Rooster7

SagerScout, BSA rules aside, criminal issues aside, if he's been hitting on the girls and making them unwilling to work with him, he needs to be firmly counseled or canned, period, and the sooner the better. And if the girl is leaving camp at night to be with him, that seems like something that could be a violation of work rules as well. In regards to the harassment issue, the girls should also make it clear that his behavior is unwelcome. Perhaps this is a given for most folks. However, I dont think its fair to prosecute someone for harassment if its based on flirtation that has not been clearly rejected. There is a gray area. If there werent, all social interaction would have to be banned entirely. Of course, there are areas of sexual harassment that are not gray that shouldnt require any feedback other than legal recourse. I think those situations are obvious (i.e., lewd comments, exposure, unsolicited physical touching, etc.). In regards to the BSA issue, I understand the policy and I have no argument with it. My only assertion was - as should be the case with all accusations, especially those that taint reputations and careers, one should tread cautiously and gather all of the facts, before condemning. In short, I agree with you - If the rumors and gossip (i.e., "I was informed...I overheard", etc.) turn out to reflect the truth.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

And how do you propose that the BSA make up that funding if someone can't prove their moral "pureness"? He didnt propose that all organizations and individual donors should have to prove anything. I think the idea was to reject the donations of those organizations and individuals that we know embrace values that contradict our own. For example, the BSA should probably reject donations from NAMBLA. On the other hand, I doubt that he is suggesting that some kind of background check be performed on the local American Legion. Double the cost of uniforms? Close camps? $200 annual registration fees? Merge councils and lay off professionals? Get out your checkbook, because your FOS donation will need to have a coupla zeroes added. I think you might be exaggerating just a wee bit. Oh, and by the way...you need to find a new site for the National Jamboree...FT AP Hill is Federal property. Does the United States Government embrace values that contradict the BSAs?

This is not to take away anything from those Scouters reciting BSA policy. I dont question their knowledge or the accuracy of the recited policy. This is just a personal observation. In terms of morality, not legality, I do see a difference between a 21-year-old male flirting with a 17-year-old female, verses a 24-year-old making advances on a 16-year-old. Again, Im not talking about BSA policyI am talking about the age differences in regard to moral appropriateness. Perhaps I feel this way because I met my wife, who was 17 at the time, when I was 23. Having said the above, I agree policy is policy, and all the rules should be followed. Furthermore, if policy says that the adult staff member should be reported to the DE or even the legal authorities, by all means, please comply with it. However, without knowing all of the details (and it appears that OXCOPS doesnt know all of the pertinent information), I wouldnt portray this guy as some sort of evil child predator. Certainly the potential exists. Yet, it may be a lot more innocent than what some folks are assuming. Im simply saying - follow policy, but try to reserve judgment until all of the facts are known. And, while I agree with BSA policy, I dont think its evil or unhealthy for a 21-year-old boy (or if you prefer, man, although barely) to show interest in 17 year-old girls (if that happens to be the case). I know, understand, and appreciate that a legal line has to be drawn somewhere. Im grateful that I live in a country (USA) and belong to an organization (BSA) that recognizes a need for laws and policies to protect our youth. But, Im not willing to label this guy a predator not yet. One last disclaimer I havent read every post in this thread. There may be some facts that I missed that could change my tune. But, a casual reading of this thread gives me reason to believe that much of what is being accepted as fact is really gossip (I was recently informedI overheard, etc.). Good reasons to be concerned, but nothing here to warrant a conviction.

ASM1, Welcome to the real world. They all think Bush walks on water. Like calves to slaughter, they follow... I always thought ASM stood for Assistant Scoutmaster. But, with comments like yours and the previous thoughts expressed by ASM514, I'm beginning to think that it stands for something else. In my world, presumably real, the sky is blue. What color is it in yours? God bless President Bush and our troops.

Scoutmaster Ron, See ASM514's post in this thread, dated - June 25, 2003: 12:19:21 AM Your fist assumption (he has a son in the military) was correct.

