Lisabob

Hey Spongebob, didn't realize you are in MI too. Check out the Clinton Valley Council's "Michigan Badge" for cub scouts. Actually it dovetails nicely with some of the bear achievements and also with the current 4th grade social studies curriculum (state history). But if you're looking for things to keep your wolf occupied, this might be an option. Here's the link for the requirements: http://www.cvc-bsa.org/pdf/TheMichiganBadgeRequirements.pdf Depending on where you are in the state, you might want to keep an eye on CVC anyway - they have a Chief Pontiac Trail "Little Brave" program that encourages an understanding of local history and gets the kids outdoors. It has been a couple of years since I looked closely at it but I recall it was nicely done and you don't have to be a part of their council to do the activities. Here's a link to that program too, if you're interested. http://www.cvc-bsa.org/cpt/littleBraveManual.html

Ron asks for selling points for smaller troops. We might as well also consider how to counter perceived weaknesses of smaller troops (which often discourage people from even looking at them, in my experience). Selling points: 1. Smaller troop = more personal attention for each scout. Boys who get "lost" in a large troop are more likely to drop out of scouts all together. This is especially true of boys who maybe aren't as socially or emotionally mature when they first join boy scouting. I've seen boys who loved Cub Scouts suddenly flounder in Boy Scouts in a larger troop for exactly this reason and in most cases, we lose these boys forever. 2. Smaller troop = more flexibility. Organizing events for 30-90 scouts (plus parents/leaders) is a huge undertaking and limits the types of activities the group can engage in, as well as where they can go due to sheer size. 3. Smaller troop CAN = more boy-led. It is easier to lead a small group than a large group. Logistical problems are fewer. Temptations for adults to step in may therefore be fewer as well. This is not a given, but it could be easier than in a large troop. Not to mention, it is easier for every boy's voice to be heard when there are only 8-15 voices in total, versus 30-90 voices. Now on to common concerns about joining a smaller troop: 1. Smaller troop = more parental commitment than larger troop. I think this may be one of the bigger myths out there. In our larger troop, I've noticed that parents who don't get involved tend to see their boy drop out fairly quickly. So yes, that's less commitment if you consider quitting as the lowest possible level of commitment! Beyond that, there's always work to be done in any size troop and it will find you. In some ways I think being an involved parent in a smaller troop could be less work - fewer personalities to juggle, fewer people to coordinate with, etc.. 2. Smaller troop = less organized As a somewhat burned out cub leader who effectively organized just about everything in the pack for a couple of years, I remember thinking this. I remember being thrilled that the larger troop my son wanted to join seemed so well organized. Spoiler alert: it isn't that well organized! Just because there may be a lot of people in formal leadership positions doesn't necessarily translate into organization and it can actually be more frustrating to try and help such a large group become better organized - more inertia if you will. Of course some small troops are also not well organized. On the other hand though, sometimes they can afford to be a bit looser because there isn't as much to keep track of! 4. Smaller troop = weak leaders My experience tends to suggest the opposite. In a large group, a weak or mediocre leader can be propped up indefinitely by his or her supporting cast. Not so in a small troop. 5. Bigger troop = more "glitzy" program, smaller troop = more mundane program. Maybe. OTOH, it might be easier for a small troop to pull off a really ambitious event or trip due to size. And besides, glitz isn't what everybody is looking for. As for recruiting new scouts, smaller troops really have to work hard at this. In my experience, larger troops can sit back and do virtually nothing and still, new scouts will join. As gwd suggests elsewhere, it is almost unfair sometimes! But for a small troop just beginning to work on recruiting in a serious way like what Ron suggested in the other thread, I'd advocate taking a long term view (3-5 years). Start working now with wolf and bear den leaders to build that relationship. Focusing on the current Webelos II boys is probably going to be a case of "too little, too late" at this point, though it can't hurt to put the word out about your troop to them as well.

