KC9DDI

I don't know if its necessarily a failed idea, but its use and effectiveness probably depends a lot on other recruiting efforts that are already occurring in a given geographical area. My guess is that this tool won't be as needed in areas where units are aggressively doing face to face recruiting, and reaching a large portion of families in their area. Clearly face to face recruiting is more effective than online recruiting, so I'm guessing that areas where most families are already getting exposed to Scout recruiting through other means won't see much use of this online tool. I'm guessing the website would see more use in areas where the units generally don't do as much aggressive recruiting, or maybe in very urban areas or very rural areas, where units may just not have the time or resources to reach out to enough families in their area.

While it sounds like most units are only recruiting a handful of scouts per year (if that) via this tool, I wonder how the numbers work out when viewed at the district/council/national level? Even, hypothetically, if your troop brings in 20 new scouts a year (which would seem like a lot), and only 2 of them utilized the online service, that's still 10% of your new scouts who may not have joined your troop if not for this resource. True, that's not a huge number, but its definitely non-negligible, and potentially you've reached some scouts who otherwise would never have joined the program at all.

and a correct way to show respect.

I think there's more than one correct way to show respect. My preference would be for Scouts to develop a deeper level of respect and understanding beyond just the shape that the flag gets folded into.

One must be vigilant that the traditions of the military and civilian are not the same, is horse-hocky.

I've met more than one soldier who would strongly disagree with you. There's certain cultural values and traditions which unite all Americans, and certain traditions specific to those who serve in the armed forces. There's nothing wrong with that, and no use in pretending that its not the case.

I would think spaghetti would be tricky for a group that size, and probably a little messy.

This might be a bit too complicated for cubs, but might be feasible if you have a couple more experienced leaders to oversee the operations: Dutch oven stews. With a large group you could probably make 5 or 6 different stews with different combinations of meat and veggies, to give everyone a little variety. Scouts and parents could help prepare the stew, and then the Scouts could run and play for an hour or so while they simmer over charcoal.

Another idea for an easy lunch is those frozen tubs of Italian Beef that you just have to simmer and serve over hotdog or hamburger buns. Or you could just do a "picnic lunch" - the pack could provide sandwich bread and a couple of lunch meats (and PB&J), and ask each family to bring a cold side dish prepared ahead of time to share.

If you're doing a breakfast, I've found that French toast and brown-and-serve sausage links are one of the easiest to make, especially if you want some of the older cubs to be able to help. Things like pancakes and scrambled eggs require a bit more experience to have them come out right.

I would recommend trying to shy away from burgers and hotdogs - non-outdoorsy parents are always impressed when you cook something a little different. Of course, you should only go as complicated as you feel comfortable with - people generally aren't very forgiving when they can't eat! Hopefully you have some more experienced adults in your pack, or maybe consider inviting a couple Boy Scouts from a nearby troop to come help?

One of the advantages to asking questions on a forum such as this is that you have an opportunity to get some unbiased advice. Sometimes, when we look at a situation objectively, our collective advice can sometimes not be consistent with what you want to hear.

As far as I understand it, this is the sequence of events:

1) An unwilling Tiger leader asked to take responsibility for conducting a fund raising event. This leader has been known to be difficult to work with in the past, yet was given this duty anyway.

2) When it was explained to this leader how the Pack wanted the activity to work, he said that if he was being asked to run this event, he would do things his own way. Yet, he was allowed to continue to be responsible for this event.

3) After the event, it turned out that things did not go as the Pack would have hoped.

Honestly, to me it looks like there were ample warning signs that this gentleman was a poor choice to be responsible for this activity. If a leader flat out tells me that he will not work within the Pack's fundraising guidelines, I would definitely not give him the responsibility of running a fundraiser. To be honest, I think that the Pack should not have given him this duty at all. No, you didn't "ask for" him to behave this way, but you also did not seem to take any steps to avert a problem that appears to have been obvious.