ASM514, I don't want to jump on the bandwagon - or at least, not without knowing exactly what you're trying to imply. So, could you please elaborate? I hate to be blunt, but if BW made the right assumption (i.e., youre are insinuating that the U.S. military is somehow making a political statement against the President), then I must agree. That assertion is INNANE! If it's something else, please explain. As a dad, I can sympathize with your situation. I would go crazy if my son was serving in the Middle East right nowit is very dangerous duty. When I remember, I pray for those guys. My heart goes out to all of those young men (and women) and their families. So, I understand your concern for your son. However, I think youd be better off praying for him and our leaders, as opposed to denigrating our President.

My middle son completed his Eagle BOR of review about two months ago. Three of the six members on his board called my home that night. Each told me the same message - that they had done numerous Eagle BORs, and my son was by far, the most mature and well-spoken young man that they had encountered. Leaves a lump in my throat even now...

mk9750, No Gospel? I'm surprised. You should hear a good choir live, you might change your mind. Any way, if I need a tune to lift my spirits, I find Gospel music can get the job done. I also enjoy Motown - In my mind, the Supremes blow away the Beatles. Bottom Line - I enjoy most music, like you - from classical to country. I too, don't like RAP. In fact, I really hate the stuff. I don't like the style, and most often, I deplore the message. A friend of mind described RAP very succinctly as diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. Likewise, I'm not a big fan of heavy metal and punk bands. Theyre just too obnoxious. With these few exceptions, you can find my car radio tuned to just about any station. Dittos on the Rush Limbaugh comment...But that's another thread. ;-)

Wow, Bob. Perhaps we have more in common than I thought. I have to give your last - a big Amen!

Rich Mullins, Steven Curtis Chapman, Carmen, The Supremes, Three Dog Night, CCR, The Doobie Brothers, Oak Ridge Boys, Garth Brooks, Billy Joel, Neil Diamond, and Elvis.

I'm convinced that our government is taking prudent measures to protect us against those who wish us harm. I don't want to see Muslims persecuted. Nor do I believe those in power want to see Muslims abused. My point is, we shouldn't cover our eyes and pretend that their faith has nothing to do the attacks.

Answer: I choose feeling insecure over injustice. Thats a glib answer when you consider feeling insecure would mean the deaths of many Americans, and the very real possibility of attacks against your neighbors and friends, if not your own family. The President and his administration are not protecting us against hypothetical terrorists. Its not your feelings that are being protected. Its your lives and your way of life.

