acco40

I try not to use the terms Class A, Class B or dress when describing the uniform. I try to stick with field and activity. Why? Well, as a Scouter, I guess I took my responsibility to deliver the program I said I would deliver on the BSA application. I don't like to hold a Scoutmaster Conference during a troop meeting or immediately before or after troop meeting. That irks parents. I love to give them on outings and during other days of the week. When I hold one in a public place (i.e. coffee shop for example) sometimes I'll wear my uniform and sometimes not (depending if I coming from work or from home). Some of the younger scouts show up in uniform and I lavish praise on them! Most (99%) of the older scouts would not wear their uniform in public. It leads to an interesting topic for discussion during the SM conference. Now, when we backpacked in New Mexico this summer and camped in Michigan in the winter I tell the boys to bring along their field uniform for travel (on airplane, bus, car, etc.) but it is not required during the outing because it is not practical. I do like the switchback pants!

To "be a member" of the BSA and the OA one has to be registered. Registration is on an annual basis. I think the BSA and the OA (and Silver Beaver Society, etc.) should do what my alumni association and many other organizations (such as NESA) have done - allow life time membership for a higher fee. Just think, if the BSA allwoed me to be a lifetime member {maybe with an ethical clause :-) } for something like $150 they could "endow" that amount and could easily earn my annual member ship fee forever. {And think of the perpetual screw-ups our council and lodge seem to make with registration, this could ease that burden too!}

Pardon me if I go slightly off topic. Let's say the BSA for some unknown reason, decided to exclude gingers from the BSA. Would you change your stance on allowing the BSA, a private organization (legally) to choose membership criteria? Would you argue that yes, they should retain that right but made a stupid choice in excluding gingers and therefore would work (within or possibly outside of the system) to change that stance? I just wanted to point out that I don't think those who believe the BSA has a right to set membership policy as it sees fit but then again wants to change that policy are 'speaking out of both sides of their mouth' or being inconsistent.

A few years ago (2000) we had troop neckerchiefs made - black with the 1st Class Symbol and Troop XX underneath. The embroidery/seamtress person said she could fill our order but needed a written permission from us to convince her that the symbol was not copyrighted/trademarked. We asked our local council and they gave approval - no cost involved.

I remember staying at my great aunts house in the early 60s in rural Michigan. Her phone rang and she didn't answer it. I was confused, and asked her why she didn't answer it. It wasn't for me she stated? Huh? And so began my education about party lines. I read an interesting research paper many years ago. SAT scores (I think, it was some sort of stardardized test) were showing that test scores were slowly but steadily improving up until around the mid 60s and then started slowly reversing in a slow downward direction. After quite some time, they started increasing again. Low and behold, they then found out an interesting fact. Test scores started going down exactly 18 years after the first nuclear bombs starting going off in 1945! They steadily declined until about 18 years after all above ground nuclear testing was banned. Noting that the kids who take the SAT are usually conceived around 18 years earlier the implications were quite obvious. Now, this doesn't "jive" with those who state that SAT scores are normalized but that is what I remember. Politicians are like medical doctors. They use "data" and then draw conclusions with no "cause and effect" proof - i.e. Haitians have a higher incidence of AIDS so therefore being Haitian is a risk factor for AIDS. Typical logic that was backed up by data but obviously flawed.(This message has been edited by acco40)

When my daughters great grandmother died, we travelled, stayed in a hotel for two days and attended the wake and funeral the next day. She was about 7 years old. A year later her great uncle passed away. Same scenario. The next year, her grandmother passed away (my mother). We travelled (600 miles) and we stayed at my mothers house (my boyhood home). Her reaction was - what, we aren't staying in a hotel? She associated funerals with hotels - swimming pools, and other "neat" stuff. My younger son, about 10 asked me if I was now an orphan (my father passed away before he was born). Children see things differently that adults do. The world still centers on them. That is not wrong, just how it is and appropriate for that stage of development. My oldest son had his religious education teacher pass away (she was in her mid 30s, very young and she died unexpectedly - aorta burst). He was angry and confused. Why had God taken a "good" person who was his teacher and his friend's mother? At a young age we teach children that God is good, loves you and wants you to "behave." Then he witnesses that same God kill a good person (from his point of view). Adults struggle with this as well (see Eamonn post above). Yes, everything that is born will die. It is a part of life. But for kids, the Lion King may be more appropriate than a funeral for some (not all). I think what is most important is the response of their loved ones - parents, siblings, etc. They will take their cues from them.(This message has been edited by acco40)

