KoreaScouter

Best thing: That it enabled me to realize a dream of most people: the ability to travel backward and forward in time -- seeing the world as a 12-year old boy again, then as an adult once again. As others mentioned, the 7 Habits stuff was mostly a review, but the practical experience was a "Peter being smitten on the road to Damascus"-level event. I recommend it to all without hesitation if given an opportunity to attend. "I used to be a Buffalo, and a good ole Buffalo too..."

OK, here's one for you conspiracy theorists: My daughter's a Girl Scout in our Air Force community here in Korea, and when we unboxed the cookies for the annual sale, I noticed that many of the cookies have different names than what we were used to in the U.S. Best example: the Samoas are not called Samoas when they're shipped here; they're called "Caramel Delites". Could it be political correctness, to avoid offending Pacific Islanders of Samoan descent? More political spin, Rooster!

Just received KL's CSP from Potawatami Council in Wisconsin -- this is very cool...

"Never confuse activity with achievement". -Jon Samuels

Ed; Please send me one, too. Do you still have my e-mail address from our patch swap?

We're about to raise our "cool level" here. One of the biggest "uncool" things among our Scouts is the hats. You've all heard the complaints: ride too high on the head, too stiff up front, can't get the brim to curve, plastic snap back, and so on. And, these are Scouts who wear their uniforms with pride on Scout Sunday, Scout Week, Loyalty Day Parade, POW/MIA ceremonies, the whole schmeer. The funny thing is, almost all my Scouts wear caps when I see them around...but they're "cool" caps, not like the BSA issue hat. So, after checking with my unit commish and my DC to make sure it's okay, the Scouts are designing their own troop caps, similar to our troop neckerchiefs. They aren't down to the graphics yet, but it will be low-silhouette, no plastic snaps, and with a pre-curved bill. Beyond that, they have lots of leeway (although I'll retain veto authority if it's not Scoutlike). The consensus: if they design it, they'll wear it. It wasn't an original idea; I've seen other troops with troop caps...the only reason I noticed is because all their Scouts wore their caps...go figure.

Bob; I think your post on two-deep is right on the money; but, I don't think that's exactly the point. What I read other posters saying is this: if the purpose of the tour permit is to ensure the outing was properly planned, someone has a GTSS with them, Safe Swim Defense/Safety Afloat will be applied, District/Council knows which units are doing what, and families have given their permission (among other reasons I'm sure), then whether the event/outing is a troop one with 2-deep or a patrol one with no adults should have no bearing on whether or not a Tour Permit should be filed. Granted, the form is designed for troop activities, but if a patrol is planning a patrol event involving swimming, the simple process of going through the Tour Permit form can't help but remind you of the SSD requirements. We err on the side of caution and file tour permits whenever we're meeting somewhere other than the Scout hut...

What we have here is basically a debate over which branch of ethics (as the disciplinary subset of philosophy) should prevail, moral absolutism or moral relativism. Aristotle and philosophers since have pondered this with no solution that all can agree on. Meanwhile, we're getting wrapped around the axle picking each others' words apart. I'd love to stay and chat some more about this, but I gotta do some things to get ready for Wood Badge, and my kids are ready for breakfast.

Please re-read my post; I made it a point to say I do not think leaders should turn in their membership cards if they're on the other side of this issue -- I only asserted that it's easier to reconcile your membership in an organization when you're in agreement with its policies. An observation, not an indictment. The irony here is that many of us embrace Scouting in large part because the values of Scouting harken back to a time when morals weren't relative and character wasn't so hard to find. Yet, when it comes to this issue, some are perfectly okay with moral relativism and all the baggage that comes with it. When someone justifies something because it's "the right thing to do", we just started careening down a slippery slope. Here's why: it's the right thing to do as defined by...you, but not necessarily by me, or him, or her, or somebody else. Moral relativism knocking at the door. NAMBLA believes that men and boys being intimate with each other is also the "right thing to do". Also, some incredibly heinous things have been done by people who firmly believed it was the right thing to do at the time, only to regret it later after it couldn't be undone. When I lived in the Netherlands, I met scores of Dutch people who profoundly regretted supporting the government permissiveness that has resulted in part in their country being the kiddie porn capital of the world. An absolute shame in an otherwise charming place to live. I'm not trying to link the two, and there's already another thread on this, but if anything good can come out of the current scandal in the Catholic Church, it could be that it opens our eyes again to the fact that there are creepy people out there, and not all behavior is okay.

