Ankylus

_{1. The school officials here are classic. They are going to tell you just enough to put you on the spot but not enough for you to really act. Gutless, spineless wonders, and unfortunately all too exemplary of most "educators" today. OK, rant over...}

_{2. Really, you don't know a whole lot. I personally don't trust these particular school officials given the way the cavalierly are breaching privacy laws and policies.}

_{3. If you can establish to your satisfaction that he is in fact guilty (not necessarily legally) of a second offense, then the scout has burned his second chance.}

_{4. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is concern for the safety and welfare of the other scouts in the troop. If he is dealing, you really want to expose your other scouts to that? Nobody sends their sons to scouts so that they can experiment with mind inducing drugs.}

_{5. His conduct is clearly contrary to the Scout Oath and Scout Law in several respects. Some people have pointed out that this did not happen within the scouting program. It doesn't matter...we are all supposed to live that way even in our lives outside of scouting. Some have pointed out that we all fall short of the Scout Oath and Law in some ways. So, you think you can a free pass on sinning because everyone else does it? I do believe authority figures stopped accepting that excuse in Kindergarten or so. We all know people who do things they should be punished for but they get away with because they didn't get caught. That is how life works.}

_{6. It is apparent that the parents are going to be of little help.}

_{Once you have satisfied yourself that the scout is indeed guilty of this offense, I think you need to act. I might wait for the scout to be charged.} 

_{We have a formal disciplinary board of review that acts as fact finder and judge. The SM and CC are always on it. The other two members may be either CM or ASM. Boys with relevant information are asked to attend with their parents. Questions are asked. Issues discussed. Then the scout is thanked and, if necessary, punished. Punishment.may range from service hours, to revocation of a POR, to expulsion from the troop. First time offenders are always offered a second chance. I suppose we could have a first time offense serious enough to warrant expulsion, but it hasn't happened yet.}

_{In your case, personally...I agree with the crowd that he has used his second chance and shown that he is not interested in changing his ways. You do him no favors by enabling this behavior. And that is exactly what it is if he suffers no consequences for his refusal to change his behavior. And this is just the stuff you know about. The punishment? I am good with anything from extra service hours, zero tolerance moving forward, extra time to think about it....all the way to expulsion. Personally, I think unreformed druggies are a menace to a program like the scouts, a cancer that needs to be excised. I would expel him.}

By the way, Ankylus, you seem to think I am some sort of spokesman for, and/or persistent defender of, BSA National.  If you look back through my posts over the years, I think you will be disabused of that notion.  I sometimes do give my opinion of why National does or does not have a particular rule, and sometimes I agree with the rule/non-rule and sometimes I don't, and sometimes I can live with it either way.  In fact, on the vast majority of decisions made by BSA National, I can live with it either way.   There have been some notable exceptions, and I have been pretty vocal about the fact that they need to be consistent with their rules and, if there is a rule, use clear language in expressing it, and not play double-secret-reverse April Fools' jokes on us poor slobs out here in the trenches, so we can have some clue about what it is we are supposed to be doing.  But there will never be a rule for every possible subject, especially for hypothetical situations that have not expressed themselves in real life to any significant degree.  That's just the way it is.  If you ever do face the kind of situation you are talking about, please let us know how you dealt with it.  Maybe you will blaze new trails and help your fellow Scouters at the same time.

Actually, I don't think you are a spokesman for national. If my comments imply such, then I chose poorly and I apologize. And if I ever have to deal with it, I will surely let the forum know.

So, @@NJCubScouter, you seem to believe @@qwazse has answered question 1. I am still curious, however:

2. There is a rule that unmarried man and women can't share tents. It's in writing. Just curious....have you ever had to invoke that rule? How common is that in your experience? Because it has only ever happened once in mine and I have been active in scouting for, I don't know, maybe 25 or 30 years.  I am also the only person who has mentioned having to actually invoke the rule in this thread. If you haven't ever had to invoke it, what makes the two unmarried people of the same sex, also gay in this circumstance, any less deserving of a written rule? How rare does it have to be before BSA can simply ignore it?

