Lisabob

eisely - yes I''m aware that they''re two different things but hey, we''re not going to make headway on getting rid of the electoral college so we might as well look at the things we can remedy. pack - don''t hold your breath. We''d need a whole new constitution. Put it in the column of things that ain''t gonna happen. And I''m ok with that - parliamentary systems are even more prone to abuses in some ways because you practically always have unified gov''t!

Among the several things that bother me in this situation: you''ve said that neither you nor the DL know this guy, and yet you''re being asked to write a letter vouching for him. I think this is reason enough to decline, without getting into any details about what else you know or believe to be true.

I''d be happy to see ALL OF the states assign electoral college votes in a different way (perhaps proportional to the percentage of votes a candidate wins in the state''s popular vote). What I really, really, really dislike is the current attempt in California to change their rules late in the game in order to get a one-time pay off. I don''t care for the "gotcha" aspect of that endeavor. Similarly, I''d be happy to see ALL OF the states agree on a saner process for scheduling primary elections. Gotta say that as a Michigan resident, I''m seriously ticked off with my state''s Democratic party and their decision to front load our primary. But I''m even more seriously ticked off with practically all of the Democratic candidates who matter and their decision to boycott my state''s primaries. Makes me think long and hard about voting for John McCain! (Hey - psst - Obama, Clinton - I hope you''re reading this!) This is something that the national party committees and the state party leaderships need to get fixed, and quickly too.

The pack we were part of was chartered by a PTO as well, and we generally had a parent in the pack who was also a PTO member serve as the COR. That worked pretty well. Having the asst. principal as COR would bother me because it suggests that the school is more involved in oversight of the pack and its program than it really ought to be. (public schools generally do not sign on as unit sponsors - PTOs are fine, but they''re also not run by the school) As for seeking out a new COR right now though, tread carefully. You might want to sit down with your pack leadership (CM and CC) and your PTO president to talk about what role you want the PTO to play here - and what they''d like to see the pack doing too - and whether making a change in the middle of the year is something that is going to upset the asst principal (who you may need as an ally for other purposes).

Funny that Oak Tree and I seem to have posted the same basic advice about how to tell if another council or district has their training on track...hmm, maybe something to that...great minds, Oak?

HOw do you know which districts offer great training? Ask around. Get to know some scouters from other districts (go to council events, or out of council events, and ask questions). Another way to do it is to find out what other districts and councils are in your area, and look at their training schedule. Those who seem to have their act together with regard to advertizing upcoming trainings well in advance might merit a call and a couple of quick questions about what''s being covered, by whom, and whether you (as an out of district/council) person can attend. No need to push why, although I suppose you could indicate that their schedule works better for you. I''ve found making these sorts of calls quickly indicates who has their stuff together and who is winging it. How to find the recipe for a BSA-by-the-book troop? Yep, there is no such thing, or anyway I haven''t yet seen it. All troops deviate in some way. The question is whether the troop you are part of deviates in ways that are beyond what you can accept, and then, whether you can either put up with it, or be a positive source of improvement. Is WB the grail of scout training? Depends on who you ask and what people want to see. Kudu would say it is a joke. Others would say it changed their whole lives. Still others would say sure, WB is great (well worth the time, money, effort, etc.) but it is only a start to your experience, not the pinnacle. And plenty of views in between too. The value of training depends a lot on how well it is presented but it also depends on what you bring to it and what you hope to gain from it. And of course those are different for all of us.

Hunt''s last comment brings up something I wonder sometimes about because we''ve got a couple of boys in the troop who show up very occasionally and I''m always surprised when they do. We have one who has been with the troop for about 3 years. He hardly ever camps, comes to weekly meetings about a third to half the time, and seems to be having a good time when he''s there, but I can''t figure out why he is in scouting. I''ve not yet met a boy who joins or stays in order to go to the weekly meetings! It isn''t about advancement, as this young man is a tenderfoot (and that, only because his patrol grabbed him by the ear and walked him through it at some point last year) and doesn''t seem to be interested in advancement or earning merit badges either. I just don''t get it? But he''s a really nice kid and people are always happy to see him when he''s there.

one of my favorites! Thanks pack. Now I''m off to repeat a few of those words of wisdom myself.

