Hunt

Bob, I'm confused by your responses. You seem to be saying that if a non-performing boy can't be persuaded to step aside, that it's his decision and nobody else can (should?) do anything about it. Yes, I understand that you think this situation shouldn't arise, and that perhaps it can be fixed even if you inherit the problem. But if you really think that the decision is entirely up to the boy leader, isn't in fact true that you think, as I surmised, "the boys in the troop or patrol facing this situation must simply suffer through the lack of leadership until his term is up" if he won't step down? If that's not your position, why don't you say so? To put it another way, who, if anyone, has the POWER to remove a boy from an elected leadership position?

Bob, you seem to be saying that the way to get a youth leader who isn't performing out of the leadership position is for him to volunteer to step aside. What if he simply doesn't agree with you or with anyone else that he is doing a terrible job? What if the other members of the patrol come to the SM and say they'd like to "unelect" him--do they have the power to do that? You've said that BSA won't tell us the procedure to remove a boy from the PL position, and despite your lengthy answer, you haven't identified any such procedure other than a voluntary resignation. What can we surmise from this? Do you think there is no such procedure, or are you simply emphasizing that no such procedure should ever have to be used? While you've never had to remove a boy, or even seen one who should be removed, your experience may not be universal, or even typical.

From what I read, the Supreme Court didn't really change the current state of the law on the 10 Commandments. They'll rule a display unconstitutional if its main purpose is to promote religion. The irony is that if a bunch of religious groups now rush out to erect monuments on public land exactly like the one in Texas, they'll probably be ruled unconstitutional under these decisions. In fact, it will be very difficult for religious groups to take advantage of the decisions at all, at least if they are willing to be honest about their motives.

"So I guess in your world, Bob, the boys in the troop or patrol facing this situation must simply suffer through the lack of leadership until his term is up?" It's been pointed out to me that I shouldn't guess what Bob would do, although I think what I asked above is a fair response to his comments in this thread. So, Bob, what is the proper procedure to be taken when a boy needs to be removed from a position of reponsibility? You suggested that BSA won't tell us how to do this--how should it be done in a properly run troop?

"Do not expect the BSA to give a leader instructions on how to punish scouts when the leader did not do their job." I observed a situation in which a boy who was elected to a leadership position could not adequately fulfill it, primarily due (I believe) to problems he was having at school. I guess if the adult leaders had "done their job," he would have realized that he should resign from the leadership position. But he didn't. So I guess in your world, Bob, the boys in the troop or patrol facing this situation must simply suffer through the lack of leadership until his term is up?

A few thoughts on this: 1. Caffeine is a mood-altering substance. It is also addictive, and those going off it will experience withdrawal symptoms. 2. But that being said, there is no reason to ban coffee but allow caffeinated soft drinks. 3. Bug juice isn't much better than soda, except for the caffeine. It's generally just sugar water with artificial flavor and color.

"In my experience, most of the LDS Scout leaders serve about 2 years." It seems to me that this alone would constitute a very substantial difference between LDS units and most other units. If this is typical, it means that even leaders with training don't have very much experience--and if they turn over all the time, they're not working with more experienced leaders, either.

Despite best efforts to develop youth leaders, it will sometimes happen that a youth can't effectively carry out his leadership role. This may because something else in his life has intervened. He might disappear for a while. Assuming he doesn't resign from his position, what is the proper procedure to remove him? I think this is the question meameng is asking--assuming you've tried to reason with him, tried to train him, etc., and he still won't or can't perform, what do you do? Does the patrol have to vote to recall him, or does another leader--youth or adult--remove him?

Note that burning a flag to "retire" it is not desecration, but burning it to protest presumably would be. What's the difference? The difference is the message conveyed by the protester. It's a short step from punishing that message to punishing an unpopular message that's only stated in words. For what it's worth, I have grave doubts about "hate crime" legislation myself. I'm troubled about making punishment more severe based on belief-based motivations. (I would distinguish that, however, from crimes where threats or intimidation are made. Burning a cross on a black family's lawn is a qualitatively different act from burning it someplace else--and it's different from just trespassing on the lawn. It is a threat--which is not a form of protected speech.)

