Proud Eagle

I must say I fully agree with all of the other posts thus far, particularly Bob White and Fuzzy Bear. Pay very close attention to the requirements. If he is able to do planning, provide leadership, and evaluate the progress of the project within his current physical/mental limits I would say go for it. However, since leadership is the key element the BOR wants to see from the project, make certain that some other person doesn't end up with the job delegated to them in its entirety. If the only answer he can provide to the Board when they ask "how did you provide leadership? how did you plan? how did you evaluate? how did you manage?" is "I delageted all that to Johny" it will not survive scrutiny. If he is not up to it determine if it would be best to: 1. post pone the project 2. hand it off to another aspiring scout (remember they will get in a bind if it is already planned, "what planning did you do?", "Bob planned it before he broke his back") 3. turn it into a troop service project

"The youth must have experienced fifteen days and nights of Boy Scout camping during the two-year period prior to the election. The fifteen days and nights must include one, but no more than one, long-term camp consisting of six consecutive days and five nights of resident camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. The balance of the camping must be overnight, weekend, or other short-term camps." Based on this you may count 6 days/5 nights of summer camp. However you may not count any of the CIT or Canoebase experience, since those would be additional long term camping experiences. Therefore he would need at least 9 days/10 nights of short term Boy Scout camping experience within the last 2 years. http://www.oa-bsa.org/misc/basics/ Eligibility Scouts are elected to the Order by their fellow unit members, following approval by the Scoutmaster or Varsity team Coach. To become a member, a youth must be a registered member of a Boy Scout troop or Varsity Scout team and hold First Class rank. The youth must have experienced fifteen days and nights of Boy Scout camping during the two-year period prior to the election. The fifteen days and nights must include one, but no more than one, long-term camp consisting of six consecutive days and five nights of resident camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. The balance of the camping must be overnight, weekend, or other short-term camps. Adult selection is based on their ability to perform the necessary functions to help the Order fulfill its purpose, and is not for recognition. Selected adult Scouters must be an asset to the Order because of demonstrated abilities, and provide a positive role model for the youth members of the lodge. "The balance of the camping must be overnight, weekend, or other short-term camps." You may not count any portion of other long term camps other than the one provided for. It doesn't matter if you troop takes 5 long term trips per year, you may only count one towards the 15 days /15 nights requirement. Therefore the camping requirement breakes down into two sub-requirements: 1. 6 consecutive days and 5 nights of redient camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America 2. 9 days/10 nights of short term Boy Scout camping The detailed, complete, and official answer to all this can be found in the: Order of the Arrow Guide for Officers and Advisors 2002 edition #34997B under, Membership Requirements (page 20 & 21) The requirements listed there are the ONLY complete and official printing of the OA membership requirements that I know of. If anyone wants anything from that I will be glad to provide information here. There are also relavant sections on Election Procedures and Unit Elections. Further, more can be found on unit elections in the Guide to Inductions.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I never noticed this post the first time around. If you are still looking for information I will be glad to provide what I can. I am quite familiar with structure and operations of the OA at the local level, having been a Lodge Chief recently. Feel free contact me by private message if you wish.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

We seem to have all overlooked the fact that safety glasses are usually a good idea for axe or hatchet work. While it may be over-kill to use them for splitting wood, it is quite important for chopping.

I have a few questions for you: 1. Are you also an ASM with a troop? (if yes, disregard the other questions) 2. Why are you attending Scoutmaster training? 3. As a youth Venturer, why do you want Scouting magazine? That being said, you should recieve Scouting magazine automatically if you are registered as an ASM. Oh, for male Venturers in the proper age range for attending as youth they can likely go as a part of the council contingent.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Are double headed axes allowed in BSA? I know someone once told me they are not. I have never seen one at a Scout camp or in a troop set of wood tools. However, that is far from proving the point. When you check the clearence around your work site (often called checking your blood range, though having a tree in the way can be just as bad as a person) you must check both the vertical and horizontal clearence for axe work. Since we are on the subject of axes, let me pose a question related to them. I was at a council camporee about a year and a half ago and there was an adult with a cub pack using an axe. The problems were: 1. It was to dark to see, so he was working by flashlight 2. There was no axe yard or safety barrier 3. There was no one standing by to watch him or keep people away 4. He was using a double headed axe in a way you would certainly never see in a BSA book 5. The various cubs were running around playing tag in the same general area What would the proper response have been, on the part of a registered volunteer leader in the BSA?

