Rooster7

Venturer2002, While I may not agree with you 100% of the time (or maybe I do, I haven't really looked at all of your posts), I encourage you to speak your mind freely and without fear of being judged. You may be young, but that doesn't mean your opinion is tainted or immature. Interestingly, Bob claims to take the high road, but then he warns you to be careful about choosing your role models, simply because you agreed with someone who disagrees with him. Now I ask you, does that sound like someone who is making a principled and cogent argument, or was he insulting the character of those who disagreed with him? I think his implied rhetoric is clear, but I'm sure he will dissect his words and prove his innocence in this matter. Youth does not necessarily equal ignorance. Continue to learn from others, but don't doubt yourself. Your thoughts have been well presented and they show a maturity beyond your years. In fact, they are so well presented that I seriously doubt that you would utilize the Internet to find a role model. Obviously, someone in the real world is teaching you well.

KoreaScouter, Nice words. I hope and pray that most troops realize that Scouting is not about camping so much as it is about duty to God, family, and country. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but my gut feeling tells me that way too many troops put camping and survival skills above these other things. CHARACTER is more important than camping! ScoutParent, I hope it was just an oversight, but such a display would be odd without a hat to represent the military. I understand and agree that the firefighters and policemen of NYC made a great sacrifice. However, let's not forget about the young men that have died in battle and the many more that are apt to before this is all over. To those planning a 9-11 ceremony, Who knows where all this will lead to, but let's not take God for granted or His goodwill towards our nation. If you're having a 9-11 ceremony, I think any such ceremony would be lacking if it did not include a petition to God. If we're unwilling to humble ourselves and bend our knees during these times - then when?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

There are obvious differences, but I think the point is valid. I don't think folks are arguing that OGE's son was intentionally trying to intimidate anyone. Also, I don't think yaworksi or anyone else would argue that the "humper" (for a lack of a better reference) was trying to make friends. However, in both incidents, a boy made a proposition (or threat) that he did not intend to carry through. Everyone is pretty confident that OGE's son would not have carried out his threat had the boys continued to make noise, and I am no different. However, I'm just as confidant that the "humper" would have freaked out had the other boy turned around and accepted his offer. In short, while I'm convinced the "humper" is guilty of bullying, I'm not convinced that he is guilty of sexual harassment. At least no more than I am convinced that OGE's boy is guilty of a verbal assault. Both of these threats were bogus - one was purely for humor in order to accomplish a needed goal, while the other was humorless and meant to intimidate. Of course the end results are different, but the logic should apply to both circumstances.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Like OGE's son and his unique plumbing problems - just deal with it already I think that argument loses credibility if you lump all special cases into one basket. For example, using OGE's son as an example (sorry, OGE - I hope you don't mind), it seems to me that his son is the one who's learned to "deal with it". That is to say, I don't recall hearing any stories of extraordinary effort made by the troop's leadership. From what I've heard, most of the heroics (in terms of effort) belong to the boy himself. It does sound as if the boys in the troop have accepted OGE's son without causing him any more pain. That's not a given. I just haven't heard any horror stories from OGE. So, if by "deal with it", you mean we should learn to accept other people and their situations without causing them any more pain than they've already suffered, I agree. However, I don't think we should be expecting folks to be making sacrifices and/or unusual efforts on our children's behalf. If it's my child, I'm certainly going to ask folks to do so (because I want my son to have and enjoy everything that other boys have and enjoy), but I don't think I have a right to demand it from every organization I encounter, especially if volunteers run that organization.

As to "what did I sign up for"...Frankly, I signed up to spend time with my sons and to assist in a program that they enjoyed. Although I don't mind helping other boys, I did so originally out of obligation. It was not something that I pursued with glee. Bottom line: I enjoying working with some boys much more than some others. Regardless, as a Scouter I try to help them all. I agree there should be two overriding concerns - 1) Safety for others, and 2) Quality of the program. If a troop can accommodate a boy and not sacrifice these two concerns, I think it's admirable. However, I think a distinction needs to be drawn between what BSA requires of us as Scouters and what is honorable and commendable. If a SM takes on a boy as a project, I think that's great...more power to him. However, I don't feel it's required of him. Nor would I think less of a good SM if he declined to do so. Of course, this is predicated on what I believe to be reasonable. Spending some time to explain things to a particular Scout and making an occasional special effort (i.e., talking to his parents, consoling him, etc.) is part of the job. When a boy's happiness demands an extraordinary effort by the SM (or some other Scouter), I believe we're entering into an area that should be defined by each individual SM without criticism. Still, as Bob White noted, the SM should be open about his willingness to support such a boy. Parents shouldn't have to guess as to what level of effort the SM is willing to make.

