acco40

If I'm not mistaken, a SM may sit in on an Eagle BOR for a Scout from "the troop he serves" as long as it is not his son. Now, "sit in on" means he may view it silently and only respond if asked a direct question. He would not be a member of the board that conducts the review.

How do I do it? Education. A good football coach calls plays to take advantage of the talent he has on the team. A not so good coach insists that he has to establish his running game even if his talent lies with his QBs arm and his recieving corps. As parents, we should use what works best for our children. What works best for mine may not work best for yours. Heck, I've got three kids and what works best each is very different. That makes my duties as a parent more difficult but I deal with it (with help from my spouse). The same should be true for Scout leaders. This American fantasy that we all should be treated the same is a legal nicety but is disaster in reality. Learn the talents of the boys in your troop (their troop?). Adjust your teaching and mentoring approach appropriately. I've had boys in the troop who had been physically abused. Quick movements startled them. Some of the boys were so impulsive in their speech and actions they were a definite safety hazard. Some had true physical disabilities. Some were star athletes. Some had learning disabilities. Scouts is a great vehicle for bringing people of different economic, social, physical and educational backgrounds together. Learn from it.

My policy, or maybe modus operandi, is to set expectations for the youth - including my own (yes MY) boys. The expectations is that when at a Scout function, a Scout uniform is always appropriate. The boys always ask me, the SM, do I have to wear my uniform to a PLC meeting? My pat response is that it is a Scout function and I will be wearing my uniform but that nobody is required to wear anything at all. That confuses some, gives some the feeling that they have the liberty or SM okay to wear anything they want and to the bright ones who "get it" re-enforcement that yes, they should wear their uniform. Similarly, I tell the parents of these boys that the expectation is that they contribute in a positive manner to the success of the troop. Some, like their sons, get it, some don't.

amouse, I see that you are about to be a Tenderfoot. Take a look at the camping, first aid and swimming merit badges as well as 2nd and 1st Class requirements. They can complement each other. Why don't you try this approach. Politely request from your SM the name of a MB counselor for one of the MBs I mentioned above that you have the most interest in earning. Inform the SM of how it will help you complete the rank requirements (he should already know this). An informed SM should willingly give you the information that you have requested. If they do not, I would politely ask why. Before talking to a district executive (I'd enlist a parents help for this) I'd approach your district advancement committee first.

A unit commissioner is a "friend" to the unit. If the program is changed so that his job description includes a pass/fail/probation grade - which will be subjective - it is not a good idea. Let's say I witness the following from a troop that I serve as UC: Adult (Eagle Scout) volunteers to help out as a Scouter and states that he would be happy to serve as CM or SA. SM and CC decide CM would is best position to be filled. However, this individual helps with program planning, attends most outings, i.e. has many quasi-SA responsibilities and actually takes more direction from SM than CC. He also sits on BORs. Is this a policy violation? No. Is this a violation on the intent of the policy? Maybe. A patrol of five only has one youth attend an outing and the SM & SPL agree to lump him in with another patrol for that outing. Does this show disregard for the patrol method? It is observed that once a month, the SPL/SM arrange to have a MB counselor come to a troop meeting to teach a MB class selected by the PLC. Is this a violation of the advancement guidelines? I could go on and on. What I feel is really lacking are educated consumers. Most parents and almost all of the Scouts don't have the slightest idea on how a troop should be run. What do they expect when the troop isn't run properly. I tell prospective families before they join our troop that I, as SM, try to see that the troop follows all BSA guidelines and policy (which is really a committe function which I wish they would do in my case!) and that if they se anything different to please bring it to my attention. I to dislike Scouters who so often use the phrase of "I know how it is suppose to be but I disagree with it so we run it this way." The problem is when you get parents who let that happen.

