gungho4scouts

The Rule is what Rank the Boy will be. The Guideline is age or grade. The Rule is; if you are 5 and in Kindergarten, you need to wait until you are either 7 years old OR in 1st grade. Which ever comes first. 6 years old and in 1st grade, you can join (as a Tiger.)

If you are 8 years old and held back a year, in accordance with the guidelines, the rule is pretty clear. 8 years old OR in 2nd grade, you're rank can be Wolf. Both criteria don't have to be meet, just one. Conversely, he could be a Tiger, but the decision is, and as it should be, up to the Parents to make.

For those of you who live by the hard and fast rules, consider this. The guidelines for when a Boy enters the Scouts is simple. A Boy may enter the Scouts at anytime. If they were the age/grade for Bear, they don't start as Tigers. The only required rank/badge they must earn is the Bobcat which they can earn while still being a Bear Cub.

The age/grade is a guideline of what rank the Boy will be when they decide to join the Scouts.

While my Son and I were out selling Christmas Wreaths and Popcorn a pair of boys on bikes yelled out at us as they rode by. Their comment? "Cool!!!" Needless to say, my Son's chest stuck out even after that.

The uniform helps bring unity, an instant recognizable positive symbol of Scouting, and when worn with pride, it can have a cool factor.

With all of the attacks against BSA, I wouldn't be surprise if this was a tactic (though small) used to help deface the entire organization.

I've stumbled on a few websites, particularly "mothering.com", where several activist suggested joining the BSA just for the sake of creating havoc. I'm not subscribing to any conspiracy theory, but in today's world you can not discount the zealots.

From the articles I've read, it could simply be about boasting rights, greed on the part of the professional's, etc. To error is human and justice will prevail. Baden-Powell made it pointedly clear; for dishonor, you are stripped of your badge which you can never earn again.

Yes, I'm disappointed that something like this was allowed to happen. It just makes me more determined to be part of the process of making sure my Son gets the very best that the BSA has to offer.

As long as we believe in, obey and uphold the Scout's Law, BSA will be around for another 100 years!

Do all Council's have such a seat? Anybody ever held the position before?

Eammonn

NP and much thanks for your guidance.

Barry

You didn't give me advice on this exact issue. In a previous post, and in so many words, told me to pace myself. I'm happy at just being a CMA.

SemperParatus

Item two, is something that was suggested. Not sure if the parents will follow through. I keep asking parents to attend the Parent and Leader meetings, and all of them say they will but none of them show up...

Update

The UC will be getting involved as well. Mostly as an observer. He's a great guy and will get in there to help troubleshoot a problem when asked.

Keep doing a Good Turn daily!

GH4S

Eammon,

I'm not sure how to take this: "I can't help but wonder what is your part in all of this?" Are you assuming something sinister on my part? Hope it wasn't ill thoughts on yours, because if they were, it would only expose a Bully. Hmmmm, now what was that reason for assumed names again?

For the record, this request for help was brought to the table by the parents of the Webelos. This is after having been asked by the Pack Leadership to take over for the Webelos, which I declined on the advice given to me by EagleDad.

Why draw out the exact details when you answered the question. Believe it or not, your answer is the same approach the group decided on, which includes me. The CM, who has a Son in the Den, will be taking a more active approach to helping the Webelos.

But because it could turn into a sticky situation, it would only seem prudent to ask for advice from those who live this this type of problem before.

I'll close by saying, Thank You for your advise. Keep doing a "Good Turn for others."

Gungho4Scouts

Our mall has a Legoland complete with a Derby track to race the cars the kids make from the buckets of Legos on hand. No matter the age it's the most popular spot at the mall. So the notion of age being a limiting factor doesn't quite compute.

There is a poor soul who is leading one of the Webelos dens. Everything in this persons life has taken a turn for the worst. The state of being burnt out isn't the issue, more on the lines of the difficulties in the personal life. It's being reported that the Den meetings are done on the fly and the achievements are being awarded like candy.

We know something has to be done ASAP. But would like to keep the balance of helping a friend in need and do what is in the Boys best interest.