But nothing can be done about that now. Looking forward, here's some possible answers to some of your questions:

Regarding the legality of the bank account business: If you want legal advice, you really need to speak with a lawyer. This forum is in general a great resource for all things Scouting, but tends to be a rather poor source of accurate legal information.

As far as how to proceed with financial auditing, and to address the problem with this leader in general, you really need to get your COR and IH involved, maybe with your UC.

To address the other parents who are questioning all of this: I'm not totally following how you divvy up the profits from the event, but it sounds like there's a possible discrepancy in the $5-$10 neighborhood per Scout, which to me sounds like it would be well within an acceptable margin. If the parents are truly this "shocked" about it, I would simply tell them that this is another reason why you ask for more parental volunteers and involvement, and, honestly, ask them to step up or shut up.

I think the "root cause" of your problem is poor parental volunteering and participation. It sounds like you have a good UC available to you - that person might be able to help you increase the number of volunteers you can draw from. It also sounds like you've reached the point that activities have been cancelled due to poor adult participation - that's unfortunate, but sometimes that's a step you have to take to show that you're serious about needing people to step up and take on some responsibility. But, I think that this situation has shown that you need the right people in the right positions. Forcing people to take on a responsibility that they don't want is a recipe for disaster. Allowing someone to continue to have responsibility for something important despite warning signs that that person is not qualified is also a bad idea.

Just my two cents.

IMO, any training that results in the participants getting into serious arguments and actual fights with the staff and each other has some serious underlying problems and issues.

That's definitely the message I'm taking away from this thread so far. I know you can't really draw a direct comparison between WB and NYLT, but, for all of the problems we've dealt with at my council's NYLT over the years, we have NEVER had any fist fights break out amongst participants or staff. In fact, throughout my experience in Scouting, I've seen what I consider to be very heated arguments, but never anything approaching the level that seems fairly common in WB settings (and, for what its worth, most of the very heated arguments I've had exposure to had in some way involved WB).

My question is whether that's an effect of the course itself, an effect of the culture and traditions associated with the course, or just the failure of what seems to be a disproportionately large number of councils to recruit qualified staff?

I'm not a WBer, but a long time NYLT staffer. I have two reactions from reading thus far:

First, I'm relieved, in a weird sort of way, to know that they deal with the same behavior and poor judgement issues in Woodbadge that we see at NYLT.

Second, I don't know anything about the Game of Life, but it seems fairly common for people to get angry to the point that they abandon the rest of the course. Shouldn't that be a sign that there's either something inherently wrong with the curriculum, or at the least they way its implemented in many courses?

Sorry, but if you are relying on other people to decide what is true for you, you are a faith based observer.

I never said anything that contradicts this statement.

I recently had someone provide me with another idea of scientific evidence. They told me that 97% of scientists endorsed the idea of global warming.

What evidence did that person present to support this statement?

science is not a one man, one vote program.

I absolutely agree.

These days science is regularly prostituted by political and economic interest groups using the methods described above.

Yep, people with an agenda have tried to influence peoples' decisions using science, religion, persuasion, bribery, and any number of other means. That is not a failure of science, but rather a failure of people to act honestly and think critically. At least the scientific method can be used as a tool to challenge or verify the validity of these claims.

Most people accept science as a matter of faith, not because they have experimentally verified the cliams of science themselves.

Not quite. People may choose to believe that a conclusion is valid and accurate without actually reproducing an experiment themselves. However, the experiment can be reproduced by those with the resources and interest in doing so. You don't need "faith" to conclude that pure water freezes at 0 degrees celsius. You can just read numerous studies that explain how and why this occurs, and, if you want to, you can try to do it yourself. And, if you make a valid argument that contradicts the established theories and explanations for a given event, the scientific community must then make adjustments to account for new evidence. Contrast this with creatonism, for instance, that cannot be tested or independently verified by anyone. Creationists do not adjust or modify their "theory" to account for contradictory evidence.

