skeptic

Beavah;

My point was that paperwork errors and so on are not part of the board if at all possible. By someone reviewing it all, in order to make sure it is not likely to be an issue at the actual board, or when submitted to National, then it does not detract from the board itself. By having the board review things and bring up anything before the scout appears, it avoids almost all problems once he appears.

As far as uniforming goes, the district does not control a troop's uniforming habits. But, the scout needs to understand that the uniform is important to putting forth the proper image to the board. We have never had any scout contest this minor reminder. If you went to a job interview in jeans and wrinkled t-shirt, it unlikely you will give a good impression, unless it is for a job in which that attire is the norm; and even then, it might lessen your chances if most others came dressed more appropriately. I find it hard to believe that you would not consider uniforming important for a review at this level, one done outside of the troop.

The simple fact that it is known that these things are expected, helps troops encourage their scouts to learn to do it right to start with, which is part of growing up. Bureaucracy is also part of life. Working with it, while keeping it from being a hindrance, is an important lesson.

JMO

In our district, which runs all boards for the district, our coordinator goes over everything with a magnifying glass before even thinking about the review board. Once a board is scheduled, he has a check list that is used with the scout to try and make sure he comes totally prepared. One of the things on that list is complete uniform, including pants. He makes it clear that borrowed pants are fine, but appearing at the board is a serious event, and he needs to demonstrate he is serious; and that includes uniforming.

Once the board is called, the adults gather before hand and review all the paperwork; copies are made for each board member of the app, project paperwork, and a list of "suggested" questions is included as well for those not familiar. If there are any "paperwork" issues of concern, they are discussed before the scout is brought in and introduced by his leader. If something really out of line seems to have been overlooked prior, or rings a warning with someone, we will make a decision how to approach it and do so at once if possible. This led once to having to reschedule a board due to an very large issue with the project. The scout clarified it all, rewrote the confusing part, and passed his board. When asked a general project question, the scout broached the issue himself that caused the reschedule.

One member only is from the unit, and they always begin the round robin of about 4 go arounds. At the end, the chair of the board assures there are no more questions from board members, then asks the scout if he has any questions for the board. On occasion we have gotten some interesting responses, but usually they just want to get out of there by that time. "There is no retesting of skills, only indirect questions which touch on use of some skills." The interview is much like a job interview. The chair has one of those "that was easy" buttons, and occasionally asks the scout to push it when it seems he is stressing too much. Amazing how well that seems to work. Occasionally, especially with younger candidates, they get really tongue tied. So we all take a deep breath, he pushes the button, and we go back to the review. Most boards run 45-60 minutes.

We have never not passed someone as far as I know; but a few have not reached the physical review, due to inability to conform to the clarifications in paperwork, or glaring inconsistencies that raise red flags. The worst was a very strong indication that signatures were forged. But most paper issues are due to "adult" record keeping errors, and get worked out. I suspect that our process, which leans heavily on prepping and review beforehand, works well because of that. Also, we seem mostly able to focus on the scout himself, rather than his paperwork.

Speaking of crazy people; did anyone else catch Rush on Leno last night? Can't decide if he or Beck has crazier eyes when they start thrashing around with their hands while they spout their vitriol and absurdities.

Paranoia reigns!!!!! Of course someone has proof that Mr. Obama had this done as part of his "plan". What is the matter with some people?

You might look for FLIVER TO CAMBODIA while you are at it. Three French scouts drive (and carry) a Model-T to Cambodia. Hard to imagine huh?

Yep; fascinating story. By Augusto Flores. Three started in Buenos Aires; only one finished. One of the others died, and the other was rescued and hauled out somewhere in the northern tip of South America. Have to go back and re-read to remember where. The book shows up occasionally still.

Yep; fascinating story. By Augusto Flores. Three started in Buenos Aires; only one finished. One of the others died, and the other was rescued and hauled out somewhere in the northern tip of South America. Have to go back and re-read to remember where. The book shows up occasionally still.

Yep; fascinating story. Three started in Buenos Aires; only one finished. One of the others died, and the other was rescued and hauled out somewhere in the northern tip of South America. Have to go back and re-read to remember where. The book shows up occasionally still.

Seems to me that the Turks have made it pretty clear they do not want us there. Of course that would just be another boondoggle anyway, if we got dragged into the Kurdish issues more directly.

Speaking of Boyce; I was a bit surprised about a couple of things in his biography, LONE SCOUT, by Petterchak. If you have not read it, you might like to.

