Oak Tree

Ditto to all of the above.

I always viewed handing out the awards as the main thing that the Cubmaster needed to do. Getting an advancement chair would be great.

Maybe there's another side to this story, but from the description in the post, this man is just entirely wrong for the position of Cubmaster. The committee chair should be working to find a replacement. It's true that the COR could remove the CM, but you (the current pack leaders, especially the committee and CC) need to be thinking about who should take the job.

The innuendos are utterly inappropriate, but I don't think I'd go to the SE without going up the chain first. The SE can't fix the problem - he could revoke the guy's membership, but I don't think he'd do that without an investigation. He could also ask the CO to do an investigation, but you can also do that yourself. Getting the SE involved could make things move faster, but it could also blow up. I think I'd start with the CC, then the COR, and then the IH (institutional head). Surely you can't be the only one who thinks this guy is wrong for the job.

We had Cub Scouts in different schools. We would have an end of year party on the first Saturday in June and we told everyone that was the last date to earn anything under the old rank. (We could always be flexible with individual cases.)

As long as you just pick a date and announce it, everyone will go along. I doubt anyone really cares too much - but it's nice to have a clear date for graduation.

packsaddle,

The whole "wife as property" thing comes from English common law. It's referred to as "coverture" (or "couverture") - you can get some of the sense from this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

Time magazine traces the origin back much furtherThe legal precedents for discrimination against women date back to the beginnings of Western law itself.* In the classic era of Athens, women fitted approximately the same category as slaves. Early Roman law candidly referred to the "perpetual tutelage of women" and considered them to be under the manus (hand) of their fathersThe traditional wedding vow that includes the word obey or submit comes from a different source, I think. This tends to come from New Testament quotes like Ephesians 5:22-2422 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.As for who argues in favor of coverture these days, I feel like it has to be a pretty small group. There probably isn't any large lobbying group focused on repealing this aspect of coverture, though. Just my guess.

IANAL, but it appears there are two separate privileges in spousal communication. One deals with whether you can testify against your spouse if you want to, and the other is whether you can stop your spouse from testifying against you.

According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege, some states and the federal government let you testify against your spouse if you want to, but the majority of states allow you to stop your spouse from testifying against you.

If I've got that wrong, I'm sure Beavah can clarify things.

Here's what lexisnexis has to say: "There are two spousal privileges. The spousal testimonial privilege provides that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal prosecution. A second privilege involves confidential communications between spouses and applies in both civil and criminal cases. Some jurisdictions have both privileges, while others have one or the other. "

And "The modern justification for this privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship."

This blog entry states that 19 states have abandoned spousal privilege. http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/09/spousal_privilege_has_outlived.html

This one says that more than 40 states have eliminated the privilege.

The law seems to have originated with the idea that a wife was property and this was therefore a form of protection against self-incrimination. It seems to me like these are outdated along with the idea that a wife can't claim rape, or that a woman can't own her own property. I'm all for treating everyone equally here.

So, technically, for the merit badge, the counselor gets to decide what counts. I think this would pretty much be a designated Scouting event. It's hard to see how it wouldn't be. What I think the Scoutmaster is saying is that he wouldn't count it as "camping". He may be trying to disguise the argument, but if you are doing this work as a troop activity, it's hard to see how it wouldn't be a Scouting activity.

If you register as a Lone Scout, by definition you aren't "attached" to any pack. You can certainly still stay associated with anyone you want, stay on their email lists, or whatever, but you wouldn't be registered with a pack. I think you are supposed to register with the council that reflects where you live, but you could probably register as a Lone Scout from anywhere that you have an address.

You can certainly reach out to other packs in the area.

I'm sure the direct service council can let you know about whether there are any other Lone Scouts around that you might want to contact.

By allowing any two people to create privileged communication by signing a contract? I foresee a lot of crminals using that.

Sigh, Merlyn, I was actually trying to agree with you. There are a number of ways the government could create this right. Presumably you'd only allow you to have an exception with one other person who would effectively be your spouse.

I actually find this privilege a bit odd. I'm not clear on what the state's interest is in allowing someone to prevent their spouse from testifying against them.

Good luck with creating spousal testimonial privilege with a standard contract.

Yep, Merlyn, good point. I did say that some rights would require government to change the laws, and this would be one. What I should have said in my initial sentence was "there could be a fairly standard contract that two parties could sign that would convey many of the rights of marriage."

Who Is Overworked?

Anyone who chooses to let themselves be overworked.

I know I've been overworked at times. Looking back on it, I can identify how I made it my own choice to do it, or how I failed to delegate items that might have helped relieve it.

My sense is that the DEs put in a lot of hours. I think that some view it as being overworked.

I guess you could save on groceries that way.

You might think so, but nope. You still need to buy the calories. It's just that instead of having the kid eat them, the mom has to eat extra so that she can pass some on to the kid.

Depending on whether the kid or the mom would have more expensive taste in food, this could cost more or less.