First, I'm 90% sure about the following but don't have an official BSA response on the topic. Like it our not, time spent as Tiger Partner (not parent - any adult may serve as the Tiger Partner) is not a (paying) registered position and thus does not count toward years of service. Try to find the unit code for that position on the adult application. It is not there. This is very similar to a merit badge counselor. One may be a "registered" MBC but if that is the only adult position, it is not a paying registered position, it does not count toward years of service.

OGE, did you happen to view the South Park episode when one of the kids "befriends" a Latter Day Saint (Mormon) boy? It is hilarious! His family is "perfect" and well behaved - sort of like the folks on your plane. One of my co-workers is Mormon and a great guy (boy that looks stupid in print). Face it, most Mormons had parents who were Mormon. Most Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, etc. are the same. For me, I bristle at those who feel one needs faith or "religion" to behave ethically and have "character." That is my beef with the BSA. George W. Bush is our first (I think) true "born again" US President. For those who proclaim a "sanctity for life" how does one balance that with becoming the Commander in Chief? Is killing an innocent fetus any less or any more "wrong" than an innocent 3 year old Iraqi child? Is a terrorist's life (i.e. Osama Bin Laden) worth any more or less than a two month old fetus? Hard questions that I don't have the answer for. People talk about separating church and state, Ceasar/God, etc. But we as a society make moral judgments all the time (is it wrong to steal bread to feed your starving children?) based on our religious upbringing. Should organized religion tell it's flock how to vote? Well, I don't think they should but they should be allowed to do it. The world is a complicated place. I thought George (Romney not Bush) was an excellent Governor but I'm not to impressed with his son (sort of like Bush/Bush too). Why do the candidates I "like" never seem to have a chance? (Biden!). I guess it's because only the front runners get the high scrutiny? For myself, a candidates view on stem cell research, abortion, capital punishment, and other hot button issues are "don't cares." I'd rather weigh his "beliefs" on things he/she has direct control (defense spending, foreign policy, taxes, basic role of government, etc.). With apologies to Mr. Zimmerman (is he a Christian these days?) Oh my name it is nothin' My age it means less The country I come from Is called the midwest It's taught and brought up there The laws to abide And that land that I live in Has God on it's side. Oh the history books tell it They tell it so well The cavalries charged The Indians fell The cavalries charged The Indians died Oh the country was young With God on it's side. Oh the Spanish-American War had it's day And the civil war too Was soon laid away And the names of the heroes I's made to memorize With guns in their hands And God on their side. Oh the first world war, boys It closed out it's fate The reason for fighting I never got straight But I learned to accept it Accept it with pride For you don't count the dead When god's on your side. When the second world war Came to an end We forgave the Germans And we were friends Though they murdered six million In the ovens they fried The Germans now too Have God on their side. I've learned to hate Russians All through my whole life If another war starts It's them we must fight To hate them and fear them To run and to hide And accept it all bravely With God on my side. But now we got weapons Of the chemical dust If fire them we're forced to Then fire them we must One push of the button And a shot the world wide And you never ask questions When god's on your side. In a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this That Jesus Christ Was betrayed by a kiss But I can't think for you You'll have to decide Whether Judas Iscariot Had God on his side. So now as I'm leavin' I'm weary as hell The confusion I'm feelin' Ain't no tongue can tell The words fill my head And fall to the floor If God's on our side He'll stop the next war. P.S. He didn't.