Any word of advise of how to best approach a possible sticky situation?

Check with your local council if they have anything on "Extreme Volunteer Recuiting" from the UofS. Basically it's a poster board with baseball size cards on one side with the positions name, and on the other is the description of the position and duration. The Scout Shop may have the same type of cards in stock for the "higher" level positions to use as an example.

It seems like a great way of showing parents all the jobs it takes to run the pack, and allows them to explore different positions they might have an interest in without feeling pressured if approached.

If your council doesn't have anything, I can email you the documents.

I disagree.

o What better place to "test" thoughts and ideas with those who you hope will be looking at it in a puritan way, (as a Scouter!)

o There are times when the best way to understand another persons point of view is to put the shoe on the other foot.

o I personally thinks it's great that this site allows discussions regarding homosexuals continue on for 215 messages. Not because I support the homosexuals agenda, rather it affords me a glimpse of the argument for and against it.

o Why create conflict at "home" when you can work out the issue here first. Having a thousand personal mentors is re-assuring when venturing in new territory or trying to understand why the things are the way they are.

Finally, it's not a very good idea to post any personal information on the Internet unless you're a politician running for office. One of your duties to God is the protection of your children. Last thing you need is some crackpot showing up on your door step over a "mis-understanding." I personally don't have bodyguards or federal agents to protect me. So, why take the chance.

If you feel compelled to share your true identify just remember for the sake of self-preservation, trust should be earned not freely given.

I see in the Scouting catalog for 2005, a new New Cub Scout Leader Book. Has anyone looked through this book yet? Just wondering what changes were made.

I trying to understand what argument you can possibly make of why it's ok for my Son to be discriminated against if my Son enters either place as a Scout. Last that I recall, no one here is calling for the same places to be closed to anyone else for their membership requirements.

If only Atheist and Gays paid the taxes for the public schools and parks, then I would concede to your argument. but as it stays your argument is rather weak.

Our inalienable rights, affects both sides of this issue.

Looking at this from a tactical view, the goal of the ACLU and poster like Merlyn_LeRoy is the attempt to pigeon hole the BSA as a non-religious, public organization.

"The Boy Scouts of America is a private membership group. As with any private organization, Boy Scouts retains the constitutional right to establish and maintain standards for membership. Anyone who supports the values of Scouting and meets these standards is welcome to join the organization." www.bsalegal.org/faqs-113.htm

If the BSA was anything other then what it is, a private organization, based in reverence for God Almighty, and living up to the saying "Fun with a purpose." I wouldn't even have considered my Son amongst the ranks.

Why is it so hard for someone to understand it's ok for people to associate with others who share similar ideas, interests, and goals? It's like forcing the Jewish Anti-Defamation League to admit anti-Semites as members. It doesn't make any sense.

"As the Supreme Court has recognized, "there can be no clearer example of an intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association than a regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." "Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." This is especially important in the context of associations that seek to foster moral virtue in young people.

In short, the Founders viewed a virtuous citizenry as an essential pre-condition of republican self-government, and they encouraged the development of private associations that, like the Boy Scouts, were devoted to the development of moral character." www.claremont.org/projects/jurisprudence/000629eastman.html

All I can say is;

Don't Tread on Me!

Not sure if this is the right forum for this. I'm taking a thought from another thread regarding the use of anonymous slash multiple names used to post on this site.

Is it unetheical for anyone to post under multiple assumed names? Some believe that by doing so is considered untrustworthy. Would you say the same for our Founding Fathers?

Justice Stevens of the United States Supreme Court discussed the tradition of anonymous publishing in a case in which the Court struck down an Onio election board regulation that prohibited anonymous campaign literature. The full text of the opinion is available at http://www.law.cornell.edu

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose there true identity.

The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any

public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of

the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices.

Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe their ideas will be more persuasive if their readers are unaware of the identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge their message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where the identity of the speaker is an important componentof many attempts to persuade, City of Ladue v. Gilleo, the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity.

