Lisabob

Ed, you're absolutely right of course. Troops are way different from packs. But with respect, the "cutting and pasting and crafts" comment comes across as condescending, at least IMO. Its Me wasn't asking about doing crafts, he was asking about scout spirit as evidenced by patrol flags, yells, etc.. These are not the same. As a former cub leader I recall getting really fed up with this sort of response to a legitimate question! It appears to trivialize the cub program and the experience and concerns of cub leaders, as if "big boy scout leaders" knew better. Well I guess you can see I am still a little fed up with that attitude although it has been 2 years since I've been a cub leader. But please, cub leaders deserve respect - not patronizing attitudes.

Keeping in mind that patrols are supposed to be the tightest-knit groups in the troop anyway, I don't see a problem with setting up the two patrols of 7 each, as you described, where most of the boys know each other pretty well already. In fact I think this might be better than setting up one huge patrol of 14, with pre-existing "cliques" within the patrol.

Its Me, I was thinking about your previous thread regarding the other three troops you visited. Keeping in mind that it is a little tough to compare a campout to a troop meeting, still, how do you think Troop 4 stacks up against Troops 2 and 3? Maybe you should visit 2 & 3 during a regular meeting and (if you still have time) visit Troop 4 during an outing. If that's not an option at this point, I don't think there's anything wrong with ASKING Troop 4's leaders (youth leaders too) how they do things on camp outs and whether things are more lively then. You might get some interesting answers. A couple of folks have pointed out that there's no such thing as a perfect troop. Wherever you go, once you are fully familiar with the troop and their strengths and weaknesses, there's probably somewhere that your talents can be put to good use in each of these troops. In the meantime - if you really are having a tough time deciding (and that's what it sounds like?) - let you son choose. In all likelihood, troops 2, 3, and 4 will each give your boy a good, though somewhat different, experience. And it isn't as though he couldn't switch later on if it turns out not to be a good match for him.

Eamonn, I've seen that same rule and while actually I agree with your interpretation of it, what I've been told by others is that it means you shouldn't be a UC for your own unit, nor should you be the CM or SM of a pack/troop while serving as a UC. But I suppose that leaves the door wide open to being a den leader, committee member, or (in a troop) ASM while also serving as a UC for other units. Not that I'd want to do that (speaking of too many hats!) - but again, that's one interpretation that I've heard and I imagine it's a pretty commonly used interpretation (because it is easier and more convenient than finding high quality leaders who aren't consumed with their own unit).

I know there have been a couple of threads about earlier vs later cross overs and the pros and cons of each. My sense is that if packs typically do their cross over in Feb, they aren't going to want to change it to April/May just to accommodate you. The Webelos program is already 18 months long (the way most packs do it) and adding another 2-3 months may result in boys who are bored and leaders who are burned out past what they can bear. I might be wrong - but that's my opinion (as a former Webelos DL and current troop committee member). As for doing a campout on cross-over night. There's a troop in our area who used to do that but after some bad experiences, they no longer do so. In February or March or even April in Michigan (or OH either for that matter) the weather can be a serious issue and taking cubs camping on their very first night of being a boy scout may backfire if they're not well prepared, don't have the right gear, or aren't used to being out in somewhat rougher conditions. Also there's the issue of exhaustion. A lot of B&G/cross over ceremonies around here are BIG DEALS for which the kids get really psyched up. These often don't end until 9:30-10pm and by that point the webelos II boys (and their parents and leaders) are both physically and emotionally tired. I'm sure it can work. But I think it requires some very careful thought, planning, etc., to make sure that everyone (webelos leaders and parents especially!) is on board and that your new scouts have a good experience.

