acco40

Do you know how the USA can tell when we finally don't have race as an issue? When MLK drive no longer just goes through the 'black' part of town.

It is my understanding that only the Eagle rank badge is a 'controlled' rank item. My wife, a troop advancement chair, never had an issue purchasing rank advancement patches. We met the FOS limit so we got our rank advancements "free" but she could easily purchase extra for Scouts with multiple uniforms. She could do the same for the Eagle patch (both my sons are Eagles and have more that one shirt) but I think she had to show that her sons had earned the rank. That is, a stanger going in wishing to purchase a few Eagle ranks badges would be out of luck. The same goes for Scouter knots. I had at one time about five shirts (commissioner, Scoutmaster (3), Den Leader) and had the same set of knots on each. Again, if you showed proof that you earned them, they let you purchase them but you needed to show cause so to speak.

I know Ed, that's why my comments were mostly in jest. It's just that you and Merlyn seem to bring out the worst in each of you. That said, the worst in each of you is better the the best I've seen in some folks!

Many folks use the term "reports to" as a chain of command type description. For example, as a department manager, I report to my functional Director. In this way, the SM does NOT "report to" the CC. Yes, the SM does have an obligation to "report to" the committee what is going on and one of the purposes of a BOR is for the troop committee to evaluate the program and report back to the SM their observations - good and bad. As a SM, that was one of my beefs. I never heard any feedback from the board. Pretty much they said no news is good news. When you get a chance tell me how Gabbert is doing! I heard the defense is well ahead of the offense, a rare recent occurance at Mizzou.

I concede to the gentleman from North Carolina. I guess that's why nobody ever told me to shut my "soup hole."

In the greater St. Louis area a few years ago, the Ku Klux Klan signed up to do a stretch of highway clean-up (i.e Adopt-a-Highway). Members of civic organisations volunteer to pick up litter along a stretch of highway. In appreciation, the organisation's name is displayed on a sign marking its stretch of the roadside. The state of Missouri tried to stop this citing maintenance issues (continually replacing the signs), fears of angry drivers, etc. The US Supreme Court declined an appeal by the state of Missouri seeking to reverse an 8th Circuit opinion which allows the Ku Klux Klan to adopt a highway. Under the controlling ruling of the 8th Circuit, "desire to exclude controversial organizations in order to prevent 'road rage' or public backlash on the highways against the Klans unpopular beliefs is simply not a legitimate governmental interest that would support the enactment of speech-abridging regulations." Why would folks get mad at this? Well, I'm sure some feel that by allowing the KKK to do this charitable work (or free advertising?) the government was in someway legitimizing the KKK's belief system. In much the same way, if the KKK (or Buddhists & blankets) asked to meet at the school and help wash the windows for free, some would object. The government has stated that they will not discriminate based on a few things - such as race, religion, etc. So, the simple answer is not to "support" organizations that do - such as the BSA. It gets a little more complicated wrt faith based charities. Certain organizations like the Catholic Relief Services donates humanitarian aid but does not have a faith based litmus test on who it donates too. Yet, for some, giving government support to such charities smacks of discrimination (i.e. does it support other religious affiliated charitable agencies?). That is a tough question. The BSA question is simple in my mind. The BSA does discriminate based on religion - it has stated such publically. That fact should not be in dispute by anyone - even Ed & Merlyn should join hands in agreement on that. However, the government has stated that it does not discriminate based on religion - ergo, the government should not charter BSA units.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Pie? I thought it was supposed to be doing the backstroke in your soup.

My suggestions - since nobody asked 1) Beavah, admit you are wrong and Meryln will volunteer to work at a soup kitchen. 2) Ed - give it rest. 3) Personally, I don't agree with it...but I am willing to put up with it to the point where my Scout begins to take a discriminatory tone towards those that are not permitted to be Scouts....then he is done. Perfect, what else would one expect from an engineer? Engineers make sure things work, scientists just pontificate. 4) NJCubScouter - one well deserved atta boy! 5) Why does this thread give me dj vu all over again?(This message has been edited by acco40)

Yes, John-in-KC (since he like the Tigers and not the Jayhawks ) got it correct but just so nobody parses his language incorrectly ... He reports to the Committee, The "He" references the Scoutmaster and I believe John is implying that at committee meetings, the SM "reports" to them what is going on with the Scouts. He is not implying a functional organization "reports to" as is a subordinant. The Scoutmaster and the Committee Chair are specifically accountable to the Chartered Partner through the COR. The rest, ASMs and Committee people, are accountable to their respective principals, who in turn, need to coordinate any personnel matters with the COR. Yes, but the COR/IH/CO approves ASMs (or more properly SAs , and Troop Committtee members just like any other adult leader of the troop.(This message has been edited by acco40)

