Lisabob

FB??? Current balance of power looks like this: Senate 51 Dems, 49 Reps House 229 Dems, 196 Reps with 10 seats still undecided My source for these #s was http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/ if you want to check it out. Also what does B.A.U. stand for?

OGE the APL's rank is only an issue because the APL has made a point of wanting to be PL to fulfill rank advancement requirements. When he was not chosen by his patrol and my son was instead, he was mad about it because being APL isn't one of the POR options for that purpose. My son chose this boy for APL because none of the other boys in the patrol wanted to be APL (or PL either). I don't know if it occurred to my son that there might be lingering bad feelings - they've known each other for years and have always gotten along pretty well. That in itself is a lesson in leadership I suppose. I know that my son brought up his situation at the PLC and the SPL was there. But I don't think he has sought out the SPL's advice one on one. I'll suggest that to him.

Help me out here. My son, 12 years old, was elected to be a patrol leader, went through troop leader training, and has been serving as PL for about 3 months. He is in a mixed-age patrol. 4 of the boys in his patrol are the same age and have mostly been together in dens since 1st/2nd grade. The other 3 boys in the patrol range from 1-3 years older. Here's the thing. Being a leader at 12 is tough and my son is struggling. He wants to step down now, 2 months before his term is done. The boys who are the same age tend not to listen very well to one of their own so my son ends up spending a lot of time just trying to get them to sit down and focus on the task at hand at meetings. The older boys grumble about "wasting time" and "baby sitting" but they don't want to be leaders themselves, either. One of their parents told me the other night that his son knew it was really hard to be PL, which is why he didn't run. One of the others has asked to be moved to a patrol made up of all high-school-aged boys. The APL, also one of the 12 year olds, vocally disagrees with just about anything my son tries to do as PL, undercutting him and making his job that much harder - favorite phrase - "that's stupid." (The APL is apparently still upset that he didn't get elected PL - he's trying to make Star and needs time in a POR - but he also misses about half of the meetings due to sports scheduling conflicts, which might have something to do with why he didn't get elected to start with.) My son takes it seriously, he really tries to do a good job. But he is getting very discouraged. I'm watching all of this develop from the back of the room, and listening to my very frustrated son in the car on the way home from meetings, and trying to decide whether/how it is appropriate for me to help out here in any way other than as a sympathetic ear. I've suggested he talk with our SM but the SM isn't much help here to be honest. He's much too busy and tends not to have a lot of practical advice, and my son doesn't have a strong relationship with him. At the last PLC the SM told my son, without offering any other suggestions to improve the situation, that he could step down as PL if he wanted to. I know there's a certain amount of frustration that goes with learning how to lead but quitting and perceiving one's self to have failed as a leader is not the route I want to see my son travel except as a last resort. I also think that if you are chosen for a leadership position that you have a responsibility to do your best to fulfill it for the entire time, barring extraordinary circumstances. So I kind of get the sense that he has been set up here and not given much help. Down the road, why on earth would he want to take on a POR again, considering this? So help me out. What's practical in terms of advice to a struggling 12 year old PL? Is backing out of the position midway through a reasonable option in this case, in your view? How can I offer advice or support in ways that might help, without being overly involved as a parent or without stepping over the bounds into SM territory?

I agree with others that Mom's lack of involvement is both a problem in its own right and probably a symptom of other family-life issues. If she has a WII boy and she's a den leader she also ought to know that this is not how the program works. I think the Tiger leader who initially caved in to mom's request to keep an eye on the kiddo meant well but did a dis-service to all parties here. So step 1 is for that den leader to let mom know it just isn't working and that they need to revisit the issue. Keeping in mind that we're talking about a first grader here, I'm not in favor of suspending the boy from the pack as some have suggested. Six year olds are not known for their ability to weigh the costs of their actions. And most of the time when they act out, there is a fairly clear problem that is resulting in that behavior (like Mom's absence and whatever else is going on at home), that is out of their control. They just don't know how to express it in what we'd consider to be a more socially acceptable manner. Not to excuse inappropriate behavior - the boy needs some clear limits - but let's work on the adults rather than tossing a disruptive first grader out without some serious effort first to deal with the problem. Lisa

