JMHawkins

knew the parents and committee met, I received no feedback from the CC so I just assumed it was a general informational meeting. The DE got me thinking that may not be the case... DE has been around for a year, hired out of college.

Hopefully this turns out to be just an inexperienced DE overreacting a bit then. But it is a great reminder to get the parents on board with the program. Also a great reminder about how gaps in communication can generate rumors. I've noticed it's not uncommon to go days or even weeks without seeing some of the other adults in the unit. That's a long time for them to stew and worry about something if they hear half a message or get a garbled report from a third party.

The CC and COR can be the same person, absolutely. However, the COR is supposed to be a member of the Charter Organization. He or she is the official representative of the CO on the unit Committee. If you're a member of your CO independant of Scouting, then you're eligible. If not, it'll need to be someone else.

I agree with ScoutNut though, the way you presented your plan, it sounds like a hostile takeover. Be prepared for angry parents and recriminations if you go that route, even if you have nothing but the best of intentions. How many of the parents in the Pack know you well enough to look beyond appearances? How many Den Leaders? Sounds like maybe the DLs won't be very happy at all. DL\WL is a huge job - maybe the biggest time commitment we ask of any adult volunteer in scouting. Who's going to do that job if the DLs all quit?

You mentioned it's just 1 or 2 influential leaders in the Pack. How old are their sons? If they're Webelos, it might be a better idea to let the situation resolve itself naturally. If they're going to be around longer than that, or you just can't wait, do you have a Unit Commissioner? Can you get some disinterested third parties to make an effort to bring folks together before you try to have your friend fire the Pack leaders and risk destroying the Pack?

Should we keep an eye open for a new thread from another scouter titled "Jealous Troop Trying to Take Over Our Pack - What Do We Do?"

(edit: completely independent of the Pack/Troop issue though, yes you definitely should speak to the IH about any problems you're having with your own COR, just keep in mind the COR is technially your boss, so standard protocols about going over your boss' head should apply...)(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

A couple of things we do to try and make it more fun and less contentious. The weekend before the race, the Cubmaster holds an Open Garage where boys (and dads) can bring their cars to the weigh in/inspection. After the weigh in, the car is sequestered and the Cubmaster holds onto it until the race, so any disagreements about whether the car is legal or not can be resolved way in advance. Also, for families without access to tools or the know how to use them, they have a change to work on their cars at the Open Garage.

We also started doing an Open Division. The idea is to maybe channel some of the more competitive dads into building their own cars instead of monopolizing the Scout's cars. But something to keep in mind, PWD isn't meant to be something the boy does all by himself, it's supposed to be something he can do together with a parent. So dad doing some of the work is not a violation of the spirit. But I know what you mean about those Tiger Cub cars...

Our initial Open Division was fun (and worked as a recruiting event!) but didn't really solve the helicopter dad issue.

PWD can be a really great, fun event. There's a reason it's the signature Cub Scout activity. So stick with it - it'll be worth it if you can solve the problems. The boys will probably remember it for the rest of their lives if you can get it dialed in. Good luck!

Oh, and clemlaw makes a great point. Whatever our obligations as unit leaders are to the CO, the CO certainly doesn't have an obligation to force other unit leaders to run the other units the way we think they should. Bringing the entire "the CO owns the Pack" issue in as an argument for why the Troop should expect the Pack to defer to them has things upside down. The assumption is that the Pack leaders are misbehaving, but - since the COR/IH is the boss - that's not up to the Troop leaders to decide. Let the COR know you have concerns, sure, but if the COR says he expects the units to operate independent of one another, well, after many, many posts, I think we've established that the CO is the boss. You run the program the way they want you to. If they want you to run it with minimal interaction on their part, you run it that way or quit.

Would an ideal CO foster close relations between all the units it charter? Absolutely. Is every CO ideal? No. If your CO isn't perfect, do you quit? Do you make such a pain of yourself with the COR that he decides chartering a troop/pack/crew is more hassle than it's worth? Would you rather the boys have no scouting opportunity at all if the only CO available is an absentee one?