While in the military , serving in Germany, sitting in a brew house with the German unit we were stationed with it suddenly come to me that 30 years before that day I would have been required to try to kill the men I was sitting with. Because they had been declared evil, bad people not worth associating with. WWII was not fought because some countries arbitrarily declared the German people to be evil. We fought to destroy NAZI Germany, a nation headed by a truly evil man, because that country demonstrated its evil desires over and over again. Perhaps individual German solders should not be judged for those evils. Yet, these men wore their country's uniform and chose to fight for it. If your country was intentionally killing civilians (because of their religion) and conquering nations without provocation, would you wear it's uniform. I suppose a good argument can be made that many solders were unaware of the genocide and/or were ignorant of the political situation. Regardless, if you fought in WWII, it wasn't because you viewed individual solders as evil. It was their country that was judged to be evil. Based on the evidence (of crimes committed by NAZI Germany), I don't most people would argue that notion. I understand your point though. It's possible for good-hearted individuals to become enveloped and dragged into something that they'd rather not be a part of. Nevertheless, I don't think WWII can be portrayed as anything but "good verses evil". NAZI Germany was not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't necessarily agree that treasurer should bear the burden of policing the budget. The committee chairman and, to a lesser degree, Cubmaster needs to do the heavy lifting. As treasurer, I think you can jump up and down at committee meetings as to budget and procedure, but when it comes to butting heads with an individual Den Leader, that's not your job. Speaking for myself, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I did intend to say was this - As treasurer, you shouldn't distribute funds to anyone that does not have pre-approval. The treasurer shouldn't blindly distribute funds. He/She should ask questions i.e., "Who is approving this expenditure?" If the requester does not provide an appropriate answer (the CC or committee), the treasurer should not distribute the funds. As for butting heads, of course, allow that to be done with the CC. However, the treasurer does have a responsibility to distribute funds according to procedure (not just upon request).

I just don't want people getting pissed off at me (and it always falls to me) when I tell them that they have overspent their limit. There's the rub. I think, as "protector" of the budget, you will always encounter people who feel they're entitled and will show resentment. Bottom line, it's your job to stop the overspending (per the approved budget). No doubt, you have one of the more difficult jobs. If you give the disclaimer at the beginning of the year (i.e., don't expect to get reimbursed for unapproved expenditures), most reasonable adults will work with you and not against you. If someone cops an attitude, it's their problem, not yours. How thick is your skin? Good luck. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Everyone gets a copy of the budget, and I inform everyone periodically of how we are doing, but no one really pays attention I don't think. Get the budget approved by committee at the beginning of the year and establish some rules in the same meeting (i.e., reimbursement for expenditures that exceed established funds will not be distributed). Those who choose to ignore the rules will assume the risk. They may not be reimbursed if the committee feels the expenditure was unwarranted or excessive.

Also, remember that most packs have numerous expenditures that need to be considered when establishing a budget: re-charting, blue & gold banquet, pinewood derby, awards (boys and leaders), pack meeting expenses (i.e., ceremonies, costumes, props, etc.), etc. So, don't be too generous with the den funds until you've considered the expenditures you will encounter for the entire year. Likewise, try to remember all sources of revenues before establishing a budget.

First, it's not really the treasurer's job to decide who gets what. The CC and/or the pack/troop committee should decide prior to the new year what their budget will be, and how much will be allocated for various activities. The treasurer's job is to monitor and follow the established budget, and to ensure the proper procedures are followed. That is to say, if each den is allocated $50 at the beginning of the year, you should not allow more than $50 to be withdrawn unless the CC and/or the committee has approved the expenditure. Some packs/troops establish a miscellaneous fund and allow the CM/SM and/or CC to make small withdraws without pre-approval. Nevertheless, as to how much each den should be allowed to spend, that should be decided at the beginning of the year with consideration to the overall budget and the anticipated revenues (dues, fund raisers, etc.). Once each den's fund is established, as treasurer, you should ensure that they do not withdraw more than what's been already approved. A den leader can ask parents to pay fees for special events (such as the $4 per head activity mentioned in your post). If a parent feels the event is not worth the money, he/she can simply opted not to have their child attend.

