Hunt

"You cannot do Scouting if you don't follow the Scouting ways." I think everybody agrees with this, up to a point, and the disagreement is where the point is. There are rules that can't be ignored, and program elements that must be present, for the activity to be Scouting. At the other extreme, there are ideas and suggestions. For example, on p. 129, the Handbook cites the Philmont Grace as one choice for giving thanks for a meal. I don't think anybody would argue that one must this grace in order to "do Scouting." There are other things that BSA recommends, but does not require, such as FCFY emphasis. You might think that this is a really good idea, and that BSA is correct in promoting it, but BSA itself doesn't require it, so a unit can "do Scouting" without it. Can a troop "do Scouting" without any outdoor program at all, for another example? Well, maybe if all the boys were in a hospital ward, it wouldn't trouble us, but it would be stretching it, in my mind, to call something "Scouting" if it was really just a chess club, say. Such a unit might not be breaking any rules, technically, but they'd be deviating from the Methods too far. Here's my suggestion: rather than tarring people with a broad brush, as either "not doing Scouting" because they want to bend guidelines, or as overly rule-bound, why don't we focus on specifics? Is a particular rule, guideline, program element, or detail essential to Scouting? Is it important, even if not essential? Why or why not? Thus--for example--we could talk about how often a troop should camp out to do the outdoor method justice.

I do think that a lot of boys really ARE very busy with other activities, much more so that they were when I was a boy. I think what's changed is not so much the number of activities, but the time commitment expected for each activity. In my son's troop, there are several serious musicians. That means they not only play in the school band, but in at least one county youth orchestra, plus ensemble festivals, auditions, competitions, etc. The school band has afterschool sectionals. And kids who play a sport don't just play it one season with one practice a week--they play it year 'round, with multiple practices, multiple games on the weekend, tournaments, etc. My daughter is on a travel soccer team, and there is absolutely no way she could do that and participate actively in something like a Scout troop. There were always a few kids with schedules like this, but now, at least where I live, there seem to be a lot of them. Plus, there is WAY more homework than when I was this age. We often have kids missing meetings because of homework, and I don't think it's necessarily because they put off doing it. I think the only way to compete with this is to have a good program, and to try to find the kids for whom Scouting will be their main activity...the kid who'll say, "I can't be on a travel soccer team, because I'd never be able to go on campouts any more."

A couple of years ago I taught an adult Sunday School class using a set of curriculum the church bought (at my suggestion). The curriculum was pretty good, and I generally followed it, but it included these "touchy-feely" exercises with each lesson that I didn't want to do, and that the class didn't want to do. So we left those out. Did I substitute my own judgment for that of the creator of the curriculum? Yep. By contrast, I'm currently developing an on-line course for a college, and the course has to meet certain specified criteria. I can't--and won't--deviate from those. In at least one respect, I think it would be better to do it a different way. Does that matter? Nope. To my mind, the BSA program falls between these extremes. It has a number of clear rules that you can't deviate from and honestly saying you're doing Scouting right. The Guide to Safe Scouting is the prime example, but there are others. At the other extreme, there are lots of program helps and suggestions that are totally optional (I remember a bunch of these from Cub Scouting). Some of these just may not work for the group of scouts you have, just as those sensitivity exercises didn't work for my Sunday School class. In between the extremes, there are important elements of the BSA program that aren't absolutely required, but which most people would agree should be followed. For example, there's no "rule" that says a troop can't decide that it will do only one campout a year, but I wouldn't think much of that troop's program. I guess my point is that the "program" is not one monolithic thing that you take or leave. The base is the Scout Oath and Law along with the firm rules and regulations, followed by the essential program elements, followed by things that are more or less optional. (Example: some troops have the SPL serve for six months, others for a full year. I'm pretty sure that there is no rule governing this, and I don't know what the guideline is. This may be an element of the program that can be left to the PLC to decide based on the needs of the boys in the troop.)

