Col. Flagg

@@mashmaster, it's hard to take the moral high ground in an argument with someone when you essentially said that their religious beliefs (not believing in the gay life style) is tantamount to Jim Crowism, when the very argument itself discriminates based on one's religious beliefs. This is the irony of the Liberal argument. Once you start calling whites or Christians or [insert group here] as being in the wrong, then step all over their legal rights, you are guilty of what you accuse them of.

The law and BSA policy allow what happened to happen. Don't like it, fine. But you can't denigrate the CO or the troop for doing it and remain on the moral high ground. Doesn't work that way.

Plus the same family is also being asked to sell other stuff to raise money for the PTA (or whatever).

 

And sports teams.

 

And other activities.

 

Multiplied by however-many children you have.  And of course if one or more of those is female, Girl Scout Cookies!

 

It got to be a little too much for me.

 

Of course now that my children are adults, nobody is asking me to help sell anything anymore.  It is easier to say no to buying things than selling things... until of course my grandson becomes one of the sellers, then I will have to buy. He is in the 2nd Grade so it can't be too far away.  (He's not in Cub Scouts though.)

Don't have your kid in everything. Pick 1-2 things and be done with it. 

Maybe those other groups are doing too much. Does the orchestra really need a ski trip. Not your example, I know. This is one that happened locally.

Well, we have a boy in our troop that had let his leaders know he was gay during his communications merit badge.  Not exactly the right time to proclaim it I guess but his troop proceeded to inform him that he will never advance in rank even though the BSA had already made their decision.  He came to our troop and we told him that fact doesn't matter to us, we cared about his leadership and ability to complete the requirements.

 

None of the other boys knew in either case about his preference and he is a great leader.  So he is doing quite well.  It infuriates me that the other troop decided to add their view of morality on his scout spirit.  It is pretty clear that this isn't OK, but the District Executive just threw his hands up and refused to do anything.   That was a very sad day for me.

That's the local option working the way BSA intended when they made their policy change. Hopefully the other troop handled it in a respectful manner, but this is what happens when people need to respect each other's positions. The troop respects his right to be who he is, and he has to respect their right to have the troop they want.

Should something else have happened?

http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/10/09/101-great-scout-service-project-ideas/

 

Happy now! 

How did I know this would happen.

In all seriousness, I find it very odd that BSA did not define conservation hours. While I feel it is obvious there are things that would border on whether they should or should not be considered. A scout asked if taking care of his church was "conservation". I pointed out that was most likely "preservation", whereas (So I thought) "conservation" was directed toward natural resources. He promptly opened up his pocket Merriam-Webster and noted:

Definition of conservation

• 1:  a careful preservation and protection of something; especially :  planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect <water conservation><wildlife conservation>
• 2:  the preservation of a physical quantity during transformations or reactions
• So now I am left with anything this as my guide. 

   

I think the kid may be related to you @@Stosh. He was just as stoic when pointing out how wrong I was. You should have seen his smile.

Agreed. Tho I got a good chuckle out of the newspaper comment.

True story. Parents didn't want the kid on email, social media, nothing. He was a local football hero with his name in the paper every week. His Eagle COH was publicized everywhere. School, name, troop, sports team and what car he drives...all in the article.

So much for anonymity. 

That is all speculation as well.

True, but informed speculation. I am trusting that the Scout is telling the truth. We are supposed to take each other on our word, right? 

Otherwise, how do I know you are "David" or you know that I am really a "Colonel"?   

Duplicate links posted above. Good to have an answer however. How long before we see the new knot PLUS the 5 it replaces?

I've already seen it at a district meeting. Of course it was on a Banana Republic general.

You just knew that would happen.

Agreed. On other hand it is a great tool for publicity. We have a website, public facebook page, a closed facebook group for leaders and parents and a twitter feed.

 

We're heading to an era where if you aren't on the internet you don't exist.

I hated FB. I only just got on three years ago. Our unit wasn't on but we developed a page. It is now one of the most trafficked pages in our area, let alone for Scouts. If you google our area we are the first troop that shows up in the search engine. Just by knowing how google and FB engines work, you can really raise the awareness of your group. Pictures are limited and chosen carefully. 

@@Stosh, you can have someone hang around your unit any time and get names, locations, school info, etc. Social media makes it easier, but is someone wants to get the info they can.

My guess is that the dysfunctional leadership of that troop felt the need to address a perceived problem with the scouts by creating their demerit system, when the real problem was likely a leadership deficiency all along. 

