CalicoPenn

In all the discussion about the sports/marching band/military analogies, something always seems to be conveniently ignored - just one word - perhaps because it just upsets our sense of righteousness, or maybe if we just gloss over it, it will go away.  That word is REQUIRED.   If you going to take the field as part of a sports team or a marching band, your uniform is a REQUIRED part of the activity.  If you're in the military and on duty, the uniform is a REQUIRED part of your duties.   

What makes the BSA different?  The BSA uses uniform wear as a method of Scouting - but they also make it clear in their literature that the uniform, though desirable, is NOT required for someone to participate in Scouting.  We can encourage, we can cajole, we can provide - but we cannot require uniform use.  We can certainly require that Scouts who are wearing uniforms (or parts of uniforms) wear it correctly.  Only wearing the shirt?  Buttoned and tucked in - neat and tidy - not unbuttoned flapping in the breeze like Superman's cape.  But we can't require a Scout or Scouter to obtain and wear a uniform. 

There is no legitimate comparison to sports teams, marching bands, fast food restaurants (which also have required uniforms) or the military.  Simply because the BSA does not require uniforms at all.

 

 

Now, I'd also argue there is a desire to get non-citizens to vote too.

 

You can argue that all you want - there has never been any facts to back that up.  But we're in a new era - facts really don't matter anymore.

It's usually the simplest things that cause the most arguments.

Here's what the BSA says about Service Stars:

Who Can Earn This Award?

Any adult or youth member who have at least one year of tenure in Scouting.

That's pretty much it.  Simple, right?  Of course not, this is Scouting - and never underestimate Scouter's (collectively) ability to complicate something that seems simple.  Yes, many times the BSA's wording of things leaves a lot to be desired, and a lot to interpretation, but sometimes, I think we Scouters like to interpret simple sentences like the above just because we've become so good at parsing BSA sentences.

The correct, BSA answer would be that your new leader did not earn a service star for the years in which he was unofficial.  Why?  Because he wasn't a member.  That's the key word right there - member.  Any member can earn it.  If you're not a member, you can't earn credit for it, even if you are helping out in an unofficial capacity.

So what's the correct way to go about this?  If he's been a member for a year, add the number of years he was a member previously, add one, and buy that star - he doesn't have to start over so he doesn't lose that earlier tenure - but he starts adding tenure from the time he previously left.

That's the correct way.  As other's have said, your unit may decide otherwise - but a word of caution.  If I've done my math right and he started in Scouting as a boy in 1986, if you count his unofficial time, you're hitting the 30-year mark, or getting close to it, and a lot of Councils start to sit up and take notice when 30+ year pins start going out the door and often want to recognize those folks, which may lead to questions.

My local McDonalds flies a US Flag.  So does my local Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell and Wendy's.  Am I supposed to believe that these national and multi-national chain restaurants are more patriotic than the local custard stand that gave free custard cones to veterans on Veterans Day just because the custard stand doesn't fly a US flag?  Perhaps I'm to believe that Dave and Busters is even more patriotic because they're flying a massively sized US flag.  The real patriots must be the local auto dealers - boy oh boy, they don't fly just one flag - they fly dozens, sometimes hundreds.

On the Fourth of July, a local residential real estate broker sends his salesforce out early in the morning to stick flags at the end of people's driveways - Very patriotic of him, isn't it?  I mean really, who cares if their business card and a small flyer soliciting business is included - it's patriotic, right?

The next time the President order's the flags to be flown at half staff, drive around and see how many of these "patriotic" businesses are doing so.  Maybe I'm just cynical but I just can't help but think that businesses that make a point to fly flags aren;t in it just because of their patriotism or their so-called morality.

I would have some objections as well - and not because it's Chic-fil-A.

Objection 1:  I do not believe that Scouts should get service hours for flag ceremonies held for the public.  Ever.  The BSA is partly a patriotic organization - Scouts should be performing flag ceremonies because it honors our country - not because it's one more hour towards rank.

Objection 2:  I do not believe that Scouts should be doing flag ceremonies for businesses - any business - unless it's perhaps part of an annual employee retreat or annual stockholder meetings - then I'm fine with it because it's a private ceremony - akin to the Scouts doing a flag ceremony at the start of a Lions Club, Rotary, Kiwanis, American Legion (you get the picture) meeting.  When a business like a fast food restaurant is doing a flag ceremony on a day like Veteran's Day, I immediately question why that business is doing so - and my first conclusion is usually that they're doing it for crass commercial reasons while claiming they're doing it to "honor veterans".  Want to honor veterans?  Give them good jobs, give them free food, donate the days profits to veterans organizations, adopt a veteran going through rehabilitation.   

