Beavah

Hops, da real issue is that if the team/school didn't like their uniform, they'd be free to design a new one. And if Nike didn't produce it for them, they'd have a few dozen other suppliers to choose from.

Kudu, who is Mike Walton? A law enforcement official? It is as you suggest a question of contesting something. The government or the powerful are free to trample any right until they are opposed.

Which is why, as good citizens, we should always be quick to oppose such nonsense, even and especially when it comes from organizations we support. Though the circumstances in the case you suggested are unclear because it's not certain how the person was using the insignia, it's hard to imagine any appellate division not incinerating such a ruling.

Insignia is the property of BSA. You purchase only the right to use the badge in the manner permitted by BSA. See the Insignia Guide.

Sorry, der, FScouter, but I'm afraid you are da one who is mistaken.

The controlling law here is not a BSA publication, it's the Uniform Commercial Code and the Trademark and Copyright Acts. Oh, yah, and the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property.

Isn't citizenship in a freedom-loving democracy a pain?

the BSA owns all the badges and insignia, so as such they can say where they can be worn.

Nah. Yah got your legalment all befuddled.

The BSA owns, as "intellectual property", the symbols on the badges. They can control who manufactures/distributes/sells things with those symbols. To the extent to which they sell something like MB's only through their own shops, they can also control who they are sold to, within limits. But if they're distributing through Dunhams or another sporting goods shop, they can't.

Once you purchase a badge, you own the physical badge. You are free to use it on a uniform, trade it, sell it, fold, spindle, mutilate it, sew it on upside down, or burn it as a form of speech. You are not free to represent yourself as speaking for/on behalf of the BSA, nor are you free to use their symbols for personal or corporate gain.

So in short, there's nothing wrong with you sewing patches on your jeans. You own the patches. The BSA's recourse is that they can evict you from the organization. But we all know that evicting a troop for sewing patches on a decent-looking troop uniform would be the height of petty and stupid. No SE is going to reduce the reportable number of youth served for something like that.

In an odd thread in the Issues forum, someone comments:

But on the 2-hour drive back home from Enchanted Rock, all they could talk about were video games, the new Xbox, which games they wanted for Christmas, etc.

So we should ask ourselves...Why? Why is the video game so addictively popular, even after one of our campouts?

* It is not adult-run. At all.

* A kid achieves new levels at his own pace; no one is "pushing" him except his own desires.

* Failure is just a stepping stone to getting better.

* It is very engaging... physically, and mentally. You are never waiting around listening to rules and lectures.

* You do not get "signed off." All that counts is what you are able to do, and you love being "re-tested" to show off to your friends.

* It is social. You can share stories and tips with your friends, and even play with them on-line.

* You can play more than once a month, without sitting around at any "meetings."

* There is no uniform. You are valued for your skill, not your clothing.

* It is uniform. Everyone is treated the same by the machine... all that counts is what you learn/figure out about the game.

* Leadership isn't a position. It's who has the best idea to get past the dragon.

* Whether it's Cops & Robbers, Cowboys & Indians, Squirtguns & Waterballoons, Space guns with infrared chips, Airsoft or Paintball, or video game blasters, it's great fun to shoot things and make them go boom.

* You can always beat any adult who is dumb enough to challenge you.

Hmmmm.... There are probably some lessons there, if we're willing to listen.

We must make rules that are clear and then enforce them blindly or we must be ready to admit that we support vigilante justice.

I dearly love these views of the world. Why in heaven's name would we ever buy this as being a binary choice?

Well, happily, neither we nor our founding fathers did. Instead, we trust to the goodwill and intelligence of fellow citizens. We rely on juries and judges and law enforcement officers and the like to be Mentally Awake. We recognize that it's impossible for even the most intelligent human lawmaker to come up with a law that is so clear that it can be enforced justly everywhere all the time; so we trust other intelligent people of good will to interpret and enforce and, yes, where appropriate ignore the law for the sake of justice.

