian universalist boy scouts" turned up a bunch of hits, but you might start here: http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/ It is the church's own position on the subject and looks like it has tons of links. I am sure somewhere down the search list, you would find a link to something that states the point of view of the BSA, or least one of its apologists on this subject.

Littlebillie says: Still, it does seem to be a first step, over-all, in the same direction as asking California judges to separate themselves from the BSA or else recuse themselves from certain cases. Did California actually do that? The last discussion I recall, they were considering it. Of course, I missed a couple of months worth of posts here in the late spring, so I could have missed that.

Fortunately I have not had to deal with anything like this. The parent-teacher organization that was CO for my son's Cub pack took no interest in our finances (or much of anything else for that matter, which isn't quite as bad as it sounds because the leadership of the CO and of the pack always overlapped to a degree anyway. And for a time, because the previous leadership of the pack had "missed" a year of fund-raising, the pack treasury consisted mainly of IOU's so there wasn't anything to take an interest in anyway.) On a brighter note, the church that is CO for my son's new troop appears to make an annual payment IN to the troop's bank account, rather than take any money out. (Of course, it is a 2-way street, as a result of a recent Eagle project the church's school gymnasium (where the troop meets) now has a fresh coat of paint, floor-to-high-ceiling, doors, window frames and everything.) Good luck with your issue. Maybe your DE can speak with your CO and suggest ways that other CO's have found to satisfy their auditors while letting the troop keep its own account. Your CO's auditors are presumably working under the same standards as the auditors for every other CO, so perhaps there is room for compromise.

This hits close to home for me. My son (a first-year Scout) returned from summer camp yesterday. He went to camp as a "non-swimmer," being able to do nothing more than dog-paddle. He returns, according to his Scoutmaster, being able to do something more than that, though I have not yet seen for myself what that is. I suspect that he means that my son is more confident, and that he has the ability to learn. To date, only his parents and other relatives and other relatives had tried to teach him, so it is clear that he can benefit from swimming lessons, and we are about to sign him up for a 6-week (Sundays) program through the local recreation department. He really has no physical reason not to be able to swim. Another reason I think he will learn is that he now has an incentive he did not have before. He is very enthusiastic about Scouting, is now one requirement away from Tenderfoot, and passed scattered requirements for Second and First Class at camp, plus three of the "easier" merit badges (Leatherwork, Textiles, Fingerprinting) and a partial on First Aid. I think he is on track to be First Class when he goes to summer camp next year, and in good position to keep moving after that. But of course, he isn't going anywhere without really learning to swim. So we'll see.

Twocubdad says: I'm bothered by the fact that they are disallowing our participation in a state program based on a policy which should be a private matter among the members of our organization. But, doesn't it stop being a "private matter" at the point where an organization asks for the state's assistance in raising funds? After thinking about it for a few days, I agree with the Second Circuit Court's distinction between the situation in the Dale case and the Connecticut situation. Both Connecticut and New Jersey have decided that as a matter of public policies, discrimination against gays is wrong. However, New Jersey implemented that policy in a statute that tried to prohibit the BSA from enforcing its membership policies, and the U.S. Supreme Court said no, that is an interference with the rights of the BSA and its members to associate around an expressed belief. Connecticut, on the other hand, said that only organizations that comply with our public policy against discrimination will receive this particular BENEFIT, that is, participation in a program that makes it easier to raise funds from public employees. And the Second Circuit said, in effect, that when you ask the government for a benefit, the government has the right to impose certain reasonable restrictions on those who qualify for the benefit. Connecticut did not try to send anyone to jail or fine anyone, for banning gays. Instead, acting in the capacity of an employer, they said that if you don't comply with our public policy, we won't help you. What's wrong with that?

I am now suffering whiplash from being suddenly yanked back at least 27 years into the past, to the last time I heard that song (at Scout camp.) It was like a suppressed memory suddenly coming back. It would probably take years of hypnosis for me to remember any of the verses. It's sort of like when I attended my first Cub leader pow-wow a couple of years ago and they handed out the words to Scout Vespers so we could sing it at the end. Suddenly it hit me that although I had not heard the song for (at that point) about 25 years, or even heard it mentioned, I still knew it, and didn't even need the "lyrics." Not so for "Topnotcher," unfortunately.

That link did not work. I looked around and found the same document at https://www.perscom.army.mil/tagd/tioh/ROTC%20Misc%20NGB%20page/Silver%20and%20Gold%20Insignia.htm It is interesting and explains among other things that while in ranks, silver outranks gold, in most military awards, gold is highest followed by silver and bronze. So why is it that I have heard of the Bronze Star and the Silver Star but not the Gold Star?