As someone going through forming a new unit and reviewing the CO situation of an existing unit, I can tell you that CO's don't grow on trees. COs willing to put up with soap operas are even more scarce. So my advice is, if you've got a COR who will referee a dispute like this, consider yourself very fortunate and don't abuse the COR's willingess to be involved in something bound to be unpleasant. Make sure you've done everything you can first to resolve the issue yourself. Make sure you are being perfectly reasonable in what you expect from the other leaders. Make sure the dispute is something that deserves the time and energy of such a valuable person as a committed, involed COR. Assume every single dispute resolution request you make to the guy could be the last straw for him, the one that makes him decide to throw in the towel and resign. Then ask yourself if the issue is worth it. Some issues will be, some won't. Part of being loyal is not taking advantage, of not burdening someone else with things you don't need to burden them with.

And if you don't have a COR like that, think about what might happen if you try to pull him into the dispute.

There is the abstract principle, and then there's how you turn that principle into relevant actions. I completely agree we as unit leaders have obligations (and an agency obligation seems a reasonable enough description) to the CO. But what - exactly - are the particulars, especially as applied to this case?

Let's go with the agency idea a bit. I hire Beavah as my legal agent in some Real Estate dispute (I have no idea what Beavah's specialty is, let's assume it's Real Estate Law). It's pretty clear what his obligations to me are with respect to that particular dispute. But in the course of working with me on that case, he comes across some details of a Trademark dispute I'm also involved in (I'm a busy guy). Beavah - though not an expert in Trademark or IP law - thinks the lawyers I've retained for that case are botching it. What is his obligation - through agency or loyalty or simple decency - to tell me about his concerns? How strong a case should he make to me about my IP attorneys? Beavah and I don't have a long history of working together, he's maybe helped me file a couple of simple forms in the past, but handled nothing complicated for me as of yet so I have no real idea of his competency. Further, part of his strongest case for why the other lawyers are incompetent requires Beavah to let me know the other law firm has a very low opinion of Beavah's abilities and strongly recomends people go to another Real Estate law firm when they need help. I've had no problems with the IP attorneys before, and their other clients seem happy with them.

So Beavah, what course of action do you take?

I've been thinking about loyalty a lot lately myself, so this is a timely discussion for me anyway. It occured to me that one of the problems we're having in the US at least is a, well, odd sense of loyalty among many of our upper crust. Trying not to veer into I&P forum territory, I think we have a lot of "leaders" (in business, politics, everywhere) who prefer loyalty to abstract concepts over loyalty to fellow human beings.

Which is awfully convenient for them. If you're loyal to some abstract concept, who exactly will notice when you're disloyal? Abstract concepts never look you in the eye and say "I'm dissapointed in you, you let me down." It's fashionable in some ciricles to be a "citizen of the world" but thinking of loyalty makes me wonder if that's a statement of principles or an excuse to sell out your neighbors.

There are certainly many worthwhile abstract concepts that deserve the loyalty of decent men and women. But I'm starting to wonder if loyalty to those concepts is stable without an association of like-minded people who also pledge loyalty to one another.

Seattle Pioneer, I think those two concepts are perfect.

Beavah, BP,

I did say that if "...the Pack leadership is not doing the best it can for the Cub Scouts in the pack, and if you want to take that up with the COR, or IH, or the DE, have at it." It is absolutely reasonable for anyone - especially someone well-versed in what Scouting ought to look like - to inform a CO if they think leaders of a unit that org has chartered are misbehaving. But if the centerpiece of what you think they're doing wrong is making it hard for you to recruit their scouts, maybe you aren't the best person to make the case to the COR, especially if you haven't fostered a strong working relationship with the COR already. Kamelian isn't a disinterested third party. If there was a long track record of working well with the COR, it would be far, far easier to make this presentation and not come off as simply self-interested. As it is (at least as it appears to be through the lense of the Internet), the COR would be forgiven for thinking "The Pack Leadership wasn't a problem with this Kamelian character until they didn't go along with his (or her) ideas. Hmmmm, wonder who's really engaging in un-scoutlike behavior here?" Without a track record for the COR/IH to go on, it's a bunch of extra (unpleasant) work to research the situation to see if there's really a problem, or just a few Drama Llamas who can't get along.

And in the realm of responsibilities you have to your CO, you do have a responsibility to run the program the way the CO wants you to, so long as it's within the bounds allowed by BSA (and the law). If the CO shows no inclination to get involved in the unit and doesn't seem overly receptive to even helping you recruit from the orgs membership (as evidenced by this story), then that's an indication they may want you to run it without taking up any more of their time than absolutely necessary.

