NJCubScouter

Wow.

I've been there. I doubt that is the thinking at National, if they see a potential major increase in numbers and $$. To be fair, this mindset is not unique to the BSA, it is probably the same at most large organizations, whether non-profit or for-profit.

I have not seen any signs that there a very many of them. Now and then there will be an article about four girls somewhere or one girl somewhere else who want to be Boy Scouts. These can somehow make it seem like there is more of a "movement" for this than there actually is. Most of the articles in the past year or so have been about the same girl from New York who is an "unofficial member" of her brother's troop (I think) and who flies to meetings of a coed Scouts Canada troop but who wants to be an Eagle in the BSA. I don't think this discussion at National is really being driven by teenage girls who want to be Boy Scouts anyway. I could be wrong, but I think it is being driven by people AT NATIONAL who are really thinking more about CUB Scouts than Boy Scouts. They may think that if they can get first-grade or kindergarten girls to join Tigers (or Lions, if any), that will really boost membership numbers. And they may be right. The question then becomes, will this lead to a loss of current and future male Cub Scouts? Since one of the options is an all-girl Cub Scout pack, maybe not.

First of all, Eagle, where is the Facebook page you are talking about? I looked on the BSA's main Facebook page and could not find it. Or maybe it's because I don't really know how to use Facebook. Any help would be appreciated. Second, I find that statement (the one you quoted, not anything you said) to be very puzzling. I know of no reason to believe that the "character and leadership needs of older girls" are any different than the same "needs" for older boys. Plus, I don't really know what it means. The BSA has had programs for "older girls" for 45 years. The Venturing and Sea Scouts programs, which you mention, provide character and leadership opportunities for them, as well as older boys. If they are questioning the effectiveness of these programs, isn't that a different issue from the actual potential changes listed by 4CouncilsScouter above? Those changes would open BSA programs to YOUNGER girls, ages 5 to about 13. There are already programs for the older girls, though this potential change would presumably give the older girls the same option that the older boys have: Stay in a troop, move to a crew/ship, or do both. The other question I am left with (and maybe it is answered on the FB page you mention) is, 4CouncilsScouter said the CSE asked for the formation of a task force. So was a task force formed? Or will it be formed? And who gets to be on that committee? Usually the composition of a task force, study committee, etc. pretty much determines the outcome.

Pyramid scheme? Not really, in a pyramid scheme quite often some of the victims get their money back. (Added note, I was probably thinking more of a Ponzi scheme than a pyramid scheme, but I thought my comment was funny anyway.) But seriously, this nonsense of a different neckerchief and hat for every single year of Cub Scouting was being phased in while my son was a Cub Scout (late-90s/early 00's) and was completed shortly after that. When he was in Tigers the Tigers didn't even have a hat or neckerchief, there was a single set for Wolf/Bear, and then another for Webelos. Two hats, two neckerchiefs. Now it's... well, you know what it is. It's ridiculous. Don't get me started on popcorn sales. Part of the problem there is you are raising money for two different organizations, the pack and the council. I don't think there is anything to stop a pack from doing its own fundraisers, as many troops do. Our troop sells holiday wreaths and does some version of pancake breakfast/chili dinner/fish fry/spaghetti dinner/etc. depending on who is running things.

Wow, you know, just "licensed" wouldn't be a big deal, but OFFICIALLY licensed, now that's really impressive. (That was an attempt at humor.) And I wonder if they had to pay extra to use the phrase "PREPARED FOR LIFE" near the bottom of the ad. Maybe not, because it looks like the BSA trademark is on "Prepared. For Life.", with the two periods.

Well, I see RichardB's point that EITHER the leadership or participants "define coed", but I think the terminology is secondary. The important question is what is permitted and what is not permitted. The only situation in which the leadership would "define coed" AND create a YP problem is where ALL the leaders are of one gender and ALL the participants are of the other gender. In other words, EITHER all the leaders are male and all the participants are female, OR all the participants are female and all the leaders are male. I think it is clear that YP forbids either of these situations, regardless of whether you use the term "coed" or not. By the same token, if it is you (a man) and an adult female on a trip with just boys, it doesn't matter whether you call it "coed" or not. Even if you do call it "coed", the presence of the adult female does two things simultaneously: It creates the issue of "coed", because she is there, and immediately resolves the issue, because now you have leaders of both genders. There's no YP problem regardless of the terminology.

