Lisabob

OK well part of the problem I see here is that no one wants to be the grinch and tell a unit, sorry, you didn't make it. Since this is the first year and lots of units probably did set wildly unrealistic goals, I don't have too much of a problem with this...this time. But what about next year, when units again don't meet goals? Then we say nope, sorry, and they say but last year you looked the other way when we didn't meet our goal! Either that, or next year the UCs encourage them to set ridiculously low goals that make the whole process a joke. I'm just not sold on this concept. The idea might be nice, to encourage units to challenge themselves, but the reality is that having units make QU is a big deal to all the district types and the pressure will be there both from below (what do you mean, our unit didn't make QU?) and from above (aw, they were close enough, give it to them anyway so we can make Quality District, Council, etc.).

I'm seeing similar issues as both of you mentioned. I'm even hearing from some council folks that "they" will be going back to the old way of doing QU within a year or so. Not sure if this is wishful thinking on their parts? But I do agree, it hasn't been rolled out terribly clearly or effectively around here either. Here's hoping to a better use of the program in 2008.

eoleson writes: If they do, someone should be lobbying the state to just buy it as a wildlife refuge... Well living as I do in MI and watching the dismal and beyond-dismal state of our budget in recent years (including this one), in which practically everything that anybody could want a state gov't to do has been axed to the bone in the name of austerity, I sure hope no one is expecting the state gov't of MI to buy the land as a wildlife refuge. Not that I'd oppose it, personally, but man, we can't afford to buy paper for our schools. No way is the state legislature (dysfunctional lot, those folks) going to fork out money for a wildlife refuge. If I'm wrong about this, I'll be the first to celebrate, mind you.

Not wanting to hijack this thread but actually I think this is within the confines - Beavah posts what sounds like excellent advise re: HIPAA language on the med release forms. For those of us in units where nobody is a health care professional or a lawyer specializing in medical malpractice type stuff, some further advice would be most welcome. I really doubt our standard forms have anything like this on them (I think we just use the BSA class I/II/III forms). What language passes muster? Examples, sources, etc.?

None the less FScouter, most scouts are not able to drive themselves to meetings and outings, and most (under age 16 anyway) do not have jobs to pay for the outings, either. So mom's or dad's support is crucial, at least in terms of getting them to and from the outings (not to mention, signing the permission slip allowing them to attend) and perhaps also in terms of paying the cost of the gear they need and the camping fees the troop charges. I'm sure you know this. The boy may be unhappy about the parent's decision but he may not be able to influence it, anyway.

Not to mention that it would be pretty tough for a UC to just pop in on an outing on the boat - you're going to sail along side and board them? Oo, oo, does the UC get to wear an eye patch and say "Argh" a lot? Hey now, come to think of it, that kind of sounds like fun. Maybe we need to promote a different image for our UC corps...

Sounds to me like you already know what you want to do, OldGrayOwl. And it sounds reasonable to me that you do it. Lay out clear expectations, continue to give this young man opportunities to meet those expectations, and make it stick. If he chooses to do it, that's great and wish him all the best. If he chooses not to, hey, that's his decision. You can't make him an Eagle Scout, he has to become one. I don't think it does a bit of good for anybody to just hand scouting's highest award to scouts in order to get them out of the door.

Our troop meets weekly, as do most of the troops I'm familiar with. The very few I know who do not also have a rather weak program.

