acco40

Lived through the depression and won WWII. Yes, they were (are) the greatest. Both of my parents have passed away but were both NAVY during WWII and my father in Korea too. I saw Bob Dole and George McGovern on TV today. Both had so much class as elder statesmen and WWII vets. No petty politics from them at this time. I heard something like out of 16 million WWII veterans, on 4 million remain.

Historians recently "ranked" our countries first ladies. I found it very interesting. Could not find it on-line (not 1994 study or book but academic "research" so to speak of this year.) Bush II is the only President in my lifetime (Eisenhower on) that I've had a gut level dislike for. Don't know if it is because of his perpetual smirk, born again Christianity that he wears for all to see, inarticulate speech or what but if I was in a Bush focus group his handlers would be reevaluating his actions. That said, who to vote for in the upcoming election will be a difficult choice for me.

Conservative and liberal slanted programing is just more preaching to the choir that polarizes our society and leads to yet further reduction of civility amongst us as can be easily witnessed on this forum by those who profess to live by the Scout Oath and Law. That said, I think Al Franken is a hoot!

Commissioners come in many flavors. I'm assuming your question is specifically about Unit Commissioners. What they are: They should be friends and sometimes counselors for unit leaders, they act as diplomats, problem solvers, etc. They SHOULD NOT do the work of or for the unit leaders. Some desirable characteristics of UCs: good listener, good communicator, tactful, patient yet persistent, knowledge of Scouting program, team player. Yes, ideally all units should have a UC. (This message has been edited by acco40)

I agree with BW on when to award. Also, Cub Scouts is a family program so it is not the den leaders call on how much advance the boys (and their families) work on their badges in the summer. The only drawback, and a good leader can remedy the situation, is that when a advancement topic is covered during a meeting later in the year the constant cries of "I already did that" can be heard from some.

To answer the original question: cohesively! Boy, boys boys! The Scouts should determine their patrol mates. If an adult assigns the boys, trouble is lurking. I had a den of 12 Webelos join our troop this spring. They were adamant about staying together as one patrol. I didn't think it was a good idea. I relayed my thoughts, very low key, to the adults and let the boys do what they wanted. Now, after three months I'm hearing some grumbling from the boys that "our patrol is to big!" We have another NSP with seven boys. Right after summer camp I'm going to present to the boys a chance to re-organize the patrols. I'm hoping for three patrols of 6-7 Scouts. A similar question is how does one form patrols for a troop contingent for the National Jamboree? Many of the boys don't know each other. Our solution (somewhat different that what is done in our "regular" troop) is to have each boy pick a buddy. There is an even amount of boys so that is no problem. After that is done, the boys are guaranteed to have his buddy in his patrol. The SM and SAs then arrange the patrols from there. It is somewhat of a compromise between the boys and adults deciding.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Be careful with the word "effort." Actually, it the Scout in question can do the same with LESS effort, he has shown improved physical capability. I've seen my share of boys (mostly 10 & 11) who go through the activities listed (push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, quarter mile, jump, etc.) and then 30 days later try again. Without any concerted effort or training, most, if not all, improve due to a) physical abilities are usually on the increase at these ages, b) in my local, Michigan, most are coming off a sedentary winter and going into a more active summer, and c) more effort kicks in. That said, their is no minimal physical fitness requirement implied (i.e. need to do at least xxx amount or under xxx time). Boys at this age usually don't have much upper body strength. However, with minimal strength training over 30 days, improvement should be readily apparent. Now, the question that I've seen debated is what if 45 days has passed when the boy is re-evaluated? The requirement states: "Show improvement in the activities listed in requirement 10a after practicing for 30 days." Now my interpretation is to show improvement in all of the activites individually and do it within the 30 day (within reason) window.(This message has been edited by acco40)

FOG, your attempt at humor makes you come across as a pompous ass.

Does not the US Congress appropriate funds (millions of $) to help fund the National Jamboree? I don't think the rules for BSA membership has changed all that much from 1910, I just think that the interpretation of those rules has changed. Heck, in the Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.) which has not changed for over 200 years, interpretation of "men" (does it include African-Americans, women, youth?) has been debated and tested in our courts of law. That is why I abhor such catch phrases as "traditional values" that the current BSA administration (marketing department?) likes to cling to. What does that mean? It is far to open to interpretation for me. The exclusion of avowed homosexuals is a recent interpretation of the BSA principles. Some agree with that interpretation, other do not. I believe this is why many say they argree with the BSA principles but not the BSA position.