Bob, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I think provocation should be considered. NOT as an excuse, but in regard to motive. If I struck a man because he threatened my family, I think that should be considered by a judge before passing a sentence. If I struck a man because this is how I gain pleasure (by seeing others suffer), then that too should be considered before sentencing. So, if motivation (or the state of mind of the offender) is significant, then I think it's important that one investigates to determine if anything occurred prior to the incident (or crime) to provoke the transgressor. This will help establish his state of mind. Again, this is not an excuse, but it should be considered. Of course, as always, some discernment is necessary. Do you believe "murder is murder" and every incident deserves the exact same punishment? As to this specific case, again, I'm not saying there was provocation. I'm merely agreeing with Ed that the troop should investigate it. I'm not convinced that the matter was looked into thoroughly. After all, the troop basically brushed it off. Why are some folks so convinced that we know enough to make a judgment without any disclaimer? This is my basic complaint. We are given one piece of the puzzle from one person's perspective. My recommendation to maai is to encourage the troop to take the incident more seriously and to investigate further. I say gather more facts before you pass judgment. But if the facts indicate that the boy should be given "the boot", then act accordingly. Still, make sure you know the WHOLE story (if in fact there's more to be told) before you act.

Bob White, I never said that "provocation" would legitimize the behavior of the older boy. That was never implied by anyone. No one disagrees that the behavior was inappropriate. Yet, I do not agree that the "same" misbehavior should always be treated the same. In my examples below, both boys took the same action. Both boys lashed out at someone else. Would you treat these boys the same? Your previous comments suggest that you would. Scenario #1: A boy is done an injustice of some kind. He loses his temper and strikes out at the perceived perpetrator. Scenario #2: A boy notices the vulnerability of another. He gleefully exploits it and strikes out at the said boy for his mere amusement.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

By all accounts, I agree that the older boy is guilty of taking property without permission, and later he was obviously trying to intimidate the younger boy. These two events are givens. The question posed by Ed and others was, "Is it possible that the first boy did something preceding either of those events to provoke the older boy?" You've made a natural assumption. If something pertinent occurred before the property was taken or just prior to the older boy behaving as he did, one would expect/assume maai would have presented that information in his first post. It may well be true that this assumption is valid. Nevertheless, it's still an assumption. All of your statements presume that there is nothing more to this story than what's been presented. In the end, you may be right. But, before a troop or anyone else recommends that a boy's membership be revoked, I think it's fair and responsible to ask these questions. A troop should be prudent and make sure they have the complete story. I don't think that's unreasonable.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Bob White, Are you saying there's no difference between these two scenarios? Scenario #1: A boy is done an injustice of some kind. He loses his temper and strikes out at the perceived perpetrator. Scenario #2: A boy notices the vulnerability of another. He gleefully exploits it and strikes out at the said boy for his mere amusement. Both scenarios happen everyday. However, there is no question in my mind that there is a distinction to be drawn between the two. Almost any boy is capable of striking out given scenario #1. In scenario #2, few boys exercise this kind of cruelty, but alas it happens all too often. If in maai's situation, the said boy acted without any provocation and was tormenting the boy to satisfy his own depraved desire to see another person suffer, I would deal with it harshly. If the boy was provoked by some previous incident, then I think his reaction needs to be weighed against that backdrop. It doesn't excuse the behavior. Yet, one should consider the boy's state of mind and his motive. The courts do consider provocation and motive. A premeditated murder committed out of greed is not treated the same as a spontaneous murder committed out of passion. Our law recognizes that we are human beings, and as such sometimes we fall prey to our emotions and circumstance. Judges have sentencing guidelines because they are allowed to weigh such factors. I'm suggesting that a troop's leadership should be mindful of the same.

I doubt if Ed is looking to completely exonerate the boy of guilt. Every good judge looks at extenuating circumstances. Provocation is not an excuse for bad behavior, but it should be considered when one is pondering a consequence for the said offender (i.e., the difference between first and second degree murder).

NJ, I agree with your assessment. I'm somewhere between Venturer2002 and Bob White. I understand both viewpoints. Which is why, I think we need to show some discernment. As many other posters have observed, this incident seems to be a case of bullying and not sexual misconduct. Regardless, the people directly involved should have a better idea than we do. If it is a case of bullying as opposed to sexual misconduct, then the troop has more options as to how they can deal with it. I appreciate the no non-sense approach because I truly want my child to be in a safe and enjoyable environment. On the other hand, I appreciate Venturer2002's viewpoint and agree that we should try to help misguided boys. However, I don't want to give the ship in order to save a few "pirates". If/When good boys suffer on a regular basis because the "bad ones" refuse to get the message, I would encourage my troop to quickly abandon their efforts.