Ok guys, let me start by saying that I think it is sweet that you are so conscious of not hurting this woman's feelings. No, I really mean that. Then let me say that, as a woman and a scouter, I would HOPE that my "brother" scouters would tactfully let me know if there were something that was bothering them, just as they would let another male know it bothers them when he wander around with his skivvies showing or something like that. Some things require a bit of discretion but for goodness sakes, if it is bothering you that much, say something (in private) and get on with scouting. It makes no difference, by the way, whether she's a committee member, an ASM, or the SM - she's a scouter. And finally, let me add that the uniform shirt is cut in a way that does not fit many women well. Yes, I'm talking about the female leader shirt, not the men's shirt. I know many women who find that in order to have a reasonable fit "on top" they must buy a shirt that is a size or more too big everywhere else. This leaves one to feel as though one is wearing a rather curious tent. There are solutions to this (such as getting the shirts tailored) but it would be better if a shirt that is marketed as being for female leaders displayed some evidence of having been cut to fit actual women to start with. While not an excuse for sloppy uniforming, your scouter may have just become exasperated with her shirt that day!

I don't know - but I think it is a matter of knowing your audience too. Trying to raise $50,000 each year might be better received in some larger metro areas (with a deeper pool of potential donors) than in small communities. Me? I'd question whether a scout group really needs that kind of cash. But I understand that boats are costly and that's just me.

Just got back from a blue & gold tonight. We were there to welcome 5 new scouts into our troop (with between 4-9 more coming from other packs). As I watched the night unfold with really excellent hired entertainment and impressive adult-run ceremonies, I thought about this thread. It's true, cub meetings - both pack and den - tend to be more exciting than a lot of troop meetings. This is a factor, if we're honest, in boys quitting scouts shortly after cross over, especially if maybe their first couple of campouts are ah, challenging (read, not the greatest fun for whatever reason). They don't stay long enough to understand that boy scouts is fun, though a different sort of fun. And let's be honest again, most boys who are planning and executing troop meetings cannot compete with some of the extravaganzas that cub meetings can become. If that's the measuring stick, forget it. I think the question is whether the problem that some troops have poorly run meetings? Or is the problem that some cubs have expectations that just don't fit with the troop program. In the case Its Me describes, it could be both (sorry, don't take that wrong - I can't tell for sure from just a post in a forum). It certainly doesn't sound like the troop showed much spark. Its Me, I'm sure you know this. But consider visiting troops in other settings (like during a campout) too, so that your boys will understand where the "fun" in boy scouting is to be found. Oh and about singing. There are some troops in our area that do more singing - at campouts. I don't think I've seen any sing as part of a regular troop meeting. Jokes, laughter, etc., sure, but not singing.

Hmm, didn't our friend Ollie (paragon of virtue that he is) make a very similar speech about this time last year, also at a fundraising dinner? Color me unimpressed.

Yes thank you LongHaul, that's exactly the question I had in mind. If it is part of the core, make it explicit in all programs, as reflected by a rank/advancement requirement. If it isn't really part of the core, stop pretending to the contrary, wasting resources defending it, and drop it. And by the way, if it isn't seriously part of the core (as demonstrated by the absence of any advancement requirements in the boy scout program) and yet we keep playing the rhetoric games insisting that it is, I'd think this would be offensive to people who believe religion IS vitally important to the mission of the BSA. I also take LongHaul's earlier point that adding a religious requirement would appear as bowing to pressure from the religious right and conversely, I suppose dropping the membership requirement would be seen as bowing to those scary pinko commie America-hating ACLU-loving lefties, or something equally silly. So in the end I guess not much will change. But the inconsistency is bugging me!

