KoreaScouter

You can argue all day whether or not pushups constitute corporal punishment. The G2SS doesn't specifically define pushups as corporal punishment, so I'd say ask your unit's SM. If you ask me, they are, but that's not the reason I don't use pushups, running laps, jumping jacks, or other similar nonsense for disciplinary infractions.

First, doing so relieves leaders of the requirement to use their brains. Pushups are a "one size fits all" response to behavior that leaves a leader feeling they handled it, whatever "it" was. It's quick and easy for a leader to quickly dish out pushups for infractions, while creative solutions that actually address the problem take more time and grey matter.

Second, such punishments can too easily lead to abuse, especially if adults and youth leaders are expected to use the same methods of problem resolution. Young PLs can quickly turn into mini-DIs when they know they can dish out pushups for infractions.

Third, such responses to infractions do absolutely nothing to prepare Scouts or youth leaders for the real world. Outside of a military environment, workplace infractions aren't dealt with by physical punishment. Adults are expected to think creatively and find constructive solutions to behavior problems. Why not start getting them accustomed to that now?

I just don't buy the physical fitness argument as an excuse for doing this. If you're concerned that your Scouts aren't fit enough, do more hiking or plan pre-opening and interpatrol activities that emphasize physical movement and strength.

KS

I think we're mixing apples and oranges here, to an extent.

What the lad did at Jambo is a Scout Law issue rather than an SPL performance issue; I'd deal with it in that context.

A troop committee does not determine if an SPL is doing his job properly; that's the SM's call. An SPL can of course be "fired" if he's not performing. In this case, if the SPL's ability to lead his Troop is irreparably damaged by this incident, a new Troop election may be called for, but you won't know that until after he's home and back in the mix.

Kahuna and others are spot-on; acknowledge the mistake, draw a roadmap for the way ahead, and watch to make sure it was an isolated incident rather than a pattern. The boy can't prove himself if he doesn't have opportunities to do so.

KS

The clock starts running on the BOR date, not the COH date. In fact, I know of many units that present the new rank patch at the first Troop meeting after the BOR, with the card and mom's pin at the COH.

KS

As a SM, you should be familiar with every aspect of your unit program, and OA's a part of that. You'll have to go through your ordeal just like any candidate, but by doing so, you'll better understand and appreciate what the boys are experiencing, too. Plus, if you're an Arrowman yourself, you'll have an Arrowman's perspective regarding which of your Scouts are eligible for election.

Don't worry about the Lodge levying some expectation that you take on another full-time volunteer job within OA once you complete your Ordeal. As a unit-level Scouter, especially an SM, the primary expectation of you by OA is that you promote OA within the unit, and challenge Arrowmen and make sure they have opportunities for service.

By all means, help to maintain and keep the mystery. It helps make the whole experience more special and meaningful for the boys. I compare it to standing in line to buy a ticket to see a new movie, and somebody comes out and tells you the ending before you go inside. The experience is better if you don't know beforehand.

KS

Make it more like the 9th edition; star charts, animal footprints, trees, more illustrations of Scoutcraft/Scout skill topics. I know that most of that information morphed into the latest Fieldbook and that's why it came out of the Handbook, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Scouts I know who have both.

As a non-scientific experiment, I've laid a 9th, 10th, and 11th edition Handbook in front of Scouts, and asked them which one they liked best. 9th and 10th are in a virtual tie for first place, with 11th a distant second...

Beyond that, a better binding would be nice. After about 9 months of hard use, the softcovers start to shed pages, and it's over to Kinko's to get them spiral bound.

KS

I think there's a difference between taking yourself too seriously and taking what you do too seriously. The former: not good. The latter: I don't think it's possible. If making a commitment to do something, learning how to do it, and trying your best to do it right is taking what you do too seriously, then I'm guilty as charged.

One thing I try not to do is invest too much of my ego in a job, paid or volunteer. Those things can go away overnight, and if you've defined yourself in terms of what you do, then when you don't do it anymore, what have you become?