This thread is going to send my anxiety level through the roof, by no fault of the other posters. My son is at Boy Scout camp this week for the first time, this is his first camping trip without me, and he is one of only two first-year Scouts in the troop. He was given the means to call us if he needed to, and there have been no calls, so I suspect that when I pick him up tomorrow morning I will find that everything was fine, or at least reasonably ok. (His mother and I are not completely fine, we have missed him a lot, she was crying the other night. We are not really worried about any physical danger, I know he is in good hands with the adult leaders who are there. For me, it is more that I just want to know that he is having a good time, doing advancements, learning to swim (that could be a whole other thread), and that he will want to continue in Scouting.) Which is where hazing comes in. That is one thing that I know would drive my son out of Scouting. Or more to the point, if my son had to experience the kind of "initiation" that I did when I was a Scout (in 2 different troops), I am sure he would be out. He has no real tolerance even for teasing, which he has to work on, but the kinds of physical near-abuse and invasions of privacy that hopefully are a thing of the past, would be intolerable to him. That would be the breaking point. That's just one of my worries, that when I pick him up tomorrow, to learn that he has had some experience like that, that ruined the whole thing. Am I worrying too much? Yeah. But hey, it's my first time from this side of the parental equation. I'm sure we're more "homesick" for him than he is for us.

Right Acco, I had always heard that the "silver over gold" comes from the military, though I had not heard the part about the the origins of the military practice. I would only add that this "symbolism" is not limited to Eagle palms but is standard in Scouting. A Wolf or Bear Cub Scout first earns a gold arrow point, then when more electives have been completed, a silver arrow point(s). I believe that the patches for Senior Patrol Leader and Assistant Senior Patrol Leader still have some use of silver and gold, respectively, though not quite as colorfully as when I was in these positions in the mid-70s. (I recently looked at my old patches and noticed this again, the SPL patch had a silver border, silver lettering and silver bars, while the ASPL patch had all these things in gold. I believe the same was true for PL and APL, and I assume SM and ASM. I think the different color borders are still in use in Cub Scouting, the Cubmaster patch has a silver border while the Assistant Cubmaster Patch does not (I believe it is gold.) I also believe that Venturing has awards of the same name and order as the Eagle palms. (Interestingly, Girl Scouts do go in the same order as the Olympics, their highest award being the Gold Award.)

OK Bob, I see what you are saying. Obviously the BSA needs to clarify this so that all of the books and all of the training match each other, and everybody can know what is expected. Now, if the issue is whether the rules and YP training for leaders and MB counselors should be the same, let me give you two headlines: "Scoutmaster pleads guilty to molesting boy, age 11" or "Merit badge counselor pleads guilty to molesting boy, age 11" Do you think the public is going to regard the BSA any worse based on the first headline than the second? I don't. I think the BSA wants to avoid either of these results, equally. (And not just the headlines, of course, they would like to avoid the incidents themselves.) Now, the legal implications might be different (which means the BSA would be liability-free in both cases even though the training is different.) But why take the chance? It doesn't make sense to me. But let's go back to what this thread was really about, which was who may or may not occupy a motor vehicle on the way to camp. Do you agree that even if a Scout (unrelated to an adult in the car) is in the car, it is NOT necessary to have 2 adults in the car, as long as there are at least 2 Scouts in the car? Do you agree that an 18-year-old, still on the charter as a youth and not yet registered as an adult, would still be treated the same as an adult leader for purposes of the YP guidelines? (Well, based on your last post on that subject, you do not agree, so why not? If he's not an adult and he's not a youth, I don't see what he is even doing there. Having said that, if I recall correctly, I never did fill out an adult application when I was serving as an 18-year-old ASM, but the YP issue did not exist then, because the guidelines did not exist (1976.)

Bob says: The BSA recommends to the MBC to have a buddy or make sure the scout has a buddy for the same reason. I don't think "recommends" is correct. I copied this from an online version of the Merit Badge counselor application: As a merit badge counselor, I agree to: Follow the requirements of the merit badge, making no deletions or additions, ensuring that the advancement standards are fair and uniform for all scouts. Have a Scout and his buddy present at all instructional sessions. Renew my registration annually if I plan to continue as a merit badge counselor. That looks mandatory to me. Also look at: http://www.usscouts.org/boyscouts/MBCounseling.html It says among other things that the Scout "must always be accompanied by a buddy." That sounds mandatory to me. I do realize that the latter document may not be an official BSA document, but it looks like it is based on official documents, and usscouts.org is a very reputable source as far as I am aware. What I do find curious is this document's explanation of the reason for requiring the buddy system. It basically says that the merit badge work is more enjoyable when the Scouts work together. If (as I suspect) the real reason is Youth Protection, why don't they just say so? Normally the BSA is not shy about giving the exact reason for YP rules. The YP guidelines clearly explain that it is not just a numbers game, but that there is a reason for the numbers and combinations of people who are supposed to be present, and what that reason is. Assuming that the buddy rule for MB counselors is there for YP purposes, I think they do the counselor a disservice by not clearly saying so. NJ-no-longer-a-Cub Scouter (just a Scouter now, and also a certified YP training facilitator, though I have not yet facilitated.)

