GaHillBilly

As some one with severe allergies in the family, I carry an epinephrine amp and a syringe in our kit at all times. I'll use it on my family members, according to my own judgment. I'll use it on Scouts or Scouters, per 911 counsel, unless there's clear evidence of anaphylaxis and difficulty reaching medical emergency staff via a cell.

But . . . you may want to look into the quick dissolve Benadryl formulations that can be used sublingually. Not only does this side step problems with pills and nausea, it will tend to be faster acting than the pills.

GaHillBilly

Brent, just to avoid a distracting side issue, I'll try to clear up the differences between the EPA and G2SS sanitation.

1) EPA recommends boiling OR chlorination; G2SS calls for boiling AND chlorination. This is why I referred to it as a "belt AND suspenders" approach. The G2SS "AND" complicates the process greatly, without adding much to safety.

2) The EPA's chlorination method includes settling and filtering; G2SS does not. Without getting into water treatment tech too much, this is a hugely significant difference. The chlorination of dirty, unsettled and unfiltered water is VERY complicated, and it's very hard to determine if such water is 'sanitized'.

3) The EPA recommends "household bleach"; G2SS does too, but specifies 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. This is confusing, since 5.25% bleach is no longer sold. Current formulations are either 6% (common) or 3% at some 'discount' stores.

4) The EPA recommends a SINGLE dose (8 drops = 8 x 0.05ml = 0.4ml = 0.4 gm) bleach in one gallon (3.78L = 3780ml = 3780gm) of water. At 6%, this works out to roughly 24mg chlorine disinfection equivalent per 3780 gm water, or about 6 ppm. This is an adequate dose with CLEAR filtered and settled water, but not with unfiltered turbid water.

5) G2SS instructs users in a novel and utterly untrustworthy method of measuring chlorine residual: the 'sniff test'! Not only is this unreliable for all sorts of reasons, it will actually result in OVERDOSING chlorine on clear well-sanitized water, and UNDERDOSING on turbid unfiltered water. The reason is that, in normal water that is not excessively acid, chlorine concentrations below 100ppm are very unlikely to have a distinctive odor. The strong odors most people associated with chlorine are actually volatile organic chlorine compounds that form when chlorine reacts with various waste products in the water. These compounds are, by and large, ineffective sanitizers. Worse, they are more likely to associated with INCOMPLETE sanitation, rather than with finished sanitation.

Fortunately, the exceedingly high chlorine levels that are likely to result from trying to treat clean water till it "smells of chlorine" won't poison anyone, contrary to what most people think. However such water will taste really, really bad, and is not particularly good for you.

All in all, this particular element of the G2SS is SERIOUSLY flawed! Whoever cribbed it from the EPA doc and stuck it in the G2SS doesn't understand water treatment well at all.

GaHillBilly

"It can't be that complicated if millions have been able to understand it for almost 100 years."

You ask this, in a thread about how BSA rules make Scouting more difficult??

Bob, you are practicing an 'evidence-free' approach to truth!

You claim that BSA rules are easy to understand and follow, yet when you are asked a simple and common question, you cannot point to a simple and definitive answer. Even worse, you get the ANSWER to the question WRONG, yourself! You make the claim quoted above, which assumes that ALL Scouts and Scouters have found the rules easy and helpful, in the midst of a thread which itself is IMMEDIATE evidence that many Scouters find at least some of BSA policy and rule making an obstacle, rather than an aid.

Bob, you seem determined to ignore any evidence that conflicts with your preferred conclusion. This is NOT behavior worthy of trust!

GaHillBilly

"But to say I want to see a specific document that says specifically XYZ, well things are not always documented the way you see them in your head."

. . . which is the long way round of saying what I said in my original post . . .

The LTP questions is one of many *basic* questions are NOT answered clearly and specifically in BSA literature, but have to be 'teased out' of a complex and dispersed body of regulations, standards, and guides.

FScouter is correct, however.

I wasn't really looking for the answers. I already know one of them. I don't know the other, but I'm pretty sure you don't, either.

Contrary to your post, an LTP is NOT *required* by BSA regulations for most non-overnight local outings. Most of the official BSA statements I've been able to find *imply* a preference for LTP for all non-meeting locations, but don't actually state even that. I don't know the answer concerning liability insurance for a certainty, but my experience has been that you NEVER know exactly what a particular policy will cover, till AFTER the event. The evidence I've seen suggests that this same rule applies to BSA insurance as well. But, I've seen no credible evidence that the lack -- or presence -- of an LTP will, by itself, significantly affect coverage in any particular situation.