I'm not saying don't bring the issue up to the COR, I'm saying think it through a whole bunch first. Have a plan, and be prepared for negative outcomes. Complaining to the COR is definitely escalating the disagreement. Don't do that unless you're prepared for the consequences, one of which could be the COR chucking you out as CC for stirring up trouble. Or dropping it's sponsership of the Troop, or maybe of both units, leaving a scramble to keep the programs from folding. If the behavior of the Pack leadership is bad enough to risk those outcomes, then have at it. But if it's not, then just let it go.

Let me go back to something I asked earlier. If the units had two different COs, how would you advise Kamelian to handle it? Approach the COR of the Pack and say "Hey, I just thought you ought to know..."?

One other thing - I don't think anyone has mentioned a Unit Commissioner. Well, if it's like our district, maybe there isn't one. But isn't this really an idea situation for a UC, at least as the first-line of help?

Unfortunately your answer does nothing to solve the ever growing division between these pack and troop leaders

So why is that a problem? And why would it be "ever growing" if the Troop leaders just went on with things not worrying about what the Pack was doing? I think people are getting hung up on the "same CO" deal when really, given the minimal level of involvment this CO seems to have (based on the description), that's just not an issue.

Would you say the same thing if the Pack was chartered to the local VFW hall and the Troop was charterd to the Rotarians?

Trying to get your COR more involved might really backfire, depending on the CO. Could be great, could be a disaster. It especially could be a disaster if the reason you wanted them more involved was to referee a squabble between grown men and women acting like High School Drama Queens. "Teacher! The cool kids won't let us hang out with them!"*

So, yeah, work to improve relations with your CO. The thing I mentioned about reminding an absentee-COR about Service Projects is a way to do that. But don't drag your CO into a dispute over recruiting access unless they're already highly involved and will recognize the negative impact on the kids such behavior will have. Otherwise, go on with your life and don't blow a gasquet, and especially don't expect everyone around you to blow one too, over what someone else is doing with their volunteer time. Do the best you can do for your program. Let other people do what they think is right for their program, even if you think your way is obviously better.

* (edit) : yeah, I know I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but if your COR isn't already highly involved with your unit, that's about what it'll sound like to him or her.(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

TwoCub,

Yes, the parents were remiss and unless there's a subtext that Engineer didn't know about, awfully thin-skinned too. My only point is, that might not be entirely uncommon these days. We can write 'em off, and say better to focus our energy on families who will give us the benefit of the doubt. Or we can try to proactively explain the situation. I imagine the best use of an individual leader's time will depend on the community they live in. Where I'm at, I think making the proactive effort is well worth it. It's worth realizing that an aspect of modern life is that an increasing number of people have no significant experience with "churchin'" and have reached an advanced enough age to have a son in Boy Scouts without ever belonging to an organization that routinely used even generic, non-denominational prayers. They've maybe even been exposed to propaganda that characterizes religious people in a negative light, and they don't personally know anyone who is overtly religious to counterbalance the image.

"Can not" participate, or "don't want him to" participate?

I'm not much of a prayer-sayer myself. My religious principles and notions of reverence don't require public prayer, and in my own spiritual life I don't do that. But I'm not allergic to people and faiths who do, and I have no problem sitting reverently through a respectful prayer or two. Further, I have no problem with my son sitting through respectful prayers and being exposed to other people's faiths. Now, if those "other people" wanted to start selling him on the wonderful advantages of their faith, I might take exception, but I'm assuming that isn't what happened here (edit - ah, I see Engineer said he saw this twice, missed that part on my first reading).

