qwazse

Every camp I attended always had one or more international scouts.

The coffee pot. My barista's miscela blend, ground for espresso.

For our district, it's not sports. It's theater. And a couple of grads are indeed making it big. Sometimes the combination of the two. Although the district hasn't fielded many pro athletes, That last phrase is tremendous. Any form of separate-but-equal is a non-starter. It demands a doubling of personnel when membership might only increase slightly, depending on location. When daughter became venturer, Mrs. Q became committee on paper. But she made it quite clear that I was the one who "did scouts." The reasons for this involved gifts and talents, as well as personality clashes ... but more importantly, there is a lot of work to be done for a household with three kids and as many pets. We had to divide and conquer. I don't forsee the next generation of scout parents being any different.

Welcome, and thanks for all you do for the boys!

It's doublespeak. I'm rankled by it. I can't imagine it sitting well in the heartland. That's so Greater LA can filter out us ne're-do-wells from parts east. Actually, it may indeed be a national survey. But I can understand the interest in knowing which opinions are from which stakeholders and special interests.

'Skip crews often pushed the boundaries by a year or so in age to include a devoted younger sibling or best friend. I nicknamed these lot "Venturers in Training." Many do wind up taking a turn as officers, where youth recruited at an older age are slightly more likely to sit on their hands. One desire of the developers of the venturing program was to have them involved with existing BSA and GS/USA troops and packs, thereby creating a conduit from existing programs to Venturing. It never materialized. There are some troops and crews that have gone maverick on this, and provided co-ed program, setting aside advancement, for 11-14 year olds. Their challenge, however, is insurance coverage, which they must acquire outside of BSA. and personnel who have to make up rules as they go along.

When is a belt not a belt? When it's a sash-rack! In the "red-beret" days, we would often fold it and stick it under an epaulet. I would not be displeased at all if a troop invested in stock 'biners or parachord, and made something for boys to hang their hats to their belts when indoors. What's the point of a hat if not to show how courteous you are?

I'm not sure my PL would call the house. Mom would talk his ear off! He would knock at my door and catch up with me in school. I don't recall any attendance problems with my patrol. Perhaps they were all new scouts, and I was working with them through their Jr. High years, before they would consider doing anything besides attending troop meetings and activities. Do any of your troops do roll-call by patrol for your opening ceremony? We do at summer camp, but not at meetings. I'm trying to get that to change.

Why I'm not an SM: He'll get it as soon as he learns . . . . . . to axe nicely.

Our scenario: merged troop of boys with preferences for two different camps on the same week. 2/3rds went east, 1/3rd went west. Divisions were not along patrol lines. I forget which contingent got the SPL/ASPL. Anyway, whatever problems it caused, the boys were expected to sort it out for themselves.

@@ianwilkins, the litigious nature of our populace (foisted upon us by the criminal behavior of a few) is indeed crippling.

Technically, at our camp, each area director signs blue cards. The sum of every MB in that area should be the director's "competency."

I was curious if @@Bingo's scout got his act together. Before I put my 9th Ed. BSHB on the shelf, I thought here would be a good place to outline Green Bar Bill's definition of scout participation. He called it "Three A's": Attendance "... there on the dot for all meetings hikes and events. When sickness or some other reason prevents ... you tell your PL in advance. Then he can announce 'All present or accounted for.' " Appearance "... Always show up in your scout uniform ... You can hardly be taken for a scout unless you look like one." Attitude "... Shows in everything you do ... Your SM gives his time and effort ... Back him up in what he's trying to do for the good of all of you."

Never settle! Our camp director asked us how we felt about him dropping cooking from the course schedule after the requirements changed. We nearly give the guy a standing ovation.

No worries. If it confused you, it likely did others. So, clarifying will hopefully help.

EM, you misjudge our people. Those are the moms who I have the darnedest time convincing to come camping with us! They are the ones saying this. Not us guys. Moms pay good money to live in this community (or commute their scouts here if they can't afford it), none of them are "kept" women. Not by a long shot. Several are veterans. In spite of press to the contrary, it still feels like a steel town, and Rosie the Riveter never really left the shop floor. Whoever in the couple finds the job "rolls the steel." Nevertheless, these moms want their boys (and girls, if they are asking for co-ed) in the program because they believe in our male role models -- however misplaced that faith may be. It may make you sad. It might inconvenience me. However, they are quite happy about it. P.S. - Just in case any of my daughter's friends from @@Eagledad's neck of the woods catch wind that I'm writing this. I got nothing against "kept" women. It's a noble and truly liberating way to live. It's just not how we roll on the boundary between coastal and heartland.