A gay Scout leader is doing essentially the same thing as a gay service member -- living a lie. One of the three aims is character development; this poses an inherent conflict, in my view, among those who don't support BSA's policy. Frankly, I can't imagine how I would reconcile my membership if I had such a fundamental disagreement with BSA over a right/wrong topic that's important enough to them that they took it to the Supreme Court. Moreover, I'm not sure how I'd explain such a position to my son if he asked me. Before any of you gang up on me, I'm not suggesting anybody turn in their membership cards if they're on the other side of this issue. I'm just making an observation that life's a lot easier when a person and the movement he/she serves agree on character issues. I'm a big fan of William J. Bennett. My kids' library includes "The Book of Virtues" and "The Book of Heroes", and my library includes "The Educated Child" and "The Death of Outrage" -- all of which I recommend highly. BTW, someone in an earlier post used shouting in front of the White House "the President is a jerk" is an example of protected free speech rights they're entitled to exercise. They may be entitled, but I'm not. If I did that, I'd be committing a punishable offense I could be imprisoned for -- I bought into that when I took the oath of commissioning...just as we bought into BSA policies when we signed the application. If I want to use insulting language toward my commander-in-chief (which I would never think of doing), I must first resign my commission. I realize the BSA isn't the military, but in terms of loyalty, character, and right/wrong, I think there are parallels that apply. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with every military policy, but it's not a Luby's Cafeteria where I can pick what I want -- it's Mom's kitchen, where I eat everything on the plate, including the vegetables. There are appropriate ways you can make your voice heard on a policy you feel strongly about, but don't take it personally if headquarters doesn't agree with you...which is if I may paraphrase, the same point Bob White is making.

I'm a lifelong Catholic myself, and although we were on the receiving end of lots of corporal punishment in school (most of it well-deserved in my case), nobody in the clergy or the convent ever got out of line with any of the kids, and we were in those places all the time alone -- the parish was a huge part of the community -- my troop's CO, in fact. What's in the news now is shocking to us, too. The irony here is that since becoming a Scouter, I've got YP so ingrained in me that I feel impending doom if I'm anywhere kids are (sunday school, school, youth center, sports, library) and I see things that don't conform with BSA YP policies -- and it's commonplace.

As usual, I appreciate your quick feedback -- all of it appreciated. I did put two of them together at a recent overnighter for duty roster, tenting, and cooking purposes -- no worries. I try to never interfere with the Scouts' decisions as long as they're showing Scout Spirit, not dangerous, etc., etc. But, I had to throw my .02 in a few weeks ago when one of my patrols told me they wanted to change their patrol name, and by extension their patches, flag, equipment, patrol record book, Troopmaster rosters, blah, blah, blah. I couldn't understand it because they have lots of patrol spirit. They said they wanted to change the name because they didn't like the hand-drawn scorpion on their flag -- said it looked like a lobster. "Any other problems with your patrol name?" I asked. "No way, Mr. H., Scorpions rule!" "Then, why don't you just re-do your flag so it doesn't look like seafood?" For a second, they just stared at each other, then it was off to the races. They ended up designing a flag that they had custom-embroidered downtown...now all the other patrols want one like it too.

Our troop is located on a military base, and we expect significant turnover of many of our families this summer. Experienced Scouts (and a few new Scouts, too) will leave, and others will come in (as usual) between June-September. This is phenomena we deal with every summer, but this year it seems to be more significant. Looking at the rosters, two of our four patrols will be down to two experienced Scouts each, one (NSP) will be full-up of course, and the fourth will have four Scouts left. We're getting five more Webelos 2 Scouts bridging later this month, and will likely create another NSP for them. I'm inclined to leave all the patrols intact for a variety of reasons (lineage, heraldry, patches, flags, pride, new Scout migrations), rather than reduce the number of patrols to keep the patrol populations between 5-8. Some of the Scouts in our current NSP should start moving to their experienced patrols this summer. We always get experienced Scouts move in during the summer too. What would you do in our situation? What's more important, the patrol size in the short term or the patrol identity in the long term? Thanks for your advice.

We use the Troopmaster software. Right now, our Advancements Chair runs it at home, and we get advancement and activity inputs to her by phone, e-mail, fax, carrier pigeon, etc. It works okay, but it's a little awkward. I just got an opportunity to read the actual Troopmaster manual, and it says you can merge data from several remotes, and theoretically have different people inputting different parts of the information. Do any of you use the program that way? How does it work for you? Also, how do you get your updates to troopmaster to reflect requirement changes such as the recent First Class 9c moving to Swimming MB, and so on?

