shortridge

E92 - I don't recall if there's an exact order, but the organization of the G2SS certainly suggests that it's authorities first, SE second: First comes: All persons involved in Scouting shall report to local authorities any good faith suspicion or belief that any child is or has been physically or sexually abused, physically or emotionally neglected, exposed to any form of violence or threat, exposed to any form of sexual exploitation including the possession, manufacture, or distribution of child pornography, online solicitation, enticement, or showing of obscene material. No person may abdicate this reporting responsibility to any other person. Then we read: Notify your Scout executive of this report, or of any violation of BSAs Youth Protection policies, so that he or she may take appropriate action for the safety of our Scouts, make appropriate notifications, and follow-up with investigating agencies.

Yah, skeptic, it doesn't matter what "society in general" thought. We're not talking about the 1800s vs the 2000s. In this case, we're talking about the difference between the 1970s, when Turley abused those boys, and the 1990s, when BSA began running background checks on employees. The policies in place back then were designed to protect the institution rather than the individual. We hold ourselves out as the advocates of "timeless values." What value was the BSA promoting in the 1970s when it swept the Turley case under the rug? That council violated the first item of the Scout Law - trust - when it hired a convicted felon and "mentally disordered sex offender" as a BSA summer camp program director. When he molested more boys, the BSA cared enough to open a confidential file - but not report it to police. It had nothing to do with the "attitudes of the time," as skeptic suggests. It had to do with covering their butts. As the former executive said in the LAT story: "Hopefully he went back to Canada and that was their problem." In the educational world, this is known as "passing the trash" - making a bad teacher someone else's problem. And it is as indefensible today as it was back then. (But I'm sure someone will try.) Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

I guess some sins are just worse than others. Does Irving have a sliding scale? Polluting your body with alcohol and tobacco is a 3, commiting adultery might be a 7, but sleeping with someone of the same gender is a 10, and that's the worst.

I hope for their sakes that the gentlemen - and I use that term loosely - in the top ranks who oversaw this case can sleep well at night. Though I don't know how they'd do so. The people who developed and executed those secrecy policies are a disgrace to the uniform.

The initial problem, as you describe it, is collecting even the basic registration information in the first place. That strikes me as similar to the problem in the campout sign-up cut-off thread. Leaders in that position have to draw a line in the sand and hold it - no late registrations, all the info's got to be in on time, etc. Until you do, the people who don't realize how hard all the behind-the-scenes work is will continue to walk all over you. You're effectively letting them. I know that's easier said than done, though. I'd hate to say "no, you can't come" to a kid because his parents screwed up the paperwork. One idea I've had is to impose a $10 or 15 Late Paperwork/Late Registration Surcharge. That'll get their attention, even if you never have to collect it - it will make it crystal clear that not following through does have consequences.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

I believe he referred to an Eagle project approval board, not an EBoR.

One of the most difficult things in Cubs is getting kids to eat camp meals without complaining. But I've seen more than one ultra-picky eater scarf down one-pot stews, foil meals and fresh fruit/sandwiches without complaint. If you keep 'em running around, they'll be hungry enough to eat anything. Just make sure the meals are balanced and you've got some veggies in there. Sounds like one of your chief obstacles is the parents ... ?

One she wants to spend the limited time she has with her son and two its a "I am better parent then you" type of situation by spending quality time with the son. The latter can be a very powerful motivating factor. Her fear may be that the father would point to their son's frequent campout attendance on "her" weekends and argue that his mother is passing him off on other people, not spending time with him. So to get the best of both worlds - if she wants Scouting for her son - she attends as well. Maybe you can find a unit support role for her to be involved in - a committee post, advancement coordinator, MBC, something like that - so she is still able to say "I'm involved in my son's life and activities, but I'm letting him step forward and flourish on his own."

Knife fights?!? While backpacking?? Stosh, what trails do you hang out on?

qwazse - No, but there's nothing in the "rule book" about requiring a Scout to attend in uniform, either. Yet many EBoRs require just that. I see nothing wrong with sauce for the gander. Nor do I think we're talking here about last-minute replacement board members such as Horizon describes. But if all boards are routinely composed of last-minute replacements, I think the district needs to seriously re-examine its process.

If we're debating the issue of a Scout's comfort level with his EBOR panel members, would it not make him more comfortable to speak with Scouters whom he at least can identify as such? If a guy has an Eagle and AoL knot, you know he has a solid background in Scouting. If a woman wears a lodge flap, you know she's your brother in the Order. If they're all dressed in ordinary "civilian" clothes, you don't know who's who, and your answers may be somewhat vague or different as a result. This most certainly NOT a hill worth dying over, but I do see it as mildly hypocritical to set one standard for the boys but not for the adults.

A few pages back, jrush made an excellent point that I'd hate to get lost in debate over percentages and race: My point is, a moral objection to homosexuals is going to be damned hard for the BSA to own when an openly gay DSC or MOH awardee is told he lacks the moral character to be a good role model to scouts. I'll say it again: That is an excellent point. And I doubt it'll take that long at all for an openly gay veteran, decorated on the field, to retire from our armed forces and want to put his experience to volunteer in the Scouting movement, in which he earned his Eagle Scout rank as a youth. That will be a firestorm.

My pack had the standard blue-and-gold den flags from the catalogue, each with the appropriate number. Webelos dens got the flags with the "W" on them and the DLs sewed on the patrol patch that represented their den name. For my Webelos den, the Frontiersmen, we had an added bonus - the tail of a raccoon my dad shot when it got into our back yard and was acting strangely. After about a year, with so many kids touching it, it just became a bare bone hanging off the flag. Kind of disgusting, but still majorly cool to us kids.