Yup, sounds like it. On it's face it sounds like the SM is trying to up the attendance rate by putting in this demerit system. If that's why, your're exactly right @@EmberMike, that's leadership devoid of any ideas of how to spark attendance and build excitement around the program. Too lazy to work with the PLC to develop energizing programs.

On another topic, I've noticed FB will automatically ask if you want certain people tagged. It's doing face recognition, knows who a person is in a photo, and asks you if you want that person tagged. What I don't know is who gets those messages. I see them for pictures that I don't post. My guess is that they are only friends of mine so it shouldn't be an issue, but with facebook I never know.

I knew FB had facial recognition software. I didn't think it could recognize a face specifically as @@MattR...not without someone saying who it is. Can it really recognize a specific person? 

We're still wrestling with this as a troop.  For sure no one's name should be associated with a picture.  If anyone doesn't want their scout's picture displayed that should be honored.  I've talked to several scout professionals about the meaning of the "no private FB groups"  they all agree the wording is poor and should be read as meaning no private FB between a scout and an adult, but private FB groups where the membership includes but is limited to the families of the scouts is the right way to go.

I received a similar directive from my council. Also, like @@Back Pack said, websites can also be considered closed if you need a login. And if you happen to have pictures on it, well that's the same as a closed FB group. 

I find it ironic that parents don't want the troops to post their kid's faces on social media, but they do it all the time AND they tag the kids or not school location, etc. Or worse, they have his full name in the news paper.

Back Pack is right, if you want to find someone on the net just look at the parent's FB feeds.

@@Col. Flagg - The demerit program was not in place when he joined the Troop.  Glad my son has moved on!

Gotcha. Thanks!. That's interesting the leaders felt the need to put it in place. If there's a discipline or attendance problem there are other ways adults can address those issues. Glad he's moved on and found another troop. Hope he has better experiences.

I still wonder what their end-game was, if they were actually willing to seriously damage or derail this boy's scouting career with allegations of forgery just to protect a corrupt SM. Now there's probably a stigma of distrust throughout that entire troop. If I were a parent in that troop and knew about what was going on, we'd be looking for a new troop asap. These leaders might have doomed their entire unit if scouts and parents do scatter after this. 

I'd like to think most of use would never have put our son in such a troop given that may of us -- those who have been in Scouting a long time -- know what to look for. Any unit with a demerit program would have been off my list immediately. Heck, I might have reported them to Council had I known in advance. And no offense meant to @@CaliGirl for not knowing earlier or not asking. That's something no one expects to find in Scouting and may not even be too widely known. Us Scouting geeks on this forum may have missed it too, but I'd like to think we'd have found it early. Well done to @@CaliGirl for getting her son out.

Here's the announcement in Scouting Magazine.

Anyone find anything on this yet? I cannot believe @@Stosh or @@NJCubScouter doesn't have a website with ready reference for all. 

My thoughts...

• They cyber chip requirement for Boy Scouts shows that whoever created it has not had kids in twenty years.
• I *do* like the additional camping and service requirements.
• I would like to see a more concise definition of what constitutes "conservation hours" for those required service hours.

Not sure anything else really sticks out or bugs me.

@@Adamcp, what bugs you besides the cyber chip?

If the scout had not already taken the matter to council, I would agree with you.  

Not sure why that changes anything. The handbook is the official record. The Scout should know if the BOR section was signed off by his troop, his mom, his brother, himself, etc. So, assuming he's telling the truth, you take the Scout at his word unless you have something else to go on.

I would not want to be in a situation where I immediately assume one person is lying over the other. If council gets involved and says "stop everything", that's another matter entirely.

I believe that is still correct.  IH does not fill out a membership application.  Am I wrong?

IH I don't think does. For our CO, which is a church, it would be the head pastor. I don't think we've ever had him fill out an application. Maybe we're doing it wrong. Maybe our membership coordinator is doing it without us knowing. 

Maybe because they do not have to fill out an application for their position, but the IH can also in a second, or these two other specific positions: COR and CC or MC.

 

I believe Scoutparent is no longer allowed.

Anyone on the charter needs an application, no? Either Scouter, MBC or Committee Member. Scout Parent has been gone a few years.

If you fill out a Committee Member application you don't need to put down a role (e.g., treasurer, events, etc.).

I think @@CalicoPenn has it right. That's what I have always seen with regards to unit leaders.

I really like this approach, giving parents detailed info about leadership. Might have to borrow this idea from you.

You mean you want to appropriate it?   Why not? We borrowed it from someone else too.

