fleetfootedfox

NeilLup,

Shawnee Lodge doesn't limit the number of boys that can be elected by a troop, but you could be right about certain rules being left over from way back when. The history of the lodge goes back to about 1930.

Well said, belayer.

Tormorrow I finish my Ordeal with my son and some other boys from his original cub scout den. I'll post somewhere on here about it afterwards.

ursus, you make a lot of good points, and I have found this to be a very stimulating conversation. Thanks for your input.

I hope the adult leader you are talking about wasn't really going to attack a boy. If so, that's sad, but it's also a separate issue. In fact, you've brought up several side issues that I'm sure would warrant their own thread.

Anyway, you said: "If we go around creating whatever rules we want to put in place only because it doesnt say anywhere that were not allowed to, there's a never ending open door to do what we want."

Your statement seems to assume they were just willy-nilly making up rules with no reason. I seriously doubt that, don't you? Isn't it much more likely that a particular problem came up that this rule was intended to address?

I won't try to address all the other issues you brought up, but you also make the statement: "Outside of the need to register with a Troop, the Scout can do whatever he wants with the Lodge." The interesting flip-side to that is that adult members can also do whatever they want with the Lodge without any approval from a SM or troop committee. Do you think the SM at least has some right to know what's going on with the OA outings for the sake of youth protection?

Who decides these rules anyway?

I know of two lodges that have provision for a SM to be able to veto a candidate after the election "by refusing to sign the candidate's citation". They are Shawnee Lodge #51 and Anpetu-We Lodge, both in Greater St. Louis Area Council.

Are there other lodges out there that have this rule?

This veto issue is way off topic from the original post, so I'm going to start a new thread. Thanks.

shortridge,

You are quite right in pointing out that this is an issue of authority.

However, just because there is no national rule saying you can do something doesn't mean you can't do it.

For what it's worth, I don't care much for the veto idea and would hope it's something that's not abused.

The same lodge also requires units to do their elections in a council camp at least every other year.

Maybe you should talk to him and his parents to make sure that there aren't other issues going on.

For example, if your camp-outs are perceived as boring, they won't be worth the trouble of tent camping to the boy. If he has enough fun, he might be willing to put up with the aspects he doesn't like.

So, like in wood badge, ask the boy "what do you want?" Or in this case, maybe "what would make you want to go camping?"

Or maybe he has some personal issue. Bed wetting for example? Without invading the boy's privacy, maybe you should ask the parents if there's something that you don't know about.

Good luck.

Maybe you should talk to him and his parents to make sure that there aren't other issues going on.

For example, if your camp-outs are perceived as boring, they won't be worth the trouble of tent camping to the boy. If he has enough fun, he might be willing to put up with the aspects he doesn't like.

So, like in wood badge, ask the boy "what do you want?" Or in this case, maybe "what would make you want to go camping?"

Or maybe he has some personal issue. Bed wetting for example? Without invading the boy's privacy, maybe you should ask the parents if there's something that you don't know about.

Good luck.

ursus - It is my understanding that national's rules are often really more guidelines, but for now if I assume you're right, how would I prove that to somebody else? What document, what specific quote could I use to make the point convincingly?

Thanks.

Our lodge's bylaws state...

"The unit leader may veto the election of any candidate after the election by refusing to sign the candidate's citation. However, if one candidate is vetoed, another may not be substituted in his place. The name will be dropped and the unit will have one candidate less than the number which were elected."

"It is suggested that the unit leader should consult with the other adult leaders who are present at the election before exercising his veto. However, this is the option of the unit leader."

What if you substituted the word "OA" with "Scouting" and your son had said "If that's who goes into Scouting, I don't EVER want to be in Scouting!"? Hmm. Takes on a different light now. There are boys who think that way. In fact, I don't know your son, but is it possible there might be boys who would say that about him? How would that make you feel?

But then you're saying you expect the OA to be something special and somehow inaccessible to people you think are undeserving. A lot of people think that, which is why some would like to go back to limiting membership more. Is that what you're saying? Would it improve your experience of the OA if the people you don't like were excluded?

Anyway, when we give the boys choices, sometimes they choose differently than we would. In this case, the SM could override their choice, but I hope that doesn't have to be done very often.

