elitts
-
Content Count
575 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by elitts
-
-
1 minute ago, DuctTape said:
If the State has an "open meetings" law, this practice may be illegal. Often there are strict laws governing what may be discussed in executive session. At the very least it is unethical. The purpose of public meetings is to discuss (debate) issues.
Oh, I agree that the various "email exchanges" are certainly at least on sketchy legal ground when it comes to the "Open Meetings" act.
Most of the places I've worked that do a "Committee of the whole" or "Executive Committee" skate around the laws by publishing that meeting as well, but what they'll do is put out a notice that reads like:
______________________________________________________________________________________
City of Awesome Council meeting at 7pm on 1/2/19 in Council chambers
Agenda includes:
Formal hearing on Ordinance XYZ,
Monthly bills and expenditures,
Presentation on new wastewater facility
Simulcast in "viewing room" for overflow seating
Council Executive Committee meeting prior to the public meeting at 6:00pm in Conference Room 1
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Usually they aren't really trying to have private discussions, they are just trying to have the actual debate somewhere slightly less formal with less potential for disruption.
-
18 hours ago, qwazse said:
No, I wouldn't make the scout attend until there is a debate. But, I'd say there's a bit of a problem if board members aren't at least discussing the pro-s and con-s of any motions put before them.
Unfortunately, a quite common practice with lots of boards is to have a "Committee of the Whole" or "Executive Committee" type meeting ahead of a contentious issue where they actually do most of the discussing and arguing between actual board members. Or it will happen via email and phone calls. Then at the formal meeting "for the consideration of" you'll get any comment someone wants to be officially part of the record stated, but other than that they stay fairly quiet.
What you DO get at meetings like that is a "Public Comment" section where the opposing sides of an issue have a few minutes to present their view on the issue. Or formal For and Against presentations from NGOs and advocacy groups.
-
I wouldn't accept a HOA meeting, but I would accept a meeting of a public "Neighborhood Association".
I also just told someone no last week when asked about going to a Religious discussion/debate meeting at their church.
When scouts come to me with complaints about getting to a City Council or School Board meeting, I usually suggest they look for Zoning Board meetings for variances or Planning Board meetings. Those are often contentious enough to get the "several points of view".
-
16 hours ago, yknot said:
According to 35 states and the legislative branch of the federal government it is illegal and, according to the American Medical Association, it is child abuse. BSA has already set precedent that it doesn't use legality as a basis for disallowing certain activities and practices around youth that don't fit with scouting values such as marijuana possession, firearms possession or adult pornography. Given, child sexual abuse isn't a "thing" that can be carried onto a camp site or into a meeting, but it is a mentality that scouting prohibits as well as does every other youth organization. It also doesn't seem that BSA has used "conviction" as any kind of basis for determining whether or not a suspected adult should be around scouts either so the legality argument for those outlier states seems irrelevant.
I won't argue that in some places it's considered "Child Abuse", though it isn't everywhere. (I didn't go through every state, but the federal law makes no mention of it) Though I think this is another one of those circumstances where people are expanding terms past the point where there is a useful connection. The whole point of "child abuse" laws was to seriously criminalize patterns of behavior where a single instance might not be criminal as well as to make clear the fact that child abusers are not "one-off offenders" because the factors that lead to child abuse are personality based, not situational. And while FGM is clearly horrible, it doesn't meet any definition of "sexual abuse" that I've ever seen.
All of that is not the issue though, because we aren't talking about whether or not this doctor can be registered as an "Scouter". (I have no problem at all with denying the guy the right to be an adult leader) What the OP was talking about was denying the doctor the right to attend meetings or outings as a parent and given the fact that we don't run a background check on every person who attends a meeting or weekend camp-out if they aren't functioning as an "authority figure"; I can't see a justification for this since there's no one arguing that the guy is an actual risk to anyone.
-
11 minutes ago, qwazse said:
One thing that rankles me is when adults turn uniforming into a binary affair of "in" vs. "out" of uniform.
I send them to a standard issue inspection sheet (https://mediafiles.scoutshop.org/m2pdf/50015_Leaders_Unif_InspFNL.pdf) and say, "So our epic ASM still has his rank patch from way-back-when. Dock him 5 points."
This epic scouter is 95% uniformed.