Thanks for the feedback everybody. There's so much to do in DC and for many of our kids this will not be their first visit (a local school does a class trip there every year too). So I was particularly looking for "different" things to do that might be "new" to everybody in our group. I'll definitely check into the Udvar-Hazy site - I've been to the Air & Space museum on the mall but not to that one. Thanks for the tips on the Newseum and the Nat'l Geographic in particular; I wasn't aware of either of them even though I've been to DC many times. Too bad the Newseum isn't scheduled to open until fall 2007 - just after we'll have been in the area. Hmm, here's a good excuse for a family vacation though... Lisa'bob

Well Brent (and others) I certainly never expected to convince you to agree with my own list of Democrats who make me "feel good" (or at least, who do not cause me to be horrified on a regular basis, as Pres. Bush does). That's fine. Just offering my views in response to your query, is all, and it might be worth noting that many other Americans take a similar view. No point in discounting about half of the (voting) population out of hand. But let me respond to your latest suggestion that Dems want to see the US lose the war in Iraq for purely political gain. I am a Democrat. Although I have opposed the war from the start, I do not want to see us lose in Iraq. Nor do I know any other Democrats who want to see that happen. In fact to many Democrats that is the worst possible scenario. At this point the stakes are so high, even those who oppose the war tend to agree that winning, or at least, stemming the losses, matters a great deal. Most Democrats I know (and increasing #s of Republicans too), however, also agree that the war is, in fact, not going well. That losing is a very real possibility. That the execution of the war has been bungled at best. Consequently, while Democrats are divided about how to proceed (but so are Republicans, note), none who I know are gleeful about losing. When it comes to politics I always find it helpful to get out of the box a bit. Talk reasonably to people whose views differ and actually listen to what they have to say. Don't accept or perpetuate a caricature of the other side. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but "know your enemy" in an intellectually honest and meaningful way. Lisa'bob

Has anybody been to the International Spy Museum in DC? If so, what's your impression in terms of a potential stop on the itinerary for a scout troop? At the very least it sounds "cool." Thanks - Lisa'bob

I'm obviously not FB. Here are some statistics from the US Census Bureau though, with regard to health insurance coverage from 2002-2005. All of this information comes from the following sources, which you are welcome to check out for yourself: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin05/hlth05asc.html (2004/2005 data) http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin03/hlth03asc.html (2002/2003 data) # of people with health insurance coverage: 2002 242.3 million 2003 243.3 million 2004 245.9 million 2005 247.3 million # of people without health insurance coverage: 2002 43.6 million 2003 45 million 2004 45.3 million 2005 46.4 million % of people with employer-based health insurance coverage: 2002 61.3% 2003 60.4% 2004 59.8% 2005 59.5% % of children without health insurance coverage: 2002 11.4% 2003 11.4% 2004 10.8% 2005 11.2% % of children living in poverty who do not have health insurance coverage: 2003 19.2% 2005 19% (sorry, I don't have #s for 2002 and 2004) What all of this suggests to me is that although FB is incorrect when he says that half of Americans don't have health insurance, there is a considerable problem with insurance in this country. The trend is for a rising # (and % by the way, although it isn't always reported that way so for the sake of consistency I used #s in the first two estimates provided above instead) of Americans to not have insurance, and also for a declining % of Americans to get their insurance through their employer. Most analysts expect both of those trends to continue. Barry, the problem with looking at who has health insurance vs. who gets emergency care is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Hospitals are mandated to provide emergency care to all. And a lot of people who don't have health insurance still go to the doctor but they must pay out of pocket for it. Many studies show that people without insurance are therefore more likely to postpone medical care until their problem becomes severe, because they want to avoid the 100% out of pocket expense. This ends up being economically inefficient in the long run, both for individuals and for society as a whole. (Not to mention, it results in higher mortality and long-term medical complications because diseases that could be cured or managed relatively easily early on are let go until it is much harder or impossible to treat them.) So the question isn't, do people get some kind of coverage at some point (particularly re: emergency care). The question is really, who has insurance and how does having or not having insurance shape the way people use medical care? Lisa'bob