Objection 3:  Just because something is not specifically prohibited doesn't mean it's a good idea.  If a business allows you to sell popcorn at their store, a unit doesn't owe them anything but a big thank you - give them a certificate, make cobbler for the employees - there are ways to thank companies without appearing to endorse them.  Sure, flag ceremonies for a business isn't prohibited, but you have to consider how it looks to the public - perhaps especially if that flag ceremony is the only time they see you in the community.  Sure, there is the social issues that haunt Chic-fil-A and that will be in some people's minds - but every company has some baggage with some people.  Just using fast food - McDonalds?  Fights for fair wages and treatment of animals.  Burger King?  Still a lot of people upset with them for moving their corporate offices to Canada for tax purposes.  Wendy's?  People that don't like redheads.  It just looks bad.  Not only that but what happens if some locally owned non-franchise restaurant who always kicks in a couple hundred bucks to FOS every year through the work of the DE sees Boy Scouts doing a flag ceremony at a competitor?  How quickly do you think he's going to open his wallet next time around if he thinks the Scouts are favoring someone eleses business over his?

On the surface it may seem just fine but think a little deeper and you might find out just how tricky the situation may be.  Now in your case, maybe the ojections were over the fact that it was a Chic-fil-A asking for it, but it seems to me based on what you've written is that the answers evolved - and led to the answer that we don't do this for businesses - I think that's a fine conclusion - if you won't do it for one, you won't do it for anyone else - and this might be the first time it's ever come up. 

I can give you an answer - you aren't going to like it - you'll think it's ridiculous - and you'll think it is so because you wlil be looking at the activity through the lens of your personal experience with your Troop and Pack, especially since you've got the safety requirements down and the trained people to be able to do it right.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Packs do not have the training, and the trained people, to run a Cub Scout BB/Archery Range - they just don't.  Couple that with Cub Scout Packs having the greatest leadership turnover on a year to year basis, and you have a recipe for trouble. 

Lets reflect and be perfectly honest here - we've all read the G2SS - we know what the policies are (or the most part - this thread proves we sometimes skim it) - but there are times that parts of it are ignored - deliberately sometimes, conveniently sometimes, through ignorance of the policies sometimes - it happens, even in the best of units.  After all, it's just a "guide", right?

So when it comes to the shooting sports - how many Packs are going to take the time to do it right?  If given the chance, how many do you think would read a pamphlet on how to set up and run a BB Gun range and decide that's all the training they need?

I know we love to think that their are all kinds of nefarious things going on in the risk management offices and that those folks are just waiting to suck all the fun out of Scouting but sometimes, it's just an easy decision to make - its far easier to just say no to some activities than to try to police it - I know we're all Scouters and are supposed to be living the Scout Law but lets face it - there are an awful lot of folks out there that would put the name of a range certified person that left the Pack 3 years ago on the tour permit.

If the BSA was thinking in multi-dimensions, though - the way to do this would be to allow Troops to run ranges and invite Packs to come by - it would be a good recruiting tool, and Troops tend to have more stable leadership and adults more willing to take and keep current with the required training.

The only ID needed is a statement I have first aid training.  Most EMTs are Certified, not licensed.  Semantics, I understand but it it is a legal difference.   I have been a certified EMT in two states, taken an EMT training course three times.  Let my certification lapse so had to go thru course again to get certified.  I have certificates that hang on the wall but don't remember ever having a wallet card.  

 

Just like in any other field, those with actual knowledge can usually very quickly identify someone who is not knowledgeable.  Whats to say the bystanders should believe a Scout has adequate training? 

That may differ from state to state - in Illinois, EMTs are licensed - there is a state-specific exam in Illinois to be licensed and you have to be licensed by the state in order to be paid for being an EMT.  Though the state does not require EMTs to pass the National Registry exam to become a registered EMT, the vast majority of EMTs in the state are also registered EMTs because its pretty universal in the state that the courses use the National Registry exams as the course final exam.  It is possible that you can become a licensed EMT in Illinois without taking the National Registry exam since Illinois doesn't require it, but they do require someone to disclose if they've taken the National Registry exam and failed it.

An EMT in the field of trauma may be better suited for the situation than the MD cosmetic surgeon.  The pedigree and law must always be taken into consideration.

Not to mention ego.

