Twocubdad

That's an easily-solved problem if National's IT folks ever decide to join the '90s.

Two thoughts (with all the ususal exemptions that we don't really have enough info, the other side of the story, blah, blah, blah): Sounds to me as if the SE is the one who blew this one. My understanding is that the revocation letter is somewhat of a form letter which is supposed to include the appeals process. If I were the parent of the accused Scout, my attitude would be that we can talk now or we can talk during depositions.... Secondly, by calling the police, the SM did nothing wrong. As a Scouter, BSA policy requires us to notify the SE if we suspect a YP violation. But if we think it is appropriate, nothing prevents us from going to outside authorities. Your conscious -- and your local mandatory reporting laws -- should be your guide.

I've been told that the tartan used on the Woodbadge neckerchief and for some ceremonial uses is the McLauren tartan, in honor of Baden-Powell's mother's clan. I think it would be neat if BSA adopted an official tartan, either McLauren (or whatever the Woodbadge tartan is) or have an official BSA tartan created and registered. That's fairly easy to do. There is probably more interest in this than many folks realize. In our part of the country, there are quite a few highland games and I frequently see Scouts participating. One council over from us has a pipe band Venturing crew. Since they are Venturers, they can legally adopt the kilt as their official crew uniform. They wear their tan Scout shirt with the kilts -- looks really sharp. I'm not sure what tartan they wear, though.

I remeber reading an explaination of this when I was a Scout. I thought it was in my old Handbook, but I can't find it. What I remember was along the lines of what Acco just wrote. It's also worth noting that the adult awards for distinguished service -- antelope, buffalo and beaver -- are all silver.

At out day camp, we definitely go over the medical forms to look for any anomalies and note anything important by Scout's name on the roster which is given to the den leaders. This is usually just a simple, one or two word note like, "nut allergy" or "takes medication at lunch, see nurse," etc. Thinking about it, however, we probably don't do a really good job of making the connection between that and the program. Unless a den leader has a son who has problems like these, he or she probably isn't going to be tuned-in to the fact that vegetable oil could trigger a nut allergy -- I doubt if it would have occurred to me. On the one hand, Our camp nurse should probably be doing a review of medical forms and then comparing that against the camp program to seen if there are any conflicts, like those you describe. Actually, I'm going to go back and add that to my day camp post mortem file of things to do next year. Thank you for that. But on the other hand, if a boy has a potentially life-threatening condition, I think the parent has an added responsibility to let us know all the things which can trigger it. My son is allergic to cats, which we note on his medical form. I hope his camp den leader is made aware of that and tries to keep him away from them. But if not, the only down side is that he gets itchy eyes and a runny nose -- uncomfortable, but really no big deal. On the other hand, if he could die from his allergy, you better believe I'm going to be very aggressive in making sure the camp staff is aware of the danger and checking it out myself.

We have a lot of success with the Scout popcorn sales. I realize that the older Scouts don't think much of going door-to-door, but much of our success is through the 'show and sells' out front of grocery, hardware and video stores. In addition to making good money for our unit, the popcorn sale also helps support our council.

All the above are good suggestions for the long-term, but short term you still have a safety problem with this Scout. Although he can't be retested on the swimming requirements, who says he can't be retested on his swimming tag? Plan a troop swimming event and require that all Scouts be retested. Make a game out of it. Say that the lifeguards need the practice doing swim tests, whatever. But if this kid can't really pass the swim test he shouldn't be in the deep water. The mose incredulous part of the whole story is the aquatics director giving the boy a swimmer's tag without actually doing the test. I'm a former lifeguard and water safety instructor, but at camp this week, you better believe I had to swim every stroke of the water test before I was given a blue tag.

Maybe a better question is what do you want from your District Committee?