Yeah I don't know about that Brent. Here are a few Democrats that have made me "feel good" about my country. Doesn't mean I agreed with any of them on everything but at least they didn't make me want to hide my head in shame when they acted in their public capacity. Bill Clinton. Yes, I sure wish he'd kept his zipper up. And listening to his state of the union speeches was not my favorite way to spend 3 or 4 hours on a January night. But you might remember that we had a big economic boom and a shrinking deficit when he was in office. Plus, whatever his other flaws (and there were many) at least I didn't have to wake up every morning wondering whether he knew or cared what the Constitution has to say. I'm pretty sure he was at least aware. I wish I could say the same for our current president. Russ Feingold, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin. I don't agree with Feingold on everything. But I like that he has a backbone. He says what he thinks. He (gasp) works with Republicans on important matters like campaign finance reform. He'll never be president but so what. Madeline Albright, former US Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the UN. Here's one smart woman with a grasp of history and the complexity of diplomacy. She thinks first, acts second. Boy I'd like to see more of that these days. Barak Obama. No, I don't think he is presidential material at this point. I'm not all that excited about the media love-fest surrounding him either. But I am refreshed to see a young, up-and-coming member of the Democratic party with ideas and energy. Obama is about more than just opposing the Republicans. I like that, even though I'm not sure if he is the future of the party. Mark Warner, former Governor of Virginia. I don't care if he runs for president (I know he said he wouldn't in 2008). Here's a guy who understands how to bridge a divide between the parties that has become a chasm. He's pragmatic. He's thoughtful. All qualities that give me at least a little hope. Elliot Spitzer, soon-to-be Governor of New York. Again I don't agree with him on everything. And I know some people really, really dislike him. But at least he is willing to say what he stands for, and then do it. No more of this public grandstanding and nothing going on behind the scenes. Here's a guy who will work to right what he sees as wrongs. By the way there are Republicans I respect too. To name a few: Dick Lugar, John McCain, Colin Powell. All of these guys exhibit traits I don't see in the current batch of Republicans who are running things. They think. They ask a lot of questions and actually welcome diverse answers. They don't go about talking only to their own hard-core supporters. They understand that reputation matters and, once tarnished, it is twice as hard to clean up again. I might disagree ideologically with them, but at least I trust them to give as honest and thoughtful an assessment of the situation as they can, before they commit us to action. Lisa'bob

Here are my thoughts as a former cub leader. 1) you started out your first post with "The story as I heard it." Are you 100% certain you heard what really happened? 2) Certainly take this boy's knife away. If/when he gets it back? I'd be inclined to say he doesn't, not while he is in cubs at least. Maybe if he continues on to a troop he'll be mature enough to earn his totin' chip. That's for the troop leaders to determine. 3) Punishment? The boy doesn't attend your next campout, certainly. He has shown he doesn't have the maturity for that. He also ought to be expected to write a letter of apology to any boys he pulled a knife on. No matter what the provocation, threatening with a knife is never, ever, the appropriate response and requires (at minimum) an apology. I'd continue to allow him to attend den meetings and pack meetings, with a parent/adult relative present. And I agree w/ Beavah that if it happened again (though it shouldn't, if you've taken his knife!) that he would be asked to leave the pack. You've had one rather serious knife incident with this boy already and a second such incident would be it for me, no matter what. Make sure the boy, the parent, and the CM are aware of this. Make extra sure the CM will back you, first. (and if not, tell the CM that s/he can be the den leader for this den too...) 4) About bullying. This is such an issue. You need to address it in your den and pack with more than words. Kids get "bully-proofing" talks all the time at school and in my observation, it is almost always "words" with little back-up. They get talked at once or twice a semester by some authority figure and that's the end of it. Most of the kids I know don't put much stock in such empty policies. Don't put yourself in that category, in your eyes. If you can do something where they are actively involved (role play, some kind of physical involvement) then they'll likely take it more seriously. And make sure you communicate to ALL of the parents what you are doing, preferably ahead of time. They need to see that you are responding in an active manner to the concerns and they need to understand that their little darling might need to go home if he engages in bullying at a cub event. If parents are aware of how you are handling the problem and you have their backing, it will make your job easier. Not coincidentally - we are dealing with bullying issues in my son's troop these days too. My thoughts are that if you can make it clear that bullying has no place in scouting at the cub level, it will only help when boys get into a troop, where there is a lot less adult supervision. Conversely, boys who feel they can get away with it in cubs are probably going to be that much more problematic in a troop setting. Good luck, tough stuff to deal with here. Lisa'bob

