HelpfulTracks

I cannot speak to The Latin Scot’s plans, but I have spoken to a number of LDS Scouters that are planning on staying involved with Scouting.

Refardless of his plans, I have no doubt he will continue to serve others, which is fully within the spirit of the OA.

That pretty much sums up the experience. 

Very happy I had the opportunity to experience it.

After a decade of being closed Treasure Island Scout Reservation may actually have a future for Scouts again.

It is not exactly the same, as it has been sold to a private developer who plans to open it as a commercial campground, but the deal will allow Boy Scouts to camp there for free.

For those that do not know, Treasure Island is where the Order of the Arrow was born. After a couple of floods, it fell into disrepair and was closed. It has been for sale for some time and most previous potential buyers were looking to develop it for something other than camping.

The original OA circle has been moved in whole to the Summit, but it is nice to see a piece of Scouting history may still have some Scouting life left.

https://patch.com/pennsylvania/newhope-lambertville/former-boy-scout-island-delaware-river-reopen-campground

5 hours ago, David CO said:

I do think there is something inherently wrong with it.

My parish doesn't give any public recognition for donations. Tithing is private matter. 

 

And giving to Scouting is not tithing.

4 hours ago, David CO said:

I understand that. I have seen it too. When my parish recently built an addition, my pastor expressly forbade having any name plaques on the building to recognize donations. He thinks such things are prideful. It has no place in a church building.

I particularly dislike it when government bodies sell the naming rights to public properties. All of our parks are now named after big donors. The park district actually changed the name of one of our parks, which was previously named after a local civil war hero, to sell the name to the highest bidder.

We had a bit of a flap over it. The Little League initially refused to change the name of the park on their game schedules, and continued to call it by its old name. After the donors objected, the Park District gave the Little League an ultimatum. Either they use the donors name or they lose the use of the baseball fields.

You were absolutely right in your previous post. Your comment definitely applies to me. I am becoming very jaded and cynical. I think I have good cause to be jaded and cynical. It seems that almost everything today is for sale.

In my state, we now have two billionaires competing for governor. How can we not become jaded and cynical?

 

 

I find a level irony in your views. On the one hand, you have consistently argued for the complete obedience of the unit (and Scouts and SM) to the CO, since the CO owns the unit (fiscal interest).

On the other, you are jaded and cynical about others with fiscal interest being recognized.

I use a combination of battery packs and solar to recharge my packs.

I like one large, multi-charge battery, and 2-3  batteries that I can get a few charges out of each.

The large pack is my go to, and the smaller ones can get a complete charge faster.

Is there a way to merge these two threads? I thought I was having Deja vu all over again. 

OA Troop Rep Adviser must be 21. I believe that is because 18-20 is still considered youth in the OA. 

1 hour ago, SSScout said:

I collect such memorabilia, too.  Packed away in plastic, I Show it off sometimes...

 

 

Definitely, take them out and show them off.  I use mine and loads of other memorabilia to teach Scouting Heritage.

It is electric to see the Scouts eyes light up and hear the ohs, ahh's and wow's (and a few snickers at things like the red beret and garters) when they see the piles of old stuff.

This just made me think of Fredrick Russell Burnham. Besides inspiring and mentoring BP, he was later involved in Scouting. 

I believe his grandson was active as an adult volunteer in BSA and his great-grandson is an Eagle Scout. 

Not exactly a line of Eagles, but an interesting line to follow given FRB's place in the birth of Scouting. 

9 hours ago, gblotter said:

Quality is not binary.

You ask me to paint your house.

I can slap one coat on there in an afternoon without any prep work, leaving splatters and drips everywhere.

Or I can take several days to power wash, scrape, fill, sand, tape, prime, plus two top coats.

I do believe quality is important, but it is also a slippery slope.  How is it defined? Who defines it? Is it different for each Scout?

I think it better to define the requirements in measurable terms.  For example, "active in the troop" means X% meetings, y% of campouts, z% of service projects. To be credited with completing PoR X, the Scout is expected to do the following; A, B, C.

In your example, I have no problem defining a proper painting job to include those elements IF they are needed.  In fact, the Paining MB does a good job of making those part of the requirements and leaving some room for judgment. 

As for quality, I will go back to the Oath and Law. Did the Scout do his best?

As a Scout, there were MB's I excelled at. If my work had been held as the standard of quality, it would have been unfair to others. There were MB's I struggled with. Had the quality of my work be judged on the standard of some of my peers I would not have received those MB's.