Mostly - I am. If I was alive during the height of WWII, and thousands of Germans or Japanese were targeted and killed, while I might appreciate the fact that the war could be moving closer to an end, I would not be celebrating their deaths. Likewise, during the bombing of Iraq, while I believed and hoped that it would help bring about a quick resolution to the conflict, I was not hoping that thousands of innocent Iraqi's would die in the process. In contrast, Muslims in the Middle East countries took to the streets after 9-11, and celebrated with glee. It was a sicken display. Why? Why do you think these people celebrate the deaths of innocent Americans? Even if they appreciated the fact that "their voices were finally be heard" (which I think is a crock), why would one joyfully, jubilantly, celebrate the deaths of thousands of people? I think the answer is obvious. They are convinced that they are God's chosen people and all infidels should not be breathing the same air. This is not bigotry on my part, but fact. Their major religious teachers preach this message on a regular basis. Do all Muslims believe this? I would venture to say - no. Still, you've asked me if I thought this (terrorism from the Middle East) was about religion. The answer, I think, has to be - yes. Few men seek to die for political leaders, especially when those same leaders are sitting in palaces while their citizens are fighting for food. These fools are killing themselves because they want to kill infidels for Allah, who will reward them in heaven with seven virgins. How much more plain can it be? "O ye who believe! Murder those of the unbelievers. . . and let them find harshness in you." [Koran, Repentance:123](This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Freedom is not free. Part of the price is that sometimes we have to take a risk of leaving a guilty person on the street, in order to ensure that we do not lock up an innocent one. This 4th grade civics lesson was apparently missed by a significant number of members of the current administration. There is a balance here that needs to be struck. I suppose this is one of those issues that can divide many of us along ideological lines. No one, not even President Bush wants to see innocent people in jail (Thats not a slamI like the manIm just stating what should be obvious, even to liberals). However, one has to ask, At what price do we protect our freedoms? While I agree we should be very cautious, I dont necessarily agree with the price that some feel we have to pay. As long as human beings are witnesses, policemen, lawyers, and judges, there will be abuses, intentional or not. Im a realist. Try as we may, its not a perfect justice systemthere never will be a perfect justice system, not on this earth. So, if one innocent man goes to jail inadvertently, I am as upset as the next person to hear about it. And, I certainly want an explanation. But if there is no malice and thousands of guilty individuals are incarcerated or otherwise prevented from practicing evil deeds in this country, then I have to say while its a horrible price to pay, it too is the cost of freedom. Because if I cant let my son walk to the store, or if I have anxiety attacks when I fly, or if my daughter cant sleep because she has nightmares about terrorists, etc., then we have lost our freedoms! Yes, protect the innocent. But lets be practical and realistic too. If you truly want to ensure no innocent person ever goes to jail, then do away with the justice system. Then, you will have an absolute guarantee that no innocent man will ever be persecuted by the government. However, you wont ever find a spot in this country where you or children can feel safe. Whats more horrible? Some innocent people inadvertently are jailed? Or You, your children, and ever other innocent person you know cannot feel safe in their own home. Of course, we have not reached a point in our society, where this is an either or proposition. Yet, before folks cast stones at President Bush or his administration, step back and look at the job that they have to do. Theyre trying to stop terrorists who think we are worthy of death, even torture, because we do not embrace their God and their religious teachings. They celebrate the death of innocent bystanders not soldiers, simply because these folks live in a country that does not agree with their religious teachings. You want your freedoms? Fine, everybody does. Just think about what kind of freedoms you would have if our President and his administration failed to protect you against these terrorists.

