NJCubScouter

There isn't such a thing, and I have not read or heard of any plans to create one. I think some people are taking pieces of information from here and there and adding them together to create a future which is different from the one the BSA intends to create.

Not only is it reasonable, but the Troop Committee Guidebook specifically says that those two committee members are supposed to work with (or "guide" - they use different words for each position but I think they mainly mean the same thing) the Scouts in those POR's - AND the Advancement Coordinator is supposed to work with both the troop Scribe and troop Librarian, and the Treasurer is supposed to "train and supervise" the troop Scribe in record-keeping. See http://www.magnificentsevens.org/docs/Resources/TroopCommitteeGuidebook/TroopCommitteeGuidebook.pdf, Chapter 4. (That is not an official site but the books looks authentic to me.)

Or they could have checked with the Scouts ahead of time and they would have learned to "Be Prepared." A couple of times, in a real pinch, when we have been without an American flag for whatever reason, one Scout stood where the flag would be, turned his right shoulder toward the troop, and we pledged allegiance to the flag on his uniform. That's at a troop meeting; I'm not necessarily recommending that in front of 500+ people.

White gloves, I'll have to bring that up at the next committee meeting. (Just kidding.)

I agree with many of the posts that the formal monthly evaluation and scorecards are unnecessary, that it should be the SPL dealing with the other POR-holders, and the SM deals with the SPL. I also think that if the SM notices that the holder of a POR is basically doing nothing, and the SPL does not seem to be succeeding in motivating/mentoring the Scout, the SM can talk to the Scout directly. I realize that may be heresy with some here, but the fact is that the SM can have a conference with any Scout at any time, and a Scout who is not adequately performing his POR is reason enough for a conference, in my opinion. I also agree with MattR that some of the responses here have been a bit harsh.

Some of these comments assume that the BSA's intentions have changed from single-gender units at ages 11-17 to coed troops. That assumption seems to begin with Gwaihir's interpretation of the CSE's statement at cnn.com. I don't think that interpretation is correct. I think that when the CSE used the term "similar" he was talking about how each CO will get to decide what kind of units to have, within the options that will be offered by the BSA - not that there will mixed-gender troops. Mixed-gender packs, yes, if that's what the CO wants, but not mixed-gender troops. Based on Gwaihir's more recent post, he at least seems to agree with me that it is a matter of interpretation. So we can fault the BSA for several aspects of how this whole thing has been handled, but not for switching from single-gender troops to coed troops in the past month. I see no reason to believe they have done that.

Unfortunately, this seems in line with the change from the embroidered lettering of "Boy Scouts of America" above the pocket of the uniform shirt to... I don't really know. Pressed-on letters? In any event, the letters frequently fell off. We have kids who are down to "of America", or less. But I guess this problem was so widespread that they now seem to have gone back to embroidered letters. I don't know when they changed back, but the shirt I bought about a month ago has embroidered letters. So I suspect the only way they would go back to embroidered flags is if the screen-printed flags start falling apart quickly, though I don't see why they would.

In my opinion it doesn't matter why he wants it back, and it also doesn't matter that the CO may already have most or all of the information. If it was rejected and the applicant wants it back, he should get it back. But it appears that the application is "lost" so there probably isn't anything that can be done about it anyway.

I guess it's all a matter of troop tradition. All of our opening/closing ceremonies include both the American flag and the troop flag.

This isn’t the BSA. That’s all I have on the subject. I do not run the software.

I have been informed that the forum software is in the process of being upgraded and that this issue (as well as others that may show themselves over the next few weeks) most likely results from that. Please fasten your seatbelts and keep your arms and legs inside the forum at all times...

As always.

Gwaihir, if you read the entire passage that you quoted, and not just the sentence that you put in bold, I don't think this is any different from what the CSE has been saying. He talks about "and a single-gender Scouting program for older girls" - with "older" in this context meaning older than Cub Scouts.

As a former school board member, I have to respond to the idea that a school district "can just collect taxes from everyone and spend it as you see fit." I can only speak from my experience in one school district in one state, but I can't imagine that my school district is unique. In New Jersey, there are caps on increases in taxes (which result in limitations on spending.) About 70% of the annual school budget is salaries and benefits, which are negotiated, and then there are fixed costs such as insurance, utilities, etc. This does not leave a lot of room for sports and clubs. About five years ago my district adopted an "activity fee" that the students have to pay to participate in sports and clubs. It only accounts for about 10% of the combined cost of the activities, but it is something. Every extracurricular activity involves some sort of fundraising to pay for what the school district doesn't. And then there are some things that are completely on the parents (and fundraising) - when my son's robotics team went to the national championship in Atlanta, the cost of air fare, hotel etc. was paid for by the families, with some subsidy from fundraising. So the idea that the school district is simply going to pay for everything without any contribution from the families, or any fundraising, does not square with my experience. Added note: And when a new club is started, it usually has to be self-funding, and the faculty adviser is a volunteer, for at least the first couple of years. I remember a big battle over funding the then-new ice hockey team. I would say it was probably 4 or 5 years before the school district funded that.