I seem to recal the ranger having several "suprises" such as the use of the yum-yum bag. Though I think I know what the actual suprise being refrenced is. However you won't get it if there is a dry spell. I would group crews according to what level of trek they want to do. Find out if they want to do 50 miles over relatively flat land, or 80 over the mountains. Either that or let them make a choice of what crew to belong to, and then choose how strenous of a trek to do. However, that causes a problem, if one of the guys in a crew (or a couple) doesn't want to do a difficult trek and isn't up to it, but everyone else does want to do the hard trek. So I would suggest having each person choose (after explaining the level of difficulty and the fitness level required) how difficult of a trek they want to go on. (These choices should be reviewed to make certain they are realistic. The overweight, small, inexperienced 14 y/o shouldn't be doing an advanced trek.) Group them according to difficulty chosen and then allow them to modify the groups as they see fit. Once the groups are fixed have each crew pick its own trek. Another possibility would be to group them according to activities they want to do during the trek. (Mt.Baldy, Tooth of Time, burrow racing, gold panning, etc.) I don't really think there is one perfect way of doing things. In the end everyone will have to compromise some. They won't be able to have all their friends, the difficulty level they want, and all of the activities they prefer. At some point they are going to have to choose what is most important to them.

As much as I hate to suggest that more uniforms would be better, I do think that would be the best solution. The best idea I can think of is to create a "field uniform" in two material types, one cool weather, one warm weather. Long shirts and pants could be available in both materials, with short sleeves and shorts available in cool only. The decorations on that uniform should be kept to a minimum. There could also then be a "dress uniform", something farely simple like a uniform jacket, a shirt, pants, and tie. The uniform could be made even cheeper by allowing the substitution of items that are similar enough in color and patern to be indestinguishable from the official version. Perhaps a better idea would be to just create an alternative version of the current uniform with the cut and fabric optimized for wear during outings. This would probably require 2 types, a cool and warm, to be created. In that way people could choose to own whatever version of the uniform works best for them. Another possibility would be to create simplified insignia as options for the new field uniform. The new simplified insignia should probably get rid of the plastic backing and be smaller to make the uniform be more breathable. The simplified insignia should probably be limited to unit identification, position patches, and ranks. Then again perhaps the current uniforms are all we need. Though I doubt it. Consider this personal observation: US Army winter BDUs are more comfortable in August in KY than a BSA uniform consisting of a short sleeve standard blend shirt and pants. Anywase, no matter what happens I am in favor of proper uniforming. Just because I think there is room for improvement is no reason to stop using the uniform to the best of my ability. (Though I do sometimes make minor adjustments for practicality. I.E., I often swap scout socks for hiking socks, I sometimes wear a long sleeve shirt under a short sleeve scout shirt, I sometimes wear a pair of flannel lined pants that are of the same color as scout pants.)

While BP may never have had anything carved into stone saying that Scouting was trying to make boys into men, I think he probably would have suggested that is certainly something Scouting supports. If you look at the qualities of manliness that Wheeler mentions you will notice most equate, at least roughly, with various values that Scouting, particularly BSA, support. I think the part where there would be some disagreement is that BP would never have been so bold as to suggest that Scouting could create men all of its own initiative. BP was also wise to avoid using any generic, easily misunderstood label of "men" as being the goal, and instead chose to highlight certain areas he felt that society was doing a poor job on. That kept Scouting focused on the areas society needed help, and it prevented someone from later deciding that it meant something else to be a man. That is just my current opinion on the matter.

