fred johnson

A lot less stress. More flexibility.

That's what we do too. Once we leave the camp ground, scouts are dropped off at their house. From my personal experience, it saves alot of time, energy, coordination and it's just alot easier. But we are a suburb troop and we can usually find a driving pattern to drop kids off fairly efficiently. I think parents appreciate it. As a leader now for 10 years, I greatly appreciate it. If we have to do cleanup or unpacking of the trailer, we do it on the following troop meeting. If there is too much gear for cars (rarely ever happens), it gets returned at the troop meeting or can be picked up at the house of the person who has the trailer. If they don't pick it up that day or before the trailer goes back in storage, it can be picked up at the next troop meeting.

In our area, most troops meet on Monday evenings and most packs meet on Tuesdays. But, when I say "most", I mean about 50% or more. There is great variety. More important than the day of the week is consistency. IMHO, it's incredibly important to choose a night and stick with it. Changing nights causes trouble.

I've always liked the term low adventure. I view it as the middle ground. More than a camporee or a good weekend camp. Less and cheaper than a high adventure. The big difference being any scout in the troop could attend and survive. - Two night weekend canoe trips. - Camp on edge of somewhere special with day trips in. BWCA or other preserves. - State parks with day adventures.

qwazse - I'll end the conversation at this post. I did not mean to make you irate. Youth protection is supposed to be the most non-controversial issues out there. But I do fully believe with youth protection ... and we are talking abuse here ... not the protecting scouts from using fire or an ax wrong ... I do fully believe that putting barriers in place and following those barriers as consistently as possible is the most important protection. ... And if we can't follow the rules, then canceling an event / activity is the right choice. BSA youth protection rules are not a cafeteria of options that you can pick and choose from. It's a set of barriers that work together to protect. And from what I've seen, one of the best that is in place so far from the youth groups I've seen.

Thank you for being candid and I am sure it's not easy. I'm concerned. I read your statement as saying you know what to look for and as such can keep the scouts safe. The trouble is that is what many leaders say, good and bad. "I can be trusted." It's why the policies exist. The policies are the barrier and we set an example by following them or by saying "I can be trusted. So we can be flexible with the rule here." That's staging someone else to use the same reasoning and they may not be as trustworthy. I encourage you to revisit those YP rules. Page 2. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf ... ​Perhaps the policy could be more explicit of each situation, but it seems clear that the rule and expectation is there is at least one person of each gender present. AND, it takes a more flexible reading to interpret "coed" as only applying to the scouts. .... For me ... if this were vague ... I'd exercise it with the different genders. If it is good for two female adults to go camping with a group of boys under the age of 18, test the opposite. Is it okay for two male adult leaders to go camping with a venturing crew of only girls under the age of 18? Because the age we live in, we need to treat the policies as gender neutral. If one is not acceptable, the other should also not be acceptable. Otherwise, we are watering down the rules with "oh you can trust me. I would never do that."

LOL ... NJCubScouter ... You are right. With your 2nd paragraph ... and from what I've seen ... that's fine. BSA will not nit pick the situation. BSA is faith friendly, not faith based. "worldwide brotherhood of humankind"? I could see someone using that to justify keeping their membership. I'd hope most members would be smart enough to just let a sleeping dog lie. But if the member used it as a public platform or advocacy or advocating changing BSA policies, then I'd expect the person might get the boot.

The challenge is BSA is not society and we are not citizen's of BSA. BSA is a private group. When you advocate the opposite of the private group, don't be surprised if you are asked to leave. On the other hand, I hope you continue advocating for what you believe is right. Just realize it's not always compatible with membership. ​I should back track slightly. I read your comment as saying the scout had to be a member of a church. I see I misinterpretted what you said. I'll reply correctly to what you said. I have not seen it happen, but I can see where it could if discussions moved toward advocacy and/or using membership as a public forum. Essentially, as a unit level scouter, we have dual responsibilities. One toward BSA. One toward the charter partner. A scouting unit is an extension of both. As such, you need to work within the boundaries of each. For example, if you are a member of a member of a troop sponsored by a Catholic church, I am sure you can debate, discuss and share your beliefs with other member even though your beliefs might not be the same. But if you started trying to convert the scouts ... or continually tell them why their faith is wrong ... or used membership or scout shirt as a public platform telling everyone else why your scouting unit is wrong ... expect to be asked to leave. ... It's common sense.

You made me cringe. It's the old-boy attitude only with reversed genders. You might be safe and good, but you are also setting an example and you've signed an agreement to follow BSA's rules when you became scoutmaster. Your events are co-ed just by having you as the leader. You need to have a male adult leader on the trip too. You might be safe, but that's not the issue. The issue is predators exist and abuse happens. Your actions are chipping away at the safety net. IMHO, it's better the boys don't camp than to camp in this situation. I'm sorry to say that, but that's true.

