shortridge

Seattle Pioneer, I think you may be misunderstanding the issue here. The Scouts in question - as *I* understand the OP's post - took BSA Lifeguard, not Lifesaving MB. There's a huge difference between the two.

I'd also suggest to both the unit leaders and the camp director that both sides take a close look at the leaders' guide, brochures, website and other materials to make sure that age requirements are clearly spelled out. It's up to the Scout to make sure he's eligible, sure, but the camp also has an informational/educational role to play. That said, at my camp, all age requirements are clearly indicated on the program schedule in the leaders' guide. If a Scout signs up for something he's not eligible for, it's because the leaders didn't read the materials.

Ask your summer camp directors for the names and contact info of the staffers who run their outdoor skills, nature/ecology and first-year camper programs as well. You may even be able to talk with them face to face while they're working at camp in a few weeks. The directors of those areas will be 18+ and will likely have gone to National Camp School, meaning they're up to speed on BSA policies & practices. They may be off to college or back in the classroom teaching high school in the fall, but you could get a couple of them who are free for a weekend to volunteer.

Chalk it up as a learning experience. Requirement No. 1 for BSA Lifeguard is "1. Submit proof of age. You must be at least 15 years old to participate." Right there, plain as day. If the Scouts had done the slightest bit of homework in advance, they would have seen that they weren't eligible. Should the instructor have done a weeding-out on the first day of class? Sure, that would have made sense (and lessened his or her teaching load, too). But it's not asking too much of the Scout to read the requirements first!

Eagle - Ah! -- but you forgot the yellow blouse for female Cub leaders! Although the last person I saw wearing one of those was my mother, back in the '80s.

Generally, it comes off whenever I'm doing physical or dirty work, or while camping. With just a little bit of activity, I sweat a lot in even middling-temperature weather (I'm the guy you see walking around in shorts and a short-sleeved shirt in December). I also tend to get down in the dirt doing stuff. (Other guys can gather up a truckload of firewood and look immaculate - I come out of the woods covered in dirt and bits of bark.) I just wear t-shirts or short-sleeved work shirts from the thrift store that I don't care about. But when I'm representing the camp where I volunteer, or when I'm teaching a program and need to get everyone's attention, I wear the uniform.

Richard, To clarify something I've been wondering, are you speaking for National when you post here?

ScoutNut, The best definition of "program" I ever heard was in the context of summer camp: "Program is everything that happens at camp." That includes everything from latrines to lunches, fishing to flag ceremonies. The same principle applies to units. Everything that touches a Scout's life - most decidedly including a COH - is program. The committee's role is to support that program, decided upon by the PLC with input from the SM, not to take it over because a Scout stumbled over his words or the SPL lost a page of the script.

This is one case where the literature is flat-out wrong and complete rubbish. What possible reason would a troop have for wanting the committee to plan and run a COH? To guard against poorly planned boy-run ceremonies? By that same logic, the SM and ASMs should be planning and running all outdoor activities, to guard against the boys screwing them up, too. After all, if you can't trust the boys to run a simple ceremony, why trust them to do anything? In Scouting, we teach, we coach, we counsel. With the exception of health and safety, we adults should not be taking over the program because something doesn't meet our standards.

Thanks, skeptic. I'd sent an email asking about it, but hadn't heard back. Guess FB really is the new communications medium! ... or maybe it's just harder to ignore someone who asks a question in front of the world.

I've never visited Irving, and probably never will. Not to impugn SPL576's account, but has anyone else who's gone to the NSM confirm this? Not a single mention, anywhere in the entire museum?

This issue is being way overthought - it's not rocket science, folks. Schools and day care centers and other day camps deal with this ALL the time. In my neck of the woods, if a parent isn't able to pick a child up, the adult who is doing the picking up has to come to the office, sign a form, present ID and be checked against a list that the parent has previously sent in. My daughter's day camp program even has an electronic code, specific to each parent, that must be entered to pick a child up. So if I need her grandmother to pick her up one day when I'm running late with work, I have to list her on a form at the start of the summer and give her my code. When I was a kid, my parents gave me a code word. I think this practice may have been recommended in the Cub books at the time. If an adult showed up someplace and said "Your mom and dad told me to pick you up, they couldn't come," I was to ask for the code. No code word, no going with them. That line on the medical form is just the latter-day version of a code word, only with the responsibility put on the other adults, not a little kid.

A unit committee that has to take formal votes, count numbers for a quorum, and establish policies about bank accounts isn't operating in an efficient, Scoutlike manner, IMHO. There's simply no need to get all legalistic and procedural about this Scouting stuff. The CO should be setting fundraising and financial policies, not the committee, unless those decisions are expressly delegated by the COR. Most everything else talked about here should be in the hands of the PLC.

Cool approach! Nice work!

Right now we're admittedly conductin' a big uncontrolled experiment with da economy. Have been since 2008. Anybody who claims to know anything with absolute certainty is just foolin' themselves. Aren't we always conducting giant experiments with the economy? I'm no economist - my eyes began glazing over skimming this thread, to be honest - but it seems to me that no one knows for sure what the economy is going to do, or what unintended consequences an action will have. There are never guarantees - there aren't now, and there weren't back during the days of Hoover and Roosevelt. All we can do is study, guess, bet and pray.

I believe the kidnapping "risk" Beavah refers to covers all "family abductions," not just abductions by non-custodial parents. The Department of Justice studies on the subject say that category includes abductions by fathers, mothers, grandparents, siblings and other relatives.

Here's one with just two short subsections: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent

Most Boy Scout-age youth that I know use far coarser language than that, alas.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/Aquatics/safety-afloat.aspx "It is strongly recommended that all units have at least one adult or older youth member currently trained as a BSA Lifeguard to assist in the planning and conducting of all activity afloat." Last I checked, "strongly recommended" is not the same as "required." But the language may have changed since this morning.