I do have to agree with the general idea. However, I take slight issue with the choice of "caring adult" as the objective. While I certainly can't claim to be any great expert on such things, I think the program is greatly flawed if "caring" is its prime objective, but I don't think it is. Instead I would suggest "caring" is one of the many qualities that should be found in a successful product of the BSA program. Also, I see nothing wrong with mixing a bit of BSA and politics from time to time. If some of us get into a political discussion around the campfire at night, (or more likely, around a dining hall table during a OA event) I see nothing wrong with that. Certainly I would object to someone using the program as their own private political indoctrination system, but politics isn't a third rail issue. Now that being said, I do try to be careful around the youth in the troop about politics. Mostly that is because I know most of them don't really want to hear what I have to think about it. There is also the element that I don't want to use my BSA position to influence them. It is similar to my position on religion. I don't use Scouting as a way to proselytize, but if anyone has questions or concerns, I will certainly explain my position as well as I can.

I do have to agree with the general idea. However, I take slight issue with the choice of "caring adult" as the objective. While I certainly can't claim to be any great expert on such things, I think the program is greatly flawed if "caring" is its prime objective, but I don't think it is. Instead I would suggest "caring" is one of the many qualities that should be found in a succesful product of the BSA program. Also, I see nothing wrong with mixing a bit of BSA and politics from time to time. If some of us get into a political discussion around the campfire at night, (or more likely, around a dining hall table during a OA event) I see nothing wrong with that. Certainly I would object to someone using the program as their own private political indoctrination system, but politics isn't a third rail issue. Now that being said, I do try to be careful around the youth in the troop about politics. Mostly that is because I know most of them don't really want to hear what I have to think about it. There is also the element that I don't want to use my BSA position to influence them. It is similar to my position on religion. I don't use Scouting as a way to proselitize, but if anyone has questions or concerns, I will certainly explain my position as well as I can.

I would suggest some greater clarity in the various publications, such as the handbook, could encourage the wear of neater footwear. Certainly brown and black leather are far more appealing for most uniform occasions. Now that being said, with the activities uniform it doens't make much differenct to me what someone has on their feet. However, at a COH it is a bit odd to be wearing your orange athletic shoes. On the other hand it would be perfectly reasonable to wear those same athletic shoes during an inter-patrol basketball game. ----------------------------------- This brings up another thought I have had. Why is the uniform called the "Field Uniform"? I can understand the originis of the term. It is the current use that I don't understand. Once it was considered the norm to wear the uniform in the field (that is outdoors for the most part). The old military style uniforms were very practical, durable, relatively low cost outdoors wear. Certainly modern technology has given us better things than what were available then, but those better things aren't found in the BSA field uniform. Sure, there may be units that hike through Philmont in "class A" uniform, but they aren't making a very practical choice if they do. I would hazard a guess that if we could alter the space-time continuum in a way similar to a twighlight zone or Star Trek episode, and have BP try to found Scouting in the modern world, he would make uniform choices that would not sit well with current BSA leadership. It is my guess that either he would use modified civilian outdoor wear, or more likely he would choose a military uniform like the BDUs. Scouting's natural setting is the outdoors. Its activities are dusty, wet, cold, hot, and everything in between. It would therefore be logical for the uniform to be appropriate and sensable attire for wear during many Scouting activities. The current "field" uniform is not sensable attire for most Scouting activities. So we have a "field uniform" that probably shouldn't be worn in the field, and we have an "activity uniform" (because of the Scout shorts or pants) that is only marginally better suited to Scouting activities. Perhaps BSA would be wise to change its uniforms to something more practical. At the least they could stop calling the uniform the "field uniform", especially since we have no common "dress uniform" to differentiate it from.

