Lisabob

Well I've had too much coffee tonight so I'm still up reading scouter.com and John, I'll try to provide reasonable answers to your questions. Keeping in mind that the existence of any crews in our district has been almost entirely due to personal interest of specific families (as opposed to council-wide or district-wide support) in the past, there are a lot of gaps to be filled and they don't all fit on my (district membership) plate. But, here goes. 1) Two may compete, as they would be in the same town. However, this town has two middle schools, three high schools, ten packs and four troops (of which, 2 troops are quite large and 3 have lots of older boys and a tradition of keeping tabs with those who age out). The other three potential crews would not be in geographic competition. 2) Honestly, no I doubt the inventories were done. The approach so far has been to find interested COs and interested adults, and then find the youth. Consequently, many adults come from a traditional scouting background and the initial plan appears to be to start with boys who have recently aged out of troops, and sisters of boy scouts who want an outdoor program. One of the potential new crews is looking at more of a fire fighting/first responder focus, which will likely draw a different audience. Considering that most initial members are likely to come from within scouting ranks, one challenge I see is recruiting new members from outside these circles. Advice along the lines of recruiting high-school aged youth would be appreciated. I know what works with elementary and early middle school boys; after that, I am working with a deficit. I'm not even sure whether it is worth it to try to target 19-21 year olds who were not boy scouts, or where we'd find them (other than local colleges). 3) My understanding is that all will be co-ed. 4) No district or council support in place yet, but a willingness to "do something." I'm taking notes on suggestions. The standard intro training for crew advisors does occur on occasion but when I have seen it, it was typically an add-on to boy scout leader trainings due to the low number of participants. The lack of a real venturing program in the past means we don't have a lot of local resource people to turn to. If by VOA you mean a venturing version of OA? Well OA is undergoing a bit of an overhaul right now in our district and council, but no I don't think any such thing is currently in place for venturing crew members. 5) and 6) I wish we had council COPE people. Our council lacks a boy scout summer camp program (we have camps, just not a summer camp program) and doesn't run ropes,towers, or rock climbing programs, or adult trainings to support these activities either. We do have access to some shooting sports expertise and facilities and could leverage that. In fact that came up tonight as a potential recruiting activity down the road a little ways. While not entirely in our council, we do have access to lots of water activities in the region (great lakes, lots of rivers for canoeing, kayaking, etc.) and these might be a draw for some folks. But it is very difficult to envision water activities as a recruiting tool, since passing the swimmer test would be a pre-req to participating in the recruiting event, right? As I see it, we have a real opportunity to get things off the ground in the right way this time. Venturing isn't new to the district but I think it wasn't well supported or perhaps it wasn't well understood in the past, and now that the original crews are pretty much all gone, we're getting a shot at launching it again, district-wide.

Must say I feel a bit like I've been drinking from a fire hose. There's a big push on right now to develop and support Venturing in our council. We've been anemic to say the least, with fewer than 5 crews in the district and of those, really only 1 or 2 that can be considered active by any stretch of the imagination. None have more than 10 members, most can barely recharter with 5, and two are going to fold due to lack of membership at recharter time in a couple of weeks (one of these had a focus on special needs adolescents and it never really worked out well; the other is sponsored by a very small church in a rural area and was driven largely by one or two families who are now done with the program). Now all of a sudden we seem to have new crew opportunities popping out of the woodwork, with 3 near-certain and 2 more highly likely crews in the pipeline for our district in the early part of this year! Most if not all will be outdoor/camping/high adventure oriented crews. As our district membership chair I'm thrilled, of course, but also a little uncertain how best to support these new units. Our district hasn't had any real crew programs in the past. From a membership perspective - what suggestions do you have for how I can best aid these new crews in getting off the ground?

We may have said it in slightly different ways there BW but I think we're in agreement. And yes, by the way, welcome back. I appreciate that you keep us "honest" by paying attention to the details.

