The Blancmange

If someone doesn't get an award because they didn't meet the requirements for the award, it's not punishment. If someone doesn't get an award because the person in charge doesn't like the person's behavior (outside of the behavior needed for the award), then it can be a punishment. And to complete the line of reasoning, apropos the thread that spawned this one, if someone doesn't get an award because the person in charge doesn't like the behavior of a third person, then it is just a preposterous misuse of power.

If it is a matter of the events not being publicized soon enough, I would bring that to the attention of your Council or District Camping committee, or whomever is organizing them. Our dates for Summer 2011 are already on the council calendar. Even if they are not yet in the process of planning details, they should have a pretty good idea of when they will be held. People make choices. Not every scout will earn every award.

You're right and have already done the work to demonstrate why you are right. The only people who are "committee members" are those who are registered with BSA with the code MC or CC. We have an active COR who also regularly sits on BOR's, and I can't imagine a legitimate complaint to that practice. He has previously been CC, SM, and probably every other role in the troop. That is, of course, different from a parent who has absolutely no training in the purpose or procedure for a BOR. The troop that you mention probably doesn't have enough active members and is using this as an inferior alternative.

Kudu writes: acco40 writes: It's not a camping club. Yes it is. I won't try to put words in acco's mouth, but my guess would be that he is referring to "camping clubs" as groups of RV-owning adults whose club activies include organized trips to various KOA-type campgrounds. I suspect he was equating that with families who view boy scout campouts as an opportunity for the whole family to go camping and subvert the patrol method. I suspect the two of you are placing entirely different meanings on this phrase.

Since attending the summer camp is not easy for most of the boys is there anything else that can be used for this? I don't think I would agree with that generalization. Our council publishes in its newsletter those packs who send over 50% of their scouts to summer camp programs. I don't remember the exact number, but there were plenty. Not "easy" for what reason? They can't afford it? Most councils have funds available for scholarships, and many units will help out as well, if they are asked. Because parents don't want to spend time with their children and view it as a babysitting service? Exceptions to requirements are usually provided when there might be some health-related barrier to a boy completing something. But an exception because it's not perceived as "easy"???

And oh how they danced The little children of Stonehenge Beneath the haunted moon For fear that daybreak might come too soon And where are they now? The little children of Stonehenge And what would they say to us? If we were here... tonight

Do they run everybody coming into a Jamboree through a metal detector? (Including visitors?) They would if the President were appearing. Essentially makes the other point in your post, that it would turn into quite a hassle.

On a more fundamental level, an ASM who questions whether a youth properly fulfilled a requirement that was signed off by another ASM or the SM should take that matter up with the SM. If consultation with the SM does not allay his concerns, he needs to go to the committee. The fact that this ASM went to the boy's parents, who have absolutely no say in advencement matters, with the concerns instead demonstrates that the ASM is using this as a vehicle to air some personal gripe with this youth or his family. Totally inappropriate behavior, IMO.

Mark me as another one who thinks the AHG/BSA alliance is the way to go... What about for non-Christian girls?

I think Beavah was merely suggesting that there might be better uses for your time and effort. BSA takes licensing issues very seriously - witness the hoops that a must be jumped through for a t-shirt company to make a unit shirt that includes a BSA logo. It wouldn't surprise me if there is someone in Irving whose job it is to watch and search for these sorts of things.

The OP does not state her role in the pack; it sounds as if she may be a parent of one Webelos. If that is the case, I don't understand the concern. Is the DL refusing to give credit to boys who used legitimate alternative combinations from the requirements? If so, those boys' parents should approach the DL with the book in hand and point this out. If that does not work; go to the CM; next to the committee or COR; should that fail, enlist the help of the unit commissioner. This can be resolved without reference to what other packs do; the requirements are clear. That being said, this reminds me of the "Committee Rules Run Amok" thread above where Kudu laments the (theoretical) possibility that a Scout could earn Eagle without ever camping outdoors. Even though AOL could be done without overnight camping, should it? Give these guys every opportunity to get outdoors and camping. For example, our Webeleos have at least 8 opportunities to camp during their +/- 18 mos. they are in the program (2 summer resident camps, invitations to camp with the Troop each spring and fall, and at least 1 Webelos den camping event every spring and fall).