I can't speak for wheeler's other posts, but most of what he posted here seems to agree with the various readings and research I have done into such matters. NJ does have a valid point about the term "liberal". Part of this has to do with the distortion of the terms over time. This is partly do to each side wishing to claim a certain heritage, and partially to denigrate the other side through false labels. Though the biggest difference is probably found in the use of what are essentially European (or perhaps British) terms to describe American politics. If you look at what the conservative movement in Britian stood for, and still stands for, and compare it to the Republican party, you will find the two do not equate perfectly. In the same way the classical term of liberal doesn't really fit Democrats. The true liberals of today are probably the libertarians. The Democrats are more or less progressives (though that would imply that Republicans oppose progress, wich is not true). Anywase, I have been in a few arguments about these sorts of things before. The problem is that people have been convinced that certain things are good. (democracy, progress, equality, justice, etc) Then various political groups and individual politicians try to lay claim to those things. However, often they claim to represent, or champion things they do not. Over time the deceptions of politicians has caused many to begin believing the rhetoric of the politicians and forgetting the truth. Now, all of this sort of thing can be interesting to someone wishing to study the history of politics, but the question is what relevance does it have? There is certainly one group of people that believe that if they can simply teach people the truth as they see it that everyone will sudenly see the light and agree with their political and social positions. Unfortunately for them I don't think that is true. Just because most people have no idea what the term liberal or conservative meant 50 or 100 years ago doesn't mean their opinion about social security will change when someone teaches them that. Also, there are some greater, more fundamental political considerations at stake. Most "conservatives" would argue that once a term is created it cannot be changed, or certainly can only be changed very slowly. On the other hand the views of "liberals" allows for the meaning of things to change or evolve far more easily. The most common example of that can be found in arguments over Constitutional law. Most liberals would support the position that the Constitution is a living ducument and that its meaning changes as society changes. On the other hand most conservatives would support the position that the meaning of the constitution can only be changed by amendments, and there is no ability for the courts to evolve or adapt the constitution to changing times. Any way you look at it this is really more of an academic rather than practical discussion. Oh, for anyone wanting more about this read "History of Conservatism". It was written in the 1950s, I believe, and is probably long out of print. It isn't worth searching out, but if you run accross it you should give it a read.

I would suggest the best way to prevent bad information from being circulated online would be to provide official electronic versions of the various publications on the various official national websites. Oh, and pdf can be edited if you have the full version of Acrobat. I would suggest that the manuals should remain available in hard copy, but should also be provided in a soft format.

Inter-faith is the best term for a generic service. Ecumenical is the best term for a generic Christian service. Most "Scout's Own" services I have attended were ecumenical. I have attended a few that were inter-faith, but they were all within the context of the three great monotheistic faiths. The only time I have attended inter-faith services that attempted to include more than those three faiths it seemed to me to be a very awkward experience for all involved. Attempting to include everything generally makes things such that anyone that believes anything specific is excluded. Such services take on an almost secular tone. It ceases to be a worship service (because no one can agree on what to worship), or an expression of faith (because there is no common elements to the faiths). Now one possibility for making an inter-faith service would be to have each chaplain's aid contribute something to the service. If that person wants to read from the book of Genesis, or John, or from the Koran that would work. If they wish to do a Buddhist chant, well, that could work. The problem would come with certain religions where the basic precepts are directly opposed. (I don't mean worship of different powers, but rather opposing morals, or a faith that specifically denounces some aspect of another faith.) Now if the chaplain's aid wished to do a poetry reading about flowers, I would ask in what way that is an expression of faith. If the answer is that it glorifies the Great Spirit's creation, well that is good. If the answer is that it won't offend anyone, now that I would have a problem with. Perhaps the best answer is to have a monotheistic inter-faith service for anyone that doesn't have specific requirements. Also providing an opportunity for others to organize their own service would be appropriate. Contacting the various committees that work with the council on religious relations, or the units chartered to faith based institutions, far enough in advance to allow for organizing something would probably cover it. I know for most major events in this area (council camporees, section conclaves) there is usually a Christian leaning inter-faith service and a Roman Catholic mass. Though if you decide to schedule a Catholic mass, make certain someone actually arranges for a priest, otherwise you will upset your Catholic population. At least one conclave I went to they agreed ahead of time to have a mass, and put it on the schedule. Unfortunately no one thought about the fact that a priest would be needed for that mass. So, many Catholics showed up, and waited around for the priest to show, only to find out one had been asked to come. That became a double offense of sorts, because everyone had planned on attending mass at the conclave, and we missed out on the inter-faith service. (This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I will take some time and try to give you a good answer later. However, the short version is we do all sorts of stuff. The calendar for this year includes climbing (indoor, not great), backpacking (multiple weekends and Philmont), hiking, skiing, white water rafting, canoeing, cycling, summer camp, and at least one or two generic camp outs just to take it easy and fish or something.

