NJCubScouter

Ah, yes, no fixed terms, just have an election whenever "the people" "decide". Somewhere, Vladimir Putin's ears perk up.

Although some people may not care - well, there is no "may" about it, some people definitely do not care - but I just thought someone should mention that the BSA says the SPL is elected by the members of the troop, not just the PL's. (How the election should be run is another story. For years our troop followed the path of put the kids in a room and see who ends being SPL, with no adult involvement. Unfortunately upon closer inspection the elections seemed to be sort of a cross between 1950's-era Chicago and current-day Russia, which is not meant as a compliment. There were some complaints about fairness. A couple of years ago we decided that an adult leader who is very experienced with elections and is a former local elected official (that would be me) should "model" how an election should be run and hopefully the boys would pick it up. Hopefully this is the year the boys will pick it up, because we have an SPL who is presumably stepping down after 2 years in the job, and he's a bright kid and a fair kid, so hopefully he can run an election without images of Mayor Daley (the first one) or Vladimir Putin coming to mind.) But I digress. I am less sure about this next one, but I suspect the BSA literature also says there should be an SPL if there are 2 or more patrols, not "more than 3-4".

My current troop's idea of a troop prayer is the Scoutmaster's benediction, which as most know, contains only a vague reference to an unnamed deity. I also remember way back when on a camping trip on which one of the leaders (actually, me) led the troop in the Philmont Grace, which is only slightly less generic than the Scoutmaster's benediction. So I guess that the young man in question probably also would not be chaplain's aide in my troop, if we had a chaplain's aide. P.S. When I led the Philmont Grace, as I recall I decided that the kids would be confused by "raiment", since the only place I had ever heard it was in the Philmont Grace, and while I had figured out what it meant, I decided to change it, and I also decided that "shelter" sounder better in the sentence than "clothing." So I guess I have my own little version of the Philmont Grace. P.P.S. In looking around the Internet I have found that there is also a Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve version of the Philmont Grace: For this time and this place, For Your goodness and grace, For each friend we embrace, We thank Thee, Oh Lord. Amen. I like the old version better. "Fellowship" is one of those great old words that seems to be on the verge of extinction.

Our troop has never had a chaplain or a chaplain's aide as far as I know. Here is the official BSA "job description" for both positions: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/Relationships/ChaplainRole.aspx For chaplain's aide they use the word "selected", not "elected", leading me to believe that this is one of the positions that is appointed by the SPL with the approval of the SM. As my original question suggests, I think the answer to the question depends a lot on the religious composition of the troop, and the nature of the CO is also a factor. Stosh's comment suggests that the phrase in question means something other than what it seems to mean at face value. Perhaps the Scout does not know the "real meaning." (I certainly don't.) But it doesn't really matter, does it? He has been taught, presumably by his religious leader and his parents, that all prayers must have that phrase. I don't think it is any leader's place to question that. What I do think is that if this young man had been a member of either of the troops I was a member of as a youth (one was probably about 40% Jewish, the other probably about 60% Jewish), he probably would not have been the best choice for chaplain's aide, if he believes that a prayer must contain the phrase in question. He is probably a great kid, and as others have said, he could be given an opportunity to be part of a "rotation" of leading prayers. But him leading all the prayers probably isn't a good idea unless it is a 100% Christian troop.

First of all, Lilsiskin, welcome to the forum! Second of all, oh boy. You will probably get a variety of views on this here. For now, I will just ask a question, that some might think is irrelevant: Are there Scouts in the troop who are not Christian? (As a matter of full disclosure, I am not Christian myself.)

I fully agree with that last sentence, but I have a feeling it means different things to each of us. I think the new policy has changed things for the better, in ways that will never show up on a ledger sheet. But I don't think that's what you meant.

Warned by who? And warned how? In writing?

It was an issue. Nobody had to knock down any doors for it to be an issue. I am sure that in some small number of units across the country - any number would just be a guess - openly gay people have indeed joined or remained, either as Scouts or Scouters. Nobody has made a huge deal out of it. There is no sign that any media have been following these people around to do stories on the "gay leader." That is as it should be. I am not interested in the "activists" and those who made a lot of noise on either side of this issue. I am concerned for the average everyday folks who just want to be Scouters and Scouts. Somewhere, people who never should have been excluded in the first place are quietly joining, and Scouting is better for it. If some people have left Scouting because of this - and I have seen no statistics on that - it is regrettable. There was no reason for them to leave. (Added) There also doesn't seem to be any indication that those units that wish to exclude openly gay people have encountered any difficulty in doing so. As far as I know, nobody has sued anybody. Some of those units have left the BSA, but the vast majority have not. Every indication is that local option is working, both for those who were previously excluded and for those who qualify to retain their exclusionary policies and wish to do so.

