NJCubScouter

Wait... what? They revised it AGAIN?? As I read the NEW revised policy, it does not affect any members of our troop, but I am sure it will affect boys in many troops. They sure are making this unnecessarily complicated.

I’d like “Scouting Life†better, but since there is already “Scouting†that’s probably not in the cards. My guess is that the “Boy’s Life†title will remain, however odd and awkward that may become. Talk about “brand recognition.†It’s difficult to imagine changing such a well-known name. On the other hand, I thought something similar about Rutgers Stadium, until they changed it to High Point Solutions Stadium...

Will you still need me, Will you still feed me, When I’m 64? Which, for me, is four years and a few months away.

Qwasze, I just agreed with you in another thread, so in order to maintain balance in the space-time continuum I have to disagree with you here. Just kidding. Sometimes it seems that way though. The original post did not mention First Class first year, nor did it mention a Scout being told that he HAS to advance. The inference I draw from the OP is that this is a Scout who WANTS to advance, but are unable to advance because of one requirement. So we are discussing how he might achieve that requirement. One way he cannot do it is by wearing a flotation device. Some ways that he can, eventually, have been suggested earlier in this thread.

I agree with qwasze. Step 1 is look at the checkbook. If the expenditures look reasonable, and the deposits seem to be consistent with your understanding of the troop’s fundraising activity, personally I wouldn’t worry about whether there was a proper approval process in place for the past year. I would focus on making sure a proper process is in place going forward. Of course, as qwasze says, if it seems like a substantial amount of money is missing - or, I would add, spent extravagently, and I don’t mean simply overpaying for things here and there, I mean expenditures that make your jaw hit the floor - then action is required to find out what happened and who is responsible.

This kind of hits home for me. My son had a lot of trouble with swimming. Somewhere along the line he managed to struggle through the Second Class swimming test, but he was a non-swimmer at his first year of summer camp and he was still a non-swimmer at his second year of summer camp. Along the way there were swimming lessons and lots of encouragement. The third year, he passed the First Class swimming test, I wouldn’t say with flying colors, but he passed. The fourth year, as of the time I dropped him off at camp on Sunday, he had no plans to go for Swimming MB. When I picked him up on Saturday, he had earned Swimming MB. I never really asked him for the details. I suspect that the SM told him he should give it a try, and he did. (As far as I know, nobody ever suggested he go for Lifesaving, and he never did.) There have been a few other kids in the troop along the way who had similar issues, but I believe they all earned Swimming MB eventually, with the exception of the one wheelchair-bound kid, who made Eagle through alternate requirements on all of the “physical†requirements in Scouting. I think the vast majority of non-physically-disabled Scouts with “swimming issues†can pass with the right amount of encouragement, lessons and time.

Are you talking about Cub Scouts? Is this summer day camp? Or a week-long summer resident camp for Cub Scouts? (Which as far as I know, does not exist.)

Congrats to Son #2!

I'd like a glass of whatever Tampa Turtle is drinking on this fine late Friday afternoon.

Whoa, can we please NOT be telling a Scout that he needs to quit Scouting? Especially when it is based on one comment that the Scout makes. Brian, I would suggest to you that your definition of "duty to God" does not seem to be the same as the BSA's definition, and that based on your posts in this forum, under the BSA's definition you most likely ARE doing your "duty to God" even though you may think otherwise. You seem to believe that in order to do one's "duty to God", one must actively practice a religion and attend worship services. That is not the case. I am not going to ask you what you believe or how you live your life, but I will suggest this: If a person believes in any higher power, AND believes that people are morally obligated to treat other people, as well as nature (which all add up to "God's creation"), with respect, AND does their best to do so, and to live up to the ideals of the Scout Law, and overall is a "good person" who does not intentionally cause harm to others, then by the BSA's standards, they are doing their "duty to God" even if they never see the inside of a house of worship or affiliate with any particular religious organization. If this describes you, then you can honestly recite the Scout Oath with its pledge to do your "duty to God." I would also suggest that the above description, if it is true of you, SHOULD be enough for your Scoutmaster - in your own words, of course. The advancement requirement is that you "Tell how you have done your duty to God." I have just told you how some people have done their "duty to God" to the satisfaction of the BSA, without fulfilling the traditional definition of being "religious." I hope it helps.

I hope I was clear that I was not actually suggesting it, and I have no expectation that it will even be considered, I am just using it as a placeholder, tongue-in-cheek-like. (Though I do realize that what I find humorous, many other people might not.) But when you suggest that the WAGGGS and Girl Scouts (GSUSA?) have ownership of that name - in the United States - you have piqued my lawyerly interest. Do you have a source for that?

With the understanding that this is a wild guess, I would say no, probably not. Invited, perhaps, but not expected. Now, if it were to come to pass that my troop's CO were to also become the CO of a troop of Girl Guides (I think I am going to stick with that placeholder for the time being), I might consider suggesting that the COMMITTEE be the same for both troops. (Assuming that the BSA did not try to get two registration fees out of the committee members.)

At best.

Yes. I have said something like this before. I don't think it is helpful in this context, especially because historically "separate but equal" was really code for "separate and unequal." If the "black schools" of Topeka, Kansas had actually provided an education that was "equal" (or anywhere near equal) to the "white" schools, Brown v. Board of Education might have been decided differently. I am pretty sure that formalized publicly-mandated racial segregation still would have been struck down, but at a later time, in a different case and using different terminology.