Back in the 1970's, when paramedic services were just getting started, it was very common for MD's who might not have done a trauma rotation in years to push aside paramedics in the field - It wasn't easy to get MD's to accept EMT's - it took a lot of work (a bit of trivia - remember the show Emergency back in the 1970's about a squad of Paramedic Rescuers in LA - the show's technical advisor, the LA Fire Department's Battalion Chief in charge of the department's fledgling EMS services saw it as a platform to get both the medical profession and the public to accept the legitimacy of paramedic services - paramedic training in LA started in 1970 - Emergency was shown starting in 1972.)

Nowadays, not so much - most MD's are more than willing to step aside and let Paramedics handle incidents in the field - and will fall back in to the role of providing medical oversight.  The old "Is there a doctor in the house (on the plane)" line should really be changed to "Is there an emergency medical responder in the house (on the plane).

David,

Yep - that does sometimes happen - but it's rare enough to be newsworthy - that says far more about the lifeguards lack of common decency than anything else.

I believe it is different in different States as to whether certain personnel have a legal obligation to act. As stated for some it may fall under general citizens, but for others it is specific to employ regardless of being "on the clock". Different states, different laws.

Yeah, I know that it makes sense that an licensed EMS person would have a legal obligation to act even if off the clock but that runs up against an even more important principle - that a government - at any level - can force you to do something for free that you would normally be paid for, not even as a requirement of licensing.  Barbers and Cosmetologists are licensed by most states - but the state cannot force them to give people free haircuts.  A state can require someone to disclose if they are licensed in some instances (for example, I am required to provide written notification when I sign my apartment lease every year that I am a licensed real estate broker) but they cannot force me to act as a broker without compensation. 

That same principle is true for everyone, even those folks that might hold licenses for important things like emergency services.  If the State can force an off-duty Paramedic to provide care (by making it a legal obligation), the state is essentially putting them in a position of involuntary servitude to the state - and guess what Amendment to the US Constitution that violates? (Hint - it's the Thirteenth Amendment). 

So no, there is no state in the United States of America where an off-duty EMS person or an unpaid volunteer EMS person is obligated by law to provide their specialized services and in states that require citizens not to abandon people in need of help, to provide any services above those required of any citizen.  Again, most folks who are EMS trained are going to stop and help anyway - but that's not the question - the question is can the state force them to do so if they are not paid and the answer is very clearly no.

As to the question of who controls care at a scene of an accident?  For EMT's of pretty much every level - the doctors they are talking to at the hospital that are telling the EMT's what to do.

When I was an EMT, I always had my wallet card in my possession.  If someone of authority (such as a police officer) were to request it, I would show it.  Would I show it to a 15-year old Boy Scout?  Maybe - but I'd put the odds at 90/10 against.  Unless the patient was stabilized, I doubt I would take the time to ask for the ID of anyone coming up with an offer to help.

Interesting question on Duty to Help - and the answer is a bit complicated.

When it comes to EMS personnel, in general, there is no Duty to Rescue/Help/Respond beyond some state's statutory duty of it's citizens duty to help, IF the EMS member is off the clock and not being paid.  They only have a duty to respond if it is part of their employment and they are being paid for the response.

An On-duty Paramedic cannot refuse to provide aid to anyone - because s/he is on duty and therefore being paid, s/he must respond and must act.  Once s/he punches out though (goes off duty), s/he no longer has a legal duty to act, even if they are still in uniform.  For example, if a Paramedic is on duty and shopping for groceries and a person collapses in from of them, the Paramedic must provide aid.  However, if that same Paramedic is off duty (either in or out of uniform) shopping for groceries for the family, and someone collapses, the Paramedic does not have to render aid (most will so lets not get bogged down in a discussion of whether they will or not - this is about must they do so).

Here's the key question relevant to EMS Duty to Act - Is the person being paid - any amount - at the time of the act.  If they are not being paid at the time of the act - they have no duty to act.  What this means legally is that if you are a volunteer, you have no legal duty to act, even if you are "on duty".  In a rural area that only has a volunteer EMS ambulance service?  As long as those volunteers aren't paid - they have no legal duty to respond and can, in fact, just not show up if they all decide they don't like you.  That's why a lot of volunteer EMS services operates as paid--on-call services - it gives them a duty to act.

