NJCubScouter

Ok, that makes sense. My son crossed over in 2003 and I did not recall any of the Tigers wearing the blue shirt or a neckerchief while he was in the pack. You say that started sometime between 2002 and 2009, I am going to guess that it was 2003 (after May) at the earliest. Since my son and I attended some crossovers after that, and I do remember seeing Tigers wearing the blue shirt, I am going to guess somewhere in the 2005-2007 range. I have not seen it. Thanks for the update. I am a little surprised because I would have thought there would have been a more noticeable announcement that Lions was becoming an official nationwide program and that it would have found its way into this forum.

The tradition of turning new Cub Scouts upside down must have skipped over the packs I have been involved with, and perhaps my entire area. I never even heard of it before I read (on the Internet) about it being banned. So I wouldn't miss it even if I thought it was a good idea. Which I don't. It sounds like there is a more-than-negligible possibility of injury not to mention the interpersonal difficulties resulting from the few kids who don't want to do it. And it does not advance any aim or method of Cub Scouting that I can see, with the possible exception of "fun" - and I'm not sure whether that is an official method. It doesn't even sound like that much fun. In our troop, at Courts of Honor the Scout who has earned a new rank pins the mother's pin on his mother upside down, and then it is to be turned right-side up when the Scout does a good deed. That is enough upside-down for me. In the other thread (I think) Barry said that not all "touching" by a leader is bad, specifically mentioning the "arm on the shoulder" to help a Scout get through a difficult situation. I agree with that, especially since the SM and Scout are going to be within line-of-sight of other Scouts/Scouters in accordance with YP rules. I'll bet that @WisconsinMomma would also agree with that. I think she was really concerned about "manhandling," which is moot if it was the parents who were holding the Bobcat upside down. I think the holding-upside-down was a tradition worth abandoning even if it was the parent doing the holding.

Well, but I think they DO employ a certain degree of logic where money is concerned. Why would they want to introduce new clothing sizes, new neckerchiefs, probably a new hat, etc. and then be able to sell it to only a minority of the possible buyers? (That does assume they are making a profit on all the items, which I think they are.)

I don't want to throw this thread off-topic, but isn't Lions still a pilot program? It seems kind of odd to me that they are throwing the uniform "regime" topsy-turvy over a pilot program. Even just from a financial perspective, if they are going to have the Lions wear a full uniform with neckerchief, wouldn't it make sense to have the program be nationwide, instead of just being in some councils? And given the length of the pilot, you would think they would know by now whether it works or not.

Well, my son was a Tiger in the 98-99 school year, and he wore the orange t-shirt with the paw prints for achievements. Also there was no Tiger handbook, just a packet of materials, which changed either the following year or sometime after that. When I read your descriptions above, I am a little confused. When are you saying the Tigers started wearing the blue uniform shirt? My recollection is that at least the couple of dens after my son's were still wearing the orange t-shirts, but I could be wrong about that.

Do Lions wear the blue uniform shirt, or do they wear a t-shirt like the Tigers did when they started? (When my son was a Tiger, and I believe all through his time as a Cub Scout, the Tigers wore an orange t-shirt with no neckerchief.)

Very punny. But if we are going to accept the premise of the pun, I am actually a Life bored of review.

What I have said the last 10 times this exact same subject was discussed, let's pretend I'm saying it again.

Well, I think the BSA generally does not have a problem with a unit/CO imposing MORE safety restrictions than National requires. On an issue such as sheath knives, where there really is no reason to ban them, I would rather see all units be consistent in not banning them, but I think they have a "right" to have a different policy. I do not necessarily feel the same way about councils. The "Scouting program" should be the same in every council. If there are particular characteristics of a certain camp that make any specific kind of knife particularly dangerous (though I can't think of what such characteristics might be), I think an exception can be made. Otherwise national standards should be complied with. By amusing coincidence, this past weekend my wife and I attended a concert. After entering the lobby, you had to take all metallic objects out of your pockets and then pass through a metal detector - a routine that I am very accustomed to because every courthouse that I am aware of now has at least that level of security. (I do remember when many did not, but those days are long gone.) My wife, however, had forgotten something - she had a very tiny version of a Swiss Army knife on her keychain. The thing is probably an inch long, or less, so the blade is less than an inch. I am not sure what she even uses it for. When she took her keys out of her pocket to put them in the tray next to the scanner, the guard noticed the "knife." So I had to take it back to the car. There were no "other consequences," as the guard understood that my wife had not intended to bring a "weapon" into the concert. But, as someone pointed out above, something similar has happened to Scouts when arriving at school, with greater consequences.

Brian, since we are in the same council, I strongly doubt that what you were told is correct. Within our council, the districts seem to do things pretty much the same. In my district (and I suspect in yours), all EBOR’s are held in a central location, and there are often 4 or 5 EBOR’s going on at the same time. If each candidate brought two other people (in addition to their parent(s), who are sitting on the sidelines), there wouldn’t be enough places for them to sit.

It doesn't. I did not mean to suggest we did not talk about girls. I was just responding to Tampa Turtle's list that included female camp staffers as an evaluation point for camps among the boys. It wasn't a checklist item back then because the camp staff was all-male, I guess with the exception of the camp nurse, but the point is there were no girls. I didn't know about Scuba Explorers back then.