The problem is they were not trained to be leaders, which happens to be the #1 responsibility of the Scoutmaster. If a unit lacks leadership it is from a lack of leadership development. Well, as I've already noted, I'm not the SM. However, I know the SM agrees with you and has done everything in his power to provide leadership development. He's an officer in the Coast Guard and knows a thing or two about the subject. Nevertheless, despite efforts by him and others over the last two years, I see a lot of areas - including uniforming, whereas the older boys have not embraced their training. In a perfect world, the SM can always inspire the older boys to do the right thing. I think our SM does his best and is more than adequately trained for the task. Unfortunately, I don't think every Scout is going to respond as we hope. Laziness and busyness may not always be the root cause for bad leadership, but I've seen their ugly heads appear in our troop on a number of occasions.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Of course there is always the one unit who is in full dress uniform and they stand straight and proud. The other scouts are always impressed with them, but never quite enough to emulate them, that I dont understand. OGE, I agree completely. However, at the risk of incurring the wrath of Bob White and other Scouters who believe the BSA "methods and means" do not allow adult leaders to edict - I'd like to present a theory that goes against that thinking. The boys are waiting for the adults to put their foot down and make it happen. From my experience, most boys, in particular the younger boys like their uniform. They want their troop to look like those guys standing across the field. Unfortunately, when some older boys loose their enthusiasm to wear the uniform - usually because they're too lazy or too busy to keep track of their uniform or change into it, it affects the whole troop. It only takes a few older boys. If theyre not particularly excited or concerned about itIf they start showing up to meetings in the blue jeans or whatever they happen to be wearing that day, then other boys even the ones who want the troop to look sharp, start to lose their desire to be in uniform. After all, if half the boys look sharp and the other half looks as if they dont care, then the troop is going to lose some luster. This fact is NOT lost upon these boys; they know that the purpose of a uniform is to present an image of uniformity to look like one cohesive unit. If a boy doesnt wear his complete uniform, then its going to mare the units image. If several decide not to wear their complete uniform, then that image is really going to get trashed. After a while, the boys who used to care about being in a complete uniform - stop caring. As a dad of three Scouts, and someone who likes to analyze things a lot (its kind of a sickness) this has been my observation. So, why do I feel adults (i.e., Scouters) have to present an edict to the Scouts? Because, if (and this is a big if) there is no one among the boys in leadership who particularly cares, then this cycle will never end. So long as older boys set the bad example in attitude and appearance. The younger boys will lose their enthusiasm and eventually become the older boys with the same bad attitude and appearance. Now, I realize there are many wise Scouters out there who probably have some method or means that can change that attitude around. I am not oblivious to the fact that the best way to correct this problem is to change the attitude of those older boys. However, I have yet to see this happen. Nor have I heard of any creditable means to make it happen. Furthermore, unless you have some magic formula that can make it happen quickly, say within six months - by the time youve convinced that older group of boys to change, youre likely to have another wave of disenchanted boys coming into leadership roles just behind the first group, who need the same attitude adjustment. So, you might ask Why not work on the younger boys too? Because, for the most part, theyre not going to be affected by what the adult leaders say should happen, as much as they will be by what the older boys do. I think the quickest and best method to break out of this cycle is for the Scoutmaster to apply direct pressure on his older Scouts (i.e., the SPL and others in the leadership corps). In fact, if I were the SM and felt the SPL or some of the Patrol Leaders were not taking their responsibility seriously (setting example in attitude and appearance), I would not let them run for office the next term. Once the older boys start setting the example, I believe the younger boys would embrace their uniforms unashamedly. Eventually, the troop would look sharp, just like that other troop across the field, and everyone (not just the younger boys) would appreciate being in full uniform and being a part of a cohesive unit. Furthermore, by the time the younger boys are old enough/seasoned enough to be in leadership roles, they would carry that enthusiasm with them. This is my theory. Now, so I might be spared lectures on how this goes against the method and means of Scouting Id like to remind some of you that I have no direct control of my sons troop I am merely an ASM with an opinion ;-) We all have one. Some of you will catch that later and appreciate it - or not. That was much more long winded than I intended. Hope you all didn't fall asleep in the middle. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, I hear you...And in that particular case, I would hope the committee could intervene in some way. What did national have to say about the project? Don't they review those things when they receive the Eagle packet? Since it became a fundraiser as opposed the project he originally described, I would think that there would be some recourse that could be taken. Nevertheless, even if the kid provided a boatload of details up front, couldn't he and the Scoutmaster "justify" the project in the same manner that they did (i.e., it comes under the heading of Changes)? I'm not saying that is acceptable...I'm just saying that the details up front wouldn't necessarily stop this kind of abuse.

I never meant to say or imply that the Scout did not earn the award. But an Eagle BOR shouldn't simply be an opportunity for the Scout to beat his chest either. If he's truly earned the rank, which is partially why you have a review process, then he certainly can answer a few tough questions. If he cannot be challenged to think on his feet, particularly at this level, then I think Eagle Scout has a different meaning to you than it does to me. As to the program question, perhaps your response might be his answer. Or, maybe, after being involved in the program for several years, he's actually learned something about it and can offer his perspective. Asking the question, particularly if he's given a little feedback, is not going hurt the program. In fact, he may be able to offer some insight that otherwise was go unnoticed. I never suggested that we should ask, "Why do you deserve the honor? I said tough questions forces a Scout to think about himself in a critical manner. He has to challenge himself and acknowledge his past, not only as to where he's excelled, but where he has failed. At least, thats what I was trying to say. But if I did ask that question (which I think would be reasonable), then perhaps the Scout would respond just as you suggested - "I deserve it because I earned it!" As someone already mentioned, his confidence level in this response would be most telling. At some point in time, a Scout is no longer a tenderfoot who needs be coddled and treated as if hes china. At some point, we want him to show signs of growth, maturity, and strong character perhaps that time is when becomes an Eagle?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

