fred8033

I'm really don't care either way. There are bigger fish to fry and of all the uniforming issues, this is a fairly small one. But it does reflect an issue one of my sons recently said. My son said was asked by the EBOR what could be done to improve scouting. He said later to me privately that he though the thing that damaged scouts the most was the adults obsessing about it compulsively. My interpretation is that he thought the adults should gear down their energy so that the scouts can enjoy / drive their own program.

@perdidochasSame with ours. ... I flip-flop on whether BSA uniform is CEREMONIAL or FUNCTIONAL. Sports analogy ... Football players don't wear full uniform to ceremonies. At best, maybe the jersey. Usually, suit and tie. Basketball players don't wear shiny shorts to press conferences. They usually wear street clothes. Coaches (aka adult leaders) rarely wear the team uniform. Maybe baseball. Players just don't suit up for meetings and ceremonies. The uniform is for doing the activity. Military analogy ... Most military branches separate dress and activity uniforms. Dress uniforms are kept sharp. activity uniforms get worn hard. Scouts ... Functionally bad... Shirts with patches everywhere and pins marking years and hanging patches for temporary events. Some sew on huge patch areas on the shirt beyond the uniforming guide. New heavy cloth pants are really not my preferred cloth for hiking. I'd rather have something light weight that breaths. Zip-off pants are really more zip-lost in my house. It's just too hard to track and keep coordinated. As for position patches, position patches are much more often wrong than right. IMHO, the uniform is mainly ceremonial and to create group identity as a group (useful in itself and very useful during travel). Beyond that, it's just not a "functional" uniform. If I could make a uniform change I'd suggest troops have a POR box. At the start of meetings, scouts with a POR retrieve their POR badge and wear it. At the end, it's stored again. It's how our KOC works. Or have velcro on shoulders and the POR patches have the other velcro side. I'd suggest the MB sash be enlarged for decorative patches and other meaningful decorations so that we can keep the uniform as clean cut as possible.

I share many of your opinions in your email. I fully believe emails are for adults / parents. In this day and age, parents expect good communication. Period. Though scouts are responsible, it is expected in any organization to have good parental communication. Mailing lists ... We use SOAR to manage mailing lists. It does a great job and is one of SOAR's best features. Automatically manages mailing lists. Secures who can send and who gets replies. Well formatted. Automatic weekly well formatted news letters. Scout communication ... My experience is we can't control how scouts communicate and we often do a lousy job even helping. We can suggest and coach. Beyond that, different scouts prefer different ways. We totally leave it up to the scouts to figure out how to communicate. Different patrols in our troop use different methods. Some use an app. Others use group chats. IMHO, encourage good communication but it's a losing battle to control it.

Some schools. My sons school did a long distance trip without a bag search. It was tossed on the bus and they left.

I disagree. Scout leaders may have the right to search, but actually doing it is something reserved for the rare occasion and with the scout present. Searching all the scout's stuff without them there because of what the leader saw with one or two scouts is just wrong. If I heard that before my sons joined the troop, I'd look to another troop. It's a flag that the scout leaders and the scouts have an adversarial relationship and don't trust each other. It's just not the scout model we want.

The topics and arguments are very different. The tent policy exists because there is a power difference between a 17 year old scout and an 11 year old scout. It is the perfect setup for abuse. The two year difference in age is a perfectly reasonable precaution and something many troops already had in place.

As a parent, I wouldn't really care that much. I'd be more concerned about the wasting of time and what my son will think about it. Some of my sons would care less. One of my sons would never get past it and it would setup future battles between the SM and him.

I disagree. Just not a good idea. Inspecting for "being prepared" is absolutely fine. Presumptive inspections for contraband are bad. We work by trust and the scout oath and law. We don't create us-versus them, gotcha situations. If you don't trust the scouts, then don't take the scouts with you. Worse of all, you are "challenging" the many scouts. It may deter some, others will look to get around ya. If scouts want to get stuff in, they will. Super max prisons can't block contraband and they have fences, cells, shotguns and handcuffs. If you really want to block contraband, may I suggest patting down the scouts; check all pockets (pants, coats, socks, etc); inspect all car cavities and also control where the scouts walk around so that inspected scouts can't receive contraband from to-be-inspected scouts or to-be-inspected cars. Instead of blocking contraband, work to develop trust so that the scouts will want to not lose your trust.

That's different. That expected inspection has to do with being prepared and having the right gear for the right situation. That inspection is not to prevent violations of scout oath and law.