Especially with TV reporters, you want to give them information in writing with lots of bullet points - and keep it simple. They may have only 30 or 60 seconds for the story - they don't need an explanation of ranks or levels in Cubs. They want action-oriented visuals, a good soundbite or two from a telegenic person involved and a place where they can record a standup with a good backdrop.

You're right to be concerned. The message we send to Scouts is that if they own a uniform, they should wear it - they can even bring it to meetings and change in the restroom if necessary. Same should apply for Scouters.

Why does challenging the status quo qualify as advancing a "systematic political agenda"? It's honest, open discussion and debate, which we encourage as part of citizenship. There's a huge difference between the healthy debate that happens here and the protests that you cite. In those cases, outsiders are trying to influence an institution, sometimes on the institution's own property. But here, we're all part of the institution. We are all Scouters. My belief that, say, BSA should abolish its ridiculous anti-gay stance has just as much validity as someone else's view that BSA needs to stand firm and continue to ban gays. We're both allowed to speak our minds. If the institution of Scouting is healthy, it can withstand a little criticism from the inside. The owner of this virtual town square has created the I&P forum for just these types of discussions, and is the only person who can control it. He's chosen not to, thankfully. This isn't a church that Irving owns and can kick us protesters out of. Bottom line, as The Blancmange said: If you don't like a thread, just ignore it.

Sounds like someone's running up against an end-of-month deadline for his quota. That is simply ridiculous.

Pack meetings don't usually fall exactly on the day of a pack meeting, but I don't let that stop me from recognizing the day. ... do you mean "Holidays don't usually fall"? Don't forget other holidays. I remember as a Cub being torqued that my pack ignored MLK Day. Presidents' Day can also be a good opportunity to discuss citizenship.

Keep in mind that demands for polygamy and to legitimize sex with children are just around the corner. The sexual liberation movement has no way to stop using its "if it feels good, do it" to ever new horizons I know you've got to be employing hyperbole here. You can't possibly actually believe this. You do realize we're long out of the 1950s, right? As far as I know, Warren Jeffs is the only person in this entire country who has publicly advocated for either of those things. And the only movement he speaks for is the Complete and Utter Scumbag Movement. Or do you honestly, truly believe that the military servicemembers who fought for the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - part of your whole "sexual liberation movement" - will next turn around and demand the right to rape children?

My guess is the DE's response will be something along the lines of: "Why can't you guys just work this out between yourselves?" If the CO has decided that it wants to be your sponsor but also let this other pack use its facilities, then that's its choice. The CO has the final say, and both sides have to deal with it.

These days, young boys are required to sit still FOR HOURS in the classroom. When they cannot (because they are BOYS!!), they get labeled disruptive or worse (ADD/ADHD). I read this and laughed ... because it reminded me of my daughter. She is seven, and under this description, is a boy. She is constitutionally incapable of staying still. Even when reading, she flops all over the couch, lies upside down, balances on the arm of the chair, etc. Kids in general have a tremndous amount of energy they need to burn off in unstructured play. One of the worst things that modern education has done to kids is coop them up inside and cancel recess. At least that provided some outlet.

Den, pack and troop meetings in my town were always on Mondays. District roundtable/OA chapter meetings were Tuesdays. As a parent, I like Mondays because it leaves you with a full standard week plus the weekend to take care of home projects and practice, etc., in between - I know it's strictly a psychological thing, but it works!

Absolutely take it to the Scout Shop - worth a shot. Just don't expect them to replace it with the same type of buckle, if you've had yours for years ... I don't believe they produce that kind any longer. Failing that, your plan to use a file to rough it up sounds like the best option. Has the bar been worn completely smooth? I never had that problem. What I kept running into with the old belts was accidentally stepping on the buckles and compressing them ... had to pop them out by slipping a screwdriver in there. P.S. Thanks for the vocabulary lesson! "Knurled" is a new one by me.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

As our unit leader I don't want our boys attending. I want them to work the Merit Badge program as intended. We have one Dad who is an ASM who wants to make sure (and does) to share the info with the boys regardless. You are the unit leader, which means you control whether a boy can start work on an MB. You oversee the unit program, and the ASM works for you. If he doesn't understand that, then he's out. End of story. Now, could a boy attend this MBU, learn about the badge, do some of the requirements, and then come to you and say "Hey, I'm really interested in Nuclear Science after talking with Mr. Smith and doing this experiment at the MBU. Can I get a blue card and start working on this badge?" You can then say "Sure, but with Mr. Jones - he's the counselor we prefer Scouts to work with." IMHO, that's the way these events should be structured and organized - like one of those fairs in college where all the student organizations try to woo new members. (You've got the College Republicans handing out flyers, the College Democrats handing out buttons, the environmental group doing a composting project and the Buddhist group meditating.) Imagine a giant field or park with Pioneering structures, Cooking demonstrations, Fire Safety experiments, Wilderness Survival shelters, Cinematography instruction ... giving Scouts a taste of what the badge involves beyond the picture in the back of the Handbook.

SP: And yet you propose changing not the content of the meetings, but the form of the meetings. Why? Sure, it's much easier to impose an across-the-board change from the top down than to sit with three or four inexperienced DLs who aren't doing the things you mention and give them honest feedback and advice about how to improve. But working one-on-one will have much better results for the long term.