Vigilante justice? No. American jurisprudence. To trust the People, and freedom, more than the King.

Good role models are people the kids can be proud of, and identify with.

I haven't yet met a kid who is proud of or really identifies with the 1980s Oscar de la Rentas. Most are embarrassed to be seen in them. The uniform "benefits" we talk about are mostly an adult fiction when you take the time to listen to the kids.

There are lots of uniforms kids are proud to wear. Functional, active uniforms like those worn for sports teams. But we've got to decide whether we care more about the active outdoor life of boys, or more about the adult indoor life of dressing up to show status.

What in Heavens name are people thinking about when they argue AGAINST the uniform !?

Dat's Easy. The uniform loses us good kids who would otherwise join scouting.

There are dozens of reasons to wear the uniform and promote the uniform method.

Right answer to da wrong question. We should na' be caring about promoting the uniform method. We should be caring about whether the uniform method as enacted is promoting our Aims... with the kids. It doesn't matter whether we adults think the uniform represents Truth, Justice, and the American Way. What matters is what the kids think it represents.

For us it's Scouter + firstname for any of the SM/ ASMs, except for Harvey, who is just Harvey. Non-scouter parents are Mr. or Mrs. + Lastname. Institution Head (pastor) and his assistant are both "Father" + Firstname, and Deacon Joe is Deacon Joe. I'm "Doctor" + firstname.

Nicknames abound.

I think it's generally polite to refer to folks as they would prefer to be addressed, and the kids are pretty good at adjusting. All of the SM's I've seen who are expert at the Adult Relationships Method end up on a first-name basis with their scouts well before they turn 18.

I really don't know how a leader worth his salt, who is charged with helping make young people make ethical decisions can stand up in front of a group of young people and tell them that he knows what the uniform policy of the BSA is and he understands it, but has chosen to ignore it and that's OK.

Dat's Easy.

The leader is being Mentally Awake, and encouraging his scouts to follow their Oath and be the same.

He or she recognizes that for the boys in the troop in their area, the BSA uniform guidelines (not policy, BTW) are not achieving the aims and purpose for which they were intended. So the SM uses Patrol Method and Youth Leadership Development and Outdoor Program and all those other methods to come up with some uniform guidelines that work.

Just like the many workers and volunteers down in New Orleans who ignored the inane FEMA paperwork guidelines and figured out what really worked to provide assistance, it demonstrates good character and citizenship to roll up your sleeves, listen to others, and make something work for your kids. "I was just following the rules" is always a poor excuse.

I'll leave it as an exercise whether comparing wearing a complete dress-designer outfit to youth drug use is in keeping with the "mentally awake" part of the oath. We all got a good chuckle out of it here, tho!

Easy der, OGE. We're only hearing one side of the story.

The SM is accountable for his actions to the chartered org., and to a lesser extent to the committee in terms of following committee policy. But the only way to hold a volunteer SM accountable is to get him to leave... either because he gets ticked off about being reversed on a very public decision, or because the IH in this case says "Go."

Aquila is right here. If the SM is dug in, the only possible outcomes are a lot of troop infighting with no change in the decision, or a lot of troop infighting and the troop being left with no SM. People of good will sometimes have to stop and consider whether being right justifies doing more damage. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

As a CC, I'd probably be trying to mediate this, but ultimately my job is to back the SM unless or until it's time to recommend to the CO that we fire him.

As a former SM, though, I'd welcome this lad into my troop in a heartbeat. He cares, and he cares enough to act, and he tries to act in a responsible way. That's gold in an SPL in my book.

A scout is courteous.

Before everyone goes running off to council and committee chairs and the like, the first step is the one that our SPL Meechgalanne suggests.

Your son, and perhaps one or two of the other boys, should sit down and talk with the SM. Politely, respectfully, and share concerns. I'd do it privately to start, Meech... it makes people less defensive.

I suspect this SM is a guy who is in over his head, and like many folks in over their heads he swings from underreacting (not providing direct feedback and training to the youth leaders) to overreacting (firing everybody). It's important to remember he's probably trying to do his best, too.

