jmcquillan

We have never thought of uniform inspections as a part of any ceremony, thus we have never practiced that. What did do, though, was unannounced inspections at least one every two months, sometimes once a month, depending on how the SPL felt the troop looked. It was, after all, his job, and not that of any adult.

The SPL would first perform the inspection of his own corps; the ASPL,s, QM, etc. If all was well, then the ASPL's (we had a number) would then do inspections of each and every patrol, reporting back to the SPL at the end.

Consequences for poor uniform varied, but always matched the "crime".

Having suffered from the same kind of thing at one time, we opted to work the removal of the old patch into the ceremony for change of command. Just before the new SPL was presented with his patch, and to the troop, the Junior Assistant Scoutmaster would, in full view of the audience, and very respectfully, oh, and very carefully, remove the patch from the old SPL's sleeve with a pair of scissors. The outgoing SPL would then be presented with his old patch, and the thanks of the troop for a job well done.

In our troop, years ago, pushups were used as a form of discipline, but they were neer meted out by Scouters, only by the SPL. And he never demanded that of any one Scout, it was always a group thing. If one Scout misbehaved and was judged deserving of punishment, depending on circumstances, either his entire patrol , or the entire troop, would have to perform the requisite pushups. The theory was that the "peer pressure" of such an event would be enough to straighten out the misbehavior. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.

That theory was judged appropriate upon our first trek to the First Norwich University (Military College) Camporee (Vermont) years ago, when at closing ceremonies, the cadet in charge held up a Scout shirt lost by a Scout from another troop. As the Scout sheepishly went forward to retrieve the shirt, the cadet pointed out that infractions of that type were not allowed at the school, and pushups would be the punishment. The crowd cheered. As the poor Scout started to go down to perform his task, the cadet stopped him, and pointed out that no cadet was allowed to be singled out for this kind of thing, and thus, the same would apply here. He barked one command, and almost the entire Corps of Cadets appeared out of nowhere. And they all, in unison with the single Scout, got down and did 20. The effect upon all of us was amazing. It was a very powerful message to all...TEAM.

Needless to say, things have changed, and abuse of corporal punishment has necessitated a change in direction. Corporal punishment is, indeed, no longer allowed in Scouting, and pushups as a form of discipline are NOT ALLOWED...for better or worse. My first reaction to that news was that the PC crowd had struck again. But upon reflection, I realized that that was only part of the situation. The more powerful part of the message was that there are those of us out there who do, indeed, abuse these things. Perhaps without thinking, or intending harm, but still abuse. In that regard, I guess I'd say that we have seen the enemy, and he is us...even though there's thankfully only a few bums out there who can't remember that we're dealing with kids here, and we're supposed to be setting a good example.

During an adult training session last night, I got to talking with some folks I know about the issue, and one fellow who I have great respect for, told me that the Scouts in his troop have taken the issue as one of their own. At meetings or on camping trips, if they see adults smoking where they shouldn't be, they get a group of Scouts together and together ask the adult to either put the butt out, or move elsewhere. They do this with respect and courtesy. Most of the time, he says, the kids win the day, as the adults aren't up to telling the kids to mind their own business. Plus, he thinks it makes the point much clearer, when the message is delivered by those whom we, as adults, are supposed to be setting the example for. Apparently, the kids decided to do this on their own, no leader set that direction for them. I have to admit that I have admiration for their stout hearts to go that way.

The Council summer camp our troop attends allows for the first two, required, leaders for any troop to attend free of charge. Beyond that, they have a ratio, which age has not allowed me to remember, but basically it attends to the number of leaders to number of boys. Thus, a troop with 15 boys attending camp would be allowed two adult leaders free. A troop with 50 boys attending would be allowed a higher number of leaders free.