First of all, what happens in June? Second of all, I don't think there's a "need", there's just natural human curiosity, which affects all of us in different ways. Most potential "news" I can certainly wait on until it filters down through the channels, if it ever does. But I seem to recall a speech at the annual meeting 2 years ago (and a subsequent actual policy change) that made quite a bit of news, not to mention that it turned this entire forum upside-down for a few months, with residual effects even today (in my opinion.) There is only one possible announcement that I can think of that is even remotely possible, that could match or exceed what happened 2 years ago. I won't say what it is, because I don't want to have to send this thread to Issues and Politics, but I think you know what it is.

Well... just because National says you can't require something doesn't mean some troops don't try to require it anyway. It is still possible that when a Scout is at a Scoutmaster Conference or Board of Review for Star or Life or Eagle (if Eagle BOR's are done at the troop level in your council), someone might say he doesn't get credit for an MB because there is no worksheet. I don't know if that will happen or not, but if it does, your son (if that's who we are talking about) may need to convince them otherwise (and all you have now is the advice of a few anonymous strangers on the Internet), and if that doesn't work, there is an appeal process but your son does not want to go through that if he does not have to.

An app? Whatever happened to posting on web sites, like in the good old days? And now that I look at the page that advertises the app, I am not sure how much "news" it would give you anyway. It seems to be geared toward people attending the meeting, including schedules, materials distributed at breakout sessions, etc. I did a quick Google search for news from the meeting but all I found was pre-meeting information. I am woefully behind the times in using Facebook (with my 6 or 7 "friends") so I don't know where to look for anything on there.

The Scouts in my troop wear neckerchiefs and they have since before I was involved. I don't think the subject of not wearing neckerchiefs has ever even come up. If you weren't wearing a neckerchief you were not wearing a full uniform, although there have never been any real consequences for not wearing one. (And if push came to shove, there are always extra generic BSA neckerchiefs in the storage closet.) I don't think that either the PLC or the troop committee or any other gathering has ever discussed whether our troop should wear neckerchiefs. The Scouts just wear them. For most of the time I have been involved with this troop, the Scouts all wore the generic standard-issue red BSA neckerchief. If the Scout had an NYLT neckerchief or a Philmont neckerchief or Eagle Scout neckerchief they could wear that instead. The adults would wear a variety of bolo ties, neckerchiefs or no neckwear. (I was a bolo tie man myself, going back to when I was a JASM. I hate wearing a neckerchief.) Then about 3-4 years ago the troop decided to order custom neckerchiefs with our troop number, town and other "art" similar to what is on our troop trailer. The kids all started wearing them and most of the adults did as well. In honor of this attempt to make our troop's uniforming more, um, "uniform", I decided to "ditch" (going back to the title of this thread) the bolo tie. Now when I wear the uniform (which is only occasionally as I am a committee member) I wear the troop neckerchief. I still hate wearing it, but I don't tell the kids that.

When I was a Scout (60's/70's) nobody would even think about showing up for a BOR not in full uniform. Of course at the time there probably was no National rule saying that a Scout does not have to wear a uniform at a BOR. I think a number of units have a "rule" requiring uniforms at BOR's, and they either don't know or don't care what National has to say on the subject. Our troop has what I guess would be called an "expectation" that a Scout will be in full uniform at their BOR, and everybody knows that is the expectation, and there is almost never a problem. Has a BOR ever been postponed because the Scout did not show up in the expected attire? Well, maybe a few times, but nobody has ever challenged it. We have BOR's "on demand" so if you don't have it this week you can have it next week or at the latest in two weeks. Hopefully the issue will never come up again while I am doing BOR's.

That would do it.