As I suspect Fscouter realized, I posed the question in order to reveal the difficulty Scouters face in finding clear and authoritative answers easily. It seems to me that your inability to offer a single clearly definitive reference to answer these basic questions brings us back around to my original claim: "It seems to me that this 'need for knowledge' is the real barrier. In order for adult leaders to navigate 'the rules' successfully, they are going to have to do a LOT of reading, and a fair amount of real thinking about things like, "what does this really mean?", and "how would this actually apply?". "

To blame troop level Scouters for this situation is, I think, rather silly. Not all guys that are great with boys, are also great with forms, codes and regulations. If you accept only Scouters who are good with rules and regs . . . you'll likely end up with "Boy Scouts of Accounting"!

My impression, Bob White, is that you trust rules and regs a great deal more than I do. I've ended up working in areas professionally where rules and regs often impair, rather than increase, the public good. Overall, I'm very impressed with many aspects of BSA structure, but it's not perfect and it is complicated.

I'll leave you with this. G2SS now includes a boil and chlorinate sanitation process for drinking water. (http://www.scouting.org/healthandsafety/gss/gss03.aspx#e) Not only is this a mangled 'belt AND suspenders' conglomeration cribbed from more reliable guides, such as this one from the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/faq/emerg.html) but they add a novel method of 'testing' for chlorine, that will results in SERIOUSLY over-chlorinating clean water! This is precisely the sort of messed up regulation that I've learned to know, 'love', and dodge around in my professional life!

GaHillBilly

"1) Yes probably, the requirements for the Local Tour Permit say that any unit event away from the regular meeting site would require you to file . . .

The only real exception I am aware of is a patrol activity when no adults will be present and no vehicles are involved. Since none of the permits sections would be applicable.

2) Yes, not filing the permit can have a definite bearing on liability protection. . ."

Uh . . . you're not 'following the rules': I asked for a citation, with document name AND page number. What I'm looking for is the specific official BSA text, identified by title, location available, and page number which DEFINITIVELY answers these questions.

Lots of people have opinions on this topic. And while I'm glad to add yours to my collection, it's not really what I asked for.

GaHillBilly

OK; fair enough.

But do this for me, please. Identify precisely which SINGLE document (page #, please) answers these two often asked and basic questions:

(1) Is an LTP *required* for a local area, non-overnight troop trip or activity, and if so, precisely when and under what circumstances is it required?

(2) If such an activity or trip takes place without an LTP, does the lack of an LTP have any DIRECT impact on whether the activity or trip is covered under the "BSA General Liability Insurance" policy, and if so what is the impact, and what triggers it?

GaHillBilly

Reading through this thread, it becomes evident that many of the perceived obstacles created by BSA rules actually can be worked around, in one way or another. But, what's also clear is that doing so requires an extensive understanding of the details of the rules, as well as an active awareness of which requirements are actually rules, and which are troop or council custom!

It seems to me that this 'need for knowledge' is the real barrier. In order for adult leaders to navigate 'the rules' successfully, they are going to have to do a LOT of reading, and a fair amount of real thinking about things like, "what does this really mean?", and "how would this actually apply?".

This is a problem partly because many adult leaders are not avid readers. Even if they were, it takes time to work through the mountains of BSA material. And speaking for myself, I don't often think, "Hey, I believe I'll sit down for a relaxing evening spent carefully reading the G2SS".

I've spent much of my adult life working in areas where I was required to 'thread the needle' of various competing, and sometimes conflicting, codes. So the idea of paying careful attention to the details comes naturally to me. These experiences also mean that I'm accustomed to the ideas that (a) all codes suck to a greater or lesser degree, but that this does not mean that (b) they are not needed or should be discarded entirely. I know that © it is impossible for any set of regulations to cover every real situation well, and so (d) some 'creative' interpretation is often necessary. But, I also know that far more often than people realize, (e) codes commonly are less restrictive than a careless reading would suggest.

But all these solutions still require that adult leaders spend hours getting to know and understand the BSA 'codes'. This is hard, since Scouting already takes many hours and since most leaders aren't comfortable 'interpreting' code documents. Another difficulty is that no organization is going to TRAIN its members in "How to Interpret Our Codes Effectively and Creatively, without really Violating Them", even though this is ultimately an pretty basic organizational skill.

GaHillBilly

Darn, I wasn't thinking!