Yes. That is like asking why do students in school study? To make good grades or to learn? Sometimes, grades, sometimes learn, sometimes both and sadly, somtimes neither!

Scoutmasters also can easily get caught in the proverbial Catch-22. In our district, a particular troop does an excellent job of conducting Swimming and Lifesaving merit badge classes over a period of four to five weeks. Our district advertises this event at our monthly roundtables. It is stressed that the event is not a "teaching" event, i.e. no swim instruction takes place, but qualified counselors are on hand to test and evaluate. They also ask that boys sign up via their unit and not individually. A fee is involved (covers pool rental I suppose) and class size is limited. Now, I've had boys from our unit ask me to sign them up for the MB classes as they hand me the appropriate dollar amount for the class of interest. I dutifully sign them up. Many don't ask me for a blue card. Many get in the water and have much difficulty passing the skill requirements. Then the instructors running the classes chastise the SMs in attendance for allowing "unprepared" Scouts to sign up for the class. In their words, if they are not ready to show the required swimming skills, the SM should not let them have taken the class. Not that I agree but again, another area where theory and reality collide.(This message has been edited by acco40)

I'll hug my boys a little hardter tonight. My heartfelt sympathies.

Some of the boys love "scary" stories and one of our Scouts excels in telling them. The problem is that he tells them so well many of the younger boys do not like them at all. So, 85% love them 5% don't and 10% have the proverbial "no opinion." One of the activities that I and many of the Scouts like to do is play charades around the fire. The problem sometimes is that the fire doesn't provide enough light for all to see the gestures and one thing I abhor around a campfire is a flashlight!

Bob, yes the Scout choses the merit badge he wants to work on. Heck, even non-Scouts and Scouters can chose the merit badge they want to work on and even proceed to work on that merit badge without a SM signature, a "blue card" or even a MB counselor! But, if a Scout wants to follow the correct process, he needs to have a signed statement (usually refered to a blue card) signed by his unit's Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster's duty is to make sure the Scout has all the necessary prerequisitites completed, if any, to go forward with the MB and to assign MB counselor contact information to the Scout. In my book, that is granting permission. In your eyes, is doesn't seem to be. What I think we can both agree on is that if a Scout has the needed pre-reqs, if needed, the SM grants permission automatically if the Scout wants to pursue that MB. As a SM, I should not withhold "permission" to a Scout regardless of my thoughts. For example, if a newly crossed over 10 year old with learning disabilities wanted to take the engineering MB, I may tell him that it is a very challenging MB for most 15 year olds and may even ask him to reconsider but if he still wanted to tackle the task, I'd give him encouragement, a signed blue card and MB counselor contact info.

The good old US of A is the most hated nation in the world. It is also the most loved. It is practically the "most" of almost everything. We dominate popular culture, the world economy, military might, etc. We are an easy target. The question is what should our response be to such feelings. I'd also add that many outside our nation dislike our government (and I'm not just talking about dubya) and not the American people.

FOG, I didn't know a uniform was required for Boy Scouts.

Before everyone continues to bash Tennessee, ask yourself one question: Do you feel your child(ren)s grades should be public or remain private? If private, honor rolls do violate that privacy to a certain extent. In today's litigious society, that is what Tennessee lawmakers are worried about. And FOG, I studied my proverbial rear end off to become an engineer and no, I don't consider myself a "cookbook" engineer. Yes, some of us are born with the raw materials to become something but for many of us, that still includes much perspiration to get our inspiration.

I was surprised when I received my Woodbadge regalia that it came with no "instructions" so to speak abut how and when to wear them. I would think a WB syllabus would be a good place to start but not the only place. Nothing in the insignia guide but I'm going from my diminished memory.

Caddmom, red flags should be being raised all over! First, SM and SAs should not be sitting in or even within earshot of BORs in their unit. Second, the boys should elect their youth leaders (SPL and PL) with SM approval only. If no one realized your son need a position of responsibilty for advancement to Star may I inquire if you use The Boy Scout Handbook? Does anyone in your troop read it? We sure hear some scary stuff on this forum.