I don't think this is common practice and I do think it can be taken too far. On the other hand, I sat on an EBoR a little while back where the notebook was a downright embarrassment. The boy didn't even spell his own last name correctly, I'm not kidding, and there were MANY, MANY other errors that were pretty bad. Not only had he not spell-checked, he also obviously had not proof-read the document and it certainly looked as though it had been thrown together at the last minute. It made the document painful to read. In this age of computer-based everything, how hard is it to spell-check? Are we doing a service or a dis-service to these young men to let it slide if it is truly sloppy? And as for computer access, true, some boys do not have computers at home. Nearly all have access to computers at the public library or at schools though, and I'm willing to bet several adults in practically every troop have computers in their homes that they'd be happy to allow a boy to use. That does increase the burden on some boys, I agree. And there might be cases where that's a legitimate problem. But really, again I think it is not so awful to expect most boys to have used a computer for at least some parts of the workbook. If the DAC continues to insist, you might want to talk with him about the format issue, which he may not be aware of. (doesn't everybody use Word these days?? Well no...) So my guess is that your DAC has sat on some EBoRs where the workbook was a real mess, probably far worse than anything that you'd let a boy from your own troop submit. He may have over-reacted. But at the same time, presentation matters. You can be brilliant, or a great potential leader, but if you cannot communicate your ideas and vision in an effective manner or if people perceive you as being a walking organizational disaster, then not very many people are going to follow you. Maybe a better way for the DAC to handle this would be for him to talk with unit leaders (don't SMs have to sign off on the workbook?) about raising the bar a little bit within their own units. This could be done at a roundtable, for example. Lisa'bob

The reason that you "never hear any complaining about that" Brent is because it is nearly universally agreed that such behavior is barbaric and (even) our own government does not engage in it. At least, not that I have heard. You get an outcry over these other issues because our own gov't is engaging in behavior - in all of our names as Americans - that many of us find to be reprehensible. Thus it is our duty as citizens to object to these practices, if we believe that our gov't is, yet shouldn't be, engaging in them. That's what the whole idea of representative democracy suggests - people ought to have a voice in what their gov't does and have every right to express their opinion, especially when they don't like what their gov't is doing.

There are things I do and don't like about how my son's troop does this. But here are a couple of things I do like. 1) At cross-over they give each boy a "joining" neckerchief but these are slightly different from the standard troop neckerchiefs. Believe it or not, the standard troop neckers are considered to be "cool" enough that most of the boys really want one. And the only way to get one is to earn tenderfoot. When a boy does earn tenderfoot, it is a big deal, with a changing of the necker ceremony, etc.. Even the most video-game-hardened kid still seems to love a good ceremony. 2) Troop guides are assigned to help the new scouts figure out the system and to encourage advancement through tenderfoot at least. Some are better at this than others. But several of them have helped organize patrol activities to help the new scouts adjust and where tenderfoot rank skills are included. 3) This year the troop is holding a "shakedown" camp for new scouts about a month after we expect most of our cross-over scouts to join us. This should help familiarize the new scouts with both troop life/gear and several early rank requirements. Things I think we could do better? Educating parents (lose the parent and you're going to lose the boy). Making sure there's follow-through if an adult or more advanced scout says they'll be there to work on skill X before a meeting or at a campout, they'd better be there. And making sure that there is both enough structure at early camp outs that the new scouts are getting skill instruction that they need, and yet not over-scheduling either, so that a scout who needs some time to practice, say, fire building, has time to do that too. This last one seems particularly difficult to strike the right balance. Lisa'bob

