Rooster7

Every year, a parent or adult from each family is expected to do at least one job to help the pack or troop. It could be CM, CC, SM, ASM, DL, treasurer, camp cordinator, fund raising activity, food drive support, anything so as long as its not spectating. If you make it clear from the beginning, the new folks adopt to it rather well. If its the first time, you may lose a couple of folks (with their kids), but in the long run the pack or troop is much better off for it.

NASA astronaut Joe Tanner was an Eagle at age 14. He carries his Eagle card around in his wallet. My guess is; he does not consider himself to be a paper Eagle. I don't think its right to say a boy is a paper Eagle because he received the rank at age 14, or even 13. It's not fair to the boy who did earn his badge. Yet, your point is taken. I just wouldn't generalize.

Of course, when adults do volunteer...each is "examined" (for a lack of a better term) to see if he/she meets the pack/troop's idea for that particular leadership position or task.

In our pack, adults were required to sign up for a job (leadership position) or a task (i.e., pinewood derby coordinator). If they didn't participate, then their kid couldn't participate. Very few exceptions were granted. The system worked. The pack was very active. In the troop (which the pack feeds), its been adopted unofficially. Most parents (bridging over with their boys) realize that the adult participation is still needed and expected. However, it isn't official policy.

Rooster - Just to be clear, the org chart shows the troop committee over the Scoutmaster, not the committee chair. FScouter, Thanks for clearing that up for me. I suspected as much. It appears that some folks see the two (CC and committee) as being the same. Obviously they are not.

I wish they would fix this edit function... That should have read "...directly to him" vice "directing to him". By the way, regardless of the outcome, I do want to congradulate grekonsz as others have done, on achieving the rank of Eagle. May God bless your future.

NJCubScouter, I agree that grekonsz has not offered any information to give us reason to believe that the chartering organization is influencing the Scoutmaster's decision. I am guilty of pushing this debate into a general topic, verses one that addresses grekonsz specific problem. However, I did not "make up facts" or inferred that my examples were directly related to grekonsz's case. His case did prompt me to broaden the discussion to chartering organizations. I did not attempt to apply my assertion directing to him. I went to great lengths to emphasize this point. My sentiment concerning his specific circumstance was addressed many posts ago and I am not trying to revisit them. How you can read that paragraph (in bold) and not understand this simple fact is beyond me? If you want to "play fair", then accuse me of going off topic (perhaps, guilty as charged). It's not quite as abrasive as your contention, but at least its honest. Thank you. (Or maybe, having read some of the posts in this and other threads, I shouldn't assume anything about what people will say around here...) FunnyI was thinking the same thing.

NJCubScouter, You knowfor a lawyer (right?), you don't read very well. Since you apparently missed it the fist time, let me repost it: I've already stated my feelings on this particular story (Eagle with long hair). And the fact is, my previous responses had nothing to do with this new assertion. I don't want to reargue the case, but I'm curious to see if this is a bone of contention with others. That isDo you believe your charter organization has any say in how you should instruct and train Scouts? Do you think it is fair for the chartering organization to impose their values? If you do not believe they can, why not? By my reading, it appears that BSA policy says they can (as long as it does not violate the Scout Oath and Law as interpreted by BSA). Which leads me to believe, they need to be careful about who they accept as a chartering organization.

Bob, You can see a chart at Scoutmaster/ Assistant Scoutmaster Job Specific Training. it is part of the training program. I'm not sure what to make of your last response. Are you inferring SMF? If so, I have taken the course. I don't recall ever seeing this chart. Is there a link on the Internet showing the org chart?

Uniform requirements depend on the various Scout camps and the troops themselves. It's been my experience (NCAC and Delmarva) that camps typically require Class A's for the opening ceremony (beginning of camp week), closing ceremony (campfire at the end of the week), and meals at dining halls. Otherwise, the so-called "Class B's" (Scout shorts, and a Scout T-Shirt) are acceptable for camp. This has been my experience. It may not be true for the camp that you plan to attend. To your last question, the answer is No. Any Scout hat is acceptable with a Class A uniform. Some troops have their own troop and/or patrol hats custom made. Some folks chose to wear a BSA camp hat. I have even seen NFL football team caps used by patrols as their official hat (i.e., Panthers, Ravens).

