Trevorum

Lynn, This is an excellent question. There is no right answer and different troops will handle this in different ways. I can tell you what works for our troop. For each fundraiser, we pre-establish some ground rules about how much of the income will go to the troop and how much will go to individual scouts. Generally for group efforts where individual efforts are hard to track (like a garage sale), 100% of income goes to the troop. But, for our annual BBQ, each scout sells tickets and a percentage of each ticket goes to the Scout in the form of "Scout Bucks". So if a fellow sells $300 of BBQ tickets, he might have $100 deposited into his account. The treasurer keeps all the books. Scout Bucks accrue from year to year and are transferable to another troop if the scout moves and makes a written request. The scout can elect to redeem his Scout Bucks for any long term camp fees (his total due is reduced appropriately and the treasurer transfers the monies), or for equipment that he will need in Scouting (tent, backpack, etc). In the latter case, he gets the SM's approval for his purchase in advance and submits the reciept to the Treasurer for reimbursement (up to the value of his ScoutBucks). If a fellow leaves Scouting, his ScoutBucks revert to the general troop fund after 12 months. The accounting is posted on our Scout bulletin board and is updated quarterly. This system requires a treasurer who is skilled in spreadsheets (!) but it work well for us.

So if I donate $200 to FOS and they give me a nifty CSP that cost $2 to make but is worth $35 on the open market, what can I deduct? And what do I do if three years from now I sell the patch for $35 - is that income? How about if the value of the patch appreciates to $50 by then? What if I don't sell it, but trade it for another patch that is worth $50? This is all so complicated for us arithemetically challenged folks!

OK - Ed, it's your turn.

Well, we're not talking about yacht club meetings or business meetings. We're talking about Scouter meetings, for whom the National Organization has said, "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders." I don't know how much clearer it can be. Now, Barry makes a reasonable point (as always). There might be very special cases where the Committee Chair would want to "bend" the rules and have a special meeting of invitees only. Nonetheless, a strict reading of the rules must conclude that all Scout functions are required to be open to [any and all] parents. (Of course all this is why lawyers make the big bucks - parsing vague laws and interpreting their meaning.)

Yes, I can see how you you might interpret it that way, but that is not what it says. It does not say, "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders, except those where no youth are present." I can't understand why you would even want to tell a parent, "No, you can't come to this committee meeting. It is private." I can't even concieve of turning away a parent - or even a curious passerby - from a committee meeting. Everyone is welcome at all of our meetings. Even those pesky pagans.

Yes, I can see how someone could interpret it that way. But that is not what it actually says. It says "All aspects." If we can interpret the "real meaning" of one part of the G2SS, what's to prevent us from interpreting other parts?

ahem. "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders. " http://www.scouting.org/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx This would seem to indicate that all Scouting meetings - including committee meetings - ARE open to all parents.

In our troop, the SPL does not normally attend the committee meetings. On occasion, the SM will invite the SPL to a committe meeting to brief the committee on some special event. The SPL is always free to attend any committee meeting (as are any parents or youth).

It HAS been a constant scrappy struggle. Two steps forward, one and a half back... (Fred, you may be correct - now that I think of it, you joined the committee just before the Jamboree, right?) In any event, there have been some maneuvering politics after the Vote. Ambivalance towards UU Scouts and residual feelings towards the UUA (possibly coupled with veiled obstructionism) has caused a frustrating inertia in getting the BSA and PRAY publications updated to reflect current reality. I hope that has now been overcome.

Dan, Society changes slowly (and the BSA changes even slower). The Department of Defense and Arlington National Cemetery now officially recognize Wicca as a religious faith practiced by Americans. Soldiers killed in Iraq can now have the pentagram on their tombstone. It's a step.