Actually I don't recommend what Gonzo suggested in his last post. Maybe that would work in some places/troops. But it is not the responsibility of the TG and/or SPL to make sure a boy advances by periodically doing on-the-spot reviews. If we view advancement as a method and not an aim, then the question is, how does the method purport to help boys achieve the aims? Done right, advancement teaches many things beyond just the basic physical, tangible skills in question; follow-through, personal responsibility, and communication skills are among those. What I think is reasonable, especially for new and young scouts, is to have the TG or SPL or ASM or SM have an occasional conversation with young scouts who are not advancing, in which encouragement and guidance are offered, if needed. Make sure the boys understand the process and how advancement in a troop differs from advancement in a cub pack (initiative shifts to the boy). Make sure the boys are aware of the opportunities the troop offers, and that there are sufficient opportunities available. If they aren't taking advantage of those, or if they are but just aren't bothering to get their books signed, find out why (maybe there's a problem, maybe not). But I don't believe you can do it for them and have advancement "work" as a method, in the way it should. Lisa'bob

If you are planning activities specifically for webelos scouts, consider having a look at some of the webelos activity pin requirements. You can find a good online listing here: http://www.geocities.com/~Pack215/activity-badges.html (This is from the Virtual Cub Scout Leader's Guide - not an official BSA source, but I've always found it to be extremely reliable. Specific pins are listed along the left side of the screen and you can click on them to bring up the requirements for each one.) One option for Webelos who are working on the Outdoorsman pin is as follows: "Discuss with your Webelos den leader the rules of outdoor fire safety. Using these rules, show how to build a safe fire and put it out. " (this is #7 under the Outdoorsman pin requirements) One beef I've had in the past, as a former Webelos leader, was that we'd take boys to events like what you are describing where they'd be told that they had completed various webelos requirements, when in fact they had not done what the requirement said. This is a set-up for disappointed boys and angry parents. So please be consciencious about this - either it meets the requirement or it does not, but don't fudge it. And give the webelos den leader a list of the requirements you believe you are meeting, and how you plan to meet them too, if at all possible.

Yeah I say "welcome aboard" and "what can you help with?" and also "thank you for all you have done." Not all people can or will eat, breathe, and sleep scouting, most are in it for their kids, and you may need to develop a wider circle of supporters so that you're not expecting the same people to do everything, all the time. Now on the other hand, a MB counselor really ought to be willing to work with any of the troop's boys who have an interest in that mb - not pick and choose based on whether their own child is interested - schedule permitting, of course. But is there a reason why these mbs are tied to your fund raisers? That's not my understanding of how it is supposed to work anyway. If boys want to earn the mb and certain parents aren't available because of scheduling issues or whatever, then the SM can/should help them find a different mb counselor, end of story - you have your district list, right? As for when and where to go to summer camp, well yeah I'd be a little annoyed if any one parent/leader (incl. SM) thought s/he could dictate that decision year after year, based solely on his or her schedule. But on the other hand, if the troop elects to go somewhere and wants me to go with them, then there are only certain places and times when I'm willing or able to go. Same for my son - there are a couple of weeks each summer when he cannot go to scout camp because we have other obligations. So do you want (need?) these parents amd their boys to attend or not? If so, you need to come to an agreement; if not, why worry?

