SSF

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

How did you know slavery is bad?

 

Barry, I'm a Christian and a Conservative and I agree with you on the transgender issue and I could not agree with you more that the BSA has most definitely lost its moral compass and caved in to special interest. 

There's absolutely no validity and no merit for defending slavery though.  Not in any way, shape or form.

That the BSA is a public organization. It's not. It's a private organization that can (unfortunately) pretty much do whatever it wants without any real accountability. Many injustices have been committed under the 'private organization' provision.

My favorite quote from a council executive:

"Well, as long as they (referring to an SM and CC) haven't done anything illegal, there's nothing we can do about it"

Reassuring to know that the BSA's standard for registered leaders is "just don't actually violate the law"...but otherwise it's okay to be as unethical, as unscrupulous and as nasty as they want to be to scouts ans their families

4 hours ago, an_old_DC said:

Units are autonomous and can do what they want: entire packs can go canoeing, unrelated girls and girl siblings can completely mix with boy dens for all activities and even "unofficially" earn advancement, etc. Troops can make up their own advancement policies including when or if a Scout can have a conference with his SM, BORs retesting Scouts and then denying advancement, having SM, CC and other adults' daughters tagalong on camping trips and "unofficially" earn advancement. The list goes on and on.

 

I'm waiting to hear about the troop that has decided to add an additional rank somewhere,...Third Class between TF and 2C, it's probably happened

@bearess just curious as to whether or not there may have been any final resolution to this...if you might be willing to share?

Yours is the first case I know of where a council has addressed a report of a non-physical, i.e .verbal or psychological abuse so I'm very curious as to what action (if any) may have been taken

1 hour ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Sometimes the female candidates are the most qualified.  Take a look at CEO Jayshree Ullal of Arista Networks, for example.  Also note she was not educated in the US.  Indira Nooyi, at Pepsi, similar background. 

How do you know for sure that either of these two women were the most qualified candidates for their jobs?

Do you know who else may have been considered? 

Do you know what accomplishments and experience the other candidates, who were not chosen, may have had?

Would be interesting to find out how many men and how many women were considered for these prominent positions.

I agree fully that, sometimes, a woman may be the best candidate for any given position. I have no doubt that there are cases when a woman is the most qualified person for a job.

However, the point I'm making is that in this day and age, many companies have begun virtue signaling by choosing to hire or promote the most qualified female candidate, as opposed to the most qualified candidate (who might just happen be male).

1 hour ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Why? Her name is Christine and nickname Chris.  It's her name, she can use it the way she wants to. What if someone is named Robin or Morgan or Andi? Is that deceptive?  

The issue is not having an ambiguous name, e.g....Erin, Terry, Pat, etc.

The issue is that Christine enjoyed the surprise and embarrassment that men expressed after realizing that she was a she, and not a he. 

The only reason I know about this is because she made it a point to brag about it.

4 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

On the other hand, when I look at CEOs of tech companies, or employees in a finance-related business I work with, there are a whole lot of men in the prime roles and not many women.  I think it's great that some women are participating at the highest levels.  Not all women want to get there, but it's still a harder road for women to get there than men. 

I would argue that this trend is definitely changing within both tech and the finance industries. On the flip side though, some professions are heavily dominated by women - media and public relations being two.

in the wake of the 'women earn 77 cents on the dollar,' (a figure that's been highly contested and disproven) a lot of companies in tech and in other industries are trying to virtue signal by highlighting and publicizing their commitment to advancing opportunities for women at the executive levels; i.e. it's not a question of hiring or promoting the most qualified candidate, but hiring or promoting the most qualified female candidate.

4 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

This is complicated.  On the one hand, if I look at one schools National Honor Society members, there are a whole lot of girls and not many boys.

On the other hand, when I look at CEOs of tech companies, or employees in a finance-related business I work with, there are a whole lot of men in the prime roles and not many women.  I think it's great that some women are participating at the highest levels.  Not all women want to get there, but it's still a harder road for women to get there than men. 

Randi Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg's sister and the person who came up with the idea for Facebook Live) said in an interview that something you can do to help your daughter is to give her a boyish name -- people would agree to meetings with "Randy"  but then be continually surprised when a female showed up. 

I had a female colleague once who's full name was Christine, but who otherwise always went by Chris (including her e-mail address). She actually said that she did get a kick out of the surprise men got when they finally ended up talking to her on the phone (after previously only having sent e-mails) and then realizing that they had been communicating with a woman, not a man. 

I personally always thought that was very juvenile, and deceptiive, on her part.

1 hour ago, SSF said:

Nine times out of 10, I advocate for the scout in any kind of being "active" advancement dispute situation, however, if he is not attending troop meetings or making any camping trips, then I think even the most flexible SM might be hard pressed to justify him as actively participating.