KS

Sounds like the lad is taking his cue from his father. You said that both he or his father thought the project required too much effort. To me, that says it all. You can have all the 5-minute talks you want to with the boy, but if he's getting a conflicting message from dad, you're fighting an uphill battle. And, it shouldn't be a battle at all. For sure, this part of the trail is steepest. It's supposed to be. If it was easy, everyone would earn their Eagle. This takes a lot of desire and self-motivation. I say again, self-motivation.

We had a discussion similar to this some time back, and I said then that I don't know an Eagle Scout who made it without the enthusiastic support of his family. He may be out there, but I've never met him. Considering how tough this part of the advancement program is, what he needs at home should resemble a formation of geese in flight, with him up front, and the rest of the geese (his family) honking encouragement from behind. Absent that, he'll age out as a Life Scout, and there's little you can do about it.

We get them for 1 1/2 hours per week; their families have them 166 1/2. That's almost impossible to overcome.

KS

In our Troop, the Guide is not a member of a patrol at all; he's in the same category as the SPL & ASPL. On campouts, those three eat with the "old goats". That relief from prep, cook, and cleanup allows them to tend to their leadership duties. In the case of the Guide, that includes coaching the NSP in their prep, cook, and cleanup. He may eat with them if he opts to, but in my experience, that's a rare occurrence.

Also, like the SPL & ASPL, he'll return to his original patrol when his term ends...

KS

Yup, that's exactly what I meant. It isn't over at the COH; or at least, it isn't supposed to be. Isn't our mission to prepare young men to make ethical decisions over their lifetimes? The period of time between their Eagle COH and their 18th birthday is part of their lifetime. And, what better immediate opportunity to imprint on both the Eagle Scout and the other Scouts in the Troop what is meant by volunteering, by the notion "giving something back"? Sure, that lad may come back later as an adult and volunteer in his son's unit, and many certainly do, to their credit. What's lost, though, is the teaching moment in his Troop, 15 years earlier, when that newly-minted Eagle Scout doesn't throttle back, doesn't drift away, doesn't just disappear...what he does is stay involved, doing the same things for younger Scouts that older Scouts did for him a few years before. When that happens, a leader has an opportunity to point out the altruism there. It's important; without those early examples, we miss out on an early opportunity to develop tomorrow's church deacons, sports coaches, volunteer firefighters, and so on.

When a boy earns Eagle and disappears (especially if he's got time left before he ages out), the subliminal message to everyone else is that this is ultimately a "me first" thing, and it's okay to get what you want and then walk away...consider the implications.

KS

Timely topic; I had this discussion just last night after a program planning session with a long-time ASM who will be taking over for me in the near future. We have a new ASM (father of a first-year Scout) who, like many in his situation, "hovers" a little...okay, maybe more than a little. Means well, just doesn't have the training yet (that'll happen this month) or the experience to find the right groove in the record -- in my experience, that sorts itself out very early. I related my long standing goal regarding my Scouting relationship with little KS; that is, if a total stranger walked into our campsite, they'd have no idea which kid was mine.

Now, I don't necessarily like it that way all the time, because the main reason I started doing this was to enjoy it with him. However, you've got to let him be his own person, so I let him determine how much casual contact we have on outings. He's the SPL now, so we spend more time together by necessity.

Am I "harder" on him than others, or expect more from him? You bet. As others have said, his behavior reflects on me, and I do expect him to be beyond reproach. Plus, by being around me in and out of meetings/outings, and seeing firsthand how much effort this takes to do it right, he has a better idea than most boys do regarding how the pieces fit together, how many hours of planning are required to deliver an hour of program, and so on -- I insist that he respect other people's efforts. But wait, there's more. Since we live together, I know what he's capable of in school, at home, at church, etc. I set the bar just a little bit higher to challenge him. We've talked about this at some length, and he understands the dynamics. I've tried to weave all that together with his responsibilities as a big brother, an oldest child, an able-bodied American, an Eagle Scout, an Arrowman, and any other icon I can use. Like any father of a teenage boy, my fingers are permanently crossed. But so far, it's working out just fine.