FB I agree completely with the sentiment that meeting times are purchased at a cost. And people who are going to be late ought to be polite enough to a) let others know (if it is a foreseeable problem) and b) to make a quiet entrance. Lisa'bob

Let's add these to the list. 1) Boys who are late because they can't get where they need to go unless/until a parent drives them, and said parent is always late. Frustrating, yes, but how far can you really blame the boy for this one when they have little/no control over the situation? 2) People who are late because they are over-booked in life. We've got boys who are running from school to football practice to scouts, doing their homework, eating dinner and changing uniforms in the car. We've got a couple of boys who transferred to private schools over an hour away and still choose to stick with the troop but the scheduling is really tough for them (and their parents). We've got adults who work horrendous schedules (often beyond their control). I'm happy to see them show up at all and don't stress so much about them being late. I know how hard it is for them to be there given that they've had incredibly long days and would probably love to go home and flop on the couch instead. 3) People who don't see the value in what you're doing. Why show up on time then? This goes w/ lateness-as-protest. Lisa'bob

For Lisa: One encouragement for your son is there things he cannot do along the Scouting trail until he is First Class ... such as stand for election to OA candidacy Yeah John, I really don't think he's interested. Sorry to say. Honestly I don't know why - and I personally don't have time to look into it - but our troop is not real involved with OA. I'm sure it is a good option but not something he's chomping at the bit to learn more about right now. Thanks for the encouragement though.

Michelle, Two questions come to my mind. 1) What does the SM think about this? I assume that he's aware of the issue. He's going to be an important part of the answer here and his attitude is going to play a role too so what is your take on that? 2) Does your nephew have other developmental delays or issues? The red flag was when you said he's not coordinated enough to ride a bike either. I'm no expert. But these two (swim/bike) often seem to go together with other kinds of delays and/or conditions that make addressing the root problem a bit harder. ie, it is not a "typical" kid you're working with and who happens to just really not like swimming. If there are other legitimate medical concerns/issues then I see no reason not to talk with his Dr and SM about developing more suitable alternate requirements. Lisa'bob

Hey Scoutldr - cheer up. You're right that society really doesn't place much emphasis on boy-led these days (or girl-led either). But keep in mind that when B-P started scouting, he did so in part to respond to what he saw as a gap in the way young men were being prepared for adult life (in the military in his case). So scouting has always existed in part to augment the education that our youth receive. But it is a funny thing about advancement. I've seen a similar trend to what you've all described in our troop with about half of the boys. The other half are pretty gung ho about advancement. I don't know for sure but here are a few things I've seen that differentiate the two groups: 1) Among our younger scouts, those who seem more interested in advancement frequently have older brothers in the troop and they pattern themselves after the older brothers. Maybe it is conscious, maybe not. 2) In general, the boys who are 13-14 and 1st Cl-Star rank seem the most interested in advancement. Maybe Star and Life seem attainable to them (not that many requirements, after all, unlike the first few ranks, and no big scary Eagle project either). It seems to me that we do have a lot of boys who sit on scout, T, 2nd Cl, and Life for a long time. 3) Among our younger scouts yes, it certainly does seem to be the case that those whose parents (Dads too) push them are most likely to advance. They're still trying to figure out the system and make the shift from cub mentality to boy scout mentality. Keep in mind that in most cub packs, rank advancement is not something the boys consciously work toward or are even personally in charge of- it just happens most of the time. At any rate, I was initially a bit pushy myself. But I've backed way off on that when I realized that my son was really resisting (and resenting) it. My son is STILL a tenderfoot after almost 2 years with the troop and at this point it is only because he doesn't bother to get sign-offs most of the time. Yes, this is still occasionally a source of irritation for me (chiefly because I just don't understand it). But we had this funny conversation about it not too long ago. We were talking about role models. He said that the boys he respected most in the troop were also those who tended to be in it for the experience, forget advancement, and by the way, that he thought these boys displayed the best leadership skills. Of the specific boys he named, 2 out of 3 earned their Eagle badges recently, barely shy of their 18th birthdays. Conversely those for whom he had the least respect were those who are quite vocal about wanting to "Eagle out" as soon as possible. He said their attitude carried over into everything they did, including their leadership styles in their PORs and that they viewed and treated scouting and other scouts as a chore to be managed, rather than an experience to enjoy and friendships to be built. Not bad from a 12 year old, hmm? Geez I hope he gets past tenderfoot eventually here and I don't agree w/ him about just not bothering to get his book signed. But I do think I like his approach to the bigger picture so I'm willing to bite my tongue. By the way gwd, does your troop attend a summer camp that puts rank requirements on any really fun activities? That may be a good motivator, at least through 1st Cl rank. We did mb sign ups recently for next summer's camp (I know, that's early - a whole other story) and the camp we'll attend does put rank limits on a lot of mbs and other activities, apparently to keep class sizes small. Several boys including my own determined that they needed to get going on rank advancement between now and then if they wanted to do some of these exciting "advanced" activities. As for when those boys ask you to tell them when they'll be ready for their next rank, I think I would just turn the question right back at them. "I don't know, when do YOU think you'll be ready?" Maybe in some cases followed by a nudge to talk to their PL/SPL/TG about working on specific skills that they're interested in. Lisa'bob

