Jump to content

elitts

Moderators
  • Content Count

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by elitts

  1. I don't personally get particularly stuck on the whole issue in general, but it seems that you don't seem to grasp the meaning of the concept of a "uniform". If all you want to do is wear the BSA shirt, that's fine and you can decorate it however your heart desires. But by definition, if your patches and emblems aren't arranged to the standard, you aren't "in uniform". I agree that if someone knowingly chooses to wear the uniform improperly or has their patch placements incorrect, it's not anyone else's duty to correct them except perhaps the Scoutmaster. However, I do think it is g
  2. You believe it's child abuse. You need to keep that "I believe" part of the concept firmly in mind when you are attempting to make what amounts to policy decisions for your troop. The fact of the matter is that ideas of what constitutes "child abuse" varies significantly from person to person in the US. As a result, it becomes important to set policies based upon standards that aren't as subjective as "What this particular person thinks". If you actually think this parent represents a clearly articulable danger to any children they happen to around, then I'd say you probably should fig
  3. An excellent opportunity to practice what we teach our teenagers. "Just say NO!". If any council representative actually had the balls to tell me they thought we should give them 50% of our earnings, I'd probably spend the next 5 minutes laughing in his face. Then after I'd finished, I'd offer the following: We'll give you 30% of our fundraising take in each and every year in which the council actually manages to process all of the troop, scouter and MBC paperwork and applications the first time they are submitted, AND can actually keep the MBC list updated to within 3 months.
  4. I'll agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. And in addition, I'll add that learning early on in life how to take a poor choice of your own making and then figuring out how to deal with the repercussions and gaining experience from it is a valuable skill. I know I met any number of kids in college that turned into absolute wrecks the first time they had things fall apart on them in without parents right there to backstop them.
  5. I'll admit to being a uniform avoider, even as an ASM. (Though if I'm ever acting officially for the troop I wear it) In my case the primary issue isn't cost, it's comfort. The Scouts BSA shirt has got to be one of the worst designed, most uncomfortable shirts I've ever come across. The cotton shirt is so thick it's like wearing your own personal sweatbox if you are anywhere above 70 degrees, or if you are doing anything active at all. The microfiber shirt is so poorly fitted that it makes me look like a flying squirrel with the webbed armpits (plus, it's not particularly cool either).
  6. This is why it really frustrates me when parents don't bother bringing their kids to the ECOH since their own child won't be receiving an award. I mean, I get it, your family is busy. But if just getting the kid there is a problem, then let someone know and we'll find them a ride.
  7. Personally, I think if you go past 3 rows, you start looking like one of the "3rd World General" memes, but I don't actually start laughing at someone (on the inside) until I see them wearing 4+ medals to go with all the knots. I kind of view it the same way I think of someone who signs a letter or email with 5 or 6 or more different sets of initials, I guess out of some fear that people won't realize how important they are. (I worked with a woman who was an appraiser for a government unit. She ALWAYS signed her name as Jane Smith, BA, JD, CPA, CRE, RAIII, CAE, MAA)
  8. I'm trying to switch our patrols over to the "Ingenio Stackable Cookware". It's a little thicker on the bottom than the super thin aluminum or steel so the kids don't burn stuff quite as much. Plus the interchangeable handles are awesome. https://www.amazon.com/Tefal-L2009542-Ingenio-Essential-Piece/dp/B07KY9CQYY/ref=asc_df_B07KY9CQYY/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=241997753661&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6931541859676559564&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=901748
  9. In general, I agree with you. The only reason I think the label is relevant and worth addressing (at the adult level) in some of these situations is that when the stories inevitably get conveyed to other parents, you can end up with some serious misunderstandings when: Johnny was teasing Steve this weekend and at one point Steve started crying. So Mr. SM had a talk with Johnny. gets reported to other parents as: Johnny was bullying Steve to the point of tears all weekend long and Mr. SM did was have a quick chat with him.
  10. The thing that people tend to get caught up arguing about lately is that bullying isn't any of those things happening once or twice. (some people think it differently) Any of those things needs to be stopped immediately, but they aren't "Bullying" until someone is doing whatever it is deliberately and repeatedly.
  11. I think what's likely is one of two things. Either someone did the following calculation: 1. If someone falls on a wood boardwalk we allowed to be installed, they might sue us for permitting it to be slippery or a tripping/falling hazard. 2. If someone falls on a natural trail, they can't sue us because "hey, it's the ground!" or Someone with some clout was out there and saw the leaf covered boardwalk and thought it was ugly because they just "wanted to enjoy the pristine wilderness in it's natural state".
  12. They are definitely different, but to my mind the reason why any connection is drawn between them is that a large percentage of the US population agrees with the idea that rights in any situation should be infringed as minimally as possible, so long as a minimal level of safety (though undoubtably there are arguments about that that "minimal level of safety" should be) can be provided to children. School searches simply represents a well documented area that is at least similar to what we are talking about with scouting so it provide a jumping off point for the scouting discussion. That