I've just come home from four days and Webelos resident camp (I've completed several of the "S's" but not all) and this topic is right on time. I was composing this post in my head on the drive home. My question is this: as a leader, how much do you intervene between and Scout and a parent? We had 18 boys, four registered leaders and six parents attending camp. One of the Scouts, a 10-year-old Webelos II, is the most disrespectful, ill-mannered, undisciplined child I have ever worked with. Unfortunately, he is the son of one of the other leaders. The boy's basic problem is that he has never failed to have his own way. He will not follow any instruction. I called his name and/or corrected him more this week than the other 17 boys combined. (Keep in mind we are talking Cubs here.) The boy is basically out of control and the father does nothing to discipline him, except when another leader steps in and embarrases him into action. This morning, while packing up, his father called the boy and asked him to come over. The boy screamed "WHAT?!?!" in a very hateful tone. The dad asked him to pick up a duffle and carry it to the car. The boy started stomping the ground and arguing about how he wasn't going to do it. At that point I stepped between the two of them and told the boy that I didn't care what he did at home, but he is in Scout camp and that he would not speak in that manner to any Scout leader. Feeling a bit self-conscious about breaking in between the father and son, I left it at that (I had much longer and more detailed conversations with the boy about his behavior earlier in the week, when the father wasn't right there). As I walked away and the dad took over, the last I saw, the kid was dumping the duffel out and kicking the contents. Had the kid's dad not been there (and had it not been two hours before check out) I would have sent the boy home. But how far should a leader go when the parent is right there? Do you send both the boy and the father home? The guy had a younger son with him (who is usually the worst behaved of the two, but the little one had a pretty good week this time.) An interesting dynamic: We are trying to introduce the boys to the patrol method by picking one Scout to lead the others in simple tasks (policing the campsite, sweeping the bathrooms, collecting firewood, etc.) This kid won't follow instruction from any of the boys, either and usually ends up being a detriment to the completion of the task. By the end of camp, all the other boys in the patrol were sick of him and his attitude and didn't mind telling him so. It will be interesting to see how that peer pressure works on him.

Bob wrote, "Dislike if you want, complain to national as much as you want, but as long as you choose to be a member you have an obligation to follow the rules of the BSA." That's all I (and if I read his post correctly, NJ) are asking. But there is a big difference between that and your earlier post saying "here is who we are, and what we stand for, if you agree then come and join us". I can and will follow the rules, but blindly accepting them is another matter. Whether it's BSA policy, the law or church teachings, I reserve the right to form my own opinions about them and if I feel so moved, to work -- within the rules -- for change. OGE -- you are right. There is a nice parallel between the two statements. But back in the real world, I'm off to Webelos resident camp through the weekend. I look forward to picking up the debate next week. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I can honestly say that at no time in my life have I ever been able to do one single, solitary chin-up. This includes high school when I played football, training and lifting weights year-round and in pretty good condition. Needless to say, I'd hate to see a hard and fast requirement of five chin-up for Tenderfoot, 10 for second-class, etc. I don't think a standard like that could be made fair to all boys, or if that kind of standard even reflects what we mean by "physically strong." On the other hand, I do think a requirement along the line of maintaining an on-going personal fitness program would be appropriate. For some boys that may mean walking for 20 minutes three times a week or it may mean training for the Iron Man. But in the long run, teaching the boys to maintain a life-long exercise program is more important than how many chin-ups they can do a age 14.

Question for you, Bob: in the Tenderfoot requirement relating to the Scout Oath, Law, Motto and Slogan, a Scout is asked to explain these principles "in his own words." Why is that? If Scouting is looking for new members to understand "who we are, and what we stand for," wouldn't it be better for the boys to learn the "official" explainations in the handbook? Could it be that we want boys to explain the basic concepts of Scouting in their own words because we want them to take them to heart and make them their own? Doesn't that necessarily mean that we want the boys (and adults, for that matter) to think about what the Oath and Law means to them, reflecting their own values and faith and what they have been taught by their family? Isn't that more valuable that simply reciting what you read in the book? I doubt seriously that many people join Scouts with that attitude that, "I'm a member now, you change to suit me," as you suggest. There may be a few (and a few on this board), but very few. By and large Scouters recite the Oath and Law without reservation. But while I can proudly and honestly raise my hand and recite the Law and Oath, that does not mean I abdicate my personal values and judgement to the National Council. As I have grown, the meaning and my understanding of the Law and Oath has evolved along with me. To think that the Law and Oath mean only what the Handbook or National says they mean, limits their value to make them all but worthless. They certainly mean more to me now than what I was capable of understanding as and eleven-year-old. If you'll allow me the liberty of slaughtering an old proverb, "Tell a boy what is ethical and he'll be ethical for a day. Teach a boy to THINK ethically and he will be ethical for a lifetime."(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Good news, bad news. I would say it absolved the church of their tax liability, but it means that you don't have non-profit status and should be filing you own tax return. I'm also surprised a bank gave you a checking account without either a ID number or a SSN. I'd guess the pack treasurer way back when probably supplied their own SSN to get the account. That probably happens more often than not. But this is WAY above my pay grade. You really need to be talking to a CPA.