There is plenty of abuse of science for political purposes --- examples being the use of Spotted Owls to get control over public lands, silicone breast implants that supposedly caused injury to women and panicing Americans about the use of Alar as a chemical on apples being just a few of many examples.

We had AlGore as the guru of Global Warming. He was a politician looking for a vote, not a scientist, but he led his followers to join his movement mostly as a matter of faith, not science. He told parables from science but his basic appeal was to faith, not reason.

True, but clearly the validity of the underlying facts and theories are completely unrelated to what people with ulterior motives will try to do with them. Your examples actually advance my point - that people need to start thinking critically about these topics, and examining the evidence and processes used to reach conclusions. The problem in your examples is not with any scientific study, its with people who try to use the results of scientific study to achieve their own goals. Much like how religion can be used to influence peoples' behavior based on faith, not reason.

Meteorology is the scientific study of weather. Ever wonder how conclusively proven, reproduced and independently verified the weather report is?

I'd refer you to the scientific method, and the differences between the concepts of hypotheses, scientific laws and scientific theories. Your weather forecast is a prediction or a hypothesis. The fact that it is not 100% accurate is not a failure of science, it just means that the hypothesis was not 100% correct. But what about the data, observation and experimentation that the hypothesis was based on?

Psychology and sociology - OMG, where does one begin?

Let's begin with the words themselves. "-ology" is a suffix meaning "study of". These disciplines are the study of the mind and behavior, and the study of societies. Both of these disciplines (should) rely on the scientific method when conducting research and formulating hypotheses.

The fact that theories and hypotheses can be disproven is an essential component of the scientific method - it is certainly not evidence of a failure of science. If I have a theory, and you show can conclusively show me that its wrong, then I must adjust my theory to account for the new evidence that you found. I don't need to "believe" that my theory is wrong, I don't need to have "faith" that my theory is wrong - I just need to look at the evidence! That's the case for all scientific disciplines, be it meteorology, physics or sociology.

As opposed to matters of faith and religion. Creationists, for example, will consistently ignore evidence showing that their theory is incorrect, or just say that "God is trying to trick us," etc. And yet we allow this hokey pseudo-science to be taught as a legitimate "alternate theory" in public schools.

If indeed it is a real phone, does the fact that National is saying that phones are OK, change anything?

I honestly don't know: has National ever come out and said that cell phones are to be discouraged or prohibited on Scouting events?

Science: Something that can be conclusively proven, reproduced, and independently verified.

If you don't believe me, ask any meteorologist, psychologist, sociologist, etc.

Not really seeing your point here...

Scoutfish - I understand what you're saying, but I still just don't understand why there should be a distinctive BSA uniform element to recognise basic first aid training. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BVy authority, I do not mean experts, but sometrhing trhat says: "Hey, I took a real class taught by a real instructor who happens to be a professional certified by the Dept of Health and human resources and under the Office of Emergency Medical Services - not by just watching tv for a bunch of years or assuming you might know.

And that is the only "authority" I am talking about. Not real, true paramedic authority.

Well, that's not really what "authority" is - its just evidence that you've completed a training course, and an implication that you may be more qualified than someone else to render aid in certain situations. And I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "true paramedic authority" - paramedics may at times have a legal obligation to render aid, but typically don't have any "authority" - that's what cops are for ;-)

But that's actually part of the reason I'm skeptical about this idea - I've come across more than a handful of medics and "first aid trainees" who think that their training or job title gives them some kind of authority, when it really does not. Things like special patches and certification cards encourage this type of behavior. I'm not saying that this would be your motivation for this idea, but it definitely opens the door to the type of people who do think along these lines...

That's why I like the idea of a card or some sort of designation to say: "het, I really do know what to do until the paramedics get there".