Now for the complication: - there are some states that also have citizen duty to act laws that require citizens to render assistance to victims.  So in those states, an EMS member would be required to stop and provide aid.  EXCEPT - they wouldn't be required to provide aid related to their licensing even under most of these laws.  The Citizen Duty to Act laws are very basic - generally, you just have to stop, call for help and wait until help arrives and that's it - you don't actually have to give CPR or stop someone from bleeding - you just can't abandon them.

I like the idea of taking the pulse live at a Pack meeting.  I can see taking a few minutes right before the opening ceremony to do it.  Rather than do it by Den, I'd mix up the families that were there into groups - and have one person lead the discussion - asking the Boys for their opinions first, then asking the parents.  I would also get together as a group any families that did not make the camping trip and ask them questions about what prevented them from attending (scheduling? family emergencies? Never camped before? Unsure of the activities?) and what could the Pack do to help them attend the next one (loan of equipment, state park with flush toilets, etc.).

Let's not forget that until it became the "honor society of the BSA" it was the "honor society of campers" and one of the OA's biggest responsibilities within a Council is (was?) to promote camping to the units, including (and perhaps especially) to the Council's short-term and long-term camps.  In that role, it makes sense that the OA would do their Ordeal/Brotherhood ceremonies, along with the attendant service, at Council camps.

Saying that, Stosh raises a good point about the OA not doing much service beyond the boundaries of service work for the Council.  Back in 2008, OA National put together a program to provide service projects to 5 National Forest - Arrow Corps Five.  There is a lodge in the Pacific Northwest that continues the tradition with annual Arrowcorps projects for National Forest sites.  It's a shame that other Lodges didn't pick up that ball and run with it too - maybe their excuse is that they aren't near any national forests, and my response would be why limit yourself to the national forests -- surely there are other national, state or local lands in a lodges area that could use some help.

What about including a service component to Winter Banquet?  Maybe spend a few hours at local food pantries that afternoon before gathering for the meal. 

First to Oldscout - you have done three 50-milers on the AT - you are a section hiker - you just haven't completed all the sections yet   .

I through-hiked the AT back in 1981 when I was 19 - I hiked North to South - Katahdin to Springer.  The first 30-days were brutal - I was a flatlander from the midwest taking on what most people consider the toughest part of the trail.  Most people hike South to North and work their way from the relatively gentle mountains of the Southeast to the rocky wilderness of New England.  I was ready to quit many times (and am glad I didn't).

I woke up a couple of times in Maine with snow on my tent (in May!).  I didn't see a lot of people during the week but weekends could get busy on the trail with day trippers and youth groups.  I never expected to be able to use any shelters during the weekends - they were all pretty much overrun by loud and obnoxious Scout Troops.  I don't have any facts to back this up but I've always thought that shelters with mice problems also had youth group problems - the shelters I stayed in that had mice were close enough to trail heads that they were easily accessible by youth groups on weekend trips.

You can gain a lot of good memories on the trail - and they'll mostly be greater than any bad memories of the trail.  There are places along the trail that are truly awe-inspring - walking through the Shenandoahs or the Smokies is incredible.  Unfortunately, not all of the trail is like that.  The trail does cross a lot of roads, and there are sections of the trail that are on roadways and automobile bridges - especially bridges.  It's not as pretty then.  There are sections of the trali that will feel monotonous after a few days - can't all be mountains and rivers - you're going to be hiking though fields and past farms in some places - and that can just suck the soul out of you.  But you perservere because the nights can be spectacular, the views impressive and there's a sense of achievement in walking that many miles.

I'm not so sure that it matters what you call the weekend, and indeed, I think I find calling them Ordeal Weekends more objectionable, but not because of any PC thing, but because that phrase can be self-limiting.

When I was elected to the OA and joined my lodge in the 1970's, the weekends were called the Spring Work Weekend and the Fall Fellowship (and for a time, the Fall Fun-ellowship).  When I was Chapter Chief and sitting on the Lodge Executive Committee (which in our Lodge was the Lodge Officers and the Chapter Chiefs), it was prposed to rename the Spring Work Weekend to the Spring Ordeal Weekend, since that is when the buk of our Ordeal candidates became members.  We decided against it because that was also our main Brotherhood weekend and Vigil Honor induction weekend - plus, we wanted folks who were already members but not being inducted as Brotherhood or Vigil Honor members to understand that this weekend was open to them as well and it was important for them to come.

No matter tha name, though, it doesn't really change the fact that there will be an Ordeal happening, as well as other activities.  Go ahead and call it a "service weekend" (really just another way to say work weekend), just as long as the Ordeal itself isn't renamed.

