GabeTheRockStar

Fountainhead -

Perhaps you have already seen the thread on "boy run" scouting and discipline. My conclusion from a lot of discussion between several seasoned scouters on that thread leads me to agree (yet again) with EagleInKY. See if you can handle it yourself, if you are the SM. I do like the idea of removing his Fire Chit for a designated period of time. It hurts, but doesn't disgrace him more than necessary, especially considering no one was hurt. The problem seems to be a lack of respect for fire. If the problem seems to be a lack of respect for leadership, then consult the committee, since he could present a safety threat to the boys.

ozemu -

I liked the flaming toothpaste story. If y'all didn't rename your patrol the Flaming Toothpaste Patrol you missed the boat.

Thank you all again for your phenomenal contributions.

EagleInKY, thanks for your comment about advancement as a "carrot." I spent two years as a troop guide. In that time I had more leverage with the scouts than most boy leaders did. (That's when I got my nickname from some of the younger scouts, "Gabe the Rock Star.") Anyway, you and EagleDad both have good points about keeping the parents informed individually, about both good behavior and bad. It occurred to me while I was reading your posts that boy leaders can be involved directly in this process, especially the troop guide. It was quite often my role as a guide to let the parents know how the scout were doing, so the parents could congratulate and reward their boys for their scouting triumphs.

And in the case of correcting bad behavior, parents' confidence and enthusiasm for the program is heightened when leaders show confidence in the parents, before a BOR or the whole Committee.

On to the issue of ADD/ADHD. I am an adult ADD patient. I have also seen, in the story I told before, the damage a particularly strong case of it can do to a troop or patrol. For this reason I completely sympathize with both sides of this discussion.

Scoutldr, sst3rd and SR540Beaver have a good point. The program must go on. Being that scouting is such a wonderful "training ground for adulthood," ADD scouts and their parents should expect and hope for the same standard, to a great extent. It is also unfair to everyone involved to allow one scout to run amuck because he "can't help it."

ScoutNut is so right though, when he points out that scouts with a disability are not just misbehaving. They have a very real obstacle to overcome that most scouts do not. Scout troops can't embrace the full inclusiveness of BSA if they do not offer accomodation to the disabled. This, of course, is why I agree with ScoutNut that SM's should discuss it with parents early on, if at all possible. This way the SM can decide whether or not the scout will be able to be a part of the troop, based on the individual boy and the individual troop.

sst3rd said: "...a Scout needs to be responsible enough not to disrupt [his] fellow Scouts and/or the program. When he can't (or won't), he is excused ... for the day, week, month, or forever. The Troop and Patrol programs must be the top priority."

I agree. Other scouts should not have to pay because the parents and leaders can't or won't accomodate a disability. Let me explain. I used to be an algebra tutor. I had one so-called ADD student who was extremely poorly behaved, and extremely disrespectful of my time. He would refuse to acknowledge that I had given him homework, and refuse to pay attention. His mother had babied him, did not believe in meds, and just basically wanted me to pass him so he could have his high school math requirement done. In retrospect, he either had a disability that was irresponsibly handled, or he was just desperately spoiled, or both. She did me and him a disservice by refusing to properly accomodate his disability. It made me unable to properly accomodate it. Regardless, it is a situation I should not have been asked to deal with, nor should scout leaders, neither adults nor boys.

As an SM I would discuss everything with parents. Usually one can tell if the parents are being responsible or not. If so, the parents and SM can work together to help the scout be a productive contributer to the program. If not, I would strongly consider turning them away.

As for meds, I understand why some people avoid them. There are side effects. Even if they don't make him take them at home, or let him self medicate, ask to be in charge of his meds at camps, and educate yourself on his dosages, etc. If necessary, make it clear that scouts should be on medication for meetings, for everyone's sake, if they will otherwise be out of control. Clinically disruptive scouts can't be allowed, I agree. This is, to my knowledge, the best way for an ADD scout to be "responsible enough not to disrupt his fellow Scouts."