"But I would say (generally) that if your New Scouts are not motivated, than the leadership has not done anything to motivate them or given them a program to be motivated about." There is some truth to that, I think, and it's something that I hope will improve with some changes in boy leadership and in program. But there are issues with particular boys--a couple of the new scouts are not particularly interested in scouting or in the outdoors--but their parents are interested. So these boys show up (at least some of the time) but it is hard to get them to participate. I hope they will catch on as they see how much fun they can have. Several of them are going to camp, so I think that will help. But what can you do when the Troop Guide urges the boy to bring his Handbook next week, and a adult leader reminds the parent that the boy should bring his Handbook next week--and the boy still doesn't bring it? (Or doesn't show up?)

"If a saw someone rob a bank and I called him a thief would I be discourteous? If a scout leader knowingly ignores rules but expects the scouts to follow them and I call that behavior duplicitous is that any different?" Well, yes, it is different. To call such a person "duplicitous" is a discourteous insult. If you said "hypocritical" it would be a little better. "A bit hypocritical" would be better yet, and would better fit the sort of things we're talking about. Personally, I think it's wrong to label people as "duplicitous" if you're referring to trivial matters like detail of uniforming.

In my son's troop, boys have the opportunity to reach First Class in the first year, but most have not done so. Most probably take more like a year and a half to two years, sometimes longer (or never). There are a few reasons for this: 1. The troop has typically done its recruiting in the fall with the new school year, rather than in the spring. This means that new scouts don't go to summer camp until after the first year. This slows them down. 2. The troop is not always focused enough on providing the opportunities for advancement. For example, in past years we scheduled a special 5-mile hike so scouts could satisfy the Second Class requirement. This year we didn't do that (although there was a backpacker that would have done this--but the newer scouts didn't go.) 3. Some of the new scouts aren't too motivated--don't attend regularly, don't bring their books, etc. The main exception probably will complete 1st Class by the end of summer camp--less than a year. We're looking at ways to improve all these things.

Let's imagine that a person says the following: "I typically set the cruise control for 60 when the speed limit is 55. What's wrong with that?" I see the following possible answers: 1. "As long as you don't get caught, there is nothing wrong with it." No one on this thread has made this argument. 2. "Because the police don't ever enforce a 55 mph speed limit, there's nothing wrong with violating it." No one made this argument, either. 3. "The 55 mph speed limit is not enforced, and most traffic is going even faster. Even though you shouldn't do this, it's not a very big deal in the grand scheme of things." This is my personal view. 4. "You can't pick and choose which laws are important and which aren't, so it's immoral to violate the speed limit. Doing this doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but it is wrong and you should stop." This is where my mother would come out. 5. "A person who deliberately violates the speed limit--who deliberately violates any applicable law or rule--is, by definition, not morally straight." This seems to be Bob White's position. Everybody I know has some moral failings (at least by my standard of morality). Some of them are more severe than others, and in some cases I couldn't honestly say the person is "morally straight." Others have their imperfections, but I consider them to be "morally straight"--so much so that I entrust the safety and moral and religious education of my children to some of them.

Could it be that there is one official COR, and he or she has detailed another person to work with the other unit?

Bob White writes: "So the line of distinction for then Hunt is the ability to be caught and punished. Do you then feel no obligation to follow rules where punishment is avoidable? How about when you play a bord game with your kids? Certainly they probably couldn't catch you at it, and even if they did they can't punish you. So are you willing to cheat in a game with your children? If not them how about your spouse. How about your spouse. If you knew you would not get caught. OR if you knew she would not punish you, would you cheat on your spouse? Do you follow rules out of duty to yourself and your personal character or do you only follow rules out of concern for punishment? Ever wonder what it means to be morally straight?" Folks, is it OK if I interpret this as a personal insult? Bob, if you go back and read my posts, you'll find that you have grossly misinterpreted what I said. I said nothing about how I personally respond to rules and laws. What I said was that I believe most people can distinguish between signficant and insignificant violations of rules, and they can moderate their response appropriately. Thus, for example, if my son were to come home thirty seconds after his curfew, my response would be quite different from my response if he came home two hours after curfew. There are rule violations that are, essentially, just not a big deal (I think this is why we keep mentioning socks). No, you don't teach youth that it's OK to violate the rules, but some violations are so minor that you just don't react to them. Your suggestion that I think a rule need only be obeyed if you might get caught and punished also has no relation to what I said. What I said was that in determining whether a rule should be considered an important one, a relevant factor is whether the makers of that rule bother to enforce it. Personally, I am not going to judge whether another person is morally straight or not based on whether they comply with every law, ordinance, and rule to the tiniest degree, because I think it's not that simple. By the way, when my children were little, I did sometimes cheat when I played games with them. I sometimes let them win.