I am on the verge of being an epic scouter. But, in the winter I'm usually 75% uniformed. (Pants and belt. Sorry, but the Amish leather-worker down the road from my in-laws works some very thick hides into simple masterpieces that have outlasted every other belt that I've had.) Maybe 70% if you want to hack at that mentor pin. Closer to 90% when I'm in my venturing uni because standard issue pants aren't required.
So here you have two epic or near-epic scouters: one 95%, the other 75% uniformed. But, I make the best coffee you'll ever find at a World Jamboree. I win.
Yes, I am fine with a good scouter uniforming at 50% ... especially if such a scouter has a cobbler waiting for me at the end of a long day guiding youth to success.
I think the best thing we can do for our youth is try @The Latin Scot's suggestions for looking sharp, yet be honest with our scouts about our grade on the inspection sheet. Encourage them to grade themselves honestly, and see how they develop over time.
Well, I agree in the sense that wearing a uniform shouldn't be considered "pass/fail" and in general I'd never seriously criticize anyone for failing to wear a complete uniform. But when it comes to "being in full uniform" I don't think you can consider that to be anything less than 100% (except perhaps minus the socks if someone is wearing pants). However, the only times I've ever been absolutely insistent about being in "full uniform" was for anyone going to serve as "Governor's Honor Guard" at Mackinac Island (Michigan) or something similarly formal and public where we are representing the organization.
-
On 9/14/2019 at 7:53 PM, Mrjeff said:
I dont agree with you. Also, another in service training for those who think that it is their responsiblity to criticize how others wear their uniform. The red jackets are a personal item and can be decorated however the owner desires. So, like I said, my uniform, my money, my choice, so I'll put on it what I want. If you are that stuck on "proper uniforming" I would suggest that you study the rules, look at the pictures in the OFFICIAL publications including BSA catalogs and magazines, look at photos of area, regional, and national volunteers and ask yourself if it really is your business to correct, criticize, or comment on another's uniform. I couldn't care any less about somebody's uniform because I'm just glad to see them. And if this disappoints you or keeps you up at night I suggest you add some adventure to your life, loosen up, and enjoy scouting for the fun of scouting.
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".
QuoteBut if someone chooses to do that it is fully and completely their decision and it is neither my responsibility or duty to correct that person.
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 generally both the duty and responsibility of people who possess knowledge and experience to pass it on and help correct errors of ignorance. So while I don't ever harp on anyone who wears an improper uniform by choice, I do make sure that new people or people making a new mistake understand what the official way is, as well as the reasoning behind it.
QuoteAs I previously stated, THIS IS MY OPINION AND NO AMOUNT OF ELOQUENT DIALOGUE IS GOING TO CHANGE IT. Your opinion is important even if I dont agree with it and I would respectfully suggest that you do what you do, and mind your own opinion without attempting to change the important opinions of others.
I certainly hope you don't apply this approach to everything you do, and more importantly, I hope you aren't deliberately teaching it to impressionable scouts. What you've effectively just said here is "I'm obstinate and close-minded about this issue" and recommended that other people should be as well. Sharing opposing opinions and discussing the pros and cons of alternative views is one of the best methods for learning there is. I realize that there are always people who take the distribution of their unsolicited opinions too far, but simply deciding "That's enough, I'm no longer going to accept input on this subject" puts one at risk of making bad choices because of how easy it is to let ear plugging on one issue deafen yourself on other issues.
Furthermore, the only way someone's opinion should ever be considered "off the table" for discussion is if it remains unspoken. By its very nature, to speak or to write is to invite a response and expecting anything else just isn't reasonable.
-
On 9/13/2019 at 1:04 PM, Pale Horse said:
Thanks for your thoughts. However there's a huge difference between "victimless crimes" like drinking and swearing in one's own home and mutilating an innocent child.
See my previous post. There is no disputing that the FGM occurred, but it's technically not a crime. I have a hard time getting past that. Legal or not, it's Child Abuse.