amouse, first a belated welcome to the forum! It is great to see more of the youth perspective here. Technically, a registered Scouter, with his Scoutmaster's approval and with the consent of his merit badge counselor may earn a merit badge at any (or none) rank. One could technically earn 100 merit badges before earning the Scout badge. I would not recommend it but ... Now a little background - beware of using the phrase "my troop." Some may use that as an indication of your perspective on troop ownership. Now, when you state that "they don't want us doing any merit badges until we are first class" could have many meetings. I take "they" as meaning the Council, which may mean many different individuals. If by "us" you mean the troop, the "council" is partially correct. Troops should not work on merit badges collectively during troop meetings. That is not the purpose of a troop meeting, regardless of rank (see advancement guide). Another factor, as hinted on by Scoutmaster Ron is the first class in first year paradigm. Some use this as a metric to measure the quality of a troop. Therefore, those who worry about such metrics may not want anything to take away from meeting that goal. What they may fail to realize is that earning the first aid or swimming merit badge may help a Scout advance (many overlapping rank requirements) and keep up his interest and sense of accomplishment. Advancement is a method (not aim) of Scouting (and also something the youth should not necessarily concern themselves with). Many troops have built in biases. In our troop, the previous "regime" did not let Scouts take the pathfinder program (work on Tenderfoot - 1st Class reqs) and insisted they work on merit badges because "we will cover the rank requirements during troop meetings." I know of other troops that do the opposite and require first year Scouts to take the pathfinder program - i.e. a Scout should learn basic skills before starting on merit badges. News flash - the Scouts should make an informed decision themselves! In my experience, the pathfinder program in my council is lacking and I've tried to 1) improve it 2) inform the boys of my expectations of the class. Last summer, we had about 60% of the NSP boys take pathfinder I or pathfinder II and about 40% take merit badges exclusively.(This message has been edited by acco40)

When it is most usual (February - April time frame), when it is most convenient (a specific date) and when it is acceptable are all different. A troop should be able to accept newcomers at all times (unless there are size limitations).

"I was told that he could progress in rank from tiger (the year that he completed when he was put back into 1st grade)." I'm somewhat confused by the statement above. I believe that that the Cub Scout program is both grade and age based. If a boy was young (say four years old) but a first grader, he could sign up as a Tiger. But if he did not advance to 2nd grade, even if he completed the Tiger program successfully, he would not meet either the age or grade requirement for Wolf. Secondly, if a boy did not complete or earn a Cub Scout rank (let's say he did not earn his Bear badge/rank) he may still "progress" (become a Webelos Scout) if he meets the age or grade requirement. The Boy Scouts is not age based except for a minimum and maximum range. NJCubScouter listed the joining (new) requirements correctly. The maximum age is 18 (for most).

Recognition is the only payment we get (professionals excluded)! Seriously, if the troop is going to recognize "all leaders" except for one, that is awkward. You don't state your position and I'm confused when you state "I have alreadey recognized him myself." Was it public recognition? Sometimes, as SM, when I congratulate a volunteer or a Scout for an accomplishment - hurt feelings happen because someone else feels they should have been recognized (or usually a parent feels their son has been left out). That is why I usually give accolades and repremands (or thorns and roses) to the troop as a hole generically unless there is a specific, well defined accomplishment - Johnny earned 1st Class, Mr. Smith got trained, etc. As SM, I've noticed that I when the troop asks for adult volunteers to do something and I participate the non-leaders and even the CMs and SAs many times get "atta-boys" but not me. I guess it is just expected of the SM. Hey, it comes with the territory and I've learned to grow a very thick skin wrt Scouting. (Oops, I'm guessing you are an SPL? If so, you are in a position to thank the adult leaders and volunteers and believe me, it is better to recognize and extra person who may not have "earned it" than to leave someone out who did.)(This message has been edited by acco40)

For some functions, like an Eagle COH, the young men should be the focus of attention. A Scoutmaster, whose is attending his son's Eagle COH, may simply wish to stay in the background to make sure the spotlight stays focused on his son. I'm reminded of one of the UCs in my district. He is a great guy but he has been in Scouting for close to 50 years. At a roundtable, when awarding a 20 yr service pin to someone, he never hesitates to mention or reminisce about when he earned his 20 yr pin, same when awarding a Silver Beaver, etc. With his "Panamanian General" scout shirt, the focus always seems to be on him and not the individual receiving hte award.

I don't think there is anything wrong in your post but it would not be improper to wear your Cub Scout uniform to your son's COH. You are still Cub Scout leaders. However, just like the position patch, the unifomr you wear should represent the function you are carrying out.

Also, I think for a quality unit - a minimum of four are required. However, just like the number of outings, no strict number is "required." That is, if you have three COHs in a year, don't worry about getting your charter revoked.

To put it in "bunny talk" for those who think too deeply about such issues: Should private organizations be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation without fear of government reprisals? The Supreme Court said yes for the both BSA and for Law Schools. Makes perfect sense to me. The devil is always in the details and I still question the exactly how "public" the BSA and most law schools really are.

We have a $10 per weekend outing guideline for food (Fri. snack, Sat. 3 meals & snack, Sun. breakfast). We don't charge separately for food, the outing has one cost. Food is bought/prepared/eaten by patrol. The adults belong to their own patrol. Food purchaser is reimbursed for food costs - recept is needed. If over $10/person goal, action may be taken. A Scout is thrifty.