 

3. We have over a hundred boys in our troop. Statistically speaking, then, we have 3 or 4 gay boys in the troop. None of them are "openly gay", but they could change that in a heartbeat if they wanted. So I KNOW there are latent issues with tenting arrangements. And yet I have no instruction on how to handle that. Not even a "use your best judgment" rule. Why isn't this point deserving of a written rule? The potential is certainly greater than two openly gay males trying to share a tent. Again, how rare does it have to be to deserve a written rule?

@@Ankylus, good questions.

 

1. Rule #1: don't ask for a rule, it will come back to bite you. In Irving are the last people who I would find qualified to legislate any same-sex couple, thruple, or whoever else who may join us on the trail.

 

2. I don't know what you mean by "invoking." By virtue of dealing wih venturers and the occasional mom chaperoning with the troop. we follow this rule without dissent. Already, there are plenty of instances where my venturer's (or troop moms) would be just fine in mixed sleeping quarters without putting up a tarp/divider, or having the odd woman out pitch a tent. My other adult leaders have said so. But, the last thing I need is to be pilloried by someone who wasn't even on the particular trip over YPT. BSA provides people of the same sex a rule: they can tent together. Period. Follow it. Done.

 

3. See point 1 above., and page 1 of G2SS "In situations not specifically covered in this guide, activity planners should evaluate the risk or potential risk of harm, and respond with action plans based on common sense, community standards, the Boy Scout motto, and safety policies and practices commonly prescribed for the activity by experienced providers and practitioners." There in writing is the "use your judgement" directive you were looking for.

 

All this is why I prefer to sleep under open sky.

1. I understand the sentiment about rules.

2. By "invoking", I mean had to cite the rule in the guise of working with adult conduct. I am curious because @@NJCubScouter thinks no rule is needed about openly gay males tenting together because it so rarely happens and has never happened in his experience. I am interested in how "rare" is "rare", and he seems to think his personal experience is relative to this measure. So I just asked the question.

3. The general fallback, catch-all rule.Yes, it's there, and it's written. It has been my experience that these kinds of rules are written for the benefit of the promulgators rather than those for whom it is promulgated. Maximum flexibility to both CYA and criticize the front line people. "We told them to use their "best" judgment or "good" judgment and that is clearly "bad" judgment!"

But thank you.

Went in 2010 and had to do the same thing. Some crews ignored or didn't hear the instructions and summited anyway. One crew that did that was the same crew that had a bear attack their scout in the tent. Eating food in tent.

Maybe our adult leader just ignored it then.

Does anyone know when we can REALISTICALLY expect to find out our assigned trek?

 

Our assigned date to submit preferences was on April 4th, and I submitted our choices right when the button became active. I had been expecting that we'd get an almost instant confirmation of our assigned trek, since I thought it was supposed to be first-come-first-served based on when you submit your choices. Instead, I got back a response saying that we'd find out what trek we get by June 1st. I don't see any reason why it should take anywhere near that long. It's been 2 weeks now, and nothing.

 

Honestly, I don't see why the web server can't just make the assignments instantly if it's first-come-first-served.

 

-Joe

We have had our trek assignment for a couple of weeks. But we are on a 2-week trek...might be different.

It doesn't.

 

I think the BSA expects local leaders, units and CO's to exercise a degree of common sense and discretion when there is no specific rule on a subject.  In other words, the idea seems to be that if left to themselves, people will usually choose to behave reasonably and not cause undue discomfort for others.  If not, the unit and/or CO may get involved. Obviously that idea does NOT apply to interactions between adults and youth, which are the subject of specific rules, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