Excellent post, NJ. Your analogy regarding loyal dissent is especially on target.

At our annual Christmas parade, we just load a trailer full of hay and go. Someone bought a set of reindeer antler hats for all the Tigers to wear. My Webelos tell me they have too much self-respect to wear them.

The best advice given so far is to sit down with the church auditors and/or finance committee and see what they really want. It may be that all they need is a reasonable yearend statement they can attach to their report or your assurance that if it's ever needed, that the Pack is more than willing to cooperate with audit anyway you can. Chances are the auditors are simply being auditors. They are looking for technical compliance and the easiest way to get there. To them, having everything centralized make their job easier. In the real world, you should point out to the church finance people that the pack takes in thousands of dollars a year, 25 cents at a time, and if the church's treasurer wants to essentially take over as pack treasurer, you'll be glad to have them. Remind them that fall registration is already on top of us and popcorn season quickly follows. Give them all the dates they will need to have someone available to collect money. Did we mention how we handle Scout accounts? I think they'll run in the other direction. We have a CPA in our Pack who specializes in non-profits. According to him, because the pack uses the church's non-profit tax ID, we should technically be included on the church's tax return and our books could be part of an IRS audit, if it ever came to it. He adds, however, for the IRS to be looking so closely at the church's finances that they dig up a separate account held by the pack, that they're already in deep do-do. He says that level of audit if highly unlikely. While we're approaching the subject, I'd like to say something about unit's relationships with their CO. Yes, technically, the CO pretty much has all the trump cards and the unit leaders serve at the pleasure of the CO. But a healthy relationship between the CO and the unit is a two-way street. While they provide us resources we need, we, the unit leaders, are volunteering hundreds of hours to run what the church leaders tell me is a very important part of their community ministry. If we have a problem to solve between the church and the pack, the IH, COR and I work it out on equal standing. I'm not suggesting you make the meeting with the church folks confrontational -- just the opposite. You need to look for common ground. But my point is that there is a whole lot of negotiating room between where you are and handing over all your accounts just because some accountant asked for it.

"Seeking Unbiased Explaination..." Good luck, Mack!

Right on, Wingnut! Laura, I don't see where you have anything to be ashamed of or embarassed about -- you didn't swear, you didn't hit or threaten anyone, you didn't throw or kick stuff -- you got angry at a situation which, frankly, should have made you angry. Anger is a perfectly reasonable response to certain situations. Reasonable people get angry over things about which they are passionate. Older Scouts abusing a weaker kid -- regardless of how big a pest he is -- certainly counts as one of those situations. It sounds to me that you very effectively communicated your feelings on what was happening. What would you have rather done, dispassionately approached the SPL and asked him if he could think of a better way to deal with the younger Scouts? Come on! This situation called for raising a little dust and it sounds like you did it well.

Littlebillie, I agree with your friendly amendment. NJ, I don't remember that the resolution to that ever made it to the board, but I remember hearing on the news that the CA court said it considers BSA membership (and membership in any similar organization) a material fact which the judges need to disclose to the participants in a case. They stopped short of saying BSA membership is cause for recusal in a case. I'm not sure that's different from what the rules have been all along.

>>But, doesn't it stop being a "private matter" at the point where an organization asks for the state's assistance in raising funds?

I'll admit that simply eliminating the program and getting the state out of the business of raising money for private charities has some appeal. It would certainly solve this issue. But it throws the baby out with the bath water. I see nothing wrong with the State of Connecticut, as an employer, offering its employees the convenience of making contributions by payroll deduction. That's not the problem. On the other end of the spectrum, another solution would be to open the program to any legal non-profit organization. That way the decision of who gets the money is left up to the individuals making the contributions, not some state agency. If you want to give to Arian Nations and I want to give to the Nation of Islam, what business is it of the State of Connecticut? >> I saw no judgement that BSA discrimination policy was bad or evil. Or did you read something I missed?