Outrageous! Any leader who would do something like this is entirely unworthy of the responsibilty for supervising my child. I would disassociate myself from this troop immediately.

It's tough to acheive 300 ft. separation, though. Need a large warehouse.

Sounds like the chicken or the egg question. Does BL help keep boys interested and advancing or are those boys who are already likely to stick with the program more likely to subscribe? Interesting correlation. Maybe ther is no causal relationship at all? What if you just look at units who automatically buy BL for everyone? I can't say I have any specific observation to add, but I look forward to the story.

Now, just like da MB that gets disallowed because the counselor wasn't approved, I'd expect the adults to then work with the boys to make sure they can proceed ahead. I don't think that really works as an analogy here. The MB counselor registration process is there in order to ensure that the counselor has some level of expertise in the badge he or she is counseling. It is there to ensure a degree of competency, and is a part of the adult association method. Scouts, especially 1st class and above, are supposed to know how to camp. Looking at the recent threads on patrol camping, being able to camp without adult involvement is something many look at as a goal to strive for. A patrol should not need an adult who has attened IOLS in order to camp. When a boy completes a MB without a registered counselor, there is some legitimate questions as to whether he received the full benefit of the badge. When these boys went camping without an IOLS trained adult they, well, went camping. I suppose there a possibility that, with the untrained adult, the boys needed to be even more reliant on their own skills.

What it sounds like it that the committe and SM have gotten into a pi$$ing match and are, indeed, trying to punish the boys. Certainly a unit committee can require its leaders to be trained; probably a pretty good idea. But when a new SM takes over without much planning for the transition (he certainly could have taken the training beforehand), should the unit's entire outdoor program come to a halt? Why didn't the committee fix this earlier when the SM presented them with the annual program calendar that the PLC had prepared? That way, the committee could have fulfilled its duties and provided the proper support. Why didn't some of these sage committe members volunteer to go on the outing if they felt the SM was not qualified? Even if the SM had been dragging his feet, based on the information presented, I blame the committee for not coming up with a better solution.

That's just so messed up I wouln't even know where to start. I feel sorry for the boys in that troop. Why would people with that sort of approach even want to sit on a unit committee? Certainly not to help the boys or the program. Watch, these guys will go back and this committee will tell them their IOLS (or whatever the new name is) doesnt' count because it wasn't run by their district.

I would love to see the BSA Business plan. I want to start a business in which thoseands of people PAY to work for me, and if they do not like it, that is OK because there are thousands behind them waiting for the oppurtunity to PAY to work an event. I realize there is an element of sarcasm in this statement, but to the extent some pros might actually believe something along those lines, it is entirely flawed. The volunteers are not paying to work for the pro; the pro was hired by the volunteers to facilitate a better program. Coucils whose pros are cognizant of that fact are going to have the better programs, in my opinion.

Perhaps the situation was not handled correctly to begin with. You do not indicate whether the removal for "violence" was connected with any sort of injury. If there was an injury, it should have been reported to the SE. From G2SS: The unit should inform the Scout executive about all incidents that result in a physical injury or involve allegations of sexual misconduct by a youth member with another youth member. If it were reported to the SE, it would be up to him if the boy could continue with the BSA. If the incident was not so severe as to cause injury, I agree that there is some judgement involved. Was there a serious threat without actual injury? Too many variables to form an informed opinion.