Just to muddy the waters a little bit ... I think people confuse "no one on one contact" with "two deep leadership." No one on one contact between a youth and adult is always the rule (unless their is a minor/guardian relationship). Two deep leadership is rule for outings (and only some). As a Scouter, there are many, many times when in a Scouting role with youth I do not have two-deep leadership but I never have one on one contact For example, I recently held a Scoutmaster conference at a local coffee shop. No other Scout leader (that I knew of) was present but in a radius of 20 feet were numerous other adults (general public) near the Scout and I. Is keelhauling (keilhalen) banned in G2SS? Maybe an option for Mr. Evans? :-)

Let's keep our cool everyone. One of my first times volunteering at a Cub Scout day camp I was "teamed" with another adult leader. He had been a Boy Scout leader at one time (Scoutmaster?). He told me that once on a campout the older boys (16+) asked to drive out of camp to get a pizza. He said no. According to him, the next day charges of sexual abuse followed. I didn't get into details (he seemed very bitter). I know from my own experience, at a Boy Scout Camporee, one the Scouts in our troop was acting up (cutting across other troops campsites without permission). I (as SM) told him that was not showing good etiquette. Two minutes later he was doing it again and one of my SAs calmly put his hand on the boys shoulder and gave him "the look." Almost as a reflexive answer the boy repeatedly said "child abuse, child abuse" (or possibly sex abuse, sex abuse, I don't recall). I was standing right there, didn't think much of it and told the Scout to knock it off. He did and went on his merry way. Well, to make a long story short, many adults were up in arms about the incident and it came down to losing half of the adult leaders or the Scout in question. I met with the CC and we decided that to return to Scout activities the Scout in question needed to have a sit down discussion with the CC. He choose not to. My point is that we have many superbly manipulative boys and adults out there. The adults, unfortunately, who want to take "advantage" of some of the Scouts are sophisticated. There are many reasons for the courts, victums, accusers, accused and parent organizations to act the way they do - money, ethics, legal advice, privacy, etc. Let's don't try to make assumptions on their actions based on partial evidence. For myself, as leaders we need to educate our youth about how to handle such situations so that they can be minimized or dream of dreams, eliminated. As a leader, I make sure I don't put myself in a position to be accused of wrong doing. Our society (America) still has some very weird thoughts wrt sex and sexuality. I have a 13 year old daughter. I remember a few years ago, she must have only been ten, and I went out jogging about the neighborhood. She used to go along with me riding her bicycle (and carrying a water bottle for me!). On one run, she was about 100 yards ahead of me and a car drove by with a bunch of teenage boys. When they passed her they all whooped, hollared and whistled at her while hanging out of the windows. She stopped at a corner and when I caught up to her, she innocently asked me who those boys were. Since she didn't know them she thought they must know me! Why on Earth would they make such a fuss is they didn't know her? I didn't have the heart to tell her what the incident was all about. Merlyn, please don't incite - I don't think they can do that with the namesake of one of their major lawsuits. Everyone, how about a "I think you misunderstood me" and not "you're lying" type comments? Don't forget Cheerful, Kind, Friendly and Courteous.

Mr. Horn, I don't quite understand your attribution of the "fake Scouting" label to position of responsibility. Are you in disagreement with the Star/Life/Eagle POR requirements or have a beef with the concept of PORs? I feel that having a designated, usually youth elected, POR is a great learning experience for the boys. Most neophyte patrol leaders always explain to me what "bad" Scouts they have in their patrol. They never listen to them. They are just cutting their teeth on leadership skills and it is accompanied by a lot of growing pains. I know that leadership is not one of Scoutings aims but most of us put it up with the aims to an extent. I don't see any problem with the POR requirements if implemented correctly.