Whew! Beware of acronyms. For a minute I thought to myself why on Earth would someebody want Jim Lovell's prostate-specific antigen test results? Can you tell I'm an over 40 male?

The biggest complaint heard from junior leaders after attending JLTC (NYLT?) is that the SM/SAs don't give them the leeway to implement what they have learned (according to my PTC trainers). Now I hope the "Get trained" folks don't take this the wrong way but similarly - no good Scouter Fairy exists either. Getting trained is a good step - it IS hard to deliver a program one is ignorant about - but is not the end all.

Our family vacation was spent at PTC this past summer. It was great and all three of my children enjoyed it immensely. My daughter was in the Ropers - 9 yr. old girls. My 12 year old in the Trailblazers - 12 yr. old boys. My oldest turned 14 at Philmont so he was a few days to young for the trek but had the time of his life as Broncos - 14 to 21 yr old (co-ed). My wife was a Silverado (all 29 yr old ). Some of the Silverados did the museums and shopping but her group did COPE and other neat stuff. All made lasting friendships from around the country. I noticed that many of the attendees were there for their sixth, seventh or more time. They do it every year. It is a wonderful way to take a vacation. The one who had the least amount of fun was me - sitting in a classroom most of the time. Although I had a wonderful time myself. P.S. Last summer was a once in a lifetime opportunity to experience Philmont after a summer of rain. Everything was in bloom, once dry meadows were wetlands. It was georgous.

A Boy Scout Troop is a collection of patrols. The patrol, not the troop, is the basic unit of Scouting. A patrol should be a collection of peers, friends, buddies, etc. One of the reasons that I am a true believer of NSPs, regular, and "experienced" or venture patrols is because it helps to avoid the type of incident shown in the previous posts. What did the PLC decide to do for the troop meeting? Not the SPLs agenda, but the PLCs agenda. Was it to play football or learn and teach advancement? The boys need to have buy in on what they want to do at the meetings. If the PLC decides that during patrol corners, one patrol plays football and one learns lashings - no problem. Now, I have a few boys on our troop who are just about to make Life. Their goals is to earn Eagle. They see earning Eagle as a goal in and of itself. Not helping others, teaching younger Scouts, providing service, etc. It is my job as SM to try and teach them the concepts of servant leadership. It is a tough row to hoe.

A Scout is ..... obedient. Maybe some ACLU members are former Scouts and holding the Government or the BSA to the "letter of the law" is something to be proud of. I don't look at the ACLU as anti-Scouting. I know many do. I believe the ACLU is pro-civil liberties. I think what many "radicals" who are fervent members of such organizations as PETA, the ACLU, Greenpeace, etc. are guilty of is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I am a strong supporter of Scouting. However, I think they are dead wrong on their current stance with respect to the declaration of religious principle and ban on avowed homosexuals. I do not believe the "solution" is to denigrate Scouting, Scouters, or Scouting supporters. I agree that these lawsuits raise the awareness of Scouting and I think that is a double edge sword. What I don't want to see is the polarization that is all to prevalent in today's society. The "either your for us or against us" mentality that is all too pervasive now. Maybe I am wrong. I know some would say that the gay community pushed to hard, to fast and created a backlash against them i.e. the eleven state referendums. Maybe the same thing will happen with Scouting. But my preference would be that all would work together to support an organization that tries to instill the values of physical and mental fitness, citizenship and character.(This message has been edited by acco40)