Are there any other troop functions or activities that your son is participating in? i.e. Eagle service projects, troop service projects, fundraisers, etc.

Did he attend summer camp?   

One thing to keep in mind though is that your son's months of active service do not need to be consecutive,. As long as he can piece together six months, even if not consecutive, then each month most definitely counts towards being an active scout. 

If you have a 'my way or the highway" SM though he may not care and might demand that the months be consecutive.They know that's against the rules, but they also know council will do nothing to stop them.

 

 

 

 

Correction four months, not six

Nine times out of 10, I advocate for the scout in any kind of being "active" advancement dispute situation, however, if he is not attending troop meetings or making any camping trips, then I think even the most flexible SM might be hard pressed to justify him as actively participating.

Are there any other troop functions or activities that your son is participating in? i.e. Eagle service projects, troop service projects, fundraisers, etc.

Did he attend summer camp?   

One thing to keep in mind though is that your son's months of active service do not need to be consecutive,. As long as he can piece together six months, even if not consecutive, then each month most definitely counts towards being an active scout. 

If you have a 'my way or the highway" SM though he may not care and might demand that the months be consecutive.They know that's against the rules, but they also know council will do nothing to stop them.

I get fully that there are genuinely difficult, and even downright nasty and condescending, parents out there, but those type of parents are more the exception than the norm. Most are just looking for some guidance, clarification and certainly acknowledgement of their concerns.

Maybe this guy is genuinely difficult or maybe he's just frustrated and looking for some guidance...

In my work with youth and parents, both in scouting and outside of scouting, I would never outright ignore an e-mail, text, phone call, or any communication from a parent. That's just going to frustrate the parent and make them feel disrespected. Respect and courtesy are both two way streets...

Do acknowledge the parent's concern but let them know that it s the scout who should be reaching out; e.g. "Hi Mr. Smith, I appreciate your concerns. Please do ask Billy to send me an e-mail or to see me at the next meeting so that he and I can sit down to discuss."  Then tell Billy that he, and not his Dad, should be driving this discussion and that he should contact the MB counselor himself for clarification on requirements.

5 hours ago, Chris1 said:

Adults that Run troops as their personal fiefdom do not like it when lowly peasants win. And they tend to lash out with whatever influenced they have.

This is all too common and widespread in scouting. I too have been through this myself. 

6 hours ago, an_old_DC said:

I have to agree with @fred johnson on this. I too believe the SM is wrong on this, but @Hawkwinyou are mistaken if you think somebody will "make" the SM drop his policy. I have seen this played out numerous times, and unless there is a legitimate safety or YPT violation, nothing usually changes. Your son can ask for a BOR under disputed circumstances without the SM conference, and then have the BOR conducted by district volunteers. But what then? Unless he switches troops, he's gonna be "that Scout," and you will be "that parent" to the SM, CC and other adults. It'll be difficult for your son.

I have also seen troops tell a family "this is the way we have always done things and if you don't like it, maybe its best for you to find another troop."

Not saying any of this is right, but it's the way things play out sometimes.

 

All too true

7 hours ago, fred johnson said:

@Hawkwin - I fear you are burning bridges with the troop.  Though I think the scoutmaster is very very wrong here, you and your son have to continue in this troop through Eagle.  Or switch to another troop.  Scoutmaster can be a fiefdom owned by the scoutmaster.  It's not always right, but it's how it often is.

Sadly, I would wager also that this is the case.

@Hawkwinin as much as the SM and CC have chosen to be unresponsive to you and your son, I'm sure that the tSM and CC have discussed this issue between themselves and possibly with other committee members who they, most likely, have swayed to their way of thinking.

You can report to the District or Council but all that will happen is that the District or Council will remind the SM and the CC of the Guide to Advancement rules. As Fred noted, your son and your family will still have to continue with this troop.

It is definitely worth considering if staying with this particular troop is the right thing to do for your son.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

You don't think so? Hmm, and what if the scout refuses to recite the oath or law during his BOR. Pass, fail?

What if the BOR (or EBOR) decide to start the review with the Pledge of Allegiance and the scout refuses?

Sound silly! Excepting for the the Pledge of Allegiance, I have seen these examples more than once. 

I don't ever remember hearing the phrase "adding requirements" while I was a scout. I do remember being asked to demonstrate a knot or two and show how to make a splint using my neckerchief. Hmm, was I abused! 

No matter what side we are on with Adding Requirements, I believe the adults have taken this horrible action so out of context that they have lost the perspective in the big picture of developing citizens of character and leaders of integrity.

I admit seeing the "adding requirements" used so much over the past few years with the intent to force power over someone that hearing the phrase makes me sick anytime I hear now. 

My example points out that any person using the phrase becomes an instant hypocrite because every adult has some personal expectation of the scouts that isn't directly prohibited in the manuals. 