Ugh, please don''t send him on to district! Who wants to work with someone with that level of self-importance and rudeness?! Not me...if this fellow showed up to a district meeting around here and behaved as described in the initial post, one of two things would happen. Either everybody else would quit (who needs it?) or he''d be asked to leave. Lose-lose-lose all around.

Congrats to you!

Wow, with a CO of that size, maybe they need to charter two packs? Seriously.

This fellow has some nerve, calling your CM out of the blue and behaving as you describe. Would ANY of us act that way when seeking to join an organization, and then be shocked when the group we wanted to join was less than enthusiastic? It makes me wonder just what he would be like once he knows you. Red flag alert, in my opinion. Now - as to whether to accept new boys or split webelos dens, etc. - while I think it is important to be welcoming, there is a reality that has to be acknowledged. If the pack is not in a position to start up another den then they have a right to cap the size in order to maintain a quality program for current members. I''m thinking this is a rare occurrence to say "no" to someone - but then too, the CM did try to help this fellow locate another pack in the area. Supposing there are other packs with openings, I think that''s entirely reasonable (especially after how this guy behaved). And his point about being a member of the CO - well hmm, then why was he in a non-CO pack to start with, if that''s so important to him? (Maybe a good idea to have a friendly conversation/head''s up with your COR to head off any problems down the road too.) And no, I don''t think there''s an obligation to break up a high performing team who have been together for 3 or 4 years now, just so one more person can join. Finally, a word about jargon - yes, webelos use many of the symbols and trappings of a patrol. But you''ll find in the webelos book itself and all the training material that webelos are still referred to as a "den" because they are still in the cub scout program. Probably not a big deal, but just FYI.

Volker, That''s great news, congratulations on getting things off to a good start. I''m curious to know what age group these new scouts are?

Our troop policy is that we will transfer any money to a scout''s new unit if he changes troops or joins a crew. However, if he just quits, the money in the scout account goes into a campership fund. There are times when I''m not entirely comfortable with all of the "what if" scenarios that go with this, but that is what we do.

Definitely do tell them and also share any info you can with them about the nature of your son''s condition, what works, what doesn''t, how well he''s able to manage his symptoms (or know when they are about to kick in), what signs they can keep an eye out for, etc. Most scout leaders have little or no personal experience with these concerns, and while most will also bend over backward to make things work for your son, they may be starting from a pretty minimal level of knowledge. Scout leader training does not typically provide much guidance on these issues (not surprisingly maybe, since the range of potential illnesses and conditions is so large). So it is up to you to help educate them so that they can provide the program to your son in an appropriate manner.

Asked my DE about this tonight. He said he hadn''t heard anything about new shirts. Hope he''s just not informed and it isn''t merely a rumor.

Beavah, can you offer info on either of the following, because I was about to do some uniform shopping and would be irritated to find things had changed for the better shortly after I spent a bunch of money on the annoying "old" stuff. 1) What''s the time frame, roughly, for this shift? 2) Will the new switchbacks be changing again? Or are we just talking about the old Oscar shirts here?

Oh Eamonn, I''m so sorry to hear your sad news. May he find a nice fireplace somewhere in the hereafter to curl up in front of.

Good points, LongHaul. The burn out issue is something I''ve given a lot of thought to, believe it or not. At the moment my troop position is fairly limited and is also closely linked to my district committee position (I''m doing district webelos-scout transition and I am helping our SM with the same matter for the troop, from a committee position and not as an ASM). It is true I''ve done a fair amount with the district in the last year, but what I keep coming back to in that position is that we need to have more active and competent UCs in the district in order to make all of the other things the district is supposed to do work better. If something really had to give I would be most at ease giving up my troop position because we''ve got a bunch of people on the troop committee, we have an SM I feel I can trust, and that is the role in which I''m least active and where there are others who could easily do what I''m doing now. I haven''t had a chance to hash out the details of any UC assignment with our DC yet - I''m hoping to catch him this weekend - but if I do end up in that position, I have in mind one or maybe two of the cub packs in my area that do not have and definitely need a UC, and with whose programs I have a good bit of experience. Of course there are always new things to learn but I think I am pretty well acquainted with the cub program from personal experience over the years. Frankly I''d be uncomfortable UC''ing for any of the local troops - I know the SMs all pretty well from Wood Badge so I consider them to be friends, but they all know far more about Boy Scouting than I do and consequently I wouldn''t be as effective with them as I would be with a Cub Pack (in my own view, at this point in time). So I appreciate your comment - and I hope what I''m saying makes some sense. I don''t think it would be overwhelming, but then, I''m not in the thick of it yet either.