UGh! That sounds pretty awful. Ideally, there should be at least two major differences from what you describe. First, a portion of the troop meeting should be dedicated to something fun (usually a game), which is where you'll also see patrol competition/spirit come to the fore. Second, more often than not, the youth - not the adults - should be in charge of skill. Now, youth are not always great teachers and planners. I've seen some pretty awful skill segments presented by youth leaders and also more than a few game segments that didn't work out. So you do have to be patient as they learn from their errors (hopefully), guided (again hopefully!) by the SM and other adult leaders. This is the inefficient side of "boy led" and it can be ugly and even painful to watch. And if things aren't improving over time (not a long time, either) then it is time to start asking some questions of the CC and the SM. The other thing? Some parts of a troop meeting are business - setting a menu, deciding how to arrange patrol sites at the camp, collecting paperwork, etc.. These CAN seem boring to cubs, who are not used to doing the actual work. Most of the time cub den meetings, even webelos, work like this: the adults plan, the adults prepare, the adults direct, the boys just show up and reap the benefit in terms of fun. They have no idea how much work it is behind the scenes. If I were ever to be a webelos DL again, these are two things I'd make sure "my" scouts and their parents understood about differences between cubs and boy scouts, and which I myself did not fully appreciate until close to a year after my son and his den joined the troop (sometimes I'm still working on this!). But, It's Me, you're also right that if cubs view the troop meetings as being "boring," that's no good either and will likely lead many to quit. So troops had better get it right more often than not, as well.

I guess when I said it led to confusion I was thinking about a particular experience with a certain troop that had a LOT of these long-time, but inactive members. When prospective new members came along one thing that some leaders talked up was the extensive adult support in place, as evidenced by all these adults registered as ASMs. In reality almost 1/3 were on-paper only. This is misleading (in my view). Second, I suppose I was thinking about our own troop, which either pays for recharter out of our general fund, or asks our CO to pay some/all of our recharter fee. Individual adult leaders pay nothing out of pocket toward recharter. This year recharter cost more than $1000. That's a lot of money and (again, in my view) people who are not active should not expect to continue to be carried at a cost to the troop or the CO.

I think it might be helpful for a handful of your leaders to go as observers - not necessarily to take the whole pack though.

A couple of additional thoughts. 1) There's no question in my mind that a significant religious requirement for boy scouts advancement could be devised in a non-sectarian manner. We already have this in the cub program. If you haven't looked at them in a while, I'd encourage you to revisit the Wolf, Bear, and Webelos religious requirements. These are not optional and while (like any requirement) they could be fudged, they're actually fairly detailed - especially the webelos one. I know this isn't an "official" link but I've always found it to be handy when talking about Cub requirements, so here's a link to the Virtual Cub Leader's Handbook list of Wolf/Bear/Webelos advancement requirements as they pertain to religion. Wolf Achievement 11: http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/wolf.html#GOD Bear Achievements 1 & 2: http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/bear.html#GOD Webelos Requirements (scroll to #8): http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/webelos.html 2) While it is true that some of the religious emblem programs are more complex than others, so what. Make the requirement something similar to the current Webelos requirement, EITHER that a boy discuss the meaning of faith with his family in some significant way OR that a boy must earn ONE religious emblem. Don't specify which one, or that it must be from "your" faith. Even if all the boys gravitate toward the "easiest" one, at least they're given a structured opportunity to discuss religious matters with (hopefully) their families and some religious leaders in the process. Probably most boys/families would choose their own faith's emblem. Great. Some would seek out information about other faiths. Nothing wrong with that either. Those who grow up in a non-religious family would have an opportunity to explore what faith means to them. Also a net positive. Constructing an either/or option allows for boys whose religions do not have an emblem and whose parents don't want them exploring another religion's beliefs, to meet the requirement too. In case anyone should mistake my purpose here - it isn't to force any particular religion down anyone's throats, nor is it to force religion out of the BSA. But the current approach where religion is considered "core" and yet isn't reflected in a meaningful way in large parts of the BSA program, is illogical and ought to be reconsidered. While I'm in agreement with Hunt that doing any less than what's now in place logically means dropping the membership requirement entirely, I also think what we have in place now effectively makes the requirement meaningless except as an optional part (not the "core) of the program, or except for its propaganda value. I find that last possibility to be odious.

Great advice so far. Although the Church is within its rights, I understand why this is causing problems, given that many people probably joined the pack under a different set of operating assumptions. Consequently, if I were a leader in that situation I would probably be looking to leave as well. Starting up a new pack is certainly one option. It is, however, a whole lot of work under the best circumstances, and it sounds like there may be some additional tension in terms of the split from the Church, making this not the best circumstances. Another option would be to find another nearby pack and join them instead. Let the Church keep its pack, along with any current members who want to stay. Everyone else can go to another pack where the fit might now be better. Whatever you do, your district professionals need to be aware and involved. Keep them in the loop.