But there are dozens of details to the advancement process that are NOT left up to each counsel. Even aside from the requirements themselves, National prescribes many, many things, in the Guide to Advancement and elsewhere. This is one of a relatively small number of details that IS left up to each council. It is not clear to me how the BSA decides whether a particular detail requires nationwide conformity, or can be decided by each council. In this case it seems kind of arbitrary. If it were up to me to choose, I would probably go with what our council does. I think it mostly meets the standards that Eagledad is talking about, such as requiring a certain level of maturity and some unfamiliar elements to challenge the Scout. The board is a combination of people the Scout knows and one he does not know. The room is filled with people the Scout does not know, except that there may very well be a student from another troop but the same high school going for either an EBOR or a project review at the same time. (That happened to my son.) The Scout checks in with a person he does not know, but has either spoken with on the phone or emailed. (The District Advancement Chair.) The physical setting is unknown to the Scout, or he has been there at most twice before for his pre-project and post-project review. If I were to change our council's system at all, I might add one other adult who is not from the same troop as the Scout, but always have at least one committee member from the troop. Right now our EBORs are 2 or 3 from our own troop and one from another troop (or not with any troop at all) who is a member of the DAC. I might make it 2-1 in favor of people from other troops, or 2-2.

Let's please avoid name-calling in here. (The person whose post precipitated this has received a PM, but it applies to everybody.)

Welcome to the forum Pat!

Well, what are the actual figures? The article said membership is "stabilizing". I hope they're right. (Just want to add, I don't necessarily agree with the assumptions a lot of people make regarding "cause and effect" between the action on the "issues" and the movements in membership. I think there are a lot of things that cause individuals to join or not join the BSA, and when you add together all these individual decisions there is no one thing that causes the numbers to go up or down. For example I still don't think the "improved Scouting program" of 1972 played anywhere near as as big a role in the membership decline of that era (which was happening before that anyway), but I know I'll never convince a lot of people about that one, either.)

This seems irrational to me. Similar to what I said above about suing, but take out the suing part: So someone somewhere says something to a newspaper reporter or tv camera and a church halfway across the country (or whatever) doesn't want to charter a unit anymore? People are always saying things. One of my brother's in-laws thinks the BSA is a "paramilitary organization." (Edited to add: Since there are a variety of people reading this, I suppose I should clarify that "paramilitary" was not meant as a compliment.) She told me this years ago, probably even before the "membership policy" became a big deal, but now that the BSA has resolved that issue, presumably she still thinks it is a "paramilitary organization", because one has nothing to do with the other. So now that I have reported that someone somewhere in New Jersey has this opinion, does that mean someone else should decline to be involved with the BSA? After all, my brother's in-law may think that someone should raid the BSA to take all the guns away. Doesn't make sense, right? Neither does the situation reported by quazse.

It puzzles me that National leaves it up to the councils to decide whether EBORs are to be done at the council/district level, or at the unit level. Wouldn't the same reasons why it should be done one way or the other be applicable throughout the country? And then there is my district (and presumably my entire council) which is sort of a hybrid of the two approaches, and has changed the procedure somewhat since I started participating in EBORs. Our district holds EBORs twice a month, each at a different "central" location. At the same time as the EBORs, various other Eagle-related meetings are taking place. There are a bunch of tables in a big room. At these three tables over here there may be EBORs taking place, and at that table over there a Scout is meeting with a DAC member to get his project approved, and at that other table another Scout is meeting with another DAC member for his "post-project review." (That last one is optional.) But here's what makes it a hybrid, the Eagle Boards are made up almost entirely of troop committee members from the Scout's own troop, who come to the "central location" along with the SM, if he/she chooses to be there to introduce the Scout. Each Board also has a DAC member. When I started doing this about 5 years ago, the DAC member would be the chair of the Board and run the show. Now the DAC member acts in a supporting role and doesn't even sign the paperwork as a BOR member. I was told that this change was made so that if a Scout "doesn't pass", the responsibility will be on the unit and not on council. When I was told this, I asked the person, "Are there times when a Scout doesn't pass?" and he said yes. I have never seen that happen. In our troop it is always a foregone conclusion. I think we all take the attitude that if there is some problem that should prevent or delay the Scout from making Eagle, such as issues with the project, it should be raised and corrected before the EBOR is even scheduled. So what we have, especially in the last few years, is a unit EBOR that is done in a room where other EBOR's are going on. One reason I can think of is that it allows a DAC member, rather than traveling to a unit's location to do 1 EBOR as the district representative, to do 3 or 4 in one night and/or the other Eagle-related meetings. So there is some greater efficiency involved. It probably also allows for somewhat more control over the paperwork and allows the District Advancement Chair, who is in the room but usually not participating in any particular EBOR or meeting, to keep track of everybody. EAGLE94-A1's issue of one DAC member having approved the project and a different one sitting on the DAC would not be an issue in our district. The two are different people, at least most of the time. I know the person who approved my son's project was not the DAC member who sat on his EBOR. But as I said at the top, I do not understand why each council should be different in the way EBORs are done.