I have not participated in this fray. However, I have to ask- dan, Do you really feel it is appropriate to post personal information (such as a home address) of another poster? Even if you feel he's invited it, I think you've crossed a serious line.

I know some folks hate hypothetical scenarios (i.e., "what if'"), but I believe they serve a useful purpose. Hypothetical scenarios can provide evidence as to the validity of one's logic. If the logic is true for one case of "sexual misconduct", then to remain consistent, it should be true for others. Having said this, I'd like to present some hypothetical scenarios - What if, two Scouts share a dirty story or a dirty joke? What if, they're in their tent when this exchange occurs? What if they're fully dressed? What if they happen to be in their underwear? What if, upon hearing the joke or story, the second Scout asks the first to tell another one? What if the first Scout (the story teller) is five years older than the second? What if they are the same age? What if the joke is akin to those shared by two 10-year-olds on the playground vice two dirty old men? What if the joke is really a story about a homosexual encounter? I realize, depending on the answers to these questions, any number of scenarios are possible. Some are much more serious in nature than others. However, by strict interpretation, all of these scenarios have a sexual element. Here's my point. There needs to be a little room here for discernment. If I overhear two 10-year-olds sharing a joke about a rather robust woman, I'm not going to treat it the same as I would if I heard a 17-year-old telling an 11-year-old a story about a fictitious homosexual encounter. Do both situations have a sexual element? Yes, they absolutely do. Are both situations plausible? I believe they are. In fact, I'm sure dirty jokes occur a lot more often then we care to think about (and some are probably a lot cruder than others). Nevertheless, can we put all of the above scenarios in the same pot? Because the stories or jokes can be construde as sexual, do we report it to "the authorities"? No. I don't think we always should. We need to recognize some differences. BSA has an excellent program. I'm sure safety for the boys is a top concern. Yet, I think BSA's number one concern is liability. While I too am concerned about liability (and the safety of the boys), I refuse to be an unthinking cog that mindlessly follows narrow interpretations of policy just to avoid the possibility of litigation. For a real world encounter, I offer the following. On a BSA campout, I over heard an 11-year-old (who was a friend of the family) tell a very crude joke to my son (who was also 11). I advised the boy that I knew his family very well. I further explained that I knew how upset his father would be if he ever discovered that his son was telling dirty jokes. In short, I warned him that if I ever caught wind of this kind of behavior again, I would promptly inform his dad. To my knowledge, it never happened again. He is now 16 and an Eagle Scout. As for maai's situation, I believe there are some unknowns that need to be examined before we can advise him with absolute confidence. For example, how old was the offending Scout? Was he 12, 17, or somewhere in between? What is the age difference between the two boys? Does anyone else but me see a significant difference in scenarios depending on the answer to these questions? As Ed Mori pointed out, did the younger boy do anything to provoke the older boy? What was the attitude of both boys during the incident? I don't feel it is safe to make assumptions. We ought not conclude that maai has provided every pertinent piece of information. While the boy admits to certain behaviors, if I was one of the adults investigating this incident, I would want to know more. Depending on the answers, I could envision both ends of the spectrum. That is to say, I could see the answers leading to this boy's expulsion from BSA. On the other hand, I could see it leading a stern lecture and a short suspension. Just to paint two different pictures using the same facts: Scenario 1: The older boy is 12. The younger boy is 11. The two boys have a history of confrontations and the 12-year-old is not the only guilty party. Perhaps the 12-year-old was a recent victim of a "practical joke" played by the 11-year-old. Due to a situation at home, maybe the 12-year-old is not aware of that such behavior is considered completely unacceptable. Of course, the likelihood of all these things being true is remote. Nevertheless, before one should cast judgment, these things need to be examined. Scenario 2: The older boy is 16. The younger boy is 13. The older boy has a history of picking on younger boys. There's good reason to believe that he was fully aware of his behavior's inappropriateness. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I'm kind of curious as to what your troop considers excessive discipline. I'm probably on your side, but I don't think a parent ever gives up his right to be a parent. If I feel I need to take my son aside and have a discussion with him, I will. On the other hand, the parent should not be disruptive to the troop and its activities. It's difficult for me to give an opinion without knowing any specifics.

OGE, Some people have a natural ability to conquer their circumstances and emerge victorious. Your son seems to be one of them. Or as someone once said, "When life gives you lemons, make lemon aid." Although, for this particular story, that analogy sounds a little bizzare.