  13. The difference between a bag search and the scout age difference is in the level of harm and irrepairability of harm if an offense occurs. If a scout brings porn, or drugs, or a weapon on a camp-out there is still a secondary opportunity to do something about the problem. Because of this, simple possession of one contraband doesn't represent the level of potential harm that should be needed to not go with "trust the scouts" as a standard. But if a 17 year old does something to a 12 year old in their tent at night, the harm is immediate and lasting and essentially un-fixable so a more intrus
  14. Mandatory blanket searches of bags isn't legal for schools, regardless of whether or not they do it. (perhaps excepting voluntary trips where a search is an announced condition of attendance) So the reason the scout should be present is the same reason they should be present for a search for a school trip; the student or scout should be offered the option of either opening their bag up for inspection, or not attending the trip. It's the same principle as inspections by the TSA, you don't HAVE to let TSA search your bags just because you are in an airport, you only have to submit to the s
  15. If your school is conducting blanket searches of personal belongings, it's violating the law. A student's rights under the 4th amendment are only bent a little, not waived completely. If the school has made it clear that lockers are NOT personal, they have every right to open and search the lockers whenever they wish. But this right doesn't extend to searching through the contents of any containers (like a purse or backpack) within the locker. So you can go through and find the bag, books, coat and shoes in the locker, but you don't have the right to extend your search to opening and going
  16. In a strict sense of Authority=Power, I will agree that the COR has whatever "authority" it thinks it needs because there's no one that can tell them no. But I think it's very important for people to keep in mind that just because you have the power to do something doesn't make you the authorized agent/actor in a particular situation. And I don't think that's just an issue of rationalization or sophistry. Sometimes in many areas of life we may have to make decisions and take actions that don't follow the established program, and if the situation requires it, fine. But we should never forge
  17. Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. Along with the fact that the skid loading work was done by his parents and scoutmaster. Plus, while I'll grant kudos to the kid for being eager, I've never like the idea of glorifying the "Speedy Eagle".
  18. Let's be clear though, the COR does not officially (as in, per BSA policies) have the "authority" to a veto right over any and all troop activities at his or her whim. If that were supposed to be a part of the official process for determining the annual schedule, then it would be a part of the trainings on the Scouting website. The fact that the CO "owns the unit" doesn't mean they have the authority to do whatever they want, it just means they have the power to. There are still proper and improper ways to do things. But there's no arguing that if the CO insists that the troop give the
  19. Now, in direct contravention of my post on page one, I was just taking the most recent training on "Annual Troop Program Planning for Scouts BSA" and it does explicitly state that the SPL and SM have to submit the annual Program Plan to the Troop Committee for the Committee's review and support and that the Troop Committee has the right to refuse the Program Plan or request revisions if they feel it's unsafe or unwise (for whatever reason).
  20. No, not quite. The relationship isn't that direct. At least it shouldn't be. The CO owns/controls the unit the way one business owns a subsidiary or the way a Board of Directors controls a company. While the CO should certainly be aware of the troop's plans and activities, and is able to issue general rules relevant to the organization's beliefs (for example a strict Baptist Church restricting the playing of games with cards during troop events), the CO doesn't have day to day control over the troop. They wouldn't get formal approval of the calendar of activities and they usuall
  21. If a Christian pastor/preacher/priest is involved in a "non-denominational" service, all they mean is "Non-denominational Christian". What you should actually be asking for is "Inter-faith" if you want more than simply Christian faiths to be either involved or accepted.
  22. The CC shouldn't have any role in determining whether an activity is participated in by the scouts unless it requires funding beyond that which the scouts can provide on an immediate basis. The SM's role here shouldn't be thought of as "approval" but rather the option to exercise a "veto" if an activity is inherently unsafe or in violation of scouting principles. And even if a veto of the exact plan proposed is necessary, the SM should be guiding the PLC as to how to modify a vetoed plan in order to make it safe enough to act on. Beyond that, the only other control any scouters should h
  23. Not to mention that allowing people who where injured 30-40 years ago to be compensated at 2019 inflated numbers is a huge potential mess. Statutes of Limitations were established for some very good reasons.
  24. Most of the other camp pages I've seen talking about homesickness said there are a number of ways that well-meaning parents sabotage their own kids before camp and warn parents against it. Sending kids off with a teary "I'm going to miss you SOO much"; Talking about what the family is going to do while the scout is gone as anything other than "sitting at home doing nothing"; Reassuring "last minute jitters" with "Just give it a try and see how you like it the first day or two"; Writing multiple letters to arrive each day (implies lack of confidence in the scout's abilit
  25. My issue with this article is right here: This article specifically explains that in each of the cases mentioned, the boy in question didn't tell anyone what had happened. (the one exception was the person who's family told the Chartering Organization) So if we are talking about complaints never filed, why is the article attempting to make it appear that BSA deliberately misrepresented the problem or was deliberately hiding the accusations? I realize that in a technical sense, the "previously acknowledged" line isn't inaccurate, but the inference it's making is clearly that BSA h
×
×
  • Create New...