In the continuing saga of "discussions" on politics I thought I'd share the following editorial written by Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Notice his use of the phrase "traditional American values." I know some will not agree with it but you can see why I abhor the use of that phrase and the way the BSA trumpets it. It has no real meaning other than "feel good" to some and at worst inflamatory to others. Listen to us talk at each other, will you? We Americans are actually debating in the public square not which policy is the most practical or most wise, or which leader is the more competent, but which is the most Christian. We have taken religion the highest expression of human thought and spirit and we have cheapened it by using it as a weapon to attack and belittle those with whom we disagree. Religious leaders are even daring to instruct us in how to vote, and in some cases are suggesting that those who dare to vote contrary to their leaders' wishes risk their soul and standing with God. This is America? We know better than this. Or at least we used to. We used to understand that government and religion function best when they function independently, when the only link between them is the indirect link of human beings acting out their private faith through public service. We used to understand that if religion takes a direct role in government, government must inevitably take a direct role in religion, and that the long-standing wall between them was built for the protection of both institutions. But I guess those are some of the traditional American values now under attack by the dominant political and cultural elite, the Christian right. Yes, that group still likes to depict itself as the most victimized group in American public life, but that's a mere pose, a sham designed to stroke its members' egos and satisfy their need to feel persecuted. That same group, after all, is also beating its chest, proclaiming itself as the nation's most powerful political group to which even the president and Congress must now pay homage. Logically, both self-images cannot be true. It's too bad, really, because in a rough sense we already know how this story ends. We've seen it so many times before. There is no case in recorded human history, regardless of era or culture, in which religion and government have been intertwined without eventually compromising basic human freedoms. Inevitably, every time, that relationship gets out of control and people get hurt. Despite what the political and cultural elite try to tell us, though, there's still hope. The values that have made this country great and nurtured a strong religious tradition still have some power among the people. According to a nationwide poll taken in August by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, for example, 65 percent of Americans still say it is inappropriate for churches and religious leaders to endorse candidates. And 69 percent say it is wrong for political campaigns to request church membership lists, as President Bush's campaign did. A substantial majority 64 percent say it would be improper for Catholic leaders to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who take positions contrary to church teaching. In fact, of all the groups polled, that practice was condemned most strongly by Catholics themselves, with 72 percent saying it was improper. Unfortunately, those remnants of common sense may not survive what's coming. In his second term, President Bush has promised a significant expansion of his faith-based initiative, which envisions giving lucrative tax-funded grants to churches and other religious institutions so they can spread their faith in the name of social improvement. That's exactly the kind of thing that our Founding Fathers tried to prevent with the First Amendment, but once President Bush appoints a few more activist judges to the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution his way, that kind of traditional thinking won't matter. And money will be the true tie that binds. Once we've got politicians dangling million-dollar grants in front of cooperative ministers, and ministers free to pledge their flock's support to politicians who send money their way, oh what a lovely mess it's gonna be. Of course, some may still believe that religious leaders will somehow be immune to the corrupting influence of power and money, but if so, they haven't paid much attention to history or the headlines. Or to the Bible either, for that matter. (This message has been edited by acco40)

"I'm going to write one saying that only one sick twisted organization would fight against porn filters in the libraries." Now wait a minute TrailPounder. First you deride the ACLU as being a communist organization. China, which has the biggest communist organization that I know of, has put the biggest, baddest world wide web filter on everything that flows in and out of the country. So if the ACLU does NOT want filters in libraries wouldn't they be anti-communist? Having civil liberties is a concept for grown-ups. You either believe one should have them or not. You don't get to pick and choose who and what. Should public libraries restrict access to the www for adults? I say no. Others say yes. For those who say yes, that is a restriction on a civil liberty. Why would it surprise you that the ACLU would be against it? The ACLU does have an agenda - it is to protect civil liberties.

Merlyn, could you enlighten us on the St. Louis Special School District program mentioned in your link? I think it is a wonderful program - classroom scouting and venturing for special needs children. Do you have more information? Are the children Scouts by the strict definition? Is it open to all students? If so, that is GREAT! This could be a shining example of how Scouting aids all!

Some background information: Lynn Woolsey of California is a former Girl Scout who introduced a bill to revoke the BSA's congressional charter due to their ban on avowed homosexuals. It should be noted that her constituency includes San Francisco. It should be noted that Rep. Woolsey highly values Scouting and that is why she believes it should be available to all boys. Barney Frank is a gay congressman from Massachusetts. Personally, I'm not represented by John Dingell but by Joe Knollenburg in Michigan but I would be very interested in Mr. Dingell's reasons for not supporting this resolution. Non-binding resolutions are not much more that "group opinion" and I don't feel that his one will carry any more weight than the AMA resolution condemning the BSA policy to ban avowed gay leaders.

The BOR response by the SM is appalling. As for the summer camp issue - here is the problem I face as SM. Our Council summer camp has incentives for reserving well over a year in advance. They include a guarantee for the same site as before (we have a prime location) and it actually is a "requirement" for some of the recognition patches they award. Therefore, someone (usually me) needs to make the decision of where the troop will spend summer camp well before our annual planning begins. Now I consult with the Scouts informally about where they would like to attend summer camp and everyone likes where we go now but ...

Guys, you are making this way too complicated. Let's say I'm a Presbyterian Chaplain and a brave dying Catholic soldier requests that viaticum (his last rights) are administered. Being a non-Catholic, I can't administer this ritual. As an Army Chaplain, my duty is to try and accomodate his wish - not just ignore him because he is of a different faith than I am. If I am unable to find a solution to this problem, my task would be to try and comfort this soldier the best I can. No clergy is being asked to violate his religions teachings.