A few key points have been missed. You'll have enough problems at camp that you don't need to hunt for more. Scoutmasters should't be enforcers. SM job is to relate to the scouts. Baden-Powell said ... “I had stipulated that the position of Scoutmaster was to be neither that of a schoolmaster nor of a commander Officer, but rather that of an elder brother among his boys, not detached or above them individually, able to inspire their efforts and to suggest new diversions when his finger on their pulse told him the attraction of any present craze was wearing off." — Robert Baden-Powell, Lessons from the Varsity of Life, 1933. This situation ... IMHO ... how I view it ... there is nothing to report. you don't have liability. Usually if the scouts have medicine, the parents provided it. If they didn't, then you have a larger issue. the phones absolutely could have waited until the scouts were there or until there was an obvious violation. the scoutmaster created a wedge between the scouts and himself. Maybe this is a learning experience for the scouts, but it will be something to work through.

There is no requirement to type. Our district requires the proposal to be typed or in pen. No pencil. But I'm not sure there is even a requirement to be in pen. The key point is the project is required. The paperwork is supporting material. The paperwork should reflect the quality that will be in the project and in the scout. Beyond that, it's the "plan, develop and lead" that we are looking to agree on in the proposal. But the paperwork itself is NOT the rank requirement and it absolutely does not need to be typed. I highly suggest reading BSA Guide To Advancement beginning to end. Also, subscribe to BSA Advancement News Publication Index --> https://www.scouting.org/programs/scouts-bsa/advancement-and-awards/advancement-news/ Topic Index --> https://www.scouting.org/programs/scouts-bsa/advancement-and-awards/advancement/ The Nov/Dec 2017 Advancement News article on projects jumping the gun has some applicable quotes. Page 8. Last paragraph. The Aug/Sep 2013 Adv News has an article on keeping project proposal approvals simple, encouraging and mentions not getting stuck on technicalities. The Jan/Feb 2019 Adv News has a great article on what is expected in a proposal review. The Guide To Advancement section on Eagle projects and ranks is critical too.

COR - Charter Org Representative ECOH - Eagle Court of Honor GTA - Guide To Advancement POR - Position of Responsibility Other attempts at abbreviations BSA's ... https://www.scouting.org/resources/los/abbreviations/ US Scouting Project ... http://clipart.usscouts.org/ScoutDoc/Acronyms/abbrev.pdf

FYI ... Guide To Safe Scouting, middle of page 6. If in doubt, Guide To Safe Scouting. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf

There is always a "common sense" facet too. We need to follow BSA's rules, but that doesn't mean we check our brains out at the door. The key point is will the kids be safe and BSA's rules exist because adults differ on what "safe" means.

Safe swim defense says ... Safe Swim Defense applies to other nonswimming activities whenever participants enter water over knee deep or when submersion is likely, for example, when fording a stream, seining for bait, or constructing a bridge as a pioneering project https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss02/ Key point ... can the scouts drown? It can happen in moving water over knee deep depending on flow and rocks. Take the training. It's online at scouting.org and easy to do.

I'm confused. "The first troop above" ? What first troop? Do you mean the first patrol definition? Or something else? In my experience, any of the definitions (mixed age, same age, new scout, traditional patrol, other) can be muddied in many different ways. Reorganized. Impromptu combining. Etc. . My preference is that patrols are the standing default organization. They don't change because of low numbers or to re-balance patrols. A new scout patrol is nice by-default. But if a scout wants to switch patrols and the receiving patrol accepts him, then he can switch ... *** at any time *** ... *** his choice ***. The only ask I have is it's a publishable switch and not an event-only switch. If for a camp out, two patrols want to team together, sure. But it's the patrols choice, not the troop. If a patrol has one member and he's on the camp-out and he wants to camp as a patrol of one, fine. That's his choice. I once saw a 17 year as the only member of his patrol. I had no issue with it. All his buddies had aged out and he didn't want to switch for the last several months.

@SSScout ... Until I read more, I was going to protest. Like your description, I agree "traditional" has an attribute of "mixed age", but it's because the scouts are his buddies or pull from the same neighborhood. The attribute "mixed age" is related to buddies being different ages or pulling from neighborhoods. But the emphasis is on finding a connection between the scouts so that they may hang together or see each other and have a reason to be together as a unit. Often these days "mixed age" infers forcing a spread of the scouts so every patrol has scouts of different ages to enable the patrol to have scouts at many different levels of development. This often also implies re-organizing the patrols periodically take keep the balance. IMHO, this was very different than the "traditional" patrol concept. But your definition of "traditional" matches much more with my idea that is often pigeon-holed as "same age". My emphasis is less on same age or mixed age. My emphasis is that these scouts should have a reason to hang together. Otherwise, the patrol is an unnatural, work-only structure not reflecting anything in real life. @RainShine ... Scouters get passionate on their ideas. Baden-Powell was right to emphasis patrols. Patrols work and are key to making a program more "scout"-like. BUT, I would separate that from your immediate concern, i.e. the quality of the program your scout experiences. If he camps. If he has adventures. If he builds friendships. If you can see his maturity develop each camp out in some small way, then he is benefiting from the program. Beyond that, be careful to not pick battles that will affect his experiences. Help. Volunteer. And, when you are in the right position as SM or CC or ..., then slowly help affect change to create the ideal scouting program envisioned by Baden-Powell and BSA's program guidance. But the key is ... keep it fun for you and your scout.