OK LongHaul, I just didn't want to get too far off on some tangent that wasn't of interest to you. To be honest I have no idea how scoutnet fit in to the scenario I described. So I'm willing to imagine that this could have been a "local option" of sorts and in that regard Ed might be correct. However, I know it happened and I know that the council pro's gave their official blessing. In our area, our DE has told me that National uses June 1st, not January 1st, as the standard "graduation" date, although if schools have an earlier graduation (say, in May in some parts of the country) then that is acceptable too. This comes up most frequently in recruiting new Tiger cubs rather than with boy scouts but I'd think the same general philosophy would apply in both cases (we recruit kindergarten boys in late spring with an official joining date of June 1). I have never heard anyone else assert that Jan 1st is the graduation point. Is it possible that your DE mis-spoke, or mis-heard June/January somewhere? I'd agree that's just really odd as a standard policy.

At one point I had a 12 year old 4th grader in our webelos I den. He had significant cognitive impairments, combined with moving around from school to school, which resulted in him being out of synch in terms of age/grade. We only had him for a year before he moved again, but it is possible that he could have been a 9 year old 1st grader. In our situation, it would have been inappropriate for this boy to be in boy scouts with his age-peers, because he did not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to go with his age. He also lacked self-confidence and age-appropriate social skills so putting him with age-mates in a boy scout patrol would probably have been disastrous. In contrast, he fit in reasonably well with other 4th graders even though he was physically larger. He was a sweet kid and one of the ones I think benefited most from his short time in scouting. Make sure to talk with the parents of your scout and see what you can learn about this boy. If he has special needs, they'll be able to give you better advice than anybody else about what is appropriate for their child.

Philt, while that may well be true, it glosses over the larger question of chicken and egg. Does a program that promotes earning 1st Cl/1st year *result* in more boys staying with the program, or were the boys who actually earn 1st cl within their first year the ones who were gung-ho about boy scouting to start with and probably would have stayed with the program no matter what? Put it another way, are those boys who didn't earn 1st class within a year the ones who were most likely to drop out anyway, and they simply did not last long enough to make it to first class? What does the data about this program/emphasis really measure? The effect of earning 1st class on retention, or the degree to which a boy is invested in boy scouting? These are two different concepts and I argue that while we really want to know about the former, the data might very well only be telling us about the latter. Please understand I'm not bashing the program or emphasis on 1st Cl. Actually I think there's a lot to be said for this idea. But the way the evidence is collected and analyzed simply is not sophisticated enough to back up the claims that are frequently made on that matter.

I'm still deciding how I feel about the idea of this program. But one thing that did surprise me was the notion of having teens responsible for driving other drunken teens around, late at night. If it were my child, while I would applaud his desire to help his classmates, I don't think I'd want him driving in that situation. But that's just me. Maybe the motivation for the program is good but the mechanics need another look. I'd really rather have teen groups raising money to pay for all night taxi rides or something along those lines. Some college groups help to fund "party buses" that provide safe rides home from bars on big-drinking nights and while not without its problems, that seems like a better model than asking teens to take physical responsibility for their wasted peers. However, in more rural areas I guess that's not very practical either.

In the last year or so, with the benefit of people's comments here and spending more time doing district stuff and getting to know our district & council pro's, I've come to a similar conclusion as the one Bob White is espousing. The professionals step in when we volunteers don't step up. Sometimes the pro's do a better job than the volunteers would have. Sometimes the pro's need to be thanked or at least appreciated because even if they don't do a better job than the volunteers would have, at least they did the job and someone had to do it. Sometimes the pro's do a lousy job. But at the end of the day, it is an empowerment and knowledge issue. Once we recognize that this is our program (collectively), and once we understand that the pro's really ought not to be there to run it for us except as paper pushing administrators (meant in the nicest sense), then the volunteers can really do it for ourselves. But absent our input and time, effort, and ability, well we'll be stuck with whatever the pro's dream up. And a few pro's will get used to the idea that they run things, because that's what happens so much of the time. So in that regard, although it is perhaps more demanding of us (in the big picture), I'm completely in agreement with Bob White that local problems must ultimately be solved by local volunteers. Doesn't mean, though, that we can't share ideas, float strageties, have reality checks, and otherwise occasionally vent, here in this forum where things aren't local!

I am looking for chapter and verse on something. We have a difference of opinion in our troop on whether or not MBCs *must* be registered as members of a troop (any troop - not necessarily ours) in order to be registered MBCs for the council. I maintain that this is not necessary; that they may be registered simply as at-large MBCs with the council if they are not active with a troop. One of our ASMs maintains that all MBCs must be registered with a troop as either committee members or ASMs/SMs. Our district advancement chair didn't seem to have understood the question and gave an ambiguous answer. I've seen the documentation indicating that MBCs have to fill out an adult registration form, but it doesn't seem to clarify whether that means one is required to be a troop member. I know we have document hounds here who know the official literature better than I do. A little help?

