sandspur

Hal: Your reply got me thinking when you wrote that as a Committee Member, Huzzar should probably not sit on a BOD for this scout. I see your point but here is another facet: What is a BOR for if not to determine if the scout has completed all rank requirements and the award should be made? A BOR is not supposed to retest skills (although that is another discussion). So if, as a BOR member, you really dont think a requirement has been met, should you stay silent? Isnt declining to participate in a BOR where you have the same suspicion the same as staying silent on the BOR? Does that ma

Huzzar: A quiet word with the SM is in order. If he thinks there is a problem, the SM can discuss it with the MBC. If the Advancement Chair has not turned the advancement report in to the council, it is an easy matter to have the MBC pull back the MB card. If it has been turned in, the council can still correct their records easily enough (I have seen that done with clerical errors in the advancement report). How to handle it with the scout is up to the SM and MBC. I think if I was you, I would be very quiet and have a brief, polite word with the SM or MBC, and let them work it out. I

The most popular scout running gets elected. As long as we have elections, and not appointed leaders, that will happen. You write that as if it were good thing Not good, bad or indifferent. It just is. Facts are neither good nor bad. They just are. So, require certain qualifications for SPL. Yeah, its called gaming the system. Adults do that all the time to keep the most talented natural leaders out of office, so they can teach business manager skills to a greater number of Scouts. Of course the central contradiction of Leadership Development is that business manage

Why does the less qualified scout get elected? Well, we adults do this too (see any national or state election). But more to your point, we need to remember that in spite of the ideal of the boy led troop, scouts are boys, not mature adults (and, as observed above, even we screw it up). The most popular scout running gets elected. As long as we have elections, and not appointed leaders, that will happen. So, require certain qualifications for SPL. Maybe Life Scout, attended/passed leadership training, others? Use a JASM to backstop a weaker SPL. After all, you can appoint a JASM

OK, in the spirit of not rehashing what others have said but trying to see the best way out for your son, I make the following observations: 1. I think that 2 AM incident was a bigger deal than you or your son see it as. Think about this: EVERY scout leader has dealt with noisy scouts in tents after lights out. It is old hat for scouters. Leadership 101. So, for the ASM and SM to make such a big deal about this one, SOMETHING was out of the ordinary. The two hints are the 2 AM (more than just some trouble settling down there) and your sons walking away from the ASM. I respectfully su

The whole issue feels Big Brotherish. Or Lawyerish. Or both. If a competent physician certifies an adult is able to physically participate in an activity, who are we to look at some idealized chart written for another purpose and deny him that opportunity? Look to ban smokers next (makes about as much sense. They have reduced lung capacity, less endurance etc.). Age restrictions (must be under 50?). After all, something MIGHT happen and we MIGHT be sued! I know a lot of leaders that would not make the cut here. I suspect the real discussions will occur when participation in these a

Nolesrule writes: each level of review has come up with a separate reason/excuse in order to not overrule the SM, which is not the same thing as agreeing with the initial reason for not signing the application Yes, but I still have that alarm going off in the back of my head. Remember, the SM, Committee etc are not on this forum and posting their side. Even if they are on the forum, it would be improper of them to post what might be confidential or disputed information. I make no judgment as to who is correct here. I do not know. But I do know I have heard only one side of the story.

Click23 write: No one has the power to decide who is Eagle worthy and who is not, or to decide what an Eagle Scout should be, the requirements do that for us Click: I agree with the latter part but not the former. If no-one has the power to decide who is Eagle worthy, what is an EBOR for anyway? (I know it hasnt happened here yet). If a BOR just rubber stamps the check boxes in the scout handbook/application, then why do we even have them? Like Beavah, I am beginning to get the uncomfortable feeling we dont have the whole story here. I have seen unreasonable SMs and individuals befor

Beavah: Well, I always did agree with 95% of your position here and after more thought I am coming around on the driver issue. I still will not argue with troops wanting to establish limits for drivers. However, I am less sure of how I would cast my vote if it came up in committee. After all, our troop uses busses, and only some scouters have the CDL necessary to drive them. I have declined to get a CDL even after I was asked to because although I have not had an accident in 30 years or a ticket since high school, I am just not sure of my experience level in driving a vehicle that big

Acco40: What you describe is more a comfort/fun issue. If you stick it out, bet those scouts without proper gear are more prepared next time! As you are from Michigan, how about this one: A storm front is moving in. We are well equipped for the weather but there is a 70% chance of an ice storm. The roads may become skating rinks and dangerous. We are scheduled to pack up and leave tomorrow morning. Do we leave early to avoid potential (but not certain) dangerous driving conditions tomorrow morning or stick it out? No clear answer, but you are sure to have to make the best judgme

Hal: The point about 18-20 year olds serving in the military is frequently brought up, occasionally even by me! I too see no logical reason why a 19 year old can shoulder an M-4 and die for our country but not drink a beer. 21 is arbitrary. Blue laws are still with us. However, I am infamous for seeing both sides of an argument. The counterpoint here is that having 18-19 year olds in the military has a lot to do with physical maturity, physical stamina for combat and trainability. Even in the military, how many 19-20 year olds are truly supposed to be on their own in a combat situ