This all begs the question of "Boy Run" and disabilities. I guess Boy leaders should understand that there is a disability, not just misbehavior. They should defer to SMs on treatment if the boy is not responding to leadership when other boys are. SMs should assess whether the issue is with the leadership, or just the disability.

Thoughts?

You guys have truly helped a lot. This really is a great thread. Mark, thanks for bringing the topic back into the focus I wanted to discuss: the committee. I look at the committee as a group whose role should be minimal, as do all of you. So when you take into account their role as parents, it leaves us questioning how creative we can be with carrots and sticks before we hand it over to the parents individually. As best I can tell, it seems reasonable that their role should be as follows. SM, deciding that an incident is the last straw for one boy, decides to ask him to leave. Before he does this, he runs it by the committee. Other than that, I can't see why the committee has to be involved.

I totally agree about allowing the PLs, and then the SPL and ASPL, deal with behavioral incidents under SM supervision. And usually an SM's word is enough to slow a scout down, especially on trips. (As an aside, BW, your policy on parents and pickup from camp is perfect. I like your style. No boy wants to go home, and no boy wants his parents mad at him for it.)

An addendum then is this: what about "ADD" cases and other such anomalies? We had one boy who was incorrigable, except sometimes when his meds were working to calm the little livewire down. It was hard on everyone because if we held him to a regular standard, he would not have lasted a month in the troop. I do believe they asked him to leave after a year of disrespect and general insanity on outings and troop and patrol meetings.

Any thoughts on how to deal with kids who may need a longer lead than others?

Also, considering carrots and sticks, do y'all have any stories about strategies that worked for you? Motivation can be the best way around a problem in a troop.

I have questions about how a troop can be prepared to deal with authority problems. The troop is supposed to be boy run, but often when scouts get out of hand they do it together. This can make things difficult on an SM and ASMs. Its also hard for parents, who are trying to figure out where their "committee member" role ends and the parenting begins.

So what do you do when scouts get out of hand, or when one scout decides to test the boundaries of the troop authority structure? Do the scouts have any role in determining what to do when there is a problem? If so, what is it? Does the committee ever come into it? I don't think it should, but that doesn't mean I've never seen it done.

Suggestions?

Yes, there's a point there. My first SM's wife was the CC, which was bad, and she basically controlled things in the troop. Since they were asked to leave by the sponsor church, there's been a rule about the SM and the Chair being in the same family. The second SM was a phenomenal SM in a lot of ways. But he did not have a boy in the troop (he was a little older) and did not want ay trouble with any of these agressive parent types. I am sure if the SM can control the committee, and enforce the idea amongst the parents that they cannot, in this case, tell their kids what to do, there will be no problems like the ones I've encountered.

I still think its a better idea to leave the SPL out of the Committee meetings.

Barry, thanks for the wellwishing. If I do return home sometime next year, I may try an ASM position. If so, I do hope to strengthen the boy run method there.

I'm starting a new related topic. Please all, feel free to contribute.

Will do. Thanks BW.

Yes, it does help. Thank you so much.

I still don't see how scouts' work for this or that party compromises BSA or any 501© clause organization. Of course I understand that BSA's official PR is not going to endorse working for a political party.

Anyway, maybe we will have to agree to, well, have a different understanding of things.

My friend's Eagle project was often carried out in uniform, and it was mostly a drive to get Republicans to the polls in eleven area precincts. The council's decision was never questioned by national as far as I know. This is held up by that fact that this particular fellow was very unpopular (and unjustly so) with our pernicious rumormill of a committee. Some of them tried to block him from passing his board. They would have welcomed a chance to revoke it at the time. If word had come down from on high, there would have been a serious effort to follow through with some sort of revocation. At least it would have been big news. There was nothing. That doesn't prove anything, but it does give you more of a circumstantial explanation.