I have one almost as good. The teams of Rutgers University are the "Scarlet Knights." Knights are men. (As were all of the students of Rutgers College before 1972, and all of the students of the wider University before the 1940's or so.) (And yes, today in the UK there are women with "knighthoods," but they are called "Dames," not "Knights.") The women's teams of Rutgers University are the "Lady Knights." Not as funny as "Lady Bulls," but the same idea. I have heard it said, over the past year or so, that we are living in a "post-factual world." Perhaps this is another example. These days it seems that reality is what each person thinks it is, rather than what it actually is in, you know, reality.

Good news! Especially since the reply I was in the process of typing said that I would contact the administrator, which you had already done. And by the way, I think the error message you got was exactly the same one that I get when I mis-type my password. Most web sites give you something like "The user name or password you entered are incorrect." This one gives you "An extension required to process this request is missing." I guess it is in the fine tradition of "PC Load Letter" and other cryptic and/or misleading error messages throughout history.

I remember once hearing a Scout trying to convince a brand-new Scout on a camping trip that there were alligators in the lake. The older Scout's mistake was that the younger Scout's father was within earshot. (That would be me.) (I realize that in a much more Southerly state, there might have been alligators in the lake, but despite the rumors in the 60s and 70s that there were alligators in the New York City sewer system, in New Jersey there are no alligators in the lake.)

I volunteer for free, but being an advocate for someone else is something I charge for.

Well, I am hoping that is exactly what they do (although, I don't think they will need all of your Step 3, just a slight change to the existing youth application form.) And since they have announced that girls will be eligible for Eagle, that suggests (at least to me) that the rest of the advancement program, ranks, requirements, MB's, the whole thing, goes with it, so I think there is a good chance that they will do exactly that. Then, you ask, why does it take a year to announce this and then another year to implement it? That's above my pay grade. Maybe it is a public relations maneuver. (Which may backfire.) Maybe they want to look at all of the BSA publications and see if anything needs to be changed to make them gender-neutral. (My guess is that there will be some changes that need to be made, but not an overwhelming number.) Maybe they want to lay the groundwork with the CO's and potential CO's before the program actually goes into effect, and/or maybe have a "pre-admission" recruiting program, so that on Day 1 there are actually troops in place, with charters and leaders and youth members and meeting rooms and camping schedules, maybe some equipment, maybe a bank account, maybe a troop flag, maybe some training already done, maybe the handbooks and leader books and program helps and etc. already in the hands of those who need them, the whole nine yards, all ready to go. (Rather than everyone standing around saying "Ok, what do we do now?) Maybe they understand how big a change this is and want time to think about how to best present it to the existing membership and the public. Maybe they really haven't been able to agree on a name yet. Or maybe none of these, or all of these, or some combination, and/or others that I haven't thought of.

There actually is an answer to that question, but it is not one that is going to satisfy the people who are asking it, since those people do not seem to have a problem with the idea of "coed" Boy Scout troops. The answer is that there are so many existing BSA Scouters (and Scouts) who DO have a problem with the idea of "coed" Boy Scout troops that there (probably) would be a mass exodus of members from the BSA, which would way more than offset the number of girls joining. And then the ship really does start sinking, perhaps irreparably. National is gambling that what they have just announced will NOT have the same effect. But as I said, the people who think "coed" would be "easier" are not going to "get" that answer.

I do know that. And apparently, BSA knows it (or something like it) too, NOW. But a few months ago, BSA National didn't seem to know that. On the "May video" CSE Surbaugh says that the membership change in Cub Scouts is not going to be rolled out until there is a "parallel program" or "partner program" in place for older (10-11+) girls. Which would have made sense, because the BSA is well aware that they will need a place for girls aging out of Webelos to go. In the "October video", suddenly now the Cub Scout change will occur for the "2018 program year" (June 1? Sept. 1?) but the "next program" will only be announced in 2018 with a TARGET date of sometime in 2019 for implementation. While the year-or-more gap between the two changes will not be a problem for most girls, it will be a problem for some. If a girl happens to be, say 10 years and 3 months old on the day Cub Scouts is opened to girls, she can join a Webelos den, but she is most likely going to turn 11 before there is actually a BSA program that she can "cross over" to. Unless they Cub Scout change takes effect Sept. 1 2018 and the "new program" opens up, say, Jan. 1 2019, but that timing seems very unlikely to me. (And even then there are some girls who will be caught in the "gap", but the number is smaller and therefore more manageable. And I realize that all of this assumes that girls actually do want to join the Cub Scouts, which we will find out soon enough.)

I didn't actually mean to suggest that "Girl Boy Scouts" could be the name that would actually be adopted. Just that when we are talking about the "new program" for Boy-Scout-age girls, "Girl Boy Scouts" is as good a placeholder as any. As for the need for a new name, I'm just assuming that since BSA National seems to be planning to create a "new program", that program is going to have a new name as well. There is already a "Boy Scouts" program. But we shall see. The new name actually isn't very important to me, as long as it isn't something ridiculous. I have been trying to think of one but have not come up with anything that isn't ridiculous or already in use in this country. Well, actually one: Girl Guides, but I don't think they are going to use that one.

Non-Webelos are supposed to wear the den number patch. I think there is some logic to this though I am not exactly sure what it is. Maybe something like, "autonomy" (such as picking your own patrol name) is something that should be introduced gradually. Or maybe to put it another way, if we're going to ask the boys to come up with a good patrol name, ages 9 or 10 is a better time to do that than ages 5 or 6. It all goes along with the idea that Webelos is supposed to be transition from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts.

Oh no, don't give National any ideas!

Yet another reason why, if they were going to do this, they should have waited until they had an actual program in place, with an actual name. At this point "girl boy scouts" is probably the most logical thing to call this nameless hypothetical program and its hypothetical future members, but it sounds ridiculous. I realize that doesn't answer the issue you are writing about, but I don't have an answer.