Eagledad: I hope nothing I said indicated I thought any scout leader did not take the scouts safety seriously. I and my sons have been involved in scouting for many years and I have never encountered a scouter who did not take their responsibilities seriously. I have entrusted my sons safety to the leaders in our troops for a long time and will continue to do so without a qualm. By the way, some of the scouts/leaders from my troop (at the time) were involved in the tragedy at Little Sioux last year. Both of the senior scouters running that program and on site when the tornado struck were

Yes Eagle 92, but arent they making their feelings known if the Troop Committee votes to restrict drivers to over 21? As far as no blanket policies, how else do you do it? We cant give a driving test under adverse conditions (night, rain, ice) to every driver. I know there are a lot of 19 year old drivers out there that are better than some 35 year olds. But experience is gained one hour at a time. Look at the NTSB investigation of the tragic plane crash in Buffalo. Both licensed commercial pilots but: 1. Both inexperienced. 2. Neither experienced in flying in icing conditions

I guess I see both sides here. I think young adult leaders are great, and a troop should be proud to have them. I cant see any more risk than a new dad you know nothing about. Driving a car full of younger scouts though? I know this is touchy Eagle92, but there is a difference in experience between an 18 year old driver and a 30 year old, no matter how level headed they both are. Same reason I feel safer with a pilot that has 1000 hours vs. 100 hours. Driving a car full of other folks kids is a big responsibility and always gives me pause when I do so. After all, an 18 year old is more

I was about to opine that I could not see a SM or adult in charge going forward when another leader was adamant that it was unsafe. Unless the guy had a reputation as unreasonable. Then I read Jblakes post. Now I just think I hope I am not one of those with the cavalier attitude and hope no one else in our troop is. To True Believers point, He is an attorney and I am not, but I guess if you did decide to over rule another leaders objections and proceed that inviting the opinion of other leaders present might at least demonstrate that the SMs actions were not unreasonable.

To clarify, we ask new scouts not to vote because they dont know the older scouts well enough to cast a thoughtful vote. However, if they feel they can do so, we dont prevent them from voting. Most agree with our thought and do not vote until their second year.

Well, times change. I am old and grey enough to remember when calculators first came out. I purchased one to get me through freshman chemistry ($100 for four functions). Many profs banned them from tests (unfair to those using slide rules dontya know) also, you might use one of those fancy ones with a memory function to store a constant or formula you were supposed to memorize! Cheater! It would hamper your ability to perform math (kills the brain!) Now my son is required by the teacher to purchase a graphing calculator that is really a mini-computer. We went from calling calculato

In our troop we ask new scouts (less than six months) not to vote since they dont know the older scouts in the troop well enough to judge. I thought the requirement was 51% of scouts voting in the election, not 51% of scouts registered in the troop. That is the way our local lodge has done it with the troop.

I tend to like the idea of a safety hold. If you are SM or not is less important that your feeling on the safety of the situation. So my vote is if you are SM, ASM, Scouter, or anyone in a position of leadership and you truly think that the situation is not safe, even if the others do Throw yourself in front of the juggernaught! Dont be talked into something you think is wrong. How will you live with yourself later? If you are on the other side and you just cant convince the holdout. Maybe time to take a deep breath and ask if he is right.

NewLdr wrote: If was never explained to this boy before just that he figured out he wasn't included pretty quickly Wouldnt he notice that his name was not on the ballot? Wouldnt everyone know? None of the troops I have been associated with had a SM who consulted current OA members on who went on the ballot. I guess it is not forbidden, just not normal.

In the past, Ive seen OA election issues when scouts do not really understand that a scout needs more than 50% of those voting to cast ballots for him or he doesnt get elected. Not so say most scouts dont realize this, but in a normal election you only vote for one candidate. It only takes a few scouts who vote for one person on the ballot to drop someones chances of an election. We had an election a few years back where one twin got elected and his brother did not. Ouch! The elected twin declined the OA until his brother got in. Still, no way around it unless we take control of the sel

Yeah Beavah, I agree but in reading your post I assumed that the scouter with more experience was the one counseling caution. Just for the sake of clarity, how would you make the call if the SM or scouter in charge of the outing felt the river was too high/fast and the situation was more risk than he felt warranted, but another scouter with years of BWCA and river experience felt it was OK? If the SM still cant be convinced? Under those circumstances, I still would not fault the SM or designee for erring on the side of caution. Weve all seen Gung Ho Charlie who knows what he can do with

Looks like the cell phone issue has reached the point where no-one is convincing anyone else. To each his own and set your troop policy as you see fit. The more disturbing sub thread to me was the thought that if troop policy contradicts family policy, family policy overrides, even if the scouts need to clandestinely override troop policy. Unless troop policy directly impacts the safety of the scout or contravenes family morals (hard to imagine) parents need to adhere to troop policy. If the issue causes that much heartburn, the family needs to switch troops. The families that have thei

Sound like this issue is surmountable. Since major population occurs only rarely, there should not be a long term impact if national plans like it should. That area has plenty of water and we can run tankers in to supplement. Yes, a lot of portable toilets, but again we can bring them in. Nothing we are not doing at AP Hill. Traffic is another issue. I presume the roads can handle it but if not does National have a plan? Dare I assume that was looked at before the site was chosen? Evacuation? OK, we can develop a plan. If the local politicians are on our side (should be, else the

Sound like the usual NIMBY stuff (Not In My Back Yard). There is always some group that does not want anything new and altered in their area. If it is a road, factory, park or wind power farm, someone is against it. Hard to believe they will prevail against the economic impact of 250,000 visitors on the local economy. Especially these days.