Thinking about the "core" of the BSA program. In another thread someone made the excellent point that, while the BSA as an organization may view religious duty as a key aspect of its program, in practice many units do not emphasize this. And while many individual members and some followers of the BSA in the broader society are aware of the official stance on religion, probably many more people are unaware. I know that when my son brought home the flyer from school and asked to join cub scouts, I had no idea about this, and I grew up in a scouting family. Nor did the pack my son was in push religion. I did learn more about this when I attended leader training but even there, it was given very little attention. Over the years I have come to know most of the packs and troops in our area and I would say at least half make no serious mention of religion in their program and more or less follow a "don't ask, don't tell" type of policy. Of the other half, a few are overtly affiliated with a specific religious group and make that part of their program and most of the rest just include an attempt at non-denominational awareness in ways that could hardly be considered as being at the "core" of their program (such as using the scout sign of benediction at the end of meetings). So this leaves me wondering. If the BSA is serious about the importance of religion - whatever religion - in the lives of its members, why isn't earning a religious emblem a requirement? Most religions have established emblems already. And a requirement could be worded in such a way that a boy need not earn the emblem of his particular faith (broader religious understanding, in itself, could be valuable as a tool toward understanding one's own faith). For those religions that do not have a program, they could certainly be invited to develop one. Moreover, at least in the Cub program, the Wolf, Bear, and Webelos ranks include an explicit religious component (I don't know if Tigers does?). But in Boy Scouts, rank advancement does not include such an explicit component. In SM Conferences and BORs (even Eagle BORS) we *might* ask about that part of the Scout Oath, or the word "reverent" in the Scout Law, but this varies greatly across units and hardly comprises a requirement. My experience with Eagle BORs is more limited but so far, the only time the subject of religion has come up has been when the boy raised it. This seems odd to me since the discussions about religion and scouting often are more intense when we talk about troops than about cub scouts. (I admit I don't know whether there is any religious element in Crew, Ship, or Team recognitions. But again, if religion is a core part of the BSA then I would expect this to carry over across all programs.) The fact that most of us acknowledge how unevenly the religious aspect of the BSA program is applied, and that especially at the troop level, there's no specific religious requirement to advancement, seems to suggest that maybe the BSA isn't that serious about the role of religion in its core values. This leaves one wondering whether the BSA just leaves that bit of the membership requirements in place to appease conservative supporters. Whatever one's beliefs are, I hate to think that any organization would use religion in such a cynical way, but I imagine you can see where such a conclusion might be drawn.

I suppose it is easier for a DE to hobble along with a bunch of average packs, than for him or her to go out and really support several weak packs that are on the edge. By doing so well, you put the DE in a position where they either have to work really hard with those weak packs or else find someone else to blame - you - for the failure of those packs. Not right of course. So what the previous posters say, goes, the DE is way off course here. But also? Does anybody from your pack (and those other packs) participate in district roundtable or other opportunities for you to get to know other pack leaders in a friendly environment? I've been amazed at how territorial SOME pack leaders can be, even when their perceptions of "their" territory are silly and nobody is out "raiding" "their" pack. But once you know each other and have worked together, that dynamic can change. In other words, I guess I'm advocating that your leaders do what they can to build ties to other packs in town, if you haven't already done so. It isn't your job to "save" them. But it can help you (forget the DE) if they don't see you as their opponent.

I've never heard it either - wonder if maybe the person using it had heard something somewhere about the old "lions" program (which I believe used to follow webelos?) and mistook it? Otherwise it must be a regional or in-group thing. It isn't promoted by the official BSA, that's for sure.