Could someone please point me to a link on the Internet that displays the aforementioned org chart (showing the CC over the SM)? I don't dispute it. I've just haven't been able to find such a document. Thanks.

Just to throw another wrinkle into this debate, consider the following (from BSA's Troop Committee Guidebook): In the chartered organization relationship, the Boy Scouts of America provides the program and support services, and the chartered organization provides the adult leadership and use the program to accomplish its goals for youth. Per my understanding, the chartering organization can use the program "to accomplish its goals for youth". For example: a Scoutmaster from a Mormon troop may feel that a boy who does not attend worship regularly, is not being reverent (12th point of the Scout law), and thus is being un-Scout like. The Scout receives a "failing mark" for Scout spirit. Assuming the Scoutmaster is reflecting the beliefs of the chartering organization, this seems to be in agreement with BSA policy. The fact sheet on the BSA web site says this: How Community Organizations Use the Scouting Program Schools, community and religious organizations, and groups, with the help of the BSA, organize Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, Varsity Scout teams, Venture crews, and Learning for Life groups for children and youth. They manage these units and control the program of activities to support the goals and objectives of the chartered organizations. The above reference applies to all chartering organizations (not just religious groups). In other words, it is within BSA policy for various organizations (American Legions, private schools, public schools, churches, etc.) to have different goals and objectives for youths. More to the point, what if one of these organizations felt long hair reflected a rebellious attitude (bare in mind that this is an example, not my personal feelings on a particular issue) and thus should receive a "failing mark" for Scout spirit. As long as they do not stray from the basic tenants of the Scout Oath and Law, by my reading, they have a right to use the program to solidify their beliefs. I am shooting off onto another thread here, but the fact iswe (BSA troops) are more at the mercy of our Chartering Organizations than most us of realize. A charter is an agreement, a bond, between two individuals and/or groups. The troop is agreeing to the goals and objectives of the chartering organization. Some folks seem to forget this because many chartering organizations disappear into the woodwork. Still, they are the ones who are supposed to be providing overall direction, most importantly, by selecting the leadership that reflects their beliefs. So, if a Scoutmaster, reflecting the beliefs of his organization, tells a youth that long hair is not Scout like, who is to say he is wrong? I've already stated my feelings on this particular story (Eagle with long hair). And the fact is, my previous responses had nothing to do with this new assertion. I don't want to reargue the case, but I'm curious to see if this is a bone of contention with others. That isDo you believe your charter organization has any say in how you should instruct and train Scouts? Do you think it is fair for the chartering organization to impose their values? If you do not believe they can, why not? By my reading, it appears that BSA policy says they can (as long as it does not violate the Scout Oath and Law as interpreted by BSA). Which leads me to believe, they need to be careful about who they accept as a chartering organization. ScouterPaul, Yesyou are not the only one. To add to my embarrassment, I publicly stated that I was on sabbatical! I intend to return to my respite. Now, if I could only stop all those voices (Hmm, did I say "voices"? I meant to say "thoughts") from bouncing around in my head.

