NJCubScouter

One thing that has changed in the last 50 years, for the better, is that there is a lot less tolerance for the kind of ethnic stereotyping that you just did.

But they only have the nicest things to say about you.

Interesting about the patrol names. Of course, the kingfisher is not a raptor, but they were running out of raptors. I can understand not wanting to be the Vulture patrol.

Sorry to stray from the subject of chocolate, but your troop (or whatever the terminology is) has a Hawks patrol and a Kestrels patrol? Do you also have the Eagles and the Vultures?

Actually, it may make a large difference. The unit or the CO may not want to go through the aggravation and legal expense of suing the person who stole the money. But the insurance company that sold the fidelity bond, which has attorneys on staff and files this kind of lawsuit all the time, very well may. (Or not, if a very small amount was stolen.) The point is that the thief probably has a greater chance of having to pay the money back if there is insurance. And even if the thief is never compelled to pay the money back, even if the insurance company just pays the claim and eats the loss, the insurance will make a difference to the kids and adults who will, after all, receive the fruits of their labors despite the fact that someone stole the money.

TRON, welcome to the forum! If you are looking for a National rule or guidance that a Scout representative should be invited to attend troop committee meetings, I do not think you are going to find one. I just looked at the Troop Committee Guidebook, chapter on committee meetings, and there is nothing in there about Scouts attending, one way or the other. As you can see, the actual practice in troops varies widely. There have been a number of other threads in this forum over the years regarding the same subject. I think the bigger issue, as some here have already suggested, is how your troop's committee is operating. If you believe they are "very controlling", the question is whether they are overstepping their responsibilities. You have not provided any specifics and you don't necessarily need to, but you may want to discuss this subject with your Scoutmaster (who IS supposed to attend committee meetings but does not have a "vote", if your troop's committee operates by voting) and discuss the subject and see if anything can be done.

David, I think you are talking about a fidelity bond (aka fidelity insurance policy), not a surety bond. But I agree with the general idea. The policy would obligate the insurance company to reimburse the CO or unit if, for example, a troop treasurer were to embezzle fund-rating proceeds. (Subject to the policy limits and deductibles.) The insurer would then most likely file a lawsuit against the now-former treasurer, assuming he/she isn't in Aruba or somewhere living off the popcorn money. I have never heard of a CO having such a policy on unit volunteers, but it might be worth looking into.

Welcome to the forum, Matt! Hopefully you will find some people here who can share their experiences with Varsity Scouting, though as I am sure you know, Varsity Teams are few and far between outside of LDS units. I have never seen a Varsity Team myself, though I have seen some troops that use the "blaze" shoulder loops for purposes for which they were not intended, such as to identify members of a Venture Patrol in a troop.

Now they are going to have to rewrite the rules to ban transporter devices, tractor beams, warp engines, etc. on Pinewood Derby cars. Flux capacitors too, I guess.

The red berets provoke a wide variety of reactions. I remember that during my time as a Boy Scout, the red beret was introduced as an option, along with the campaign hat and the baseball cap. (I don't remember whether you could still choose the garrison cap, which had been the only option up to that time.) Our troop voted for the campaign hat, but within a few years, voted to switch to the baseball cap. And yet other troops did go for the red beret. I have seen a couple that still do, even though some effort is involved in obtaining them, since the BSA no longer sells them.

That doesn't make any sense, but what else is new?

Thanks Fehler. And Google tells me that Gen. Becker is commander of Joint Force Headquarters - National Capital Region, which explains what he is doing in the middle of that picture.

I think your bullet point is a good idea. In our committee the last item of the meeting is more generalized, as in "Anything else?" I think there is an understanding that if people have a comment on the program, whether it is from a BOR or from parents or from themselves or any other source, they will bring it up, without even being asked. But asking for it specifically is fine. As for the specific items of encouraging patrol spirit and using patrol method more, I would think these would be things that the SM would address with the PLC. They wouldn't necessarily even be discussed in our committee meetings, except as part of the SM's report of what he is doing.

This has nothing to do with anything, but can anyone tell me the branch of service and rank of the military officer standing in the middle of that photo? I used to have sort of a generalized familiarity and interest in U.S. military uniforms, but apparently I haven't kept up. I am pretty sure it is an Army uniform, but what about the rank? I understand that the insignia on the shoulder is not visible, but there is that wide stripe on each sleeve. I thought that was just a Navy thing. I know we have some military people here who will know the answer.

I just did a Google search on "cresap's trail patch" and there seem to be at least a few sites offering these patches. Of course, whether they actually have the patches, whether the price is reasonable and whether the sites are reputable, I don't know, but that might be a way to go.