Yeah, this day and age there are those parents who are reflexively uncomfortable with any overt religious displays. The most uncomfortable are actually intollerant of religion, and they probably "can't" participate, because if nothing else, we in Scouting need to show respect for other people's religions and militant members of any faith - including athiesm - can't sign up for that. But there are a whole bunch more who are just uncomfortable. Maybe watchful is a better word. The unfortunate truth is that there are religious groups out there who engage in stealth proselytizing of kids through what appear to be secular or non-denominational youth groups. Very early in their introduction to the Troop,someone should try to head off any fears of that by letting the parents know what the Troop's approach to interfaith/non-denominational issues will be. Let them know what to expect so they don't freak out at the first 'amen'.(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Beavah, it's a good point about customer vs agent, but it sounds like this is one of those situations where the CO is more in the position of "doing a favor" for the units by signing their charters, rather than actively using scouting and the units as part of its own youth program. If that's really the situation, the units (and the leaders) might technically be agents of the CO, but for practical day-today purposes they're independant entities and the CO maybe wouldn't appreciate getting dragged into a spat between two sets of volunteers. They're just doing folks a favor, after all. Might be counterproductive to make them regret it.

If I was CC of the troop, I'd make my decision as follows: if the COR or IH asks me how the program is going (i.e. the CO is showing an interest in the program by asking for a status update), I'd smile and give them a list of all the good things, and then end by saying we're having a little trouble syncing up with the Pack, making a matter-of-fact observation that the Pack Leaders "aren't very easy to work with." From there, I'd play it by ear based on the COR/IH response. On the other hand, if the only time I ever saw the COR or IH was when it was time to sign the recharter, I would NOT say a word about the Pack-Troop squabble and just remind the COR that the Troop is available for Service Projects and ask if there was a time to meet and discuss things the Troop could do to repay the CO for it's kindness.

(edit: added an important NOT to the above - I would NOT say a word about the Pack-Troop squabble if the COR didn't proactively solicit information on how the troop was running).

(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Hmmm, I don't know that I agree that the troop and pack having the same CO really matters. The Pack doesn't exist to support the Troop, or vice versa. Both exist to support the boys in the program, and who signs the annual charter shouldn't matter one whit to the boys in either program.

From the description, it may be that the Pack leadership is not doing the best it can for the Cub Scouts in the pack, and if you want to take that up with the COR, or IH, or the DE, have at it. But if you complain that they're not giving your troop a sporting chance to recruit from their cubs, eh, just let it go. The last thing you should do is contribute to the adult-led drama. Seriously, spend your time worrying about the program you put together for the boys in your troop. That's your job. Squabbles with the leaders of another unit doesn't help the boys in your unit in the least. If you're worried about recruiting, just pretend the Pack doesn't exist. What would you do then?

Where would you recruit boys from if there was no pack in the first place? Spend your time working on that instead of tilting at the windmills other adult leaders put up. Everyone will be happier, the units will be healthier, and you'll make better progress filling your roster.

Engineer,

If you want your son to take a cell phone for emergencies, then a) be prepared for him to lose or destroy it, and b) make sure he knows to turn it OFF when he leaves the house and not turn it ON again until he gets home, unless he needs to use it for an emergency.

This isn't to preserve the troop's outdoor experience, it's to preserve the cell phone's battery. A cell phone that can't find a signal will constantly send out pings, looking for a cell tower. If it doesn't find one, it will drain it's battery within a couple of hours. Then when he needs to use it and manages to find a ridge where he can pick up a cell tower, well, phone's dead, no battery, and your son just wasted precious time hiking up to the top of the ridge to try and get a call out.

I told Scouts last year that to be able to attend, they had to go on some of our other weekend backpacking trips. Their first backpacking trip with the Troop WILL NOT be a 4-day, 3-nighter on an island.

Camp Sheppard on Mt. Rainer used to do High Adventure treks up the mountain (they just stopped this year - apparently because the Fed Gov asked them to - if anyone has more info, please pass it on). Anyway, it's not an easy trek. Half the people who try to summit fail, and 96 people have died climbing the mountain. It's serious business going up there. For local folks, the camp staff recommended a particular training hike up Mt. Si (a smaller, less frozen, closer to help mountain). It's a steep trail and a pretty good workout. I forget the time they suggested you be able to do it, but they had a time limit. If you could do the Mt. Si trail in the alloted time, you were probably fit enough for a try at the big mountain.

Fit isn't the only requirement, there are a lot of technical skills needed too, but I really like the idea of a shorter hike in a more accessible region as a conditioning test.

NOldFatGuy,

Don't forget to tell your DE that your Friends Of Scouting coordinator doesn't meet the BMI standards either, and since badgering all those parents for money in today's economy is a bit of a "high adventure" endeavor, you'll have to cancel your FOS participation.

UCEagle72 - Thanks! That's what I was looking for.

