Lisabob

"We neither wanted to, indeed we refused to, be handled like children again. " Bingo. I hate it when we are asked to "play scouts" as adults. It is never genuine because we are NOT scouts. We have a great deal more life experience behind us and so we are not going to learn things or see things the same way a scout will anyway. I find this sort of thing to be a waste of my time and demeaning to boot, and it is one of the few times when I find it very, very, very hard to play well with others, as opposed to just getting up and leaving. It was one of the major sources of irritation for me with the early WB/21, that they had us "play" cubs for a few hours in the early part of the course. It was such a caricature. As a cub leader at the time, I thought it was awful. (I hear they've changed a little of that to make it less offensive.) I also recognize that people learn in different ways. While the above sure doesn't work for me in the slightest bit, I suppose it might work for some others. None the less, I prefer to think (as someone who does a lot of group seminars) that it makes better sense to treat people as they are when they walk into the room, instead of asking them to pretend to relive their youth. Especially when you don't know them well and won't have them for more than a few hours.

All our cub resident camps are pretty full around here. I sent 38 boy scouts off to camp yesterday too, including 12 new scouts, and while parents of younger boys worried about a variety of things, not one mentioned weather worries. Actually I had had a conversation the week before camp with our SM about the new BSA severe weather training because I was expecting parents to be more worried. So I think this may be a local thing. Sounds like your guys got quite an experience though, and here's hoping they aren't scared for years to come.

kbandit, do you get any push back from people who say that boys who participate in your fall fundraiser (wreaths) and then join another troop are either taking advantage of you to do something that other troops don't allow, or taking sales away from boys who are already in, or actually do join, your troop? Aside from the book keeping issues that might be involved, these are the two arguments I'm anticipating. (And if you do get these, how do you combat them?) John, MI economy where I am is awful and unlikely to improve this year. In fact I hate to be gloomy but I'm expecting it to get worse. No class of worker is guaranteed a job at this point. We've had people in formerly "safe" white collar jobs making 6 figure incomes get laid off, right along side the guys in the auto industry. It is just ugly.

That's an interesting solution, Neil, and one I will think some more about. A little more background - we don't have a council camp to go to, so it has become troop tradition that every other year we go to some other council camp nearby, and in opposite years, we take a "big" trip to a council camp far away. The troop has been to Georgia, North Carolina, New York, and Wyoming in the last decade for "far" trips, and Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio for "near" trips. Next year is a "big trip" year, though at the time to boys chose Curtis Read in NY, gas costs were not nearly as big a worry as right now. Ironically, this business of being the "troop that travels" is both one of our hottest recruiting points and one of our stumbling blocks. Boys want to join us and go all over the place. Parents get excited about it too. But then they realize that little Johnny, who has never been gone for more than a weekend, is going half-way across the country and at considerable cost, and some new parents have second thoughts about sending their kids with us if their first year is a "big trip" year. I've advocated subsidizing the cost of "big trip/first year" camps for several years now but others who never got that deal themselves, find it unfair and don't support it. I'm not sure how to win them over at this point. Since gas will become a major portion of our troop expense next year, maybe I can work the angle of troop fundraisers specifically to pay for transportation, thus at least lowering the cost for new scouts (and others) by that much. Right now I'm estimating gas at $6/gallon (OUCH) and figure we'll need between $5000 and $6000 just for that.

I hate to sound harsh or anything, but I can't see how it makes sense to say, in one breath, "here's your Eagle" and in the next, "but you have to do X hours of community service to atone for your behavior." Either the boy is ready to earn Eagle at this stage or he is not. Being 18, he has run out of time to further demonstrate his character in order to qualify. Make your decision based on the facts in hand, not based on the notion that you can somehow balance out poor behavior with a punitive sentence. Doing that sounds like you are attempting to assuage your conscience.

Beaver, your post describes what is happening around here to a T. Like you, the only reason I had any idea what was (not) happening at all is because I know someone who was a jambo ASM in '05 and he has been "pitching" it to me for some time. And, of course, because of this board... (thanks, folks)

Thanks a lot, that would be really helpful. Please pass on my appreciation to your co-worker. It does look like beautiful country. I've spent a little time in the Adirondacks but not that part. We're hoping to get some of our older guys out into the hills to do one of the high adventure treks too.