John, I get it and actually I agree to a large extent. I was, however, informed (perhaps wrongly?) that in the abstract at least, this also meant I ought to give up my district and troop committee positions if I want to be a UC. Not. Going. To. Happen. (and by the way, I''m pretty sure my district commissioner isn''t going to push me to do that, either.) My point was that we can''t realistically "fix" our UC problem without drawing upon people who are both experienced and active, or we''ll simply create other UC problems like what Eamonn describes. Unless, of course, we get a sudden influx of those million new folks who are going to all start running units, freeing current unit leaders up to be UCs?

WDL mom, we had similar problems when "my" guys were webelos - could hardly get any response from local troops and I could NOT understand it. This is part of why I''m involved with district level webelos-scout transition programs now, because it was such a bad experience and this led directly to losing boys from the program. On the other hand - looking at the same situation now, from the perspective of a somewhat more seasoned member of the Troop Committee too, I see that the boy-led aspect of troops tends to mean there''s a fair amount of chaos in many troops at this time of year. They have new SPLs who aren''t very experienced at leading or organizing, and their troop calendars may still be in a state of flux too. THis does add to the difficulty. And then there are issues of whether the adults in charge at the troops give a hoot about recruiting, or are any good at communicating, or know whom to communicate with! Often we get lists of cubmasters from the district (many of which are outdated) but not Webelos DLs, who are the people we actually want to talk to. Take John''s options, for sure. I''m certainly not trying to excuse poor communication or execution on the troops'' parts! But I have found it to be a little more complex an issue than I originally thought.

Anarchist, I appreciate your views on this and I think in some ways we''re coming from the same place. Yes, learning means the student needs to do more work than the instructor, who is really more of a guide (or should be...I''m still working on getting this year''s group of college freshmen to see it that way!). No, teaching isn''t an easy job. No, I do not expect every volunteer BSA instructor to be fabulous. What I do expect though, is basic competence more often than not. I think my response, probably John''s, and many others'', comes from the fact that we see little to no effort or improvement in presentation over time. If you go to district training classes over time and the same people do a consistently bad job organizing the training or presenting it, you begin to wonder why. If you find that they are not real interested in allowing new people to join their team unless they hand pick them (the "training clique"), it makes you wonder some more. If you discover that the people in charge are unaware of the existence of a standard syllabus for national trainings, or that they are still using a version of the training from almost a decade ago AND that they are not interested in tracking down the "new" material (or refuse to acknowledge its existence to start with, even when shown it)...c''mon now. If you know that these same people are adamant about staying in the positions they hold and are NOT doing it simply for lack of other willing volunteers, then there''s something wrong here. Extraordinary moments such as the accident you describe (and I hope that individual is recovering!) aside, I find it generally unforgivable for the same organizers to fail (consistently!) to provide trainers with the material in advance, for the same trainers to fail (consistently!) to familiarize themselves with the material in advance or have a game plan for how to present it, for the district to charge higher and higher fees of participants each year, and yet to expect people to sit back and accept this as a matter of course. Put it another way - if your district runs a terrible camporee program that is thrown together last minute and if this is the norm, not an exception, and if the folks who run the camporees don''t accept assistance from new/energized volunteers or pay any attention to constructive feedback, would you be shocked to see attendance at future camporees drop off? Why would we expect people to pay for this sort of treatment? People will vote with their feet. Supposing that people really want to learn - then rather than attending horrible training sessions, you''re right that they''ll do the best they can on their own. Some will be fine that way. Others most assuredly will not and will go off in all sorts of weird directions. And none of them will meet the requirement for "mandatory training." We do a dis-service to the leaders and the boys they serve and the larger BSA program if we tell them to just deal with it, or if we say we offer training to help prepare them for their positions when, in reality, we do nothing of the sort.