First of all, throw out all Cub Scout references when investigating the role of a Scoutmaster. There are no Scoutmasters in the Cub Scout program. Some of the functions of Troop Committee are to support the program by supporting the Scoutmaster in delivering a quality Troop program. It does advise the SM on BSA policies and CO policies. The CC organizes the committee, sees that functions are delegated, coordinated and completed. Nowhere, does it state that the SM reports to the CC (or vice versa). The SM is the "public" face of the troop. The SM is NOT a member of the committee but should attend committee meetings to give an update on the program. The BSA does mention "votes" sometimes wrt the committee but there is nothing specific about any type of "majority vote" policy about committee decisions.

Eagle92 - I agree but remember, the uniform has to "match" - i.e. no 1981 ties with 2004 pants and 2010 shirt.

What the Committee Chair could do is quietly and politely inform the Scoutmaster that in the BSA: 1) The SPL and ASPL do not belong to a patrol. 2) The position of Troop Guide does not necessitate a new patrol or patrol switch. There you go, no patrol exits to be named.

OGE - for you, and only you - I'll let you wear your tie with a buttoned shirt. Actually, now, I think the tie is only for civilian wear. I think this thread is related to the "respect" threads in the way that so many Scouters push the boys to wear the neckerchiefs but don't think the same applies to them.

I like patrol name continuity but did not demand it as SM. What I told the patrol that wanted to change their name - go for it. As soon as you have the patrol patches, yells, flags, etc. I'll officially change your name. The problem I ran into was when we had patrol equipment we labelled it Patrol A, Patrol B, etc. just for the fact that the names may change. Then, the boys couldn't quite get what equipment the "Badgers" owned. It seems simple to me but muddies the waters for quite a few Scouts and adults.

Personally, I would love to see a Scout show up for a BOR and then politely decline aafter he has been introduced and say he will be happy to reschedule once the committe members have a chance to rectify their uniform issues. And, no, I don't think that is being disrespectful but it does drive home the point in a polite way. Again, teenagers are great at identifying hypocrisy. I really liked jblake47's response wrt patrol equipment. I used the same approach and had to fight the parents because they didn't understand the patrol concept.

A couple of observations. 1) When parents of a Scout don't like certain other adult individuals (for whatever reasons), it is usually not transparent to their children. Therefore, why would one expect their 15 year old son to respect someone if they do not? You state that it is well known that this man dislikes your husband and your son and the feelings are mutual. The fact that this is well known is a problem. Teenagers have a huge hypocrisy radar - they won't respect someone just because they are told to. Also, it is ludicrous to demand someone respect someone else. If I was the Scoutmaster, I would look at the relationship between your two sons from a troop perspective. Was your older son his brother's PL? His SPL? The quartermaster? If not, he has no business telling him how to wash, etc. 2) A committee chair should not be interfacing with the Scouts. If the Committee Chair followed the program he could have informed the SM and let him handle it. If the troop followed the program, your son should have been washing patrol gear which should be of no concern to the CC. 3) Why do so many adults want to handle such issues as these in a public forum? I don't mean this forum but why should the whole committee be involved? They are not judges or a jury. This is matter for the SM to handle. 4) Troops should not create roles that the BSA does not recognize - i.e. the "advisor" role your mentioned. 5) Don't try and tell the CC how to handle this or give the appearance of making any demands.

For BSA troops: It is proper to wear a neckerchief. It is proper not to wear a neckerchief. If worn, it is proper to wear over the collar. If worn, it is proper to wear undert the collar. What is not proper is not to have uniformity amongst the troop. Also, the top button on a unform shirt is always to remain unbuttoned.

While a Scoutmaster, I've asked many of the boys, during a scoutmaster conference - how they have been reverent. They usually say they've been to church or some such answer. I then ask them what does it mean to be reverent and teh vast majority have not idea what the phrase or word implies. I simply state that to be "reverent" one need to revere. Now, what does it mean to "revere." For some, yes to worship a higher being (i.e. God), but for others, one could revere a mentor, a parent, etc. So, an atheist could easily satisfy that requirement.