Ed, I'm not understanding your perspective here, unless perhaps it is simply to bait ACLU supporters with spurious arguments? The ACLU is not a youth organization; the BSA is. The BSA has a 2-deep leadership policy in place specifically because we are an organization where adults and youth work together, often becoming mentors and role models for youth. Although I can't be certain, I'd be willing to bet that the 2 deep policy was not adhered to in the Evans case. But what this has to do with the ACLU or the price of tea in China...I think you're just trying to get under someone's skin here and I don't see how it is useful in this context, sorry. Similarly, Merlyn, just because the BSA *has* a 2 deep policy does not mean that all adults are going to follow it. Some people will break the rules no matter what those rules are, and reasonably speaking, the BSA national office does not and cannot oversee the behavior of every adult volunteer in the program. If anything, that's the charter organization's job. More's the shame, but I really think 2-deep leadership is a matter of BSA covering its tracks. When cases like this arise, sad as they are, the BSA can point straight to its training material and say "hey, we expect leaders to follow this 2 deep policy, and if they do, there shouldn't be much chance of abuse occurring." If people don't follow policies though - what do you want BSA National to do? Swoop down from Irving and take over every pack, troop, team, crew, and ship in the land? Not very likely.

hrm? Sure it is still early and I'm not through my allotment of coffee yet Ed, but I don't recall seeing ANYBODY suggest what you've indicated. No of course it isn't ok for ACLU execs, BSA volunteers (or execs) or anybody else to do that! Get real!

jr56, I don't know that I would equate Merlyn's behavior with typical "troll" behavior. For one thing, whether one agrees or disagrees with his specific points, Merlyn's substantive arguments are generally well-thought-out and meticulously expressed. Trolls usually post a couple of certain bombs and then fail to follow up with anything like reasoned argument. That said, I whole-heartedly agree with Trev's statement that sometimes Merlyn's style gets in the way of his message, and I do tire of "hearing" him call people "liar" all the time when, at least sometimes, I think the matter is more one of misunderstanding. And that's not so uncommon with online forums. A little more patience on Merlyn's part, and less of a desire to assume people are necessarily LYING about him and his views, would be welcomed. Not that I expect it. But all the same, I'm glad we have Merlyn here. I agree with some things he says, disagree with others, but I think it is really important to have people who are willing and able to challenge the conventional view. If nothing else, having someone like Merlyn involved in the "conversation" causes all of us to think a little harder and deeper about what we, ourselves, believe, and how to articulate our own beliefs.

Jeff, the pack we were with was also chartered by a PTO and they did practically nothing for us. We did assist them from time to time with service projects. But it was always a challenge because both the membership of the pack and the PTO changed every year and they seemed not to want to be bothered by us most of the time. Mostly the relationship, such that it was, could be summed up as follows: we stayed out of their way and they stayed out of ours. That said, moving to a new chartered org. is a big deal and your DE will likely encourage you to stay put. Partly because, if there is another group in town that wants to charter a pack, your DE will probably prefer to see them start a pack too - rather than just moving your pack over. And partly because, moving units around tends to be a sign of bigger underlying issues that suggest instability in the program. Your DE will probably advise that you try to work with your current charter partner to improve things first, rather than moving. Whether this makes sense in your situation is another matter, of course.

Secret DE, thank you for the view of the process from the "inside." Let me clarify first, that I am not seeking information with regard to myself, and second, that I am specifically interested in what happens when something does go wrong in the background check process, and an inaccurate conclusion is reached. I'm reasonably sure you are correct that this is a rare occurrence (anyway I hope it is). However, in the case that this does happen to an otherwise great volunteer, what exactly does the appeals board look at, and who is on that board anyway? Perhaps you can answer this though - I've heard in the past that the checks are run by BOTH SSN AND birthdate? You indicate that they are run by SSN and name - are you certain about this? If that's the case then it seems to opens more doors (perhaps) for clerical error to cause "false positive" returns, especially if someone were to have a pretty common name. I'd prefer not to go too far with specific details here, but this is not a trivial question in our area at this point in time.