Well Ed I've already given you my statement that our council HAS altered them on specific occasions. A good friend and fellow Wood Badger took over a troop in dire need of an SM, to prevent it from folding. She did this at council's explicit request. Her one condition was that the webelos den (including her son) that she was leading at the time be allowed to cross over early so that she did not have to choose between cubbing and boy scouting (she didn't feel she could do both at the same time and couldn't secure a replacement webelos leader). Council granted her request and those boys became boy scouts prior to meeting the national age/grade/rank requirements. Perhaps they ought not to have done so, but they did do it. However, if you want to pursue further, let's start another thread instead of continuing to hijack this one.

Cub scouting brings together lots of different people with different needs. Sometimes the adults are more in need of help than their children are. These folks are frequently well-known in the school and community and sadly, not in a good way. And they tend to be more prominent when their children are in early elementary grades because that's where parent/child involvement in activities is most common. One thing I learned from my time as a cub leader is that you cannot run a program without addressing some of these sorts of issues. It becomes the elephant in the room. Every parent there is aware of the problem. It is keeping you from running the den program the way you want to run it, to the detriment of all of the boys. And it is clearly irritating you (understandably so). So yes, I think you DO need to have a conversation with your cubmaster and your committee chair about this situation, and I think sooner rather than later is better. Do this face to face rather than via email, and make sure to do it in some semblance of privacy. Ask the CM and CC for support for whatever course of action you prefer to take. Perhaps they can find a "behind the scenes" job for this woman that will keep her occupied and out of your hair. And in the meantime, since she has proven her unreliability, don't rely on her. If you feel you must give her things to do, make them things where, if she doesn't do them, it won't upset your whole plan. And don't forget to get your other families involved - just because they aren't official assistants doesn't mean they can't lead a meeting, or part of a meeting, from time to time! Good luck, keep us posted.

Well as a matter of fact the only times I have ever seen adult scouters change shirts before going into an establishment is when it is one that sells adult beverages to people sitting on stools arranged along a countertop (ie, a bar). But my son will often zip up his jacket or remove his neckerchief before entering a store with me. His explanation is that the shirts are dorky and the neckerchiefs are just asking for teasing. He doesn't mind the pants (esp. the newer ones) and socks and will wear a scout T shirt in public with no problem. While I can and will continue to try to instill in him the notion of feeling pride rather than embarrassment in his uniform and what it stands for, I must say, it would sure help if national would roll out an updated shirt to match the newer style pants sometime soon. You have to choose your battles. I wouldn't miss this one, myself.

Welcome, and thank you for volunteering. I hope you have a lot of fun along the way.

Our pack's CO provided a meeting place and that was it. Our troop's CO doesn't even do that but they do sometimes provide partial funding for recharter fees. Neither of them provided funding for day-to-day operations and in fact one frequent complaint of our troop's CO has been that we don't fund raise for them!

Ed I do believe that's FScouter's (and my) point. IOLS should not be our standard skills training course for adults because, let's be honest, while you'd likely get more hands-on experience in the typical OLS weekend course than in an 8-hour indoor variation, a weekend's worth of camping isn't sufficient to teach basic skills either. As a parent, if I asked adult leaders in a troop what training or experience they had with fire building, knives, axes, or other outdoor skills and their answer was "hey don't worry, I spent a weekend at IOLS" then I might be pretty apprehensive about letting them take my kid anywhere. We need a training course to help adults learn basic skills. Not all scouters come to boy scouting with those skills in hand, and from my observations, a few who may have learned those skills in their own youth scouting years, could use a refresher. We need IOLS to help those adults who have the basic skills understand what works and what doesn't when it comes to teaching adolescents in an outdoor laboratory, and how to make it both reasonably safe and fun in the process.