We have moms who camp with their families. But, taking a troop out in the big woods? That's men's work. Same applies to my crew ... we have the same problems as Flagg even when we have even numbers of male/female youth. If the GSS didn't require it, many parents would be fine with their girls being under the leadership of two adult males. Or ... under the leadership of an adult youth. Case in point: Son #2 was a welcome guest at many family camps (i.e. cabins) who had more daughters than sons. They could count on him getting the kitchen operating and then cleaned by morning. And, more importantly, without him and his buds, the ladies would be downright unruly. That's why I guess we have the "family camping" rhetoric. BSA doesn't believe it has the volume of men willing to take on co-ed units with minimal assistance from female counterparts (as would happen with an instant change in membership standards). So, they figure they need to recruit those moms of younger youth and hope that somewhere down the road more of them would lead patrol-method units. I view it with some pessimism. It's like ripping a bandage off slowly.

This is another example of drift causing BSA to waste words. What is "satisfactory effort"? Well, effort that satisfies someone. Who is that someone? The SM and the troop committee! You might cook me up a very nice steak and serve me a bit-size portion on day one, but if that's all you're doing, don't expect me to give your restaurant a 5 star review at the end of the week. (That's my beef against pretentious restaurants: small portions on big plates, as if I'm supposed to be impressed by the china.) So no, pretty much anything positive never did, does not, nor should ever fulfill the requirement. Same thing for the "active" requirement. Some fool asked for a rule from national, and over the years got a list of things we shouldn't hold against a scout (nominal dues payments, lack of attendance - if not specified in advance, shoddy appearance, etc ...) boiled down to oh-so-much-blathering in the GTA. The correct answer that will stand the test of time, IMHO: It's none of national's business, don't ask them, read the BSHB and ask your troop. If you think that those non-MB requirements were hollow as written previously, they will continue to be in the new writing.

Timmy: "What is it , Lassie?"Lassie: (barks at labtop) Timmy: "Oh no! Mr. Schiff's fallen into the echo chamber!"

I would point out that while Mike was SE of our council his investment in venturing was minimal. That's not a criticism. Nor does it trivialize what he did do in terms of making summer camp a destination for venturers as well as boys and Cubs. That's only to say that he wasn't selected for his preference for dark green uniforms.

This is always a dodgy proposition. The push-back tends to be something like "It can't be boy run into the ground." Or, "I'm just trying to make sure their experience is positive." Not every CC-SM pair can have an honest conversation about it. Either the boys are going to read their handbook and insist that adults "Play by the rules." Or this kind of behavior will repeat itself.

Or, give him $100. He'll wait in line for donuts, buy 12 dozen and sell them at a markup to everyone in the back of the line behind him!

As you all know, I'm of two minds about this, having known scouts and scouters of polar opposite opinions, and having conversed here. But, is it worth our time for any of us commenting and providing feedback at these wannabe town hall meetings? Based on recent practice, after polling it's base, National will identify the majority opinion, define it accurately, and come up with a diametrically opposite policy. FWIW, as I've said it elsewhere, one of the youth (now young adult?) mentioned, Michelle Meritt, is an excellent speaker and well worth inviting as a VIP if your council does that sort of thing for any of its activities.

So, @@Stosh, was your handbook laid out differently than mine? In mine, the MB requirement for a Palm was #4 of 5. It told me that there were specific awards on the trail to Eagle, half of which required progress review by an adult committee. Eagle being one of them, Palms being the next. It never put "rank" and "Eagle" in the same scentence. Maybe some people think more of an Eagle+Bronze than Eagle, maybe not. But, even if the latter is what "everyone runs around saying", when did egalitarianism become any justification for making a BoR optional?

@@Stosh, I don't see much of a problem either, except by the book (at least mine, haven't look at a later one), there is no "rank advancement" only "advancement". And Palms were not a separate category of advancement, but rather the last step on the trail to Eagle. But then, something changed. And in peoples' minds, the ovals became one thing, and the Palms became another thing. I'm just trying to figure out when and how?