TRUTH2 writes: "Everyone should just wait for the appropriate forum." Well that does seem like good advice. It is also advice that should apply to the original poster, apparently Mr. Rasmussen, in this thread. Perhaps especially to him (and his wife) since they are now embroiled in a legal battle. As for the rest of the thread, well what do you expect? Somebody posts a long and rather salacious post that fed the fires, and yet with too few details to make heads or tails of the situation. Go to any online forum and you'll find that people who engage in that sort of behavior are suspect in terms of credibility (keeping in mind that other forum members have only the written word to go upon). In fact, it wouldn't be unheard of on the web for someone to have started such a thread with the apparent intent of simply stirring things up a bit. Now as it turns out, there is apparently at least some truth to the situation and that is certainly unfortunate. But if the Rasmussens expected that they, and only they, would be the ones telling the story (from their viewpoint) and that everyone else would automatically accept it without question or contradiction, well that is a bit naive, isn't it. In fact I'd say that I'd have been even more surprised if, upon discovering that this is a real story, the "other side(s)" kept quiet. Why should they, when they too are being impugned by what the original poster wrote? Yeah, that's just not how a free society, or a free web-forum, works. And I find the implicit threats about people's identities in TRUTH2's post to be really goofy, by the way. It may be good netiquette not to post one's identifying info and so most of us would not - but I really don't think it would be tough for anyone in most of our councils who knows us "in real life" to figure out who is who on the board here. And also, many of us have met other scouters who read this board and are known, both by name and screen-name. So c'mon, what are you planning, to "out" us? Hmm. Hard to do when most of us probably are not "in hiding" anyway. So at this point: I wish a quick and just outcome of this whole mess to all. And in the meantime, good scouting to those families whose children are in the program. It is, after all, supposed to be "about the kids!"

It sounds as though there are some folks on the board who have experience with the process of removing volunteers, so I'm curious to know whether you have ever run across a case where the BSA's background checks turned up erroneous information on a volunteer, and where that info resulted in the volunteer in question's membership being revoked? I know there's some kind of an appeal process, but I wonder who is involved in that process, and what they consider appropriate counter-evidence to show that there was a problem with the initial background check? From those who may be more "in the know" than I am, what is that review/appeal process really like and how careful are those folks in reviewing the evidence they receive? If the original background check returned incorrect info, how would a volunteer go about proving a negative (ie, that they did NOT do x, y, or z, if the background check says they did)?

Thanks for all feedback so far. Several area troops (including my son's) do annual lock-ins that are a huge success, both in terms of recruiting webelos and in terms of attendance by existing troop members. My son loves the one his troop does because they have an entire university sports complex available to them all night long. There's nothing sedentary about it - those guys are up and running the whole time. It is not, however, typical scouting, that's true. On the other hand, there's a concern voiced by several folks in our area that parents might be unwilling to send their little darlings on a campout right off the bat as their very first scout activity ever - especially given that Michigan winters aren't terribly cooperative most of the time. Unfortunately our local OA is moribund at this time. It is hard to get them to even run elections, let alone do anything program-related. However, they did just get a new adviser and maybe it would pay off to talk with him, so I will pursue that.

Kicking around some topics of discussion for our district membership folks (yep that's me) - I'm curious to know what those of you associated with troops think about these ideas. Do any of your districts host lock-ins as recruiting events for boy scout troops? I am not talking about individual troops doing a lock-in (a favorite webelos recruiting activity around here in late December/early January when the weather is miserable). What I am asking about is an event hosted by the district. Current boy scouts could attend and would be encouraged to invite a non-scout friend to join scouts so they could attend too. Alternately, would you prefer to see a daytime event such as a shooting day for boy scouts at the local range? Would you expect boys to be likely to recruit their friends to join scouts for an event such as this? What are your thoughts? If your district made something like either of these events available, helped advertise it well in advance, and did a decent job of organizing it, would you encourage your troop to participate? Would you expect to get new boys joining your troop in order to attend, on invitation from your current scouts? Would you see this as the district helping to support your existing program and/or providing fun & easy opportunities for boys to meet that (somewhat silly) 1st Cl. requirement to invite a friend? I know there are other ways to try to reach boys, but for the purposes of this thread, I'd appreciate it if you would limit your comments to the above ideas, and I thank you. Consider yourselves deputized as honorary membership committee advisers!

