Lisabob

I love OneHour's idea of inviting boys from local troops to help. This is also a great opportunity for recruiting a few good den chiefs. And a lot of those boy scouts are just looking for a reason to enter the pack's "open" race too.... don't forget to invite them! Lisa'bob

I'd add to what ScoutNut suggested re: providing the WDLs with contact info and ideas about where to go/what to do. Not only do you want these WDLs to understand how webelos is different from tiger/wolf/bear, you also want them to start thinking about webelos-scout transition matters. If you can, it might be helpful to provide them with a list of troop contacts in the area too. They'll welcome it since it means potential help arranging visits to troops (and maybe help getting den chiefs, help with specific webelos activity pins, etc.) and the troops will probably appreciate your help in making contact with the new webelos leaders. I've done the WDL training (as participant and presenter) a couple of times. Once you get past the basics it really depends on the group. One time I did it with people who were overwhelmed by the sheer number of activity pins so we spent a lot more time talking about advancement/segue into helping the boys learn to play a bigger role in determining den activities. One time I did it with people who were mostly WII leaders and all women, who really wanted to talk about webelos-scout transition issues. Not having been boy scouts themselves, they had a million questions. So to the extent that you can, I recommend setting aside some portion of your allotted time for open discussion/Q&A so they can ask the burning questions they have. But let us know how it turns out! I'm supposed to be doing the same thing myself in a couple of weeks and haven't gotten much (any) info from our training chair yet either. Lisa

LOL Beavah, that's absolutely the truth.

Agh! What WAS I thinking!??! It was A.O. Hirschman who wrote Exit, Voice, and Loyalty and not Wildavsky. (Wildavsky wrote one of my other favorites, Speaking Truth to Power) Enough to get me pilloried around the departmental water cooler at work, if we actually had one. Lisa'bob

"I do like Lisa's Voice, Exit, Loyalty method. " Well I wish I could claim it was mine! Actually this comes from a book written by Aaron Wildavsky and the only claim I can reasonably make to it is that a) like Wildavsky I'm a political scientist by training and profession and b) I like the way he phrased it so use his idea as a basis for discussion in class. Lisa

Hurrah! You've obviously done a great job of training your scouts to become leaders. Congrats. Lisa'bob