Each Scout is different. The “quality” of their work will differ. Requirements should be standard and defined. They should mean something and not be arbitrary.

Case in point. A real-life situation I have witnessed first-hand. Pioneering MB, two different ASM's as counselors. One was hung up on the "quality" of the fraps (among other things). The fraps had to lay just so or he would not let the Scout move on. Other than esthetics, his quality requirement added nothing to the lashing, no more strength, no better hold, it lasted no longer.

The second ASM focused on the "quality" of the lashing. Did it hold? Did it last? Was it strong? The quality of the aesthetics was not a barrier for the Scout to fulfil the requirement.

Most of the Scouts under the first ASM didn't finish the MB, at least not with him. They didn't have fun because they rarely were able to get past just doing lashings on two poles, they rarely built anything.

With the second ASM, most Scouts finished the MB, most continued to build projects after they completed the MB. The quality of their lashings continued to improve, and they taught other Scouts.

The first ASM truly believed he was teaching the MB the right way and that aesthetic quality of the frap counted. But it turned into a barrier for the Scouts to complete the work. 

Quality is important, but it is an arbitrary value that is in the eyes of the beholder. Requirements are far less arbitrary and give the Scout a defined goal to work towards.

On 2/28/2018 at 9:11 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Interesting question.

According to this, https://oa-bsa.org/article/ask-chairman-oa-assistant-scoutmaster-patch

he would be OK to be an OA ASM.

On 2/28/2018 at 11:05 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Why am I not surprised that 1 BSA publication contradicts another BSA publication.

How are they contradicting? I am not seeing any reference to qualifications for OA rep adviser in the first link.

In theory, six generations would be possible, but extremely unlikely. Five would definitely be possible.  I would imagine there are a number of 4th generations and plenty of 3rd gens.

Who is the instigator? Is the boy afraid to be without the dad? Or is dad afraid to let the boy go?

Frankly, our rule is we just don't allow it, it is not healthy for the boy (or the adult). However, now and then we have a youth that just cannot function, so we work with them. But it is really a very very rare REAL problem. It is mostly a discomfort that is quickly overcome by sticking to the "rules".

A conversation (likely several) about where the fear comes from will often fix the issue.  

EDIT: Oh, 100 yards is a suggestion, but a great one. It is usually easy to do if you are backwoods camping or private land. Less so for locations like National parks that have defined "campsites" and impossible for Camporees etc. 

Welcome back!

Glad I could be f assistance.

4 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

This is absolutely correct; in fact, for many decades Scouts were supposed to wear the neckerchief over the collar with the collar tucked under. Allowing them to tuck the necker under is the more recent option, but as @HelpfulTracks has pointed out, both are entirely permitted.

Yes, the whole tucking the collar in is why I really miss the collarless shirts. I loved the old OD green uniforms with no collar. But I believe I was in the minority. 

Just now, The Latin Scot said:

Wear can I obtain this? I searched the Scout supply site to no avail; do you have a link? I LOVE the idea!

If my brain had been working properly I would have added the link in my original post. 

http://nesastore.corecommerce.com/Neckerchiefs/2018-nesa-eagle-neckerchief-eagle-awarded-in-2018.html

NESA is usually pretty good about getting things turned around in quick order.

2 hours ago, gblotter said:

Yes - this boy has remained on the troop roster, but he has rarely meetings or activities. He does get a signed blue card from me for merit badge work. As I said, he does the minimum required.

I used to use the term "minimal requirements", but after some thought I put that term to rest.

Requirements are requirements. There isn't a graduated level to them. I do, however, encourage my Scouts to always try to exceed the requirements, be it Scouting, grades, sports or whatever. It is themselves they shortchange if they never try to go above and beyond. But, a Scout that has 21 merit badge and 6 months of PoR is just as eligible as the Scout that has 60 merit badges 12 months of PoR is, assuming all other requirements are met.

There is one specific requirement that I read differently than some, "As a Life Scout, demonstrate Scout Spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. It is the first part of requirement 2.

An SM signature on an application is not a given, it is a recommendation. So I go back to the first sentence. His time at Scouts in part of his everyday life. Has he DEMONSTRATED living the OAth and Law as a Life Scout?  I find in most things Scouting (and not Scouting) if you go back to the Oath and Law and apply them you will find your answer.