"Simply Misunderstood"?

committees of which the Scout executive is secretary.

I don't think the SE is the secretary for the district committees.

As a matter of practice, I'd think the district committee would be well served to send out minutes, but I don't see how it's the case that they "must".

But there is more to the story. Would sending out minutes really solve whatever the issue is here?

The libertarian standard of getting the state out of the business of recognizing marriage seems like a fine solution to me.

I'm sure there could be a fairly standard contract that two parties could sign that would convey all the rights of marriage.

If the state has any interest in marriage, it would seem to be in favor of supporting children. In that sense, joint tax returns might be filed only by those couples who have children under 18. Raising children together might entitle you to some portion of your partner's salary, benefits, social security, etc. I don't see any good reason why being married without children should give you these benefits.

Seems like we have a pretty libertarian board here.

There are a number of rights that now go along with being married. Some of these could be dealt with in a contract (e.g., my spouse will inherit at least 50% of my estate upon my death). Others can't be and would require government to change the laws - entitlement to benefits, and I'm not sure what all else.

If four people want to form a communal family, I'm not sure why the government should stop it. I would think that the government would need to make sure that someone has responsibility for children (presumably the mother and father, for some definition of those terms).

It's surprising to me that there is such a general support on this board for the idea of separating government from marriage. That position wouldn't have much traction in the general society.

On topic: how long will Barack Obama be willing to be the honorary president of an organization that so directly contradicts his personal belief?

Beavah,

You normally have great wisdom and I love reading your opinions.

In a recent post you commented to RichardB that he'd managed to come up with an issue where everyone on the forum disagreed with him, and you asked if he might reconsider his opinion based on that.

So let me ask you the same thing - given the number of experienced, rational forum members who seem to be taking an opposite position from you on this one, is there any possibility that might cause you to rethink your position on this? I really appreciate that calm, intelligent, rational people are willing to mull over their opinions and reconsider them at times.

I find OGE's story to be a useful one. I know I've seen it several times (and I didn't even read it this time because I am so familiar with it), but I know that new people to the forum haven't seen it before, and it's relevant to the discussion. I think it is in fact a good presentation of how a prank can look to the person who is the victim. It's something good to consider for those who haven't thought of how it might come across.

Sure, there are good ways to have fun pranks, and we've all seen older boys have fun with each other. And yes, part of what we hope from Scouts is to toughen boys up, at least in the sense that they realize that they can deal with being cold, or wet, or hungry - they can take some action and improve things.

And I know that you can't always trust authority figures, but I don't think that's a lesson I really want to focus on teaching to my Scouts. They can learn that somewhere else.

One thing I've told my Scouts is that I respect people more when they change their position, or when they admit they made a mistake, or when they take full responsibility for something that goes wrong. I've gotten to the point where I am happy to say "It's my fault; I'm sorry." I'll say it regardless of who all else might be at fault, or what percentage of the blame is mine.

Is there any way at all that you might admit that pranks like this might not be a positive thing?

My opinion is that both of these counselors are within their discretion as counselors.

A counselor can definitely decide whom he is willing to work with. A Scout can always ask for a different counselor.

A counselor can also decide what evidence he is willing to accept as proof that the requirements have been completed. My opinion is that being present for the testing is a reasonable way to have the Scout prove that he is completing the testing.

I do not believe that either of these is adding to the requirements.

I also agree with TwoCub - "I really get tired of hearing "adding to the requirements" over every little instance of someone asking boys to put forth effort. "

There was one poster that I could identify by his name/posts, but I only knew him as a general guy in the district. We never discussed the forum and he wouldn't have known I was "Oak Tree".

I did just have a great opportunity to sit down and have dinner with one other member of the forum. It was fun to talk about all of you :-) I really enjoyed the lengthy discussion - of course, it probably helped that he had entirely correct and proper opinions about the Scout program (which is to say, they were the same as mine). Actually, I felt like I could learn quite a bit from him and I hope we can continue to talk in person.

Ditto to what everyone says above.

Our attendance varies a lot, from as low as 10%, up to something much higher.

A couple of observations I'll add. As our troop grew much larger, our participation percentage dropped. This, I'm guessing, has to do with several factors. One is that the Scouts feel less personally responsible for planning and executing each trip. When it's a small number of boys who are making the plans, they tend to feel much more buy-in.

Another thing is that as the troop has aged (and we now have almost 50% of our Scouts who are 14 and up), we find that the older boys have a much lower participation rate than the younger guys. They tend to choose just a few trips that interest them and don't conflict with their other activities.

We do try various things to get the participation up, but in another way, I'm not too concerned about it. If the Scouts continue to re-register, it means that they are finding the program effective. I'm much more interested in the recharter rate than I am in the participation rate. If we have a trip where only eight boys sign up, we go and have a good time with those eight boys.

An active COR could run the existing BSA units this way now. But the norm is that the CM and SM are different people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about how to operate as one unit.