If it helps your argument for a change, it might help if the Kitchen Crew all announce that they want to watch the ceremonies and will not cook dinner while the ceremonies are taking place.

It's not a policy - it's a guideline - while the ceremonies themselves are the ones that should be used, the timing is completely up to the individual lodges. 

On another note, the Adult Ceremony Advisor doesn't get a vote - he can advise, but it's up to the leadership of the Lodge to make those decisions - and the leadership of the Lodge is the Lodge Chief, Lodge Vice Chief'(s), Secretary, Treasurer and Chapter Chiefs - once they make the decision, it's done - the only person who can over-rule them is the Scout Executive (though in practice, the Lodge advisor and Lodge Professional Advisor have some pull as well). 

We've always done the banquet before the ceremony - just for that reason - the ceremony is best in the dark - and no one wants to have the banquet after the ceremonies (yes, plural - we do the Brotherhood Ceremony before the Ordeal Ceremony).  Once the day of cheerful service is done, our candidates are candidates in name only at that point - the no speaking rule is rescinded during the banquet (and restored after the  banquet - we've heard a lot of comments from the adults and some of the more mature youth candidates that the period of silence after the banquet is much more meaningful - folks are reflecting on the day - we also ask our Brotherhood candidates to remain silent and reflect on the day and their experience in the OA).

By the end of the ceremonies, folks are exhausted and ready for bed.

Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they can do this is by not voting - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Mr. Rowe,

Beyond our inalienable rights - the rights of all people, no matter where on this Earth we live, the rights we U.S. Americans have come From the People, By the People and For the People.  Those rights include the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms.  The vast majority of U.S. Americans are not serving and have not served in the military.  The vast majority of Americans have not 'borne arms' in the defense of our rights.  If we did not have a full-time military, then perhaps our right to bear arms would also be a duty to keep and bear arms in order to be prepared to come to the defense of our rights.

But our military defense is not the only defense of our rights - the most important defense is not, in fact, our military - it's our vote.  For most U.S. Americans, the only way, as citizens, we come to the defense of our rights is to vote - and that makes voting not only a right, but a duty of all U.S. Americans.  If you are not an active service member or a veteran and you do not vote, then you are a free-loader when it comes to defending out rights - and that means you have failed in your duty as an American to help defend our rights.

Voting is as much of a duty as it is a right - and while you are correct that people should educate themselves in order to make a good choice, we are not required to do so, and, as past elections have shown so often, even when shown facts, U.S. Americans are more than willing to ignore facts and vote for people that don't truly have their best interests in heart. 

To answer you question, Mr. Rowe - if my neighbor needs a ride to the polls in order to do his/her duty and exercise his/her right to vote, and I know that s/he is going to vote for the person I am not going to vote for - then I'm going to open my passenger door and bring that person to the polling place - and that's what Liberal-Moderate-Conservative TRUE U.S. American Patriots do.

First - Welcome to the Forum.

You say you're fairly new to Venturing as a leader but have been a Scouter for 8 years.  Have you had a chance to take any training for Venturer leaders or read any of the literature so that you know how things are somewhat different for Crew Committees and Advisors than for Troop Committees and Scoutmasters?

Just to play a bit of a devil's advocate here (and not to defend rudeness) but there were a couple of things that caught my attention.

One is that the Crew President apparently is saying things such as "that requirement is stupid and redundant" - that must have been a memorable line.  My question is where did that stupid and redundant requirement come from?  Did it come from the Crew Committee and was announced to the Crew? 

The other is that the Crew needs more structure, especially since it's growing.  Who has determined that it needs more structure - the Committee or the Crew?  Is the Committee trying to build more structure (even if its minimal) without participation from the Crew?

See where I'm going here?  A Crew is a different animal from a Troop - it is not just Advanced Boy-led.  In a lot of ways, a Venturer Crew is like to Order of the Arrow - it is fully youth-led - the adults are advisors.  Other than BSA policies and following the policies of the Chartering Organization, it is the Youth that develop the policies of the Crew.  It is the Youth that decide on any additoinal "structure"  The Chief Financial Officer of a Troop is the Treasurer, a Committee Member.  In a Crew, the Chief Financial Officer is the elected Treasurer, a youth member of the Crew - the Crew Committee Treasurer is a Mentor and Advisor to the Crew Treasurer. 