Ron asks for selling points for smaller troops. We might as well also consider how to counter perceived weaknesses of smaller troops (which often discourage people from even looking at them, in my experience). Selling points: 1. Smaller troop = more personal attention for each scout. Boys who get "lost" in a large troop are more likely to drop out of scouts all together. This is especially true of boys who maybe aren't as socially or emotionally mature when they first join boy scouting. I've seen boys who loved Cub Scouts suddenly flounder in Boy Scouts in a larger troop for exactly this reason and in most cases, we lose these boys forever. 2. Smaller troop = more flexibility. Organizing events for 30-90 scouts (plus parents/leaders) is a huge undertaking and limits the types of activities the group can engage in, as well as where they can go due to sheer size. 3. Smaller troop CAN = more boy-led. It is easier to lead a small group than a large group. Logistical problems are fewer. Temptations for adults to step in may therefore be fewer as well. This is not a given, but it could be easier than in a large troop. Not to mention, it is easier for every boy's voice to be heard when there are only 8-15 voices in total, versus 30-90 voices. Now on to common concerns about joining a smaller troop: 1. Smaller troop = more parental commitment than larger troop. I think this may be one of the bigger myths out there. In our larger troop, I've noticed that parents who don't get involved tend to see their boy drop out fairly quickly. So yes, that's less commitment if you consider quitting as the lowest possible level of commitment! Beyond that, there's always work to be done in any size troop and it will find you. In some ways I think being an involved parent in a smaller troop could be less work - fewer personalities to juggle, fewer people to coordinate with, etc.. 2. Smaller troop = less organized As a somewhat burned out cub leader who effectively organized just about everything in the pack for a couple of years, I remember thinking this. I remember being thrilled that the larger troop my son wanted to join seemed so well organized. Spoiler alert: it isn't that well organized! Just because there may be a lot of people in formal leadership positions doesn't necessarily translate into organization and it can actually be more frustrating to try and help such a large group become better organized - more inertia if you will. Of course some small troops are also not well organized. On the other hand though, sometimes they can afford to be a bit looser because there isn't as much to keep track of! 4. Smaller troop = weak leaders My experience tends to suggest the opposite. In a large group, a weak or mediocre leader can be propped up indefinitely by his or her supporting cast. Not so in a small troop. 5. Bigger troop = more "glitzy" program, smaller troop = more mundane program. Maybe. OTOH, it might be easier for a small troop to pull off a really ambitious event or trip due to size. And besides, glitz isn't what everybody is looking for. As for recruiting new scouts, smaller troops really have to work hard at this. In my experience, larger troops can sit back and do virtually nothing and still, new scouts will join. As gwd suggests elsewhere, it is almost unfair sometimes! But for a small troop just beginning to work on recruiting in a serious way like what Ron suggested in the other thread, I'd advocate taking a long term view (3-5 years). Start working now with wolf and bear den leaders to build that relationship. Focusing on the current Webelos II boys is probably going to be a case of "too little, too late" at this point, though it can't hurt to put the word out about your troop to them as well.

Tough choices. Not really knowing your community, it is hard to say whether you have passed the point of no return. I think it is fair to say most people here on this forum are rooting for you and the troop (I know I am). If you are offering a strong program then I'd say keep it up as long as there are boys who want to be part of the troop. You've mentioned recruiting issues before and I can understand the disappointment you are facing in not getting more than a couple of boys this year. On the other hand, if I understand and remember properly from other threads, this is the first year you've had significant interest from local webelos, even if they do end up joining another troop. And you've identified a bigger group of fourth graders who might join your group next year as well. Rebuilding takes a long time. Packs tend to go with what, and who, they know. You are fighting up stream to get them to change their impression of your troop, or even to know you exist. You've been at this for two years or so, right? And at this point you've gotten noticed. That can be the beginning of a stronger relationship with packs, or it can be viewed as "failure" because this year's webelos still mostly chose a bigger troop in town. Personally I'd take the first approach and focus on continuing to do what works for you now, with a focus on current wolf, bear, and webelos I aged boys in the area. If, after another two-three more years you are still getting just one or two new scouts (or none) then it might be time to revisit this question; I just think that, hard as it is when you're in the thick of things, this is a situation that calls for long-range vision. It might be the case that at some point you need to hand off that vision to somebody else but that's not necessarily the same as folding the troop.

I understand why some people who had taken the "old" course would feel offended that they are being asked to "re-do" WB in order to serve on staff for the current course. I respect that view. From a different perspective though, I wonder if this requirement is something of a screening device, to exclude those who hang tight to the elitist view that the old WB course is sometimes noted for having encouraged. Those who hold that view are probably highly unlikely to be willing to re-take the course, thus precluding them from staffing and passing on that attitude to new Wood Badgers. That doesn't make it better for people - like jr56 I'm sure - who don't and never did hold that elitist view, and who feel unjustly excluded by this new requirement, but I wonder if maybe that was the thinking behind it? Beyond that - sure, WB costs money and requires time and not everyone has those in ready supply. But boy, I'd take it again if I could!