I also think the BSA tends to shy away from making rules for things that may never happen, or almost never.  (YP again being an exception.)  Gay leaders have been permitted for two years now, which is not a long period of time, but it's not nothing, either. So, Stosh, do you have two (or more) openly gay adult leaders in your troop?  I'll bet you $1 you don't have any, partly because I'm guessing and partly because you said you'd quit if your unit had an openly gay adult leader.  There's no issue who they tent with if they don't exist.  My troop has not had any openly gay leaders, or Scouts for that matter, though there was one Scout who "came out" after he left the troop.  I have not heard of any in our district or council, not that I necessarily would have heard, but the fact is that I haven't heard.  Nor do I recall anyone in this forum mentioning that he/she was a BSA member and is openly gay, since the policy was changed, nor do I recall anyone saying they even had an openly gay leader in their unit.  Much less two.  (There was a forum member, who left years before the policy was changed, who said he was gay, but he himself seemed unsure as to whether he was "openly gay", and one of our current forum members has identified himself as openly gay, but the BSA policy never applied to him because he is in the UK.)  At the time of the policy change there was an article about one gay leader rejoining the BSA, and of course there was also the Eagle Scout who was famously being hired as a camp staffer in New York.  One must assume there are others, but apparently not enough for the BSA to decide to make a policy about.

1. I agree "the BSA expects local leaders, units and CO's to exercise a degree of common sense and discretion when there is no specific rule on a subject". That having been said, they need to put it in writing just so that it's plain and clear. I mean, if it's so rare it doesn't happen, then how is it going to hurt you to put it in writing?

2. There is a rule that unmarried man and women can't share tents. It's in writing. Just curious....have you ever had to invoke that rule? How common is that in your experience? Because it has only ever happened once in mine and I have been active in scouting for, I don't know, maybe 25 or 30 years.  I am also the only person who has mentioned having to actually invoke the rule in this thread. If you haven't ever had to invoke it, what makes the two unmarried people of the same sex, also gay in this circumstance, any less deserving of a written rule? How rare does it have to be before BSA can simply ignore it?

3. We have over a hundred boys in our troop. Statistically speaking, then, we have 3 or 4 gay boys in the troop. None of them are "openly gay", but they could change that in a heartbeat if they wanted. So I KNOW there are latent issues with tenting arrangements. And yet I have no instruction on how to handle that. Not even a "use your best judgment" rule. Why isn't this point deserving of a written rule? The potential is certainly greater than two openly gay males trying to share a tent. Again, how rare does it have to be to deserve a written rule?

@@RememberSchiff,

 

There is only one at Philmont I know of. Summiting Baldy has a time you must check in at Baldy Town Camp. Philmonts reason is so that crews have a reasonable time to summit and descend the mountain before frequent afternoon thunderstorms.

This was not true in 2010. We started out from Miranda on our layover day, climbed Baldie without checking in with anybody, and then descended down the other side of Baldie to Baldie Town. We even took a side trip to French Henry before going to Baldie Town. Maybe they changed the policy in the last 7 years. Perhaps I will find out in July, although we don't get to hit Baldie.

If that's a joke, it's so clever and sophisticated that I don't get it.

Mayflower, Puritans, sexually repressed....and so on.

Actually, knots are highly significant in some areas of science and technology.

For example, "knot theory" is an important field in mathematics. Some studies indicate that the universe may actually be a large woven "mat" and that knot theory may be a key to unlocking further understanding of the structure of the universe:

http://discovermagazine.com/1993/apr/loopsofspace199

One aspect of knot theory is how stresses are transmitted and held in a "knot" or structure including knots, including the filaments of the knot or structure.

And, nanotubes and some other emerging technologies are making new structures possible in which knot theory and this kind of study will be crucial from an engineering standpoint.

So, the study is more important than might seem at first blush.

What about gay couples that may not be allowed to get married?

This is a red herring in the U.S. In case you missed it, SCOTUS ruled a couple of years ago that homosexuals have a constitutional right to get married.

So, there's no excuses now. Gays can be married or not, according to their desires, just like heterosexual people.

And so the rules apply to gays just like heteros...if hetero couple can do it, a gay couple can do it and vice versa. If marital status is determinative for the hetero sexual couple, then it is also for gay couples.

The whole "but we're not allowed to marry" excuse is now void and invalid.

There are many ways to skin a cat, but I agree that you are looking at it a bit backwards.

At Philmont, there is no substitute for breaking camp early. 4:30 am seems a bit early to me, and you don't necessarily have to breakfast on the trail. But these things depend on your crew.