If adults can't find a moral wrong for making request of the scouts, then maybe they should evaluate why they are personally offended. If the adult's request is for the purpose to achieve a personal objective (such as requiring Older Scouts to attend all SM Conferences on camp outs to force more older scouts to camp outs), then state why it's wrong without the cover of "adding requirements." 

Barry

 

It's definitely shameful that some have abused the principle of not adding requirements. The topic had never come up while I was in scouts either. 

Having a scout recite the scout oath and law does not constitute adding requirements. Demanding that a scout complete additional nights of camping, serve additional months as active or serve additional months, or redo, a six month stint n a POR constitutes adding requirements.

The other factor is the standard used in evaluating requirements, which might be wrongly perceived as "adding requirements" if the leader or MB counselor may be evaluating the scout to an unusually high and unfair standard. Standards should be reasonable, but that's a separate issue from adding requirements.

Father of two Eagle Scouts here. My younger son just completed his Eagle Board of Review in July. I'm also an Eagle myself.

Yes, the requirements and application process for Eagle are a bit more involved than the other ranks. 

Not sure which, if any, required merit badges your son still needs to complete, but do bear in mind that Personal Fitness, Family Life and Personal Management each have a roughly three month record keeping requirement; i.e. your son cannot complete any one of those three badges in less than the roughly three month time frame.

Regarding the project, my advice to your son would be to, ideally, do something that's personally meaningful to him and to choose a project large enough in scope that it will meet the leadership demonstration requirement to be approved but not so large that it can't be managed and completed effectively.

If he has successfully met all of the requirements, then yes, he can earn Eagle in six months time from the date he had his Life Scout Board of Review. That said though, very few scouts complete Eagle in six months and for those who do, it's generally because they have no other choice because they are about to turn 18. Hopefully that;'s not the case for your son.

On 8/12/2018 at 6:55 PM, ScoutTrainer said:

No - it was expressly clear that he does not require the swim tests for advancement requirements. He stated that he just signs that off in their book and skips it.  He says that none of his Scouts swim at summer camp.  He himself is also a non-swimmer.

I had  missed this part about the SM being a non-swimmer. That's a big part of the problem right there.

People who, for whatever reason, are unable to swim often pass that fear on to their kids, and in this case the SM has projected his own fears of water/swimming onto the scouts in his troop...disturbing.

It may only be a matter of time before this Scoutmaster and Troop's automatic signing off on swimming requirements comes back to bite them. 

Our troop has always conducted its own swim test before summer camp.   

A few years ago though, somehow one scout in our troop, who was an extremely weak swimmer got classified as a "Swimmer." How that happened, I really don't know. although I would venture to guess that the scout or parents said they couldn't make the swim test and then asked the SM to sign off for him claiming that he had passed the year before and/or falsely claiming that he's a good swimmer, when in fact he was anything but that.

At summer camp, however, the aquatics staff quickly noticed that this kid was a very poor swimmer and the camp Aquatics Director later told the SM that the entire troop was going to have to be retested - there at summer camp - since the validity of the troop's own swim test was now questionable. 

In the end, the SM and leaders complained that it wasn't fair to re-test the entire troop and the Aquatics Director chose not to push the issue and the troop as a whole did not have to be retested. The one scout in question was retested though and was reclassified as a Beginner or Non-Swimmer, don't remember which.

Swimming is definitely an integral life skill and this Scoutmaster is doing a tremendous disservice to his scouts by not requiring that they actually complete the BSA swim test as outlined.

Would you be willing to share anything related to the background of this? Even a rough sense of the alleged transgression would be helpful

31 minutes ago, Mich08212 said:

Hey SSF... I just bullet pointed everything for bearess. This should clear up all those questions.

Again, My son turned 18 06/09/99   the same day the paperwork was handed in. The last day to get it in.  And to my knowledge, there has been many who have handed paperwork in on their 18th b-day.   So thats the reason the EBOR was done after his birthday,  But they wait so long after to have it?? Then never respond to a COH? until finally a week ago??

Mich, I can truly and sincerely empathize with what your son and your family are going through and I'm so very sorry that this has happened. 

I feel your pain and I know that it may be tempting to hire an attorney, but I don't think that's the way to go,; especially if your son may have an interest in maintaining a good rapport with his current troop, and possibly becoming an Assistant Scoutmaster in the near future.

Regarding the ECOH, I know that it's not what you want to hear...but it would probably be best to organize one on your own. It can be formal and perhaps rather than focusing on the troop, invite family and friends and those who truly supported your son's advancement.

I do hope you can find some resolution to this and if nothing else, your son should be very proud of what he's accomplished.

7 minutes ago, bearess said:

It’s very hard to give guidance to the OP because they are so unclear.  The entire story has more questions than answers.