I have never heard Scouts talking about this. That does not necessarily mean they don't talk about it, but if they do, they have the good sense to talk about it outside the earshot of adults. My memory of what I discussed with my fellow Scouts back in the day is a little hazy, but of course there were no girls on staff to talk about anyway.

Too late. I ran and was elected to my local school board, but only served one term. But let's get back to helping Millie.

Yes, that was kind of the show-stopper for me too. I think that Millie inadvertently did what journalists call "burying the lede." (And yes, that is how lede is spelled; I may be a lawyer now, but this is not my first career.) Of course, Problem Mom's sordid personal past could range anywhere from something like shoplifting or passing bad checks (in which case the fact that she falsely tells people she is pack TREASURER raises a whole fleet of red flags) on up to something violent. We just don't know.

I don't think that prohibits councils from banning them at camp. To my knowledge, that is where the issue has always come from.

For Millie's benefit, the law-related something in my background is that I am a lawyer, but I suspect that is not the kind of law-related something in Problem Mom's background.

Um. Do you have any idea why that is? Not that it is necessarily any of your business, but since she actually told you that part of it, maybe she provided some details. And, just because I am curious, does she just mean that a check of her references would probably reveal negative information, or that she would actually fail the CRIMINAL background check?

I wonder if this could be done as part of a camping trip. Our troop just went to Annapolis, and Antietam is not that much further.

Maybe the system only checks on a periodic basis to update who is logged in and who is not. So maybe you stay on the list for 30 seconds, or a minute, or longer. Those are just wild guesses, I don't really know how this stuff works but I know that changes in a computer system are not always reflected instantaneously.

I have heard of that happening in public schools as well - actually only once, and it was only one of the parents, the other was banned from school grounds but the father was not. I suspect that in a public school district the administration would have difficulty banning BOTH parents, or a single parent who is the only parent in the picture. Non-public schools probably have a little more leeway. The BSA may be another story though, because there is a specific policy that parents may observe all activities in which their child is involved. That policy was adopted to ease parents' concerns about the tradition of "secrecy" in the OA, but it applies to all Scouting activities. It probably does not apply to committee meetings though, since the person's child is not there. I know some committees are open to non-committee members and some are not. I suspect the BSA would probably prefer that units be consistent - either all parents may attend committee meetings, or none may. But maybe there are exceptions to this. This is another good reason to check with council before taking action.

If you have actual written proof (like emails from her) that Mom is saying she is the pack treasurer when she is not, especially if she is not even a registered leader, I would be sure to mention that if you speak to someone from council. Some of the other stuff they may or may not see as a huge problem, but I think they would definitely have a big issue with someone falsely holding themself out as a leader, and treasurer may be the most concerning of all.

If this were me, and I was Committee Chair (which is the person who should be doing the notifying), I would first contact the District Executive, or whoever is the professional at your council who is assigned to your district, for some guidance. You are going to want their support when Problem Mom contacts them, which she most likely will, so it makes sense to try to get them in your corner now. One concern I have is that I have never heard of removing a Scout because of the conduct of his parents. And, assuming that Problem Mom is not a registered leader, I'm not sure how you "remove" a parent except by removing her son. This is one of the things I think you should get guidance about from council.

Seems odd considering the BSA’s fairly recent change to green loops for Boy Scouts in order to make the uniform more subdued, color-wise. Now at least one council is adding a little bit of red back into some uniforms? Go figure. The only “rogue” use of shoulder loops that I have seen with my own eyes is a couple of troops around here that have a Venture Patrol and decided to use the orange/blaze loops for that patrol. The late great OldGreyEagle once reported seeing such a troop (from NJ) in an airport. There have been very few (if any) Varsity Teams around here and I suspect most Scouters here don’t even know what those loops mean. I wonder whether the BSA is going to discontinue making/selling them, considering Varsity is being discontinued. If any Scouts were to wear gold loops to any district event or summer camp around here, without holding a regional or national position, I suspect that some of the silver-loopers would get upset.

The moderator in question seems to have regarded this as an attempt at humor. I will choose to do so as well. (If we’re incorrect, please don’t tell me.)

I think that how you deal with this depends on what type of personality you are. If I were you, what I would do (or at least consider doing) is to tell the CM and CC that you need to sit down with both of them, just the three of you, and if and when this meeting takes place, tell them basically what you just told us. I am happy to help the pack by being pack secretary, and I like working with the two of you individually, but you are putting me in the middle of what is obviously a difficult relationship. I cannot function like this. It is not what I signed up for. Either the two of you improve your working relationship or I cannot continue in this position and I will go back to being just a parent. (More aggressive alternative: Either the two of you improve your working relationship, or one of the three of us needs to be replaced. But beware that one of the possible outcomes of that approach is that when the conversation ends, YOU could be the new pack committee chair.) Or something like that. But of course, I am not you. My profession (litigation attorney) means that I basically do confrontation and conflict (and peacemaking, otherwise known as settling a case) for a living. My approach is definitely not for everyone, and getting out of Dodge (with your sons) is a perfectly honorable alternative if you feel that you have done all that you (not me) reasonably can to improve the current situation.