shortridge

I don't remember much about my crossover, except being so proud to get that red beret and red neckerchief. My first camping trip with my troop was much more important - especially so because I'd just gotten over chicken pox, and only got cleared to go on Saturday morning. That was also the campout where my patrol and I learned that you could boil more than one hot dog at a time. And man, that spaghetti in the cold rain is still the best meal I've ever had. My brother's AOL ceremony was extremely memorable, because one of the OA members leaned down a bit too close to the row of candles he was lighting and caught his headdress on fire.

To clarify: Short didn't say nuthin' about connecting with Indian tribes. That was E92's expert insight.

Calling the OA simply "feathers and dancing," and lumping induction ceremonies in with ongoing program and service work, strikes me an easy way to denigrate something you don't understand.

At least in my experience, the existence of the OA has always been a sort of tacit acknowledgement that what we have in our troops really isn't "boy-led." Part of the pitch for the Order is that "the youth really do make the decisions," which only makes sense if the youth aren't making the decisions in their home troops. Otherwise, there's no reason to join. It would be interesting if troops formally adopted the OA model - adults functioning as advisors only, without a vote or decison-making authority except in emergencies or as delegated by the youth.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you take the word "establishment" to mean "a business, organization or large institution"? Twocubdad: OK, I'll correct you. You're wrong. I'm not sure how you arrived at that interpretation of what I wrote. But CalicoPenn put it far more eloquently than I did.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... pchadbo: As you can see, the First Amendment does not say that "the Government cannot establish a religion." It says that It says that the law shall not show favor to a particular established religion over another. And in this case, no one is preventing a religious group from worshiping or observing their particular traditions here, as you suggest. The nativity groups do have spaces - just not as many as they want. But it's not the religious-freedom principle in the Constitution that's at issue here. As the city attorney in Santa Monica said, it's a free-speech issue: "Everyone has equal rights to use the streets and parks for expressive activities, irrespective of residency." The atheists followed the rules, and it worked out in their favor. Maybe next year it'll work out in the favor of the churches. Who knows? That's the risk you run when you allow free speech. You're going to end up with speech that the majority doesn't like. But that underlying principle is something all Scouts should understand and respect. Some of us may not like what is being said, but we know people have a right to say it. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57342870/atheists-squeeze-nativity-scenes-from-calif-park/

I love the look of a well-worn beret (no mushroom-heads) and garrison cap. But they are utterly impractical, I agree.

The Guide to Inductions specifically recommends that elections not be held at summer camp, because not every Scout in the troop can attend. That said, I've worked with some units who have a tradition of holding elections at summer camp, and it seems to work well for them. I spent several years as my lodge's OA camp staff representative, running elections whenever troops asked, running an ice-cream social and doing call-out ceremonies at the Friday night campfire.

If there's an OA Troop Representative, the chapter and lodge ought to have their contact information, yes. If the chapter and lodge don't know who the reps are, then the reps clearly aren't doing their jobs. My point was really more of a rhetorical one, emphasizing that these issues should be handled and scheduled by the youth leadership of the troop and the chapter/lodge, not necessarily by SMs. It's the PLC that should make the decision to hold elections, as with all other parts of the program.

Man, that is one skill I'd love to have. I've tried it, both when I was a teenager and more recently, last year, and I can't figure out how to see what the #@!! I'm doing with the darkened facemask on. With my luck, I'd end up burning a hole right through my foot. I have a lot of respect for people in that line of work. Here's an image of the badge: http://www.aws.org/weldingbadge/

Excuses: >> The boys don't know what they want. >> The boys can't decide on anything. >> The boys always make the wrong decisions. >> The boys always choose the same old activities. >> The boys always choose ridiculously overpriced or overly ambitious activities. >> The boys aren't experienced enough to work without adult supervision. >> The experienced boys don't have the right kind of experience to do that activity without adult supervision. >> We'll just stand back and watch without saying anything.

I'm seeing this from a very different perspective nowadays. One of my daughter's friends in her second-grade class is a Jehovah's Witness, and her family does not do birthdays, Christmas, Easter, etc. I've been amazed at how quickly the kids have grasped the idea that they should talk about things differently to respect the girl's family and beliefs. They don't want her to be left out of the group when they do a holiday party, or when they pick books to read in class ("No Christmas books when you come in to read to us!" my daughter warned me.) Your kids will surprise you.

Absolutely, it's possible. He may have to spend all his weekends working on them, but he can get them done. Whatever he does, I would suggest starting on Personal Management No. 2 now, given the 13-week timeframe. Family Life and Personal Management often work well together. Communications No. 8 includes a court of honor and interfaith worship service. Could he work with the PLC to do one of those this month? He may want to not pick Citizenship in the Community to do at this point. Depending on the timing and which type of meeting he wants to attend, it may not be possible, with many town/city councils going on hiatus over the next few weeks.