After the scout has completed the project, have you ever seen a scout whose Eagle Project was rejected because it didnt turn out to be an Eagle project? Or at least not in the eyes of the committee? Sorry I misunderstood. When I read the above, you seemed to be stating that the committee might reject a project after it is completed. In regard to the various reasons I stated, for which a proposed project might be rejected, I agree that the Scout should take some responsibility for knowing the requirements. Still, I have seen ideas rejected for reasons that were not always apparent. It's kind of like the teacher saying, "There's a 20 page report due in 90 days on a subject that I must approve. Give me the first 10 pages within the next week or two and I'll let you know if its worthwhile to continue." Im just saying, we should give the kid a break and let him know early without so much effort being expended.

Mark, Finally, we let him off the hook by asking him which Point he struggles with the most. If you enjoy watching a boy squirm during a BOR, that's a great question to ask. If the boy takes that question seriously, I can understand why. It's kind of like asking someone at a church's new members class, "What sin do you struggle with the most?" Nevertheless, if the setting is right, and the number of people present is small (and understand the concept of confidentiality), I think its an excellent question. It forces the Scout to do some self-examination, beyond "What makes me so great that I should deserve this honor?" I think its my favorite on this thread so far. I appreciate a lot of the aforementioned questions, but I cant help but think that many Scouts have prepackaged answers for many of them. I like questions that truly challenge the boy to think on his feet. In fact, I wouldnt mind if some of the questions in the Issues and Politics thread, were presented to my son during his BOR. So long as the people reviewing my son did not use their own politics as a yardstick to determine the acceptability of his answer. I dont appreciate the liberal position; I am very conservative (as you all probably know). But, I can usually recognize a well-reasoned argument, a humble heart, and good intentions, even when they may be contrary to my own beliefs. That being said, I have no problem with those kinds of questions being asked by good-hearted and fair-minded adults, whether they are liberal or conservative. Heres a list of questions that I would love to hear the answers to, but probably would make a lot of adults nervous (parents and committee members alike): Are you liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between? And, why do you believe so? A lot of people say they believe in God. Do you think it makes a difference which God they believe in and why? Do you think people are naturally good or evil? Why? Are there any problems that mankind cannot solve? Why or why not? Do you think the troop is running the BSA program the way it is supposed to be? Why or why not? And as Mark suggested (but doesnt necessary think is fair) What moral principle do you struggle with the most? And, what are you doing about it?

OGE, Or at least not in the eyes of the committee Just for clarification, how does the committee come into play? For completion, the Eagle work package has a signature line for the Scout, Scoutmaster or "coach", and a representative of the benefiting organization. It seems to me, once these three signatures are obtained, it's a done deal. If the committee rejects the project after its completion (without any prompting from the BSA), I think they are stepping outside the bounds of their responsibilities. I realize this is not a merit badge, but isn't the concept for approval/award the same. If a merit badge counselor signs the blue card, then the boy gets credit for earning the badge. Likewise, if the appropriate people sign off on the Eagle project (for final approval), the boy gets credit for the project. I don't think anyone on the committee is a part of the final approval process. Anyone has more to say on this?

Mark, Thanks for expounding on what I was trying to say. I think we are in sync on this one. OGE, I understand and agree with your concern. Although, I still believe that the initail approval for starting a project shouldn't require the Scout to do a tremendous amount of writing. No, I haven't seen a boy's Eagle project rejected after its completion. Although, I'm not often in a position to testify as to whether or not one should have been. I have seen the opposite effect - That is...I have seen a boy spend a lot of time writing up the details for an Eagle project proposal, only to have it turned down for one reason or another (not related to the quality of the write up). For example, imagine a Scout writing 10 pages on a project idea, only to be told that he can't do a fund raiser. Or, be told, that project has been done too many times. Or, be told, you can't do a project that's designed to help the BSA or one of its troops. I realize that if the Scout did a little research, he should know some of these things before deciding on a project. But, still - put yourself in the Scout's shoes. Initially, all he wants to know, "Is this a good idea for a Eagle project?" I think aside from what was pointed out by Mark (i.e., verify he has the resources and commitment to do such a project), this is the main purpose of the initial approval.

