sandspur

If memory serves, the city of Maitland, Florida has an active scout house in a city park. Any one have more information?

Jblake:

I gently disagree. Cell phones are allowed in our troop, with appropriate controls (off or on vibrate during meeting etc) but If my son chooses to carry his it in no way reflects on my confidence in the SM or leadership. In fact, it is my sons decision on whether or not to carry his phone, and on campouts he chooses to leave it at home (so as not to get lost or damaged and he is likely out of range anyway).

It is just a tool, a device. If it is used with courtesy and respect for others, all the objections I have seen seem moot. If it is not thus used, courtesy and respect need to be taught.

If some parents are over protective, that problem would exist even without the phone.

Wow, a hot topic indeed.

However, I disagree with the posters that think courtesy is not the issue. It is the main issue for me.

Cell phones are ubiquitous. The lads do have them. If a troop bans them (as you have the right to do) I feel the scouts learn nothing about how to handle this technology on a daily basis. They will have them in church, at the job, in meetings, during shows, the list goes on. Did we help them to learn courtesy and respect for others by banning cells at scouts?

Now, if we said you can have them, but turn them off or keep them on vibrate during meetings and if we enforce that? If the SPL stopped the meeting when a cell phone rang and asked the offender to step outside or turn it off and only resume the meeting when that had been done? I find embarrassment is a fine teacher for teens. By the way, the policy should hold for the adults as well and the SM or ASM should not hesitate to enforce the same policy on adults during the meetings. Now, I think we have taught something!

Anyway, follow troop policy whatever it is!

Nolesrule:

I agree totally. If we ban phones, I suspect we have taught nothing about how the scout should act in life outside the troop.

If we say, sure you can have a phone but use it properly and with courtesy, then we generate teaching moments. When a scouts phone goes off during a meeting, the SPL can stop the meeting and ask the offender to turn his phone off or go outside. As all the other scouts turn and look, embarrassment sets in. That will have more effect on a teenager than any set of rules. I bet every phone in the troop is off or on vibrate after one or two incidents like that. The adults must play be the same rules!

Well cubs is the main source of scouts, but not all.

One of my sons, now an Eagle, joined scouts directly but was never a cub. His younger brother did the cub thing and is now in scouts.

I myself dropped out of cubs (Boring!) and later joined a scout troop and rose to Eagle. Looking back, I joined because my friends were in scouts.

Scouts who bypass the cub route (while I agree they are rare) tend to join because of what they hear from their friends or to participate in the high adventure aspect. They want to canoe the BWCA or hike the AT and scouts is the way to do it.

So, if we want to recruit scouts other than through cubs, which we are not good at, emphasize the adventure and trips, advertise in the schools. If we assume that cubs is the only route, it will be so.

Nolesrule:

Fines may work (do you have repeat offenders?). My favorite learning moment was during a staff meeting when a director took an important call in the meeting. The VP running the meeting, with a deadpan look, pulled out his cell, called the guy right across the table he had been talking to and continued the meeting that way. Message sent!

I think Lisabobs question was to ask how a generation growing up with cell phones may alter their perception of what is a normal tether to place on their youngsters.

This tendency is already evident in scouts, although it comes from many things, not just technology.

A lot of us are old enough to remember when a lot of scout activity did not include adults. I recall doing 10 and 20 mile hikes through wilderness areas for the MB requirements either solo or with one other scout my age. Pretty sure that would not be OK today (might not have been then either, but we sure did it).

So, when scouts have and use cells phones in daily life, it comes to be regarded as normal and increasingly accepted. I suspect that trend will continue. At some point, technology will give us service even in wilderness areas (cheap satellite phones?). Many folks today are dropping landlines at home and going cell only. I am considering that myself.

So, while I fully support those troops choosing to ban them for scouts, I suspect, Lisabob, that more and more they will evolve into such a universal item that in ten years we wont give it a second thought. And the next generation of parents will assume they can contact their offspring (probably with GPS coordinates if they desire) at any time.

Its a losing battle. For those that think they are winning, have you seen those ringtones of such high pitch that youngsters (20 and under) can hear them but 30 and over cant? They are out there and guess what? They work. I tried em and my wife and I couldnt hear a thing. My 13 and 18 year old heard them plain as day. Those rings may be going off under your nose and you dont know it unless you see the phone in use.