When you breakfast in the campsite there is a strong tendency to congregate around the cooking area instead of breaking down and packing up. But if your crew is sufficiently disciplined, you can still breakfast in camp and get an early start. If your crew is not disciplined--and it takes only one--then you might want to breakfast on the trail.

As for start time, I would start the same time every morning so everyone gets conditioned to that. And again it depends on your crew. I agree that you need to be on the trail by sunrise, or shortly after, regardless of your plan for the day. If your crew can get up at 5:30 and do that, then get up at 5:30. If they can't, then get up earlier. The goal here is to be on the trail at sunrise, or as close thereafter as you can. Because, again, if you don't, there will be a tendency to laze around the campsite and take too long to get on the trail.

You can't really get on the trail until it gets light enough to see. If you are on the trail at sunrise and you are not getting to camp in time for program, then you will have done what you can.

To me these things just depend on your crew. Do what you have to do to get on the trail by sunrise.

I've seen troops require the ASMs to take a role or stop being ASMs. In other words you're active or youre not an ASM.

I certainly can live with that, provided you have a sufficiently flexible definition of "active." For example, we conduct that annual district camporee, and we need a lot of those guys who show up only once or twice a year to be able to hold the shooting and climbing events, for example.

Wow, a necrothread. I'll chime in anyway since it seems to be going around.

The behavior is inappropriate and sharing the tent is against policy. The SM and the CC ask for a meeting with the two of them. There's no easy way to say it, so the CC just says, "The two of you have been sharing PDA at scout functions in front of the scouts and you even shared a tent on a campout contrary to BSA policy. The tenting arrangement will not happen again or we go to the COR and the CO again and ask them to revoke their consent for your position. According to reports that we are getting from parents, the PDA is bothering some of the scouts. We ask that you discontinue that  or at least tone it down. Please remember we are here for the scouts and we should not intentionally engage in behavior that is socially questionable and makes the scouts uncomfortable. We don't care what you do in your personal life away from the troop, but when the scouts are around you must behave in a manner appropriate to your position."

Non-negotiable on the sleeping arrangements.

Now, some of this is that I am a lawyer and I am accustomed to conflict. Some of it is because I am a direct person.  But in this situation, they have to understand that their behavior is inappropriate and that changes will be made. Either they will change their behavior, or their relationship with the troop will change. There really is no "easy" way to say that, so say it directly so that expectations are clearly communicated and, if things get worse, they can't say they weren't warned.

Our unit requires all ASMs to take S11 and S24, as well as all online training and CPR/AED. The goal is to make sure that if the SM drops, we can keep going. This approach does send some folks packing, and good riddance. If they don't want to be trained they don't have the commitment to keeping the boys safe. Those who do step up are worth their weight in gold. That said, we have nearly 18 active ASMs. 

 

What keeps them up at night? Accusations, accidents on their watch, getting sued, parent drama.

We have 1 SM and 42 ASMs, but probably half those ASMs are not particularly active. We don't require CPR/AED for all of them, but some are certified climbing instructors, some are NRA SORs, some are certified for archery....we see most of the less active ones 2 or 3 times a year depending on how often we need their skills. It's the recruiting for the ASMs that we ask to show up every week that gets difficult sometimes.

Stumbled across this today and thought some of our girl scouting friends might be interested. A first step in sharing program and resources:

http://www.summitbsa.org/high-adventure-girl-scout-style/

In my experience, the biggest impediment to recruiting adult volunteers is time commitment fro training. We require position appropriate training before registering them.  Some won't do anything because they just don't want to be bothered. Some will volunteer only for those positions with minimal online training. A very few will take on the positions tat require training beyond online training.

But the fear of the legal allegation is very real. We work really hard to develop techniques to prevent that, including YPT techniques espoused by BSA. 

Found among the 527 Scouting Commandments:

 

"BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA SCOUTER CODE OF CONDUCT

 

On my honor I promise to do my best to comply with this Boy Scouts of America Scouter Code of Conduct while serving in my capacity as an adult leader:

 

. . .