Ed and Bob, please let me clear up some confusion. 1. The BSA has known from the very beginning that the UUSO is not an affiliate of the UUA. Several of us had been attending meetings of the Religious Relationships subcommittee for several years before the UUSO was even formed. BSA was kept informed at every step. We also tried to establish a simultaneous relationship with the UUA in order to serve as a bridge between the two organizations. Indeed, this was the original intent of forming the UUSO. Unfortunately, the relationship with UUA did not move forward. 2. Ed you ar mistken when you state that because the UUSO is not a "religious organization per se, nor do they oficially represent a religious organization, they cannot develop a religious program on their own." As I have posted elsewhere, many organizations that sponsor religious awards progams have no offcial affiliation with the religious bodies they represent. For example, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting is not an official body of the Catholic Church - rather, it is a group of Catholic Scouters who want to serve Catholic youth. Same thing with the Jewish Committee on Scouting. Same thing with the Unitarian Universalist Scouters Organization. All are groups of activist Scouters who have organized to serve the youth of their repsective faiths. These organizations have proposed curricula for religious awards which have been accepted by BSA. In contrast, many (not all) of the Protestant awards ARE sponsored directly by the faith heirarchy. This is perhaps the source of your confusion that ALL of the awards are directly sponsored by a religious body 3. The Living Your Religion program was voted on, and accepted by, the BSA National Religious Relationships subcommittee at the spring meeting in 2005. Fred [fgoodwin] can attest to this. Importantly, the UUSO is a full voting memeber of the Religious Relationships subcommittee. Since 2005, we have had some frustrations in getting BSA publications updated to reflect this fact. There have been some behind-the-scenes problems I won't go into, and I believe that not everyone at BSA National is thrilled with having us at the table, but at no point has the curriculum been revoked. The latest word I have is that Dave Richardson has said that the next version of the BSA religious awards material will list the LyR program as a BSA recognized program. 4. The Webelos program is now available also. (Because I have not been active this spring, I do not have all the details of that programs acceptance. I'll find out for you.) 5. I've passed on to the UUSO webmaster your exellent suggestion that the website include a positive affirmation that the medal has been approved by BSA for uniform wear. This was obvious to us, but evidently itnees to be clarified. Thanks for the suggestion. I've also suggested the idea to include some history of the current program - maybe a summarized timeline to help those not familiar with all the history better understand how it all came down. If anyone wants additional information about the operation of the Religious Reationships subcommittee, the UUSO, or the Living Your Religion program, I'd be more than happy to reply to your PM. Trevorum

Dan, I genuinely believe the only way to get the CoG awards accepted by BSA is to have the CoG sponsored at the BSA Religious Relationships committee by a mainsteam faith. BSA changes from the inside. The National Catholic Committee on Scouting and the National Jewish Committee on Scouting are both very welcoming to Scouters of all belief systems. Such a sponsor can then invite COG non-voting "observers" to RR meetings. After several years of patiently attending meetings, building personal relationships, and dispelling myths, the COG may be in the position to once again propose an awards curriculum. However, by that time, you will have the votes on the committee. It's political, but that's how the sytem works.

Documentation is good, yes. I'll pass on the suggestion to the UUSO webmaster that the site include the explicit affirmation that the award is recognized by BSA for uniform wear. It would be a good idea to include some copies of the UUSO correspondence on the website (for the benefit of doubting BobWhites )

AFAIK, the Covenant of the Goddess is a national organization and should be qualified to sponsor a religious award to BSA under the current rules. So, I don't think that's the problem. I am guessing that it's more of a visceral rejection of overt paganism by the overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian members. I suspect Dan's feelings are well-founded.

I've made this point before, but it bears repeating, since even the most experienced Scouters seem to believe in error that BSA religious awards must be officially sponsored by the religion. This is not true. Many religious awards are sponsored by groups of religious Scouters. For example, the Catholic awards are sponsored by the Catholic Committee on Scouting, not by the Most Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church. Similarly, the Jewish awards are sponsored by the Jewish Committee on Scouting. Following these models, the current UU awards are sponsored by the Unitarian Universalist Scouters Organization.