The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation.

Ever heard of Silence Dogood, Publius? Is it truly against the principals of Scouting?

First, took each person aside and personally apologized, and again as a group during the meeting. Everyone was receptive, except for the outgoing TDL who made it very apparent that she didn't want to have anything to do with me or my apology.

The "assistant" DL is now the new TDL. It was our e-mails that started this whole ball of wax. The new TDL came prepared with the same outline as I had presented here for review.

I've read Foto's, and with this group of parents the dynamic's is more attune to doing it as it was outlined by EagleDad. Each parent runs the meetings on their month, the TDL gives help when and where needed. I've meet with another Pack whose TDL is more in keeping with Foto's description and it works well for them. The overall reaction by the parents at this meeting, I would say EagleDad's version has a greater appeal.

The overall meeting went great, got what I think will be a great TDL. [HS Teacher] The only hiccup in the meeting was by the outgoing TDL who announced that she will be leaving the Pack at the end of this month.

After getting home, the new TDL called and personally apologized for the outgoing TDL's remarks towards me during the meeting. She wanted to be sure that I didn't think it was a beat up session. Told her that I really didn't come away thinking that. Instead felt that the Den is in capable hands.

The positive effect is a commitment by all the Parents to actively attend the PL meetings, and in helping with the decisions that will make the Pack grow and go!

With some reservation I'll be attending the parent's (of the den) meeting tonight. As some of you may recall, I "threw" my hands up in a tirade for the mesh of silent communications. But now I can see that it's due to the general cloud of confusion that hangs over the Tiger Program.

I'm learning quite a bit while a newbie in the Scouts. Most from the direct results of the guidance on this forum. Not wanting to screw this up for my Boy. I wanted to see if there were some devil's advocates out there that can help me prepare.

1. Apologize for my tirade to those I may have offended.

2. Suggest that we look at the Tiger Cub program in one of two ways.

a. Share Leadership

1. Define Share Leadership as; each parent's assigned month would be their's to do what they want. They decide the meeting place, time, frequency and activities.

a. As a Den decide what is minimum times the Den should meet for attendance purposes, besides the Pack Meeting.

b. A single TDL will act as the resource manager and liaison for the rest of the Den, Pack and District. i

1. All the parents agree to be TDL's during their month. Registering and uniform is optional.

2. The TDL will act as helper to the parent only when asked.

3. No prior submission requirements unless the parent solicits for it.

b. Sole Leaders

1. One person would make all the decisions.

3. Collect a pool of ideas for some of the local Go-See-It's. If there is 5 months left as Tigers, then have 10 (or more) Go-See-It's to pool from.

4. We as parents agree on how to handle situations in the face of unbecoming behavior by the Boys.

5. Ask for a consensus to the idea of having the "Gathering" in the gym or outside (depending on the weather) for some energy draining games.

a. Allow the parents to mingle for the 15 to 20 minutes.

1. Pack leadership can share information with the parents.

2. Parents can ask questions

b. Lets the boys exert energy.

c. Give the Boys the sense of being in a Pack.

d. Allows the Pack meeting to focus on the activities on center stage because the Boys had a chance to play.

There is always more, but 2 through 5 seem to the big ones that plague the Pack. Please shoot any holes into this as you see fit!

Nope, that's a new one on me!

One of my (many) shortcomings is the tendency of projecting myself onto others. Only knowing how the program works in spirit and not in implementation I turn to any and all books about the subject, soaking up as much training that is available, and considerable amount of questions to whomever offered to help. There certainly isn't any thought of being superior, or knowing more that anyone else. Part of it is having a drive to learn as much and the desire to make it the best for the Boys.

Now I've had a taste, I would agree that the parents of the Tiger Cubs should only have to worry about enjoying the ride instead of jumping into the driver's seat. Let the parents have a chance to experience the "Leadership" role for a month or two with a personal (experienced) coach to assist. On the month(s) it's the parents turn to lead, they set the meeting frequency, place, time, the theme, and the go-see-it for that month.