Recognize that at the point you go "over his head" to the CC / COR, you are asking for the Scoutmaster to be removed. No volunteer is going to stay around in any sort of positive way after having been overruled on a major public decision like this, unless the CC / COR or UC have a lot of finesse. Once it happens once, anyone with a complaint will try the "over his head" routine.

So just make sure that's the outcome you want before you go there. Lotsa times the "in over his head" guy is there because there's nobody else to take the job. Will the troop survive if this SM leaves?

There's also a "make lemonade" opportunity here. Go with the Venture patrol, volunteer as an ASM, and help your son and his friends make it AWESOME. Great chance for fun and leadership, with a nice "we showed him" kinda feel.

Yah, I agree with Voyageur.

You could step this up to pulks (pull-sleds) if you wanted to have an option to get a bit farther.

I'm always a bit mystified by folks backcountry snow camping with fires. Insulated clothing works both ways - keeps the heat out as much as in. Fires are mostly just a way to melt snow and nylon.

Sounds like a good campout, though.... more den enough stuff to be havin a load o' fun and leave the lads tired out. Is the area you're lookin' at pretty free of slopes with avalanche risk if kids wander about?

Hi Eagle76,

Sounds like participating in the training was an expectation, and that a few folks are just agitating for an exception that y'all don't want to give. If that's the case, just say "no."

Depending on where you live, winter camping can be a real high-load safety issue or not too big a deal. Up here in the Wisconsin / Minnesota area it can be pretty serious. Pre-trip experience definitely required.

Aside from that, I've never been fond of gettin' too rules-bound on dis stuff. We're running a kids' program, not a law firm. The old expectations should stay in place unless the PLC comes up with an alternate to be approved by the committee. Or, if it's just a kid or two and their skills are well known, it's OK for the SPL/SM who knows the camping conditions to make an intelligent exception.

Often times donating or raising money is a more helpful form of service for a charity than doing labor. The money can be more easily directed to exactly match a real need than 20 kid laborers who are only available on Saturday the 21st.

And it's not a bad thing to get kids into the habit of thinking about giving financially to charity as a form of service. That's a habit I hope my kids will carry with them into adulthood.

That having been said, I certainly wouldn't want this to be the only form of service a troop does. There is also a huge value in kids being hands-on in their service, where they can really see the need, and really feel the effects of their contribution. I would want that to be a big part of a troop's service efforts.

The most disturbing here, though, is the "dictated" nature of this service. Service is only service if it is something that the kids themselves agree to give to. Something that they themselves choose. As described, this seems more like an assigned chore than a generous sacrifice.

The old Soviet system was very good at uniformity. Uniformity like that often looks attractive in theory as a solution to poverty (i.e. poor units). But the theory wasn't so... the result of enforced uniformity was impoverishing everyone.

Adaptation of the program to local circumstances and the needs of kids and the capabilities of leaders is not only a good thing, it is a necessary thing for success.

If you tweak the Scouting program, how can you tell if you have achieved its intended goal?

Dat's easy. You measure the outcomes. Are the scouts who have been in the program demonstrating good citizenship and character and fitness? And do they attribute at least some of that to their scouting experience? National tweaks the program every year... and probably collects less information on the resultant outcomes than the average unit does.

Kudu is also right (albeit a bit lost in the political polemic) that the BSA's program is a very substantial "tweak" of how scouting is practiced in the rest of the world.

Nah, I vote with Kudo.

Unless a boy knows basic scoutcraft skill well, he can't be a good leader in a scouting environment.

He doesn't understand enough to make a good decision at the PLC. He isn't capable of implementing the SPL's decisions within his patrol. He can't earn the respect of his patrol members and peers.

Program success and retention depend more on good cooks and map readers than they do on some adult-abstract notion of elected representation. At best, such higher functions as effective representation come into play only a long time after the basics (like having a good meal in the rainstorm) are taken care of.