For what its worth, my advice is to emphasize courtesy. Dont answer the darn things in a meeting or disrupt a program. Goes for adults too. Ask offenders to leave the room or turn the phone off. Good training for real life. If you want to risk losing an expensive phone on a campout where it may not work anyway, that is your decision (but follow troop policy whatever it is). Ive seen scouts take expensive cameras on high adventure trips after all.

First of all, I am not surprised at terms which may or may not have been from the Lenape language are mispronounced. How many native speakers are there today and how many lodges have access to them?

There is no disrespect intended. To give another example, many Latin-origin words are mispronounced and misspelled today, even by the US government in official documents (I will not bore you with examples).

As far as the example of a group using Christian imagery in a ceremony causing offense... I doubt it if no offense was intended. It actually happens to some extent. Some common imagery of the age of chivalry, knights errant etc. is historically wrong. Few people get upset. In fact, few people even if their ancestry is from that background understand their past well enough to recognize a glitch. Vikings for example did not wear cow horns on their helmets, but did you ever see someone with a Nordic ancestry picketing over that?

A co-worker of mine who is Lakota and proud of her heritage told me she wouldnt know an authentic Lakota ceremony from, say, the 1700s if it walked up and bit her. She has been told much of what she sees at Lakota gatherings today is an amalgam of Lakota, Dakota, and even eastern seaboard tribal origin (at least according to her grandmother). What is authentic in a society governed by oral tradition depends to some extent on which living memory of that oral tradition you consult and how seriously that person takes your question.

Lastly, there is a lot of politics and individual opinion involved in how Native Americans see the issue and there is no one common viewpoint. A well-known Native American (Lakota) journalist in my neck of the woods periodically publishes opinion pieces on how sports teams named after Native Americans should be banned as offensive. When informed that the Seminoles had officially blessed the use of their name by the team and university in Florida, he responded by publically attacking the Seminole tribal council as turncoats and traitors to (his) view of what Native Americans should be.

Moral: You cant please everyone. Just look in your own heart and see if the intent is respectful or mocking and go from there.

An observation I had never heard before: Hispanic culture is not supportive of sending their boy out to camp with non-family members?

I am not of that community, and so dont rightly know, but in troops I have been associated with there are a lot of adult leaders, most of whom have scouts active in the program, so isnt a family member involved if you culturally need that? Where would the send my kid out with strangers thought have come from?

The we lived in tents in the old country and dont find camping fun observations, while maybe half in jest, also seems off the mark. How to explain scoutings appeal in rural areas where folks are closer to the outdoors vs. urban areas where the closest they get to nature is a zoo or central park if this is the case?

Anyone know how well international scouting is doing in Latin American countries if it is a cultural thing?

OK, apropos of nothing but a thread on how scouting is seen in todays world and how or whether we should adapt made me think of how scouts are portrayed in the media.

Aside from Steven Spielberg in his Indiana Jones phase, nearly every portrayal of scouts I see on TV has some pseudo organization (like Boy Woodchuck Guides) with what is clearly intended to be a scout uniform but in a different color and a portrayal of the program that is clearly from someone who is aware the BSA exists but knows nothing about it (the writers).

So, this caused me to wonder. Are the portrayals of pseudo-scouts because BSA holds the rights to BSA and the uniform and wont give permission for their use (except to Spielberg?) or because the writers dont know any better? I suppose it could also be that the writers dont want to be sued but I cant see that happening.

Well Beavah, we have reached out a bit. Venturing has members of both genders. Scouts are all boys, but then there is the Girl Scouts.

However, I agree that efforts to reach into inner cities and some ethic communities have not been overly successful.

I get your point though. There are lots of folks (many of them outside the program)who would change us to be so inclusive we would no longer be recognizable as scouts.

My $0.02? We should not exclude anybody who adheres to the scout oath and law. If traditional father/son for cubs is better served by parent/son given todays demographics, I support that, as it is best for the boys. Does it really matter if Mom comes with the cub?