Personally, I wouldn't worry for a minute about being a leader in your son's Troop. I think it's perfectly normal to wonder about the human dynamics, and how that'll be perceived. But, if you're wondering about it at all, that tells me you'll probably handle it in a most healthy and productive way. The last thing I'd ever do is insist that parents avoid their own boys to prevent a perception of favoritism. If you're the SM, you set the tone for others to follow by your relationship with your son. Assuming it's not dysfuntional, everyone else should be okay too. Let's face it, most of our leaders are parents of boys in our Troops, right? I wouldn't want to police multiple informal "restraining orders" (you can't sign off for him, don't go with that patrol, find someone else to counsel him, and so on) -- I'd tear out what little hair I have left.

How will you know you're doing it right? Your son will let you know...

KS

How does one define a paper Eagle -- as one whose leaders allowed him to take shortcuts to get there, or as one who earned it, then quit? I'm not defending either, but it seems to me that we're beating the wrong horse if we blame the Scout for corner-cutting -- it can't happen unless adults sign off. Frankly, I've got a bigger problem with the latter case, in which the boy begins mailing it in the day after his COH, or worse yet, you never see him again. At every COH I've seen, the Eagle Charge is read, and the Scout knows what's expected of him. To walk away from that, not repaying Scouting for what one received, is the greater sin in my opinion.

KS

In my experience, the volunteers who would benefit most from the training (read: need it most) are the least likely to go to training of their own volition. Unfortunately, more common in the Cub program and the cause of most of our youth losses, too. When I was a Cubmaster, my first priority was to get DLs and ADLs trained and operating legally. I laid it on the table at recruiting night, and we had Pack-level trainers if they couldn't make it to District or Council-level training. Gotta do it in September. Training in January is useless -- all the bad habits are now institutionalized, and your losses have already occurred (and, all those families who quit will spend the rest of their lives telling their friends how "broke" Scouting is).

I would "unvolunteer" a DL in a second if they didn't get with the program. When I was a Pack committee chair, it was the same thing. I was forced to relieve a Cubmaster and Treasurer in the same year; turbulent, but necessary. In that regard, I'm way more "Dr. Phil" than I am "Oprah". BTW, you need your committee and CO behind you 100%.

Colin Powell once said that "a good leader can't walk past a mistake". If you know this volunteer is running his own extemporaneous routine, you have to redirect his energies or send him to your neighborhood soccer team...

KS

I didn't look at Troop 17s web site (I'm at Narita airport in Tokyo on a 6-hour layover), but based on what's been posted, I'll say this. I wear a campaign hat at all ceremonies and Troop meetings, and take it with me to summer camp, too, although I don't wear it all day there. The campaign hat, like the Baker tent and the round metal canteen, evokes nostaligia in us oldsters and conjures up a simpler time (just look at Fred MacMurray's picture to the right side of this pane right now). It's not comfortable, though, and not very practical either, if you take care of it the way you're supposed to. I can't imagine a Troop of boys wearing them voluntarily as regular Troop headgear. On hikes, the backpack frame will knock it off your head, and that's just one example of why they're great for ceremonial wear, but not the best option for activities. Plus, those critters are expensive after you get them all tarted up AND purchase the press, too.

I wear one because I'm a Scoutmaster, and that's part of the memory I want the boys to have when they look back on their Scouting experience.

KS

If you equate the 8 methods to the 8 cylinders of an auto engine, each cylinder (method) must be connected to the others by a crankshaft (comprehensive program), and have the right fuel/air mixture (leadership emphasis) to ensure the engine (Troop) is operating properly. If any cylinder is running too lean or rich (one method is over or under emphasized in context with the others), performance will degrade. This mixture is adjusted constantly by a computer (leaders) to maintain an optimal setting. Of course, a Troop's not a machine, but I've used the engine example to explain why it's important that we use all 8 methods in their proper proportions.

But, therein lies the rub. How much leadership development is too much? Too little? How about the uniform -- ho hum, get sent home if you're not wearing it, or somewhere in between? Do you let advancement take care of itself, or run an "Eagle Mill"? And so on, but the point is that nobody can give you a cookie cutter formula. A uniforming emphasis that works in our Troop may be inadequate or overkill in yours, for example. Ultimately, to achieve and maintain equilibrium, you must have a unit leader who understands the methods, how they complement each other, and is able to adjust the valves to re-meter them as necessary, for that particular unit. Just as importantly, that unit leader must be able to communicate the aims and methods to other registered adults, and parents who don't understand the program. Trust your instincts; they're probably right on the money.