That being said, our troop has always used the policy that adult leaders attending above and beyond the number allowed for free, do so at their own expense entirely. I believe those expenses are, of course, tax deductible to a certain extent, see your next 1040 to be sure. The folks in our troop see these expenses, and the personal time given, as a charitable donation to the troop and Scouting. We have had cases when for different reasons, either Scouts desiring to attend, or leaders or parents necessary for the trip could not afford to go. Most times this has been hardship cases. In those cases, the troop bears the cost, gladly. But the troop does not offer reimbursment for any trip expense except, and this is the only exception, cost of gas if ferrying Scouts to and from an event or camp.

Hurray for common sense!!! Tar & feather those that have it not!!!

Interesting that so many issues today, such as smoking, are deemed such that "require" the written rule rather than common decency and common sense, and respect for others. This is supposed to be the land of the free, yet free with common decency and common sense. We shouldn't be teaching our kids to smoke, and we should be setting a better example. Time will come when things like smoking will disappear due to better education. But time will not come too soon enough for the example to be set for our kids that common sense and common decency should be the rules of the road, rather than the notion that each and every percieved infraction of anothers "space" requires a "wack" by another "law" or prohibition.

eisely,

I understand, from a news story that I only caught part of the other day, that there's a place here in this country where smoking on ones "deck", or anywhere in ones yard, is illegal now, if the neighbors can smell it, and complain about it.

That wouldn't be California would it?

"Anyone should be able to not smoke for 1.5 hours a week (our troop meetings) and should be able to restrain themselves some on campouts."

So speaketh the non-smoker.

Look, I agree with your sympathies, but experience has shown me that those kind of sentiments work agressively against the person who is a truly addicted smoker. They smoke at home in front of the kids, so they'll not see any difference at Scouting events. I'm a former smoker, so I understand and can see points of view from both sides. The "either or" or "or else" stand will many times force the decision for the smoker to stay and change, or leave, and leaving is so much easier...unless, and only unless, s/he's trying to quit and looking for support. Both sides dig in their heals, and both sides win some, and lose some. Smokers in Scouting who I know are sympathetic enough to at least take their butts elsewhere during Scouting events. But they're a minority of the hard-core smokers out there, but they do respond to the "request" to take it elsewhere. If you're dealing with an "occassional" smoker, it's quite easy to explain to all that the BSA does not condone smoking, and their policy is that smoking must not take place in front of the boys. If you're dealing with the "hard-core" 20+ year smoker, then it's a whole different story, and you'll have to make a choice. Either you let them alone, and hope they'll abide by the policy, or you take a hardline stand and risk losing them. Simple as that, there's really no middle of the road if it's really an issue with you. Either way, it might be best for you to start letting new folks know what the policy is, and if the Committee is really behind it, let everyone know.

But understand that you can't have it both ways with the hardcore folks. They want, need, gotta have, and "will have, dagnabit!!!", their butts whenever and where ever they choose. Or, they won't be there. If luck is with you, then you'll be dealing with the "occassional" smoker, and they're usually a more understanding type.

Good luck.

I'm going to take a chance here and hope that the author, from another website won't be unhappy with me..............

In a discussion at that website about a young man turned down for Eagle due to lack of time in position as a leader, the author posted the following, which I think has relevance to the discussion here:

"With regard to the question of "is there a certain

percent that a scout must attend in order to

advance in rank?", the simple answer is ABSOLUTELY

NOT. BSA's position is that any Scout that is

REGISTERED, is active, no matter how many meetings

he attends, and no unit may impose a attendance

requirement, since that would be "an addition to

the published requirements".

There is an "INACTIVE" registration status, but

that is designed and intended to be used for such

cases as retired Scouters in nursing homes, and

Scouts attending boarding schools away from their

home units, etc. where the individuals wish to

maintain their affiliation status only.

As for "Scout Spirit, the requirement is

"Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath

(Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life."

Note that there is NOTHING there about attendance,

and that it only refers to how he "Lives his

life".

So, if he meets the PUBLISHED requirements, with

nothing added or deleted, you must allow him to

advance.

If he's registered, you are giving him merit badge

cards, he's using the counselors you have

assigned, and he's earning the merit badges, he IS

active.

Similarly, if the SPL has assigned him a position

of responsibility, and allowed him to remain in

that position, no matter how well or poorly he has

carried out the duties, for the requisite period,

he has met THAT requirement as well."