Yah, dat's pretty funny.

There's as much or more stored energy (and therefore potential for harm to persons or property) in pumpkin catapult as in a spud gun. And model rockets in space exploration merit badge are chemically-propelled fast moving objects. So there's nothing inherently stupid here.

At that point, you have to use your brain. Set up a safe range on private land, use a proven design, test all "cannons" yourself in a safe manner (remember, failure is more likely from poor construction than from poor design), inspect for potential problems after each firing, train boys in procedures, make allowance for the things kids are likely to do, be mindful of the impression you'll make on others in your community, clean up afterward.

Done well, it could be novel way to spend time with a patrol and teach them how to think about safety and courtesy when doing something new... they may take those habits with them when they go play with fireworks when we're not around. That would be a good thing.

Done poorly, you teach kids the wrong lessons, hurt the reputation of scouting, and perhaps risk injury.

Same as with any of da many things we do.

I gots a chuckle out of Kudu's friend's list. If you read it closely, ya can identify some common themes in his points.

Burnout themes/causes that can/should be fixed in the program:

* Excessive and unnecessary BSA paperwork/bureaucracy.

* Lack of support/follow through from parent volunteers and council pros.

* Advancement stuff that undermines scouting's goals.

* Poor behaviors by fellow scouters.

* Poor council communications.

Burnout themes/causes that are probably inevitable and need to be counteracted by support and humor:

* Lack of courtesy from scouts and parents.

Good reasons for leaving:

* Personal freedom to do other things without responsibility for kids.

* Becoming impatient with ordinary kid behaviors.

* Time to move on and pursue other volunteer work, strengthen ties to family, or enjoy other hobbies.

Yah, Okay der.

I see whatcha mean.

I think that you're assuming an adult or a youth leader like Brian, your Eagle Scout senior who "got it."

I'm just not sure that this "webelos 3" troop has anybody, youth or adult, like that. Building up things through employing the different methods of boy scouting isn't JUST for developing youth understanding ... it's as much or more a set of steps for helping the ADULTS to build understanding and capacity. They have to learn to let go gradually, as they see successes build.

Da kids can learn fast, eh? They're used to it. It's da adults that take time to find the way.

Ideals and Personal Growth are all well and good, but if it isn't done by Patrols, it isn't Scouting.

Yah, riighhhttt.

And if it's done by Patrols without sound youth leadership and support in place, it isn't Scouting either. It's a bullied gang, da Lord of the Flies, or wreckless endangerment.

The Patrol Method is an important method in scouting, at least for troops that get big enough to form two patrols.

But when you are starting a new unit, or attempting to recover/recycle/improve an old unit, it's not the FIRST method you should pay attention to. You tried to "turn on" the Patrol Method before you had taken any steps to address the Youth Leadership method. So you removed the adult leadership structure with nothing else ready to take its place.

You need to start with the Adult Association and Personal Growth methods. Build good relationships with kids, and identify how to help each of them grow and experience some successes from independent effort. They have to be able to feel supported; they need to feel the "zorch" of small independent successes before anything else can happen.

Next you need to build up the Uniform and Ideals methods. These provide some positive unit culture and structure. This includes not just clothing uniforms, but some rituals and habits that "always happen" at meetings that the kids can work within.

Next work on making your Advancement Method meaningful... no badge factories, an occasional "no". Earning rank needs to be a challenge that you skin your knees climbing but feel proud of achieving. Being of higher rank is something that others have to see as being meaningful.

Then you're ready for Youth Leadership. Your youth feel supported by Adult Association. They've developed personally and have come to seek Personal Growth on their own initiative. The troop has some well-developed Uniform structures, good habits, and Ideals that can support wobbly youth leaders taking their first steps. Talented youth who are willing to do hard work have been identified to the adults and their peers by Advancement.

Patrol Method is last, when the youth leaders have stopped wobbling and can at least walk confidently if not run.