While not a founder, I am waiting expectantly for a bio of Hillcourt to finally surface. Have heard it is in the works for quite a while now. I have bio's of West, Seton, Beard, Boyce, and several of B.P. One gets a better perspective on BSA and scouting as a whole reading these. Also have the book SCOUTING ON TWO CONTINENTS, but realize I have yet to actually read it. Guess I should get around to it one of these days.

When you read some of the other actual Scouting related stories, such as FLIVER TO CAMBODIA, MY HIKE, or THREE SCOUTS IN AFRICA, you really begin to see the huge difference in scouting today. But, we still have youth doing some of these kind of things, just fewer seem to write about them. Of course, most youth in the program who stay long enough have mini-examples of these things in their personal scouting lives. a Philmont trek, a jamboree, a fifty-miler on a wild river, and so on. We just do not seem to have them being written about anymore. Maybe that is an opportunity waiting to be developed.

Just some thoughts.

Miki;

Correct me if I am off base, but isn't most of the first year or so of BSA pretty fuzzy in reality? February 8th, 1910 was the official date of chartering, or beginning, but the organization was still in a pretty loose group of well meaning educators, boys' work experts, clergy, YMCA and so on. West had yet to come on board, and there were who knows how many "Scout clubs", for lack of a better description, that had been formed under the British design, either brought from the early Canadian examples, or formed from descriptions in the media of the time.

Certainly, I would suspect that very few specific written records survive today, especially from the first year. Here where I live, we have a record, from the paper, of a scout group forming in September of 1910. Was it under BSA, a take off from B.P., or one of the other early scout groups? We cannot determine, as there are no other records as yet discovered, other than a note from the Congregational Church archives in 1914 that the "Scout group" is being officially disbanded, due to lack of interest over the past year. Meanwhile, in between those dates, we have all sorts of news articles and reports on various BSA troops, starting in 1911. But records are pretty much non-existent, though a couple have been documented in the mid teens through National archives. Our council began in June, 1921; but indications are we had 300-500 scouts in the area prior to that, in at least a dozen troops. Eight of those troops were charter troops when the council began, and we can document one to December 1917.

We are fortunate to have at least some of our early records, salvaged by one of our old scouters when they moved the office in the 60's, and were going to throw out all these "old useless out of date records". But, he only rescued some of them; many already had been destroyed.

So, whatever we can glean is interesting, but it often is more fuzzy memory than validated records.

America's First Boy Scout

by Daniel N. Jabe

Who was America's first Boy Scout? That depends on how you look at it. Would the first Boy Scout be the first one to join the Boy Scouts of America after it was established in February of 1910? Would the first Boy Scout be a Scout who was already using Baden-Powell's "Scouting for Boys," maybe as early as 1908 or even 1907? Would the first Boy Scout be the first boy to join an organization that ultimately merged with the Boy Scouts of America, like the Woodcraft Indians or the Sons of Daniel Boone? Any of these individuals would have a strong claim to this distinction. What follows is the story of one of the candidates for the honor of being America's first Boy Scout. It may be partially legend, but in part, every story is.

According to recently discovered notes written by William D. Durling, the Scout Executive in Trenton, New Jersey, from 1917 to 1921 who passed away in 1946, Daniel Carter Beard once said that the first Boy Scout was a Trenton boy named Maurice F. Brandt. Maurice's father, Robert Brandt, owned a print shop in Trenton at the corner of Broad and Front Streets. In 1905, Dan Beard came into Brandt's shop to order prints of one of his drawings. The drawing was a charter for a boy's organization he was trying to get off the ground the Sons of Daniel Boone. Maurice, then 12 years old, met Dan Beard, and, according to Durling, they took a liking to each other. Maurice eagerly listened to Beard's teachings, and he "started out at once to make good." In recognition of his efforts and enthusiasm, Dan Beard granted him Charter No. 1 in the Sons of Daniel Boone. According to Durling's notes, as a member of Beard's new group, Maurice conducted hikes, "short and long, camps overnight and a week's duration, nature study, map drawing, care of health, character building and getting acquainted with the country and all roads and trails." Maurice even arranged for Dan Beard to speak to some of the boys, and kept up his interest in the Sons of Daniel Boone until the very end, when it merged with the Boy Scouts of America in 1910.

