T2Eagle

I have a different take on this than the other posters. The first question I thought of was who agreed to this project. It sounds like this was the adults' idea not the scouts, and that may be a part of the struggle for volunteers (I may come back to the Eagle project later). I often hear from adults in my troop either a) we need to do more service projects or b) here's a great opportunity for service you should get the scouts involved. What I have to do as politely as possible is explain that just because you don't see them do it doesn't mean they're not doing service work --- almost certainly more than I did when I was a scout. For instance, adults who don't camp with us every month don't see the scouts voluntarily join an ongoing project at whatever camp we're using or come up with their own project that makes a small improvement for the land owner or camp. Additionally, most of my scouts attend Catholic schools so they have a certain number of service hours they have to complete every year, plus more hours if they're being confirmed, plus most of their extra curricular activities, including sports teams, either are service work or in the case of the teams and clubs incorporate service work as part of their required activities. There is also a tendency to overlook the various activities that are such a routine part of our calendar that we don't even see them any more as the work that they are. When adults want the troop to get involved in a new project I don't say yes unless 1) they are willing to go to the PLC and get real buy in from them and 2) they are willing to be the adult mentor who helps the PLC make the project work; that mentoring includes making sure that they help the scouts do the nitty gritty work of getting personal commitments from both the right number of scouts and the right opinion leader scouts so that there is sufficient turnout to ensure success; standing up at a meeting and saying "next week we're all going to meet and do project X" is not a formula for success. My predecessor warned me that there are a lot of people who have a lot of good ideas about things I should do, experience has taught me to say no if the idea comes without a sufficient co-commitment to make it work.

I joined decades before there was even discussion of whether there was such a policy. I don't know what I myself would have thought back then, but my own views, and the views of many other scouters, have changed as I've learned about, became aware of, and became friends, colleagues, and family members with, people who happened to be gay. Scouting IS something I hold dear, and the policy has been hard for me to abide, but I believed that the balance of the program enabled me to serve my scouts despite what I saw as a pretty big flaw in it. So I have hiked many miles in those boots that now feel uncomfortable to you, and Scouting was dear enough to me to keep on hiking. Despite what many would like to believe, this change isn't being driven by some conspiratorial group of outsiders. Going back as far as Dale and arguments about the Philadelphia council and their headquarters, most of the time it is someone outside of the unit or the council who has complained about participation by gay and lesbian scouts and scouters. Usually the people who know and see the person as an individual, not as a characteristic, don't have a problem with that person. Scouting has a lot to offer young people and those who want to serve them (as of course do many other programs). The chances that you or your unit will be asked to have someone you would not want participate are passingly small. If you're part of a religious CO you'll be allowed to maintain your choice and send that person to another unit. If you're not part of a religious CO than you will need to decide whether to remain or change units.

In the years prior to the membership change people who heard me speak enthusiastically about my own and my sons’ involvement in scouting would occasionally ask me how I could be a part of an organization that discriminated in the way BSA did. My response was always that I thought the policy was mistaken and I hoped it would change. I would then add that I have never been a member of any organization, including my own marriage and family, with which I always 100% agreed, and that although this was a policy it had so little to do with what actually happened in scouting that the benefits of being involved in the program for myself and the young people I served far outweighed any negative consequences. I don’t know why folks who used to agree with the policy can’t have the same approach now that I did then. If the parent of one of my scouts wants to come huddle around a campfire with me next January when the snow is howling and the temps are in the single digits they're welcome to, gay or straight. It puzzles me why anyone wouldn’t want to be there serving the scouts with us.

I went to Pin Settings and still cannot find it. I did have to chose two security questions when I tried to sign in. My guess Bad Wolf is that something is glitchy with that and hence your problem. I have never encountered any set of IT systems as consistently abysmal as BSA's.