"Could it be the problem has nothing to do with the names?" It could be, and probably is to some extent. I do think there is a problem with the names, however. The name "field uniform" is so nonsensical when applied to the current uniform that I think it is quite natural for people to use terms like "Class A" and "ceremonial" or "full" to describe it. The words "field" and "activity" do not convey (to me anyway) what the difference might be between these uniforms. Class A and B at least convey the sense of levels of formality.

"Hunt, not to be argumentative but you made a value judgment on the rules, YP and uniform. Not that I don't agree but can you see where BW is coming from? There is a danger about letting individuals using their judgment in this way - some lack good judgment! The alternative could be worse!" I think this is a classic "slippery slope" argument--the idea that if we show any tolerance toward the violation of "inconsequential" rules, that this will ultimately result in the loss of respect for all rules. But for Bob, it's not a slope, but a precipice. This is a very black-and-white attitude which folks are free to take, but let's face it--it is extremely rare. All you have to do is drive down the highway, or to ride in the car with 99 out of 100 Scouters (or ministers, or police officers, or what have you) to see that most people do not take this attitude to rules. I happen to think that there is a qualitative difference between a person who drives a couple of mph over the speed limit and a person who robs a bank--others may think there is only a difference in degree. (I leave aside the question of whether the unenforced rules of a private organization have anywhere near the same moral force as actual laws.)

Elections for PLs and SPL are approaching in my son's troop, and one topic of discussion is whether the current SPL could (or should) be elected to serve another year. I'm pretty sure about the "could" part--I'm not aware of any rule that says a boy leader can't serve successive terms if he's elected. Some of the adult leaders think there is some "rule" against this, but I don't think so. The "should" part is a different story. Of course, the decision will be made by the boys, but there may be the need or opportunity to counsel the current SPL on whether to seek reelection. (Note: in this troop, the SPL serves for a full year, beginning in the fall and continuing through the summer. Summer camp is used as a transition period between the old and new SPL). Does anyone have experience with a boy serving continuously for two (or more) years as SPL? Is it too much to ask? Is the risk of burnout too great? Or does the greater experience lead to better leadership?

"Also have to agree with the San Diego decision. BSA should not get special treatment from a governmental agency that is not offered to other groups on an equitable basis." Except that isn't what happened. The facts are that BSA approached the city with a proposal and with private money to develop the properties involved--and the whole thing was aired before the public. There were no other groups that came forward with proposals (or money) to set up facilities. It simply was not a situation of a city proposal which was given to a single bidder in a sweetheart deal. When you read the actual facts of the case (which I urge you to do,rather than take my or anybody else's word for it), the judge's decision makes no sense, which is why I predict it will eventually be overturned (assuming BSA pursues it).

"If we had more unit leaders who put as much thought and effort into what is inside the uniform as they do in what the uniform is we would have a much better local program for our scouts." I agree with this wholeheartedly, Bob. I think both gripes about the uniform and defenses of the minutia of uniforming are much less important than the program. However, you and I and others seem interested in discussing the uniform anyway, and I don't see much harm in that. "Hunt, have you any experience or even a concept of what it takes to uniform MILLIONS of people. The cost? The Logistics?" Not really. Do you? If so, please use your experience to get us some better pants the next time the uniform is changed. That's all I'm saying.