Gonzo, I think you do have to choose your battles carefully as a new parent in the troop- to that extent, I tend to agree with Beavah (though, not necessarily about sitting back and watching for a whole year). Exploding cans in the fire - bad, and something most of us wouldn't want to stand by and ignore. Adults smoking away from the boys - bad, but probably not something you're going to change. I don't necessarily doubt what other leaders may say, unless there's an on-going feud. I've found that most of the time, other leaders have a pretty good idea of which troops are doing what, especially which ones have problems. Of course I also find that there's a lag. That is, a troop that WAS having problems but has since resolved them, takes a while to shed that reputation among other local troops. So an open mind is a good thing. This might have been a one-time incident a year or two ago. Or not. Be interesting to hear what you think after you have a chance to observe for a bit.

One advantage of doing WLOT and OLS so that they overlap a little bit as CNY describes is that it might help webelos leaders make contacts with troop leaders (and vice versa of course). Working on webelos-scout transition matters, that's one thing I have heard a lot, that the personal connections and networking opportunities are weak or non-existent in many cases. So anything we can do to strengthen them may be good. I hear Eamonn's concern about packing too much into a weekend. On the other hand, the best training session in the world is useless if people don't attend it. Ideally, what I guess I'd like to see (as a novice outdoors-woman, myself) is more of a graduated training program, where the basics (SM and OLS) are offered in one weekend, and more advanced skills training opportunities for adult leaders who want them are offered later on. Yes I know we have OKPIK, Woodbadge, University of Scouting, Safe Swim/Safety Afloat, Roundtable, etc.. But of those, really only OKPIK is a "scout skills" course. In the others you may talk about scout skills but you don't really get a hands-on opportunity to try them out and develop them.

An outright ban seems a bit like overkill. Most of the kids I know who have these shoes see them as just plain fun (and I admit to secretly wanting a pair myself sometimes!) but they are generally responsible about them. I have to ask whether the problem at your B&G was that adults and kids have different perceptions of that event? While we adults tend to want B&G to be ceremonial and dignified, the boys mainly want it to be fun. They may enjoy their moment in the spotlight, the food, and the ceremonies but on the whole they seem more interested in being with their friends and partaking in the evening's entertainment. And of course dessert! Now if they were rolling around and crashing into Grandma while she carried a plate of hot food or a drink back to her table, or having races in the back of the room while the other boys were being recognized, or rolling their way through the flag ceremony or something on that order, then no, that's not ok. But those are respect and behavior issues that are not directly related to their footwear (they could run around barefooted and do the same thing). So treat it the same way as any other mild behavior issue - not a ban or special rules, but just good common sense.

Sorry to hear it nldscout. I imagine that young man was even more upset to see YOU than you were to see him. Unfortunately being an Eagle doesn't always make one immune from dumb lapses in judgment that tend to go with being young (not that this justifies their behavior, mind you).

I often use PWD data to teach statistics (is one lane on the track really faster or slower than the others? - that sort of thing). Students love it. Too bad I don't have time to have them build their own cars.

Recruiting vs. Retention. We are having that conversation these days around here. The consensus appears to be that the district can aid units with recruiting, but it is up to the units to provide the program in order to retain members. Being a social scientist by training I'd like to see some data and run an analysis of the relationship between various district support activities (like leader training, for example, or presence/absence of an active UC) and unit retention rates. Who knows, we might find that the indirect effect of these activities is stronger than currently believed. However, I don't think the kind of data I'd want exists and I'm pretty sure efforts to collect it, even if it were possible, would be frowned upon. (What if we ended up showing that training or UC support or whatever else were irrelevant?!)

Gotta agree - cubs and actual marching do not appear to mix. We do the Memorial Day parade. Even a short parade (as ours is) ends up tiring out the younger guys, especially if the weather isn't great. Maybe attempt to set up some very basic guidelines - no sitting down on the road, everybody stays behind the pack banner or flags, that sort of thing. But good luck going much beyond that! On the good side - even a "lively mob" of little kids are cute and the audience will be happy to see them. Not sure I understand the prohibition against tossing candy (we're talking small items, right?) but I've heard it here too.