According to Durling, Maurice thought that Dan Beard was "the most wonderful man living." Judging by his success in working with and inspiring young boys, many others probably would have agreed. Was Maurice Brandt America's first Boy Scout? No one will ever be able to say for certain, but his story provides us with an insight into one of the men whose character and personality would make boys clamor to call themselves the first member of one of his organizations Dan Beard. He was the author of one of the most successful children's books of his day, "The American Boys Handybook," and a famed illustrator (he provided illustrations for Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court," among other works), but above all else, he was a Scout, and a leader of boys. He was the type of man who would make an effort to win the affection and interest of his printer's boy, just in the course of business. That is because, for a man like Beard, teaching boys like Maurice was the course of business. Printing books and charters or giving out awards that was merely incidental. As you browse through the memorabilia in the galleries, and read the histories assembled here, remember to keep this lesson of Beard's in mind: all of this is incidental to the real meaning of Boy Scouting the boy.

The details about Maurice Brandt came from an article by Emil Slaboda appearing on the website of the Central New Jersey Council.

Is that where Pedro will go to retire?

Yep, the schools generally do not seem to do a very good job with history. A large percentage of current middle schoolers do not seem to even really know about Viet Nam, much less anything prior. I sub, and because they almost always want to know how old I am, I tell them I was born during WWII. Less than half of most classes either do not know the approximate dates, or even what it really was. It led to quite a discussion once when we were reading one of the Scholastic Reader magazines, and the main article had to do with an upcoming anniversary of "D Day". What is really to bad is that we were unable to give it the attention their questions deserved, as I had to stick to the lesson plan. I did leave a note for the teacher about their interest, but since it was near year end, it is unlikely much came of it.

On the same note, that I was born during WWII. If I tell them 1944, most seem unable to determine my age, even in 7th and 8th grade.

Deep breath.

Vol; I have to ask. Why then is Fox not trumpeting this all over?

It seems to me that often simply the title will set someone off. And today, some books that do not get challenged might very well not pass muster in earlier years, and simply because of the title. An example of an extremely popular book in the lower grades in this area is the book EVERYBODY POOPS, or something to that effect. When I was that age, it likely would not have passed the test, even though it is pretty innocuous in reality. And today, if the title had Poops replaced with another over used common word in usage today, the book would not be allowed.

And, I would surmise that it is very likely a large percentage of the books banned or that bring complaints have not been actually read by those bringing them up.

How ironic, or maybe simply sad, that the majority of this thread tends to reflect exactly the problem the title is about.

Tend to agree that there is some kind of confusion here. I have never heard of a dual charter; I have heard of dual chartering organizations, but they still have to adhere to the BSA charter partner agreement. Like two small churches agreeing to sponsor one unit. It would seem to me that the CAP would be chartered as a CAP unit, and the Venture Crew as Ventures. Could they do things together? Why not? They simply would do what needed to be done to make dual activities workable.

But, if somehow a CAP group wanted to charter a Venture Crew, they would still have to adhere to BSA rules, and they would then have a possible conflict within their own group. Cannot see a council even allowing it, frankly.

Amen! Thank you for the reminder epistle. I find most of your "advice" posts to be very insightful and to the point. It is great to have such a generally calm, sage voice here on the board.

YIS

So, Vol; are you one of the doctors who will quit if health care changes finally occur? Part of the supposedly 40% or so, according to the "truth news station", Fox? Just curious.

Am I again missing something here? Are not the sites mentioned all open to public scrutiny already anyway? If you post anything on a web site, especially these kind, it can be viewed and spread by somebody if they truly wish to.

"Hello; Mr. Common-Sense,please come out of hiding!"

Sorry; "old timer disesase" ; forgot the comic relief intended.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

vol:

Perhaps the problem lies with your statement. "We lost the war". Somehow I often get the impression that still IS the issue with too many. "We won; they lost". That was over a hundred years ago; maybe it is time to try to put it aside?

"The right sort of camp is an education. It supplements the teaching of the school. .................

"Camp teaches the boy self-reliance, self-support, self-respect .....

"Camp teaches the boy that it is the spirit and the spiritual side of things that count. It is not only in the church that the boy comes close to God. The starry sky above him, the wonders of nature around him, the wild things that live in the woods and the streams reveal God's message."

When you apologize, then get in the media and basically recant the apology, it has little meaning. Putting a disrespectful person on a pedestal as some kind of hero because you dislike the person at whom the disrespect was aimed says as much about you as it does the perpetrator. And there lies the rub.

It would likely have mellowed and been put in the background if "crazies" had not immediately made him a martyr. He is not; and now he has negated any pretense of a real apology.

The President though, can be the better man, and publicly ask his party members to let it go. He might care to point out to them that he already said he accepted the apology, so they should leave it at that. With the general political environment today, it likely won't; and that is too bad.