This thread, I think, proves my point. If BSA really wants standardized uniforming, they need to spell it out and coopt the common use of Class A and Class B (I've seen all the way to Class D). Also, Bob, don't you think that there is a real-world difference between what I would call the full, ceremonial uniform and the field uniform? For example, it is my understanding that a Scout is not out of uniform if he does not wear his merit badge sash--however, most troops urge (if not require) this to be worn at ceremonial events like Courts of Honor. So, with apologies to madkins, it seems to me that there really are at least three levels of appropriate uniforming: 1. Full, ceremonial field uniform with MB sash. 2. Field uniform (consisting of BSA shirt, pants or shorts, belt, and socks--neckerchief and hat optional by unit choice). 2. Activity uniform (consisting of scouting t-shirt or polo shirt, with BSA pants or shorts, belt, and socks). Anything else isn't really uniforming. A unit shouldn't refer to something as a "uniform" that doesn't include the BSA-required set of parts (although this doesn't mean the unit has to penalize a boy if he's not wearing all the parts). But here's a question I would ask: is there ever a situation in which it would be necessary to instruct boys to wear only certain uniform parts? (The only one I can think of would be if boys in uniform, in a troop which included headgear as part of the uniform, were touring a facilty that required wearing hard hats.) There may be situations in which you would ask the boys to wear their troop T-shirts with jeans or other pants, but this wouldn't really be a BSA uniform.

Making and keeping documents can be a two-edged sword. If BSA (and your unit and COR) get sued by someone, any documents you have created relating to the situation will likely have to be turned over to the attorneys for the people suing you. This can be a good thing, of course, if the documents support your version of the story, but it can be bad if they are inconsistent, or vague, or include intemperate statements.

I was reading an article in the newspaper recently about laws that remain on the books but that are no longer enforced. For example, in some jurisdictions various "Blue Laws" (Sunday closing laws) have never been repealed, but are not enforced. There are other laws that we see are not enforced strictly. The highway speed laws are the prime example. You will never find somebody who has been cited for going one or two miles above the speed limit. In fact, I have repeatedly read advice from police telling motorists not to cruise in the left lane at the speed limit--that they should get over to the right to let the faster traffic go by. This bothers me, but there is no question that the lack of enforcement has created a culture in which the vast majority of people do not think of speeding a few mph over the limit as a significant law violation. (It is this lack of enforcement that distinguishes this from something like shoplifting something of little value--I think most of us, in addition to thinking that stealing is per se wrong, would also expect stores to enforce that rule even for a pack of gum.) It seems to me, then, that BSA rules that aren't enforced by BSA are a step further down in significance. These aren't laws, and I don't believe the membership application even includes a promise to obey them. Does that mean that they shouldn't be respected? No, but that means that one should not overreact to minor violations of relatively inconsequential rules. How can you judge which rules are important and which ones are relatively inconsequential? Aside from using your own judgment, you can look at how seriously the giver of the rule takes it--thus, it is obvious that BSA takes the YP rules very seriously, and the uniforming rules much less seriously. In other words, violating a YP rule is like driving drunk the wrong way down a one-way street, and wearing too many knots on a Sea Scout uniform is like going 55.1 mph in a 55 mph zone. I, for one, don't have too much trouble distinguishing between these and moderating my response.

My modest proposal is that BSA should adopt and define the terms "Class A" and "Class B" uniforms Class A=Field Uniform Class B=Activity Uniform Why should BSA do this? These terms are already in widespread use, and just about everybody THINKS they know what they mean. But when you take a look at different troops' uniform policy, you find that they mean many different things by it. BSA could coopt these terms and perhaps reinsert some uniformity.