​I was drawing the ridiculous image of a BSA registered leader subverting the BSA teaching of physical fitness by publicly advocating for obesity on TV eating a big mac and fries in a scout uniform. I'd bet you would be asked to stop or leave. Declaration or not. It's a matter of subverting BSA and communicating a controversial position opposite to BSA If you disagree with the teachings or the values, I can respect that. We are a pluralistic society. I just believe it's unrealistic to expect to be a member and leader and represent BSA to others while at the same time contacting congress to advocate for laws being changed ... and ESPECIALLY if you contact BSA corporate sponsors. Huh? I never said any such thing and your statement contradicts BSA statements and practices.

Number one reason I attend round table ... to be honest ... is to be with my friends. I know many of the district scouters. It's a chance to see them. As a side effect, I stay up to date on a lot of information. When I started, many of the scouters that had been helping for years gave at best perfunctory greetings and chit chat. And I remember those days. Being greeted, but then still feeling like an outsider. If you want to change that, then start making these new scouters feel like insiders. Part of the group. Friendships. Knowledge. Part of the significant conversations.

It is the very policy enforcement that has been very visible. When people stand up and say they are not in adherence with the policy, they are asked to leave. And usually the whole reason people make a stink is to protest publicity. My church welcomes all, but if you want to protest their teachings publicly in their sanctuary, then you are asked to leave. Same for scouts, you can't be a scouter and protest what BSA teaches. ​"I interpret" your question (and please forgive the wording) as ... since BSA doesn't actively and preemptively ask about each members faith, how can BSA say they have a policy? My thought is we treat other leaders as mature and capable of making their own decisions. The members already made a statement that they are okay with BSA's policies when the signed the member application. Beyond that, BSA doesn't hold witch hunts and the lack of a witch hunt doesn't invalidate values, beliefs and policies. Also, I think you are asking ... how is there any value in the policy? IMHO, it's a statement of values. We value people having faith very similarly to how we value them having physical fitness. Heck, you might be asked to leave if you went on TV all the time wearing a scout shirt and defending obesity while eating Big Mac's and french fries.

That's actually what has caused the issue. When people stand up and say they are not in adherence with the policy, they are asked to leave. And usually the whole reason people make a stink about it is for protest publicity. My church welcomes all, but if you want to protest their teachings publicly in their sanctuary, then you are asked to leave. Same for scouts, you can't be a scouter and protest what BSA teaches.

Most scout leaders are glad to make changes to accommodate special needs. The challenge I've seen is that we're all volunteers and not trained for special needs situations and have little budget or extra time and resources to support special needs. I've seen it work well repeatedly if you can meet the scout group half way. ---- Let them know what he needs ... continually and in a polite way. Leaders change and new leaders need to be brought in too. ---- Help support your scout. Leaders are busy just trying to keep the program going. If you can provide the little extras to help it be good for your son, that would go a long way. I've seen it also not work as well when the parent makes assumptions about people and resources. Most leaders are there by the good will of their heart and will bend over backwards to help a scout in need. But it's the actions of a neighbor and friend, not a business or government. ------------------------------------- Scoutbooks are online for those with print reading disabilities. Would that help his reading ability? http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/AlumniAlive/Happenings/2011_12_disabled.aspx

"If you wish your merit to be known, acknowledge that of other people.", Oriental proverb

Always think about tickets .... but don't worry about it that much. You have a long time for those. When you are there, participate ... AND keep your eyes open and watch everything. I'd been through dozens of leadership and mgmt courses and seminars. There was nothing new there for me. I didn't see much of the skills or camping stuff in it either. ... BUT ... What I did see that I needed was watching how an ideal troop ran. What the scoutmaster did. What the SPL did. Skits. Songs. Structure. The course is run like an ideal scouting experience. Building the patrol (friendships, camping, assignments, responsibilities, etc). You can get a lot out of it ... even if you don't get much out of the "sessions".