This is a topic that I don't know a lot about, so I'll ask a question that's been bugging me for a while ... how does someone with these severe allergies walk into a restaurant and eat? For the most severe, what if someone at the table next to you is eating something with [insert allergy type here]? How do you control for your kid playing on the playground with another kid who just ate a PB&J sandwich and didn't wipe his hands very well?

(letter to SM and CC, email to SM and CC, phone call to SM and CC) And the same to the SPLs and the OA Troop Representative ...

SR540, You misunderstand me. Yes, a troop can only hold elections once a year. But there's no need to say "We only run elections during the fourth quarter." Candidates are eligible to complete their Ordeal within a year after their election - that's not necessarily a calendar year. If Johnny Smith is elected in October 2011 within your lodge, he has two chances, in May and August 2012, to complete his Ordeal. Ditto if he's elected in June 2012. He would have two chances, in August 2012 and May 2013, to complete his Ordeal. That's still within the year. Personally, I think your lodge is unecessarily handicapping itself by that artificial timeframe. You'd likely get a better response by extending the season, and thus the convenience to the troops.

If I read this right - you can only conduct elections in the fall or early spring? That may be part of your problem right there. Why are you locked in to running elections only at a certain time of the year? I know the GTI says that a lodge should set an "election season." I think that's ridiculous. There's no good reason why that season can't last for 365 days. A lodge should really be running elections year-round, at the request of the troops - according to their schedule, not its. The inductions schedule should be set up so that candidates have multiple opportunities within their induction year to complete the Ordeal. When I was active in chapter elections as a youth, we bent over backward to schedule them at the unit's convenience. The lodge had three inductions weekends throughout the year, so it didn't matter when a candidate was elected - all had three chances.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

It's no cult or religious shindig. Just a private school sytem like any other.

The ATV instructor training application has boxes to check to indicate whether you're over 18 or not, but it does not explicitly say that you must be. So my guess would be ... maybe?

Is that from the "Love It or Leave It" school of citizenship?

Furry ... animal ... making ... head ... ache ... too ... many ... big ... words ...

It's like "liberal." It's become an epithet and lost its original meaning.

I prefer to think of myself as a traditional realist. I'm pretty skeptical myself about the capabilities of most councils, having seen summer camp from the staff side. And I also believe firmly that we ought to get back to basics when it comes to Scouting and the outdoor program. If that translates into a fear or bias in someone's eyes, so be it.

It looks like it'll be pricey for camps to run the ATV program, unless National has set up some training discount. The ATV Safety Institute says that its instructor courses (specifically required) cost $615 and last four days. Sites are in Georgia, California, Ohio, Arizona and Maryland. Oh, and Texas ... a little town called Irving ... anyone heard of it? So if your camp has, say, three staff members, and each has to take the course, that's $1,800+ for the first year. Figure $600-$1,200 each succeeding year to account for staff turnover. And that's just training costs - roughly the entire salary of a senior staff member sucked up in one swoop. Worth it?

Well, call me an old fogey, I guess. Huh. I believe that ATVs and PWCS are both incompatible with Scouting and the outdoor ethics we teach. They're loud, smelly, polluting and dangerous, and serve almost no practical purpose. (I know ATVs are often used by hunters, but Boy Scouts don't hunt.) PWCs are just useless. At least motorboats serve a purpose. ============= The resident camp standards don't provide a lot of detail... The standards are M-52B - Four-wheel, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) used for program must be owned or leased by the council. Personal ATVs are not authorized. The program must comply with local and state laws and adhere to manufacturers instructions at all times. The use of ATVs for program must be approved in writing by Outdoor Programs using form No. 430-044, and a copy must be available for the visitation team. The staff must be certified by the All-Terrain Vehicle Safety Institute (ASI) and follow the ASI safety training program in its entirety. No deviation is permitted from the course outline. and M-60B - Personal watercraft (PWC) used for program must be approved in writing from Outdoor Programs using form No. 430-045, and a copy must be available for the visitation team. The program follows the BSA PWC Operation Manual and successfully completes the prescribed state safe boating training program. The council must adhere to the BSAs approved operational plan. No deviation is permitted from the course outline. Personal watercraft used for program must be owned or leased by the council. Personal PWCs are not authorized. The program must comply with local and state laws and adhere to manufacturers instructions at all times. The program must follow the BSA-approved lesson plan for instruction and practical experience. http://www.ncsbsa.org/resources/standards/430-111%20Resident%20Standards.pdf