Basically what this says is that we can't redefine the requirements by adding percentages or numbers. Perhaps that is to our disadvantage these days. Many people do, though, and even at that website, there's a publication by a fellow that defines each and every boy position in Scouting and gives minumum percentages for attendance for each, at least in the authors eyes. I know troops that used that guide as gospel for attendance and time in position. For sure, if National was to redefine the requirements with numbers and percentages, for they seem to be the only ones who can or should be doing that, it would take the guesswork for many out of the equation. But then, would that be to the benefit of all boys? How about two boys of equal ability, both of whom complete the requirements, both of whom show leadership abilities, one of whom attends 90%, and the other 65%. Do we deny the boy with the lower percentage, based on numbers, all else being equal?

I'm not sure, myself.

The requirement eisely refers to is on e that was written long ago when folks probably had a better handle on what "being active" meant, without having to have it defined with a number. Today, we've lost that ability, and everything we do in life has to defined by some sort of number or percentage or written target. This didn't happen overnight. It's happened over generations, and now we can't do anything without having specificity being the watch word. The rules and guidelines, when first written, were general in nature, allowing for adult leaders to judge each boy on his abilities and nature. Today, we seem to need specific numbers and targets. Close enough doesn't work any more, for boys or their parents, or for leaders for that matter.

That being said, and knowing that what used to be, will not be again, I'd have to agree with eisely that perhaps the National Council has to revisit many of the requirements in Scouting that are still "general" in nature, such as Scout Spirit and being active, and redefine them with numbers and percentages, so that the thinking part of judging each Scout along the way is eliminated.

Too bad.

Thanks, eisely. Thank you very much for sharing that.

Ed,

Since September, I've remained on the committee roster, and attended all the meetings. And, since September, folks on the committee have continued to ask my opinion and advice. Then, they pretty much go their own way, ignoring anything I might add. They're a pretty head-strong group. They've set their direction, and their muddling through. When I left, the troop was about 74 Scouts. It's now 35. Most of the older kids left when it became apparent that discipline would be military style. The current leadership is unbending and unyielding, without concern for the "message" that is being given to the Scouts. No margin for error. No allowance for "just being kids". And that disturbs me greatly. Even more mind-boggling are the phone calls I get outside of meetings, asking for advice or opinion on how the troop is being lead, and where the committee and leadership are going. Seems many of the adults, leaders or not, have concern about the direction. But none, as yet, have what it might take to step up to the plate and seek to change the direction, and make it fun for the kids again. Only time will change that.

As for me, I've pretty much made the decision to stay with adult leader training. That, I think, is the place where I can try be of best assistance.

"The second thing is the lack of adequate male volunteers."

This was probably the main driving force in the decision, and remains, to this day, the same. Seems "the guys", who wanted Scouting for their sons, could not always find the time in their schedules to give of themselves in that same direction. Funny how many of those same fellows always found the time to be a coach or assistant coach for their sons teams. Funny how those same fellows always found time in the busy schedules for the golf game. Funny....

Perhaps that's a little cynical or even jaded, but it's been a pet peeve of mine for years. Especially when some of those same fellows questioned why women were allowed in the troop as leaders. Especially when those same fellows always found the time to go on the annual ski trip with the troop, no tents, no harsh outside conditions...but the women, bless them, were always there, no matter the event, the conditions, the work, the effort, the personal sacrifice.

Ack....there was always an excuse. And always the question...."why women?"

Hear ye, hear ye.... know all ye men and women of the Scouting community...an event of note and that of which songs may be sung by generations yet untold....

Rooster has achieved the high level of the single post.

Halleluya....

Welcome, sir, to the Ancient and Honorable Society of the Single Posters (AHSSP)....

Off topic here, but I think this is of note:

Hey Rooster....no double posts here!!!!! Ya got it fixed?