I'm getting in on this discussion a bit late. Looks like it was actually started years ago. However, nobody has given the answers I would have expected to the original question. People have pointed out that there aren't rules on this, but I know in my lodge there are. Our lodge bylaws say the following about adult "elections":

"Adult Scouter Election: Every registered unit adult Scouter present at the election may vote. Scouts may not vote on Scouter candidates."

"Adult Scouters must be elected at a committee meeting prior to camp."

I am also surprised that a SM would decide that he couldn't trust his troop committee to make the decision. It would seem to violate the democratic spirit of the Order.

Just my 2 cents.

I am not a big fan of going much beyond the rules that have been set out by the BSA. I think some simple bylaws can be useful if people will actually follow them, but the worst any organization can do to somebody for ignoring their bylaws is to kick them out.

Fortunately, bylaws can always be ammended, and the SM does not have some kind of veto power unless your troop has given him that power in the bylaws.

As somebody pointed out, if you are the committee chairman, it's your meeting. So, it's up to you whether or not there's an agenda, how votes will be taken, etc., unless such things are stipulated in your bylaws.

The more formal meetings that you had past experience with probably followed some form of parliamentary procedure, the customary body of rules that govern how "deliberative bodies" conduct business in an orderly fashion. When you are in such a meeting, decisions are generally not made without a motion being made, seconded, discussed, and voted upon. Parliamentary procedure is what make's democracy possible.

As somebody else pointed out, informal meetings may make decisions more by consensus. However, if you have a group of people who have a hard time getting along, consensus may be impossible and you may have to take a vote. Also, any time you are voting to choose a member to honor in some way, you will want a secret ballot.

In any case, don't let anybody tell you it is "wrong" if you want your meetings to be more formal. You may even decide to run your meetings based on Robert's Rules of Order. As the chairperson, you don't have to ask anybody's permission to do so. However, you should not expect everybody to know all those rules.

The BSA does not push the use of parliamentary procedure, although boy scouts may learn about it as part of the public speaking merit badge, and I believe it is also discussed in the Venturing leader's manual.

Okay. Maybe part of me did want to hear some advice, but I don't want to be psycho-analyzed. I also said "I don't expect any easy solutions, but misery loves company."

I was pretty stressed that day and probably did not express myself well. Sorry for the confusion.

As often happens, a lot of people read between the lines and offered advice that does not apply.

Regardless, I really do appreciate everybody's thoughts on the topic.

I appreciate all the free advice, but I wasn't really asking for that. I wanted to know if other people have similar situations, and at least one person said he did. I certainly think any mention of divorce in this conversation is a bit extreme. I have known scouters who ended up in divorce, but I'm sure the scouting was not the main reason.

Just to clarify, I am not in scouting for myself, although I think that as long as I'm spending the next many years doing it, I might as well enjoy it. After my boys are gone on to college, I may continue being involved in some way, or maybe not. Anyway, I'm certainly not doing it because I get a thrill from wearing the uniform, although when I am awarded a service knot I do wear it proudly (because of what it represents).

Also, I did not say that my wife did not appreciate some aspects of scouting. However, she is turned off by people who think it is "better" than sports, and by the parts of the program that she (and many others) thinks are "geeky" (including the uniforms).

Personally, I can see both sides of that argument, but I don't like extremes. I think sports teach some values that a boy may not get from scouting and visa versa.

I don't personally have a problem with the uniforms, but maybe it is time to consider updating them (again). Originally, they looked like the contemporary uniforms of the day. As one person pointed out, you don't see any modern military wearing neckerchiefs. However, I'm not on a mission to change things. Those decisions are for others to make.

Anyway, thanks again.

Thanks for all the comments. I especially like the list of famous scouts.

Unfortunately, our pack has had some dads who were scouts themselves but still are not all that supportive of the program.

One dad who was an Eagle Scout says he only stuck with it because his parents wanted him to. He goes on the camp-outs but lets his wife do everything else.

Then there is another dad whose boy recently quit to spend more time on sports. I can respect that decision, but I think it's funny that after that I found out his dad was also an eagle scout, although neither of his parents ever helped in the pack. No wonder his kid quit. When he plays basketball or soccer, his dad is always there helping out.

Yet another Eagle Scout dad that was in our pack said that he didn't want to help at the cub level. He started wearing his uniform shirt just before his boy transitioned over to boy scouts, but he never helped with the pack (except at pinewood derby).

Unfortunately, these people have had an impact on how my wife views scouting also. My wife doesn't know Gerald Ford, but she does know these guys.