Maybe point him toward some other awards like the conservation award, the outdoor award, etc.. If there is a BSA historic trail nearby that would be suitable for a 2nd grader, turn him on to that. Check this link: http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/trails/ These are activities that take a little more involvement over an extended time period so he's less likely to burn through them (heck, he could do umpteen beltloops in a weekend if he felt like it, and rkfrance is right, these get very costly for a pack, very quickly). You might also have a quiet conversation with this boy's parents. Sometimes boys who are on a tear like this are genuinely motivated and that's great - encourage that if it is the case here. Sometimes this is a matter of their parents not understanding the program and pushing their kid to "get" every possible shiny award. That requires a gentle re-education. Sometimes kids are being pushed so hard that they burn out and quit the next year (what's new? they've already "done" everything!). On the other hand, sometimes parents are so excited to have a structured reason to do things together with their child that they just really get into it as a family - something that the cub program is designed to encourage. If you can get a feel for what the dynamic is with the parents, it may help you figure out how to approach this in a constructive manner. As for the other boys - don't worry too much about them. Make sure they are recognized for what they do. Make sure you recognize quality as well as quantity (this is no race to accumulate). Make sure you recognize "good turns" and service to others (in ways that 2nd graders can "get") and you'll be fine. You can use inexpensive den doodles that may be as prized as any "official" awards for some of these.

Yikes, the more you tell us about this guy, the worse things sound. If other parents are telling you that they will not allow their children to continue with the troop unless this guy goes, if your SM and CC and other long-time adult leaders are saying it is him or them, then that's an obvious decision. When I wrote earlier that you should be sure to let the boy know he is always welcome I did mean that (and ideally, that would be the way to go) but I can see your concern about what might happen if "dad" here objects to something involving his child. Doesn't sound like a workable situation. On one other note though: you've brought up this "single Dad" thing a few times now. IMO where Mom is is somewhat irrelevant to this situation from the troop perspective - she's just not there. And sharing details about why not may be a very difficult and private thing, particularly since this guy obviously doesn't view you as trusted friends (which I suppose is a good thing). I can certainly imagine a situation where a single Mom might prefer not to discuss the whereabouts and details of a child's absent father. Unless you are hinting at some kind of foul play (? I can't tell - maybe not) then let this go as a private matter. Hang in there firecrafter, and here's hoping for the best possible outcome of a bad situation.

A troop that tells a brand new scout that it is "every man for himself" and that takes a brand new scout winter camping without proper preparation has, IMO, a plethora of problems and patrol cooking (ideal though it is) isn't likely to fix them.

Ah, once again I appreciate all your advice! I guess I just found it hard to believe when a few adults from his troop told me that there isn't much performance difference between a cheapo and a more expensive pad as long as it is a) thick and b) closed cell. We have a few weeks before he goes off on this adventure; between now and then we'll do a little shopping around (and dig out those wool blankets too) so thanks again for pointing us in the right direction.

Gern, thank you for reiterating the Outdoor Code in the thread on backpacker mag. This is something that is important to me and also something we stressed with our cub pack. On the other hand, while the practice tends to be there (most of the time) in our troop, I have never in 2 years heard any scout or adult discuss or recite the code itself and I'm certain that most of our scouts would be unable to articulate the code, if asked. I am thinking of asking our SM to consider re-introducing it. When it comes to instilling values, sometimes repetition matters, or anyway, it can't hurt.

I like the fact that it is online. Our council does not deliver this training. They deliver what has to be the most deadly-boring and useless troop committee training on earth. (well ok, I wouldn't like to judge that competition! But it is really, really bad.) When I've asked in the past about TCC, various district training folks have informed me alternately that a) TCC does not exist, b) there is no syllabus for it, or c) there might be a syllabus but no one has it. At least this way, people who would like to actually learn something from training have a fighting chance of doing so, without wondering whether they're going to get a trainer who even knows anything about the program. That said, yes of course putting a group training online encourages individuals to do the training in isolation. But here's a thought: troop committee chairs could ask people to do segments of the training and then use them as a springboard for targeted discussion at the next committee meeting. Sort of an on-going approach to training.