There IS specific official BSA confirmation that the "native" requirement is intended to be interpreted precisely as I did, in the BSA video on that requirement. You can view it here: http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/rankvideo/

By the way, these videos clear up a LOT Of questions I've had about precisely what is required or intended, and how some of the requirements should be met. I haven't watched them all yet. My son has done so, and to my surprise, thinks they are very helpful, possibly because the videos put the BSA on our side in the recent and unfruitful discussions we had with his former SM.

GaHillBilly

LongHaul wrote,

"if you think that is the intent of the BSA concerning this requirement? The effort involved in "weeding out" (pun intended) the invasive and/or non-native would warrant a mention in Scoutmaster specific training."

I'm not sure what dialect of English is *native* to you, but in current American Standard dialect, "native", when applied to to plants or animals is a synonym of "indigenous", and thus excludes non-native plants, regardless of whether they are invasive or not. (The issue of invasive plants does show up, in rather substantial form, in some of the MBs Scouts are likely to see later, such as Plant Science, but is not specifically present in the 1st Class requirements. My point in mentioning invasive plants was simply to make it easier for folks to properly lay the ground work for such MBs.)

So, I think what BSA meant is clearly defined by what they wrote . . . unless you wish to argue that the writers and editors of the requirements were unskilled in basic English, and accidentally said what they did not mean. Of course, that approach to the Handbook and BSA's rank requirements will free you to redefine any requirement any way you wish. If that's your goal, you've already passed the 50 yard line on your way there.

To argue that a word in the requirements has specific meaning ONLY if that specific meaning is discussed in other arcane BSA documents not available to the Scout is a novel idea to me. I'm new enough to Scouting to have no idea whether such a claim is valid or not. I can only say if such an approach to the meaning of the requirements is sanctioned by the BSA that I'm both disappointed and puzzled.

GaHillBilly

Recently, my son participated in a 'nature walk' during which the ASM checked off my son's patrol on their first class plant ID requirement. Unfortunately, of the 13 plants he selected, 6 were non-native and 2 of those were invasive. Worse, he misidentified 5 of the 12 plants, going so far as to 'correct' (incorrectly) my son's identification of two of those plants. My son got the message, and shut up.

Obviously such an effort, no matter how well-meaning, does injury to the Scouts involved. The effect on my son is minimal, other than to teach him a further lesson in not trusting, without external confirmation, the skills of Scout leaders. But the other boys, if they remember anything from this, have been left with booby-trapped memories ready to explode when they are embarrassed or humiliated in high school biology class. Of course such events only serve to further establish the not uncommon high school perception of Boy Scouts as 'incompetent nerds'!

Anyhow, I'm posting my recommendations for Scouters teaching 1st Class plant ID below. Feel free to comment. PLEASE offer any corrections you can; it's very likely I've made mistakes.

(I also included a rant on bogus skill training and check-offs.)

GaHillBilly

[ RANT ]

As some of you know, I'm new to Scouting, but this whole problem of giving Scouts 'fake' skills is rapidly becoming a real pet peeve of mine. I've already (in less than a year!) seen multiple case of older Scouts moving to the background, at least in part because they don't actually HAVE the skills they are supposed to have.

It was disheartening this summer to watch a Life Scout with a canoeing MB bail on the second run of a canoe trip. He'd been enthusiastic about going, and had mentioned using his MB skills. I don't know beyond all doubt, but it certainly seemed that the primary reason was that it turned out that he didn't possess even basic canoe skills, and had embarrassed himself on the first run.

When I look at the list of MBs offered by many camps in this region, I gag. There's no way a Scout can *legitimately* complete the Insect Study, Mammal Study or Personal Fitness MBs at camp. Camp week completions of the Bird Study, Computer, Environmental Study MB are necessarily very superficial, with carefully pre-selected option 'choices'. Yet all these, and more, are commonly offered at camps, and even 1-day merit badge 'colleges'. When I see all the Eagle badges offered at MB colleges, I want to throw up! Many of the Scouts victimized this way don't know, till too late, that they are being shortchanged and aren't getting the 'real deal'.

If BSA National would add another element to the Scout Law:

--- A Scout is bogus ---

then the Scouts would at least have some advance warning that they don't actually possess *real* skills, and could avoid the public humiliation that occurs when they first try to use the bogus skills they've been certified in.

Yuck!

[ /RANT ]

[ RECOMMENDATION ]

The 1st Class requirement is:

"6. Identify or show evidence of at least 10 kinds of native plants found in your community."

Exegeting this carefully, please note that the requirement is "10 kinds", and not "10 species".

+ Recommendation #1: Know, and avoid invasives common to your area.