BW, This has been an annoyance since 2005 when the award was approved by the Religious Relationships subcommittee. (I was there, so I know it was approved!) We had a booth at the 2005 jamboree in the relationships tent and formally announced the awards program at that time. Since then, many youths have earned the new award (I don't have the numbers); manufacturing the medal got delayed for several reasons but it is now available through the UUSO website. (please note: the organization is the UUSO, not UUSC.) The most recent information I have is that David Richardson, the Assistant Director for Religious Relationships at the National BSA Headquarters, has told us that the UUSO Awards will be listed in the next printing of the BSA Pamphlet on religious awards. We're still trying to get the online documents updated. -Trevorum

Calico, What that EBoR did was inexcusable. I'm glad you stuck up for your rights and appealed. I'm also glad you are volunteering as an adult leader. However, I do believe that similar situations can often be avoided through gentle advance coordination between the candidate's family, the district/Council Eagle advisor, and the potential members of the Board. Especially in "Bible Belt" regions, it is important for all members of the EBoR to understand tht Scouting is explicitly NOT a Christian organization and that ALL religious traditions are welcome. There are, inevitably, a few well-meaning but misguided people who will disagree these this official BSA policies, and they should NOT be allowed to participate in the EBoR for a candidate of a minority faith. IMHO.

If a young Scout and I were both on a hike together and he pointed out ten different animals to me, I'd sign off the requirement then and there. However, if the fellow spotted the ten critters while I wasn't around, I would certainly ask for some kind of documentation. I'd generally accept a simple list - species, date, environment. The documentation requested by other Scoutmaster might vary. I don't think I'd make up a "form" for this requirement, but another SM certainly might, without adding to the requirements.

A few weeks ago, we held a special troop ceremony celebrating our 100 Eagle Scouts. We dug through the old troop rosters and sent out invitations to all of our Eagles, as far back as the 70s. We asked those who wanted, to prepare a few short remarks for our young fellows still in the troop and working towards their own Eagle. On the day of the event, as the crowd was arriving, I saw a Marine in full dress blues get out of his car and walk up to the church. Now that's a uniform!! I didn't recognize him, but I thought, "Oh boy! This guy will be a wonderful inspiration to our Scouts!" Alas, he walked right by our hall and towards the sanctuary; he was there for wedding. But that Marine uniform sure would have looked good on our stage!

Ahem. Beer definitely has a cultural meaning here in America as well, just a different kind of meaning than in Germany. But, I know what you mean about "American beer". The big brands are uniformily thin and watery. Ugh. It's too bad those are the ones that are best known. However, there are some really excellent microbrews being made. World class brews. I doubt you get those - there would be little point in exporting American beers to Germany!

Neil, ooh, another good word! But I'm not an engineer and I will defer to you on the properties of ketchup. However, you might want to stir up a debate on that wikipedia page - they say it is thixotropic.

Ya never know around here ... and, by following Ed's links, I just learned a new word - turns out that ketchup is thixotropic!

One of the interesting conversations I remember coming from the back seat on the way back from a campout was about whether a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable. I had no idea that 12 year olds could be so passionate about botany. (I kept mum and eventually the seed argument won the day.)

I venture to guess that a judge would tell you that "legal" is very much NOT a "subjective issue" Rather, it is just about objective as human efforts can manage (at least here in the US). On the other hand I completely agree with you that morality is relative to particular time and place. Morality is ever changing. As you say, "...what is moral today might be immoral tomorrow." As a perfect example, only 150 years ago it was quite moral to enslave other human beings. Today that would be the epitome of immorality. Following along my earlier comment, until quite recently, it was considered OK to deny employment to people who were in wheelchairs. Today, most compassionate people will recognize the inherent injustice in that attitude Although the personal feelings of some people may lag behind, society's definitions of morality WILL evolve. I have no doubt that in another generation the majority of Americans will think it is immoral to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation. [And now, I'll retire from this thread unless a moderator elects to move it to the Issues forum. ]

Considering that white christian males are vastly in the minority - perhaps merely 25% (70%x70%x50%)- but hold nearly all of the political and ecnomic power, perhaps it's about time.