CalicoPenn ... Normally, I'd agree with you. But in this case, I think the the selective application of unit leader defeats the whole purpose of the UC program and does not match what BSA fairly clearly documents. "I THINK" ... Your interpretatation matches how BSA defines "unit leader" on page 2 on the GTA, pdf page 4. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf And that is good. When working with the scouts, I lean in favor of the scouts if there is an interpretation that is fairly direct and legitimate. But, in this case, I think we hit a recurring BSA literature problem. Even when BSA defines terms in one location, other locations have them used differently, with a variation or as just left over legacy slop. If BSA says "Unit Leader", it's fairly consistent that BSA means scoutmaster, cubmaster, etc. But when BSA UC literatures says "unit leaders" and then also talks about unit commissioners, "unit leaders" refers to ALL adult scouters registered with the unit. ... For example, the UC literature says "Selecting, training, supporting, and encouraging unit leaders are the most important responsibilities of both the commissioner" ... I'm sure BSA is not intending to exclude the support and training of the committee chair, the treasurer, the advancement chair, the camping coord, etc etc. If we move from the UC literature and go to the "Membership Committee Guidebook", page 18, BSA documents the committee as part of the unit leaders. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/co.../pdf/33080.pdf Key point - "Unit leaders" needs to be read in context. Page 10/11 of http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34128.pdf Do not assign them to their own unit. Do not recruit them from their own unit. Commissioners may only be registered as unit commissioners. The only caveat is addressing legacy situations, but even BSA emphasizes that focus is on the UC role and little on the unit role. It seems pretty clear, that BSA has left an escape for legacy situations. But the intention is to separate the UC from their own units. A fresh perspective. Avoiding conflicts of interest.

So so so so very true. Ego. JTE stats.

"FOR MYSELF" ... I could not do that. As much as I want to address the requirements directly, to tell the scout his parents are the "higher power" overly twists the meaning of the words. Luckily, there is no such wording in the requirements.

You complete it by focusing on the specific requirements. In the 2014 Webelos requirements, the focus is on the scout's faith and his religious beliefs. There is a path that allows for contemplation, reflection and service which is in itself is a spiritual practice. Specifically, the "know, commit and practice" can be a simple discussion according to his beliefs with his religious leader (aka his parents ... as that's how it starts with all kids). Likewise, the scout can do almost any of the 8E section as long as it's according to their religious beliefs. Much of the issue is people at both ends of the spectrum wanting to pick a fight. By working the specific requirements, we remove the politics. But, if "the member" (not the leader ... the member) wants to make a platform of it, then scouting won't work for them. But if they can accept some level middle ground, then scouting is good to go.

Technically, yes. Unit registration = ASM. District registration = UC. No conflict. Heck, I suspect this is how many districts make their performance numbers. ... Oh ! Your on the district committee and registered in a unit also. Let's call you a unit commissioner and then we get credits for unit commissioner visits. The really big question is whether it is a good idea. DOES IT MEET THE PURPOSE OF A UNIT COMMISSIONER ? ... Unit commissioners are supposed to be a fresh perspective and bringing in new and different experiences. Also, the UC is supposed to be a liaison between the district and the unit. .... So if you are already registered to the unit as an ASM, how do you add value? You can already attend round table, training and suggest new ideas. I'd rather leave the slot open so that the district assigns someone from the outside who can bring in a fresh ideas and view your troop from a different perspective. DOES IT CREATE PROBLEMS ? ... It may depending on how it's handled. The issue is chain of command and conflict. UCs report to the district. ASMs are supposed to help the SM. Which hat is the person wearing now? Is the troop dirty laundry going to be automatically discussed at the district level. .... If the ASM is a UC who really does a UC role, it's no issue. UC is supposed to be a friendly grandfatherly type who offers sage advice and help be plugged into the district. ... BUT ... it can and I've seen it happen where the ASM uses the UC role to get more credibility and influence. This is when it's bad. IS IT FAIR ? ... We complain when scouts double dip. Do we get try to get two recognition knots for effectively the same work? More credibility for the same work? But I'm jaded anyway. I just have never seen the unit commissioner program work. Period. I've been the committee chair for three units for a total of about 19 years (overlapping 9 + 7 + 3). Before that, a den leader. And, an ASM and a MC for a time. I have never once had a UC visit. Not one physical visit. Not one phone call. Not one email. For your unit ... choose your primary role. If nothing else, it will reduce the confusion.

BSA is non-sectarian / non-denominational. The troops can be of a specific denomination and show such a preference. I'm Roman Catholic and a KofC. From what I've seen, we're glad to charter scout groups and be a friend to all scouts of any denomination or belief. IMHO, this sounds like the request from someone whose's trying to take things to the next step. Generally, RC is glad host scouts and I've never seen anything forced like this. SUGGESTION - Ask them. Get clarification. I bet a friendly conversation will solve it. Otherwise ... Scouts should be proud to carry the flag of their chartering organization ... even if they are not church members or of the same faith. That church supports their troop. Troop members should be grateful. KEY POINT - If a troop member is going to use the charter org facilities, sponsorship and support, show pride and support for their charter org. If you have issues with the charter org, then don't take the benefits of that charter org. It would be like a house guest staying for years, eating your food, sleeping in your beds and then expressing their disappointment as they leave.