-- In the Southeast, some of the most common invasives include kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Johnson grass (Pueraria lobata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).

-- In general, avoid trying to ID herbs and grasses. Identifications difficult and often seasonal, and many, many common herbs and grasses are non-native!

-- Use http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/invlists.html'>http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/invlists.html to ID the invasives in your region.

+ Recommendation #2: Avoid plant families with many non-natives resident in the US. Especially avoid families which include common ornamentals or agricultural plants!

-- Again, in the Southeast, this includes honeysuckles, ivys and ground plants, grasses, shrubs, herbs and fruit trees.

-- Bradford pear is NOT native! Neither is most of the wisteria you are likely to see.

-- Many common forage crops, including several common clovers, are also not native! (If you learned it on a farm, you probably should NOT use it for BSA plant ID!)

+ Recommendation #3: Do NOT trust local names you've always known. They are often misleading and occasionally wrong. Check it out, and make sure you have the scientific name down, at least on paper. Wikipedia is a good first start, and often has links to more authoritative (and more difficult!) sites.

-- For example, I grew up calling *Liriodendron tulipifera* a "tulip poplar", but it's not a poplar and most guides call it a "tuliptree".

+ Recommendation #4: Settle for identifying the plant FAMILY ("kinds") rather than the species in cases where species identification is challenging. For example,

-- Oaks! Distinguish 'red oaks' (bristle tipped leaves, generally) from 'white oaks' (non-tipped leaves), but leave the rest alone. 206 USDA species.

-- Hickories & Walnuts! Except for the shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and the black walnut (Juglans nigra), correct identification is difficult. 22 USDA species in genus Carya and 15 in Juglans.

-- Pines! Many local names are 'wrong', and don't correspond to what's in guide books. Often local identifications use names of other species. 75 USDA species

-- Birches! In my area, river birch is native and fairly common . . . but the very similar paper birch has been widely planted as an ornamental.

-- Maples! Confusing . . . and you have to watch out for non-natives. 26 USDA species

-- Hawthorns! Even experts, except for specialists, don't try to ID hawthorn species. 208 USDA species.

-- For most leaders, elms, locusts, sumacs, magnolias are all better ID'd by family rather than species.

-- Grapes! Species are hard to distinguish, and imported plants have escaped cultivation.

-- Willows! The USDA lists 149 species.

-- Raspberry / blackberry / dewberry! Don't even THINK about trying to ID this genus by species. The USDA lists 237 species, and many are common!

-- Cattails! Can you reliably distinguish the southern cattail (Typha domingensis) from the narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia)?

-- Trilliums! They are native, but trying to distinguish them -- argh! 39 USDA species.

-- Poison ivy / oak The USDA catalogs multiple species and variants, but there's debate whether the species are distinct or not. In any case, it's hard to distinguish them, because members of the Toxicodendron genus exhibit great morphological variation. By the way, poison ivy / oak are no longer considered part of the sumac (Rhus) genus, but poison sumac -- which is quite rare -- has been moved into the new poison ivy / oak genus (Toxicodendron).

+ Recommendation #5: Develop a list of easy-to-ID local native plants that are common in your area, and can be reliably ID'd by species for much of the annual season. Check it out, learn the variations in common names, and make sure of the scientific name! Note that making such a list may require use of range maps, to make sure that similar species don't occur in your area. I've noted the distinctive characteristic that makes definite ID relatively easy. I've listed candidates for such a list in my area, but there's LOTS of regional variation.

- Year-round:

-- Southern red cedar [Juniperus virginiana] --needles, bark--

-- Sycamore [Platanus occidentalis] --bark--

-- Shagbark hickory [Carya ovata] --bark--

-- Flowering dogwood [Cornus florida] --growth habit, bark, end buds--

-- Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) --bark--

-- Beech (Fagus grandifolia) --bark--

-- Black willow (Salix nigra) --twigs + growth habit + locale + range info--

-- Box elder (aka Ashleaf maple, ash maple, etc.) (Acer negundo) --green twigs + growth habit--

-- American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) --bark + trunk shapes-- (Easy to confuse with young beech, if you don't have local knowledge)

-- River cane (aka Giant cane) (Arundinaria gigantea) --leaves, dried or green--

[by the way, this is NOT bamboo, which is an Asian species and much larger, and it's NOT sugar cane, which is a non-native agricultural plant.]