The president is definitely a civilian. But it is a unique civilian position. Members of the military salute the president and there has been some discussion over the years of whether the president is supposed to salute back. I personally don't care what the president does with his hand when the flag is going by. In the current administration, it doesn't even make the list of things I'm concerned about.

In our BOR's, we specifically ask the Scout about things that are going right and wrong in the troop, whether there is anything they would like to see improved, etc. In fact, I am usually the one who asks those questions. Most of the time "everything's fine" but sometimes there is a negative comment, and about 70 percent of the negative comments are some variation of "things should be more organized." If there is a second place it would of the type "We should do more (fill in the blank) on camping trips." I generally go directly to the SM, and sometimes to the SM and SPL together, and pass along the comments that are being made. Not after every negative comment, but at a time interval that seems reasonable under the circumstances. (For example, the SM and SPL already know things could be more organized, and they're working on it, but it doesn't hurt to remind them every now and then that the Scouts know it too.) I do not identify the Scout, although the SM and SPL know who has had BOR's recently. If it were something really sensitive I would try harder to protect the Scout's anonymity, but it never really has been. If it required some emergency action, I would encourage the Scout to come with me to talk to the SM and get things moving right there, but that has never happened either. In the case of "We should do more (fill in the blank) on camping trips" or the like, my response at the BOR will include a suggestion that the Scout mention this idea to their Patrol Leader (or to the PLC if they are a member of the PLC), but I will also tell the Scout that I will mention it to the Scoutmaster. That way, they will see that there is some point in answering the question in the first place. Having referred the comments to the SM/SPL, there is seldom a need for a "formal" report at committee meetings on what the kids are saying at BOR's. I think there have been two occasions when the "we need to be more organized" comments became numerous enough that I did mention it at a committee meeting. I am not sure whether you would consider that to be a "formal" or "informal" report. Our committee meetings are generally "informal" anyway, so what I would consider a "formal report" would be something in writing. The only written reports we get are the Treasurer's reports. I suppose an argument could be made that as an individual committee member, I should not refer the information directly to the SM/SPL but rather to the CC, who would then speak to the SM, who would then speak to the SPL and PLC. I think my way is more effective and efficient for my troop, even if it is slightly less compliant with a strict reading of the organizational chart.

I suppose its to be expected that this thread could not go three full posts before veering off into Girl Scout cookie sales. On the other hand, it is a refreshing change to have a thread in this forum that contains praise for the GSUSA.

I had never heard of it before, but here it is, with a picture of the badge and the requirements from the BSA's web site: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/Merit_Badge_ReqandRes/Exploration.pdf On the badge itself, it looks like they're going for an Indiana Jones thing. I'm guessing it is the only merit badge with a whip on it. The requirements are a combination of things but the main focus seems to be on planning and going on a scientific expedition. I was thinking of what qualifications you would want to have to be a counselor for this, and it occurred to me, the ideal counselor would be @@packsaddle.

Since the "article" that Eagledad linked to cuts the GSUSA's response down to one paraphrased sentence, I thought I would post the full statement of their interim CEO, credit Time magazine, http://time.com/4640033/girl-scouts-inauguration-march/

Matt, on the "Budget" point, I was confused because it looked like you were giving the patrol points based on something the PLC and troop treasurer are doing (or not doing.) Maybe I am reading it wrong.

MattR, that looks good and you must have spent a lot of time on it. Off the bat I have 2 questions: 1, Patrol size, doesn't the size of a patrol depend too much on factors outside the patrol's control? For example, a young man of Scouting age walks in the door and joins the troop. He needs to be assigned to a patrol, but he doesn't know anybody, so he has no preference. Presumably either the SM or the SPL are going to assign him to a patrol. Are they supposed to consider the impact of this new member on the patrol's "score"? Are they supposed to "rotate" patrols each time this happens? Is there a potential for "unfairness" here? And on the other side, patrols also lose members for reasons outside their control, such as aging out or members being elected SPL or appointed ASPL.r example. Would you account for that. 2, Budget, is that what you meant to say in that section?

I think I was the one who used the word "sendoff", and you're right, it is really not the best word to use in this situation. I guess I was using it as "shorthand".

Let's try this again: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/boyscouts/pdf/Troop_Leadership_Positions.pdf Qwasze, your post raises a different aspect of this issue. You mention the SM as setting the schedule and qualifications. I have always thought it was the PLC's job to determine the length of the terms for the SPL and PL's. At least it was that way in my troop as a youth. I am not sure who set the term length in my current troop because it has not changed while I have been there. But if there was a proposal to change it, I would think it would go to the PLC.

wickjr, how long ago was his Eagle Court of Honor? That is usually our "sendoff" for Scouts who have made Eagle. (Of course that assumes that the ECOH is going to be around the time of the Scout's 18th birthday, which for some strange reason is often the case in our troop.)