Maybe I am expecting too much, how many pages are the write ups in your area? Not the final, but the version that must get approved before the project can start? In my experience, the Eagle write ups for final approval (i.e., after the project is completed) are about 10 to 20 pages long. For project approval so the Scout can start, 2 to 3 pages is pretty much the standard. To be blunt I think you are expecting too much. Heres why. Initially, the project is only an idea. Its very early in the process for the boy to have a lot to say about it. They have a general idea as to what they want to do and for whom, but beyond that its difficult for them to write about it, because they haven't experienced anything yet. Furthermore, theyre looking for approval of the idea before investing a lot of time and energy in the details. I realize there is a section (which needs to completed in advance) that is entitled - Project Details. However, we do not require a lot in this section. Basically, we want approximate dates (i.e., in March or mid-March vice a specific date) and a general description as to what will be done (i.e., do inside painting vice a specific room) and by what group (again, no specific names). Once approved, then we expect the Scout to do much more legwork. Subsequently, they will have tons of details to discuss in the write up.

Matua, Considering the young lady's attitude toward all concerned parties, I think the choice was wise. I greatly appreciate the fact that she realized her wrongful behavior and understands that it had consequences, not only for her, but for those close to her. In my mind, this is a huge step in the right direction. If I were in your position, this factor would have swayed me towards allowing her to have a limited role in leadership, just as you and your church leaders deemed appropriate. It's rare, at least in my experience, to see a charter organization take the time and effort to make such a thoughtful decision. Your troop should be thankful. There is one thing I dont understand. You said your church was not going to allow her a leadership position until you pointed out this bylaw of the foundation (I presume the church): It is stated that the "Primary Youth Organization for the Foundation is the Boy Scouts of America". In another section under adult Leadership, it states, "criteria for Leadership will be based on current regulations, policies, and or guidelines of the Boy Scouts of America National Office". One last section stipulates the foundations stance on registered adult leadership. This section states that, "Any approved adult volunteering active participation for any of the foundation's BSA units must be a registered leader of the BSA due to liability". From the above, do I understand the following correctly? 1) Your church has a policy outlining their relationship with the BSA and how they should select leadership. 2) One requirement, per your charter, is all adults who wish to help (i.e. active participation) must be a registered leader. 3) Your church wanted the young lady to be involved (in the background), but not as a leader BUT upon reviewing their own policy, decided they had to registered her as one. Did I get that right? If so, I have no comment. I just found it rather interesting. Bottom Line I agree with Bob White and others. I really appreciate the seriousness in which you and your organization approached the issue. I think its rare.

TJ, But let's not revise history. This "policy" came into existence only after pressure from specific chartered orgs called the BSA's hand on it (specifically the LDS and Catholic Churches at the National Relationships Committee meetings). As to the role of the LDS and the Catholic Churches, I don't doubt that they voiced their concerns (or even made threats) prior to the BSA policy being adopted. But let's not revise history so narrowly. What happened prior to the BSA being approached by the LDS and the Catholic Churches? Are you trying to tell me that Gay advocacy groups were silent until these religious charters voiced their opinions? There was no history of homosexuals demanding entry into troops or councils prior to the national policy being implemented? Even if this were true (which I don't concede), there is nothing wrong with the BSA policy - it's their right to set membership standards - even if the LDS and Catholic Churches helped prompt the action. Regardless, whether the BSA was responding to the pressure of the Gay advocacy groups or the religious charters, the point is the same. A national policy was born from external pressure. If the BSA feels that same pressure regarding an issue such as unwed mothers and fathers, perhaps they will act similarly. My guess is, they will. If they don't, that's also within their right. I can see different rationales for either scenario.