Our new AHG unit does operate as one unit, with one overall leader. I think it's a good thing that they've learned from the BSA and changed.

Our CO does operate our pack/troop as joint units. There are things that we could do to make it feel more like "one unit". The AHG groups all meet on the same night. Our troop and pack meet on different nights. They are referred to as separate units, while the AHG age divisions are just divisions within one larger, named, unit. It's a collection of a lot of little things.

Our pack and troop have a pretty smooth relationship. Even though we aren't one unit, we do have pretty good success with the Webelos transition, and we don't even really talk about it all that much like a crossroads - we treat it more just like a milestone. Most all of our Webelos cross over into the troop.

In summary - yes, I like the concept. You can do it that way now if you want. I think it would be good if the BSA moved more in that direction, but there are a lot of organizational, historical, and logistical obstacles to an all out change.

"I will encourage the Scouts in my troop to earn their religious awards.I will produce a pack resource that describes how to do this, including the contact information for religious leaders who are willing to be counselors. I will make this form available at a pack meeting, I will put it out on our pack website, and I will email it to the families in the pack.I will ask at least five religious leaders if they would be willing to be listed as contacts for this form.I will purchase materials for several religious awards and have them available in the pack library.I will make a presentation at a pack meeting on this topic. I will show them the knot and medal they can earn. I will talk to the parents about how the program works.I will ask the religious leaders if they would be willing to accompany me at this presentation.I will work to set up a class for Scouts who want to earn their religious award. I will start with my son and with the religious leaders at our church. I will ask religious leaders to do this class, either until I have succeeded, or until at least five leaders have turned me down."

Ours cross in March. Most of the packs/troops in the district do it in February. We've been thinking of moving it earlier, to do it in February like the rest. It's nice to have a chance to get the new Scouts integrated before summer arrives.

We had some CoHs like this in the past. We gradually adjusted them so that they run more smoothly and are less painful to sit through.

They generally end at about an hour and then we have dessert and stand around and talk. It's usually a good time. We do four a year. One or two are potluck dinners.

We've added more structure. The Scouts can change whatever they want, but we have a much more organized default plan, and this makes things run a lot more smoothly. I no longer dread them. We do a fairly careful job of selecting the emcee, because we know that this is the primary things that many parents see of the troop, and we want to try to make a positive impression here.

I guess I'd call it a prank, not hazing, but I don't see how this prank amounts to any kind of fun.

"So, let me get this right, you want to try to scare the new Scouts? What do you hope to accomplish with this? [pause and wait for answer] Give me a prediction - what do you think the reaction of the new Scouts is going to be?"

I don't think I've ever seen a statement that you can only have one of any given position in a troop.

Some positions clearly allow for multiples - den chief, JASM, troop guide. Some positions are commonly multiplied. A number of troops have multiple ASPLs. We've done multiple quartermasters. Can't say I've ever heard of a troop that had multiple librarians.

When I say I haven't seen such a statement, I really mean that I don't think that there is such a statement. Multiply whatever you want.

For me personally, I find it hard to think that renting a u-haul trailer is easier than grabbing the troop trailer.

not raising money to purchase it, or getting it registered or insured, or maintaining it, or finding a place to park it, or finding people to pull it.

not raising money to purchase it, We had the money in our account. Decided it would be a good use for the money we'd already raised.

getting it registered or insured This is pretty trivial.

maintaining it Yes, there is a little bit of work here, but it hasn't been that much.

finding a place to park it We had a place already with one of the families.

finding people to pull it I don't think we've ever had a trip where this was an issue. Maybe it's just the people who are in our troop, but there are lots of trailer hitches around.

We use the trailer on maybe half of the trips in a given year. The troop gear hasn't really changed all that much from the time before the trailer. It does let us take fewer drivers on some trips. Even if you pack light, it can be hard to fit five people and their gear into a Honda Fit.

I just looked back over our troop records. I found three out of about fifty who had made First Class in less than 6 months. So I don't think that the time requirement would have much effect in practice.

In a way I kind of like the requirement to spend some time at each rank. It makes each step feel a little bit more substantial. But it wouldn't probably matter much to the Scouts.

As skeptic suggests, our troop sees the great majority of Scouts earn First Class somewhere between 8 months and two years. Roughly speaking, our generally active Scouts will earn it between 8 and 12 months, and the ones who are a bit less active will earn in during the second year. So maybe something like 6% get it earlier than 8 months (the real go-getters), 51% get it between 8 and 12 months, 30% get it during the second year, and 13% take longer than two years. I regard those last 13% as a success, in that they are hanging around the program, enjoying being Scouts, even though they aren't advancing.

A recent SPL was one who took over three years to get to First Class. It just took awhile, but things finally kicked in. I don't think the time requirements would have mattered much to him :-)

Ring bound is easier to use, for sure.

Cover might make it last longer, but it's made for the normal binding.

I'd ditch the cover. Let the book wear out. It means it's being well used.