BSA defines this as a moral issue; I do, too. If someone doesn't, the arguments don't matter. What many Americans seem to be doing since, oh, about January 1993 or so, is compartmentalizing morality; that is to say, it's okay to be (fill in the moral failing/deviance of your choice) as long as you're doing a good job otherwise. We've done that with everyone from politicians to our next door neighbors. Now, some on this thread are saying it's okay to have gay Scoutmasters in the woods with our boys, if they're good at tying knots or pitching tents. Here's another example: If a high school has high SAT averages, a winning football team, and 90% of graduates go to college, does that make it okay for the principal to fondle the students or cheat on his wife? Of course not, but that's exactly what some seem to be saying when this logic is applied to Scouting. Some of our most noble achievements as a nation were accomplished as a result of our moral principles and our adherence to them (in some cases gradual, but nonetheless). As I said up front, one would have to see this as other than a moral issue in order to argue that gay Scout leaders are okay. If that's the case, I think we're wasting bandwidth over this.

In my opinion, the FCFY "Sword of Damocles" is not over the Scout's head -- it's over the Scoutmaster's! Don't get me wrong, I think that's a good thing, and it underscores my previous point: Scouts who earn FC in their FY don't stay in Scouting PRIMARILY because of the FC badge on their uniform shirt. They stay because of the troop PROGRAM that enabled them to earn FCFY. It may be a subtle distinction, but in the context of where the onus is placed (make sure I got my spelling right on that one), it's significant. In other words, the BSA emphasis on FCFY puts the responsibility on the SM to do his job; if he does, FCFY should happen naturally without having to push or rush anything. Now, that said, even in a well-run troop, every Scout will not see FCFY, and a SM shouldn't take that as a personal failure or indictment. I've got a couple in that boat right now, and it's largely based on personal choices they made -- the program opportunities were there.

Sager; A big "Roger" to Bob on the smoothness comment. If you have new leaders, or if they're doing something new for the first time, or just about any time, "smooth" is something you'll probably be in no danger of becoming if the boys are actually leading this effort. Again, I think the key is to follow the program, and once these leaders are elected, train and mentor them a lot. I drove by our chapel the other day, and on the marquee out front were the words: "God doesn't call the qualified, He qualifies the called".

Roy, In the GTSS, BSA discourages troops from owning their own vehicles; initial cost, insurance, maintenance, time, etc. I don't know your situation of course, but if you have sufficient funds for a vehicle purchase, have you considered putting that money into an interest-bearing account, and renting a large van when you need one for outings? That way, the insurance and maintenance is Avis' problem, and you'll always get a new vehicle. Is your CO in a position to help on this?

Yarrow; My insignia guide is up in the Scout Hut, so I'm going off my memory...Bob White's is much better, I hope he's reading this, too. As I recall, when the front of the sash is full, start using the back. A Scout may only wear one sash at a time, and it may not be hung from the belt. I'm assuming that the Scout in question already has the large sash (more room for badges in the front). If he doesn't, and I admit it would be a seamstresses nightmare, swap the small one for a large one and buy some time. BTW, most Boy Scouts I know don't want to put any activity patches on the back of their sash -- looks too much like GS...

Okay, here's a notion that we've collectively hinted at, but not actually come out and said. If BSA maintains that Scouts who make First Class in their first year stay with the program longer, why are we assuming that the reason they stayed is because they made First Class? Why not consider the possibility that the reason they stayed is because their troops run a good program, and THAT'S WHY they made First Class in their first year?

I believe in encouraging a Scout to earn his Eagle, if that's his goal, well before his 18th birthday. Not so much because I'm afraid I'll lose him to the 3-Ws, but because I want him in the troop for a long time with the Eagle badge on his uniform, serving as an inspiration and a role model for the younger Scouts -- giving something back. And, I want him to enjoy and bask in the respect and admiration of those around him for what he accomplished, for as long as possible. We just had a Scout who completed his Eagle requirements right before his 18th birthday, with the COH several months afterward. Congratulations to him and a "good on 'ya" and all that, but I can't help thinking how much more "program leverage" we would have gotten if he had been sporting that Eagle badge on his uniform while he was a Scout, coming to meetings, going on campouts, etc. I know there's also the "drift-away" after Eagle, and you know, we may be largely responsible for it. How many Scouts, when you ask them what their goal is in Scouting, say it's to earn their Eagle? Once they have it, they've met their goal, right? Guess it's time to go do something else. That's the major reason I left martial arts after earning my black belt. The black belt was my goal, I reached it, and no number of degrees of black belt would have kept me aruond. Could it be the same for Eagle? Perhaps we should portray this not as a destination (Eagle COH), but a journey with Eagle just one of the waypoints...