One must remeber that in most places a standard pocket knife is not considered a weapon, and is very rarely considered a deadly weapon. (Though anyone with a brain can figure out how to kill someone with just about anything. Schools are filled with nasty weapons: lunch trays (especially when broken, produce very sharp, hard edge, saw someone get cut up very badly by one), forks, spoons, dinner knives, anything made of glass, hammers, saws, scissors, power tools, toxic chemicals, flammible liquids, flammible gases, books, rocks, chairs, string, wire, baseball bats, hockey sticks, musical instruments, and all sorts of stuff. That is just the legal stuff in the classroom. Then there are the razors hidden in select volumes in the library, the guns in the courtyard greenhouse, the various drug related items such as needles that a person could get stuck by just for rubbing against someone in the crouded hall. There are also all sorts of fun things in peoples cars, trucks, and trailers in the parking lot. There is the kid running the lawn service business with his mowers, edgers, weed eaters, and chain saw. The kids going hunting after class with the shot guns in the tool box in the pickup. Plus all sorts of people have tools, knives, saws, axes, hatchets, road flares, shovels, spades, or other various and sundry items in their trunks. I remember I freaked out once because I realised I had a troop set of wood tools in my car one day. That afternoon when I saw the lawn service guys truck and trailer in the lot I realised I probably had nothing to worry about. What I am getting at is that at most any school there are all sorts of very dangerous items on hand. Many of those things are much more dangerous than a knife. So all the bans on knives may sound like good policy, but who do they really help? If someone is planning on stabbing you they are going to sneak in with their knife, and the first time anyone will know it is in the building is when they stick their target with it. On the other hand the Boy Scout who left the knife in the backpack gets caught somehow. Probably the most dangerous things of all in a high school are there as part of school equipment. Oxi-acetalene torches can make a pretty good IED in the right hands. In chemistry class we made contact explosives with simple chemicals. There are all sorts of nasty acids and bases in concentrations that a spoon full could cause permanent injury. The components needed for several types of artificial drugs are also on hand. The worst is the fact that someone that knows what they are doing (or has really bad luck) could conjure up poison gas in most high school labs. The point I am trying to make isn't that we should have an anything goes policy in our schools. Rather, the policies should be made with some common sense. Also, the enforcement needs to be done in a logical way. If they find a Boy Scout with a pocket knife on the same day they find a guy with a record of fights drug use, who should get the greater penalty? Anyone with a head knows which one is the greater danger. However, many of the policies (the school system policies, not so much the laws) require that they both be treated the same. I know at my school the only option the principal would have would be a one year suspension. (They would get sent to the "alternitive" school, a place notorious for lax inforcement of every rule, with minimal educational capacity, and a student body whose primary occupation is teaching each other how to commit crimes and get away with it.) OK. I am done with the rant for now.