Wouldn't the certification card you got through your training be adequate for this? With the added benefit that you could carry it with you at non-Scouting events and whip it out as needed? And that it has the expiration date and name of the training organization already on it. If this is your only goal, it looks like its already been solved, without needing to adjust the Scout uniform.

I guess bottom line for me is that I just don't agree that having a patch on your uniform will really do any good. I'm certainly not saying that the training is not valuable, but I don't think that a patch will solve the hypothetical problems you bring up. Additionally, I'm not a huge fan of using the uniform to recognise every last little accomplishment or training course, especially for adult leaders. If the CPR certified get a special patch, then why can't the certified life guards get a special shoulder cord? Or special epaulettes for certified rock climbers? Special neckerchief for those with search and rescue training? Where do you draw the line? (I would say the "trained" strip is enough)

To me it seems like it would be an awful large investment of time and effort to oversee a patch/insignia program in a meaningful way, for very little hypothetical value.

OwnTheNight (and Scoutfish) - I guess I just don't understand what kind of problem you're trying to solve. I don't necessarily think there would be anything wrong with a patch or lanyard for those who've taken a CPR class, but I just don't see what good it would do anybody.

Now in a large camp setting, you would want something for those individuals who are certified. At our day camp this year, we will have our medical staff at HQ, but then, any individual who is CPR certified will wear an additional lanyard that has the letters CPR in bright red on it. Everybody has been told at training, that the ones that are certified and current will have this.

I've volunteered as medical staff for various Scouting events over the years, and I've never added anything to my uniform specific to my job as a medical officer. What I do do is work with the staff during camp preparation to ensure that everyone is up to date on their basic first aid, and develop plans and procedures for handling medical emergencies so that everything runs smoothly. I also introduce myself to campers as the medical officer, and ensure that they are familiar with what they need to do in the event of an emergency. This is probably what you are already doing as well. Over the years I have worked a handful of true emergencies in this setting, and everything has run fairly smoothly. I don't see how giving staff any special patches or lanyards or face paint or anything would enhance our emergency preparedness. Good training, and having proper emergency procedures in place is really all that you need.

Until National comes up with a viable curriculum and standards for all units, and a way to have a recognized patch,that can be updated when you recert, I just don't see it happening soon.

I don't see it happening either, mainly because I don't think it is necessary. National already does require various degrees of first aid training for various events. The important thing is for the appropriate people to have the appropriate training, and be physically and mentally prepared to handle situations using that training. Devoting prominent uniform "bling" for a skill set that we teach everyone from cub scouts to seasoned leaders is not important.

The leaders who are certified will be the one who jump into the action when it's needed,whether they have a patch or not. The ones that aren't will stand around waiting for somebody else to do it.

That's quite the generalization ;-) I've seen people without any official certifications but an abundance of common sense "jump into the action" and do an excellent job managing a situation until professionals arrived. I've seen people with every certification under the sun freeze up or completely botch a situation despite having an assortment of certification cards and patches.

Bottom line for me is that getting good CPR and first aid training is of paramount importance. Recognized certifications (such as those through the AHA or other organizations) are a good first step at verifying some baseline competency of first aid/CPR skills. Embellishing a scout uniform when someone completes a CPR class doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. We don't devote any special uniform items to Scouts with the first aid MB - they get a small badge not that much different from any other MB. Why would adults need something prominent and distinctive to indicate knowledge of a skill set essentially identical to that of the first aid MB?

most science I would say absolutely but using that logic, there is no "proof" that the missing link exists thus (for now) disproving evolution.

Evolution has been conclusively proven, reproduced, and independently verified. If you are referring to the alleged "missing link" in the specific context of human evolution... that's an element of a model that has been found to be an inaccurate representation of biology. Its a red herring.

It takes a lot of faith to believe in science.

No it doesn't. You don't need to "believe" in something that can be conclusively proven, reproduced, and independently verified.