I think one of the problems with regard to the ACLU is that people use it as a scapegoat for not doing things that they never really wanted to do in the first place. "Oh, we can't do that or the ACLU will get us." When in reality, the ACLU does not - by it's own admission - take some of the positions ascribed to it. From personal experience (for whatever currency that's worth on this forum) I also know that there are a lot of school administrators out there who do not have a clue about what they may, and may not actually do. They over-react to a point of ridiculousness, then when challenged, they blame the supposed threat of a lawsuit brought on by the ACLU to cover their over-reactions. So why should we blame the ACLU in those cases? Better to blame certain of the goof balls elected to our school boards and hired as school administrators. And then there's press coverage. Folks, the ACLU exists to support civil liberties and rights for all. But the stories that tend to get news coverage are the more sensational ones. As an example, a few yeas ago the ACLU helped a local high school student in Dearborn MI. He had been suspended for wearing T shirts to school with anti-Bush political messages. The shirts were offensive to some, it is true. But the ACLU helped him because the US Supreme Court has said in the past that such actions constitute symbolic political speech and are thus protected by the first amendment (see the Tinker case during the Vietnam war era). Now this instance got A LOT of news coverage because it was sensational. Because Dearborn has a large Arab-American community. Because we were just starting the war with Iraq at the time. Here's a cite for the story: http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=316 Around the same time the ACLU supported the right of an 82 year old farmer to make calls to the Michigan department of agriculture demanding that they enforce state law with regard to the spraying of liquid manure, or at least that someone return his calls with some information. For his efforts to petition government for redress of grievances (part of the 1st amendment) he was charged with obscenity and was being threatened with jail and a fine. More recently in Michigan the ACLU has encouraged the state dept of natural resources to stop requiring religious groups to seek special permission to engage in religious behavior in state parks. Here's a snip from the Battle Creek MI newspaper editorial on the subject: "The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has done something that government agencies sometimes are reluctant to do: Abandon a rule that was unfair, ineffective and unneeded. The DNR has dropped a policy, revised in 1999, that required religious groups that wished to "solicit, canvass or proselytize" in a state park to submit a written request for the activity and require participants to wear identification tags. The policy came to light after the Rev. William Stein of Battle Creek asked permission last May to hold seven summer baptism services at Eagle Lake at Fort Custer Recreation Area. Stein was denied permission for the first two services, which he did not hold. He eventually obtained a permit for the remaining five baptism services and they were held with no problems at Eagle Lake. The American Civil Liberties Union came to the defense of Stein and his Baptism USA Ministries, challenging the DNR policy as an unconstitutional infringement on the freedoms of speech and religion. " Here's a link to the rest of the story: http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=154 (Sorry I couldn't link directly to the Battle Creek paper - you have to be a subscriber to do so) So ok, here's the thing. Lots of people - at least in MI - have heard about the Dearborn case. Very few - even in MI - have heard about the other two. Why? Because it isn't terribly exciting news coverage, certainly not grist for the national info-tainment industry (CNN and the like). I'm willing to bet many people here would even agree with the stance the ACLU took in at least two of the above three instances... Go ahead and send your Christmas cards to the ACLU. Probably a lot of ACLU employees are Christians anyway - after all, the majority of Americans are Christian. And the ACLU has in the past defended the rights of Christians in numerous cases too. So maybe they'll appreciate your heart-felt wishes for a blessed holiday. But don't villainize an organization that you might need yourself, one day if, like the farmer above, you suddenly find yourself being criminalized by your gov't for expressing your opinion. Or when gov't/school leaders over-react and tell you that you can't engage in reasonable religious practices, like the minister above. Or when some gov't official tries to compell you to speak/avow belief that you don't hold. Etc. And be careful when you suppose that every time someone pulls out the ACLU boogie-man, that what they're telling you is necessarily true. Lisa'bob

I'm in agreement with Fred on this in terms of the specific thread. Also while it is true that social change sometimes arises from more violent and/or illegal methods, I would argue that some of the most effective methods of bringing about change in our history (both recent and far past) have also been peaceful and even legal. They may have been a direct confrontation to corrupt power structures but in many cases they were not illegal. Also I think there's a duty to at least try to work within the system before discarding it entirely. But I think the more general question of how you teach kids about obedience and civil disobedience is a good one. I teach American politics & gov't for a living to a lot of politically disaffected college freshmen. I've found that framing this discussion in terms of voice, exit, loyalty works well. If you don't like the way things are you have these three options at your disposal to manipulate. Each of these can take a wide variety of forms, some legal and others not. We explore those and talk about why some of these options are considered illegal or why gov't sometimes has the right to limit their use in terms of time/place (security vs. freedom debate here), and why sometimes people choose these options anyway. Once you get past the most obvious - vote or don't vote - I find the overwhelming majority of college freshmen are remarkably open to voicing disagreement in ways that stay within the boundaries. They just want to know that they have other (legal) options at their disposal that might actually make some difference. I think the same would be true with our older high school aged scouts; the difference between a first semester freshman and a high school student is rather small in most cases. So the SPL or PL goes on a power trip. Well there are ways to respond to that within the confines of troop rules. Voice - Thorns & roses. A discussion at the PLC. A quiet conversation with an adult mentor/ASM/SM. Personal conversation among the boys, email exchange, phone call, etc.. Exit - deciding not to attend the next camp out/patrol meeting, or choosing not to stick around and have that extra helping of cobbler (at someone else's loss) the PL has invited you to take, etc.. Hopefully not to the point of leaving the troop but it is an option. Loyalty - stick with the leader you chose even though you don't always agree, and try to work around the margins to effect change. Question is, how much do you disagree? And will sticking with him make it better or worse?