Being hardheaded is another trait that I have. Now I get it. I can certainly see how the going full blast may turn off some either not use to or not ready for it. And the importance of pacing yourself for sake of your Sons continued enthusiasm as well as my own. But the toughest lesson to (still) learn is how to curb that enthusiasm without extinguishing it. The desire for doing it right the first time tends to govern a person who is a hard charger. This also tends to blind a person when all of it looks like "low hanging" fruit. (All arrows point to me!)

But this still doesn't excuse my reaction. I recognize the fact that everyone operates at a different pace then others. I tend to lose sight of this due to the people I generally associate with, at work, and friends which exhibit the same tendency as my own. But I also want to say that a large part of this also comes in the form trusting someone else to provide the very best program for my Son.

Getting dissimilar people together, having them coincide without diminishing the overall message and goal of the program is the real trick. As a personal goal, it's one that I'm trying to practise and be better at. And maybe that's the key to all of this; to sit down and agree to what those goals or expectations are. Training and even the books generalize the program too much, to the point that I wasn't able to fully comprehend it. And when there is confusion, there is frustration.

Thanks for the comments so far. I've had a chance to start a new day and the stress of work has dissipated. Now that I have a taste of what the Scouts are, the group overall dynamics is just not for me. Plain and simple. As the DE told me, this is not uncommon.

It's something that I've have been thinking about for sometime. But 100% agree that the way I went about it wasn't right. Hence, why I posed the question just after I sent it.

So, I'm a little more motivated to do things, so what. It just mean I'm a round peg trying to fit into a square hole. It's time for me to pick up and look for a round hole that fits my expectations, and that I associate with the same like minded parents. It's just makes more sense to suggest to someone to find another pack instead of flaming them as a lunatic as you have.

Also, asking questions is wrong? If this is true as you have demonstrated, so much for setting the example on being a Scout.

Nothing is learned without getting the views from both sides of the aisle. So no, I certainly don't want everyone to only agree with my viewpoints.

My issues with Foto are simply frustrations of the same cookie cutter answers. Take it easy, let it flow, too much too soon. But the twist of the knife regarding the perception of why I stop being the TDL and now a CMA set me off. I choose to step down to keep the peace within the Den. I don't meddle with "telling" the new TDL on how to run the Den. I pose the questions to this site instead. Because 1. keeps me from saying anything, 2. keep me in check, and 3. if I do say anything, it's with a better understanding of both sides.

As far as Foto's second post that I liked. Foto if you posted like that more often, it would help bridge the gap of confusion. It maybe old news to you, but for many of us or at least to me, its NEW news.

I personally like:

"Every unit has history, radical changes to that history most often result in colossal failure. If youve follow much of what written in this forum, you will have noticed that most of us are very concerned about preventing gross course corrections, and prefer a number of slight course corrections over time."

I wouldn't be here if it wasn't my desire to better myself and make the Scouting experience better for my Son. One of things I hated about being the oldest is that my Brother would benefit from my mistakes. I see the benefit of posting what's in my head first as having the same effect.

As far as my reply to the assistant TDL, this was the third time it has happen. First was regarding a skit idea for the Pack meeting; given the thanks but no thanks, too young bit. And at the Pack meeting, the den didn't do any skit. The second was at the Pack meeting and another Parent was asking me a question. I was interrupted several times as I tried to answer the question. And the last which I've posted here. Hence, the response when slapped across the face for the third time.

But wanting to be a better Scout is why I'm asking the question, "Am I reading too much into this..."

Have you notice it is the most talked about issue on every forum out there? Get off your high horse, and cloud nine mentality. Of that's right, in your world, recruitment is at an all time high. The Tiger Cub Program is the most success non issue program in the history of the Scouts. AND the turn over rate is at 99.9999%. I've seen your posting to others, and it's far from being supportive. I feel insulted that you were the first to have posted a reply.