Well, now this raises another issue. It is my understanding that you do NOT need to have 2 adults in the car. What you need is to not have a 1-on-1 situation (unless the Scout in the car with you is your own son.) Meaning, one adult can drive two or more Scouts. Otherwise, my son's new troop would have multiple YP violations on every trip. No car has more than one adult. In fact, on the one camping trip I have driven to so far (other than summer camp where it was just my son in the car), my son decided (to my annoyance) that he wanted to ride with another boy in his father's car, leaving me to drive 3 other boys, none of whom were my son. That's OK, isn't it? There was never any 1-on-1 in any car. Now, Bob, the situation of the 18-year-old who has not yet been registered as an ASM is one that I have seen discussed here and elsewhere. I have seen conflicting answers. Your answer makes sense up to a point: He is no longer a youth member and he is not an adult leader. But, then what is he doing on a Scouting function at all? He is still on the charter as a youth, but he is not a youth, he is an adult. Is he even a member of the troop at that point? Or is he there just as a "friend" of others on the trip? I thought that was a no-no for insurance purposes; an unregistered parent on a trip would be ok, but not an unregistered friend. Right? However, that would NOT be my answer. My answer would be that he IS a member of the troop, but since he is no longer eligible to be a youth member, he has to be considered an adult, even though he is not yet registered as an adult. At the very least, he would be considered an adult for YP purposes. I have seen this issue discussed so many times, I have to think that the BSA has published an official answer somewhere, but I have never seen it.

I finally got to read this opinion. I would like to post a link to it, but as I said yesterday, there is something wrong on that web site. I could not read the readable version online, I had to save it to my computer and then read it. Maybe the error message was just due to something out of whack on my computer, I don't know. The opinion itself is barely more illuminating, and I would say that the non-lawyers among us may not even want to bother trying to read it. If you want to try, try this: Go to: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov Click on "Decisions" at left, then choose "Last 7 days" (but do it soon! I think the opinion is dated 7/10). In the list of cases, look for the one with docket number 02-9000. On the right will be a thing that says Native PDF document or something like that. This is where I went wrong, because whenever I clicked on that, it gave me an error message. The answer is to RIGHT click on it, choose "Save Target" and then decide where on your hard drive you want it to go, then save it and read it from your own hard drive. More trouble than it's worth. I can't believe I even just typed all that. Call it a public service to my fellow Scouters. Trying to describe the court's reasoning would be beyond the amount of time I have today. The shortest explanation would be that the court "distinguished" the Dale case on the basis that Connecticut was not trying to punish the BSA for its conduct, as New Jersey did by applying the Law Against Discrimination to prohibit the BSA's anti-gay policy. That's not a really good explanation, and there is a lot more to it. My bottom-line opinion is that if this case reached the Supreme Court, in all likelihood the same five justices who joined in the Dale majority opinion would probably strike down the Connecticut rule regarding its employee contribution program, as infringing on the BSA's right of expressive association. But I could be wrong.

Can anyone confirm or deny what I mentioned earlier, that regardless of who can drive what and where, that for an 18-year-old "Scout" (he is really an adult leader even if not yet so stated on the charter) to drive in a car alone with a Scout is a violation of YP? That is how it seems to me. It is one on one contact between an adult and an unrelated youth for an extended period of time. And that's no good, regardless of how many days or years the driver has been an adult. Right? I do not specifically remember what if anything was said about drivers and passengers during my YP training.

Well, I managed to find the opinion online, but the Second Circuit web site is not working properly, so the only thing I could download or print was an unformatted mess that I can neither read without getting a headache, or cut-and-paste from to this forum. I will have to try again later. From what I was able to read before needing to take some Tylenol, the court did indeed focus on whether the facts of the case fall within the boundaries of the government action prohibited by the Dale decision, and concluded that it does not. But I gave up reading before I got to how the court reached that conclusion. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court decides to review this decision. (Assuming that the BSA decides to file a petition with the Supreme Court.) The odds against any given decision of a court of appeals being selected for review by the Supreme Court are literally in the thousands to 1.