6. I will not discuss or engage in any form of sexual conduct while engaged in Scouting activities. I will refer Scouts with questions regarding these topics to talk to their parents or spiritual advisor."

I am still dreading the day I have to figure out tenting arrangements for an openly gay or "transgendered" boy.

And they are just realizing this?   

 

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/gender-expert-teens-are-trying-to-be-transgender-because-its-trendy/

Diagnosing boys as ADD/ADHD because they won't behave like girls has been decried as trendy for some time now and yet the pace of diagnosis hasn't slowed. 

Howdy! And welcome to the forum, from Texas.

Spring break is just finishing up in my neck of the woods. My GS troop spent it backpacking a section of the AT trail in North Carolina/Tennessee. The BSA troop did nothing. Couldn't even get a few boys out to help on a couple of Eagle Projects during the week. Girls trekked through rain, sleet, snow, then high temps and lots of mud. Boys didn't do much that I know of. A couple went on family vacations, rest were on their rumps. So I'd say my girls had more fun and bragging rights too.

 

BTW - 2 out of 3 of the adults on the AT were Dads hiking with their daughters. For one Dad this was his second doing an AT section with the same troop.

 

My troop has no issue with Dads helping out. EMT hubby and lifeguard son have taught first aid and water safety to the girls. Hubby of head leader (a card carrying lifetime GS member) has taught woodworking, knots and fire building among other things to the girls. IMHO, GSUSA doesn't have issues with men, but they'd rather women be the lead. My council even has a guy as one of its employees, in a position similar to a DE in the BSA system.

 

But it has been noted that I don't have a 'normal' GSUSA troop either.

I wish my daughter could have been in your troop. Thank you.

While I am sure that a suspicion of a predatory aspect - going hand in hand with being male , is part of the unwelcoming position.  I believe that a large part of it is also that part of the point of Girl Scouts is also to teach the Girls that they can do it on their own, to empower them, to know that they do not have to have a man do things for them.

 

So on the occasions when I have been asked to teach something to my daughter's troop (usually camping or scoutcraft related), I have always tried to be mindful of this aspect.  Particularly in having the girls (or mothers) help each other whenever possible.

 

This was even prevalent one time when my son was asked to demonstrate setting up a tent for them, one of the girls even said "why do we need boys to show us that", which was true, since I knew that some of the girls have camped and set up tents before.

Then they better get busy and find some women who want to take the girls camping. I understand your point, but it ain't happening with the outdoor program.

Is your compass course going to be more of a geocaching kind of thing or just straight orienteering? Is that for a rank advancement?

We have a couple of ex-army guys who set up our courses. They do an excellent job, and the boys really learn something. A classic scouting skill, too. 

Sounds like y'all are gonna have fun.

@@Phrogger,

The quick answer to your question is "no".

There is the theoretical, and there is the practical.

The literal, theoretical answer to your question lies in the MB requirements. Do the requirements for the Cooking MB anywhere in them state that the scout must be a First Class scout before taking the MB? No, they do not. And so the answer to your question is "no". For a counter-example, look at Lifesaving MB which requires a scout to first, "Complete Second Class rank requirements 5a through 5d and First Class rank requirements 6a, 6b, and 6e."

Also on the theoretical side, the SM is given some level of discretion in permitting any particular individual scout from taking certain MBs. For example, Lifesaving MB (again) requires as scout to, "Recover a 10-pound weight in 8 to 10 feet of water using a feetfirst surface dive. Repeat using a headfirst surface dive." If a scout is a non-swimmer, or a poor swimmer who is slightly built, the SM might decide that Lifesaving MB is not a good choice at this point in his scouting career.

Also in theory, requirements over and above those stated in the national program cannot be "added" by any individual or unit. That includes MBs and earning them. This circumscribes the SM's discretion described in the paragraph above. So, what he cannot do is say something like, "A scout must be First Class to work on Eagle-required MBs."

Finally, a unit may NOT artificially retard, inhibit or hamper a scout's advancement. Every scout advances at his own pace. This is closely tied to the rule that units and leaders cannot 

So, now let's talk practice. 