On camping trips, try forming an "adult" patrol, with all the same responsibilities as the Scouts. Set up their own tents, cook their own food, clean up after themselves, make schedules and duty rosters for themselves. In short, keep them busy and out of the way. It can be a lot of fun for them, as well as show them what the boys are up against, and how it's suppose to be done, not how they "want" to do it.

But as "andrews" said, you'll have to start by sitting them all down, and letting them in on the value of "sitting on their hands", and letting go. As long as they know that the kids are, indeed, being watched and are safe, they'll eventually let go. It may take a little time, but it does work. I know, I've done it. But you DO have to sit with them, face to face, and gently tell them to BUTT OUT...

bigbeard,

It sounds to me like you're right on track. You've admitted what you see as your part, or failure, in the incident, (and that of other adult leaders who were there, don't take the full blame alone), and you've set good goals to resolve and settle the issue. I applaud your efforts so far.

As you seem to have observed, the adults who have taken you to task have a "my son is never, ever, wrong...he's a perfect boy" mentality. That's fine, most parents do sometimes. But most parents would also realize that kids are kids, and they'll do the damnedest things if they can. Even when told not to. Even if told by Mom & Dad. So, let your goals #2 and 3 lie for now, and concentrate on goal #1. By doing so, your second and third goals may be satisfied. If not, you'll be in a position to point out the efforts that were made to apologize and remedy the situation, and how those on the other side refused to accept those apologies.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to do the mock judicial thing, but I would, indeed, schedule a time to sit with the two who fell victim to "too much fun"...let's not call them criminals, yet. I would sit with the boys, their parents, your Assistant Scoutmasters, and your Committee Chairman. Forget all outsiders, they're unnecessary, and will only muddy the waters that YOU want to set clear. Set you goals for this discussion as you already have, to talk about behavior and how it relates to the Scout Oath and Law. Talk about the good and the bad. Talk about cosequences of ones actions, even if, and especially if, the situation was fun that got out of hand...that is very important for the boys to understand. This discussion might not end with the consequences being dictated at that time, unless you're ready to do so. But you and your other leaders should discuss what options you'll accept, and what those consequences will be. Oh, and remember, we're talking about kids here, so capital the punishment that the "other side" might be looking for is NOT an option. Neither is kicking them out of the troop, if you're description of the two is accurate. This whole thing needs to be a "learning" experience for the two, and the troop, not just punishment.

Your "in the troop" consequences aside, which should be tempered with knowledge of age and potential future good, one thing that I've found to work well in the past is a letter of apology, from the "wrong" side, to the "wronged" side, and his parents. The letter should be sincere, and should express hopes that "friendship" can be the true mark of the future between the parties. The letters should be addressed to the "wronged" scout, and his parents. Read it, if you can, before it is sent.

I'll offer you a story I heard, about a Scout in my area, who performed an act quite astonishing, and quite public.

During a local Memorial Day parade, it seems that a Scout from a troop, which shall remain unnamed, was marching with his troop and came in view of the local public access TV cameras. Those cameras were being operated by Scouts. Scouts from his own troop, it seems. This particular Scout thought it might be "fun" to give his buddies..."the finger"...totally and completely forgetting the viewing audience. Need I say more? The outrage was enormous...a Scout...doing that? Calls to the local Coucil office were made, that troops reputation was put on the line, and the leadership was called into question.

The situation was resolved "in-house", it seems to the satisfaction of all...by "in the troop" consequences...and letters of apology. Letters were sent, by the "wrong" Scout, to those who had been "wronged". The SM, all the ASM's, the Troop Committee, parents in the troop, and...it was publicly read, by the Scout, at a following Troop meeting...out loud, for all to here. AND...a copy was printed in the Editorial Section of their local newspaper...Scout name withheld, of course.

That Scout is still with the troop, I hear. And has become quite a different boy. The "learning" experience made a difference that mere punishment would not have. And most of it happened because of a letter of apology.

There you have it. My suggestions. I wish you well and good luck. And, by the way, forget the resignation thing. You're probably much better than that.