It's very hard to generalize about this, but I'll try. It seems to me that there are certain things that would cause me to vote against Eagle rank, almost no matter what. For example, current membership in an organization with ideals antithetical to Scouting (i.e., a white suprematist group). It's much tougher when you talk about a record of wrongful acts. It seems to me that you have to ask a number of questions, and then balance the answers. The questions would include: 1. How long ago was the wrongful act? 2. Was it isolated or part of a series or pattern? 3. How serious was it? 4. Did it harm others? 5. Has the Scout shown remorse for it? Has he taken responsibility for the consequences? 6. Has his behavior since indicated that the wrongful act was an aberration? Thus, for example, I can easily imagine a boy who was arrested for drug possession as a 14-year-old turning his life around and becoming an Eagle Scout to be proud of. On the other hand, a 17-year-old who was convicted of shoplifting in the last few months--probably not. The really tough question comes when a boy has turned his life around--but the continuing consequences of his actions have the potential to cast Scouting in a bad light. Being an unwed father might be an example of this. I think you swallow hard and judge the boy on his own merits, and not primarily on what others will think.

This is sort of an aside, but it occurred to me that there are few bylaws that are made necessary by BSA's approach. Thus, for example, if a CO decides that membership in a unit will be limited to co-religionists, or that there will be only male leaders, or that a Venturing Crew will not be co-ed, they need to state that in some kind of rule (even if it's not written down). No camping on certain days of the week might be similar. While approved by BSA, these things are deviations (or at least variations) from the "default" BSA program.

"However, homosexuality and atheism conflicts with the BSA's values and goals. This is obvious - at least it is obvious to most." I'm always uncomfortable when these two issues are grouped together as if they are the same. I find them to be quite different (including how "obvious" it may be where they fit into BSA's values and goals). Rooster, I think those who have been following these forums are well aware that you don't support local options for these issues--and I suspect that we are all over the map on which things we would support local option on. (You can throw the co-ed issue into the mix here, too.) But I think your post was still a good explanation of how a particular unit can be quite different from others based on its CO's values, and yet still follow the BSA program. I continue to think that if all three of the G's were couched as whether to allow "local option" or not, the rhetoric would not be nearly as heated. One can point out that we already have "local option" on a number of controversial issues, such as whether to have female leaders, or coed Venturing crews.

I oppose the amendment as well. I don't think we honor American ideals by giving the American people less freedom.

Bob, your implication seems to be that the poor professional leaders were driven to cook the books and make up phantom units because the volunteer leaders fell down on the job. But even if the volunteer leaders fell down on the job as you insinuate, surely you don't think that justifies falsifying records. Sorry, but I think the actions of the executives who do this give Scouting a much bigger black eye than the volunteer Scoutmaster wearing blue jeans with his uniform shirt. Those executives make us ALL look like hypocrites when we go around preaching ethical decision-making and trustworthiness.

"Just because it's portable doesn't mean you can take it everywhere. Do you listen to it in church? In class during school?" Let me make this explicit. You think it's unnecessary for a Scout to bring his Walkman on the campout. He disagrees and explains why his use of it won't be disruptive. Your respons, essentially, is "don't bring it because I said so." This doesn't teach him anything, except that you consider yourself the boss of the troop. Why don't you let him bring it? If it is disruptive, that proves you right, and you can tell him not to bring it in the future. If it isn't disruptive, that proves that boys can still teach you something.

"Then the CO needs to select leaders the same way they choose ministers, teachers, deacons, board members, employees etc." It's true that organizations tend to select employees in the manner you suggest. However, it's been my experience that many, if not most organizations are reduced to filling volunteer positions by begging. I think it would be extremely unusual for a CO to be able to recruit a scout leader who does not have a boy in the unit--if you're really lucky, you might be able to retain a leader after his own child has aged out. I may be wrong, but I have to think that the vast majority of current scout leaders are people who, like me, got involved because of our sons, and may or may not know that much about the program (or may know about the program as it existed decades ago). That's why I think the focus should be more on leader development than on leader selection.

"Atlanta can't get 500 boys in the program? Doesn't that say more about their volunteer leadership problem then a council professional problem?" Are you suggesting that the actions of the professionals was a justifiable response to poor program performance by volunteer leaders? I believe in loyalty to the organization, but that takes it a bit far for my taste.