Short answer is: no (or at least I am unaware of any such patch). You might be able to find or custom-make a patch that can be worn on the right pocket as the "temporary activity patch."

But I'm not sure that doing that is necessary, or a good idea...

1) Parents will have an extra layer of comfort and security by seeing that patch and knowing there are qualified people around in the event something arrises.

Statistically, the "something" that arises is very very very unlikely to be cardiac arrest. Much more likely are bee stings, allergic reactions, diabetic complications, heat-related illnesses, etc. So while I'm certainly not saying that being trained in CPR isn't important, I will say that I think parents would (or should) be more concerned about your basic first aid skills, and ability to quickly bring in professionals when necessary. But we don't ask Scouts to wear their first aid MB in a prominent position on their uniform, why would we ask adult leaders to wear a distinctive first aid patch?

2) "Authority". And by that, something that says I am "Trained by an offical expert" and not "trained by watching Grey's Anatomy" or "trained because I have a friend who's frist cousin's ex-husband's old Girfriend used to date a Dr.".

A couple things here. First, I guess "trained by an official expert" does not make you an official expert, and I'd be uneasy about distributing patches that would identify you as an "authority" on a topic that you've only gone through a couple hours of training on. Second, such a patch won't actually give you any authority. On a couple occasions I remember arriving to an EMS call on an ambulance, in full paramedic uniform, with a fire truck and a couple police cars full of blinking red and blue lights, and there still was that "one guy" who felt that we would benefit from his extensive medical knowledge gained from watching reruns of Scrubs. Its just something you'll have to deal with, with or without a patch on your uniform...

All of that being said, I definitely don't want to discourage you from seeking out CPR and first aid training. Studies have shown conclusively that survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest improve significantly when correct CPR is performed early on. And the BSA rightly encourages and requires various first aid training from the cub scout level to the adult leaders. But I just don't think that having a distinctive patch for adult leaders who've taken a first aid class is necessary or helpful.

Liquid - I'm not certain, but I think that the regulations on unit number patches for cubs vs. boy scouts has changed sometime after the release of the centennial uniform?

I worked at my council's scout shop during high school for a couple years, and as far as not allowing people to purchase things goes: that would actually come up fairly regularly. As a general rule we would not sell award badges and pins unless the unit had submitted paperwork, or there was a record of the scout having earned the award. This may not be enforced very consistently from store or store, or even within a store, and at the store I worked at we would often make reasonable exceptions for certain items. We were fairly lenient on most Cub scout awards, but more strict on things like Eagle badges and various knots.

From what I understand, we reserved the right to NOT sell any item if it was obviously going to be used inappropriately. I remember a couple issues where we were specifically instructed not to allow certain individuals to purchase uniform pieces from us.

I'm definitely not saying that this was an appropriate way to handle your case of unit number patches, but there are some legitimate reasons for doing so.

Yeah, the steel wool (and similarly the pen spring) with a 9V or 6V battery are pretty safe. Worse case scenario is that it just won't work. Two recommendations if you're planning on trying this out:

1) Do a couple dry runs to get the feel for how much steel wool you'll need, and how the fire should be constructed. Typically there's much less of an impressive "wow" factor if your magic fire starter doesn't work right....

2) I wouldn't recommend playing with any kind of other accelerants (kerosene, gas, gun powder, etc) unless you regularly work with them, and know exactly what you're doing. A cub scout campfire is not the place to do a chemistry experiment unless you know exactly what the result is going to be...

BSA uniform policy is made by two groups, National Council and a units Charter Org Local Council is neither.

Except in the case where a council charters a unit, as is common in the cases of camp staff and similar groups. In general, I would think its acceptable for the council to set uniforming expectations for council-level events. I'd draw the line at requiring Scouters to purchase a new uniform when they already have a legitimate uniform.

Once uniform, always uniform.