While not wanting to get too far into the debate about whether or not a good idea to formally join the troop without meeting the criteria, I will say that I know of specific cases in which our council approved early cross-overs for boys who did not yet have their AoL and who were not either 11 or finished with 5th grade. Additionally, we did some looking into a situation of a boy who was 9, AoL, and part-way through his 5th grade year (he had skipped a couple grades). It appeared that our council would likely have granted him a waiver to join the troop also, despite not meeting the age/grade criteria at that point in time. We ended up not needing to pursue the matter so I can't be sure. However, from experience it seems as though national does not need to be involved in all cases. And I do think circumstances matter; for example, boys who join cub scouts in October of their 5th grade year simply do not have time to earn AoL. We can do what will be perceived as "punishment" for their "error" of joining so late, or we can be more welcoming of them, make it work somehow, and keep them in scouting. This happens every year for most packs (though in fairly small numbers most of the time) and I'd hate to see us turn boys away from the program if it could be helped.

THANK YOU FScouter! Now, having said that, what I've seen is that we really need some scouter training for basic camping skills (which IOLS should not be). Since we do not have something like this, IOLS tends to be the catch-all. If you don't know how to do something yourself, you really won't be able to teach it to others. And then we also really need people who understand that IOLS is designed to *teach adults how to teach* rather than simply to teach adults the skills. Of course this is a more complex matter, which might be why so often we fall back on just teaching the skills to adults, some of whom already have the skills but couldn't teach their way out of a flaming paper bag. But no matter how we slice it, this course sounds like a bit of a joke. If I were a leader in that council I think I'd start looking for an OLS course in another council. Convenience isn't everything.

I'd say it depends on some other background factors, including the relationship between pack and troop, the pack's structure, and why the boy didn't earn AoL to start with. If there's a strong relationship between the pack and troop, this opens up all kinds of windows. For example, if the troop has den chiefs operating in the pack, maybe this boy can be an assistant to one of the best den chiefs for a couple of months. It is a way to keep him active in scouting, helps him build a connection with at least one older youth in the troop, and can give him motivation to be part of the troop once he's eligible. Why didn't the boy(s) earn AoL? Is it because they just joined scouting as Webelos IIs and didn't have time? In that case, maybe they would benefit from a couple more months as cubs, if it can be arranged. Scouting is still new to them so they aren't as likely to be bored by sticking with the cub program a short while longer. Is it because they have special needs and can't progress as quickly as other boys? Again, maybe sticking with cubs a bit longer is beneficial. Is it because they just weren't that interested in the award? In that case, you have to determine whether they are the type who just found cubbing to be too constrained (I've known boys who disliked cubs, esp. toward the end, but loved boy scouts) and would thrive in a boy scout environment, or whether they really aren't so interested in becoming boy scouts. Or maybe they love doing all the cool stuff scouts of all ranks do, but aren't motivated by rank advancement. Your solution should vary, depending on why they aren't AoL yet. In terms of pack structure - Does the pack have another webelos den? I've seen packs take boys who are Webelos IIs but not eligible to join the troop yet and move then into the Webelos I den for a couple of months. Some of those boys do go on to finish their AOL and just needed the extra time and/or incentive to do so, which works out nicely for all concerned. And the difference between 4th and 5th graders isn't usually that large, but if the older boy needs (and can handle) a little "extra" then he can also assist the Webelos I boys in learning material he may have already done. If the pack doesn't have another den for the boy(s) to go to and the webelos II leader isn't planning to stick around after cross-over, then it is tougher. Asking a 5th grader to go hang out with the bear or wolf den is almost a punishment and won't fly well. Telling him to take a 2-3 month "break" from scouting is likely to result in losing the boy from the program altogether, as he will likely find other things to get involved in during the meantime, and even if he doesn't, he is then in a position to join the troop as a brand new scout just before shipping off to summer camp - not the easiest transition to make for boys or their parents. In that case I have seen troops invite the boy to come along on some of their outings and meetings as a guest (not a member). The troop may decide that the boy can't do everything, and it would have to be clearly indicated that anything the boy does prior to actually joining doesn't "count" toward rank. But as we're only talking about a matter of 2-3 months in most cases, this might work as an interim measure. This assumes the boy plans to join the troop once he is eligible, of course. There's also the maturity level of the boy, his interest in scouts, and his parents' interest in keeping him in the program to consider. Some boys could handle joining the troop a little later, going to summer camp with no prior acquaintance with the troop, and some could not. Some parents will find creative ways to keep their sons interested in scouting even during a short hiatus, others will not. Hope this helps somewhat, and I'm interested in others' thoughts too. Around here, most boys who don't cross over with their dens drop out of scouting. As a district membership person, I'd really like to find some creative ways to reduce the likelihood of that outcome.

