acco40

Simple, Ed. He doesn't get credit for service. I think you and I agree that it is a great idea to get SM approval beforehand, but it should not be a required. Altar service - I talked with my district advancement chair a few years ago and his reply was that he would not count as service any activity that the Scout performed as part of his "routine." Example, my son's serve as ushers at church on occasion. It is something that does provide service but just like walking the family dog, it is really a part of their life and I, their father and SM, did not count it as service hours. For those that do, no big deal in my book.

I'll be the good looking guy in the khaki (tan) shirt and quirky green shorts with matching socks. :-)

Some training - safe swim defense, safety afloat, youth protection, etc. I think can be reviewed, either on one's own or in a classroom setting, every two years or so. Other training, such as Leader Specific, Wood Badge, etc. is a different story. If you really want to learn something, try and teach it to others. Volunteer yourself to the training staff. Besides, it is a good idea not to get the same "trainers" year after year.(This message has been edited by acco40)

I'll be contemplating my DNA in subcamp 12.

Why the perceived requirement to get SM approval before hand? I advise the boys in our troop to get my approval on a service project beforehand so that they will know ahead of time if I will approve it and to avoid possible battles (mostly with parents) but it is not a firm requirement.

One thing Scouting has taught me is too have thick skin. OGE, because of the quasi-anonymity of the forum, trying to moderate some of our rather prideful posters can be a chore. Please continue to post in your now "regular" role. And Scouter Terry, thanks for providing all of us with this venue.

Youth physicals are good for three years but they need an annual signature by the parents/guardian.

Two deep leadership is required for outings, not everything. MB classes do not require two-deep leadership. However, the no one-on-one contact exists for all cases (unless it is from the same family). Do I see a problem with the above stated case? Ideally, yes. But, the devil is always in the details and dependent on the length, seclusion factor, etc. it may be the lesser of two evils. Especially if the adult and Scout were familiar with each other, a judgment call may exist. On one our our outings last year, we were in my estimation somewhat short on leaders - only two with about 15 boys. One of the boys woke up sick around midnight. I got up with him after being awakened by my son, the other boys tent mate. He threw-up and I sat with him for about 45 minutes. The other boys went back in their tents after about ten minutes. The sick Scout went back to bed but arose a half hour later and got sick again. I stayed up with him for about three hours and called his mother at about 5:30 AM. At six o'clock she arrived and took him home (he had a bad stomach virus that 50% of the troop got in the next week including me). I was alone with him, in camp but everyone else was sleeping, for about 4 hours. In my judgment I did not want to wake another Scout or adult. Needless to say, with no sleep, I was not very productive the next day. Some would find fault with what I did but judgment calls need to made all the time. Because I knew this Scout and his family very well, I was his Tiger through Boy Scout leader, I was comfortable with my decision.

TJ, even you know that if we were to institute a litmus test of perfection before someone was "certified" to teach ethics we would all be waiting around for a long time! Heck, we on this forum are not unamimous in what is considered ethical behavior!

Understood, BW, but the bigger question is should the youth wear them in the first place? Not much of an issue in the big picture but just curious. I'll have to comb through the insignia guide tonight.

Thanks for the reference Eamonn. Now for the more difficult task - right now the patches are in the hands of the contingent troop SMs or QMs and not the youth. How would I "delicately" communicate to them that the region patch may not be appropriate for youth wear without coming across as the proverbial uniform police. I'm going to suggest that we give them to the youth but suggest that they use them for "trade bait" once at Jambo.

In theory - no different than her mother. In fact, the Girl Scout Volunteer application of Metro Detroit (where my daughter is a member) does not ask the sex of the volunteer. In fact, on the application it states: "This is an application for a volunteer position in Girl Scouting for which there is no monetary compensation. In the selection of volunteers, there shall be no discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, sex, religion, creed, national origin, socioeconomic status, age, disability, marital status, veteran status, or on any other basis prohibited by federal, state, or local law."

For the slang impaired, mostly US citizens, "fags" is a slang term for cigarettes in many European and European influenced countries. PatBB, thanks for the chuckle! P.S. What is the definition of a Canadian? Ans: An American without a gun. How did Canada come up with it's name? A few were talking, pondering and imbibing about a good name and started by throwing out letters? How about a C, eh? N, eh? D, eh? And thus CaNaDa was created!(This message has been edited by acco40)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where have I heard that before?