Be patient. It takes one "generation" of 3 years to make this happen. And the real magic doesn't start until the second generation... the one that "grew up in" real patrols where all of this positive unit culture and support was already in place.

I agree with all the comments about boy led, being careful about food safety and local and state food regulations, etc. But I think it's important to remember that in many cases, raising money for an organization is far more helpful, and considered more of a service, than dropping off clothes or cans or raking their yard. Money is easily transported to where the need is, without requiring the organization to sort through stuff and pay for shipping, and it allows the charity to get the exact resources needed (instead of being left with 100 gallons of prune juice). If Scouting for Food is a service, than so is raising money for the local shelter. They both trade labor to provide help for people. Raising money just might be more effective.

I think a great Eagle project would be coming up with an effective, unique annual fundraiser for a local charity, and putting it together for the first year so that it would become an ongoing source of funds for the group. That would have a lot more long term impact on a community and demonstrate a lot more leadership than regrading a short section of trail.

We must remember that just because some council folks tell you something doesn't mean it's true. They might not want units to raise money for other NFP's because of an irrational fear that it will cut into their FOS dollars, but it's not really something they have a say in. Of course, there's a mutual obligation to not misrepresent the organization or cause scandal. A good test would be, "if we did this, would the newspaper report be viewed positively?" I see nothing wrong with "Local Boy Scouts Raise Money for Homeless Shelter." I think that's something any rational scouter would be proud of.

I particularly was amused by the gnome who told you that a troop (which is owned and operated by a CO) can't raise money for the CO. That's the BSA telling the church youth group it can't raise money for the church. Legally and practically, there's nothing the BSA could do to stop it. Yeah, I know, there's always the threat to revoke the unit's charter, but we all know that would be so far outside the Scout Oath that no SE is going to go there. Again, the "media test" is a good one for SE's as well. "Head Scout Fires Troop for Helping Church Raise Money for Handicapped Access. Church Elders and BSA Donors Outraged." I don't think so.

Wags spelling may not be great, but his data and reasoning are flawless. Paintball at established ranges with proper gear is substantially safer than many other allowed BSA activities and many well-accepted youth sports. There is no safety or insurance reason for a BSA paintball prohibition. The laser tag prohibition is hysterical.

Prohibitions based on philosophy should probably be left to the CO's where possible. In any event they don't belong in a safety manual. Such fraud short-circuits the democratic mechanisms for establishing philosophical policy in the BSA - through our elected council representatives.

Old folks like us often get too wiggy about the new things young folks come up with to have fun, just because they're not familiar to us. I've never played paintball, but it sounds like fun. And I can certainly see where a making big green splat would be more entertaining than making a tiny hole.

Dress does project an image about someone, if you're smart enough to read it. Me personally, I think twice before I hire anyone who wears a suit. It often means they are more focused on personal appearance and "power"/advancement than on service.

Goth dress in teens is a good external indicator for a young person who is independent, of above-average intelligence, and likely to be exceptionally kind and accepting of others. But, yes, it also can be a tip off to a teen struggling with depression.... but actively struggling by seeking out this support group.

For many jobs, I'd be more apt to hire a "Goth" teen than a football player. Of course, I'd take a scout, Goth or otherwise, first... but only if they wore their scouting commitment on the inside, not (just) on their shirt.

I can't really speak to the boy's duty to God. All I can really do is respond to my own duty to God.

And that's really very simple. To "let the children come to me, without hinderance." Doubt is one of God's gifts to young people; it saves them from arrogance. The boy would stay welcome in our troop, and the conversations would continue between friends, and the examples (hopefully) of how other good people do their duty to God would continue.

We get at least one of these kids every year at a BOR. God bless them, they're great! Over the years, some of those agnostics and atheists have gone on to become Eagle Scouts and ministers. Others have, over time, gradually realized their ideas and the BSA's didn't jibe, and they withdrew honorably and honestly, and yet remain good friends of the troop.

Let the children come, and do not hinder them. That's our duty, as adults, to God. And shame on us if we don't live up to it.