Every troop I have ever seen that says something like, "A scout must be First Class to take Eagle required MBs" is trying to intentionally retard the scouts' advancement. The goal is to make sure that they don't have any 14 yo Eagles, or some such other prohibited rationale. Every single time without exception. And if you look at it more, I am willing to bet that other aspects of their policy will have that same effect. They also typically control the Positions of Responsibility for the same reason and with the same effect.

As a practical matter, this is not necessarily all bad. I agree that most 14 yo Eagle scouts aren't really ready and that they typically don't get the most out of scouting that they can. They typically also drop out of scouting instead of giving back, running off to check yet more boxes and add yet more things to their "college resume". Also, Eagle-required MBs are indeed usually a bit more intensive and require more effort, which means that it is more likely to he will earn only a partial at Summer Camp rather than the whole badge. And, he can focus more closely on earning First Class if he's not working on MBs.

But it is not fair to the scout and it perverts the program. The justifications in the previous paragraph also prevent the scout from learning valuable life lessons about over-reaching one's abilities and overcoming failure. These things, too, are part of the scouting program. 

Whether this is a problem for you and your scout depends on you two. Perhaps you are willing to put up with it because the program is so good. Or, perhaps it really meshes well with your scout's personality.

I will tell you that the few times I have seen scouts and their parents push on these points it has never ended well for anybody. The scout usually ends up transferring troops anyway.

In my opinion, good first year at camp MBs include Swimming, First Aid, Leatherworking, Wood Carving, Indian Lore, Horsemanship, Forestry, Geology...lots of good ones. 

I'm sympathetic to this girl, however I feel I am maxed out at 14 for the troop.

I gather from @@ShootingSports reply that you might not have a choice.

I get the feeling that you are beginning to feel like you have more than you can handle because of the size of your troop. Some of the responses from the BSA perspective are glossing over something significant that is different between the two programs that @@bsaggcmom hits on.

That difference is the size of the group based on organizational dynamics. Management techniques and styles must change with the size of the organization. A small group can be managed quite well with techniques that will make a medium-sized organization dysfunctional and that will outright doom a larger organization to failure. A small group can just be managed as "the group", but as the organization grows it will have to be organized into subunits. Ever see a large corporation that wasn't divided into divisions, groups, and sections? No, because it wouldn't survive without being organized into subgroups.

Based on my observation and experience, there are certain numbers that mark a "critical mass" that inherently force the change in management styles. You are on the cusp of one. Depending on the organization's purpose, it's goals, and it's membership, the critical mass between small and medium is about 15-20 members. That is why you feel like you are starting to "max out"...you are approaching critical mass for which your leadership style will become insufficient. 

The boy scouting program contemplates this directly and deals with it using the "patrol method". The average boy scout troop is 25 boys. BSA recommends "patrols"--the subunits--be about 8 boys. So, the average boy scout troop has 16 -21 boys in divided into 2 or 3 patrols, each with a boy "patrol leader", and a handful of scouts in troop-wide leadership positions. Note the subtle way this increases to opportunity for teaching and learning leadership skills, too. Boys can learn rudimentary leadership skills as patrol leaders before moving onto more difficult and complicated leadership positions over larger numbers of boys.

It is my understanding, and I may be completely wrong, that Girl Scouts does not teach this kind of approach to the question of organizational dynamics. It sounds to me like they try to avoid the issue by capping the number of members in the troop. Your problem, then, is that they are starting to push you into a situation for which they have provided no or insufficient guidance and training.

However, as @@bsaggcmom so amply demonstrates, there is no reason why the patrol method cannot be successfully implemented into medium or large sized GS troop. And it has worked wonderfully for her, and I think many BSA volunteers could learn from her experience. The patrol method is not complicated in theory and there is a lot of material on it that you can access to learn more if you wish.

Your bigger problem is that you are not quite yet "medium-sized". There's always that awkward period where you are not really small and not really medium. So you either muddle along like a small troop or you muddle along like a medium sized troop. Since your national organization is apparently forcing you out of "small", if I were you I would focus on recruiting a couple more girls to make it to "medium".

Good luck.