Almost eighteen year old earns Eagle.  Ok, got it.  EBOR is delayed well past the thirty day mark.  Was that approved by national?  Is this kid really an Eagle?  Kid is at home, but doesn’t reach out about a COH till summer.  Why?  Troop has held other Eagle COH in this time.  Did the kid attend?  Why wasn’t his included with the others?  Scoutmaster says council has denied the COH.  That’s not councils role.  Was the SM lying?  Did the kid misunderstand?  Something else?  Mom/Dad alleges discrimination.  Why?  On what basis?  Nobody seems to have considered Mom/Dad hosting the COH.  Again, why?  Finally, Mom/Dad can’t find the address for POTUS online?  Or a sample COH script?  

Also, the weirdness of threatening legal action over what amounts to a party.  I’m a teacher.  For each student in my home room, we do birthday breakfast on their birthday.  I pick up a coffee cake and juice, the kid wears a birthday hat.  If I chose not to do that for one kid— sure, that’s mean.  But it’s not illegal, and, assuming I didn’t target the kid because they are a member of a protected class, it’s not going to impact my job.  OP seems to believe a troop run COH is his son’s right, and, well, it isn’t.  It’s something nice the troop chooses to do.  That’s the biggest question for me— the entire thread from OP seems entitled and helpless.  Are those traits carrying over to Scouts?  How had that affected perception of the kid?  How has that influenced the kid’s actions?  What’s the source of the bad blood that led to the situation?

Bearess, I don't disagree with you at all about most of what you shared. Yes, there are a lot of gaping holes and inconsistencies to this and it does appear (based on what's been shared and the apparent timeline) that the scout's EBOR was held after his 18th birthday...raising question as to whether or not he did actually earn the rank.

All of that said though, I thought the response that I responded to was extremely condescending and mean spirited...I mean, seriously, how can anyone say ..."have some burgers and move on with your lives"...completely uncalled for

26 minutes ago, shortridge said:

So I have to ask this. Apologies in advance if it comes across as overly aggressive.

Is this your CoH? Or is it your son’s?

What does your son want?

Why is your son not taking the lead in organizing it, if a CoH is what he wants?

What is your motivation in pursuing this and seeking to force the troop to do something?

Are you driven by what your son truly wants, or by your own desire to avenge a perceived insult to your child and family by the troop?

Why does your son not reach out to his friends and former patrolmates for their addresses and contacts for the invitations?

If he’s living at home, why did your son wait nine months to reach out again about a CoH?

You seem intent to pursue a scorched-Earth approach with this. The claims of possible discrimination and the immediate backing off when questioned also raise a lot of issues. What do you see as the real endgame? What does your son want to be the endgame?

It might be best for your family to cook up some hot dogs and burgers for your son and his friends, do a brief informal ceremony, and move on with your lives.

 

The OP is seeking guidance. Pretty sure she's not looking for pettiness or your judgment

1 hour ago, FireStone said:

I saw the headline. I didn't see the data I asked about. So I'll ask again: Where is the evidence that "most" people feel a certain way about the direction of the SW films? Where is the evidence that "most" people are against what the BSA is doing? 

Opinion pieces that make the same generalizations are not data. Comments on social media are not data. Is ther any actual data what-so-ever that your generalizations are at all factually accurate? 

Triggered? 

I know common sense and logic  may be unique concepts to you but please spare me your semantics

Data? It's all around you, you just have to be willing to actually recognize it. Maybe if you take your head out of where ever it's buried you'd actually see that. Not my job to educate you though buddy. 

Delude yourself if you want to about girls in the BSA. You already know the real answer to how the majority of people in the U.S. feel about that...otherwise you wouldn't be so defensive and triggered

14 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Yes, the ONE healine you shared, from such a reputable newssource no less. How very compelling. But it is wise of you to rest your case there, as there isn't much further you could take it without much hyperbole and vitriol. I did find the following article much more reasonable, however. I am more inclined to follow this line of thinking than yours, despite a few places where I disagree. And it is no better nor worse a source than yours, though I find its argument much more logical and sensible than the fear-mongering many seem to be slathering about:

https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/5/28/17402484/solo-star-wars-box-office-reviews-cameo-death

Now, had you presented your thoughts along  these lines, I may have been pursuaded. But your thoughts just sound ... dare I say, envious. You sound like you are jealous that we like the new movies, but you can't. How very unfortunate that you choose to feel this way (and I say choose very carefully since I realize nobody can MAKE you feel one way or the other). 

“When I inevitably come back”…?

Dude, if you want the last word, just say so. Doesn’t matter to me

Still no comments though on your claiming that I made up “The Force is Female”…still nothing on that? No owning up to that? Not surprising.

Do enjoy reading your Star Wars articles