First, I must, every night of my life I've slept under the sky. Now, nothing says troop or patrol - it says Scouting activity or event. Go solo to a district camp-o-ree. Go with another troop. Have a patrol outing (with no adults!!). There should be no barriers to earning this merit badge. Requirement 9 of the Camping Merit Badge (for reference) Show experience in camping by doing the following: a. Camp a total of at least 20 days and 20 nights. Sleep each night under the sky or in a tent you have pitched. The 20 days and 20 nights must be at a designated Scouting activity or event. You may use a week of long-term camp toward this requirement. If the camp provides a tent that has already been pitched, you need not pitch your own tent. b. On any of these camping experiences, you must do TWO of the following, only with proper preparation and under qualified supervision: 1. Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 1,000 vertical feet. 2. Backpack, snowshoe, or cross-country ski for at least 4 miles. 3. Take a bike trip of at least 15 miles or at least four hours. 4. Take a nonmotorized trip on the water of at least four hours or 5 miles. 5. Plan and carry out an overnight snow camping experience. 6. Rappel down a rappel route of 30 feet or more. c. Perform a conservation project approved by the landowner or land managing agency.

Ed & Merlyn - please do not respond to each other. It gets very tiresome. Create your own Ed & Merlyn thread and post away! Yann, if you are really interested ask yourself these questions. Can one be moral if one does not believe in a God or Gods? Also, the DRP only is listed on adult applications so it does not, or should not prevent children (Scouts) from joining the BSA. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principles and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership.

For blacks, an organization that wore uniforms, built fires, net out in the woods at night, etc. was too close to other organizations. That was 20 to 30 years ago. Right now, I think many boys, of all races, need to have "adult association" preferably with adult males, because it is lacking in their home life. Scouts can provide that for some.

Can he? Yes. May he? No.

In most troops the SM is the public face of the troop. According to the BSA, the SM should be the face of the troop. Speaking of docking a DL pay ... Most years when I went to summer camp I volunteered to be a camp commissioner. When all the boys were attending merit badge classes or other activities during hte day, I would volunteer to inspect other campsites. It exposed me to other troops, how they ran things, their equipment, etc. and I always welcomed possible ways in which I could get improvement suggestions. Anyway, one SPL I worked with thought I was some sort of big BSA honcho and insinuated that I must have a very well paid position and came right out and asked me how much I was paid as camp commissioner/inspector. I humorously told him just slightly more than what he was paid to act as SPL. To my surprise, his Scoutmaster and the SAs suddenly looked down at their shoes in embarassment and the SPL stated, well that's not so bad, I get paid $15.00/hr. It turns out that that particular troop did pay their SPL! I was wrong again in estimating my pay.

I was a Scoutmaster for over 7 years. Your have many landmines to deal with when you're dealing with the precious children of others. Many parents see the advancement program as the end all and be all of Scouting and heaven forbid if Johnny can't tie a bowline for the life of him and you don't sign off on that requirement until he has mastered that skill. You'll then get the massive "but Jimmy can't tie that either and he has that signed off" complaint. Never mind that Jimmy's dad is an SA and signed that off! Also, the parents of the 10 & 11 years olds will complain if the troop doesn't revolve around their darlings. At the same time, the parents of the 16 & 17 years olds will complain that the troop just does stuff for the younger boys. After a few year, I too stopped worry as much about building a consensus for certain things. The BSA has a program that we as Scouters have agreed to carry out. So certain things were non-negotiable to me - camping by patrols, utilizing the outdoors, not adding to or deleting from the requirements, not making up what "proper" uniforming was defined to be, etc. Certain things - should we hike, canoe or just chill in the woods were perfectly debatable topics. "Let's have the adults buy the food for the whole troop because it is cheaper than having each patrol shop and the adults buy a beter selection" was something I didn't try to get agreement on, I just said no. Some perceived that to be SM arrogance or worse. A SM has to have thick skin and focus on the boys and let the CC deal with the adults. That's my advice. Dealing with the adults left a sour taste in my mouth. Dealing with 90% of the Scouts was a great deal of enjoyment and satisfaction for me.

If one researches this forum, one can find lengthy threads about what constitutes a "guardian" - some say any adult with a permission slip, others treat it as a legal term bestowed by a judge. To lazy to investigate now but I thought there use to be a rule that the den leader could only have one child (Webelos Scout) under their supervision. Other adults may have more. This was to prevent the parents from just abdicationg their responsibility to the den leader.