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 fight to keep them away. (though personally I'd say you were wrong) But if you simply think the doctor is a horrible human being (I'd probably agree with you on this point) who you don't want around just because they are horrible, I think you don't have a good justification for officially excluding the person.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I mean, were we to use the rational of "people can be excluded from scouts for having ever done something anyone considers child abuse" I (and my whole family) would have been banned. I've personally been told I was guilty of child abuse for:
- Leaving my sleeping toddler in his car seat in the car for 90 seconds on a cloudy 50 degree day while I walked 15' feet away to pay for a snack and bottle of water for him (with only a glass wall and glass doors between us);
- Letting my son cry in bed for an hour or two for 3-4 nights in a row at 3 years old because I told him he couldn't watch any more Mickey Mouse and needed to go to bed. (someone overhead me telling a friend while standing in a line)
- Giving him a swat on the butt in a store at 4-5 yrs old or so when he started in on a tantrum because I wouldn't give him my phone;
- giving him bread and peanut butter to eat at meals for a week at 9 years old after he'd spent most every meal for the 2 weeks previous complaining about the food. (he was also allowed to have any veggies he wanted)
-
1 hour ago, Momleader said:
If the local council is like my council the’ll demand a cut - like 50-60%.
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.
Then we'd happily keep all our money with no misgivings as I'm fairly certain hell will freeze over before those things happen.
-
22 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:
It is amazing how many people do not really understand how to actually get something done. Being in a storm and determining best path forward, salvaging a meal when somebody has forgotten something, having to make decisions quickly while your patrol looks on, trying to organize a group and complete a hike, watching the looks in the Scout you are working with finally gets up on the water skis; all of that imparts upon an Eagle scout the ability to get stuff done.
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.
-
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).
If BSA would make the Scouts BSA shirt out of something like a 93% polyester/7% Lycra, and actually fit it to proper proportions for a larger guy I'd be happy to wear it all the time.
I swear it's like the uniforms are deliberately designed by someone looking to punish anyone who dares to be an overweight scouter. Either that, or it's done by an idiot with no knowledge of human physiology who just figures the best way to size things up is to add the same amount of additional fabric to every section. (ie: if you make the torso 4" bigger around, you make the sleeves 4" bigger around)
-
21 hours ago, eagle90 said:
After doing Eagle Scoutmaster Conferences for 30+ years, one of the questions I always asked was "When did you decide you wanted to become an Eagle?" And one of the most popular responses was "When I was at so and so's Eagle COH." So it is not only for the eagle candidate. but is a great inspiration for younger scouts.
Dale
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.
-
1
-
-
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)
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, GMath said:
On the occasions when I've had to address these kinds of situations, I do my best to steer the conversation away from the semantics of whether or not the behavior should be labeled as "bullying" or "hazing" or similar. Instead, I try to focus on identifying that the actual behavior that occurred is not acceptable in Scouting, and focus on tangible actions that need to take place to discourage the behavior from happening again. How we label the behavior is less important than recognizing that it is inappropriate and that action needs to be taken to correct it.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, FireStone said:
YTP does give some helpful criteria for defining bullying. For good reason, deciding what bullying is should not be left up to unit leaders or parents. You would run into the exact problem I ran into, where some adults just chalk it up to "kids being kids".
It's not as vague as would be expected from the BSA. Broadly, they define forms of bullying as:
Verbal—name calling, teasing, threats
Social—spreading rumors, leaving the target out of activities, breaking up or manipulating friendships
Physical—hitting, pushing, shoving, physical coercion
Group—intimidations, ostracizing
Criminal—injury, assault, sexual aggression
Cyberbullying—using digital technology such as social media, gaming, texting,etc.,for any of the aboveWithin YPT, if I recall correctly they go into more detail.
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.
-
1
-
-
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".
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, ParkMan said:
I really don't see the connection with school bag/locker searches and a search on a scout trip. School is mandatory and a function of the government. Scouting is voluntary and not organized by the government. They are different.
If I were writing some guidelines on how to search a scouts belongings, it would go something like:
- two adults approach the scout and tell the Scout they have a reason to search the scout' s belongings
- if the Scout objects, an immediate call is made to the parent and the scout goes home.
- if the Scout agrees to the search, it is done in full visibility of the Scout. Any items confiscated are jointly acknowledged.
- items are returned after the event.
- if something is found of grave consequence a phone call is made to the parents and the scout goes home.
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 said, I think what you've stated is a very reasonable way to handle things.
-
On 6/20/2019 at 8:05 AM, walk in the woods said:
I don't know. Im hearin the argument on the bag search is we should build trust with scouts. But, the argument in the tent rule is we can't trust the 17 year old scout weve known for 6 years not to abuse a younger scout.
The tent rule eliminates the possibility of an older scout acting as mentor and big brother to a younger scout.
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 intrusive, less trusting method of prevention is warranted.