Stosh's point is pretty important. Almost all the other (semi-) organized activities a typical boy participates in will be adult directed and led, so to the extend he needs adult direction to develop, he's getting plenty of it. Scouts - using the Patrol Method - is one of the very few, maybe only, opportunites he will have to have real responsibility for planning and execution. What is a better use of his time, another activity where he learns to follow an adult's direction, just like all the school and sports activities he's already involved in? Or one where he gets some experience figuring out the direction himself? Ask the parents, if his school assigned 20 hours a week of Math homework and no Reading, would you rather send him to a Math tutor or a Reading tutor?

As to *why* it works, I think a big part is that the consequences are more real to the boys. Most of the rest of their lives, the consequences are - from their POV - arbitrary rules adults impose on them for incomprehensible reasons. Mom says because he didn't clean his room he can't play XBox. The Teacher says because he didn't do his homework he gets a D. Coach says because he missed practice last week he doesn't get to play. All arbitrary rules handed down by adults. Who cares if my room's clean? Why do I have to do stupid Algebra homework, who's ever going to have to figure out 2x + 7 = 13 in real life? I'm better than half the guys on the team, why do I have to make every practice?

But the Patrol Method in the outdoors, consequences aren't so arbitrary. Boys finish dinner and then run off to play games instead of doing the dishes? They end up doing the dishes in the dark, and there's no light switch on the wall to make it easier. Go to bed without doing the dishes? Then in the morning when they wake up hungry, they'll need to clean them before they can eat, even though they really want some food. Can't blame anybody but themselves for those consequences. Can't say it's unfair or that the rules should be different.

Also, for Scout-aged boys, they're at an age where they pretty much understand their relationship with adults - in their family, in their school, church, etc. They've had years to figure that out. But they don't understand their relationship with their peers yet, and the teenage years are a big, huge - usually clumsy - effort for kids to figure that out as they prepare themselves for adulthood. It's a natural instinct for them to put a ton of effort into figuring out where their place is with their peers, and the Patrol Method gives them a positive, productive avenue for that effort. They're going to do it anyway, give them a worthwhile framework to do it in.

Parents who don't understand that intuitively however are probably NOT going to be convinced of it. For them, I'd fall back on Stosh's point - they get plenty of adult led instruction already. Why not give 'em one activity that's different and exercises different mental pathways.

I'm all for limiting weight to under 300 lbs if it's somewhere backwoods that you have to haul someone out on a stretcher for miles. yeah, 2 adults and a handful of kids is still going to have difficulty moving you.

But part C isn't about how difficult it's going to be for the rest of the Troop to pack somebody out. I'm 260, but 6'4", so I pass. If one of the other leaders is 6'0" and 250, he doesn't. I weight more than he does. I'll be a bigger headache for someone to pack out if I get hurt, but I can go and he can't. What, the extra 4 inches is enough room for another pair of scouts to grab hold and help lift? Yeah, riiiiiight. So discussions about how hard it will be to extract someone from the backcountry, while totally relevant to actual planning of a trip, aren't at all relevant to this here form.

The height/weight stuff on the form is nothing but a bureaucrat's version of a fitness test. Nobody but bureaucrats use BMI, but they love it because it's A Rule they can write down on a piece of paper and look up answers with. Doesn't matter if the answers are actually worthless, they're easy to look up so the bureaucrat can hide behind them and not have to be responsible for any actually thinking.

Or leadership.

Bureacracy Scouts of America. Maybe we can add a breakout session to the Pergo Badge cirriculum for calculating BMI.

I applaud the idea of setting some fitness standards. I deplore the implementation BSA has chosen to go with.

BOOO, Irving.

Let's take turns lifting each other on sretchers into the backs of ambulances. I bet there would be a lot of peer pressure for each other to lose the extra spare tires.

Excellent idea, but one to handle at the unit level, not National.

I'm not a small guy. I'm 6'4" and about 260. I could stand to lose a little weight, but 15 years ago when I was in great shape (running 25+ miles a week, basketball leagues 3 nights a week, gym every day, etc) I still weighed 240. I know nobody is going to want to pack me out of somewhere. On the other hand, I'm in a better position to pack someone else out if they need it. Tradeoffs, eh?