Last year our troop went to Muskegon, MI to go luging on the US olympic training track. We were there about a week before the troop that was recently featured in Scouting magazine. I couldn't go, but the boys who did had an absolute blast and want to do it again. It was a bit of a drive, but worth it. There are a couple of scout camps in the area to stay at in the evening (they probably have cabins available for those who want them). This year the troop is going dog sledding somewhere in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Good thing too because as I look out my window it is sunny and green down here. Here's hoping for snow in the UP.

I was thinking about how to respond earlier today and I think Eamonn's comment about food is a good suggestion. Sometimes cliques form simply because the group itself is artificial. Not all members have enough shared experience to draw upon in order to make it "real." Sharing food is fun, easy, and brings people together in a way that weekly meetings of relative strangers may not. Seeing the problem as you do, perhaps you can recommend a night of goodies and fun (campfire, movie, midnight bowling, whatever they call fun) to your youth leaders, to help build a bit of rapport. And about the election thing, I'd agree w/ Beavah that this is an unlikely response. Any youth who announces that they want to void the results of previous elections just because they weren't part of them or they didn't win, will have to consider that the very same thing might happen to them if they do win the new elections. I wouldn't think it would take very long for kids of this age group to see what a bad precedent such a move would be.

I think this is something the boys can and should do, with active support from the SM and Advancement chair if necessary. I have noticed that on the rare occasions when our troop gives this responsibility to the boys, or even just part of it to them, that the boys do a better job of it than the adults. We have a couple of adults who drone on forever up there, talking over the boys to the other adults, as if it were all about them. Yawn. One of the other things I've noticed is that the people in our troop who do not want to hand over this responsibility (because it is too much coordination, they say, for boys to handle) are the same ones who block "boy led" in other areas too.

If you want some sort of a "bridge" without actually having a physical one, use your boy scouts in two lines. Have the new scouts "cross" by walking between the two lines while your scouts give them a scout salute, or clap wildly, or whatever you find most suitable. Have their parents remove their cub necker and loops prior to crossing, and have the SPL meet them at the far end with their new paraphernalia. I saw a cub pack do something like this once and it went over quite well.

I'm a communications MB counselor too. I would agree with your interpretation, that it might be ok for two boys to work together to plan and conduct the COH, but that four boys is a bit much. I agree that you're within your right to tell the boys that, as well. Actually I'm working with a boy right now on this very requirement. The difficulty I'm having is getting the adults in charge to move over and give this boy the space he needs to plan and MC the thing! Worse, because it is his Dad who usually runs the show (ugh, I know, not what's supposed to happen but yet it does), and who doesn't want to step aside.

Did you come here searching for input and opinions, or for validation of what you already knew you wanted to do? In the latter case, I dare say you'll find it regardless. But in the former case, if you wanted people's perspectives (which is what I thought you were asking for when you/your wife started this thread) then you got them, and telling people to hold their tongue is a little bit unrealistic. Some feedback may not be to your liking, but it is still a gift. About the situation - my understanding is that the CO, not you, is ultimately in charge of "firing" volunteers. However, most CO's are not terribly well acquainted with their units and would prefer that the unit leaders just deal with the situation themselves. Since I recall there being other issues with other volunteers in the past, let me ask this though - if you forcibly remove this person from his position, will other potential leaders get the message that they'd better not bother volunteering because you'll just oust them too? Be wary of alienating your future helpers, or you'll have a fait accompli - you'll have to run the pack, because no one else will help, and then since no one else will help, you'll feel that others aren't showing the level of dedication that you and your wife show, thus necessitating your grip upon pack leadership.

Around here I would guess that the lodge is not participating. I am not in OA but it is well known in my neck of the woods that our lodge is undergoing some turn-over and needs a fresh start. Since none of the OA members in our troop, including some adults who are otherwise pretty well connected, had heard of this program, I have to conclude that the OA folks just haven't gotten the word out. Too bad because it looks like a great opportunity.