I have gone my whole life without ever needing to use an axe for anything. Say what you will but that probably is true of a lot of us suburban or ex-urban or urban types. Just no need. So it was with a *great* deal of pride this summer when a small group of tenderfoot & second class scouts took me through the procedures of creating an axe yard, maintaining safety with the tools one uses in an axe yard, and learning to wield a small axe. They knew how to do something that I didn't, and they were practically glowing as they instructed me (and did a pretty decent job too). I think Beavah is right that kids this age crave skill, crave being able to do things rather than have things done for them, crave being treated as equals by older youth and by adults. Some boys are motivated by ranks and patches too and nothing wrong with that. But I do think the larger matter is that they're motivated by what those ranks and patches stand for at the end of the day - at least, they will be if we do our jobs right and ensure that they're actually learning and developing the skills that are behind the advancements. Otherwise we've cheated them twice over - once when they "got" rather than "earned" the award without actually knowing/doing/showing the skill and again when we have reinforced the notion that achievement and for that matter, adult life, is all about the surface matter, checking off boxes, attaining patches, without any thought or concern for the deeper meaning. That's a wearying way to go through life, kind of sad really, and not what I hope for for "my" guys, at the least. Those guys who are in the program simply to "get" Eagle and out because that's what their parents want them to do and they've internalized that ethos along the way, well they and their parents are missing out on the bigger picture. Probably not much we can do about that in most cases! Parents will almost always have a stronger impact on a boy's outlook than we will.

Thank you eoleson, I agree. Gern, there have actually been some modifications to WB21 so I suppose you could say there is a WB21.1 out there now. I've heard no hue and cry. And LH I wish what you said were true everywhere. In my son's troop there are a few people who would almost certainly enjoy and benefit from WB training. I'm sure they'd have benefited from the "old" WB too, but they didn't go through it when it existed and now it isn't an option. Somewhere, someone put a bee in their bonnet that the "old" WB was the only real WB and the "new" WB is not worth it. SO they won't ever go now, and they've shared that view with other newer leaders too. As a consequence, no one from the troop has gone to WB in more than 10 years, and the couple of people who went 10+ years ago are no longer involved/active with the troop (I went in 2003 but as a cub leader so I'm not counting myself there). Now before others jump on me for saying this, some of these people have great scout skills and are very giving of themselves. I appreciate all they've done, including their service as SMs and CCs in the past. I'm just saying that in some cases, they have chosen to close the door on a good thing, based on other people's mis-impressions and mis-information about the new course (also, by the way, coming from people who have no personal experience with the WB21 course), rather than being open-minded about it and trying it for themselves. That, to me, is kind of a shame since I've noticed that, if nothing else, WB helps scouters re-energize themselves about scouting and every unit can use that. By the way I just did roster checks for our district's units and I noticed that many of the same adults who scoff at the current WB are also not trained for their positions as SMs, ASMs, and CC. Makes me wonder if (in some cases) some of the people who are anti-WB21 are really just not willing to do training of any kind and grumbling against the current WB format is just part of a larger pattern.