Take each situation as it comes, one at a time. But only change the core program if it is best for the scouts (meaning the boys) and their development into men we can all be proud of.

Frankly, what we keep getting grief for in the court of public opinion is not the father/son thing but our reading of a scout is clean and morally straight as the public view of morally straight seems to be evolving away from what it was. Dont try to read my personal views into this statement!! Just pointing out what is in the papers and the courts all the time!

Now aint that gonna start some fireworks?!

CalicoPenn

Yes, I agree we should not change the core program. But the BSA does not provide detailed guidance on most issues (and probably shouldnt try). Most of these arguments seem to be scouters trying to come up with policies for their troops where the BSA is vague or silent.

I asked a while ago how far a troop can go in adding requirements for what constitutes a successful completion of a POR by a scout. After due and diligent search, BSA doesnt really say. So I guess it is open for troops to set their own policy (please be reasonable says I, but if youre not, theres really nothing I can do).

But if BSA says the requirements for Eagle are 21 MB, then its 21. Not 23. Not 19.

Adding a 50 miler to the Eagle requirements is adding to BSA requirements and not proper.

Using the Scout Spirit requirement to justify what cannot be justified otherwise is dangerous. I oppose vaguely worded catch all provisions which allow one to do anything they like in spite of everything else in the regs. See Interstate Commerce Clause, US Constitution for such horror stories.

Though you call it Dad and Lad or similar would you really exclude a mom from attending with her cub? Not in my experience. Just rename it to something gender neutral and let the cubs have a blast camping!

Again, Im not a lawyer, but it seems to me if Mom wants her second grader to attend the pack camping event, and cannot go herself but sends Uncle Mike to camp with her son, then Uncle Mike turns out to be the bad Uncle, who can go after the scouts? Only Mom has standing to sue. But Mom is the very one who sent Uncle Mike. Hard to make that case I would think. If youre concerned, get it in writing from Mom.

I agree with Beavah, I would not make a second grader sleep in a tent alone. Scouts (as opposed to cubs) are another matter. I have only once seen a scout sleep with an adult parent, and that scout had medical issues that the parent felt she had to deal with herself.

Well, seems to me that an uncle, adult older brother, or whatever family member sent BY THE PARENT to camp with their scout can sleep in the tent with (and only with) that scout under Youth Protection Guidelines. I call them the Guardian in my book. A lawyer might have a different interpretation (and a lawyer that wants to file a lawsuit if something goes wrong will always find a way) Since the parent designated the family member as acting for them does that not relieve the scouts of responsibility for the parents decision? I might be wrong though.

Now the interesting question for me is how far does that go? What if the parent designates a friend or neighbor who is not a relative as the temporary guardian. Hmmmm. Now I get uncomfortable. Might want that in writing from the parent and signed. But thats just me.

What a shame we have to worry about these things.

As you say, we need allow room for different troops to define what works for them. I have been a member of two troops as an adult scouter (and two as a scout).

Troop A wore shirt and necker but not the scout pants. Troop B wore full uniform including pants and socks. Both OK by me.

Troop A never wore uniforms on monthly troop campouts (got dirty and torn up), Troop B wore full uniform on the trip out and back and changed once camp was set up. Both OK by me.

On the other hand, troop As Eagle projects were a BIG deal, with full troop participation the norm. Troop B not so much. Troop As meeting were much more organized and productive than the more official troop Bs. Both seem to work.

However, when a troop starts adding or subtracting requirements for rank advancement or altering the core BSA program, I start to have issues. When they lose sight of the goal (the scouts) and start to focus on (their) RULES I have issues.

I guess it comes down to Dont sweat the small stuff on the one hand, but dont change the core program and still call yourself part of the BSA on the other.

What is core? That debate will go on forever.

Or a professor gives Mary an A with 87% and Billy a B with 88%. Because Billy wasnt active in the class

Hey, happened to me. Aced all the tests and got a B in the course. When I complained, Prof said I never attended study sessions. That I didnt need them was, to him, beside the point. Yeah, I thought it unfair, but I was careful about call attendance in the future.

As I said before, we need to be reasonable. A troop needs to be able to require performance in a POR or minimal qualifications for a critical position like SPL. If the expectation in a troop is to wear full uniforms to a campout, so be it.