That's an interesting idea. I am not sure the Scouts in our troop have ever done anything like that. I am not sure that this tragedy would prompt them to do so any more than all the other tragedies that have taken place, both in this country and elsewhere. Although somewhere in my vague recollection it is possible that at the time of the shootings at the school in Connecticut, one of the adults may have asked for a moment of silence during the opening of the next troop meeting. I know we had some recognition of 9/11 in my son's Cub Scout pack, though the pack meeting itself was probably weeks after the event.

Just when I thought I'd heard everything. We ask the Scout to stand at the beginning, give the Scout sign and recite the Oath and/or Law, but other than that the Scout is seated. It doesn't sound very reasonable to require the Scout to stand during the entire BOR. I looked at the GTA (section 8.0.1.0) and it does not say anything about making Scouts stand during a BOR - though now that this has appeared in "print" maybe it will find its way into the 2019 version - but it does say this: Having the Scout stand does not sound like a very "relaxed atmosphere" to me. Well, unless EVERYBODY is standing, but I assume that is not the case.

I noticed those comments as well. They are not from the GTA. They are comments by the "team leader of the BSA's Content Management Team", and I am not sure what that position does. I guess the implication is that this is an authoritative statement from the BSA. I have mixed feelings about what he is saying. If a requirement says to "tell" the counselor something after the Scout has learned about it, there is no rule against the Scout taking notes about what he has learned, or to organize his thoughts in writing. So what's the difference if the notes are taken on a printed workbook with a "blank" for that requirement? But the post is correct in saying that the Scout should actually "tell" the counselor what the requirement requires, and not simply hand in a worksheet. So I think the worksheets can be a useful tool, but not a substitute for the interaction between counselor and Scout.

I don't think any issue was ever raised about that thread and I don't know what the supposed policy problem was.

The current policy of this forum is that both Scouting-related "issues and politics" and non-Scouting-related "issues and politics" can be discussed in this section (although a thread that starts out Scouting-related really should be kept that way.) But that does not necessarily mean that the entire craziness of what currently passes for "political discourse" in this country should be welcome in this forum. There are thousands of forums on the Internet where discussions take place that are not appropriate in this forum. As far as I know, nobody has called the current president a "Nazi" in THIS forum. And as far as I know, nobody has said (bleep) Trump in THIS forum. So there is no need to respond to those things in THIS forum. And those are only examples.

There is a difference between what would happen in an ideal world, or even a better world, and what the actual requirement is. The rules should be clear and, if you'll pardon the expression, uniform. Whether a Scout makes Eagle should not depend on some council staffer's interpretation of what has to be in before the 18th birthday. It should all be clearly set out. Do you disagree that it should all be clearly set out?

Ok, this thread is about Scouting, can we please keep it there? If you want to start a thread about past and current presidents, go right ahead but remember the Scout Oath and Law applies there too.

There seems to be a growing list of things that do NOT have to be done before the 18th birthday. At the time my son made Eagle about 8 years ago the council was insisting that the application had to be in before the 18th birthday. From what I have read elsewhere in this forum they can't do that anymore. Now the Eagle project workbook can be signed after the birthday. I hope that somewhere there is a clear list of what does and does not have to be done before the birthday.

If you feel that way, then the local option should be seen as a positive thing. My unit or my CO or my religion can't tell your unit who it can and can't have as a leader, and vice versa. Live and let live. Nobody wins, nobody loses, but we all co-exist.

Well, it should be, but it took a lot of time and conflict and struggle to get to that point, on the issue of openly gay leaders. And obviously there are people in Scouting (in this forum and elsewhere) who think it was a bad move. My prediction at the time was that some would leave the BSA but that most of those opposed to the change would learn to live with it. Maybe that's the best that can be hoped for.

This should probably be in a different thread, but what do you mean by "enforcing" it? What would a unit/CO do to "enforce" the DRP? Are you talking about grace before meals, or prayers in opening/closing ceremonies, or something else?

@@TAHAWK, you know, if the CSE ever does visit one of our troops, we could ask him what a "kind" of animal is.