"Why would a kid need a Walkman on a campout - family or Scout?" Scout: "Gee, Mr. Mori, I usually wake up about an hour before everybody else, and I like to listen to some music while I'm getting breakfast ready and policing the camp area." The "need" for something like this is no different from the "need" for a deck of cards or a paperback novel or a checkers set. I also instinctively make a distinction between electronics and those other things, but I think it's just because I'm becoming an old geezer. I think madkins makes a good point.

My son definitely does not want to wear his uniform to school. However, he frequently wears a T-Shirt commemorating a 45-mile backpacking trip on the Appalachian Trail.

I don't think you need to "teach" self-reliance. I think self-reliance is one of the products of a good Scouting program, along with self-confidence. Just think--if a boy has been in Scouts for a number of years and is Star or Life rank, he's learned a large number of skills, he's camped many times, he's learned how to work with a group, and how to lead a group. In other words, self-reliance isn't a skill; it's an attitude developed by a person who has actual skills upon which to rely.

I remember a Peanuts cartoon in which Charlie Brown is visiting Lucy's Psychiatric Advice booth. Charlie Brown complains that he is unhappy and lonely. Lucy says, "Get some friends. Five cents please." I'm reminded of this when I hear that the solution is to "get better leaders." I agree that this is an excellent aspirational goal, but we shouldn't pretend that it's easy. For many units, it's tough to get leaders at all. If you have somebody who's willing to put in the time, you're probably not going to reject them because you think they're not an ideal candidate. I think most of the time we have to solve problems by making better leaders out of the leaders we have. Clearly, the way to do that is training, and the way to get more training to these leaders is to provide it in more ways that are attractive, accessible, and flexible.

It seems to me that there are a number of ways to get kids to wear uniforms: 1. You can require them to wear uniforms, and penalize them if they don't (i.e., by making them go home, not letting them ride in your car, flunking them in the BOR, etc.). 2. You can reward them for wearing the uniform (either with something concrete or with praise and recognition). 3. You can persuade them to wear the uniform, explaining why it's important. 4. You can provide a role model for them by wearing the uniform yourself with pride. 5. You can ask them to wear the uniform. Now, what method you will choose depends on what your goal is. The first method is probably the most effective, at least for the Scouts who remain in your unit. It is probably the least effective in terms of building character and encouraging boys to choose to wear the uniform.

The requirement for Star says: "four from the required list for Eagle." I interpret this (as does MeritBadge.com) to mean ANY of the MBs on the list--even those which are alternatives for Eagle. So I think, for example, a boy could earn Star with Swimming, Hiking, Cycling, and Lifesaving, and could count Emergency Preparedness toward Life. Of course, this might give him a bigger task for Eagle, because he could only count one of the alternatives toward the list of Eagle required--although they would all count as non-required. As a matter of policy, I see nothing wrong with this. These are all great MBs, and worthy of being counted for Star and Life.

I can easily imagine this happening. The crew affiliated with my son's troop has signed up to go to Philmont in the summer of 2006. Right now, there are two adult leaders who have said they will go. As I look at the other adults associated with the unit, I have to honestly say that there are not too many others who would be physically capable of the trip (including me). If those two leaders had to drop out for some reason, I can see us in the same situation. Would it be wrong to find registered leaders from another unit, or to combine units? I don't see why this would be a problem, although of course it wouldn't be ideal.

A few more thoughts on this. First, it seems to me unlikely that BSA will impose much greater requirements on units--the last thing they want to do is de-charter units. I know some councils or districts have stepped up their requirements for trained leaders--have any of them actually dropped a charter because the unit leaders weren't trained? Second, I was thinking about OGE's idea for "Accredited" units. How would they be different from typical units? It occurred to me that they might actually be "looser" in certain respects than a lot of current units--this is because they'd have trained leaders and boys, and would know that all these cockamamie rules aren't part of the program. But to go back to my analogy of sports teams, what about the concept of an "elite" (or some other term) Scouting unit, designed for boys ready to make the commitment for this to be their primary activity--i.e., with stricter attendance requirements for participation (as you have with travel sports teams)? We really have this de facto now, but you have to delve a bit to determine if the troop you are looking at is "elite" or "rec."