In a Troop, even a boy-led Troop, it might not be uncommon for an announcement to be made that comes from the Troop Committee that, for example, might be "From now on, all Scouts must sign up for outings 2 weeks before the trip.  In a Crew, the Committee shouldn't just announce it as a new policy of the Crew.  Instead, it's the Advisor's job to suggest to the Crew President that it might be a good idea to do, and lay out the reasons for doing so - and letting the President run it past the Crew for the Crew to decide if they want to do so.

Perhaps this young lady is unpleasant and rude, but take a step back for a bit and think about why that might be a bit more.  If she were truly rude ad unpleasant to be around, do you think she would be well-liked by her peers?  Your daughter?  Have you experienced the same kind of interactions outside the Crew?  I''ve no way of knowing, of course, but could it be possible that there has been a change in the way the Committee has operated - perhaps trying to bring more structure and policy from the "top" down, and it's noticeable by the Crew?  At their age, people aren't always able to tell adults to back-off, but they can make the point known by appearing to be rude, uncooperative and unpleasant. 

If your daughter has been in the Crew for a while, maybe take her out for a frozen custard and ask her if she has noticed any changes in the Crew lately.

Please don't be insulted by this last thought - I give it with experience:  Maybe it's her but maybe it's you - or maybe it's both of you.

I think there is a continuum involved here and where something lands on that continuum might be the breaking point for me.

At one end of the line, there are a lot of organizations that may benefit from an Eagle Scout project or two but never mention that they are open to being a beneficiary - and a lot of Scouts may not even think to approach them to ask (I think many of us are familiar with the way one Scout from a Troop "breaks in" to an opportunity with a local nature center or school and the next thing you know, 4 other troop members are doing projects for the same group instead of seeking their own sources).

Next on the continuum might be organizations that "advertise" that they are open to hosting Eagle Scout projects.  I have no issues with this kind of "advertising" as it lets Scouts know who the interested parties are in their area.  I've had good luck with a couple of local groups (one a nature center, one a food bank) that just announce in their newsletters that Eagle Scout projects are welcome and let the Scout visit and come up with their own ideas for a project to pass along.

I don't even have issues with the next level, where an organization not only says they are Eagle Scout Project friendly, but have a few ideas for projects they'd like to see done as long as they aren't dropping a ready made project in the Scout's lap.  The aforementioned nature center usually has a couple of project ideas on hand - a couple of note was a "sampling dock" - a small dock (with railings) built from shore over the pond where school groups could take dip nets and sample the pond about 5 feet from shore - and a bird blind overlooking a marsh.  No plans were provided so the Scouts had to design the dock/blind, and work with the nature center to decide on the locations they would be put.  Both Scouts were excited about doing something for the nature center and were excited about the projects they picked to do - they weren't assigned to them, they were just suggestions. 

I have to agree that I would have problems with what I see on the far end of the continuum - an organization who approaches a Scout/Troop with a specific, fully planned, shovel-ready project that just needs to be funded/equipped and put together.  I think that's not in the spirit of the projects.  I cringe whenever I hear someone at a meeting suggest that a project they have planned might be a perfect Eagle Scout project.

Introduction of Candidates?  What Candidate?  This isn't the Order of the Arrow - its a Court of Honor to formally present to an Eagle Scout the awards he's already earned - he isn't a candidate - he's an Eagle Scout.

My best friend had his Eagle Scout ceremony in 1978 - his Troop put together the ceremony using the suggestions from NESA (It was scheduled a couple of months in advance so that his grandparents from England could come to the ceremony).  They did an Eagle Charge and an Eagle Pledge.  The ceremony took place in a church and took about an hour.  At least the Troop paid for the ceremony and simple reception afterwards.

My ceremony was in 1979.  It took place at a regularly scheduled Court of Honor of my Explorer Post's sister Troop (at the time, I was no longer a member of the Troop - I left the Troop when I was 16 in favor of my Post - I had to give one of them up and the Post was more of what I was looking for - most of the members of the Post were current or former members of the Troop anyway) - I earned my Eagle Scout as an Explorer Scout - within my Post - but my brothers were still involved in the Troop and we did some activities together.   At the end of the Troop's awards, the SPL turned the ceremony over to the President of my Post.  He called for an Eagle Scout to escort me to the front  - my best friend, who was neither part of my Troop or Post, did the honors.   After introducing me, the President asked that my parents be escorted up - they were brought up by my younger brothers who were in the Troop.  The Pres invited my former Scoutmaster up (the one I grew up in the Troop with) to tell a story - he, of course, had to go with the story of waking up to see a fox sitting on my chest licking the salt off my forehead on a backpacking trip in Isle Royale.  Then my Post Advisor was called up to give my parents their "parent pins" and to give my mother the medal to pin to my shirt.  That was it - took less than 10 minutes.  There was no Eagle Charge, no Eagle Pledge, no long recitations of letters or congratulations - no fancy candle lighting ceremony - just congratulations and handshakes and hugs all around.  My best friend told me he wished his ceremony could have been that simple.