I spent 15 years in HR in Fortune 100 companies. Here's my general advice about resumes. A resume is a persuasive piece of writing with a unique form -- not a recitation of your jobs. You have a thesis, this is what most people label as an objective, which is what kind of job you want to be hired for. Everything else on the resume should be a direct supporting argument for that thesis -- why someone should hire you for that job. So the question to ask yourself is does your BSA experience make a direct strong argument for you to be hired for that job. If it does, put it on. The second consideration is space, most resumes are one page, so listing BSA experience necessarily entails not saying something more about your professional experience -- is this a good tradeoff? If you have any contacts within the organization you're applying to ask them. Whether BSA experience will help or hurt in the first sort is a crapshoot. If it's something you feel is important to you or about you then practice working it into your answers to common interview questions.

First, Troop Committees can't really officially remove you from the Troop. Troops are actually dictatorships not democracies. Each Troop is sponsored, or Chartered, by a Chartering Organization (CO). The CO has an Institutional Head (IH), for instance a pastor, and then there is a Chartered Organization Rep (COR) who actually is is charge of everything scouts for the CO, sometimes the IH and COR are the same, sometimes not. Only the COR and/or the IH can actually remove a scout from a Troop, that is go to the Council and say "scout A can no longer be a member of our troop." The Troop Committee Chair (CC) reports to and serves at the pleasure of the COR, and everyone else reports to and serves at the pleasure of the CC. Who is your Chartering Organization? You should find out who in the Organization is in charge over all and who is the COR and go talk to them. As to dealing with the ASMs after you leave the troop, that's probably not a real issue. I am likely the only person in my troop who could tell you who the Unit Commissioner and Training Coordinator are, and you could go your whole scouting career without knowing or caring about them --- most troops do. Finally, the next level above the Troop and its COR is the professionals at Council, the District isn't really a separate entity. You say you have already been in touch with your DE, keep working with him to find a good scouting home for your son. His boss, the Council Exec is the only person who can actually have your son dismissed from scouts. Stay on the good side of your DE and you're probably on the good side of the Exec. Good luck, as always it is the adult sturm und drang which causes the biggest problems in scouting.

This person is probably suffering some type of emotional/psychological deficit. A conversation with her about the substance of what she said will almost certainly not be fruitful. It is possible, but actually probably unlikely, that you could explain to her that it was inappropriate to have said those things in front of the boys. The most important thing is explaining to the boys the absolute untruth of what she claimed to know, and if you're so inclined use it as a teachable moment about what to do when people act so inappropriately and bizarrely.

Same with us, if we're not traveling outside of the Council we do not have to fill out plans.

One thing to be aware of if you have inexperienced canoeists is to not get overly ambitious in how far you can travel in a day. Scouts. or anyone else, who aren't proficient will travel twice the listed distance because they will not keep the boat heading straight and will be back and forth across the water constantly, especially if there is any wind.

In partial answer to the OP's question: in our troop we don't bother giving out service stars. No one has ever really expressed an interest in them.

No, that's not quite right. There will be times after the initial application where a person can and will be asked about a conviction. You can never lie about it. The idea is that current practice on most employment applications is to ask everyone if they have ever been convicted of a crime. The result is that almost anyone who says yes gets tossed in the "no" pile without regard to what the conviction was for, whether it would have any bearing on the job, or what other qualifications a person has. So a person who was one of three people caught "joy riding" in a car when they were 18 will still be excluded from a job as a computer technician or truck mechanic when they're 28 and have turned their life around. We lock up a lot of people in this country, and we tend to lock up people who are poor and minority disproportionately. This allows those folks at least a fighting chance to be judged on the merits of who they are today, still taking into account their past, but not automatically excluding them from employment.