The goal of education is to learn. It is not to get "good grades." The goal of Scouting is to teach character, civics and personal fitness. It is not to "get Eagle." That said, grades for some are great motivators for some students. Rank/advancement is a great motivator for some Scouts. Look at Scouts who have earned Eagle. Does their participation drop off? If so, these were the boys who were motivated to "get Eagle" by their parents, self or others. I've asked Scouts during a Scoutmaster cnference a very simple question. Why are you in Scouting? Most of the Scouts past the age of 13 have replied to "get Eagle" (not earn mind you). I then ask, "Why do you want to earn Eagle?" and the reply by the vast majority is for college. I find that very sad. Yes, I wouldn't be to disheartened if these boys left the program. But I've also seen boys very proud to earn 2nd Class and go through their books looking to see what they have left to do to earn Eagle. My own son earned Life fairly rapidly - at age 12 after about a year and a half of boy Scouts. He earned his Eagle five year later after serving as SPL in the troop numerous times, ASPL for his Jambo troop, trek lead at Double H, serving as troop guide for NYLT and later as SPL for NYLT, mentoring many other Scouts, etc. His only real complaint was that the dearth of his peers, other 16 & 17 year old Scouts in the troop. Now, did his parents push him to complete his Eagle project? Well his mother did! But the biggest influence, I think, was the exposure he had to other adult leaders, not in his troop, that he was exposed to encouraging him to earn the highest rank. His participation is not dropping off but I've not seen hide nor hair of the other three Scouts who earned Eagle in the troop this year. Of course, these boys parents all have really good reasons why their son can't make the meetings, outings, etc. :-) FCFY is a valid goal for the troop. By that, I mean that a troop should offer a program such that all new Scouts should be able to easily earn 1st Class in the first year. Will they take advantage of it? Maybe so, maybe not but the unit should offer a program that makes 1st Class obtainable in the first year.

Eamonn, don't protest - agree with your wife's assessment. Then suggest a recovery plan. Explain that it would be best if you "mentored" a young prospective future spouse. As everyone knows, every good business must have a good succession plan in place. I'll bet she changes her tune quite quickly.

As a Scoutmaster, I look at a BOR somewhat differently. It is an evaluation of the advancement program itself - the program that I have responsibility for. So, yes, it is quite fair to "test" a Scout by asking him to tie a bowline. However, the purpose of that test is to obtain input so that the BOR members are able to objectively evaluate the advancement program of the SM. Insanescouter got it right. Now, if the Scout in question is going for 1st Class and the requirement for tieing a bowline is signed off in his book - no ifs, ands or buts about it - he has completed that requirement. If the Scout doesn't have the foggiest idea how to tie a bowline in the BOR the board needs to judge if that is due to nerves on the Scouts, slopply requirement sign-off procedures, skills not really being taught, a skill that has been forgotten, etc.

What? We now have new ranks? :-)

Gold Winger - I kind of agree with you but the BSA response is that this requirement helps teach the boys communication skills (a necessary Scout skill). Tell someone who is eligible to join Boy Scouts, or an inactive Boy Scout, about your troop's activities. Invite him to a troop outing, activity, service project or meeting. Tell him how to join, or encourage the inactive Boy Scout to become active.

As kind of a push them out of the nest tactic, when we did our annual planning in August 2007 for calendar year 2008, we left September open for a patrol outing. All the boys like the idea but don't necessarily want to do the upfront planning. This gives them a direct incentive to do that planning.

First of all, maybe the SPL wants to split into two patrols but do the rest of the Scouts? I see an SPL, ASPL and then seven other boys. To split seven would require a patrol of 4 and a patrol of 3. I think the minimum for a patrol is 4. I don't think you have the numbers but if it is almost unanimous that it is what the boys want to do (make sure they are not just doing it to create a POR) go for it. Keep in mind that you may get crossing over Weblelos in three months! What do you do then? I would wait until then and then let the boys pick a patrol of their peers (who they want) and then let them pick their PL. Do not pick/assign PLs and then put Scouts into their patrol. That is a recipe for disaster.

A few years ago, I let one of our patrols do a patrol outing. We were at a fairly large Scout camp and the majority of the troop camped at a particular sight. The older boys (who were 12 - 14, we were a young troop) camped at another site about one half mile away. We were out of earshot and made a late evening and early morning 'visit' butthe boys really like the idea. Just his past month, I asked the same patrol (now 15 - 17 years in age) if they would like to do the same thing again. Yeah! was their response. I said, okay, what you need to give me is a plan that I can approve. Well that required effort and they put together a half-baked plan that was not SM approved. Live and learn.