Any way you look at it the fact is the Scoutmaster is not the "head" of the unit. He or she is selected, approved and maintained on the charter at the will of others. Agreed. Since the Charter Organization head is responsible for choosing the COR and the CC, a much true representation would be for the COR and CC to be seen as equals. An owner of a professional sports team can select a general manager and a coach, but that doesn't necessarily make them equals. Per the Troop Committee Guidebook: "Each chartered organization using the Scouting program provides a meeting place, selects a Scoutmaster, appoints a troop committee of at least three adults, and chooses a Chartered Organization Representative." By the aforementioned logic, all of these folks are equals. If you read carefully, the guidebook doesn't even mention the CC specifically as being a position selected by the Charter Organization (only under the umbrella of "appoints a troop committee of at least three adults"). One could reason none of the three adults selected would necessarily become the CC. They could decide amongst themselves or seek a fourth candidate. Furthermore, reading this guidebook carefully, it appears that the committee is responsible for recruiting and training only, not selection (this is true for all adult positions). In the end, the Chartering Organization is responsible for the selection of each adult position - "The chartered organization must also approve all adult leadersthe Boy Scouts of America provides the program and support services, and the chartered organization provides the adult leadership and use the program to accomplish its goals for youth." Of course, all of the above is splitting hairsyet, if there is a conflict between the CC and the SM, it is important to know who has ultimate authority. I contend that it is neither one of these guys. One has no more authority than the other. If a conflict should arise, and it cannot be settled amicably, then I contend that the COR or the executive officer are the only ones with true authority to resolve the issue. Could they defer to a committee? Could they defer to the CC? Could they defer to the SM? I believe they could do any of these things, but they would be explicitly conveying their authority to that person or group. It's not a given that one has authority over the other. Maybe this should be a separate thread. Anyway, I find this "debate" interesting because I feel it is relevant to many troops. It appears that very often there is an undercurrent of conflict between the CC and SM because there is no clear understanding of "who's in charge". Not because either one necessarily wants to be in charge, but because the ambiguity feeds the conflict. I think BSA would be better served if they put out a policy statement (in the Troop Committee Guidebook or elsewhere) that clearly stated one of the following: 1) The Committee Chairperson has authority over the Scoutmaster. 2) The Scoutmaster has authority over the Committee Chairperson. 3) Neither the Committee Chairperson nor the Scoutmaster has authority over the other. If a conflict arises between these two, they should seek a resolution through their Chartering Organization. I think, unofficially, BSA stakes claim to number three. However, as I have previously stated, I have yet to see wording in any BSA document asserting any one of these positions. They could save their adult leadership some stress but creating and stating such a policy clearly.

I followed, and agreed, with most of you statements. However, I still feel it is not quite accurate to say the CC is third in command behind the COR. You observed, "In no part of scouting does the SM have authority over the functions of the committee." Yet, the committee is not the CC. The CC does not authority over the functions of the committee either. He moderates the meeting. He has only one vote. Furthermore, there are parts of the program that the CC has no say over the SM. For example, in order to test Scouts, the Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates (not the CC or committee). It works both ways. Also, when one reviews the committee's responsibilities (per the Troop Committee Guidebook), the words used in reference to the SM are "advices", "supports", and "assists". Nowhere do I see the word "directs" or any similar wording. I feel it is more accurate to say the hierarchy is as follows: Executive Officer of the Chartering Organization Chartering Organization Representative (which by the way, to my knowledge, can also be the executive officer) Troop Committee* Committee Chair/Scoutmaster * I see the CC and SM as being equals. I may be wrong about the CC, but I'm fairly confident that the Troop Committee (as a group) has more authority than he. BSA is based on democratic principles, and it seems to be me, ultimately the committee (by majority vote) has more say than any other person or group, aside from the chartering organization itself. Unfortunately, I think many CCs do not run the committee meetings that way. Some become dictators; at least, that's been my observation, which gives folks the impression that he is in charge. But, again, I have not read every BSA policy document out there. If you can point me to some definitive language that states otherwise, I would be appreciative.

Bob, I understand the structure as you described itwith the chartering organization's executive officer being at the top, who appoints the COR. I realize that the COR is above the CC and SM. However, I am a little confused about the CC and SM relationship. Can you show me where in BSA literature it states that the CC has authority over the SM? I always viewed them as equals. They are responsible for different areas of the program. One oversees administrative and financial support functions of the troop, while the other oversees the boys' program. I'm not sure why either one would be telling the other what to do? Regardless, could you reference the text in which you base your claim that the CC has authority over the SM? Thanks.

Ever make a sacrifice for someone you respected, even though you had a right to do otherwise? This is not capitulation. Whether or not the Scoutmaster is right or wrong is not my point. I'm not even suggesting to grekonsz what he should do, because I don't know the particulars. I AM suggesting that he knows the particulars and a haircut may or may not be reasonable. It depends on all of the factors that he knows and we don't. And yes, as an Eagle, he ought to be noble. If he makes a sacrifice for a SM (even one who's wrong) and does it for the right reasons, I respect that...What those reasons might be; only grekonsz would know. If there is no good reason, then fine, I accept that too. But grekonsz is the only one who can truly say. The rest of us are outsiders looking in. At least I'm willing to admit that my soapbox is made of wood (not steel).