At last nights Jambo meeting, all members of the contingent troops were given region patches (36 youth, four adult leaders times five contingent troops). A discussion ensued about who should wear the patch and the consensus, right or wrong, was that all would wear the patch on their right sleeve below the flag. The one page uniform inspection sheets don't mention region patches. I'll have to check my insignia guide at home tonight. I've seen on unofficial sites, "Adults may wear the appropriate region patch on their right sleeve" but that is all. On another thread on this forum (RE: Adult Uniform -- Right Sleeve?) was the statement from Scout Commish, "The insignia guide (03-05 version) states "This insignia is reserved for regional officers, regional committee members, local council professional Scouters, and national staff with a regional responsibility..." "Adult regional world and national jamboree contingent staff and leaders may wear the insignia only during their assignment at the jamboree. The same rule applies to specifically designed regional insignia for a national event.""(This message has been edited by acco40)

Why are Scout Leaders willing to pick-and-choose what rules they will follow based solely on their personal comfort or convenience. Why you may ask? I'll answer with the same response that is given to the question, "Why does a dog lick his *****? Answer: Because they can. Now I'm not say the majority or large minority of Scouters do this but for those who do, my rather blunt, sarcastic answer does hold some truth.

NJ, don't be too hard. President Bush may attend the Jamboree and yes just like many other presidents, of both parties, the reasons are two fold - good press and support for Scouting. I won't express my opinion on which reason is more important to our current president. Now, fgoodwin, on the byline for Mr. Cotterell is the label "DEMOCRAT POLITICAL EDITOR." i did not realize that editors had to wear their political affiliations on their sleeve. :-) Yes, I know what it really signifies.

Who says the BSA discourages the term Class A? From the official National Jamboree web site: "Low-profile twill cap has a precurved visor. For wear with Boy Scout Class A Uniform." "Boy Scout Insignia for Class A uniform shirts." "Boy Scout Leader Insignia for Class A uniform shirts" I'm surprised and wish they used the term "Field Uniform" but alas, I guess they just knowingly for their own convenience, comfort and personal preference chose not to follow the "rules."

"What I wanted to talk about is the willingness of Scout Leaders to pick-and-choose what rules they will follow based solely on their personal comfort or convenience." "The still avoided question is how do you explain to the scout that you can pick and choose which rules you can ignore based on your personal preference, but that they cannot do the same with the troop rules." BW, I think you "stack the deck." I don't think any Scouter (or at least I hope none) feels they pick and choose rules to obey based on personal comfort, preference or convenience. Therefore, no explanation is forthcoming to the Scouts. Now, as you have witnessed many times on this forum, some of the Scouters choose to ignore, violate or disobey rules because of other reasons. I'm not condoning those actions. However, I would not be so bold to ask why they violated these rules for personal comfort but just a plain why should suffice. We have promised to deliver a program, not "our program" and we should all be wary of deviating from that but lets not cry over spilled milk. Take the much discussed "patrol method." I'm a firm believer in trying to use that method, especially with the younger boys. If only two members of a patrol participate in an outing, we still have them function as a patrol - meals, menus, tent placement, etc. I know not all troops do this but I think they "violate" that method not because of personal convenience, comfort or preference but because they feel it is in the best interest of the Scouts. You and I may not agree but I think it is wrong to accuse them of whimsical behavior. Our current Jambo contingent troop is composed of Scouts and Scouters from three different troops. One does not "require" Scout pants. Do they have the authority to do this? No. Did the rule makers of that troop do that for personal comfort, convenience or preference? I don't know but I doubt it. Now, last weekend my neighbor invited my family, or the family with which I belong according to my teenage sons, to his birthday party held a the local Laser Quest facility. We played two games of laser tag. My boys know that it is a banned Scouting activity and an activity that I do not condone in a Scouting environment and have quashed repeatedly after suggestions by our PLC but know that I have no real personal objection (or real liking either) to it. Do I have some explaining to do? So far, they have not asked about it. And, communists weapons dealers? Don't you know that the bad guy de rigueur is now the "terrorists." On a serious note, RPGs can now be had on the open market for under $10/per.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Our districts covers multiple school districts. In fact, the boys in our troop come from different public school districts, each with different school calendars. Our most recent event was three and a half hours away and they wanted us to check in by no later than 4:00 PM. Well, we arrived at 8:45 PM. C'est la vie. Heck, my sons would jump at the chance to miss school for Scouts. If they had their preference, outings would take place Monday through Friday so they could have the weekends to themselves. Not sure Dad agrees. Vote with your feet. Talk to your council/district. Good luck.(This message has been edited by acco40)