Hmmmm. While my opinions on the "same old issue" are well known (at least to those who have been in this forum more than about 4 or 5 months, before I suddenly disappeared), I do not see how this decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dale case. Based on this article, it seems to me that the arguments made by the State of Connecticut are essentially the same arguments made by the State of New Jersey, which were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. I will try to find a copy of the actual court decision online tomorrow and see if it changes my mind. In all likelihood the court discussed the Dale case and attempted to "distinguish" it, or explain why it does not apply to the facts of this case.

mk asks: He reregistered during rechartering in January as a youth, then turned 18. What does that make him now? It makes him an adult, regardless of his registration status. I do not think he can be alone in a car with a Scout, and I don't think the permission slip helps. If something were to happen, I don't think it would be worth the paper it's printed on. This is one of those situations where the rules collide with common sense. You know full well nothing is going to happen, these boys ride together outside Scouting and have spent much time alone within Scouting. Also consider that, assuming the younger boy is of Venturing age, if these 2 were in a Venture crew, all would be well because the older boy would still be considered a youth until his 21st birthday. What sense does that make? But that does not change what the rules are. I do not think they can ride alone together to a Scouting function.

I remember that, and thinking, "Raiment? What's raiment?" We figured it out soon enough. And my one and only trek there also was during the Nixon Administration. I believe he resigned within a week-10 days after our return.

Acco, I have seen references to Hindu clerics as "priests." Or is that just an English-ism? (As is the word Hindu and its variants, I believe. I read somewhere that that word is not an English translation of what they call themselves, it is just what we call them.)

Well, I'll be relatively close to you on Sunday: About a half-hour to the north, in Bucks County, PA, dropping my son off at Camp Ockanickon for his first-ever week of Scout camp. (Actually his first camping experience without me. We all have our fingers crossed, but others have lived through it, so he will too.) I have read the literature for this camp and the difference between Scout camps now and when I was a Scout in the late 60s/early 70s is truly amazing. They have Atomic Energy merit bade at camp, for crying out loud. They have a whole science center. However, my son is still working on Tenderfoot, so it has been made clear to him that he will be spending his time working on the T/2nd/1st class requirements, with 1 or 2 of the "easier" merit badges (basketry, leatherwork, etc.) thrown in. Anyway, I'm noticing that in the 4 or 5 months since I last posted in this forum, my account name has become inaccurate. But if I make a new account (NJScouter?) I'll go back to being a "New Forum Member." What to do, what to do... Anyway, welcome to the greater Mid-Atlantic metropolitan area.

dsteele, are you saying that if an adult and a youth (not the driver's son) are the only people in a car coming back from a trip, after other youth have been dropped off, that it makes a difference whether the boy is in the front or back seat? It seems to me that it is a violation of YP either way. It probably happens fairly often anyway.

Our pack's CO is the parent-teacher organization for the school where the pack meets. Every year, someone from the pack puts the charter paperwork under the nose of one of the co-presidents of the PTO (one or both of whom often are parents of boys in the pack), and it gets signed without question. That's about it. The PTO obviously does not own a place to meet; they and the pack are both considered "school connected organizations" and have the ability to use the school for free, during the week and for a certain number of hours on Saturday before custodial overtime would kick in. The only time that the relative positions of the PTO and the pack come into play at all is when there is a scheduling conflict for use of the school cafeteria. When that happens, it is understood by all that they win, though there are probably only a few who understand why. In fact, on 1 or 2 occasions the PTO has simply crossed us off the reservation list, and then told us about it. But when we asked the principal for permission to store our pinewood derby track in the school, rather than shuffling it back and forth between peoples' garages, and having to move it every time the store-er's son graduates from the pack, the principal said yes. So, although the relationship between the pack and the CO is not exactly what the BSA has in mind, it is a mutually beneficial relationship and nobody really has a problem with it. The PTO leaders have enough to worry about, and in fact the only way they even realize they have a connection with the pack is when we tell them. I am not sure how this is possible. The person listed as the IH must get Scout-related mail, and one would think they know why they are getting it. Nevertheless, this year when I was signing up Tigers, two of the parents were the two co-presidents of the PTO. In speaking with them, it was clear that they knew nothing of the fact that the PTO was our CO, or what that meant. I told them we would be bringing some papers for them to sign in the spring, and they said fine. It is sort of ironic, they are "just" Tiger parents and yet one of their names is at the top of our charter. As I said, I know this is not how it is supposed to work. But I honestly don't see how the pack would be any better off if the PTO took a more active role, and they don't really want a more active role anyway. They get their funds the same way we do, dues and fund-raising, and they have many demands on their funds, so it is not like they have any financial assistance to provide. And, in the past two years we have managed to get our own finances and fund-raising in order, so we don't really need their help.