- When in leaf:

-- Black walnut [Juglans nigra] --leaves + growth habit, nuts--

-- Tulip poplar (tuliptree!) [Liriodendron tulipifera] --leaves--

-- Red bud [Cercis canadensis] --leaves, flowers--

-- Sweetgum [Liquidambar styraciflua] --leaves, seed pod--

-- Virginia creeper [Parthenocissus quinquefolia] --leaves, growth habit--

-- Willow oak (Quercus phellos) --leaves, growth habit, locale--

References:

Starting point: Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Invasives: http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/invlists.html

Comprehensive: http://plants.usda.gov/

(they are currently -- 20Nov2007 -- having some server problems)

Google (of course!)

[/RECOMMENDATION]

Addendum to the above . . .

I should add that probably the SM originally thought he *did* want me to be involved with the troop. But if so, it would have been an idea he liked better than the reality, once my plans began to step on his last minute plans.

GaHillBilly

GoldWinger wrote: "As a former advancement chair I'd have to say that the signed blue card is far more important. Just like the signed Handbook is more important than the rank card."

That's good to know. They ought to add that info to the BSA "Handbook for Parents of New Scouts". ;-)

Again, thanks for all the information and help. As we move forward, much of this will be valuable.

Unfortunately, in my son's case it won't help with past work. The problem is that, because the troop wasn't doing advancement activities, I was the one that worked with my son, and checked him off on many of the requirements. I had permission and I had been approved by the committee as an ASM, though that never reached Council. But, when things went bad, I was accused of 'taking over from the boys' and 'doing too much for them'.

Like most situations, there's another side to that story, but it's not relevant. It's a small district, and the odds are my son's new SM will know his old SM, since he's active in the District. And so that's the story that will be told.

So, if we try to 'transfer' any of his completions, there's a good chance that he'll be looked at as trying to slide by without doing the work. The ONLY way I know to counter that story effectively is for the new SM to see that he's the absolute master of those skills.

Even this is a challenge, since many of the SM's (like his old one) aren't masters of those skills themselves. For example, on the last camp out with his old troop, the boys went on a 'nature walk' for the 1st class plant requirement. I'd pushed for this, but things already on the 'outs', so I didn't lead the walk. The ASM (former SM of a dying troop that merged) who did got over a third of his ID's wrong, and even corrected my son twice . . . incorrectly! (Sugar cane does NOT grow along the rivers in middle Tennessee, unless someone planted it there; the same is true for boxwood -- really Chinese privet -- and neither privet nor boxwood are native! Etc.)

So anyhow he's not only got to do it right, he's got to be able to prove it right as well. But then, since he'd like eventually to be a troop "Instructor" that's not so bad.

GaHillBilly

*********

One suggestion to the SMs and Unit Commissioner's here: please don't encourage a new parent volunteer to get 'trained', when all you really want are better stats for the Quality Unit award! My son's SM wanted me to get 'trained', so I've been to Roundtable and had Council Whitewater and YPT and Basic New Leader and SM Specific and will be going to OLS this weekend (not that they care now). The problem was, I assumed that all this meant they wanted me to do stuff.

I made the mistake of trying to plan and offer advancement opportunities to the boys other than my son. I felt guilty because he was the only one who was advancing! But, it turns our that my plans messed up their non-plans. I couldn't figure out how till just the other day.

But when I planned something, even though they approved it, it tied their hands. Because they planned the night before, or even on the way to the troop meeting, they'd think, "Omigosh, we've forgotten to do XYZ. Well, we'd better do it tonight. Oh yeah, GaHillBilly's doing ABC tonight. Darn. Now what?" In other, my plans forced them to plan to work around my plans, even though they had no plans.

Got it? ;-)

Anyhow, please don't train folks for the numbers. If you've got the numbers, turn them in. But, even I've been in Scouts long enough now to be sure Scouting's not about square knots and QU patches or even Silver Beaver awards. As they say, it's about the boys!

*********

John-in-KC wrote:

"Many times Scouts become active again after dropping from other units because of other interests, moving within the community, or relocating to another part of the country. Youth who were members of a "dropped" unit also may become active again."

Thanks for your information -- it's very helpful.

But, based on the quote above, it sounds like my son needs to affiliate (join) with another troop post-haste, lest he be dropped and have to re-register.

Is that right?

GaHillBilly

Beavah wrote:

"Once da record has been entered into ScoutNet (either directly online by the troop or by the council registrar), that's the official record."

OK, I'm still learning.

It seems everyone agrees that ScoutNet is it, right? And, other records may be the basis of a submission to ScoutNet, but once it's in ScoutNet, the rank or MB is final. And, until it IS in ScoutNet, it's just a gleam in the Scout's eye.