"You don't know anyone who dresses like they did 20 years ago? The Chicago Cubs come to mind, the Pope, jockeys, priests, The Marine Corps dress uniform, the police in my town, the VFW (especialy the ladies auxilliary), the Shriners, Sailors on the Constitution (Old Ironsides), the US Continental Army Band, The Swiss Guard, my uncle Bernie, just to name a few." I think you prove the point. Which of those outfits do you think appeals the most to teen-age boys? Actually, I think the Swiss Guard uniforms are a pretty good analogy for the current BSA uniform--they look good during ceremonial occasions, but they don't appear to be very practical for field work. I should add that very few of the criticisms of the current uniform I've read here from adult Scouters have anything to do with how the uniform looks--the few that I recall are likely to say that previous versions of the uniform looked better.

Putting the best possible light on the situation--as Semper has done--we can imagine that this boy managed to squeak through the 2nd and 1st class swimming requirements enough to satisfy the SM, but (apparently) did not retain any of what he learned to achieve that. I don't think that's too farfetched for a boy who really does not like to swim. The worst light would be that the previous SM falsified the signoff, knowing the boy didn't really meet the requirement. I think there is not much difference in how you handle it now. At either extreme, the decision to sign off lay with the SM, and he decided to sign. However, I do think that it's perfectly appropriate for the current SM to counsel this Scout that swimming is a vital survival skill, that it's a quintessential Scout skill, and that most people would be surprised to hear of an Eagle Scout who couldn't swim better than a basic dog-paddle. He will also have to understand that this will restrict what he will be able to do with the troop. He's only 13 or 14, I think you said, and he's not afraid of the water per se. This may well be fixable, with some urging.

Some parents might resist helping until they are more comfortable with the other adults in the troop. So it helps to make them welcome, and to have some activities that might be fun for them too. My son's troop just had a whitewater rafting trip, and a couple of the parents who went along have not been that active--I think going along on that event will make them more receptive to requests for specific help. Also, although you ideally will seek out leaders and not ask for volunteers, one useful technique for getting people to volunteer for smaller jobs is to let them know that you are seeking somebody to fill the bigger jobs. They will volunteer for the smaller jobs to "immunize" themselves from the ones they really don't want to do. I'm really kind of kidding--but it is true that people will volunteer for concrete tasks that they can readily understand.

CA, here's my advice: if you run across two people beating each other on the head with hammers, don't volunteer to referee. At this point, I'm just scrolling past exchanges between Ed and Merlyn, because they're just flaming each other.

In my son's troop, there is a long tradition of asking each scout to begin the Board of Review by reciting the Oath and Law. For a Tenderfoot, there might be a little gentle prompting. I haven't yet seen a more senior scout freeze up, but I'm not sure what we'd do. I guess I agree that a Life Scout simply must know the Scout Law--but on the other hand, that requirement has already been signed off. I know we're not supposed to retest, but this is pretty basic. I guess I have no problem with how John-in-KC handled this--although I suppose I can imagine a situation in which I would cut even a Life Scout slack for this, if I knew he really did know and live the Scout Law, but tended to freeze when speaking in such situations.

At least here, however, they don't fill out new forms each year--if the unit says they want to continue, they are rolled over into the new list. (I don't know what is done with those who aren't affiliated with a unit.) So we have people who were approved years ago--based on their qualifications at the time. As far as I know, nobody checks if they are still qualified, or if they know the current requirements.

This goes beyond the Scholarship MB, so I spun this off. The question is, what is done and what should be done to keep merit badge counselors up to date on changes in the merit badges they counsel? It was suggested that the district or council merit badge coordinator should do this--but what exactly should he do? What is done where you operate? Here, the district MB coordinator updates the list of counselors every year--units are asked to update their lists and to make sure that everyone is properly registered. I am not aware, however, of any mechanism to ensure that MBCs know of changes in the requirements or pamphlets. Certainly, it's part of the basic information provided to MBCs when they begin that requirements change, but it seems to me unrealistic to expect all the counselors to keep up with the changes without some mechanism to push the information to them.