Despite the name of the thread, I think we’re talking about girls. I’m not quite sure, though.

You may consider the moderators whined-to. I have noticed one other strange thing in the past few days, but it did not affect the functioning of the forum. This does. They may be related. I will make inquiries.

Our troop is going to the "Scout Weekend" at the U.S. Naval Academy this weekend. (Actually, as of this writing, they should be about halfway there.) It's going to be cold and windy - both at night and in the stadium during the football game. We do that trip about every 3 years; my son and I did it twice. (The second time I had to suffer the agony of Navy beating Rutgers, in person.) It is always cold and windy. The kids know what to wear.

For once I agree with you on something. And if you were overprepared for your recovery mission, that sounds like an inconvenience, not a failure. Underprepared would potentially have been a failure.

Scouters do that, in fact I think that just about every human activity involves picking one's battles. As for parents signing blue cards, if the parent is a registered counselor for that merit badge, it is not prohibited, though the conventional wisdom is that it should be kept to a minimum and if other counselors for the badge are readily available, it is best to avoid it. Following that principle, my father was my counselor for Architecture MB, and none of the other badges he counseled. In our council, multiple MB's earned with a Scout's parents (or actually, many badges with any single counselor, parent or not) would raise eyebrows at an Eagle BOR.

Seldom talking about Scouting with my father would have been difficult for me, since he was a leader in every Scouting unit I was ever in as a youth, while I was in it. (As an adult he was always an active Scouter - 67 years I think including his time as a Scout - regardless of whether any of his sons were yet, or still, in the program.) Including being SM while I was SPL and then JASM. So Scouting discussions ensued. He had been a Star Scout and wanted to see his sons make Eagle. He did not pressure us, he did not hound us, but it was clear that that was what he preferred. Fortunately he got what he wanted in the form of my youngest brother. I think I made up for my non-Eaglehood in his eyes by graduating from law school.

Thanks for the reminder about the local option. That is a point that I think keeps getting forgotten in these discussions. I don't think this would have any chance of working without the local option. (Actually, it's not just that "no troop would be required to accept girls," but no troop - meaning a unit that has boys in it, ages 11 through 17 - would be ALLOWED to accept girls, although many in this forum believe that this will happen anyway regardless of the rules from National. Personally I decline to try to predict the future on that subject. Cub Scout packs, on the other hand, would be allowed to accept girls, or not.)

Stosh, you have been asked several times now, by at least two people, to provide an actual example of HOW the program would have to be changed to accommodate girls and young women, and so far I haven't seen one. I don't quite get the point of your reference to hiking boots. I do know that if you do (or one does) a Google search for women's or teen girls' hiking boots, you/one would find no shortage of options available for purchase, online or in the store. Some of them look pretty much like boys' hiking boots. None that I saw had high heels.

Technically speaking, I think those are manly fictional characters, or if you prefer, actors costumed as "manly men." Actually to me they look like wax figures, though they probably aren't.

I prefer, though I do not recommend emulating, the Tale of the Third Eagle, which I have recited above. He had a lot of fun in Scouting too, but things still would have been much easier on him, and those around him, if he had made Eagle around 6 months before his birthday, rather than four hours. And then there is the tale of the... well, he was not the Fourth Eagle, because he aged out at Life, after having been to TLD (nka NYLT) and Philmont, and having been SPL and JASM, having founded the Leadership Corps in his troop, and other fun and beneficial stuff, and having decided at about 16 and a half that there were higher priorities (both inside and outside Scouting) than making Eagle. This Life-for-Life did disappoint his father, though. (If not already clear, this Life-for-Life is me.)

On the subject of last-minute Eagles (it's too cumbersome to quote and sub-quote what WisconsinMomma and Eagle94-A1 said): An Eagle is an Eagle whether they are 14 or their last requirement (other than BOR) is signed off on the last business day before their 18th birthday. (My son was the latter, and at that time the application, workbook, etc. had to be in the hands of the Eagle coordinator at council hq before the 18th birthday, so he actually made it with four hours to spare.) The problem is that if you do it the way my son did it, you dramatically increase the chances that you are not going to make it at all. If it had rained on the last workday for his project (five days before his birthday) he most likely would not have made it. If any one of about seven different people (including 2 MBC's, the township engineer, the SM and CC, and others) had been away on vacation, on business, ill, or whatever, during that particular week, he might not have made it. (In fact, his SM was about 2,000 miles away when he "signed" my son's Eagle application over the phone.) My son made Eagle because all of these adults were willing and able to be inconvenienced in order to review and sign what had to be reviewed and signed - and because his father was willing and able to take a long lunch-hour to run his paperwork up to council. (In theory I could have made him drive to council himself but that would have meant missing part of a day in school, and I decided it was better for him to be in school AND make Eagle, all at the same time.) I think that despite his protestations to the contrary, in my son's mind the "target date" was always his 18th birthday, despite the too-frequent reminders from both myself and people who weren't his father, that this was the path to probable failure. He put the outcome of his effort much too much in hands of people other than himself. Despite all his hard work, he made Eagle because he was lucky. That's the problem with a last-minute Eagle.