I agree with Glenn. The guard may be a nice guy, but I think he went about things the wrong way. As for the quote - "They told me it might open the door for someone who might want to wear a neo-Nazi emblem" If in fact someone said this, it was probably stated by a supervisor who isn't being paid to know the law all that well. I'm certain the state could put a flag on their uniform without that fear becoming a reality.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I refrained from making this statement in my first post because I didn't want to give the wrong impression. I didn't want anyone to think that I condone the behavior that the boy was being accused of perpetrating. Please keep that in mind. That being said, I feel compelled to state the following: Not all boys are alike (that's not meant to be condescending). Some boys are extremely thick headed. Some boys are extremely sensitive. Some are very confident. Some are very insecure. Every boy is different. I truly believe that it is possible that this kid did not realize just how far over the line he went. But as I noted previously, only the direct parties know the true situation. I don't want to give this kid an out, especially if none is deserved.

I'm undecided. When I hear a story like this, my first inclination is to deal with the offender harshly. Very few folks like a bully, and I'm no exception. However, I tend to agree that this is a case of bullying and not "sexual harassment". Then again, if I knew the offender better, and actually witnessed the event, I might change my mind. Just the same, as Bob has pointed out, bullying needs to be treated seriously (BSA policy dictates it, but our common sense should tell us the same). In fact, many bullying cases are just as bad or worse then so-called sexual harassment cases. Regardless, I don't think how we label the incident should have much of a bearing on how the troop deals with it. This is kind of like the "hate crime" debate. Do victims of hate crimes suffer more than other victims? It's merely a label. By all appearances, the victim was truly victimized. Still, as an outsider, what do we really know about these boys and the incident. It's all third hand knowledge. Even if I knew all of the specifics, its not the same as being there and really knowing the people involved. Does the offender have a track record of bullying? Has he been made aware as to what is acceptable, what is not, and why? What is the offender's attitude? Is he known to be mean-spirited? Is it apparent to the adults involved that his intentions were malicious? Is he repentant of his actions? How did the victim ask for his chair back? What was the boy's attitude during this incident? Did he give any impression that he was playing along - as if it were a joke? Did he do anything to intentionally provoke the "bully"? Is it possible that the "victim" is lying? Does the victim have any motive for lying? Does any of his fellow scouts have motive for lying? Do these two scouts have a history of conflict? If so, has it been one-sided? It may be that your previous posts provided all of the pertinent facts and there are no answers to the above questions, which could possibly change anybody's mind. My questions are not meant to infer innocents or guilt. I am suggesting that you and your troop are in the best position to make this judgment. You know the parties involved better than anyone else on this board. You probably have a good idea as to what was real and what was imagined. We were not there. No one on this board can claim that kind of knowledge. I feel this is much too serious of a matter for us (or any outsider) to be suggesting something without having intimate knowledge of the people and/or witnessing the event. Having said all the above, I feel your main responsibility is to protect the boys, especially those boys that are acting like scouts.

For those of us that view Bob White as a little more fallible than others, this thread presents a Catch-22 scenario. If we answer honestly, we may be portrayed as that stubborn, "untrained", "anti-BSA", minority that resents Bob's wealth of absolute knowledge. If we remain silent, we're apt to be portrayed in the same manner. Nevertheless, I am going to answer honestly. 1. I think Bob is often right. Sometimes I think he is wrong. Problem is, Bob always thinks he is right, and refuses to yield or acknowledge even the smallest of points. When pressed, he will inform you that he is unwilling to compromise the BSA program. In other words, he implies or states out rightly that those who disagree with him are seeking to comprise the program. It's never a simple matter of two different interpretations. I find that attitude to be extremely arrogant and offensive. 2. I believe there are two reasons why many folks ask Bob White's opinion. The first reason is positive. The second is not. One, Bob apparently has attended significant amounts of training and has read much of BSA' reference material. He is very good at quoting this material. Two, if you're confident enough (or arrogant enough) to answer every question presented in such a way as to leave no room for anyone else's interpretation, then people are likely to view you as either "the expert" or "the jerk". I'm somewhere in between. I value the knowledge that he's willing to share. I just don't appreciate his less than humble style. There is no room to disagree. Despite Bob's claim that he can agree to disagree, he usually portrays those people as the stubborn, "untrained", "anti-BSA", minority that resents Bob's wealth of absolute knowledge. Having said all of the above, I actually like Bob White. Especially when we agree. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)