Just an update and a question here. My council STILL has not put out any info at all about jambo; nothing on our website, in our newsletter, or available in any other format. When I talked with a couple of our council pros recently they didn't seem to have any idea what was going on or when info would be available. In fact one of them told me I (my son) was the first one he'd heard of to actually register online and turn in the $100 registration check to council (which has been cashed). He could not tell me whether that meant my son would get a spot or not though, as they seem not to have a method for selecting youth at this point. In the past they've operated first come/first served, but who knows this time. He also told me that the national website was down for a while in June due to too many complaints from councils around the country. He said that there was either no, or poor, communication from national to council pro's about how to mesh the online national registration with whatever process each council has in place. Does that ring true to you? Right now I'm thinking that it could be true, or he could have been feeding me a line to get me to stop asking questions he couldn't answer (but should have been able to).

While "my" troop is off having fun at camp this week, one of my tasks is to start to pull together info for next year's camp. We're going to Curtis Read in NY. In looking at the website I see that there are actually 2 camps there: Buckskin (with dining hall service) and Waubeeka (patrol cooking). Yet the fees are exactly the same, $305/scout for either camp. Can anybody explain this to me? Usually patrol cooking options are cheaper. Also, are they really 2 separate camps, or just two sides to the same camp, with a shared program? From the look of things on their website it really is two separate programs in completely different parts of the reservation. But it is hard to tell sometimes, just from a website.

I know it is early to be thinking about this, but with gas/energy, food, and everything else going up, I'm wondering how many families who have not struggled with the cost of summer camp until now, will be in a real bind next year. Add to that, that our troop has a long-distance trip planned to a camp about 800 miles away for summer 2009 (Curtis Read). The camp looks amazing and has a fantastic high adventure program. The boys are very excited about it. I'm excited too but it is beginning to look expensive! I'm estimating that (with travel costs) the "typical" scout will owe about $450 and those who choose high adventure may owe about $600. Leaders will be in the $200-$250 range. This is a ballpark estimate only at this point. In the past our troop has offered 2 fundraisers where all profits go into the sellers' scout accounts. Typically about 1/3 to 1/2 of the boys participate (and of those, only a handful really sell beyond immediate family members). We will of course continue those and push harder to get the boys to participate. Some families won't, but hopefully more will. What about new scouts though? The cross-overs who join us in late Feb. typically come from 4-6 different packs. A few packs allow boys to carry over any money in their scout accounts, most don't. March is really too late to do much more fund raising with the troop since fees need to be turned in by the end of May. Typically, half our new scouts don't even make up their mind about going to camp until sometime in late April. For those who decide early - Can we offer current W IIs who know for sure they want to join our troop, to participate in our fund raisers prior to joining? We would then create scout accounts for them in advance of them joining? (what if they change their minds?) Should the troop as a whole subsidize the cost for new scouts, since they won't have as much opportunity to fund raise? (This raises a question of fairness - should we subsidize all scouts' participation by doing some "mandatory" troop fund raisers where all participants get an equal share?) I need to start thinking of some creative ways to help families defray these costs. What are your thoughts?

The troop is off to camp Manatoc in OH tomorrow. Although I did a lot of the organizing, I don't get to go (I hate it when work gets in the way of fun!) We haven't been there before, and all my fingers and toes are crossed that they have a good time.

Well I have seen several new DEs just in my area, who have no experience with scouting. No offense intended to any of them because some are working hard, but until they can at least keep straight the basic difference between "pack" and "troop" they will probably have very little credibility with leaders of any type. So I'm not sure I buy the idea that they can do their job without knowing how the program operates (though that hasn't stopped councils from hiring them - hey, they're cheap). Still, I'm not sure that a DE would need to know how to deliver the program to the Flaming Arrow patrol, any more than most current COs have the vaguest clue about that (and I submit most COs have less than the vaguest clue). That's what you find good unit-level volunteers to do.