Eamonn and Bob White are on the money. Very insightful comment on the purpose of the committee. The only other time I have seen a possibly appropriate "no" was when there was a representative on the committee from the sponsor church. One planned activity was one the church did not feel comfortable sponsoring, but otherwise innoccuous. The committee asked the scouts to chaneg the activity. Other than that, committes have grounds for veto based on safe scouting, and pretty much nothing else.

EagleDad:

I respectfully disagree, from experience with three different occasions, involving three different SPL's and three almost completely different parent committees.

The best explanation I can give is as follows. When the SPL appeals to the committee, the parents become a board to which boys must appeal. As a result, the committee becomes, at least in their own minds, the advisory board for the boys' activities.

The SPL knows he is supposed to have the power to make these decisions, with very little interference from the committee. So when the parents begin to advise, with the idea in their minds that their wisdom and years allows them to plan outings much better than the boys can, it puts the SPL in an incredibly awkward situation. Now we have a young man placed before a committee of his elders, trying to defend his prerogative to run the troop his way, without being disrespectful. Parents are expected to respect the decisions of a 15 year old. If he challenges their ability to give guidance, or even tries to explain that he likes the PLC plan better, he suddenly looks like the whippersnapper. (Now the parents whose children lost the SPL elections are beginning to question him more...)

It all starts very innocently, but when you bring a child to match his wisdom against protective, wizened parents, it can get messy quickly. The moderation of committee behavior when a boy is present does carry merit. But this is only when the committee realizes that its opinion carries little to no weight. Many parents cannot understand this.

My point is, it is unfair to put that kind of pressure on the SPL. It is just not his job to answer to the committee.

It appears that EagleDad's committee is a very good committee, judging by the way they react to the presence of a scout in the room. I also agree that EagleInKY's board seems to be making a well-intentioned, harmless mistake, easliy corrected by the wealth of advice having now been lavished upon EagleInKY by the gentlemen here.

Please forgive me if I am being too persistent with this. Here I go.

Bob White: thank you so much for your help, directing me to those resources. Its not always easy for a non-"troop leader" to understand how the whole thing is structured. So the charters are held by the councils. Does that mean the troops are part of the council?

(The reason I am asking all of this is really because of the one Eagle I know whose project for the Republican Party was approved at the Troop, Council and National levels. I am trying to reconcile what you are saying to this, and what makes sense to me.)

So troop 123, being a part of ABC Council, is effectively a 501©(3). As such, T123 cannot endorse, give money or lend paid staff to either party. John and Jack are in T123, and thus are registered members, but not staff, of ABC Council.

Lets say John wants to help the Republicans, and Jack wants to help the Democrats. Approving their voluntary work for both or either sides, as a service to the community, does not seem to constitute any kind of endorsement of either party by T123, ABC Council or BSA.

BSA offers awards to scouts who show religious merit in their particular faith; God and Country, etc. You would not say that this constitutes BSA's endorsement of one, any, or all of these religions. Its just an endorsement of religion itself--reverence.

Why does that not apply here? As long as a scout can get credit for working for either party, I don't see partisan activity here, on the part of T123, ABC Council, or BSA. Its just an endorsement of citizenship. Non-profits can encourage their members to go vote. They are effectively saying, "go vote for the Rep or the Dem." This is legal because it is neutral. If scouts are encouraged to "help either the Rep or the Dem," it seems to be the equivalent for members too young to vote.

This is my understanding of why my friend's project was probably approved. (BTW, this is not "my friend" as in "me." My project involved helping elderly homes.) That it makes sense to me, and that it was approved in his case on all levels makes me think I have the correct veiwpoint.

Not to be pushy, but can Bob White or someone correct my reasoning here?

Hunt: good point. When you put it that way, I can see why I might put Eagle projects and regular service hours in separate categories. Thanks.