First, there's a rule, I forget the wording, but basically if you're not married you don't sleep in the same tent. I started to think that you should explore why she wants to come along, but I don't think that's a fair initial question. The better question would be: what is the reason each adult is attending? Every adult on the trip should be there because their presence is somehow beneficial to the scouts, even if the benefit is just transportation. If her presence is as justified as someone else's than there shouldn't be an issue. The second question I would ask is what the committee's objections are? Is it that somehow they don't think women should go or they find the idea of a SM with a fiance somehow icky or inappropriate, then unless that's a problem for your CO, I would ignore them. If there's a substantive reason then decide it based on that.

Yes, he should remove his Webelos badge, but regarding the list of things E94A1 gave, first ask the troop what if anything they provide and what their expectations are. Our troop provides the shoulder loops, book, numbers, and troop neckerchief as part of our crossover or bridging ceremony. We don't wear a uniform hat except for the ball cap issued by summer camp, and many of the scout pants have a web belting sewn in.

debbi821, The YPT rules basically breakdown this way: 1) Never be alone with a kid! 2) If the activity is an overnight outing you must have two adults, and there are specific rules about who the adults can be. 3) For non overnight activities, you can have one adult accompanying two or more scouts so long as the situation never puts you in violation of #1. For an easy example of #3 think of a merit badge counseling session. Johnny scout wants to work with Committee Member Jane on a Citizenship badge. Johnny scout contacts CM Jane to meet with her, CM Jane who will be at home by themselves this afternoon, can invite Johnny to her house as long as he is accompanied by someone else. It is perfectly fine for that someone else to be just a fellow scout. Here's the quote from the Guide to Advancement. "A youth member must not meet one-on-one with an adult. Sessions with counselors must take place where others can view the interaction, or the Scout must have a buddy: a friend, parent, guardian, brother, sister, or other relativeâ€â€or better yet, another Scout working on the same badgeâ€â€along with him attending the session." SO, clearly, according to the BSA, you do not need two adults for Youth Protection in every circumstance. You can easily, as far as BSA rules go, apply this to your scenario of your accompanying a group of scouts to the Rec Center (there are additional rules about Safe Swimming, but most commercial facilities will easily cover them). Having said that, your troop can decide that for troop sanctioned activities you want to have tighter rules and require two adults. But you should at least understand the rules and that you're requiring more than BSA requires rather than misunderstand the rule. As an example, BSA does not require that non registered adults take YPT as a condition of accompanying scouts on a camping trip, but our troop has decided that we will require that, even knowing it is more than is required by BSA. Our reasoning was that if everyone has had the basic, rudimentary training, it will prevent any innocent, inadvertent breaches.

A couple of misunderstandings in your post debbi1821. First, it is simply not true that two adults are required for all activities. From the G2SS. "There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, when the presence of adult leaders is not required and adult leadership may be limited to training and guidance of the patrol leadership. With the proper training, guidance, and approval by the troop leaders, the patrol can conduct day hikes and service projects." BSA insurance is always secondary insurance, that is it covers what your own medical insurance won't cover, including co-pays and deductibles. You don't have to sue you just have to file the proper claim forms. If you, or a scout, don't have any medical coverage then it becomes the primary coverage for any injury you suffer while at a scout activity. Neither medical forms, nor uniforms, nor tour permits, nor clean underwear, nor a whole host of other urban legend restrictions, are necessary for you to be covered by the insurance, you merely need to be at a scout function or activity. The scouts actually do a very good job of covering their leaders, parents, and scouts when the rubber really hits the road with regard to expensive injuries. So what do you think would have happened differently if there had been a med form at the meeting where the den leader slipped?