I realize and accept the fact that doing what's right may mean grekonsz should go to council. Perhaps the Scoutmaster is as bad as everyone seems to think he is. If so, I wouldn't object. However, as I said, I'm not willing shout at the top of lungs that justice needs to be done when I don't know much about the people involved. Despite the reality for grekonsz, this is merely a theoretical exercise for the rest of us. A lot of times things are not what they appear to be, and I don't think we can say much from where we're sitting. Alas, it appears that I am in a minority...Maybe I'm one of those egotistical Scout leaders. Maybe I should ask jmcquillan. He apparently can figure out a lot about a person and/or situation with just a few words. I'm not quite that wise yet.

Jmcquillan, You're still missing point...(I'm not sure why I keeping trying, but I'm a glutton for punishment). Again, there's no doubt that the Scoutmaster's demand is wrong. I'm merely suggesting to grekonsz that he has information that we don't. He knows the relationship. He knows the history. We don't. Despite that fact everyone is telling him to "roast" the Scoutmaster as if they are intimately familiar with the troop and all concerned parties. For all we know, this "unfit" Scoutmaster risked his own life to save a Scout. We know absolutely nothing about the man, except this one violation of policy. From this single point of data, you're telling the Scout to run to his council. Geez Rooster, talk about laying it on thick. How about a little undue pressure on the kid, huh? It's hair for pete's sake. If you really love me...if you really respect me...you'll get your haircut! Wow! You're all but saying that if the Scout does not get his hair cut, then none of his Scouting experience counts for anything. He's lost it all and the respect of his SM, because he wouldn't get his hair cut. I'm aghast that anyone could propose such a choice to an Eagle candidate. I'm aghast that so many Scouters are willing to right off a Scoutmaster they never met before over one transgression. You've never stepped over the line? Ever stumbled? Ever heard of grace? "So in everything you do, do to others what you would have them do to you" grekonsz, Do whatever your heart tells you is right. If you're an Eagle, your old enough and wise enough to know which way to go.

If it was me, I would tell my scoutmaster that I am going to go to the council with this unless he changes his mind, because what he is doing is unfair and against policy. Just my two cents. Good Luck! I AM ON SABATICAL! I REALY AM! Unfortunately, with my son weighing in with his two cents, I am compelled to post. This is the danger of having a son posting to the same site as you doSometimes you disagree. Actually, truth be told, I don't think my son (YoungBlood) would really confront his Scoutmaster, or at least not without a lot of thought, humility, and respect. I agree with Dedicated Dad's posts. I think many folks are misinterpreting him. He is not saying that the Scoutmaster's demand is reasonable or right. Nor am I. He IS saying an Eagle Scout should give serious thought about approaching his Scoutmaster, and even consider getting a haircut. Not because the Scoutmaster is right, but because of the relationship (if there truly is one). If your Scoutmaster has been no encouragement to youif he has made no sacrificesif he has done nothing to deserve your thankfulness or respect, than I suppose I would agree - Go over his head and call council. Why should you care what he thinks? On the other hand, if he has made sacrifices (spending countless hours chaperoning trips, counseling Scouts, working with committees, attending meetings, and the like), then perhapsjust maybe, you owe it to him to hear him out. Whether or not you get a haircut is your choice. But ask yourself some questions before you refuse. Is my Scoutmaster more than just an acquaintance with a title? Has he truly been a mentor? What kind of friend has he been? Do I want to have a relationship with my Scoutmaster that I can look back on fondly? What kind of a man is he? Yes! You have an absolute right to deny him that haircut, and maybe you should. HOWEVER, maybe you shouldn't. Forget about your rights for a second (everyone agrees that BSA policy is on your side) and ask yourself what would be the right thing to do? Per the laws of this land, I am free to do many things, but not all of them are noble. If I truly respected my Scoutmaster and liked him as a mentor, this is what I think I would do - I would tell my Scoutmaster, "I don't agree with your demand or the idea that a kid with long hair cannot be a good Eagle Scout. In fact, I am confident that your demand is not permitted by BSA policy. However, because I respect you for who you are, I am willing to make that sacrifice." My guess is, he'll stop you. If he doesn't, then you're building a foundation for a future relationship. Perhaps you can show him the error of his thinking over time. Could you take him to task? Could you get him in hot water for not following policy? Seems like there's no doubt about thatyou can. My point (and I think DD's as well), just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Examine the situation closely. The following is from the Aid to Scoutmasters (Lord Baden Powell): A further valuable aid to the training in fairness is the holding of debates amongst the boys on subjects that interest them and which lend themselves to argument on both sides. This is to get them into the way of recognizing that every important question has two sides to it, and that they should not be carried away by the eloquence of one orator before they have heard what the defender of the other side has to say on the subject, and that they should then weigh the evidence of both sides for themselves before making up their mind which part they should take.