Well I'm late to this party (didn't know the thread was here) but I've been thinking some about this moderation business and FScouter's request for input recently. In particular, a certain poster who has been moderated more times than I care to count this week, pushed me to think harder about how I would like to see moderation occur. In another thread I made a comment about how I work in a setting where absolutely unfettered speech is expected (well, at least among those with tenure!). That isn't to say I necessarily want a free for all here, but rather, that personally I find moderation to be a pretty aggressive act that shouldn't occur often, and when it does, that should include some personal responsibility on the parts of the moderators (ie, sign your names!). So here are my preferences and reasons why. 1) Rather than outright deleting posts, I would prefer that moderators delete or edit content while retaining the shell of the post. This allows readers to see when one member has been moderated. Since many of us may already have read the uncensored text, it also helps us to understand where the moderator(s) think(s) the boundaries of acceptable vs. unacceptable content lie. It annoys me when posts just plain disappear because half the time, I know they were there last time I visited and it gives me a moment of virtual disorientation ("hey wait a minute, wasn't there something here from Poster X?"). Even when I haven't previously read the post prior to moderation, I think it is valuable to leave the shell there. In the most recent case, what struck me was that one poster had practically all of his posts edited over a period of a couple of days. That signals a different and perhaps bigger issue (to my mind) with that poster. Other moderators might take notice of this and choose to discuss the situation further, I don't know. Repeated edits might color my view of that poster's future responses too. Reputation is valuable, for good and ill. Simply removing all traces of the post prevents reputation from coming into the matter, unfortunately. 2) I would appreciate if moderators would sign their name when they edit or delete the content of a post. It is good to know who takes responsibility for such an act; it is a check on power (sorry guys, but just because you may strive to be even handed doesn't mean all mods always will be). It also helps to see if there is a consensus, when several moderators independently censor an individual's posts or several step into a particular topic. 3) I would prefer to see moderation only when it comes to advertisements for commercial products, sexual material unrelated to scouting, personal insults or vulgarities. Those, it seems to me, are off the table. I don't like the moderation of discussions that a particular moderator feels are not adding value. Let the readers judge that. I don't agree with Bob White that songs or occasional outbreaks of silliness should be deleted. Just like in a real group setting, sometimes spontaneous goofiness happens and it can be a tension breaker at times, or it can serve as a clue to other posters that the group thinks they're going off the deep end and should rein themselves in. If things get off topic then I think it is appropriate to suggest a spin off, but I don't find that compelling enough to censor someone. The only time I could imagine that would be if one person insisted on pursuing an argument across the threads, across the board, relentlessly, even after being told many many many many times per incident to stop it. And I have never seen that happen here (even with merlyn and ed - usually they give it a rest when it gets to be over-heated and I've never seen them pursue each other outside the issues&politics section.) That's my opinion. That, and $2.00 might buy you a cup of coffee. Do what you want with it. ETA: I wanted to mention that I was in agreement with pretty much all of the recent edits of that one individual's posts, because they were personal insults and name calling, nothing more. That's the kind of thing I think we have moderators to deal with in the first place.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

So far I think the best answer for why we continue to need COs has to be the insurance answer. I suppose that the BSA could take on the insurance liability if they chose to, but why would they if they didn't have to, right? And yes I agree that there is a certain percentage of COs that are active and would be (rightly) offended to have their involvement terminated. As I've said elsewhere though, they appear to be in the minority in a lot of places. So maybe what we need is an option: the BSA will charter units right along side other more active COs who may continue to charter their own units if they so choose. BSA-chartered units could be "owned" by the local council, with some revisions of the charter agreement so that the council couldn't simply absorb a unit's gear and money any time they felt like it. (On the other hand, this could really exacerbate the bureaucracy growth at the council level!)

OK BadenP, let me ask you to elaborate on that. My experience is that seasoned DEs do not want to touch this one with a 10 foot pole unless or until there is some crisis that might cause a unit to try to separate from their CO, or cause the CO to dump them. And inexperienced DEs may take on this task with enthusiasm but, because they don't necessarily realize just how very inactive the CO may be, or what the potential implications of waking the giant might be, they may do more harm than good. So they quickly learn, after being burnt a time or two, that quiescent and oblivious COs are better than angry and aware COs. Is this not your observation, based on your experience as a former DE? Am I being too jaded? Are things really just messier where I am? Have I mostly only met DEs who aren't doing their jobs and who are a minority in that way?

sorry to get a little off on a tangent, but how do you know whether your council is in the 100 level or not? Where do you find this info? And what do the different levels correspond to, in terms of size? Thanks.

I don't think that this is an "official" award, as much as it is a recognition by the BSA that they can probably sell some patches and certificates and make a little cash (nothing wrong with that, either). But I have also seen what Neil describes, not always to the point of dropping out, but in terms of a difficulty changing expectations from cubs to boy scouts. Those webelos pins are really not all that hard to earn (mostly), especially because in most Webelos dens, the adults are still organizing the program to a great extent. Boys hear all about how webelos prepares them for boy scouts, and they enjoy getting the regular recognition with those pins. However...merit badges are really quite different. First, they tend to be earned individually rather than in groups (at least, they should be most of the time!). Second, they are much more detailed and therefore boys tend to be a lot slower to finish. And third, the boys themselves must take the initiative to choose badges, contact counselors, and do the work. Boys who get used to making a big deal out of earning the webelos pins sometimes get discouraged when they realize that the merit badges are a different ball game and when they don't earn a fist full right away. I'm not saying you shouldn't work with your boys in the webelos den or to discourage them from earning the pins. Just that I can see what Neil is saying, because I've watched it happen too.

dunno vol_scouter, I've not yet been associated with a unit where the CO provided a meeting space. The two packs we were part of were chartered by a church and a PTO, and the troop my son is in is chartered by a service club, yet all three units met elsewhere. Two meet in public school buildings and a third has met at the local National Guard armory. Of those three, the church was the only one that even had a physical space where we could have met (in theory). But they didn't like having us in "their" building.