Speaking as an Eagle experienced with over-controlling parent committees:

EagleInKY,

You are in a great situation. %75 participation is low? Your committee is afraid to say no? Your scouts are turning in plans for camping trips four months in advance? Wonderful! For the next few years the enthusiasm of your scouts should take your troop to places you had not imagined. I left a troop completely ruled by one scoutmaster who had no parent support. It was dead. The troop I then joined was started by a church full of conservative homeschoolers as an inner city outreach. The troop was half ghetto urchins and half sheltered churchkids. What resulted, once the boys took over, was phenomenal. T287 grew in two years from twenty kids to about 75, with a waiting list. We won special awards for spirit at camps, and camp administrators sent us thank you notes for coming to their camp and livening things up. Eagles came out of the woodwork. Projects included replanting indigenous plantlife in damaged ecosystems, helping more than 10 precincts get out the vote, and constructing and directing a 40 voice choir for convalescent hospitals, and the whole troop participated. No exaggeration.

It all went wrong when the committee became political, and controlling. Parents got mad at the PLC, and the other scouts, all the time. They overrode everything. They turned some boards of review into four hour interrogations. Sadly, this is normal. One of my best college friends from Alabama, thousands of miles away from my California troop, had an almost identical scouting experience. Both of us are just glad we were out by the time things got bad, but sad to see a great thing destroyed.

I would say that you, as SM, should control for this as much as possible. If there is a disagreement about something, give the issue some time to cool down before it is discussed again, if at all possible. You are the sanity mediating between parents, each defending their own calendar or kid, and the scouts who would probably love a camping trip with a "fire, explosives, and pointy, sharp objects" theme.

The SPL should NOT be asked to sit in the Committee meetings. This can quickly turn into an interrogation about "whose ideas these were." He is suddenly pressured by parents' ideas about things from all sides, too. It was a bad idea in our troop for sure. Besides, that's what the SM is for.

The committee should NOT tell the PLC "how things should be done if they are to be approved." The PLC should come up with an annual plan of outings, which should be reviewed as a whole by the committee. It should be approved or disapproved, not tinkered with. The committee is not there to come up with ideas, or even necessarily veto bad ones. The scouts have to be able to make their own plans. They should only be denied the opportunity to learn from their own failures and successes when safety or BSA policies are a concern.

If the PLC plans a trip that parents cannot attend, they may not get to go on that trip--or at least some won't. Maybe next time they will think twice about scheduling a trip so close to Christmas.

Just a thought: our troop skipped December for camping trips. Only daytrips at the beginning of the month. That made it easier on everyone. Run it by the PLC next year, see what they think.

I am glad to hear that some agree with me on the issue of BSA descriptions of "service projects."

Bob White brings up an interesting issue. Believe me, I have worked for enough 501© clause organizations; I understand how that works, and what the limitations can be. I did not know whether BSA was a 501©(3). I would also like to know what "rules of scouting" and "uniform policies" Bob White is referring to. I simply have not been able to find any information saying that scouts can't touch politics. You are absolutely right. BSA, especially if they are a 501©(3), cannot endorse one side. But I see no reason why scouts can't be given credit for working in campaigns. If both parties can recruit scout troops to work on their campaigns, and BSA makes no statement about which they should work for, then BSA endorses no candidate and neither side of any race.

Does this make sense?

NJCubScouter, not to argue, but I disagree. Campaigns are often run by haughty people who don't think they need help from a 17 year old, sure. But these people are not the norm, certainly. I have only run into a few people like this before. Especially in medium size, close races, candidates and campaign managers are very open to suggestions from people like college and high school students. A scout who wanted to organize a group of volunteers to walk neighborhoods or make phone calls would be more than welcome. I've seen it happen before, and I know candidates running now who would be delighted. Eagle scouts are often bright and competent, and that is not lost on most people. We all know that.

SO FAR:

- The concensus seems to be that scouts should volunteer as good young citizens, though maybe the BSA organization should not sponsor it.

- Whether they should do it as scouts, and whether it should be creditable for advancement is the real bone of contention.