Seems to me it depends on whether it's a family ceremony or a Troop ceremony.  In my opinion, all Eagle Scout Courts of Honors should be Troop events.  We don't ask the families to put together Courts of Honor for when their sons earn Tenderfoot, or First Class or Life or any other rank - the Troops do them.  Troops should have a standard Eagle Scout Court of Honor ceremony - it can be a short one that fits in with their normal Court of Honor, or they can have a separate Court of Honor with a simple sheet cake (or cobbler - yum) reception afterwards that the Troop pays for (and it shouldn't cost all that much).  If the family wants to have a big party for it - they can have it at their home in their backyard and they can pay for that part.

The big family planned Courts of Honor with the big party and the graduation/wedding like ceremony attached to the party is one of those things that the BSA should have not encouraged (another one, for example, would be troop-only merit badge counselors).  It's probably long past time for Troops to start standing up to these things and remind parents that their son is part of a TROOP that helped him along the path of Eagle Scout and that the TROOP does the Court of Honor.  If the family insists that they want to schedule, plan and run the Court of Honor, then the Troop should make it clear that there will be no funding for any part of it from the Troop, there will be no Troop equipment made available (including flags), there will be no working around their date in the Troop's calendar, and the only thing the Troop will provide will be the cloth patch and the medal - no Eagle kit, no neckerchiefs or bolos - just the basics.

Actually, the product is legal in the State of Michigan (and in a number of other states) but illegal under federal law.  Local governments, such as this township, base their laws and zoning policies on State Law because it is the State that governs what local governments in their state can and can't do.  Federal laws do not regulate local governments.  That's why the township's zoning ordinance was re-written specifically to make medical marijuana grow and distribution operations a special use permit in a specific zoned area (in this case, it would be in an area zoned I, which, BTW, doesn't allow for churches or most schools (post secondary and trade schools excepted - and most laws barring operations within a certain feet of schools exempt those type of schools - not even with a special use permit).  They've come in to compliance with state law.  Just as a local police officer can't enforce federal laws (which is why sheriffs and police chiefs in border towns keep getting their hands slapped by the courts every time they try to enforce federal immigration laws), the local governments can't ignore state law just because it conflicts with federal law.

Right now - the product is a mix of legal and illegal.  I know a lot has been made of the President telling Federal Prosecutors not to enforce the law, but if you've paid any attention at all to this administration and how this President thinks (and not just gotten your news from the screaming pundits on your favorite cable news channel, of any political stripe), it's not for partisan political reasons at all but is very consistent with his belief that if a law is outdated and needs to be changed, it should be changed by Congress and not the Courts.  It's very much like his stance on the Defense of Marriage Act - activists on both sides were surprised to see that his administration was opposed to trying to get the law nullified in court - instead, he wanted Congress to nullify the law.  It's pretty clear to most people that if a federal prosecutor in a state where medical marijuana is legal decides to enforce the federal law, it's going to end up in the Supreme Court where it becomes a State's Rights case and where it is likely that the federal law would be struck down in favor of the states regardless of the flavor of the make-up of the court.  That's something this President has a fundamental objection too - he'd much rather that Congress be the ones to change the law - and it's not yet being pushed because there isn't the critical mass of states that have changed their laws yet to make it untenable not to do anything - but there likely will be soon.

Without the publicity this has received, I doubt that anyone would be able to tell up by looking at the building (once it's built) that the building is a grow site.  There are now farms being set-up in industrial buildings and no one could tell if you just drove by one.

As for the technicality of it being illegal to be illegal in the US , the MA Attorney General has it exactly right.  Under federal law, it is a criminal offense to cross the border without documents, but like many laws of that sort, you have to be caught crossing the border at the time you cross the border.  So if you have crossed the border without being caught, you can't be charged later with crossing the border.  But your still in the country illegally - however, under federal law, being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense - being in the country illegally is a civil offense..  What is a criminal offense is being in this country illegally if you have already been caught once and deported. 