I like the idea of having the SPL and SM visit you first. Make sure to give the SPL a head's up regarding your very shy scout. It might also help to have something "hands on" that they can do together as a sort of ice breaker (here's a great opportunity for your den chief to be observed in action by his SPL too). A couple of other thoughts: if the troop is larger and it has an established program for new scout crossovers, they might also have a specific person or couple of people in mind to be troop guides (on the scout side) and ASM for new scouts (on the adult side). In that case it would be helpful for your scouts to get to know these people and become comfortable with them too - not just the SPL and SM. Most troops I know though, don't plan a whole year ahead for these positions so this might be something to keep in the back of your mind for next fall. With regard to troop activities, there's no reason why your boys couldn't join just a patrol activity or two first, if the patrols ever do anything independent of the whole troop. How does this scout handle situations like the first day of school where he will be exposed to a whole bunch of new people? Must be very stressful for him! But maybe he and his family have developed some strategies for unavoidable situations like that, which can be adapted to scouting situations too. Along those lines, joining the troop is going to be a big step. It is nice that you are working toward preparing him for that already.

It is scary that there are people like this "out there." I agree that a conversation is in order and I would definitely include your COR in that conversation (with a head's up so they understand where you are coming from). I also wouldn't want this person around "my" scouts. It will help if you can offer some ideas about how his son might get to and from events if Dad isn't welcome at your meetings. It may help (some) if you are also armed with examples of why you hope his son remains in scouting - tangible, positive things scouting has done for the boy. Make sure the boy knows too, that he is always welcome in the troop. But chances are good you'll lose both father and son, and while that's a real shame for this boy, it may just have to happen. As for your long-time scouter who has said she won't come back until this guy is gone: while I understand why she might say that, I hope she'd reconsider. She's been involved with the unit for 10 years (!) and she obviously has a lot of value to contribute. Make sure she knows she's wanted and valued within the unit and that other adults are going to back her on this. That assumes, of course, that the other adults ARE willing to go to bat for her? Finally, as a group you might find it useful to come up with an agreed-upon standard response to situations that get out of hand. It is very hard to know how to react on the spot because people are so shocked to begin with, and unfortunately, this probably won't be the only angry adult you ever have to deal with. Having a standard procedure may help leaders feel more secure in the knowledge that others will come to their aid if need be.

Hey gwd, it doesn't sound to me like this guy is interested in being helpful. If his attitude is that the only rules he is going to follow are the ones he likes, well that's fine, but he should understand then, that you won't be needing his "help." As "just a parent" he may feel he is free to ignore BSA policy but of course you, as the SM, do not have that freedom. Sounds to me like you might need to find a more cooperative adult to help with the driving.

Looking at things from the cub leader perspective I agree that a 2 year tenure requirement would be problematic. Suppose a parent signs their son up for scouts as a Tiger or Wolf. Most parents do not jump in as registered leaders during that first year; they watch, learn, lend a hand, and perhaps step up to the plate sometime in their second year with the pack. Now Jr. is a Wolf or Bear. The 2 yr. requirement means that they would not be "ready" for WB until the end of their child's Bear or Webelos I year in this very common scenario. Perhaps at the end of the bear year will work (that's when I went to WB), but if leaders consider taking WB at the end of their son's Webelos I year, we are running into a practical problem: the boy will only be in the pack for perhaps 6 months after the WB course is over with. Around here most cub leaders switch from pack to troop with their boy. Six months may be enough time to finish one's ticket before leaving the pack, but it also means that the pack will most likely lose it's newly minted Woodbadger almost immediately, thus reducing the benefit to the unit. Consequently, the unit may be less willing to promote WB among its leaders, and it would be understandable if leaders decided to wait until their boy crossed into a troop before attending WB. By placing a 2 yr. tenure requirement on these folks, you would effectively cut out many, many cub leaders from attending. And, having gone through WB as a cub leader myself, I am convinced that there's an awful lot in the WB curriculum that is of benefit to cub packs. Now, about that 2 year tenure. Would you re-start the clock when an adult leader switches programs, from pack to troop or troop to crew? I swear that even with all the training I could get my hands on it took me about 2 years to figure out the cub program and about 2 years again (with the added help of many people's wisdom here on this board) before I have begun to feel that I "get" the troop program. But, if I'd been limited from taking WB as a cub leader for the above reasons and then told I had to wait ANOTHER 2 years as a troop leader to meet this proposed "tenure" requirement, well forget it. By the way in my WB patrol we had an 18 year old Eagle scout. He was the first in the patrol to earn his beads. Granted that he is an unusually thoughtful and mature individual for his age, but his perspective on things was different from those of us who are closer to geezer-hood, and that added a very nice dimension to the patrol. He kept us honest too, in terms of remembering who the program is really about (oh yea,the scouts!). Not to mention that his scout skills were superior to pretty much everyone in the cohort - except perhaps his father. In the four years since we finished our WB course, he has remained active in scouting as an ASM with the troop he grew up in. I'd hate to have seen him denied entry to the course.