Hey Scoutmom, I think I remember you saying you had relocated to Southern MI? If you want I can send you a copy of a local resources book I put together for area packs in my part of SE Michigan. Send me a pm or let me know how to reach you if you're interested. I know it won't help for the training you're doing today but maybe going forward... Lisa'bob

Yeah, and what to tell your son? He's 14, right? If you "make" him switch troops against his will he will probably be upset about it and may not want to stay in scouting at all. If you leave him where he is he also may decide to quit due to his poor experience. So how about this: simply tell him, you realize that he is being pulled in opposite directions, that you'd personally prefer he were in another troop, but if he chooses to stay you'll continue to back him unless it gets to a point of serious safety concerns. (Right now it sounds like it's at a point of poor role modeling, but not outright safety issues.) Then let him know that if he gets too fed up with the current situation, you'd like him to agree to change troops and give it a try elsewhere rather than quitting scouts. And then let it be. Don't initiate the discussion, let him do it. That doesn't mean you can't be active (or not, as you feel is appropriate) among the adults but let him make his own decision about his participation. He'll probably reach the conclusion you already have if things continue along the lines you've described (another troop will be better) but he'll own that decision and won't resent you for forcing him to leave his buddies behind. Good luck. Easier said than done, I know. Lisa'bob

Our COR is a member of the service club that is our charter partner. None of the current members have children anywhere near scout-age any more. Over the last year I've personally been working to improve our troop's relations with the CO and that starts with getting the COR familiar with our program. As for having an active vs. passive COR, there are advantages to both of course. With a passive COR the unit can go about its business without what may feel like "interference." But my take is that I'd like an active COR. First it will be easier to track them down for signatures. Second, if/when problems do occasionally arise, the COR will already be familiar with the program, the unit, and the people in it. I really dislike the idea of waiting until crisis-stage to introduce the COR to the unit in any real sense. It gives a very negative snapshot of the unit and may cause some CO's to wonder why they bother partnering with scouting at all. Third, sometimes the CO will want the unit to do things that we really can't, by BSA rules. If the COR already understands the program they'll be more receptive to being told "no." Of course having an active COR is easier said than done, in my (admittedly) limited experience. But if you can pull it off I think it is worth it, even though it often requires additional work on your part to bring your COR up to speed. As for convincing your COR to participate in district stuff too...I have yet to meet any CORs who do. They must exist somewhere out there in make-believe-land? I think our district folks would about fall over backward if the CORs started attending! Lisa'bob

Dan, I know a few webelos den leaders and CMs who took IOLS instead of OWL for whatever reason. Nobody has said they regret it. What Eamonn says about learning different techniques, safety rules, presentation ideas that are age-appropriate is true. So you might also want to do OWL if it is available again in the future. But if your reason for taking the training is, as you say, to brush up on your own skills and maybe to start preparing for webelos-scout transition (or to share info w/ your webelos leaders about the differences between the two programs) then I think that's reasonable enough. Also I've done a lot of training and with VERY few exceptions, I never had a problem with troop leaders being too condescending to pack leaders. If anything they were amazed that I (as both a cub leader and a woman to boot) was willing to invest the time to learn more about "their" program so that I could better prepare "our" boys for troop life.