I think it's still called Scouting, just not Scouting according to "Bob". (Sorry, that's my one shot for the day) There's a difference between micro-managing and setting boundries. By your philosophy, the boys need not justify their actions to you. And...What if they felt their actions were defendable, but you didn't? Are you suppose to pretend that they know better - because it's 'boy run'? Again, I'm not saying step in and stop them every time you see something wrong, but sometimes common sense does scream out for an adult.

lasteagle83, Amen to each and every thought expressed. Your sentiments are right on target and well appreciated. As a home schooling Dad of four, and a Scouter for 10 plus years, I have yet to meet a family that used merit badges as a foundation for their school curriculum. Some have used the badges to supplement their curriculum, but never as a foundation. For the reasons noted in this forum and some others, it would not be wise. Yet, to complement or supplement existing curriculum, it makes excellent sense to do so (for the reasons lasteagle83 sited already). As for the jealousy factor, I have seen this too. It is fairly rare. However, some folks cannot get over the fact that home schooling permits one to bring merit badges into the curriculum, and consequently, one's son can acquire badges rather rapidly.

This is supposed to be as fun for the adults as the boys. The committee's only task is to support the program decisions of the boys. If you are writing all these rules to make the program run smoother then you picked the wrong program. Boy Scouts was never meant to run smooth. It is a training ground for boys to experiment with real leadership and part of that process is they need to make some mistakes. While I agree that BSA wants troops to be "boy run" and boys should learn from their mistakes, I believe this is a misapplication of the philosophy. Yes, boys run the troop. They pick and plan their outings. They pick their leaders. Their leaders lead, etc. However, I do not believe that BSA intended for the "boy run" philosophy to be applied to all aspects of the troop, including policies such as training for leaders. Least we forget, they are boys and we are adults. It is one thing to take this philosophy and apply it to a bunch of boys in the woods or on an outing. It is quite another issue to apply this philosophy to the adult infrastructure of a troop. By Bob White's reasoning, the boys should be dictating policy to committee members. I don't buy it. From my reading, FScouter has the right idea. A couple of other thoughts while we are on the subject - I believe there is flexibility in BSA policy by design. For certain issues, BSA is very clear and there is no flexibility. On others, I am confident that words such as "should" were chosen purposefully. I have made numerous phone calls to my council and to Irving, Texas concerning policies with this kind of wording. In every case, I was instructed that BSA had an opinion, but ultimately left it up to the discretion of that particular troop. In other words, for many issues - "should" does not mean it is required, but it also doesn't mean a troop can't make it a requirement. There appears to be two exceptions to this - One, BSA requirements for rank and badge advancement are not subject to interpretation by individual troops. Two, policies denoted in bold in the Guide to Safe Scouting, by definition, are absolutes. "Boy Run" is not meant to be a mantra that is mindlessly followed. Common sense should prevail. Learning by mistakes is valid as long as common sense is applied. For example: The SPL decides 3 AM is good time for lights out. Common sense tells us (boys and adults) the following - 1) No one will get up in time for planned events. 2) Everyone will be tired for the entire day. 3) Everyone will suffer, even the boys who tried to go to bed at a decent hour. Perhaps, in many troops, a Scoutmaster will accept this as "boy run" and permit the troop to have their fun and learn from their mistake. To me, this is not what BSA (or Baden-Powell) meant by "boy run". At some point in time, an adult has to decide he is an adult and he's not going to allow common sense to be flushed down the toilet. Some "mistakes" should be prevented and not just ones that involve safety. Here's another example - Do you allow a Scout, who's cooking food for his entire patrol (and not taking advice), to ruin dinner for eight boys so he (the one Scout) can learn a lesson? How do you justify that to the seven other boys? I love Scoutsbut lets be real. They are boys. We are adults. They will act like boys about 50 to 100 percent of the time. Sometimes (not usually, but occasionally) we have to act like adults and step inwhen common sense tells us to do so. OkayI'm done. Both of these issues are pet peeves of mine. Just my opinion