On our website we have "trained" patches next to the SMs, OA next to OA, etc. We even put the training resumes on the site so folks can see. This is included in the pdf file we distribute during the open house. It really helps cut down on the common questions during open house and allows the parents to see their kids having fun instead.

I don't know who is lying.  I am more inclined to believe teachers over students, and scouters over scouts.  Others on this forum take the opposite approach.  

 

IMHO, none of us on this forum are capable of determining who in this matter is lying and who is telling the truth.  I certainly am not.  

 

Yes, there is no provision for stripping earned rank.  I don't think any of us disagree on that.  

Well, I assume that the person telling the tale to me is telling the truth, unless inconsistencies occur.  I can easily imagine a misguided SM taking away rank. 

 

My point about the lying is if their signatures are in his handbook, then the BOR has been done.  If they acknowledge something is their signature, then claim it didn't take place, then they are lying. 

@@David CO you're right. We have no way of knowing who is telling the truth since are not involved in the primary incident. So I put myself in the new SM's shoes:

• I welcome the new Scout warmly in to the troop.
• I have the meeting with him that's been suggested above.
• We review his records and his handbook. I ask him about his BOR. Who was there? Who signed? His response and mannerisms should tell me if there's any fire where we think there's smoke. If not, I take the book at face value, trust the Scout and award the rank.
• If the Scout's answer is suspicious, then we hold a BOR for him so he can close our the rank. Then we award the rank.

Regardless of whether or not the Scout knows who signed, why would we suspect the Scout over the Scouter? I think we've all seen cases where both parties could be equally liable to not tell the truth. So let's trust BOTH parties. If the BOR is in contention just have another BOR and award the rank. Done!

I love Indian folk lore probably more than most which draws to ceremonies around the native American culture, for he record (not that any of it matters) I have Sioux background. 

Check out the Kwihadi Dancers if you are ever near Amarillo. I grew up around there. It's on the way to Philmont if you are coming from the east. Pretty cool.

And hopefully, no one gave her an outsized voice and changed one thing which is what seems to happen.  People cower from those squeaky wheels instead of standing up for what they think and that emboldens further "protest" as it is seen as successful.  One should just say thanks for your opinion, we will consider it, maybe even have a discussion at an appropriate time and move on.  If she gets a majority of the troop to agree then so be it.  If not she either accepts or moves on to a troop which fits her sensibilities.  Too often, imo, what hhappens is immediate unconditional surrender in the face of the first loud complaint.

The pack double-downed and invited them back for a pack meeting.  

The woman tried to take over the PC but failed miserably. She left. Good thing because her son was a snowflake ready to melt...and horribly behaved. Never scolded because "he will eventually settle down". Never did.

I disagree.  The committee members from the old troop are saying the BOR never took place.  If the BOR never took place, the signatures in the book are invalid.

A Scout is Trustworthy....probably more so than any adults with agendas. Ask the Scout. If he said the signature is from his other troop's BOR, then accept it. If he says he doesn't know where it came from, give the kid a BOR if his book is otherwise signed off.

This can all go away with just one adult rising above all this crappola and investing in the Scout, rather than playing troop-palace intrigue with a bunch of silly parents.

Sorry to say it, but I think it's true, those ideas are outmoded in the the BSA. Traditional scouting is over, and now it's about expansion and program growth. At least in theory and based on what we hear from National. Randall Stephenson said something in his National Meeting speech about how we all have to get on board with change, that growing the movement requires change to just about everything we do, including the program. And I don't suspect he was talking about going back to a more simple/traditional program. 

 

Personally I'm all for it. The more change, the better, because we need it. I'm afraid a traditional scouting program would bore the heck out of kids after a couple of years. We already struggle with membership retention. What happens when we literally have less for kids to choose from? 

 

If STEM or skateboarding or whatever trendy next big thing can be connected to the aims of Scouting and integrated into what we're doing, and thereby make kids more interested in Scouting, I say we do it. 

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? BSA *thinks* they know how to fix the problem. Yet they've been tinkering with the program for decades and nothing has stopped the slow and steady drop, drop, drop of membership. It's the Chinese water torture of membership loss...no cultural appropriation intended.

I'm not sure BSA knows what's trendy. We are talking about a company that uses 1990s technology. Do we really want them trying to figure out what's trendy? Does BSA have a good track record of developing successful changes to their core program? Even their spin offs are floundering. I feel they have too many failing brands. Perhaps they should focus on just 1-2 key brands and 86 the rest.

I think I am more like those who feel that maybe we should just keep the outdoor program focus we have now and let membership hit equilibrium. Find the niche and stay there. Quit trying to appeal to everyone. Go for your core group and be the best you can.