I think that's actually another symptom of the same problem. I think that the main purpose of having a uniform (noun) is should that Scouts and Scouters have a uniform (adjective) appearance. The BSA at a national level continues to create obstacles to reaching this goal. On side of the spectrum is the fact that a uniform changes and adjustments are rolled out relatively frequently. Thus, rather than having a couple years transition between 2 distinct uniform styles, you get this prolonged period of Scouts and Scouters mixing and matching various pieces of various uniform styles. The result is a very haphazard image of a groups of Scouts, all of whom may technically be wearing regulation uniforms, but the whole picture is anything but "uniform" in the sense of the dictionary definition of the word.

The other side of the spectrum is the policy that Old_OX_Eagle brought up - Once uniform, always uniform. I think the spirit of this policy is to address the problem that Lisabob originally brought up - so that Scouts and Scouters cannot be expected to purchase a new uniform every time the design changes. I don't think it was intended to encourage the purchasing of an "old style" uniform after a new design has begun being distributed. It would seem reasonable that if you're in a position to acquire a new uniform anyway, that you would purchase the current design.

There's several reasons that we utilize a uniform in Scouting. I don't think that being able to show how a given outfit is a valid uniform based on technicalities and loopholes is one of those reasons. I would say its more important for a group of scouts to have a uniform appearance as a whole group, rather than individual Scouts or Scouters to technically be in uniform individually. Granted, it is very difficult to achieve this goal due to some uniform policy decisions made at a national level.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

I thought smudge pots were a roll of toilet paper and some kind of liquid fuel (citronella, kerosene, etc) in a #10 can. That's the local definition in my area, anyway. I seem to remember my council suggesting the cardboard and paraffin method as an approved replacement for liquid-fueled smudge pots, which leads me to think that method would be permitted. I think card/paraffin is clearly safer than any kind of liquid fuel....

Lisabob - Does your council have its own council-owned Scout Shop by any chance?

I think the BSA is kind of shooting themselves in the foot to some extent, because with each new uniform that comes out, the members become less and less "uniform," according to the strict definition of the term.

I can see some reasoning behind wanting training staff, for example, to truly be "uniform" by wearing only a single style of BSA uniform. But, I think that since the BSA created the problem by coming out with multiple different uniforms over just a few years, its not fair to volunteers to be asked to purchase a new outfit every couple years. I would say that if its that important to your council that you all have the same uniform, then the council should provide them to you, but we all know that won't fly!

On one level I'm kind of glad to see the BSA attempt to design the uniform to be more outdoor-friendly. I think they've had some success in certain areas (switchback pants), and kind of missed the mark in others. And I personally don't think the cost of the uniform is that outrageous (in fact, the cost of some pieces of the uniform have decreased over the past several years). But coming out with a new uniform so often in a short time frame isn't helping create an actual "uniform" appearance across Scouts and Scouters - and being expected to purchase a new uniform every time it changes is clearly inappropriate.

It looks like it may have been fixed earlier today at some point? Or maybe late yesterday?

GnuCash is free, but probably has a steeper learning curve than your other options. If you have someone experienced with accounting and computer usage, it might work out well for you. Another free option is TurboCash (http://turbocash.net/) - it's probably a little easier than GnuCash, but still seems a little rough around the edges. At least you can try out the free ones to evaluate whether or not they'll work for you.

Short answer is... potentially. It depends on the dynamic of the personalities of the SM and the CC, and that of the rest of the troop. Granted there's no official prohibition against a husband-wife SM-CC team, and I'm sure there are many examples where such an arrangement is quite effective, but I think that it certainly opens the door for some unique challenges and complications.

acco40 - I like it, thanks! I'm going to have to track down a hamster patrol patch from somewhere.

Do you think I'll get in trouble for singing "I used to be hamster, a good old hamster too" around the WB folks?

Sure, why not? If the Eagle Scout is the best candidate for the job, and is elected by the rest of the troop, why not?

I guess a more interesting question would be what are the real "un-addressed issues" that are prompting this question?