Hey folks, I'm looking for some advice on what type of pad my son should get to put under his sleeping bag on an upcoming campout. Temps are expected to be in the single digits. This will be his first serious winter camping experience and it has been suggested that what he puts under his bag is as important than the bag itself. Unfortunately he has received a lot of contradictory advice and neither of us knows enough to have any idea which of it to follow. Some folks have told him that he should get a relatively inexpensive ($30 range, wal-mart type) closed-cell foam or styrofoam type pad, the thicker the better. Others have suggested he get a much more expensive, though thinner, type of pad. At least one person suggests a cot and a couple of others have said to just take a couple of wool blankets to put underneath his bag. I don't think we'll go with the cot but beyond that, any input you have would be greatly appreciated. Background: my son is a bean-pole 12 year old, no body fat to speak of. He has a good mummy bag, fleece liner, and appropriate poly pro and fleece clothing for sleeping in. But he's always cold. So this is going to be a real challenge for him!

pack, you're right that this is a bean counting exercise to a certain degree. But if the person won't provide his information in any way, how do we know if he even has a license? You might say well of course he does? But then when I was involved with our pack, we had a surprising number of parents who, it turned out, had a variety of driving problems (no license, suspended/revoked license, no insurance, etc.) that would not have come to light if they hadn't been asked to provide driver info before carting other people's children off to various pack events. One of them told me she'd been car pooling neighborhood kids to and from school and other (non-scout) events for a couple of years and never been asked - but in fact her license had been revoked (with good cause, even she agreed) and she had no insurance!!!! Again, how would a responsible scout leader know these things if we don't ask? And would you really feel comfortable assuming that all adults are going to be totally forthcoming, if you don't ask? Sorry, not me. I can see all kinds of reasons for people to be suspicious about divulging their personal information but in this particular setting where we are responsible for other people's children, there are two choices: either provide the info or don't drive anyone but your own immediate family members.

I agree it is a poor argument. From his perspective though, he may not understand who sees this information or why it is needed. Around here I can't so much as buy a cup of coffee these days without being asked to divulge my zip code, phone #, date of birth and SSN - even when I am paying cash. It gets to be ridiculous and my off-the-cuff reaction to requests for this type of info has become "no." (when they insist I tend to just make things up - and shop somewhere else next time) Probably five minutes explaining to this fellow what the info is used for, who sees it, and why it really is necessary, should allay his fears. But if he still resists: as a parent I wouldn't be happy to find that some guy who refuses to provide any evidence of having a valid license might be driving my kid around on a ski trip. So no information, no driver (in my eyes).

Tom, no doubt you've already done this but make sure you give the SM a head's up on this too. If the boy particularly likes camping (or whatever else) then knowing this in advance might help the SM guide the conversation a bit.

That's great! It works wonders for our kids to receive this sort of compliment from somebody who isn't a direct relative. Kudos to your son. Can I add one too? My son has been struggling through his first stint as a patrol leader with some ups and a lot of downs, mainly due to him being young (12) and inexperienced. He has his doubts about his leadership abilities and as "mom" it seems that nothing much I say is going to penetrate his thick head. The troop has a court of honor coming up in a few weeks so there has also been a lot of talk about advancement lately and my son is pretty close to earning his next rank. But at last night's meeting he decided it was more important that his patrol would work with a couple of boys who have not yet finished their tenderfoot requirements in order to help get them up to speed, rather than to focus on his own remaining sign offs. He organized some scouts to teach knots, he taught whipping and fusing, and he got another scout to work with these boys on safe hiking principles. He made sure these boys were taught proper flag etiquette and included in the flag raising/lowering ceremonies so they could demonstrate their skill. Together, the patrol was able to teach these boys the remaining skills they needed in order to go for their SM conference and tenderfoot BOR in a week or two. Afterward one of the boys was overheard enthusiastically telling his parents how my son had helped him and one of the ASMs approached my son and told him that this was an example of leadership for the whole troop. My son was beaming too.

Tom, A scoutmaster conference is usually a conversation between just the scout and the SM. It is generally held in plain view of other people (in keeping with youth protection rules) but it is a private conversation. I would not be inclined to "count" the SM stopping over to talk with your group of scouts as being the same as an SM conference because the dynamic and intent is different.