Right?

Questions:

1. Are only completed ranks and MBs recorded in ScoutNet, or are partials ever recorded?

2. Can the troop advancement person enter ScoutNet data in every council, or does the council retain control sometimes?

3. Once the data is in ScoutNet, can it be rescinded or reversed?

These are, unfortunately, not very theoretical questions for me and my son. I thought our separation from the troop would be cordial. It was not. He'd completed all 1st & 2nd class requirements, except knife/axe/saw (2nd) and civic meeting (1st), plus spirit / conference / BOR, but will apparently now have to restart as a new Tenderfoot. Assuming, of course that he IS a Tfoot. We've got a signed card, but I haven't yet been able to confirm that there was ever a submission to the council. (Paperwork has been one of the issues.)

We're going to be betwixt and between for several months at least, as we look for another troop, and we've got to get it right this time. It's not all bad. Of all the troop positions, the one he thinks he'd enjoy most is "Instructor". So we are going to redo from scratch, document the he@@ out of everything (diary, log sheets, digital photos & video, etc.) and plan for him to complete every requirement with the idea of being ready to teach it at a moment's notice. (We're even working on a "Prepared to Teach" toolbox -- his being asked to instruct with no notice, no prep and inadequate materials was another issue.)

But, this will all be moot with respect to advancement (if not with respect to actual learning) if we can't get it right on the records.

GaHillBilly

Hm-m-mh. The light dawns . . . Eyes are opened . . . My cynicism is renewed . . .

+ I read the form.

+ I have an SM who's VERY motivated by Council / District awards

+ After being very puzzled about it, I now have a working hypothesis as to why an SM would want an recently approved ASM (me) to (a) propose less, and do less with the troop, AND to (b) go through BLT and SMST. See #1 on the form.

+ Likewise, I have a working hypothesis as to why a SM, who'd initially approved the idea of working with the 4 older boys to get them through 1st class, suddenly reversed, and wanted to see ALL the boys move up in rank together, even though most of the younger ones could hardly care less. See #4 on the form.

+ And, I also have a working hypothesis as to why -- even though we didn't do anything else as a troop in September -- we did an out of town fund raiser at a location about 2 hours away and 'camped' at a KOA instead of just driving. The cost of camping - several adults brought large trailers - consumed about 35% of the money raised! My son and I drove, but still ate supper before they did. See #5 on the form -- I'll bet dollars to dimes that that 'camp-out' gets counted when the form is turned in.

I'm not questioning that the *intent* that seems to be behind award is good.

All things equal, it's better for troops to be outdoors more, to have trained leaders, and to retain their Scouts and Scouters. However, it seems to me that the accounting fallacy is at work here.

Once you reward someone based on a distortable metric that attempt, but fails to some degree to measure a desired activity, the result will be that some workers or volunteers will focus on actions that maximize the metric, rather than the desired actions. To the degree that the metric measures something OTHER than the desired activity, the resulting focus on the metric will REDUCE or even ELIMINATE the desired activity.

The only way to avoid this is either (a) to not measure or reward, OR (b) to make sure that the metric used correlates perfectly with only the desired activity, and not with any other activities. Of course, this is very hard, and so accounting system design always ends up, to a greater or lesser degree, distorting the business (or volunteer) activity.

And so you get things like wasteful and hasty 'use the budget up' end-of-cycle spending, or fund raising 'camp-outs' at KOAs.

GaHillBilly

*** CAUTION *** CAUTION *** CAUTION ***

*** READ THIS >> BEFORE

Beavah wrote:

"Yah GaHillBilly, you're wise beyond your years!"

Nah, you just don't know how many years we've got! ;-)

Beavah wrote (in less abbreviated fashion):

"I'd sit down with 'em over a beverage and explain all the . . .

In turn I'd listen carefully . . .

Yeh all have to be on the same page . . .

. . . listening and hearin' 'em respectfully as colleagues."

When I saw the thread, I was thinking of 'how much commitment' it took from an SM or other volunteer. I guess that's why I picked up on your comments. Well, that, and the fact that not doing this sort of communication is pretty much where the problems are arising here locally. The lead ASM told me this past weekend, on the campout, that even he and the SM don't have time to work things out, and that currently even he doesn't know what's going on next, with the troop.

But . . . (and as they say, it's a BIG butt!) doing what you describe takes a HUGE amount of time. As I figure out what's going wrong here locally, and then work back to what it would have taken to keep it from going wrong, I keep coming up against the need for lots of purposeful communication, which takes LOTS of time. As a result, I have lots more sympathy for the SM. Unfortunately, sympathy doesn't fix anything.