I suspect that if any of them took that too literally, they would find out it isn't really true. But they probably realize (or, at least, "assume") that you aren't being entirely serious about that one either.

Here are the region patches over time from the Northeast Region: http://tegularius.org/patches/northeast.html I have never seen anyone wearing one either. I would think it would be worn as a temporary patch. I suppose that if someone was a regional executive, commissioner, committee member or whatever, they might wish to wear the regional patch. I think I have only ever seen one of those people in person and all I remember is that he was wearing gold shoulder loops and I think his position patch was Regional Executive Board or something like that.

That assumes that there would be a fight. I have seen no evidence that an organization that charters a unit under the new policy, and uses the "religious local option", would be in for any sort of fight. Zack Walls or whoever he is talking to the media does not count as a "fight" in my book.

Well, on this particular issue, as far as I know nobody has filed a lawsuit yet, after a year. So maybe qwasze's prospective CO can rest a little easier and accept the charter. Unless the talk of "activists" is really just an excuse for whatever the real reason is that they do not want to charter a unit.

Stosh, the reason I was asking about this was that from the post I quoted, it sounded like you regarded the EBOR members as being sort of adversaries to the boys (and to you), and also as being a bunch of nitwits who could be fooled into asking fewer questions by a long-winded answer. I will choose to infer from your response that that was not your intention. As an EBOR member myself, I prefer a comprehensive answer that allows the Scout to show that he is able to think and respond, that he has learned something and has the ability to share it, and that he is not afraid to speak to adults. But it isn't going to reduce the number of questions we ask, because there is no time limit. (Well I guess we would get thrown out of the hall at some point so the custodian can lock up, but no EBOR I have ever participated in has gone nearly that long. And in fact we tend to only ask 2 or 3 questions per board member anyway. For me, the EBOR is often the sixth BOR I have done with the same Scout, so there really shouldn't be too much new under the Sun other than talking about their project and their future plans. I suppose it might be a little different if I were the "district guy" and didn't know the Scout, but in our district those guys tend to ask NO questions, or maybe just one follow-up to one of the questions the troop committee members have asked.)

Stosh, you haven't answered the question. Do you advise the boys that they should give long answers to reduce the number of questions?

But you WANT Scouting to thrive, right?

I don't understand that attitude. If you don't do something because someone "might sue", you would never do anything. There's always someone who might sue.

I don't know about donations, but I would say the BSA didn't "loosen" anything.

If zuzy's son is really "done with this troop", I don't see why it matters what the SM knows and how he found out. If the SM has in effect relieved the SPL of his duties, what does it matter? Except for the unprofessional way the SM has gone about it, which there is nothing SPL can do about. SPL should probably ask SM point blank, "am I still SPL?" If the answer is yes, the next question is, "Since you do not seem to be letting me do my job, what do you want me to do?" If the answer is no, then that's that. But even if the answer is yes, if your son is "done with the troop" anyway, what's the real difference? He will just go along for a few more weeks with an empty title - unless he transfers to a new troop before his term expires, in which case he should resign as SPL at or before the time of transfer. The important thing from the Eagle perspective is whether he has already served at least six months in a position of responsibility since his Life BOR. I assume he has done so, since you said in a past post that all of his requirements have been completed except for SMC and EBOR. Also, if it were me, I wouldn't worry about the SM and his computer activities and his son and his son's Eagle. Your son is done with the troop, right? The only thing I would be concerned about is if the computer antics are affecting YOUR son's Eagle status.

qwasze, aren't there other organizations that could be CO for the unit in question?