KS

Ours don't have Monday off; we're in first session of summer camp this year, with Independence Day being our second day in camp. I checked with the camp staff a couple of days ago, and they didn't have anything special planned. I offered to have our Troop put on a small ceremony at evening retreat (dramatic reciting of part of the Declaration of Independence, and a recitation of what happened to the 56 signers), with a movie that evening in the lodge. I'd like to show "The Patriot", but the program director is a little reluctant due to the battle scenes. I've got a copy of "The Crossing" on its way as a backup; I hope it gets here in time.

I'm with you though; the signs and flyers that say "Happy 4th of July" rather than "Happy Independence Day" drive me nuts...

I try to take whatever opportunity I can to use these events as teaching moments. On the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, for my Scoutmaster's Minute, I read excerpts from Emerson's "Concord Hymn": "Here once the embattled farmers stood, and fired the shot heard 'round the world." With adequate dramatics, they'll pay attention as if you were a video game.

I highly recommend William Bennett's book "Our Sacred Honor -- The Spirit of America". It is, literally, words of advice from the Founders in stories, letters, poems, and speeches. Find it, buy it, and use it. As Bennett says: "...patriotism is an everyday virtue as well -- a virtue that cannot be neglected or taken for granted. It requires education; it must be taught...".

Have a safe and joyful Independence Day, and please remember and honor our troops who are in harm's way at this time.

KS

Our PLC came up with something that works for us (if they use it consistently, that is). We don't have any rules other than the Oath and Law; in my experience, any conceivable situation is covered in them. The added bonus is that the lads already have the rules memorized! What our PLC did is decide themselves what the consequences would be for behavioral breaches. We just put it into a letter form that we give all our families. If you PM me, I'll get you a copy if you're interested.

KS

My last unit had all troop-owned tents. Setup/teardown was simplified, equipment accountability was better, training was easier, and we knew that nobody would get wet because of cheap equipment. Plus, they were just large enough for two boys and their gear, so we didn't have the frat party temptation that comes with larger tents. On the flip side, if they got wet, we had our supply building draped with wet tents after we got back, versus mom's basement.

Now, we have some troop-owned tents, but mostly Scout-owned. The troop-owned tents are mostly for transfers, new Scouts, etc. I don't think it's threatened Scouting as we know it, but we look like a refugee settlement, winds will inevitably take down one of the cheapies, and rain will also send at least a few Scouts scurrying for a dryer tent in the middle of the night.

I'm afraid I don't understand the argument that says "if they bring their own, they'll take better care of them". If you apply that logic across the board, we shouldn't have stoves, lanterns, cook sets, or anything else -- the lads should bring it all. I've always believed that if someone damages a tent through negigence or mistreatment, they pay for repair/replacement.

If you can swing it, and maintain/store them, I'd go with troop tents. Just a preference, but in the balance, I like it better that way.

KS

One of the common laments of Roundtable commissioners I know is that LDS leaders generally won't show up at RT. Whether RT attendance by itself reduces mishaps is a link I can't make, and it may a leap of logic to extend indifference toward RT to indifference toward other training, safety rules, practices, etc. I'm not sure it can be quantified. Moreover, I don't need a training course to grasp the basics -- which, if you look at most mishaps, the basics if applied would have prevented the mishap. Read and follow the GTSS, and you'll stay out of the paper.

I know that most LDS leaders are short-term appointees, but everybody's new at some point. Should we designate everyone as a "probie" their first two years, and require that they have a silverback with them at all times while on outings? I don't think that unit leader tenure is a cause of these mishaps either, although it may be a minor contributing factor. One way to drill down to it is to look at unit leader tenure for a cross-section of mishaps, and see if it was a factor, regardless of CO...