So now I've read both lesson plans. First, it is not the case that the Common Core lessons prohibit using anything they already know --- that's a misreading of the lesson; what it says is to not give pre-reading context within the lesson. This is one unit in a US History course --- the students will have context. Even the NEH lesson plan makes pre-reading context optional and emphasizes a first cold reading of the text. In fact the NEH plan says that the actual text is first used as context for the criticisms that follow. As to Professor Shanahan’s criticism, he asserts that there is a difference between a close reading for literary purposes and a close reading for historical purposes. I’m not fully convinced that those are actually different things, but his conclusion is not that the CC method is inappropriate. From the article: “ That means that while it’s acceptable to jump into a cold literary read of the Gettysburg Address, it is also perfectly appropriate to talk to students about the Declaration of Independence, what happened at Gettysburg, or about Pericles’s Orationâ€â€that is, as long as such discussions do not do the interpretive work for the students. And it is okay to bring those documents in at different points in the reading, such as between a first and second read.†And it’s important to note that like all suggested lessons this one will be supplemented by the teacher in the classroom. Both lesson plans will result in the students understanding the Gettysburg Address, but it strikes me that the CC lesson would enable a student to take on and understand other texts, like Eisenhower’s combined D-Day Message to the Troops along with his Message in Case of Failure, in a way that the NEH model might not. In any case, I cannot see the CC method as somehow bad or inappropriate. My undergraduate minor was History/Poli Sci and I have advanced degrees in two different disciplines. When I see the Common Core standard it looks rigorous, and it looks like the type of cross disciplinary learning that is going to well prepare students to not just regurgitate facts but to apply their learning throughout life.

E94A1, this seems to me to be at least in part an exercise in close reading of a text. I'm genuinely curious, how well and how quickly do you think your college students could, given just the text, answer the question "What is meant by the phrase 'any nation so conceived and so dedicated'... My own experience is that knowing to refer back to the previous paragraph for the precise definition of those terms would challenge many college freshmen.

Speaking of context, what grade and what subject is this a directive for? What were the previous topics covered, what is the follow up lesson? The directive seems to be: have students read the text itself alone first, it's a tough read to parse out to get it right, but students need to do things that are hard in order to get better. "Some students may be frustrated, but all students need practice in doing their best to stay with something they do not initially understand." As far as being understood and avoiding privileging background knowledge, that means having to read it carefully in order to understand it, not just guessing at its meaning after being spoon fed all the background information. This would actually be a fairly tough assignment for most of my scouts --- exactly the type of thing we should be striving for in schools. I see no implication in this instruction that the lesson isn't fleshed out later to be sure that the Address is fully understood.

Individually find out from each non attendee why they weren't able to come. Most of the answers will be found in the five reasons Qwazse listed. Some of them are easier to overcome than others. But honestly, you're doing well, I don't think you'll get much better. When we've tracked down each non attendee for a reason, family and other extra-curricular conflicts reduce our percentages below yours for any given weekend.

I suspect this is a reasonable decision. My issue is the lack of supporting information to go with it. It's almost certainly true that it wasn't just "Oh, look at what the NHTSA says, we should ban these. Likely there is somewhere either a white paper examining all the issues or a communique from an insurer giving a more detailed explanation. But the BSA (like most large organizations) underestimates the abilities of its members to understand real information, and rather than share the full reasons why it does something says trust us we know what's best, but you poor simpletons couldn't really understand it, now run along and play like good children.

Digging a little deeper and thinking about this some more, the real problem is not going to be so much the cost as the number of people required to have the check. As I read it every parent going on an outing will now need to have this level of background checks. It's possible that having to have this certification for so many activities, like chaperoning field trips, that just about every parent will have gone through the process and have the certification as a routine matter.

Our COR is a Catholic Church, we have to get fingerprinted and submit them to a state background check, cost $25. There's no requirement that we renew the background check so it's a one time fee rather than every three years. It doesn't seem to really discourage people from volunteering. I doubt this will have any real affect at all on volunteer numbers.

Isn't there a point of diminishing returns on a program like that. Knock out the Eagle required and a few electives in a year or so and then what do you do?

I have seen banks that required resolution-like paperwork to change signatories on a checking account, and I have seen banks that just say here fill out this card. This was for other small non-profits not Scouts. Since these organizations, similar to our committee, worked by consensus not formal votes, we just wrote up a statement saying we did it and submitted it to the bank.