Short of a special order, the only thing I can suggest is to look for the "blank" patrol patch that the BSA used to sell. It was a simple white, or biege, background upon which the Scouts could "draw" their own design. I never used one, but I know it used to exist. Permanent markers would have to be used so as to not come out in the wash.

We still have the ceremony here ni Massachusetts, at least in our Council. Like others, it's not called a "tap out" ceremony anymore, it's called a "call out" ceremony.

When I was inducted into the OA, the ceremony was still a "tap out". But at that time, things were getting just a little out of hand. The "Indians" doing the actual "tap out" would strike the candidate with open palm, in the center of the chest, usually with enough force to cause the candidate to fall backwards some. Thus, the "catcher" was always behind the candidate, stepping in just after the "Indian" recognized the open hand signal given by another over the head. The catcher would then lead the candidate away.

I remember the force of the "hit" being one of significant force that, while not intentionally hurtful, could, and did, become one of showing a boys "manliness" by how much force one could put out, and how much the other could accept. Kids will be kids, and this clearly was getting out of hand. The "tap" on the shoulder was never part of our ceremony. When the rules governing child abuse became widely known and accepted, the practice was dropped. Today, the "Indian" stops before the candidate, turns to face him, and "snaps" an OA sash before him holding both ends to make a loud snapping sound. No physical contact is allowed.

It's sad but true. Kids will be kids, and many adult leaders forget that kids will push the limits until they're told otherwise. There have been injuries. Unless we, as adult leaders, make it our business to remember that KIDS WILL BE KIDS, and they'll push the limits when we're not watching, things will go wrong. That's why we counsel and guide. If we fail to perform that function, we're doing the kids and ourselves no favors. And when we don't counsel and guide, and things get out of hand, the "good things" that we remember are subject to being called into question when someone gets hurt.

I also remember the ceremony beginning with a flaming arrow being shot into the air, out over the lake, landing in the water with a sound, and then the "tribe" coming forth across the lake in canoes to conduct the ceremony. They returned afterwards in the same fashion. It was all very spectacular, and the kids did a marvelous job.

All of this became something of the past when the PC crowd, who didn't know squat about Scouting began to question some of the practices. I find myself standing right beside Rooster in my opinion of the PC crowd these days. BUT....we can be our own worst enemy, if we give that group ammunition, all by ourselves. As the President said of the state of our nation, we must be vigilant. And in Scouting, we can't sit on the sidelines and "hope" the kids do things the right way. We must be vigilant also, and show them the way.

You can find the regulations in the Guide to Safe Scouting. Go to this link for an on-line version.

http://www.bsa.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gss12.html#a

Here's the first part of the section dealing with automobiles and drivers...

General guidelines are as follows:

1. Seat belts are required for all occupants.

2. All drivers must have a valid driver's license that has not been suspended or revoked for any reason. If the vehicle to be used is designed to carry more than 15 persons, including the driver (more than 10 persons, including the driver, in California), the driver must have a commercial driver's license (CDL).

3. An adult leader (at least 21 years of age) must be in charge and accompany the group.

4. The driver must be currently licensed and at least 18 years of age. Youth member exception: When traveling to and from an area, regional, or national Boy Scout activity or any Venturing event under the leadership of an adult (at least 21 years of age) tour leader, a youth member at least 16 years of age may be a driver, subject to the following conditions:

a. Six months' driving experience as a licensed driver (time on a learner's permit or equivalent is not to be counted)

b. No record of accidents or moving violations

c. Parental permission granted to the leader, driver, and riders

5. Passenger cars or station wagons may be used for transporting passengers, but passengers should not ride on the rear deck of station wagons.

How terrible for you, and the boys in your troop. I extend my condolences to all.

Death has never visited me in the troop, although I have lost friends in the Scouting community. But I am aware of friends in Scouting who have faced the situation you find yourself in. In those cases, discussion of death was never something they chose to tackle, but they did work with the Scouts in the troops to find a way to remember those who had passed. Perhaps you might address the subject with your Scouts from that point of view. Remembering is what you have before you. And it is the simplest way to approach the subject with boys who do not live under your own roof. The troop has lost a member and a friend. He will be missed, and his place in line might be left open for a while. The Scouts might find some enduring value in the hole. It may become the first place for them to see the loss of a close friend. There may be other ways for you. Talk it over with your fellow leaders, and your senior Scouts. Some way to always remember your lost Scout may be the easiest way to go forward.