I have to make one correction before I go... In my original post, I wrote - If you think Scouting should be an amoral organization that should put all of its efforts into teaching camping skills and encouraging fun for boys, then you did join BSA for the same reasons as I. I meant to say - you did NOT join BSA for the same reasons as I. If you're compelled to comment on that, please reread my entire post. Also, be advised, I will refrain from answering. Scoutmom, My main reason for taking this break is to refocus my attention elsewhere (work, home, etc.). I find this thread to be very consuming. However, I'm convinced these debates are a worthwhile endeavor. We are fighting for the "soul" of BSA. I truly believe this. ScouterPaul, I am heartened by your warm response, especially since we disagree so passionately on these issues. I pray God will open your eyes to His Word. I realize that you may take offense to thatbut I want you to know, I offer this thought with the same warmth of friendship that in you put forth in your response. DedicatedDad, Thanks. I agree with your posts. I'm not sure our tolerance levels are any different. I take a very long time to think about my responses (generally). Without the benefit of that time, I'd probably be more blunt. Also, it is very debatable as to whether or not my style is the most forthright. I try not to offend (sometimes) but at what price? Bottom Line: We have the same values. OGE, Ed, eisely, Weekender, slontwovvy, sctmom, Chippewa29, cjmiam, andrews, Pioneer DC, sst3rd, Its Trail Day, Mike Long, Glen, and many others - I've really enjoyed your comments and warm thoughts, offered throughout this forum. Last word, promise Proverbs 1:20 Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; Amen.

For my own sanity, and so I will no longer neglect my job or home, I intend to take a sabbatical from posting on the Politics and Issues forum (and probably the other threads as well). However, I would like to leave you with these thoughts Some folks feel this forum does not discuss relevant issues. Some folks feel that these discussions have little, if not nothing to do with the Scouting program. Even "Scouter-Terry" (the site's owner) noted, The Politics and Issues forum was established specifically to provide an area for debate separate from the important matters of Scouting To me, this forum is THE MOST IMPORTANT thread on the Scouter Forum site. It's these issues that are fundamental to the program. If we truly believe that BSA is more about building character than campfires, then we should encourage more Scouters to debate these issues, not less. If you feel that the "homosexual issue" is a minor issuean issue, we shouldn't concern ourselves with, then you did not join BSA for the same reasons as I. If you feel one can fulfill the promise of Scouting and be an atheist, then you did not join BSA for the same reasons as I. If you think Scouting should be an amoral organization that should put all of its efforts into teaching camping skills and encouraging fun for boys, then you did join BSA for the same reasons as I. Of course, I want my child to have fun. And, like every good parent, I want him to learn skills that will help him in life. However, I see these things as Scouting's byproducts, not as its purpose. In the end, Scouting's purpose should be to help turn boys into men, to build strong character. It is my hope and prayer that most of us have the same vision. To me, an Eagle badge (especially when its on one of my sons' shirts) will always be a symbol that reflects traditional values, years of dedication, and an unshakeable character. As it stands today, that badge has the same meaning and value as it did 92 years in 1910. Will it remain so? I don't know. I do know this. If we don't fight to keep it that way, others will have their way. Keep up the good fight. For my Christian brothers and sisters, I offer up Proverbs 3 as encouragement. The following is a sound file of Lord Baden-Powell describing the Boy Scout movement. http://www.cnyscouts.org/historical/audio/bp_public_address.ra As Arnold Schwarzenegger says - "I'll be back." - but probably not for a couple of months. God Bless.

Scouter Paul, Christians who supported slavery did not know or understand the bible. Slavery has always been an evil (even in 1700). Just because some chose not believe it, did not make it so. The bible's moral positions have been constant. One more question. You stated that "The answer is obvious. Just like it is obvious where the founders of BSA stood in 1910." Please provide proof that the founders found homosexuality immoral. With all due respect, give me a break!