BUT, we adults should not pedantic. one overly concerned with formalism, precision or rules. Sound familiar? The problem is, there are some of those in every group. In all honesty, I have even been guilty a few times. And yes, I have tried to use the we cant change BSA requirements argument to reign them in. Have to admit, it didnt work though so I am moving more to the what are we really trying to accomplish here argument. 55 and still learning

Gutterbird:

Sounds like a minor transgression. For a sanity check, there was two-deep leadership right? So another adult must have been nearby. Did he/she think you were out of line? Might talk with them before you decide what to do. The fact that you ask your question at all indicates to me you do not have a real problem.

So, the proper course is to wait for the BSA background check and evaluation to take its course.

Packsaddle:

Yeah, did my scouting in the south and always came back from hikes with socks loaded with the little devils. Folks up here dont know what theyre missing.

Your post provides a perfect example of the reasonableness dilemma. My current troop allows MB requirements to never expire. Clear rule. Fairly applied. Thats the rule and I abide by it. However, I confess that when a scout approaches me to sign off a partial card and I see requirements he had signed by another counselor over a year ago, and the scout cant remember what he did or what he learned, I find myself wondering if I am doing him any favors by signing. So, I understand the urge to time-limit partials. Six months though? Maybe a year but thats just me and not a policy so I dont do it. So, what I end up doing is working with the scout to make sure he remembers what he learned when he started the MB.

I also understand the sentiment behind the SM wanting to curtail younger Eagles. I also find that 14-year old Eagles are not really as mature and ready for leadership as the 17 year olds. I count my own sons in that group (one Eagle, one working his way up but the youngest just isnt ready and I hope he takes his time). Still, BSA requirements are what they are and in the end I would not deny a scout that had passed all requirements his earned rank just because of my personal thoughts. I might encourage him to slow up a little at Star and Life though

On the other hand, my current battle is with a positively byzantine troop POR policy that uses indecipherable excel spreadsheet formulas with no less than ten variables entered to calculate POR credit and gives an average 3 months credit for six months POR, seemingly because of an unspoken desire to slow up advancement at the higher ranks (see above). That does not pass my reasonableness test.

OK, its not the cell phone or no cell phone debate that concerns me as the comments by a few that if they see adults with cell phones they will confiscate them.

The SM is in charge of the program at the troop level but is not a dictator. A SM that acts like this will not have many adult volunteers to help them and will ultimately fail.

If an adults cell use is disruptive, it is entirely appropriate to ask them to cease. But take the phone away? These are adults, not Jr. High students.

I agree that the cost cited does not appear to be out of line for a week at a quality camp. For those whose finances are tight, there might be help available if you look. My last (not current) troop used a donation years ago to establish a campership fund which paid the expenses of any scout whose family could not afford to send him to summer camp. The scout always had to pitch in on fundraisers and make an effort to pay part of the fees though. Perhaps your council has a similar program or perhaps you could start one.

Agree with twocubdad. If the BSA background check was failed, it should be out of your hands. Assuming it was passed, I guess I would have to ask what was the felony many, many years ago? What does he want to do? If he stole a car twenty years back and served his time with no problems since, and wants to help out along with other leaders I guess I say why not? He wants to be with his son and participate. Is there no such thing as redemption? On the other hand, if there was violence or worse yet a youth protection concern I might go the other way. Are you concerned for the safety of your scouts here or was the issue something else?

The scouts handle it themselves. Since (at least on the last day of a campout) no-one eats until camp is struck and the area clean (we cold-camp the last breakfast and have juice, doughnuts, bars etc). The scouts have been known to drop the tent and start folding it up with our notorious late sleeper still inside.

As I said before, be reasonable.

Showing up to an Eagle BOR (or any BOR) out of uniform (in civvies) is out of bounds. BUT, having a meltdown because the scout is wearing one BSA uniform (venturing) vs. another seems trite, especially if it was OK with the SM.

Having said that, I thought the venturing green uniform was for the venturing program, not the older scouts in the BSA troop. So perhaps someone in that troop is unintentionally setting scouts up to not have a uniform that fits when they go for Eagle. SM might look into this for the future.