I would add that a good leader needs to be a good communicator too. Thinking about the people I watch in leadership positions, this seems to be one factor that distinguishes those who I would classify as "good leaders" from those who I would classify as "mediocre" or even "means well but isn't getting there." Poor communications lead to misunderstandings and other problems that sap a potential leader's ability to, well, lead. Maybe along with that - good leaders need to be able to let go sometimes. Of control, of information, sometimes of their formal role as "leader" (doesn't mean they aren't still leading, they just might not have the title). All easier said than done though, hmm? Lisa

There actually was/is a debate among our founding fathers regarding this issue. Some made an argument for patents in perpetuity but others (Jefferson, among them) made the argument that permanent protections for new ideas/products would result in a permanent elite and eventually squelch the creative drive of the middle classes and inventors, not to mention potentially deprive ordinary people of reasonable access to these ideas. Consequently there was a time limit placed on copyrights and patents. That limit has been lengthened by Congress several times in light of technological and societal change (and probably serious pressure from patent and copyright holders). Whether this is desirable is a debatable matter of course. But. The part of the scout law that discusses obedience includes this line: "If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them." And I think it applies in cases like this discussion. Lisa'bob

"Play the game and quit thinking". Ugh. This attitude, which I believe is all too common in the "real world" (ie, not just scouting), is a HUGE turn off for me. Any time someone tells you to "quit thinking" they're either wrong and they know it, or they themselves don't have a good understanding of what's going on. This is a tactic for intimidation by those who can't be bothered to show true leadership. Scoutmom, this was the same kind of attitude my CD gave us at various stages in our WB course. Made me hot under the collar then too. Sorry to hear you had to deal with it too. Lisa'bob

Gonzo, I understand your point. But many families do not have much, or any, experience with tent camping. And smaller kids are often not used to being cold, wet, and uncomfortable in addition to being away from home (sometimes that by itself is tough for some kids at cub age, even when the weather is good and mom or dad are there with them). So I think you need to be careful not to be too harsh here. It doesn't necessarily send them the wrong message if you camp in good weather. It does provide an opportunity for "beginner" campers to have a really good experience their first few times, learn some things (like the ziploc bag trick), and WANT to do it again another time. If on their first camping trip they have a bad time for whatever reason, chances of getting them back a second time are slim to none. Lisa'bob

Hi Leonard and welcome from the other end of the state. We don't have written guidelines beyond what's in the boyscout handbook but generally speaking patrols must gain approval from the Scoutmaster for an activity, including plans for adult supervision (or lack thereof). Also we have an ASM assigned to each patrol and that ASM is supposed to provide the encouragement and help with any planning questions if asked. I admit most of the time our patrols don't do anything extra though. I don't know if it is because they're just too busy already or if they don't have a clue where/how to start and/or don't want to do the work to plan an activity. Or maybe all of these. I think if you are going with written guidelines you might be well served to do a one-page flyer (they'll probably never read a lengthy document anyway) and provide a few examples of fun things the patrols have done in the past or could do, with relative ease. And then maybe a model for how to plan one such "typical" activity (include a list of questions they ought to have answers to regarding who/what/when/where, gear, cost, transport, etc.), making sure they understand that the model is only that. Good luck and let us know how it turns out. Lisa'bob

In my eyes, one of the greatest benefits of scouting is the mentoring relationships that can develop between our youth and adults who are not family members. I think we all agree that a good mentor can be a powerful force in a child's life. So. How do you help your adult leaders to become great mentors? Some of it is serendipity I think. Personalities that just click or shared interests. Some of it is inherent in people's temperment and interest in working with kids. But some of it must also be "teachable?" I've known people who want to be that great mentor but seem at a bit of a loss for how to do it. And I've known people who I think will become that great mentor because they seem to have that inherent base for it, but they're new leaders to the troop and need some guidance. What do you do in your troop (or crew or ship either, I suppose) to help people in these latter categories develop that potential? And...how many of you see/use JASMs as mentors, and to what degree of success? We've got a couple of JASMs but I wonder if the maturity and knowledge of self that I think are probably part of a good mentor's tool box are typically well enough developed in an 18-19-20 year old? I'll be interested in your thoughts on this.