In our troop our "terms" are for six months. I've had SPLs serve for two consecutive terms, never three or more. I have had one serve for two terms, and then serve again at a later date. In our troop I a few years ago when the oldest boy was only 12 I drew up a "troop positions" guide that listed general information, qualifications, responsibilities, chain of command, expectations, etc. Most had such adjectives as "desired", "recommended", etc. After a year, I asked the PLC if they wanted to amend it at all, example require a minimum rank, term limit, pre-reqs, etc. My suggestion to you is to let the PLC decide. As for timing, I would not make any changes right before an election but maybe soon afterward.

Sorry, duplicate post.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Warning - this is somewhat off topic but I decided not to spin off this response to another thread. I don't fall into the camp of "no rules but the Scout Oath and Law" but again, it may be just semantics. How a troop collects dues, meeting nights, Scout account peculiars, etc. need to be written down (if it is not written down it is not a plan I tell the boys repeatedly). However, too many "rules" does water down the importance of rules. I am not an advocate of recreational drug use. However, I don't like our current judicial attitude with respect to the same. In the late 60's and early 70's drug use, specifically marijuana use, was peaking with our youth. Draconian drug laws and what was viewed as hypocrisy by many with other laws concerning alcohol, tobacco, etc. unfortunately bred an overall disrespect for the law in general. The draft, racial laws, etc. were tertiary factors too. We have to be careful we don't give the perception that our "adult" rules are whimsical, inconsistent or unevenly applied in the eyes of our Scouts. One bad or "stupid" rule in the eyes of the youth may make them view all rules as suspect. I'm not advocating to kowtowing to the youth but we need to be careful. As a troop, we've agreed on a troop hat and neckerchief. About a third of the troop participated in the local communities Memorial Day parade yesterday. I suggested to my 13 yr old son that he wear his troop hat (which he does not like to wear). He groaned and did not. Upon arrival, I happened to point out that I and all of the other youth had their hats. Of course, he pointed out that many other Scouts, from other troops, did not have any head gear. My point was made and the subject was dropped. As SM and father, I was disappointed in his decision as a Scout and son but in the big picture it was in the mud with my other concerns. Rules are rules but especially when dealing with adolescent boys - whose favorite pastime seems to be with testing limits - we need to give them some space always keeping in mind our overarching goals.

Is it a proper ethical choice to "obey the law" blindly? I say no. It depends on the law. Now, trying to teach civics and ethics, something that the Scouting program is supposed to do, with that belief is difficult. Now to answer the original threads question, I'll first assume that "these rules" refers to a troop's bylaws or rules above and beyond the Scout Oath and Law. I would try and understand why the Scout felt the rule was stupid. Because it was a personal inconvenience to him? Because he thought the rule was unfair? I may also explain my thoughts on the subject. If I found that the Scout had some legitimacy, I would ask that he bring it up to the PLC. I would also make sure that if the broken rule had consequences that the Scout be prepared to accept those consequences for breaking that rule.

Riddle me this Batman ... A Scout is trustworthy. Many current CIA members are former Scouts. As spies/intelligence agents, they operate covertly. Is this Scout like behavior? A Scout is kind. Many current US Military Academy graduates are former Scouts. Many are asked to "destroy the enemy." Is this Scout like behavior? A Scout is thrifty. Many current members of Congress are former Scouts. They must have forgotten this one!! I'm not really looking for answers as most may surmise but it does point out that we need to teach our sons and daughters to make ethical choices - not necessarily to think in lock-step but to THINK.(This message has been edited by acco40)