I have been told that the main reason for the push to get boys to 1st Cl. is that there is some evidence that boys who make 1st Cl. stick with scouting longer than those who don't. Of course this is somewhat tautological I suppose (those who stick around longer are also more likely to make 1st class), and it may also be the case that there are other factors influencing BOTH which boys are likely to make 1st Cl. AND which ones will stick with the program. In that very likely event, the proposed "solution" of "first class, first year" fails to recognize the reality of the situation and is a false answer to the wrong question. But still, it persists. And there probably is some degree of truth to the notion that boys who have gained proficiency in the basic outdoor skills that are included in T-2-1 ranks are likely to enjoy camping more than those who are unskilled. But beyond that, I'm not so sure Eamonn has it wrong. I'll use my son's experience (anecdotal and obviously not sufficient for generalizing, but here I go anyway) with summer camp as a basis. My son has gone to three separate BSA scout camps now, will attend his fourth this summer. Each time he has signed up for a bunch of MBs because that's what you do. He enjoyed some of the MB classes, disliked others, and didn't finish most of them. The fun he had at camp came not from earning MBs, but from having experiences along the way. He could care less about the badges themselves, with a couple of notable exceptions. And for the most part, the things he has NOT liked about BSA summer camp have been related to poorly-run MB classes led by unenthusiastic staff, where the focus was on checking off and "getting" rather than doing and trying and learning. So this summer he'll most likely sign up for whatever "high adventure" option the camp makes available to older scouts instead of for a bunch of MB classes - he'll be 14 so he'll be allowed to do COPE or other similar programs. I think he'll enjoy that a lot more because there will be no pressure to earn merit badges and he can enjoy the program for what it has to offer. And hopefully, because the expectation isn't that boys in those programs will "get" a bunch of badges at the end of the day, the quality of the program will be better too. No need to herd the kids through a bunch of requirements. Just teach, learn, and have fun. As for rank advancement - my son was initially all fired up to earn tenderfoot, but the troop he was in made this difficult to do at the time and it was almost a year before any of the boys in his cohort finished their tenderfoot rank requirements. After that my son lost interest in rank advancement. He's only at 2nd class now because the camp he went to last year required him to be at that rank to sign up for a class he wanted to take, so he got things in gear and made the rank in the nick of time. And I expect he'll only get to 1st class if/when there is something else he wants to do, for which 1st Cl. is a pre-requisite. Who knows if he'll earn Eagle. He has told me he isn't interested in that. Honestly I hope he'll change his mind down the road, but he has some time still and if it isn't important to him then I'm not going to force the issue. It isn't *my* rank, it is his.

OK this makes some sense to me, thanks. I also see where it raises some dilemmas because on the one hand, we're trying to develop a stronger Venturing program in our district (we have a few very small crews that are more like clubs for a select group of older youth - they don't recruit outsiders, and once the founders go off to college the crews tend to collapse). Starting up some crews that are sponsored by a long-term group like the volunteer fire dept would help ensure more continuity/stability and also a more focused program. On the other hand, it sounds like this is a career-track focus and not a "hobby" focus, which would fit better under the LFL auspices. And avoiding the politics involved with chartering crews rather than posts is an understandable desire. But from a membership perspective - for better or worse - we do not count LFL members toward our district and council membership goals. So there is a strong push to register new units as crews rather than posts.

Hitting boys with a ruler?! At a cub scout event?! Egads. No, this most definitely is NOT "typical," nor is it tolerated by the BSA policies. A couple of questions for you: 1) How large is your den? 2) How well do you feel you know the families in your den? 3) How many other den leaders are there in your pack and how well do you know them? 4) What would happen if your den started holding your own, separate, den meetings at other times besides the annointed pack night? I don't see why you couldn't do this (say, hold a den meeting on a Saturday afternoon or something and do something FUN) and in doing so, you may be a catalyst for some changes in other dens too. 5) About the books - could you simply ask the parents in your den (forget the other dens for now) to purchase the books? You do not need the CM's permission to do this. If they truly cannot afford to buy them new, you may be able to get slightly cheaper second-hand copies online (ebay, etc.), or you might try contacting your council and asking if there is any financial assistance available. Or I suppose you could have a master copy or two of the book for the den. Send it home with a different family each week so that they at least can use the book as a reference while they work on activities. Then you could use a simple wall chart, brought to weekly meetings, to record the actual advancement for each boy instead of signing off in their individual books. Your council scout shop should have a wall chart for each cub scout rank and they are only a couple of dollars. While the way you describe the pack's group meeting nights and lack of an actual monthly pack meeting is not in keeping with how the cub program is designed (which I'm pretty sure you knew already from training, right?), you may want to consider your priorities in terms of how to change things. It could be that you decide to focus primarily on providing a quality program within your den, and set the pack meeting issue on the back burner for a bit. Once you have a great den program up and running, you may find it easier to get support from others outside your den for other pack-wide changes. As a den leader, there are lots of things you can do without requiring explicit "permission" from the CM. You run your den, not the CM. However, making any sort of change is going to be far easier if you can get buy-in from the parents in your den. So be sure to take a few minutes to explain to your den's families why you are doing things differently from other dens. This needs to be framed in a positive way that keeps the focus on your den(ie, "Here's how the Wolf den program is set up and these are some of the really neat things we can do this year with our boys." as opposed to "those other dens/leaders aren't doing it right"). If you are unable to muster support from the families in your den or if the CM goes ballistic or something and the other pack leaders support him, then I think you're in a position where either you go along with "the way things are" or you leave the pack and either find another one you feel is a better fit, or start your own. Starting your own pack is a lot of work and depending on the level of commitment you're able to give it, this might not be the best solution for you. So before going down that road I'd really recommend you visit a few of the other packs in the area to see if they truly are all the same, as your CM claims. He may be badly misinformed about that, or he could just be saying that to keep you from leaving. Hope this helps somewhat, and thank you for your dedication to scouting.