My family has a tendency to "fill out" late. I was about 190lbs when I was 21, and I did a lot of rock climbing. By 25, I was up to 240 and I stopped climbing cause I just didn't like how much stress I put on the equipment, the protection, my belaying partner, etc. So yeah, you gotta be smart about things. How do you get out of somewhere if you break your leg is a good question to ask. But that's not what the BMI charts are about, is it?

There's probably nothing the BSA could have done to avoid the editing job Nightline did to their responses. Just the nature of the game...

Actually, there is something they could have done - and that the rest of us should keep in mind too. In this day and age of the Internet and YouTube, the best defense against a Nightline-style hatchet job is to have your own camera at the interview. Have a friend/colleague tag along to the interview with a camcorder and record it yourself. Then if they do a hatchet job, release the full, unedited, interview on YouTube. More people will probably see your clip than Nightline's, frankly.

My reactions:

a) Health History section of Part A: do we really need this? The only reason to have it is if someone gets hurt on a trip and needs to be taken to the Emergency Room by the rest of the Unit, but since Part C is needed for anything far enough away not to be able to shout "MOM!!!!!" if the kid gets hurt, what good is a checkbox health history form? I especially like the line for "surgery". The question is "Are you now, or have you ever been treated for any of the following: surgery". Well, no, I've never been "treated" for surgery. I have "had" surgery - to remove my appendix 32 years ago. Should I list that? Perhaps what they really wanted is a separate section that says "Please list any major surgeries you've had:"

Better yet, ditch the history section of part A and make part C required for anyone on any outing if they have a history of serious medical issues. Had a heart attack? Please fill out section C to come to Troop meetings. Ask the doctor who does the exam to attach any notes he or she thinks another doctor treating the person under emergency conditions ought to have. Carry that with you. If the point is to be able to provide information to people treating the person, that's the thing to do.

Use the space saved on the checkboxes to expand the Allergies section. That's something I want to know about as a leader. Make it something useful like "Have you ever been stung by a bee? If so, did you have a serious allergic reaction?"

Ditch the immunization section. I find it hil-arious that tetanus shots are the only ones required when that's about the only non-communicable disease on the list. Billy who hasn't had his Whooping Cough shots can give it to the rest of the troop. Well, all except Joey, who wasn't allowed to come on the trip because he didn't have his tetanus boosters...

b) I'm in favor of encouraging fitness among both scouts and adults, but BSA's leadership simply has no standing to mandate weight/fitness conditions while being terribly out of shape themselves. I don't want to pick on anybody, but frankly it sends a bad message to the boys - namely that the people in charge can make rules for everyone else and exempt themselves. As Scoutmaster, would you allow your PLC to make a Troop rule banning portable electronics on campout for everyone except members of the PLC? If BSA is serious about this fitness standards, apply them to the office buildings in Irving first and lead by example.

c) Fitness standards are a good thing. BMI tables are neither fitness standards nor a good thing. They were never intended for what they're being used for today, aren't appropriate for it, and no responsible organization ought to be promoting their use. Even if you can tease out a justification for them, even if BSA offers a Body Fat Pct workaround, it's still wrong to adopt broken standards like BMI. Instead of ht/wt tables, part C should just ask the doctor to state whether the person has any unusual risk factors for engaging in strenous activity more that 30 minutes from medical help.

d) If BSA really, really wants to promote fitness, how about helping to establish real, practical fitness standards for youths and adults? Standards that measure actual fitness and give everyone healthy goals to attain (NOTE: "weigh X pounds based on Y height" is not a healthy goal - it's random quackery).

How about stock recruiting photos? Things like scouts hiking, camping, rapelling, pioneering, cooking around a campfire, sailing, archery...

Stock photos we could put on our website in the recruiting section so we don't need to buy stock photos.

Biggest problem I can see is the need for Vehicle/Driver info three weeks out. If a troop uses parents to get kids to the trailhead...

I guess you just get every potential volunteer parent driver's vehicle info at the begining of the year, put 'em all down on the TP, and then figure out who's actually driving closer to the event.

It turns out that after you cook a pork chop in dish soap, no amount of scraping of the pork chop will remove the soap taste. It does an excellent job of penetrating the meat.

I always thought you got your mouth washed out with soap after you said the bad words, but this story makes me think maybe it works the other way around too sometimes...