My question, then, is are troops 501©(3)? Are they limbs of the organization? Why can't scouts get signed off for working for either side?

I still agree with EagleInKY about it. But I see no reason why Eagle scouts should be any exception.

Further discussion, gents?

I saw the thread on knives. We've all seen how bloody carving merit badge can be. I'm interested to hear some tales of fires gone bad, or just really big, cool campfire ideas. More war stories, Anyone? I've got a couple favorites.

***

I was finally 1st Class, and the new Leader of the Flying Golden Monkey Parts Patrol. It was a troop that probably no longer exists (all the scouts left when the scoutmasters took over everything.)

It was a warm, Northern California summer everning--a great night for a troop meeting. Another patrol and ours were assigned a camp cooking demonstration for some visiting Webelos. For some reason we were making pancakes. An easy meal, yes, but one we were woefully bad at preparing. That turned out to be the least of our problems.

One fellow had already primed the camp stove till he was blue in the face. Our ASPL, who we will just call "Steve," was a comically accident-prone 17-year-old. Demonstrating for the cubs how to prime a campstove, Steve began to pump the primer. Several of us, dismayed, tried to stop him, explaining it was as primed as it would ever be.

Steve continued pumping. Unbeknownst to him, fuel leaked out all over the concrete school sidewalk, the half-dead grass, and his rubber boot soles. Perhaps Steve wasn't too bright. But soon his shoes were bright, along with the pavement and the grass. I smothered the flames in the grass, while Steve was busy dancing his boots out.

Someone shouted something about the Bisquik. Another PL we shall just call "Jim" intervened. He threw some of the pancake mix onto the fuel fire on the sidewalk. Seeing that it had worked, Jim turned a cloud of oily, powdery pancake mix upon the fireball now raging on the campstove.

The result is legendary. A 15-foot pillar of flame leapt up through the cloud of powder. The flames and heat were only momentary. But Jim, Steve, a few other innocent bystanders and I found our eyebrows and hat brims badly singed. Needless to say, the explosion, and the frenzied circus preceding it, also ensured that the Webelos would leave on a search for a safer troop.

***

My second story took place amongst myself and my newfound pals at Bristlecone Leadership Camp in California. Ironically, Bristlecone was the site for some of the worst troublemaking I have ever seen in Scouts. We went three days out of water one week because some moron cut the waterline with a hacksaw and a shovel.

Needless to say, we were "not expected" to make fires that week, and all campfires were to be lit and maintained by camp staff. But as fate would have it, I was in Patrol 7.

"P7" wore yellowish-orange for a reason. We were an assortment of acid pyros and campfire enthusiasts, to the mutual delight of every last member. On the upside, the fires helped us heat whatever water we could find so we could bathe. But most of our fires served no practical purpose at all.

We just burned stuff. Our best fires were made of old logs, sticks, rags and whatever else we could burn. Worse, most of our fires were started by whacking tomahawk heads on rocks while spraying bug repellent. And yes--in case you ever feel curious--those aerosol cans do explode like fragmentation grenades.

Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, the Bristlecone admin was none too happy about our mania. They put a stop to it Thursday and kept a close eye on us thereafter.

***

My two favorite "adult supervised" fires I ever saw were:

(1) a ceremonial Camporee fire that involved a flaming arrow shot into a falmmable puddle under a stand of fuel-drenched pallets and logs; and

(2) a campfire at our troop's Paul Bunyan trip into some dead woods. We had some scouts who had just earned Star, so we dug a numerically appropo fire pit in a clearing. It was a five-point asterisk of ditches, each measuring a foot and a half deep and twenty feet long. The main fire was a pyrimid of dead lodgepole pines in the middle. We filled the radiating tributaries with an awful lot of kindling, dry brush, dead logs and branches, white gas, kerosene, and diesel. Once lit, it lit up the night. Each patrol roasted various dinner items on the legs of the fire. Some rogue scouts ran in circles jumping over them when they thought the SM's were not looking.