I do sincerely hope that your path through this time will be one that brings you all a little closer together as a Scouting family, and as friends. Such a loss is never easy to deal with. Death comes upon us mostly unexpected. Kids will ask why. There is no simple answer, so don't seek it, and don't lead the kids to think there is a simple answer. Just remember.

Ask your fellow Scouters, even those from troops near you, but not in your troop, to lend assistance. Get the word out to all Scouting families in your troop and area, and ask parents to sit with their children, and explain as best they can. And ask them to deal with the loss through whatever faith they are part of. Kids and their parents may find more comfort in that setting, together, than you can provide in the troop setting. You can, though, provide a place to remember.

My thoughts are with you. Peace.

I can't disagree with anything posted here. But I would add the following.

Mike indicated that he doesn't have kids. I imagine that others do. I do. They're grown and married now, but I still remember going through the various stages of growing up with them.

Kids will be kids. You have to expect a little bit of the "I'm important, so listen to me" attitude, especially when giving a child some responsibility. That, however, does not in any way forgive the attitudes and abuse that might be present. That, however, is, indeed, the very place for the Scoutmaster to use his skills in "counselling" the boys. That's what we're there for. Kids will be kids, and they'll do all the things you saw, and more, if they're not taught otherwise.

Many kids today, come from homes that might be everything that an observer might want, materialistically, but respect in the family structure may not be given, nor taught. Other kids might come from families where respect is taught and hoped for, but not demanded. Point is, you'll see all kinds is Scouting. And it's up to the Scoutmaster, and his assistants, to show and teach the way. That can start with respect. Show it. Teach it. Demand it. And, set the example.

In your situation, I'd say it's probably a normal thing to see in 90% of troops nationwide. The difference is, in a good troop, the SM or his assistants, will not let the matter lie. They'll take action immediately, and afterwards, and on into the future, to reinforce the notion in the kids that althought they have responsibility and position, respect for their fellow Scouts and adult leaders is expected and demanded. I'd be willing to bet that most of the posters here have done just that. As SM or ASM, you see a situation, or it is brought to your attention, and you deal with it immediately. You counsel the Scout. You teach him that abuse of his responsibility and position will get him nowhere, for no one wants to follow a dictator. There's a number of different types of leaders. Woodbadge and Twigbadge (Junior Leader Training) teach the boys about these types, and helps them to understand how best to work with their fellow Scouts, even as their leader. Boys don't normally come to that understanding all on their own. They need to be shown the way.

Perhaps in the troop you visited, the way has not been made crystal clear yet. One can only hope that it will soon. If you get involved, and you really want the direction to one that is a good example set by adults, and followed by Scouts, prepare to get involved, and prepare to get more training.

Good luck.

Well, valid or not, there are still many troops in the eastern Massachusetts area that wear them as part of the uniform.

"Anyway, when I can't produce a quality argument, I can always impress you with volume."

Gotta love it, Rooster. :-)

...and we are impressed by volume. How do they say it...it's not how you feel...it's how you look...and you look maaahhhhvelous...we love dee voluuuuummmme, dahlink...

By the way, who says you can't produce a quality argument? I've seen plenty. Keep up the good work.

I have a new theory on Roosters double posts. I'm betting that eisely reached his significant status of "senior member" by way of number of posts, not his age, or even perhaps his superior knowledge of the subject matter at hand. :-)?

I'm guessing that Rooster has figured out that he can reach that elevated status sooner than the rest of us here by way of doubling his bet....? :-)

Now, just you wait a minute here...let me don my flame-proof suit before y'all pour on the gasoline and light the match.....remember...I DID put the little "smiley" thing at the end there. That counts, doesn't it?

:-) :-) :-)