Has the Scout been trustworthy in fulfilling the duties of his PoR or has he shirked them? Has he been Loyal to the unit or just shown up when he feels like it or gains something? Has he been helpful to the other Scouts or just show up as a warm body. Has he done his best?  and so on........you get the point.

The SM signature is an endorsement that a young man has met ALL of the requirements. The Eagle Scout Award is not a participation trophy. If I were you, I would sit him down and have that discussion. I would probably have the same with his father separately.

He can still request a disputed BoR without the signature, but that is a red flag.  If a person that has worked with the Scout for the better part of two years, or more, is unwilling to endorse the Scout, what does that say? It says something about the Scout and the SM.  Then it is in the hands of the BoR to figure out what it says about whom.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

One national level volunteer has stated on FB that National is now looking at coed troops, but segregated patrols. And one employee stated that the Scout program is still being worked on and it may not be ready until late 2019 . When I commented about how Cubs can cross over as early as December 1 2018, his reponse was that they could stay in the pack and work on Activity Badges until the program is set up.

4

Would you mind providing a link to that?

12 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

No rules on slides - a Scout can use whatever they want as a slide as long as it is acceptable to their unit.

The neckerchief should be worn under the collar.  I know that folks like to debate that point but I can point to official BSA documents to back-up my statement.  Look at the BSA issued uniform inspection sheets.  In every case, the example model of proper uniform wear shows the neckerchief being worn under the collar.

Per the 2015 Guide to Awards and Insignia

The unit has a choice of
wearing the neckerchief over
the collar (with the collar
tucked in) or under the collar.

I collect neckers (I love them) and have several different Eagle versions (Blue, White NESA, Lifetime NESA, NESA Jambo, Staff etc).

I usually wear my white NESA to Eagle CoH. But I have seen various versions worn by adults and think it is appropriate no matter which color, after all, Once an Eagle Always an Eagle. And I have never considered the blue one to signify anything other than Eagle Scout (no age qualifier I mean).

BTW - if you are looking to return the favor, NESA makes a red "Eagle Awarded in 2018" necker that would be a nice gift

You are correct, youth+ (18-20) is no mans land for OA in regards to troop positions.

He must be under 18 for Troop Rep and 21 or older for Adviser.

However, there are a number of positions he can take in OA. He can serve in any elected position in OA as long as he does not turn 21 during his term in office.

Also, he can in a number of appointed Committee positions,  as Chair or member. Most Chapters/Lodges have Committee Chairs for Reps, which may be a good spot if his interest is in Troop rep. This would give him excellent insight for being Troop Rep Adviser when he is eligible.

Chapters/Lodges often utilizes youth+ for special Committee’s like Conclave, NOAC and Special projects because of their experience and maturity, and their unique position as OA youth/Troop adult.

I hope that answers your question and helps.

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

When a member states that he/she wants withdraw from a discussion as @HelpfulTracks so stated, his/her request will be respected. Bullying a member to continue a discussion will not be tolerated.

This forum is to provide information, express opinions, and discuss Scouting and related issues according to Scout Oath and Law.

@NJCubScouter , @LeCastor

I don't feel bullied. I just didn't want to continue trying to get my point across over the next 20 post and get wrapped on the knuckles by the mods for arguing like I did a few weeks ago.

I have already decreased the amount of time I spend on these boards to stay clear of the mods. I guess it wasn't enough.

35 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Quite the opposite. We should ALWAYS question the applicability of the Constitution. It is the only way to test our laws. We do this daily was we consult case law, codes and the Constitution. Do our laws fit within the framework? Do they violate our basic rights? I don't see questioning the Constitution -- or even discussing change to it -- as a step down the path of "shredding" it. Rather, I see it as our duty to continue to question all laws against that framework. And if change *is* needed, we operate within the process laid out in the Constitution to change it.

I'd love to see Executive Orders and judicial legislating be a thing of the past. Courts don't belong making policy like they do now, and the Executive does not belong making laws like they do now.

Okay. cool. You are totally missing my point, so I will not waste any more of either of our time and move along. 

41 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

As others have noted, while have free speech, we cannot simply say anything we want whenever we want. I am assuming the same would apply for firearms. We can have firearms but not ANY firearm we want.

You are correct, there are restrictions on free speech, just as restrictions exist on weapons. And I am not opposed to well thought out and effective measures.

My point is simply that saying we need change in laws because the framers could not have foreseen the future is a slippery slope and poor argument that starts us down the path of shredding the Constitution.