I agree with the first part of what you wrote, BSA isn't engaged in illegal discrimination, because Dale give its ban on gays First Amendment protection. But the State of Connecticut IS passing judgement on our membership policies. It is saying that banning gays is wrong and a violation of its anti-discrimination law and therefore BSA should be denied access to a state-run program. That would be like them saying you have the freedom of religion, but only Catholics may apply for a driver's license. Your are perfectly free to worship in any way you wish, just don't try to drive in our state. The key difference is that this is the state doing this. State employees are running the program while on state time. If this were the United Way, the Pew Charitable Trust or any other private organization or individual, BSA wouldn't have a leg to stand on. And by the way, I agree with your earlier post that we should stand by out decisions and take the consequences without whinning. But because this is the government, they have no business meddling inside the veil of activities protected by the First Amendment.

The state may have a good reason to promote nondiscrimination, but once you start down that slope, it may also find good reason to promote family values, marriage, and Christianity (insert "gay rights, homosexual marriage and secularism" if it makes you feel better). The State of Connecticut passing value judgements on BSAs membership policy is no different than making a judgement that only Christians are allowed access to public facilities. If the state is going to make its facilities and resources available to private organizations, it should make them available regardless of how those organizations express their First Amendment rights. As long as the organizations aren't involved in illegal activities, the First Amendment should preclude the government from becoming involved in the organizations' internal beliefs. Personally, I don't fully agree with every point of the BSA membership policy, but I strongly believe that as a private organization we have the right to set that policy without government influence or interference. You may try to make the case that BSA's membership policy is illegal in Connecticut because it violates the state's anti-discrimination laws. It doesn't. Dale extends BSA the First Amendment right to expressive association which trumps the state law. On the other hand, BSA may not discriminate in its employment practices for positions not linked to its core mission, such as a custodian who works alone after hours. That, in my opinion, is where the State should have lost its case. It allows other organizations on the list to discriminate in their programs, as long as they don't discriminate in their employment practices. The Jewish organizations on the list may only serve Jewish clients as long as they allow non-Jews as employees. The State denied BSA access to the list because of its program. There was no evidence presented that BSA discriminates against non-core employees. My reading of the case is that the BSA attorneys just blew it by not offering any evidence to support that point.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Bob, it's interesting that the G2SS passage you quoted seems to be one of the few that says "parent" without adding guardian or "adult partner" to the list. I wonder if that's an intentional omission or not? The rest of the debate is all but moot, in that all that is necessary for compliance is to submit the adult application. I would assume the fee wouldn't even be required since he paid for the year at recharter.

It seems to me the 18-year-old has the same legal standing as any other unregistered parent or adult. He may not be permit to be at summer camp, as one example, but at the Cub level we regularly have 100 or more unregistered adults (mostly parents, of course, but not all) at Pack functions. Their registration status in important only insofar as it impacts BSA's liability in the event of an incident. We should be more concerned with preventing an incident than where the chips fall afterwards. It is not necessary that all adults be registered leaders, only that they follow the same YP rule we do. In the Health and Safety course, we were taught that one adult and two or more Scouts was an approved exemption to the two-deep rule. Otherwise, that effectively means two adnlts and two Scouts in each car, which can get a little silly after awhile. However the trip should be organized so that everyone leave from and arrives at the same location with no interim stops. IMHO, the MBC loophole in the policy is a huge one. Look at it this way: we go to great lengths (some would say ridiculous lengths) to maintain two-deep leadership while boys are with leaders who are known to us, who are trained, who have been approved by the unit committee and COR, are registered with BSA and in some cases have undergone criminal background checks. This whole thread is evidence of the lengths we go and the concern we (rightly) have for maintaining two-deep leadership. But in the case of a MBC, not only do none of the above protections apply, but the Scout is meeting this person in their home, office or other private, unsupervised location. Yet the two-deep rule is only a recommendation for MBCs? That defies even simple logic.