First I get an email from the TDL on the 29th of the Den meeting for the Dec. 3rd. Instead of 6:15 pm it's move to 6:00 and it's not at the CO but at someone's house. (Ok, a little short notice, I can deal with it.) Then solicitation for ideas on a Go-See-It. So I sent a reply addressed to everyone in the Den with the following:

"This might be fun for everyone as a Go-See-It: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/cubscouts/index.shtml And it's only 15 minutes from the CO."

This is what I get in response from the assistant TDL:

"...Thanks for the e-mail about Starbase, but at this time we dont feel this would be appropriate Go See It. From what we read off the internet they cater to older kids and schools. Not groups like us. However, please continue to keep your eyes open for more Go See Its. Just for future reference, if you do come across something, please, send the information to [TDL] or myself first. This will help confusion among the parents."

My response:

"First if you actually took the time to go to the URL you will find a section dedicated to just the Tiger Cubs. Second, I replied to all since this is Shared Leadership, meaning everyone has input to the program. To state that I send any suggestion strictly to you or [TDL] for approval first can only be taken as an insult. Third and finally, take [my son] and I off the Den roster effective immediately."

The message is already been sent, and I realize that it may have been in haste. And it might just be the mood I'm in, but am I reading too much into this?

My Son and I want to be in Cub Scouts but with everyone's different interpretations all I want to do is just quit.

My problem is that every parent is overloading the program with what they think it should be. Although never a Scout in my own youth, the ideals, patriotism and reverence to God carried over from my late fathers own experience in the Scouts. Wanting to do it right and "Be Prepared" (pun intended) I've read everything I could get my hands on. Despite the preparations, nothing in the Fast Start or Leader Specific prepares you for parents with their own ideas of how it should be. Let me clarify something before I make my next statement. In my short tenure as a newbie leader, I've meet, was trained by, and admire the Women in Scouting. What sets them apart from my next statement is that they get it, know it, and live it! Now, the part that will certainly get me into trouble. The problem I have is the know it all mothers.

Examples:

o The "women" jump on me for going out and preparing for the first Den Meeting without consulting them.

o Part of the appeal at Join Night was that all of the Den's meet every week except Pack week at the CO. Simple to remember, assured a place to meet, and the ease of where to meet. One of the mothers "suggested" that we only have the Den meetings once a month just like they done it last year. Despite what the literature had outlined, (i.e. page 1 of the Service Catalog) and at Join Night, did a quick consensus check, and the majority wanted to keep it as it was, every week expect on Pack week.

o I agreed to changing our meeting an hour earlier, even accommodating one of the Fathers who doesn't get home by that time. But apparently the frequency of the meetings was still an issue, because one of the mothers went to the PL meeting (and extended the meeting time by an hour and a half to) finally getting her way. I couldn't say anything because being a good newbie that I am, I was at training that happened to be the same night as the PL meeting.

But that wasn't enough turmoil for a Den to endure. It finally boiled over to the point that I choose, no one asked, to step down thinking the problem with me and my desire to keep the turmoil away from the Boys. All of this before our first Pack meeting. Just in case you are wondering, none of the Fathers had a complaint. Too boot, I suspect that a deal was made between the Pack Leadership and "new" TDL due to the her attitude during a Parent's meeting prior to me stepping down.

Now the Den meeting place gets shifted from house to house, with the meeting times that changes with each movement. No mention of the ideals of the BSA, just arts and crafts. The new "TDL" will linger off, not even participating in the Den activities, and the worst part, shows up at Pack, Go-See-It's and Den meetings not in uniform. The Leadership considers this all part of the growing pains and keeps suggesting that I just wait it out. But my Son isn't getting any younger, and it's his participation is what I thought matter the most. According to assessments given here, (which makes sense to me after the grief), Tiger's are more for getting the Parents acclimated to the program and recruiting them for leadership. IMHO that's like putting the cart before the horse and the Boys are waiting in the cart. When emphasis is more on the recruitment instead of the purpose, the intent is being lost.

The worst part of remaining in the Pack is the feeling of being an outsider. Which isn't helping my enthusiasm for the Scouts, and unfortunately it's affecting my Sons attitude. Or is it I who just doesn't get it...