I have to back up Gern's perception that his unit's relationship with their CO is the norm. This might not be the ideal we strive for, but if it is reality for a great many units then I think it is less helpful to berate leaders, and more helpful to ask tough questions about why it is the norm. Some of this may indeed come down to the unit leaders being more proactive about building relationships. But at least as often, it comes down to COs who are not holding up their end of the deal. Then it becomes a question of whether we do more harm by reminding the CO of their obligations, or of letting things be. I'm sorry but I don't see a simple and realistic answer to this. I know for a fact that if my DE started making the rounds, telling all the COs what they were supposed to be doing and really expecting them to do it, we'd lose COs. Or there might be COs like one I got to know, who neither want to be active in supporting their units (in fact this notion made them angry), nor are they willing to relinquish their charter and let the unit move (tradition, history, service obligation, etc.). It's their unit and they'll hold it captive if they want to. In the absence of active or at least, positive COs, what on earth is a unit to do?

nope, another NEA - the national endowment for the arts

No Gonzo, I don't think I did miss your point, thank you. In fact I'd say it is pretty obvious that you were merely trying to raise Merlyn's hackles. (Whether you succeed in that goal or not is, of course, entirely up to the two of you.) Thing is, you were using a pretty weak argument to do so! There are large differences between gov't-sponsored discrimination based on something that is fairly clearly prohibited in the Constitution, and private clubs discriminating based on something that isn't clearly prohibited in the Constitution. So I'm sorry but no, the ACLU probably would not ride to your rescue in the cases you outline, because the ACLU exists to protect our CONSTITUTIONAL rights, not some made-up claims that people decide to get upset about or use as red herrings, with no basis in constitutional law. Sorry, but I get real tired of people saying "rabble rabble! The ACLU didn't protect my RIGHTS!" when in fact there are no "rights" at stake. As for people's animosity to the ACLU, I'm always amazed at how unpopular protecting our actual rights - the ones in the Bill of Rights - seems to be in some circles.

I hope some of you will include in your discussion, tips for how to wean experienced adults away. That is one thing I've seen, that even well-meaning adult leaders (and especially many who have been involved a long time) aren't willing to let this happen. Sometimes it is because they don't trust the boys to be safe or they're worried about liability matters, or they don't know how to sell this to the boys' parents as an acceptable practice in the modern world. Sometimes, I've seen, it appears to be because they (adults) don't want to give up the fun of participating themselves. I'd welcome genuine tips (as opposed to harangues) for how to help adults change their mindsets.

Scoutldr makes an interesting comment about COs that I think is worthy of its own discussion: "Maybe this whole rhubarb would be avoided if BSA would abandon the "chartering organization" concept and take over control of the units, as the GSUSA did. I think the whole concept is confusing and frought with incongruities. B-P's concept, if I remember correctly, was to issue a "warrant" to the Scoutmaster, which empowered him to form and operate a scout group." So I ask - why do we need COs? What's wrong with the above approach, that is better for having COs? Now I know that some COs are quite active in their unit program. I'm willing to bet though, that most (perhaps outside of a certain subgroup) are oblivious. I can count on one hand the number of active COs in my district, and perhaps in my council. They seem to be extremely rare. And if they weren't COs, those active groups would probably find other ways to support the units anyway. When we look at the gulf between what BSA literature says about COs and what really happens, and the problems caused by this weak or nonexistent relationship (except on paper of course), I find Scoutldr's point to be worthy of consideration. MODS - feel free to move this to the Council Relations forum if you think it fits better there; I wasn't sure where to put it.

Gonzo there is no Constitutional guarantee of equal rights regardless of gender. If you want that, then I recommend you contact your members of Congress and make clear your staunch support for the ERA. In comparison, there is that pesky first amendment protection against government-supported religious discrimination. You may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's past interpretations of the 1st amendment (for many decades now) and who knows, with the current make up of the Court this might even change. But until then, the bar for gender discrimination is not in the same place as the bar for religious discrimination. And there is no bar for age discrimination in most matters at all; the Constitution is virtually silent on that matter.

I don't understand how parents of Tigers could not be aware of what their Tiger children were doing, since the Tiger program *requires* parental attendance with the child. Beyond that, join another pack that has their act together. Don't waste your time waiting for council to call you back. The council neither owns nor runs individual units. Chances are good that the council folks are aware that the unit you were part of was doing a poor job, but realistically there isn't a lot council can or will do about that, except perhaps to direct you to a different unit.