I think it is odd that there was no section in the original lease allowing for renegotiating or renewing the lease. Or was the problem with the way that the original 1950s lease was issued? Those sort of things are certainly the norm with private leases. I also know they are found in many government leases. It is just common curtesy to provide for offering the same party the same property (though likely under new terms) after the initial lease expires. NJ, think about this. The building on the property and other improvements the council have made would likely cost millions to replace, even if they were able to get another property for free. So there is at least some financial sense in doing this. Also, if you look at the settlement the City made, it is questionable. The City didn't get forced by the courts to end the lease, rather it volunteered to end the lease as part of the settlement. Certainly the courts did produce a judgement in the case, but that was only after the city volunteered to pull the plug on the lease. So while the lease may have been illegal, the city's actions of seeking to terminate the lease before the court's had ordered it to do so, is possibly illegal as well. It seem the City was pretty well boxed in. Their only choices were to violate the contract by making a deal to end the contract, or to fight it all the way and incurr the various expenses relating to that. Anywase, even if BSA loses and is forced into a competitive bid situation, it may still be able to keep the property. The city could probably set up the terms such that greater standing was given to those who had a good record of stewarship of land or something like that. There are all sorts of ways that can be done. In my home town the city went with a more expensive company siting superior materials in its bid package. In another case the city issued bid specifications that were technically impossible. (It required the existance of materials and equipment that do not, and never have, existed.) They got two bids that came close, and basically just picked one. Then the unions sued if I remember correctly because the non-union contractor picked had a lengthy record of poor workmanship that was well ducumented in a series of complaints and suits. That didn't change anything of coarse and the union quickly dropped it when the city didn't reverse its decision. The city of coarse got done over. The contract they signed had provisions for the city paying cost over-runs. They ended up paying far more for the cheaper contractor, and had to have them come back and re-do parts of it later. To make matters worse the non-union labor came from several states away so there was little money returned to the community.

This thread was spun from another thread.They world is full of morons. I am not talking about Eamons son either. Why in the world do we live in a country where a Boy Scout that accidentaly takes a knife to school gets suspended for 3 days? There is no rational argument for that. It isn't that different from my apartments weapons ban. Obviously every apartment contains at least a knife or two that would qualify as weapons. Who in their right minds wold stock a kitchen and not include a good size knife? Fortunately they don't really inforce the weapons ban, though I am sure a gun would recieve a different response. I remeber when I was in high school they banned laser pointers. There were several teachers that would "confiscate" them and then return them at the end of the day without ever reporting it like they were supposed to. I even knew one teacher that did this with knives and lighters if the student asked them to. If they reported it those students would have all gotten in deep trouble do to a zero tolerance policy on contraband items that included knives, lasers, and lighters. (oddly it didn't include tobaco, so those people smoking in the bathroom every day got a slap on the wrist, even though they were also violating a state law making it a crime to smoke on school property, go figure)

Do put emphasis on their being places one shouldn't carry a knife. I once saw someone get hit in the head with a knife because of a freak incident involving someone having a knife in their jacket pocket in school. I have also known many Scouters that have lost knives at the air port security checks.

If she is qualified and does the job well it would be fine. The only big plus that men have is that sometimes people seem to get some weird us/them thing with females in Scouting. Also, some men were actually participants at BSA summer camps, which could theoretically be a plus, but not all were. So in the final analysis it would work with me. On the other hand if the entire leadership of the camp was female I would start to ask a few questions.

Let me clairify what I was trying to say. I intended for that to be clearly seen as the troop intending to do things correctly (i.e. the BSA way). Unfortunately that wasn't how some of you deciphered it. We aren't creating some sort of "ideal troop way", instead we are trying to do things the BSA way, but sometimes finding that difficult to do.

The Jamboree may be a non-issue depending on what staff position he has. I know that most of the staff from my council at the last Jambo rode on the buses with the participants. I think they had to be there about 2 days early, so the rest of us needed to be in the area for touring DC and what not, so they just got dropped off one day. Now if your council isn't doing touring for whatever reason (close proximitiy, save money, whatever) then just forget about all that.

There is one case that can force degree requirements changes. If the degree program is acredited by some group and they revise their standards or find the university is not complying with standards, then the requirements would have to change if the student wants an accredited degree. I knew one person that happened to.

Perhaps I can answer this question from a slightly different perspective. My dad was the den leader during Webelos. When I moved into Boy Scouts (along with the other members of the den, all of whom joined the same troop I did) he was soon asked to serve as Committee Chairman. So, for the next several years he was heavily involved in what the troop did. Because he was the CC he wasn't at every meeting or every outing, but he was at many of them. Generally I never really minded dad being around. There were at least a few times it was good to have him around. I definetly was proud of the fact he was willing to step forward and help out as needed, but still knew how to step back. The only time things were a bit odd were the trips where both my parents attended. I eventually got used to that. I would just suggest communicating with your son about things. Find some sort of balance. If you are comfortable with it and he is, then I think it should work out.