-
On 6/19/2019 at 11:14 PM, yknot said:
Why would a scout need to be present? More important that two adults are present so that nothing can be "planted" on a kid. Frankly, it's only scouts where kids' luggage, backpacks, etc., is not routinely subject to adult search. BSA needs to get with the times. Class trips, sports team travel, band trips, it all gets searched no bones, no big deal about it. I applaud that scoutmaster.
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 search if you wish to access controlled areas of the airport. Everyone has the right to decide "No, I don't want to be searched, I'll leave instead".
-
On 6/19/2019 at 8:38 AM, David CO said:
At my school, all lockers are subject to search by an administrator, at any time. There is no expectation of privacy.
Before any field trip (scouts, sports, band), all bags and luggage are opened and inspected before leaving the campus. There is no expectation of privacy.
As a parent, you should be more concerned with your child's safety than with his privacy.
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 through the bag inside the locker or turning out the pockets of the coat.
The only way to for a school to gain the right to search the person or personal belongings of a student is if they have a credible suspicion of a threat or risk or crime and the credible threat has to be based upon articulable reasons, not just "They were acting suspicious" or "I had a hunch". And even then, the search has to be reasonable given the suspicion. So if you had a tip that a student had a gun, that wouldn't give a school official the authority to search a student's wallet because there is not reasonable possibility of a gun being inside the wallet.
*edited* Having read more detail further along in the thread after I posted this, I'll amend my statement to differentiate blanket searches of bags during the school day or on mandatory trips, and searches that might be well advertised and voluntary conditions of participation in an extra-curricular activity.
-
1
-
-
On 6/15/2019 at 11:23 PM, ParkMan said:
Sort of. The COR is not typically part of the approval process for unit activities. But, should the COR feel a need to act and make a decision, the COR has that right. The COR has whatever authority the COR feels he/she needs to have. They supervise the unit on behalf of the CO. If the COR feels that they need to micromanage the unit, then that is their decision and well within their authority.
I think these arguments often confuse intent with authority. It is not the intent of the BSA system that the COR overule the unit. Similarly, it is not the intent of the BSA system that the CC overrule the Scoutmaster and/or SPL. The defined Troop structure creates a framework where a group of responsible volunteers can work together to implement a well balanced system. In that Troop structure, decision making ability is delegated to the right people in the organization to make good decisions. But that same system provides for a clearly defined oversight structure so that if bad decisions are made, reasonable people can correct those mistakes.
Of course, this all assumes that everyone involved is working with the best of intentions in a professional way. This forum sees lots of cases where the structure breaks down.
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 forget when we do something like that, that we aren't doing things the right way.
That's really all I was trying to say.
Specific to the OP's case, there's nothing anyone can do to stop the COR from behaving like the Lord of the Calendar, but that doesn't mean the people around him/her should ever let the COR think that's the "right" (per the program) way to do things.
-
On 6/12/2019 at 4:21 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:
Not to be a naysayer, I know it is quite possible to Eagle at 12, but I got some concerns.
From the article:
"Ray said he started the arduous project in September 2014." and "Ray became a Boy Scout in January 2014, then achieved Tenderfoot rank in May 2014, Second Class and First Class in July 2014, Star rank in Nov 2014 and Life rank in May 2015."
You cannot start an Eagle Project unless you are Life and it is approved.
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".
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, David CO said:
I think you should try to understand that he is not breaking any rules. The COR actually does have that authority. He is accountable to the IH. So he does need, if asked, to provide an explanation to the IH. The IH is accountable to the Chartered Organization. The Chartered Organization owns the unit.
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 COR that power, there's not really anything anyone can do about it. The local district exec might agree to have a chat with the COR about "the right way to do things", but the only method the district has to stop a CO from doing this would be to pull their charter, and that's not going to happen over a tin god COR. They'll just tell you to find another troop.
The idea of "breaking rules" really isn't very relevant since BSA doesn't actually issue "rules", they just offer "guidelines" and "best practices".
-
1
-
-
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).
-
1
-
possible fee increase coming
in Open Discussion - Program
Posted
This is one of my personal irritations with the way they run these programs. If you ask the Council popcorn reps how we are supposed to sell popcorn that is priced at 4-6 times retail value for the product, they'll say something like "You don't try and sell them popcorn, you sell them the program and ask them to help support the program by buying popcorn". But at the same time, scouts are forbidden to solicit donations directly.
So... it's against the rules to overtly solicit a donation, but tacitly soliciting donations via popcorn is just fine.