Perhaps the CC does not trust the other adult leader who will be accompanying the group of boys to function solo, but he doesn't want to say that. If that's the case, no logic in the world will be able to win the CC over. Just a thought.

And here I thought this was going to be about an SPL who wasn't able to appoint his ASPL, QM, TGs, etc.

Abel, Not knowing the details of TAHAWK's camp, neither of us is able to comment on the physical arrangements there. I can only speak from my experience working for five summers at a camp with very small campsites. There was zero room for troop tents to be set up alongside camp tents, unless you wanted them six inches from the campfire circle. If it's that big of a problem, the camp could make it known that if you do not make your choice on using troop tents prior to the 30 days, you have no choice but to use the camp's tents. All units still have this option. Once informed of the $30 fine, the troop could decide on the spot not to use its tents. But if the leadership still insisted on using its own tents, yanking staff members out of other duties to tear down the entire campsite - and then to set it up again at the end of the week after the troop leaves - the camp is entirely justified in charging for that cost. You're talking 2-4 hours of time for several staffers. It's not just clearing the materials out, but moving them, storing them, folding the tents, etc. The extra cost tacked on to that would be what's known as a disincentive - effectively a penalty for inconsiderate behavior. Really, what that troop is doing is affecting the program for all the other troops in camp by insisting the camp staff obey its whims on a moment's notice. Put another way: Would you show up at a hotel and demand that the desk clerk remove the bed from your room because you brought your own? Try that, and you'd be laughed at and told to leave. Abel, your camp and council definitely seem to have their own problems with program, and while I sympathize with you and would be the first to demand refunds, that's not the topic here. To avoid the $30 fine, the only thing that units at TAHAWK's camp have to do is plan and communicate. Is that such a hard thing to ask?(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Wow, the pile of holier-than-thou is getting close to knee-deep around here. I got married in 2002, had a wonderful daughter in 2004, separated in 2009 and divorced in 2010. My ex-wife and I get along better now than we did when we were married. We're co-parenting our daughter - she spends the same amount of time being loved, educated and raised by both her parents. The difference is that the fighting is over, the shouting has been silenced and the arguments have ended. We are respectful of each other in a way that we weren't when we were married. We now get along, chat, laugh and share stories when we bump into each other. That's a far better model for our daughter than two parents who resent each other and spend all their energy on emotional warfare. I had gotten to the point where I had very little left to give my daughter - I was too drained by the constant conflict. It was not a good life for anyone - it was barely a mediocre life. When we were in couples' counseling, the therapist emphasized repeatedly to us that divorce didn't end our relationship. It just created a new one. We were still, and will always be, parents to a great daughter who is thriving. It's a business relationship of sorts, she said - you have to get along for her sake. That simply wasn't possible when we were together. Truth, I never thought I would get divorced. My parents split when I was in college, and dealing with the aftermath of that was horrific. But my ex-wife and I were just not made for each other. I can't say it was a mistake; my daughter is amazing, and teaches me new things every day about life, learning and love. I wouldn't trade having her for anything. But life is much, much better now, for all of us. Those of you who would paint with such a broad brush might want to try using a slightly smaller diameter one before you start throwing around the word "sin."

I suspect none of you who object to the $30 fine have ever been involved in the pre-camp tent set-up and campsite planning process, or you'd have a completely different viewpoint on the subject. That camp's approach is perfectly reasonable. Getting ready for summer camp is more than just moving a bunch of supplies into place. The camp director has to crunch the numbers over and over, figuring which units can fit into which campsites. The camp staff has to move heavy tent materials into place and set them up in compact patrol sites, while repairing or replacing broken outriggers and holey canvas along the way. The tent setup process alone usually lasts several days - it's a very physically and logistically challenging project. Then, once units arrive, the camp director has to shuffle tents around to make up for the slight changes in attendance that have cropped up since registration that the units never bothered to report. If a unit shows up on Sunday afternoon demanding that the platforms and 4x4s and outriggers and poles and canvas all be removed immediately so it can set up its unit tents -- that would be enough to make the most dedicated, patient CD blow a gasket. Camp staff members doing other jobs - like giving tours, doing medical checks, providing program area orientations, running swim checks, cooking dinner, etc. - then have to be pulled off their jobs to quickly tear down a bunch of tents because the troop failed to plan and communicate. You can't just show up and expect things to happen. That is extremely inconsiderate. What TAHAWK described is not a $30 fine for using your troop's tents. It is a $30 fine levied on poor planners who were unable to decide a crucial detail of their summer camp program a month in advance and are now causing substantial problems for the hard-working staff who already busted their behinds to set up camp.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

newspaper called the council office, joseph answered the phone and gave his usual speel about girls are allowed in venturing units and the newspaper connected the dots incorrectly. Hopefully this will have been a learning experience. Don't open your mouth and talk to the press unless (a) you know exactly what's going on, (b) you can explain it in a simple enough way that a reporter with zero background knowledge can understand it, and © you know the three main points you want to impart, have them written down so you don't go off-message, and repeat them multiple times for emphasis. When a Scouter or pro says "Scouting," they might mean everything from Tigers to Venturers. But to a reporter who's never encountered Scouts before, the distinction is a difficult one. And jargon such as Venturing, Cubs, Eagle Scouts, packs, troops, crews - it will generally go in one ear and out the other. To anyone who may encounter a reporter, this reporter implores you - if you're not sure what to say, tell them you have to step out for just a minute, hang up, get your thoughts in order, scribble out some notes, find out the truth about this strange pack that's doing its own thing, and then call the reporter back. We'd much prefer to get the story right the first time than have to run a correction or a clarification.