There is "approve" and then there is approve. It depends on the activity. Often "approve" is more hot air than something meaningful. But I agree, charter org officially does "approve", but that should not limit you too much.

After years in the program, my hindsight is if you do something, do it sooner than later. We are often in scouts to benefit our sons. Though the whole experience could be years, the time window for our sons (and daughters) to have a great experience is really short. Spending too much time battling can destroy our scout's experience. It's why I'm a deconstructionist. Get the scouts out doing things (camping, exploring, building friendships). Once you are doing that well, I call that a quality program. From that quality program, look for opportunities to meet BSA's AIMs using BSA's methods. But keep the program first and do it now if possible. I really don't know what power people have to deny a group of scouts goes camping or does some activity.

So so cool. That's the type of MB activity that I want my sons and my scouts plugged into.

I agree Eagle is out of balance. Earning Eagle without having the deep scouting adventures is like getting a college degree without growing your knowledge and capabilities. But I strongly disagree with the assertion that adults don't spend enough time discussing aims and goals. All adult scouters ever do is discuss and debate the aims and methods. We are constantly discussing patrol method (boy led), Ideals (oath and law), outdoor program (how to setup camp), advancement (Eagle), adult assoc (call your MB and get things approved and ...), personal growth (take responsibility), leadership development (when did this sneak in as a method ??), uniform (etc). IMHO, we should discuss those but after we fully discuss ... What do the scouts want to do? What do the scouts like to do? What is new that the scouts have never done or never seen? What's our next small adventure? What's our next big adventure? Here's a pattern our troop has fallen into ... Every year ... A bike trip A ski trip A cave trip A canoe trip Summer camp local Extended weekend camp during summer Other fun stuff as we can find Others are mainly simple weekend campouts

You brought back a great memory of my child hood and a fear from scouting. Great memory ... We gathered as neighborhood kids and would often go to the local pond to catch crawfish. I always got excited when I caught a blue shelled one. Great memories sticking our hands down at the edge of the pond to get them. I doubt any kid on our street or near by has ever done that. Sad. Great fear ... We had a scout that borrowed a five gallon bucket from the troop trailer and spent the afternoon filling it with garter snakes. Must have been dozens and dozens in it when he returned. From then on, I was careful to never upset him less I got a bucket of snakes in my tent.

I fully agree. I do believe there is a difference between packs and troops though. I think Packs have an easier job keeping the focus on the kid's view of scouting. I've been in many pack committee meetings and there's always "oh the kids would love that" or "that would be cool". Cub scouts are energetic and so are the parents. They are fresh to the program. So they keep the program focused on interesting things. When we get to troops, it's like we forget the fun and friendship. It becomes "leadership" and "boy run". We forget the scouts often just want to burn things, hang with their friends or just be away from home on their own for awhile. @qwazse's comment hit me because I've seen that repeatedly. Troops talk a lot about BSA's goals and often dismiss the scout's goals.

Never heard of TL/USA. @qwazse ... I keep re-thinking your comment. It's always been in the back of my head. "the promise of scouting". I fear we, as adults leaders, get so focused and passionate about the BSA aims and goals that we forget why the scouts choose to be in scouting. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to think scouts show up to scout meetings to learn leadership, develop character or become better citizens. Even to learn skills is a big stretch. BSA's "Why scouting?" talks to parents and charter org representatives, but it does not talk to the scouts who are the main audience of the program. https://www.scouting.org/discover/why-scouting/ I fear that we also forget the why of scouting. Scouting offers the scouts A structure to build friendships A program to try new things and get new experiences A home away from home KEY POINT - We as adult leaders need to spend way more time and energy discussing and planning how to help the scouts meet their aims and goals. We already obsess on BSA's aims and goals. Let's help the scouts achieve theirs.

I often wonder if this has to do with the terms we use. Scoutmaster implies "master" as in-charge. Committee chair infers "overseeing". But the scoutmaster is more a coach or even a friendly mentor. He is only "master" when safety is the issue. Committee chair implies focal point OVER the SM and scouts. But in reality, the CC is more a logistics focal point. He's not in charge of any scout, the SM or any ASM.