The membership drop is in the annual reports, and is broken out as such in the traditional programs, although LFL is increasing...but as someone wiser than me said, "that ain't Scouting". What's harder to find is which Councils/Districts saw the decrease, or increase. A 1 percent drop has to mean that some areas rose, and some areas dropped more. Where? Why? A very common fallacy when analyzing numbers is equating correlation with causation - fight the impulse. We gotta ensure the program remains relevant to boys without losing the things that makes Scouting...Scouting. That's a tall order, but there are Professional Scouters in Irving, TX who are being paid to figure that out, communicate it to us, and reach the public too. The notion that Black, Asian, Hispanic, urban kids don't like Scouting is a load of crap. I've got all of the above in my troop, and if you were blind, you'd never know who was who. They all have a fabulous time and are with the program. If you make Scouting too much like the Boys/Girls' Clubs to cater to what you think urban kids want, we'll lose what makes us unique. Let's stick to the program. As it is, and presented properly to the families regardless of ethnicity, it'll stand on it's own. Not all minorities are interested in Scouting, but you know what? Most of the white kids in my neighborhood even back then weren't either. So what. The gay thing again?! Nobody except the boys who killed Matthew Shephard really know why they did it or why they thought it was okay. And, there is no guarantee that staying in Scouting and earning your Eagle will inoculate you from negative peer pressure and bad decisions...although that's the way to bet. If kids are taught respect for life, and they embrace it, they won't kill anything for fun, even an ant. TJ, I think you either have an agenda, or you're a huge fan of Oliver Stone. Bob White, please help me out here on two counts, the gay policy and leader training, you have all these things memorized. I'm very familiar with the BSA policy on avowed homosexuals serving as leaders. As I look at the youth application, though, I don't see any exclusionary language regarding homosexuality. Is it because we don't collectively think an 11-year old boy has any idea what his sexual preference is, or does BSA in fact have a national policy that prohibits homosexual Scouts? What do you do if a 14- or 16-year old Scout tells you during a conference he thinks he may be gay? On leader training, why isn't it all absolutely mandatory for everyone? In the eyes of an individual Scout, BSA is his troop, not National-level policies and standards. If his untrained troop leader dorks it up, it doesn't matter how many glossy, color-coded multi-media binders are on the shelf in Irving, 'cuz his Scoutmaster never saw or heard any of it and the Scout's out the door. In my opinion, our volunteer leaders have way too little required training, too little supervision, and too much poetic license. Just read some of the posts on our own threads...some leaders use the patrol method, and some don't. Some use new Scout patrols, and some don't. Some wear the uniform, and some don't. Some have just Fast Start/YP after a long time in the program, and some are Wood Badgers with just a year or so in. Some file Tour Permits and Money-Earning Applications, and some...you get the point. Why is this? Maybe I'll know all these things after Wood Badge next month!

Sager: There's no BSA policy that PLs can't serve consecutive terms. If your experienced Scouts are willing to do that until the newer Scouts are ready for it, that's an option. I recommend JLT for all new leaders as soon as possible after they get their patches. And, I also include my assistants in everything the primaries do -- after all, you can't expect an APL to fill in for the PL if he has no idea what the PL does. If the new Scouts rotate leadership positions frequently, they'll all learn soon enough how difficult it is to lead, and should have more empathy for their buddy when it's his turn. We've recently instituted rules/consequences, too. You might say the Scout Oath and Law should be enough. In theory I agree, but in order to be inclusive, they're somewhat abstract. Our PLC came up with eight simple rules and four simple graduated consequences that have defined "A Scout is Obedient" a little more clearly. Since they did, our meeting decorum has improved considerably. What's important for them to know? Well, the JLT curriculum for starters. Beyond that, the whole drill of annual program planning, monthly program themes, planning troop meetings, and planning and executing campouts/outings is essential. If they jump into that with both feet, they'll understand the whole program better. I also recommend that the PLC have at least a vague familiarity with the GTSS -- helps them understand the program constraints and eliminates the "Let's do paintball" suggestions... Good Luck.

I'm with you, Chippewa. We use the wall chart to keep tabs on progress, and just got the little brown patrol record books so the PLs know who needs what. I think the beads for advancement tracking is a Cub thing which most Boy Scouts want to leave behind once they get in their troops. When we were in Cubs, our den tried the beads one year, the knots in the ends of the vinyl strings kept coming untied, beads cascaded all over the floor, lawn, whatever...more trouble than they're worth...one man's opinion

Korean Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are currently separate organizations, but the rumor mill says they are considering consolidating and going co-ed. Frankly, that wouldn't be too big a leap for them. Most BSK and GSK troops are organized in school classrooms, and the troop leaders are their teachers, as an additional duty. Going co-ed would merely mean one set of rules and paperwork. We've been on campouts with them, and they already camp together, cook together, etc. And, the littlest Cubs camp with the oldest Scouts, usually with their moms along to do the cooking, etc. Different culture, different system. Personally, I don't think co-ed troops makes much sense for us...would be a tremendous amount of extra work. I have both a son and a daughter, and when we family camp, he wants to run around in the woods and she wants to relax in a camp chair with a book and listen to birds chirp. I know all kids aren't like my two, but I see the program getting a lot more complicated (and the GTSS getting like a phone book) if we went co-ed...