Perhaps half the fun of this type of information is not knowing it, wondering, and then researching it for yourself, and then spreading it by word of mouth, but...

Wouldn't it be great if BSA published a book of this kind of protocol and trivia, for reference by scouts and leaders? Have they? If they haven't, I think it an idea whose time has come.

I am an Eagle of the '90 handbook era. I am interested to hear members' thoughts on scouts as political volunteers. I know of projects, even successful Eagle projects, that involved helping this or that party. I am interested to know how far y'all think that might extend. I am now a voluteer in a grassroots effort in Kentucky, organizing other volunteers to help various conservative candidates' campaigns during election season.

God knows that political involvement of almost any kind is helpful in developing a sense of citizenship and civil responsibility in young scouters. But as an organizer, I want to offer them something in return for their time. For this reason I am hoping to put together Merit Badge workshops for my volunteers, and help them get the whole package in a very educational, hands-on way. But more importantly, I want to find out how campaign volunteer work can count for service project credit, be it for Second Class or Eagle.

So the topic for discussion is this: what kinds of political activity would you sign off? Of course, for my own practical purposes, I will be talking with regional advancement chairmen, because I don't expect it will be resolved quickly here. But I want to know your opinion.

What I understand about the issue is as follows. Partisan activity is more controversial, due to the fact that it arguably does not benefit the whole community. But most such activity can be approved anyway. It is good citizenship, encourages the same in members of the community and is ultimately voluntary work for (a) non-profit organization(s). Some troops and councils seem to encourage it, while others refuse to sign off anything of the kind. I fall in with the former school of thought, and disagree with the latter. If your argument is good, however, I suppose my opinion may prove malleable.

Thoughts?

Hey, thanks for your input. Where is your troop located? We might be able to work together on something.

Good guess, but I am actually in Lousiville. I'll explain my position in more detail. My job is unrelated. I work for a nonprofit as a field rep, which is what brings me to Kentucky this fall. My job doesn't provide much that would help scouts.

On the side I am a volunteer organizer with a grassroots group and I have a list of candidates for whom I'm supposed to find more volunteers. Since my first post, I have spoken with a couple Eagles, and my conclusion is that it simply has to be for a non-profit. My brother ran his precincts for the Republicans, and it was approved because the party is non-profit (not sure if that is in reference to the national party or the local). My point is, the grassroots work we do is non-profit, and not associated with either party.

While I'm sure there will be GOTV work to do too, I think I have a good case for any district advancement chair for candidate work too. We'll see.

My main concern is that if I get scouts involved, they (1) learn more than I did when I did my citizenship badges, and (2) that it really helps the scouts advance. So if I do get scouts helping, I will have a unique motivation to discuss the things they need to discuss in order to pass their badges. Do I need to register with BSA to be a counselor? If so, I'd love to sign up. More feedback is welcome. I will move this to a more relevant forum if I don't get any though, so keep your eyes peeled if you have any interest in getting some great service hours for your troop.

Hi,

I am Gabe. I earned my Eagle Scout in San Jose, California with Troop 287. If any of the green and gold are reading this, hey, you've got the goods! Anyway, by way of Virginia, Washington, D.C., and now Kentucky, I come with a question.

I want to set up a program for scouts to spend time earning their citizenship merit badges and community service hours volunteering for state political races and GOTV (get out the vote) drives. I am professionally in a great position to do this, but I need some advice.

I have read some online discussion that says partisan volunteer hours can't be used for rank advancement. But this seemed like it was just one opinion amongst many, and I am interested to find out more. One of my best Eagle buddies from Alabama says no. But my younger brother ran ten or eleven precincts for one of the parties for his Eagle project. He says that was approved, on the basis that it was volunteer work for a non-profit. But that was a few years ago, and I want to find out the official word before I waste a bunch of 13-year-olds' time.

Can anyone help?

Thanks

g