I'm just not that concerned with whether there is a Scout Council office somewhere near a grow operation - perhaps because as a Scout, I knew where the illegal pot patches were located in the farmer's fields next to the local scout camp, where it was in the local scout camp, and where it was at both summer camps I went to/worked at.  Of course, this was the 1970's - and although they may not be as well known anymore, or even forgotten, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they still didn't exist in a wild state (hint - look for big areas of ragweed - then look more closely at some of the plants that might be interspersed among them).

I've read through this thread a couple of times and I still am trying to figure out what the issues really are here.  I mean I think I get the gist of it - that the requirements have become really detailed and there are folks who think they've just gotten too detailed and complicated for the average Boy Scout to comprehend and we should simplify them.  Then we get an example from Cooking Merit Badge - how much simpler the requirements are now than they were back in the 1910's.

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what the real complaints are.  Is it that the boys, or perhaps their leaders, aren't capable of reading and comprehending the requirements?  If that's the case then I think we have more problems in this country than we're ready to admit.

Is it the idea that the requirements should be a simple checklist - for instance Cook a meal at home, cook a meal on a camping trip, describe the three basin (pot) dish washing process, etc. etc. with the meat of the requirements in the Merit Badge Handbook?  I could certainly see something that reads "Using the requirements in Section 1 of the merit badge handbook, cook a mean at home" - with Section 1 describing what needs to be done to meet the requirement.  I just don't see that working out well - too much room for interpretation if it's not spelled out specifically in the requirements on the first page.

I wonder how much of the argument is just from our natural resistance to change, and even more natural resistance to bureaucracy?  Sure, the first requirements for Cooking Merit Badge were pretty easy to understand - it was essentially using certain ingredients and cooking techniques, make a meal.  No chats about safety, no chats about cross contamination, no chats about food handling - just cook a meal.  I'd like to point out that a lot in the world has changed since those cooking merit badge requirements were created.  Upton Sinclair's The Jungle hadn't even been published yet - for those unfamiliar, it was a scathing commentary on the conditions of slaughter houses in Chicago - and that book, probably  more than any other, changed the way we think about food safety forever.   Merit Badges are about more than just doing a task - it's also about learning how to do them right, hopefully with the latest and greatest information, and mostly with an eye towards introducing Scouts to skills, hobbies and potential vocations that will last a lifetime.   Cooking Merit Badge is one of those very few that have usefulness for Patrol operations, for cooking at home, and for potentially being vocational, so this one seems particularly ripe for criticism of being too busy and fussy.

Or maybe the objection is to using the government's latest and greatest food nutrition scheme and it's really an anti-government thing more than a bad merit badge, bad bad merit badge kind of thing.  I just don't know.

What I do know when I read the requirements is that I believe that even an 11 or 12 year old Scout can understand what the requirement says - and that if they're struggling to figure it out, it's because they haven't actually read the merit badge book which should explain everything to them.  I really have no problem with the merit badge requirements starting off with a discussion of health and safety issues, and first aid skills that are more likely to be needed in a kitchen/cooking environment (frankly, it was long overdue that the BSA started this kind of "cross-training" of certain skills within their merit badges).  If a Scout has already earned the First Aid Merit Badge, he should easily be able to discuss cuts and burns with their counselor, and understand that someone is more likely to be cut or burnt while cooking than sprain one's ankle.  If they haven't earned First Aid Merit Badge yet, then they're up a few points by learning some already.

I think it's important to talk about food safety and storage.  Given the popularity of the Food Network, I'd be surprised if many Scouts didn't already know about cross-contamination.  I, for one, think knowing how to store foods properly - raw, and cooked - is pretty important, especially wile camping.  I'd rather not deal with a Patrol down with the trots because the chicken was carried in a Tupperware container in Billy John's backpack for the last 6 hours.

I'm just fine with discussing food nutrition and planning meals around the latest and greatest food nutrition standards - we've had many discussions in this forum about turning Scouts on to other ways of cooking and getting away from hot dogs and hamburgers.  This is certainly one way to help do that, and it helps reinforce the message of a Scout being Physically Strong. 

Yes - we used to build fireplaces in the woods - we don't do that anymore.  The merit badges aren't designed to teach how things used to be done - they're designed to teach how things are done now.  Like OA Youth Leaders being able to navigate chapter and lodge mergers easier than the adults do of district and council mergers, I think the Scouts are far more resilient and adaptable to change than we old fogies are.

Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I just don't have any problems with the requirements being more detailed (less chance of folks getting it wrong) and perhaps just a bit more challenging.