Aside from the part of the program that members "count" towards for district and council membership purposes, for all practical intents, what is the difference between a post and a crew? This question has come up because we have a couple of fire and police chiefs who are potentially interested in helping to start up one or the other and at least one of them is adamant that it should be a post. I am not sure why, as it seems that a crew could do pretty much anything a post could do. But this isn't an area I know a whole lot about so I'd like to pick your collective brains. What say you? What are there advantages and disadvantages to starting up a unit under one vs. the other?

Anybody who has ever been or had a late elementary or middle school aged child in the US (and likely in other places too) is probably aware that bullying happens, that it is not fun to be the target, and that over a prolonged period of time, it could be really harmful. I don't think this is seriously in doubt. Awful as it was, I recall being bemused by the amount of surprise that people seemed to express when it turned out that the two boys involved in the Columbine shootings had been picked on, apparently pretty relentlessly, and suddenly the entire country seemed to "discover" that hey, some kids get bullied at school a lot. (Not that this excuses violence, mind you, and from the sound of things those two boys had a host of other issues too, but what hole were all of these people sticking their heads into, that this was "news," I wondered?) I know for a fact that the issue of bullying has come up with our boys in scouts. It seems like things peak around 5th-7th grade and get better after that for most kids. But you know, I'm really not so sure about the institutionalized "anti-bullying" or "bully-proofing" types of programs. These have been a regular facet of my child's public school educational experience since about 2nd grade. And they are routinely viewed by the kids as being a joke, because a) they propose unrealistic solutions and b) the adults in charge do not follow through on their end of the bargain which c) often makes things worse for the kid who tries to follow the latest recommendation, and d) then results in a breakdown of trust between the kid who is being picked on and the adult who is supposed to be implementing the latest anti-bullying program. As for the BSA, I have noticed that in troops where "A Scout is Kind" is taken seriously by adults and youth leadership alike, bullying is both far less pronounced and also seems to be dealt with more effectively when things get a little out of hand. Conversely, in troops where the adults don't appear to pay attention and the youth leadership is left to its own devices to deal with behavioral issues with little to no guidance (which typically results in some rather Lord of the Flies-like behavior), bullying seems to be more of a problem and can become an entrenched part of troop culture. Given all of this, I am uncertain that a mandatory BSA version of anti-bullying is the proper solution because in places where the adult leadership are doing what they should be, there is already guidance in place for dealing with bullying, and in places where the adult leadership AREN'T paying attention, mandating some superficial discussion of a program that probably isn't going to be followed anyway is worse than useless. IMO. But. If it has been added then it has been added, as John points out.

Happy Birthday, Eamonn!