Here's one thing that I think does have an adverse impact on LDS units, but it's an impact they're obviously aware of and accept when put in context with their priesthood training. That is, the relative absence of older, bigger, experienced, trained Scouts to mentor, coach, and shepherd the younger Scouts. Unless you're in the enlightened Stake that makes a conscious effort to combine their small units on outings so they get that type of dynamic, you'll often have groups composed entirely of 1st/2nd year Scouts, on the slippery slope (sometimes literally) toward a mishap, and no 16-year old 6-footer to call the "knock-it-off". Now, combine that with inexperienced, undertrained leaders, and rugged territory, and the next thing you know, we're reading about ourselves on MSNBC.

In my military experience, every mishap is investigated, causes are determined, contributing factors are isolated, and corrective measures are identified to prevent recurrence. Mishaps and their trends are analyzed to the nth degree, cross-talk between geographic commands ensures that lessons learned are widely shared, and safety offices send out magazines, newsletters, and other products to help leaders focus their efforts. Moreover, if mishap trends call for changes in culture, organization, equipment, or training, it's directed, done, and checked to make sure it happened.

Well, if BSA does anything like that, I'd never know it. I have no earthly idea how many safety mishaps there were last year in my District or Council. I'm sure there was at least one, but don't know when or where, or what the circumstances were. For example, we could have a dozen Scouts injured in falls on night hikes on a particular trail last year, and our unit could be planning a hike on the same trail. There's no process I'm aware of to make us aware of the mishap rate, and caution us to be off the trail by dusk. That's just one example; there's a thousand more we could think of. If anyone's aware of such a process, I'd love to know how to tap into it.

I know a lot of LDS Scouters, the vast majority of whom I have a lot of respect for and count among my friends. None I know deliberately go out to get their boys hurt, and would be just as surprised as we are to learn that LDS units have higher, perhaps significantly higher, mishap rates than traditional units. In fact, if this is true and can be quanitified, I'm confident the LDS Scouters I know would be at the front of the hue and cry to fix whatever needed fixing.

KS

I've never believed in passing a difficult decison up to a BOR to make for me. If a Scout doesn't measure up, he won't meet a BOR for advancement. The buck stops with me.

I've heard of Scouts receiving their Eagle who didn't earn it, and saw one myself in a previous unit (I wouldn't sign off on a marginal project and substandard Scout Spirit; family waited me out, and after I moved, strong-armed a non-confrontational SM and committee right before the boy aged out). I think they're the rare exception rather than the rule.

Personally, if the percentage of Eagles is inching upward, I attribute part of that, perhaps a large part of that, to the proliferation of Troop management software that allows leaders real-time access to and organization of facts and trends that were difficult to divine before. We're better organized.

What should be automatic disqualifiers? I'm not sure. A traffic ticket? Two? Six? An arrest? Or, an arrest and a conviction? Or just an accusation? Too much parental involvement in the project? How much is too much? Writing "suggested draft" reference letters? Or, faking the letters? In a unit chartered to a church, how about missing Sunday church services X number of times? If you ask 100 people, you'll get 100 answers. And, every unit's different.

KS

Hey, what do you know? There is a fact sheet at the National web site, that lists other categories of boys who may register as Lone Scouts. Here's what it said:

Children of American citizens who live abroad

Exchange students away from the United States for a year or more

Boys with disabilities that might prevent them from attending regular meetings of packs or troops

Boys in rural communities who live far from a Scouting unit

Sons of migrant farmworkers

Boys who attend night schools or boarding schools

Boys who have jobs that conflict with troop meetings

Boys whose families travel frequently, such as circus families, families who live on boats, and so on

Boys who alternate living arrangements with parents who live in different communities

Boys who are unable to attend unit meetings because of life-threatening communicable diseases

Boys whose parents believe their child might be endangered by getting to Scout unit meetings

Boys being home schooled whose parents do not want them in a youth group

I've had boys whose families lived abroad, exchange students, boys with disabilities, boys with alternate living arrangements (went to two different Troops' meetings, was registered with us), I've got a lad now who lives on a boat, and plenty of home-schooled kids. I don't think those circumstances by themselves rule out traditional Scouting, and thank goodness, their parents didn't and don't, either. They saw the value and sometimes extra effort and hardship inherent in getting to us.