The way it looks to me right now, starting a new troop the RIGHT way probably takes a SM 15 - 25 hours per week, plus outings . . . assuming you have able and willing volunteers. That's a pretty daunting commitment!

GaHillBilly

Gunny2862 wrote:

"Perhaps it could be set as a decision guide with a positive slant rather than just a rehash of problems we have most likely all found when we started.

Collaborative effort? New thread? Finished product might even go in my new parent orientation packet!"

That sounds like a great idea!

What might work would be a set of 'originators' like myself who are new to Scouting, and a set of 'commentators' like LisaBob who are experienced. I want to do this, in part, because I didn't do it for competitive USS age-group swimming. My wife and I still remember how bewildering we found all that at first, but it's a foggy memory now. Once you've been in something for awhile, all the stuff that's incredibly confusing to newbies becomes forgotten in its familiarity.

GaHillBilly

Gunny2862 wrote:

"Perhaps it could be set as a decision guide with a positive slant rather than just a rehash of problems we have most likely all found when we started.

Collaborative effort? New thread? Finished product might even go in my new parent orientation packet!"

That sounds like a great idea!

What might work would be a set of 'originators' like myself who are new to Scouting, and a set of 'commentators' like LisaBob who are experienced. I want to do this, in part, because I didn't do it for competitive USS age-group swimming. My wife and I still remember how bewildering we found all that at first, but it's a foggy memory now. Once you've been in something for awhile, all the stuff that's incredibly confusing to newbies becomes forgotten in it's familiarity.

GaHillBilly

Lisabob asked:

"I'd really like to see your list of things you wish you'd known before joining a troop. I think it could be quite instructive for people who are looking for troops now (keeping in mind, of course, that no troop is perfect!)."

I planned to do so, in part because I think the list would be much better after I got criticism and correction from y'all. But, I don't have it finished yet, even in preliminary form. I just have some notes. Such a list probably should be in its own thread, or maybe even threads.

However, I've put two example points below.

GaHillBilly

-- Please, if anyone wants to really discuss these now, spin off a new thread! --

"3. A troop's activity roster is mostly controlled by 4 things: the boys' choices, the troop's budget and location, the type of equipment available to the troop, and the Scoutmaster. Of these, the SM is the most important factor. SM's usually don't do things they dislike or are unable to do. Troops with SM's who are overweight, unfit, or smokers are unlikely to go backpacking, rock climbing or on long hikes. Troops with SM's who swim poorly or who hate the heat will tend to be pretty inactive in summer. For the same reason, a troop with many overweight or unfit boys, and especially boy leaders, will tend to be sedentary.

Your best guide to what a troop WILL be doing, is NOT what the SM is 'planning' to do, but rather it DID do over the last year."

"7. BSA fund raising, at the troop level, is often parasitic or emotionally coercive in nature. Even nationally sponsored popcorn sales don't meet the BSA's own standards of giving good value*, in fund raising efforts. Unfortunately, for most the public their primary contact with Scouting is through these fund raising activities. Consequently, for many of them Scouts are people to avoid!

Participating in such activities may not quite be morally wrong, but it has been troubling at least for my son and myself."

* Scoutmaster Handbook, ©1998, 2006 prining, page 169: On the fund raising project check off list, " ____ Will buyers get their money's worth from the product or service?"

Gunny2862 asked:

"How was the weekend and did it clarify any thoughts you were having?"

My son and I found the weekend 'challenging' -- he was trying to complete the 1st class cooking requirements, and was assigned the "adult" patrol. He's cooked for us at home, and even on camping trips, but delivering hot meals in the dark with minimal help for 9 - 10 adults is a lot different than cooking for our 4 person family. He did a great job (in my opinion), and learned a lot. Did he pass? Don't know yet -- not my call.

My thoughts are somewhat clearer today, now that I've had time to digest some of what happened and was said, and have been able to discuss things with my son. But I still haven't read all the posts in this thread carefully. I'll need to get back to you on this.