Valid points Mr. Beaver (I always had my beefs with Beavers at Woodbadge, why is that?) but please remember that you are looking at it from a Cub Scout perspective and I, from a Boy Scout perspective. With the two ten year olds in question (and their parents for that matter) they were completely oblivious to the joining rules. So in the youth's eyes, they were not getting away with anything. If they or their parents had brought up any desire at all to work on their AOL in a Pack environment, I would have highly encouraged it. However, they have not even earned their Webelos badges. Their den leader and assistant den leader are gone. They had no "den" to return to. Their desire was to remain with their Cub Scout patrol as it transitioned into Boy Scouts. Now, look at it this way. Webelos may visit Boy Scout troop meetings. Webelos may attend Boy Scout outings. I made sure the boys in question were reregistered with their Pack (our Troop provided the funds to do so). Granted, they don't attend any Pack functions and attend all of our troop functions, but the letter of the law is not really broken. Possibly the spirit of the law.

In our society, a "take charge" attitude from a male is viewed as decisive. The same attitude in a female, well she may get labeled a derogatory term that rhymes with ditch. A demure, agreeable female would be labeled as sweet and devoted. The same characteristics in a male would have him branded as a wimp or worse. Is it fair? No. C'est la vie. My wife is involved at the district level (District Award of Merit recipient) as well as at the unit level (advancement chair). I'm involved at the district level (Unit Commissioner) and the unit level (SM, and yes I know that "by the book" I should not hold both and have discussed it with my ADC and DC). The unit level is where the theory of Scouting meets the practicality of Scouting. Now, I'm not a big proponent of rule bending but I guess I've bent a few rules. For example, recently a Webelos den crossed over to our troop. Out of a dozen boys (a BIG den) two of the boys did not receive AOL, were only 10 years old, and have not finished the 5th grade. Theoretically, they could not join the troop. Practically, if I refused their admission, they would drop out of Scouting. What I did was contact their pack, pay to have them re-register with the pack, have them attend our troop meetings, go on outings, and work on advancement. I contacted our council registrar and told her of my intentions. Come June (after they meet the complete 5th grade req.), the boys will "formally" join the troop, get registered, and mysteriously A LOT of advancement is going to be signed off in early June. This was explained to the parents directly involved, the SAs and no one else. If a "pushy mom" brought it to my attention that the boys should not be attending my meetings my reaction would be dependent on how it was presented to me. No one likes to be told that they are doing something "wrong." Now, I've been told that I do some things "wrong" by many parents, i.e. I don't arrange the patrols correctly. They look at having the boys choose their patrol members as "not right." Do I ignore most of their comments? To an extent but I do feel I owe some a reason why I do what I do. To some, I feel I owe no explanation. The biggest problem that I have with parents, both moms and dads are the ones who want to be active with their sons in Scouting; emphasis on with their sons. Many don't want to be active in Scouting for all of the sons. If it doesn't involve their son directly, forget about it. On a Scout outing, troop meeting, etc. we should leave our parental responsibilities at home. Our responsibilities should be to the unit. I know that is difficult for many and I'll get a few arguments, but that is my belief. If one doesn't feel comfortable with that, one should not be a unit leader IMO.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Think of the SM as a manager of a McDonalds. The charter organization is the person/entity that bought a franchise from the McDonalds parent organization. McDonalds is the BSA. Now does the manager of the McDonalds (the SM) have the freedom to serve whatever food he wants? No. If he chooses to sell whoppers (Burger King fare) he is in violation of the franchise agreement. Does McDonalds (BSA) fire him? No, the franchise owner (CO) may. The manager is serving the whims of his boss who may terminate him for any or no reason (that is the CO - SM relationship).

The simple answer Mrs. Smith, no. A patrol may consist of a patrol leader, two troop guides, librarian, quartermaster and a chaplain's aid. Who is going to cook? Who is going to clean? The correct answer is all of them.

This past month I was in the process of trying to expand the cooking horizons of some of the boys and adults. After a few goof-ups (they sure DON'T listen to the SM) like putting the Dutch oven on top of a vast bed of coals trying to make pizza (burnt on the bottom, soup on top) they made a great pizza and peach cobler on our most recent outing. The box ovens were in use too! (garlic bread, brownies, etc.).

Be careful with age! I have a boy in our troop who is 10 years old and won't turn 11 until December. He could earn Life at 12 but he would have been in Scouts for almost two years! Plenty of time to earn Life rank. Not to beat a dead horse, but maturity is not a requirement for any rank. I have no beef with the "serve actively in a leadership position" requirement as stated by BW (after all it is in the book in black and white) but I have a different interpretation than BW. Just like the debate on "what is active?", I feel that active means registered. Therefore my interpretation of serve actively in a leadership position" is the same as holding that position as a registered Scout. Now, show scout spirit is an entirely different matter.