Thinking about how to approach this without breaking "the rules..." Could Jenn become a registered adult leader with a local boy scout troop? If she did, could she (and perhaps others from the troop too) then go along on some joint troop/crew outings? And if she did, wouldn't she be considered an adult, not a youth, thereby side stepping this whole issue? Think about who this benefits: Jenn and her fiance, obviously. But also perhaps the troop and the crew by providing opportunities for new activities to older troop members, and opportunities for on-going recruitment to this brand new crew. Of course they'd need to find a troop that would be enthusiastic about working with this new crew, rather than viewing the crew as a threat or competitor. While I agree that sometimes the rules may be a little silly and playing this sort of game is a bit obnoxious, the rules are what they are. The problem with written rules and unwritten exceptions (such as those Beavah discusses in this thread) is that when it comes to enforcement, the unwritten exceptions fly out the window while the written rules remain. If anything is going to be used as a hammer - however unreasonably - it will be the explicit, written rules. So it pays to follow them in cases like this one. But it also pays to look and see whether there are officially sanctioned (in writing) ways around them. So what say you, would the above proposal suffice to cover all the bases and still allow Jenn and her fiance to engage in scouting activities together?

Looking back at what I wrote last spring I chuckled a little because these days, our Venture Patrol has had a tough time getting organized. They are now hoping to get an outing together for late February - the first one of the scouting year for them, if they pull it off. So there are ups and downs. At any rate, at troop meetings and campouts the VP members generally stick with their original patrols. They meet outside of regular troop meetings to plan and execute any other events that they want to pursue. (They are required to gain approval from the SM & CC of their additional events in advance- generally 2-4 weeks lead time) Again I don't know if that's how things are supposed to work or not, but as far as I can see, our VP is sort of like an extracurricular activity beyond the traditional troop program. To the extent that any given group of 14-17 year olds can get their act together, it works reasonably well for us.

It seems about every time we all figure out the program, it changes just enough to keep us on our toes! Along those lines - jblake - in 2004 the wording of the "joining requirements" was changed so that a boy MUST be at least 10 years old in order to join a troop - AOL or not. Here's a link to the current wording: http://www.usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsrank1.html

Brandon, this sounds like a tough situation. I think you need to be careful about calling meetings of the scouts in your unit with the purpose of discussing the adult leadership, as a couple of people here have suggested. This is highly likely to backfire. As SPL you are in charge of the youth in the troop but like it or not, you have no voice in matters of choosing adult leadership, and the other scouts in the troop have (if possible) even less of a voice here. I'm sorry if that sounds a little harsh. But I think it is important to ask what the likely outcome of any course of action would be and, except for the momentary pleasure to be gained from venting, I don't think this is going to net you much benefit. Conversely, it may cause greater harm. Now here's the other thing. It also isn't really the SM's job to recruit adult leadership. That's the chartered-organization representative's job (your sponsoring organization). In many troops in practical terms, it falls to the committee chair. In fact, the SM may be feeling like the weight of the world is (unfairly) on his shoulders if he is expected to be in charge of the youth side of the program (with you, of course) AND be involved in recruiting and retaining new adult leaders too. That might account for some of his apparent negativity. So if you feel you must discuss this situation, maybe include the committee chair in the conversation (this might also help keep things from devolving into a gripe session on the SM's part). But don't broaden it beyond there or it may become a free-for-all. Now from the perspective of these parents who are scaring away new scouts. Bad policy on their part! But on the other hand, do they have legitimate concerns about how the troop is running? There may be long-standing issues that you aren't aware of here (I'm supposing that you have been SPL for under a year, is that right?). What they're doing sounds pretty unhelpful but from their perspective maybe they have good reason for warning people about the troop, given the dynamic you've described so far! Who would want to join that? The committee chair's challenge, then, is to see whether a) some of these complaining people's energy can be put to more positive use in a way that is supportive of the SM rather than destructive of the troop (see a problem? ok let's work together toward fixing it) and b) to have a serious sit-down with the SM (without you) and try to come up with a common vision/plan for moving the troop forward in a positive manner. Without the SM's buy-in, forget it. Part of leadership is being able to work with disagreeable people and getting them to perform well, as part of a team. Sometimes that requires you to bite your tongue and try again from a different angle. "Losing it" almost never works even if it makes you feel better in the very short term. In the situation you describe it is unfortunate that you are having to learn this with adults who should know better. Reality is though, there are a lot of misbehaving adults out there in the world! On a very practical note - can you hold your meetings in a separate room from the adults? That might help with the immediate noise issue, and will remove the dynamic of you having to tell the adults what to do (like it or not, some adults just won't respond well to that even if you're within your rights as SPL to do it).