However, I'm hoping to communicate with you in the future. My 12 year old is very seriously planning to join the Marines. If my 20 year old had told me the same when he was 12, I wouldn't have paid much attention. But my younger son is a little like a rail car: it takes him forever to decide on a particular track, but once he's on it, he tends to follow it to the end. In this case, he's been planning to go into the military since he was 3! This goal focused specifically on the Marines, after we read parts of "Keeping Faith" out loud a couple of years ago. He *loved* going to the Ranger open house at Camp Merrill last May, and is planning to return, and better his 5K time, this May. Also, his favorite 'movie' -- to the point of having memorized chunks of it -- is "Band of Brothers". (It's weird -- zombie movies give him nightmares, but realistic or even actual depictions of combat violence don't bother him. He'll even talk about his plans in case he lost a limb or eyes!) All of this to say, I'm taking him somewhat more seriously than I would most kids his age.

Anyhow, I'm hoping you could give me information about what I can do to help him make a more informed and realistic decision about this. Unlike my father, and grandfathers, and great uncles, and so on, I was never in the military, so I'm not very informed. But, I do NOT want him to do this just because it's what he's 'always' planned to do!

GaHillBIlly

ScoutNut wrote:

"Have you considered that BSA might not be the organization for you?

Perhaps, instead of trying to change every unit you come into contact with . . ."

Uh, I've 'come into contact with precisely ONE unit'. And I wasn't even "trying to change" it. The actions I've taken locally -- as opposed to the much more candid thoughts & questions I've posed here -- were motivated in part by guilt: I was trying to offer the other boys the opportunities my own son had. Under the circumstances, this proved to be a mistake. But it was not a mistake made because I set out to change the unit.

I've used this forum to 'think out loud' and to ask, and say, things I can't ask or say locally.

Please keep in mind that when we joined this unit, it was on the basis of the recommendation of the District Executive. I had already ruled out two troops we had knowledge of, because I knew that one was an advancement mill, and the other was relatively inactive.

Even before we joined, I had already read quite a bit about the BSA. I asked the DE to recommend a troop that (1) took the requirements seriously, (2) was focused on something more than entertaining the boys, and (3) was pursuing the boy-led concept. The DE recommended this troop based, I'm sure, on the 'square knot quilt' worn by the SM. I'm confident that the DE was making the recommendation based on the best information they had. Unfortunately, I didn't know then what I know now. The DE was a new council employee, with hardly more BSA experience than I had. Even so, more experience might not have mattered. At least in this council, the DE's rarely (never?) attend regular troop meetings, and so aren't in a very good position to make such recommendations.

One outcome of all this is that I will definitely publish on the web a page for prospective Scout parents, entitled something like "Things I Wish I'd Known BEFORE We Signed Up". For example it didn't dawn on me till well after we were committed that SM's and ASM's who are overweight, out of shape smokers are rather unlikely to field troops with active adventure programs. It's obvious in hindsight, but it didn't occur to me soon enough.

None of this adds up to hostility toward Scouts, or even an attempt to change Scouting. If anything, I would say I'm on a quest to find a troop that works 'as advertised'. Given that Scouts are supposed to be "trustworthy", that seems to me to be an eminently reasonable quest.

GaHillBilly

pinkflame wrote: "The point is, 'fun' is a completely relative term."

Yeah, I'm coming to realize that. My family and I tend to use it to refer mean "entertaining" or "amusing" or "pleasurable". But, I'm realizing that many people, especially kids, and even including my own 12 year old would use the word "fun" where words like "meaningful" or "challenging" would be more appropriate.

In the original case of the local ASM, I'm pretty sure, well, very sure, that he meant by "fun" what a Cub Scout would mean by it, but I'm not at all sure that all posters to this thread are using it that way.

GaHillBilly

PS. For a total change of direction, how about this: I now realize that one of the major reasons my son and I felt so 'zonked' on our return yesterday was probably physical in origin.

We were mildly dehydrated!

When I tallied up our liquid intake, I was dismayed. Even worse, I'm pretty sure we drank more than most. No doubt someone here is a health professional who can commend more knowledgeably than I, but I'm pretty certain that it's not good for an active 12 year old, in sunny and dry conditions, to have a total 48 hr fluid intake of less than 64 oz.

I'm also guessing, given the distraction of various activities coupled with the desire to avoid having to pee at night, that it's a common problem!

I just got back from the camp out and it was an 'interesting' weekend. From several perspectives, it went well for us. From other perspectives . . . well, we'll have to wait and see.

I've scanned the various posts made while I was gone, and I want to thank you all very much. I already saw many points I'd overlooked, forgotten, or simply didn't know. It will take some time to digest, but I know it will be helpful.

I'll post later, once my brain is back up to normal function. A whole weekend of 'walking on eggshells' and 'biting my tongue' has been emotionally draining and mentally tiring, so now is not the time.

Thanks again!!

GaHillBilly