I recoiled from the "America - Love it or Leave it!" mentality. I hated the draconian drug laws that we had in the 1970s. I don't like some of the stances that the BSA has taken. However, as a program, I think it does a wonderful job and has a very good mission. Therefore I support it while quietly trying to "tweak" their program. I know many feel that I'm taking a "wishy washy" or worse - hypocritical position. I know what Scouting has done for my sons - and I support it. I think Scouting could have done just as much or more for my sons the requirements for membership were slightly different. At one time, the BSA joining requirements were different. They changed. If one supported the earlier requirements does that make them hypocritical?

The Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program in their unit. That is stated in the advancement guide. As a Scoutmaster, I tell the boys in our unit that you may have gotten a requirement signed off, received a BOR, had a MBC sign-off on a merit badge, etc. but until I am aware of that fact, it is not earned. Now, I've rarely* not allowed a requirement that has been signed off to not stand or overturned that fact that a MBC stated that a MB has been earned. But in reality, unless it gets entered into Troopmaster and then sent to the council office it is not "earned." If a SM feels a shoddy job has been done by the MBC, he should report that to his district advancement chair. For Scouts in our troop, I've had MBC sign-off on "blue cards" that I have not signed. I don't like it but I've not vetoed the fact that the boy has completed the requirements (but I could). * - We use to let our 1st Class and above Scouts (preferably PLs) sign-off for Tenderfoot, 2nd and 1st Class requirements. I noticed that a few of the boys "demonstrated water rescue" in the church basement and withheld the sign-off authority for a while but never rescinded that fact that a Scout has the requirement completed. I did however, make sure that he demonstrated water rescue later on (had him teach the requirement). I withheld the fishing MB to some of the Scouts who I know did not even take the MB at summer camp. The MBC wasn't really sure who came and went to his classes all week and just signed a bunch of blank blue cards filling in everything himself. I asked the boys (after I had received their blue cards from the MBC) if they took the class and they stated no. Same went for the canoeing one year. The Scout did not pass the swimming skills so couldn't even take the MB but got a signed off card.

Backpacking is the one area where we threw the "patrol method" out the window wrt meals. Each backpacker carried his own meals. Some (mostly adults) found it worthwhile to carry more sumptuous meals and others did not. Just like the decision on whether or not to bring a small lightweight stool is an individual decision, meals are in the same category. A 220 lb man needs a lot more calories than a 105 lb 12 year old. P.S. Philmont meals are great but generate so much trash it is ridiculous!(This message has been edited by acco40)

Why do you think they call it an open house?

First a little background - Commissioners must not be registered simultaneously as unit leaders. Some commissioners may be registered on a unit committee because they have a son in the unit or because of previous personal history in the unit, but their principle Scouting obligation should be with commissioner responsibilities. Commissioners may be currently registered in only one commissioner position. Now, many or should I say most Commissioners either were or still are unit leaders (SM or SAs). Second - I thought the Quality Program was going the way of the dinosaurs; repaced by the Centennial Award. Third - in my work as a UC, a quality program is a program that delivers the promise of Scouting to the youth. A Quality Unit (or District or Council) is one that meets the metrics for that specific award. There is an attempt that these metrics try and measure if a unit is delivering the promise of Scouting. The Centennial Award is an improvement IMO because the unit has input into what their goals (at least from a magnitude perspective).

LongHaul or anyone else - I present to you this challenge. Show me on a BSA application or any other official BSA document that states that avowed homosexuals do not qualify for membership. I'm not talking about legal briefs, third party web sites, BSA press releases, etc. I'm talking about the "contract" that is signed - the BSA application itself. It is not there. So why do you act surprised when someone is surprised when they are told the BSA doesn't allow homosexuals? Let's see - possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth - hmm. I guess. I believe I'm a "moral" guy. The applicant must be the correct age - check, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle - well let's see - recognize an obligation to God the religious element in the BSA training - okay, I do, check. The home and organization or group with which the Scout or Scouter is connected shall give definite attention to religious life - okay, check; abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law - yeah, I do - checkmate. I must be good to go. What? Somebody now tells me that as a God fearing, celibate, homosexual male, I don't qualify. I don't remember seeing that as a requirement.(This message has been edited by acco40)