Two adults camping on opposite sides of the valley could be a possible YP problem. No, it isn't. There is absolutely no way to read the current YP rules as preventing or discouraging something like this. The rules require two leaders on an outing. They do not require those leaders to be joined at the hip for the duration of the outing. The rules also prohibit one on one contact between one adult and one youth. That is not imlicated in the scenario described. (This message has been edited by the blancmange)

Another analogy ocurred to me. I am sure there are differences that someone will point out; I could probably think of some myself if I gave it more time. I went to Catholic schools through high school, and I know many other schools have a similar policy (whether it can be called universal, I don't know); that is that students of all faith backgrounds (or no faith) are welcome. Students who were not Catholic were not required to take religion class (although some of them did). An alternative (study hall) was provided during all-school masses (again, although some chose to attend mass). My point is this: If a school that has as one of its fundamental missions, education of youth in a particular faith, sees fit to open its doors and provide its quality program to youth of other beliefs, including those with no particular belief, and does not consider the presence of those people to be contrary to its mission, how can the BSA, which has a far less rigid, non-sectarian belief, not be equally welcoming? (I realize that is an awful run-on sentence but don't have time to fix it). Edit; here is the actual policy: "Notre Dame College Prep admits students of any color, racial or ethnic origin to all rights, privileges, programs and activities accorded to students at the school. Notre Dame does not discriminate on the basis of color, race, ethnic origin or religious affiliation with regard to the administration of its education policies, admissions policies and scholarship and aid programs. We encourage applications for admission to the ninth grade from the community at large. Notre Dame draws from over 70 different grade schools in metropolitan Chicago. A student's enrollment at Notre Dame implies acceptance of the mission, philosophy and expectations set forth by the school. Entrance requirements are based on intellectual ability, personal character, and a demonstrated willingness to learn."(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

OGE wrote: Yet as far as I can tell, no one boycotts Habitat because of its religious principles and foundation and receives no bad press because it uses phrases like "Theology of the Hammer" Do you think the BSA could learn anything from Habitat for Humanity? Yes, and OGE answered his own question elsewhere in his post: Habitat has an open-door policy: All who desire to be a part of this work are welcome, regardless of religious preference or background. We have a policy of building with people in need regardless of race or religion. We welcome volunteers and supporters from all backgrounds. If BSA were to adopt a similar policy, tailored to a youth-serving organization, it would in no way inhibit their fundamental core beliefs and mission.

Now the question becomes, how might a lack of linkage such as this be addressed? And the answer is, unfortunately, we don't know; that leads us to feel some of the frustration that the OP is expressing. That hits the nail on the head. Many organizations survey their membership to find out what people are concerned about. One would this this would be particularly helpful in a organization that is as dependant on volunteers as is the BSA. We see anecdotal statements like "almost everyone wants it that way" "people would leave the organization if . . . " etc. Maybe it would be helpful to conduct such a survey. Maybe certain powers that be don't want to know the answers. Maybe they have done it but not publicized it. I certainly don't know. There are a lot of good comments in this thread. I guess, originally, I was speaking to more "big picture" issues that aren't really going to come up in the context of a RT or district committee meeting. Even if I could, for example, get my council president to latch on to an issue, would he even have much voice in taking that issue higher? I suppose what I was really looking for was some more insight into how the BSA operates at its higher levels. (This message has been edited by the blancmange)

I wouldn't presume it, any insurance carrier would rightly walk away from covering you (and I don't think BSA can plausibly self-insure, do you? I don't think COs would allow them to, if they used their brains) Indeed they do. From the G2SS: BSA self-funds the first million dollars of each liability claim. This means that almost all money spent on a liability claim is Scouting money, not insurance money. I'm not sure, if I were a CO, that this would cause concern for me. The BSA has been around for 100 years. Their latest 990 shows assets of over $500 million. They are probably in better financial shape than some insurance companies. In my view, Scouters come from 2 lots; those who already have excellent woodsman skills and want to share those, and parents who may not already have those skills, but have a motiviation to help and a desire to lose those skills. Trends to eliminate outdoor skill training bother me, especially the consolidation of boy scout and webelos outdoor leader training.(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

Scout units used to keep Jews out, but over time units integrated. I'm just curious whether that was universal. An 88 year old friend of my family, a jew, earned Eagle Scout in the late 30's. Based on the area where he grew up, I suspect many of the other boys in his unit were Jewish as well. If this was indeed common, it must have changed shortly after BSA's origination.