I was reading another topic that talked about the perceptions of the uniforms being geeky etc., and thought I'd start another related topic, because my problem is not so much the kids. My problem is that my wife and other adults think the uniforms (and patches, etc.) are geeky and so are a lot of the leaders.

In fact, there is a perception among some of these parents that the "smarter and more athletic boys quit Scouting around 5th grade". This is a direct quote from an elementary school teacher whose son dropped out after Cub Scouts.

My wife thinks that I'm reliving my childhood, and she is increasingly embarrassed by it. Unfortunately, the more time I spend on scouting (going to wood badge, etc.), the more she is convinced that her perception is correct. (After wood badge I started wearing the full uniform more and have spent a lot of time working my ticket.)

Also, it doesn't help that our cubmaster is truly a nerd and also has a tendancy to say things that tick off parents. Since I am his assistant everything he says or does seems to transfer onto me as well.

My wife is very sensitive about what other people think (and of course she isn't alone in that). Being a computer professional myself (and a person who grew up playing in the orchestra, which was considered by the kids to be even more nerdy than the band), I got past that a long time ago. I don't care if people think I am a nerd or think the uniforms are geeky, but I don't know how to handle this with my wife.

Also, my wife is more into sports than I am (the opposite of most couples, of course), so she would rather her son hang out with the "cool" athletic kids. I want the kids to do sports too, but I don't want them to be shallow and only be friends with "cool kids"! (One of my wife's friends dumped her over a disagreement regarding kids sports. That's exactly the kind of shallow person I don't want my kids to be like.)

I can certainly see now why so many Dads don't want to be involved until the Boy Scout level. Cub Scouts is more work, so it takes away from other family activities (and the spouses naturally complain), plus there's this image problem.

Maybe I should be writing this to Dear Abby instead, but I figured other people might have similar situations. I don't expect any easy solutions, but misery loves company.

Thanks.

Somebody wanted to know about injury rates. According to this scientific study, soccer, volleyball and gymnastics were worse than the martial arts when it comes to injury rates.

Unique Identifier

93060965

Authors

Tenvergert EM. Ten Duis HJ. Klasen HJ.

Institution

Department of Traumatology, University Hospital of Groningen, The

Netherlands.

Title

Trends in sports injuries, 1982-1988: an in-depth study on four types of

sport.

Source

Journal of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness. 32(2):214-20, 1992 Jun.

Abbreviated Source

J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 32(2):214-20, 1992 Jun.

Local Messages

unidentified

Abstract

In this study, we analyzed the records of both inpatients and outpatients

which were treated for acute sports injuries in the Trauma Department of

the University of Groningen (The Netherlands) during the years 1982 to

1988. We examined whether there was a trend in sports injuries in this

time period. The study comprised four types of sports, i.e., soccer,

volleyball, gymnastics, and martial arts. The absolutely highest rates of

injuries across the seven years were found in soccer, followed by

gymnastics, volleyball, and martial arts. Injuries sustained at

participating in soccer, volleyball, and gymnastics involved for the major

part the lower extremities, followed by injuries of the upper extremities,

whereas the reverse pattern was observed for patients who participated in

martial arts. For all four types of sport, the ankle and foot were the

most frequently site of injury of the lower extremities. Sprains and

strains were the major types of injury. Most injuries were seen at ages

between 10 and 30 years. The ratio of male to female patients within age

groups did not differ significantly across the seven years. We concluded

that, except for martial arts, the increased participation in sports in

the last decade was not accompanied with a change in the patterns of

sports injuries by the patients' age, sex, and number and nature of the

injury. This consistency in results can be used to guide the development

of prevention programs aimed at a reduction of injuries in specific

sports.

What is interesting to me is that according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Estimates for Sports Injuries 1998, the number of injuries from martial arts (23,018) was roughly the same as the number of injuries from bowling (23,130). (It really smarts when you drop that ball on your foot.)

And I kid you not, bleachers (falling off of them?) caused almost as many injuries (19,161) as martial arts.

Horseback riding (64,692) and dancing (38,427) caused more injuries than martial arts. (Now, you can't tell me there are more people doing horseback riding than martial arts.)

Also, there were far more injuries from basketball (631,186) and bicycles (577,621). Both also caused more injuries than football (355,247). (Due to less people playing football?)

If you don't believe these numbers, check it out for yourself:

http://www.nyssf.org/statistics1998.html