When we lived abroad, we found BSA units everywhere we were in both Europe and Asia. I know that Far East Council has Direct Service Units, not assigned to one of the Districts, that are composed almost exclusively of diplomatic/attache/business expat families' kids...and they're in some of the least likely places you'd expect to find them. The units aren't large, they're quite remote from District and Council resources we take for granted, and in some countries they have to maintain "relaxed uniform standards" to account for their host nation sensitivies regarding a bunch of uniformed Americans running around in the woods. Yet, they work amazingly hard to give their kids, who have about as far from a normal childhood as you can imagine, a Scouting experience comparable to what our kids are getting.

Every one of those families could register their sons as Lone Scouts. But, they don't. Rather, they do something more difficult, but in the end, more rewarding for their sons, in my opinion. By offering a traditional Troop program in less-than-ideal circumstances, they're giving those boys leadership experience and people skills you can't put a value on.

Don't get me wrong, I think Lone Scouting is a great "only option" for boys who can't join a Troop. However, for any who gravitate toward Lone Scouting in order to not be bothered with a swarm of first-year Scouts demanding time and attention, the distraction of elected/appointed positions of responsibility, the possibility that their son might meet a boy he doesn't like right off, and having to subordinate personal desires for the preferences of the larger group, I think they're only cheating themselves.

I may draw the wrath of some on the forum who think those are intangibles I can't prove. Well, I can't prove the intangibles, and I may be completely wrong. But, I also may be right.

KS

In my experience, Lone Scouting is intended for boys who can't regularly attend Troop meetings or activities because of distance from a meeting place (i.e., Jordan, Montana), some physical disability, or some other factor beyond his control.

I don't think personality conflicts qualify. And, if the unit doesn't measure up to the parents' expectations, I think that rather than give otherwise interested families a hall pass, BSA wants them to volunteer and help make that unit better. A little Pollyanna-ish, I suppose, but I'm sure you see their point.

KS

If you can, get a look at S.L.A. Marshall's book "The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation". He did extensive research during WWII regarding how much stuff (weight) our paratroops in Europe and infantry (Pacific island-hopping) carried on their backs. He found that regardless of the size of the man, 47 pound loads seemed to be a consistent threshhold beyond which endurance, stamina, mental acuity, and effectiveness all dropped markedly. Granted, these guys were going into combat, but the 47 pound threshhold applied to training environments and non-tactical road marches, too.

KS

Beav;

I have seen them, and they're all splendid -- truly "top row of the keyboard" stuff...the very reason I keep coming back here!

KS

When my duties used to include responding to traffic accidents, we were trained to first, "prevent the accident from getting worse". That is, lifesaving first aid, marking the site so another motorist didn't crash into the wreckage, turning off ignitions, keeping bystanders back, minimizing fire/explosion risks, etc. Ambulances and fire trucks are on their way; these are some things the cops do when they first get there and the other responders are on their way.

I think there are some parallels between traffic accidents and a YP situation like this. I believe it's a unit responsibility to keep a YP incident from getting worse until the professionals do their thing. There are steps unit leaders can take that respect the privacy of all involved, and at the same time be responsive to YP concerns surrounding an allegation, including tenting alone, or a parent accompanying. Every situation's different, and the responses will be different, too.

These incidents are unpleasant, no matter how they turn out. I don't think unit leaders can take a "hands-off" position once an incident is reported to council. That doesn't mean you put it in the monthly newsletter, but you have a responsibility to provide a safe environment. And, that extends across the board. If I have a camp stove I think might have a problem, we'll ask the QM to notify the Equipment Chair that it needs a check and perhaps an overhaul. But, in the meantime, we're also telling him to pull it from the patrol kit and not use the thing until it gets a thumbs-up. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to a YP situation?

KS

Oren;

National almost had a deal worked out with a Sherpa placement agency in Kathmandu, but after the candidates did some web research and found out what they were getting into, they opted, to a man, to stay in Nepal and drag tourists up to the top of Everest -- less strenuous and a less "dynamic" environment than a National Jambo.

I understand they're looking into a pack mule option now, but are proceeding very carefully, with PETA headquarters just down the road in Norfolk...

KS