Not Eamonn here, but something I heard at a recent event made me wonder what "they" were thinking... There is apparently a push to recruit not only a LOT of new commissioners, but overall, one million new adult leaders for scouting. Now I''m in favor of that as a general idea, don''t get me wrong. But at that same event I was told that people who serve as commissioners MUST NOT have other positions in scouting. So in reality that leaves us with two categories of people to draw upon to be commissioners: 1) newbies who know nothing or next to nothing about the program and are not actively engaged at the unit level, and 2) folks who are retired from active service as unit leaders. While I''m thrilled that anyone is willing to give of their time, my experience is that a person new to scouting would struggle to serve as a UC because they don''t know the program! Not their fault and perhaps they''ll get caught up, but in the meantime? And on the other end, while I do know some UCs who fall into the latter category and do a fine job, I have met many more who seem to have inherited a UC title as a retirement gift that entitles them to tell endless war stories of little relevance to the units'' needs, rather than as an important and sometimes rather active position that requires them to keep up with changes. In particular this seems to be the case when they are assigned to cub packs, since cubbing rules seem to me to undergo more frequent changes that boy scout rules - and yet, cub leaders are usually more in need of basic information (being new to the program, themselves) than boy scout leaders are. So if those are to be our main sources of UCs, then yes, I think the system has some considerable problems.

Sorry to start on a down note, but I''ve spent the last several weeks organizing and publicizing a community open house for all of the troops in my town. We (district membership) secured a site and got buy-in from 4 troops to participate. The troops put together displays, had activities planned, and took time away from their regular meetings to participate. We had it at a well-known and centrally located venue. We advertised through all of the local middle schools, through cub packs (esp. webelos DLs), through newspaper and radio spots, through flyers and roundtables, everything we could think of. The event went off tonight. The troops showed up and did their part, for which I''m thankful. We had exactly one community member - and an adult, at that - visit us. No non-scout boys, no families, no cub leaders, no webelos dens. I''m really bummed out. What did I over-look? What else can we do (could we have done?) to get the broader community to take notice of the Troops in our town? As a little background, we''re the fastest growing town in the fastest growing county in our state. There are 4 troops and 9 packs in town but combined the troops serve under 10% of eligible youth and two of the 4 troops are large enough that they''re not that interested in recruiting many more new scouts. (A third troop is an LDS troop and not actively seeking non-church members.) There''s talk of starting up a 5th troop in the next 3-4 years. The numbers are there. Where were all the people tonight?

Anarchist, I understand your point and as a professional teacher of people roughly ages 18-80, I have to say there is a point where the "customer is always right" mentality that so many American students have these days is just downright depressing. Lots of people want to be educated but do not want to educate themselves. Huge difference there. Education isn''t supposed to be something that just happens to you - students have their own, active, role to play in the process. But, because I know a thing or two about the scholarship of teaching and learning, I also know that a terrible teacher is likely to completely alienate his or her students, and that, while those students may struggle through the material on their own (at least, the most dedicated among them will), they will not generally develop that spark that leads to a passion to learn/do/be more. And it takes very little in the way of word of mouth to discourage others from giving up their free time (and often money) to attend a horrible session. Really, there is no excuse for horrible training to occur. It isn''t rocket science. Most of the material comes from national. All it takes is a little time and advance preparation. I''m very tolerant of people who are trying their best to share their knowledge with the rest of us, even if they aren''t natural or professional educators. What I''m intolerant of is people who are just plumb lazy and don''t put any effort into doing a good job, or into welcoming the assistance of others who could help them with improving the quality of training being offered. We as adults have a responsibility to strive to do better too - all of us. For me personally, that means improving my outdoor skills. For others, that might mean learning to be a better trainer, if one wants to be on the training staff. So when I go to an alleged "training" session and discover that the person presenting was given literally 10 minutes notice, that they don''t have the syllabus or any of the other national materials for the training, or where they read the slides word for word because it is the first time they''ve ever seen them, and that they''ve never held anything like the position for which they are now attempting to train me...all I can conclude is that genuine training is not a true priority for the people running the show. And if that''s the case, why in the world are they asking me to waste my time and money on this bogus exercise? You can probably tell, this is an issue I care deeply about. Good students can tell when an instructor is fudging it. Once in a great while is ok I guess. But when it is an everyday occurrence, something should be done about it.