I'm in agreement with both Hunt and Calico on this. We don't need to engage in a witch hunt within scouting. But if you feel that the boy has very clearly indicated a (lack of) belief that very clearly flies in the face of membership requirements then you are within your rights to ask him to leave. Personally though, I'd take Hunt's approach. I'd also make very sure that the boy understands that he may be pressed for a definitive stance (do you believe in something?) at his EBoR, should he choose to place himself in that position, and that a negative answer could lead to his Eagle application being declined. Then offer him an open ear, or another avenue (maybe the open ears of some religious leaders or other trusted ASMs if you're not comfortable yourself with this), for conversation any time he wants to continue to explore this topic. And depending on how likely you think this issue is to come up at an EBoR, then if/when that EBoR is scheduled, maybe I'd consider ensuring that the advancement chair diligently reviews the requirements (ie, what is and is not acceptable to ask - noting that BSA doesn't require a particular sort of belief, nor do they require proof or absolute knowledge of one's beliefs) with the EBoR participants prior to convening the board. Lisa'bob

Hi Dan, No you don't get to choose your "critter." There is a set list of critters that current WB courses use and even a "critter order" that you'll become quite accustomed to, esp every time you sing the Gilwell song. You can google it if you're interested. I don't think it really matters which particular "critter" you are, though of course Bobwhites rule (by stealth more often than not - we're not flashy like some I could mention). I think, as others have said, what matters most is the composition of your patrol and that you "gel" with your patrol mates. And I think the overwhelming majority of people do, thus are rightly proud of "their" patrol and patrol critter at the end. Lisa'bob

I'm in agreement with Beavah on this - if you're going to use NSPs you have to have excellent support in the form of TGs, JASMs, and ASMs designated to work with the NSPs. Our troop uses NSPs. Beyond that we have two mixed-age patrols and one "high school" patrol (not called that, but that's how it is). Last year we had enough new scouts for two new scout patrols. One of them is working out ok, though there are always bumps along the way. The other has been, in my opinion anyway, close to a disaster. Actually the TG who was assigned to the more problematic NSP did a pretty good job last spring. But the ASM assigned to that patrol probably did not have the right temperment or patience for that job (and he has since quit). It depends a lot on the boys too. In our problematic NSP, practically every boy has some kind of behavioral issue. It wasn't planned that way, it just happened. So kids who probably would've been a little "quirky" if they'd been mixed into more stable existing patrols ended up being oil and water - or maybe it is oil and a lighted match? - when put togehter in a NSP and expected to work together and lead each other. But I think I might be more inclined to say go with mixed age patrols. My son - a second year scout - was in a NSP-turned "regular" patrol. His experience with NSPs was mixed, a lot of "blind leading the blind." More like blind following the blind - not much leadership when no one knows what they're doing. The person who DID know what he was doing - the TG - ended up just doing a lot of things FOR them because, well, he could. And a lot of being treated like the "little kids" in the troop, yet without much help, teaching, or encouragement from older scouts. At about this time last year a few boys from another patrol were added in to his. These are boys who are a year or two older than my son and most of his patrol mates. They really bonded and it has been good for all of them in exactly the ways Oren and Beavah describe. Right now my son's patrol spans about a 3 year age range and ranks from "scout" to "star." Oh and by the way it isn't always going to be the oldest boys in the patrol who end up as leaders (my son says - yeah, they know better!). Right now the PL (my son) and APL are both 2nd year scouts. But these older boys are, in some ways, easier to lead for our rookie PL and APL than a patrol-ful of same-aged scouts might be. Lisa'bob

Kraut, One thing I think worth keeping in mind is that a presentation that works for roundtable or leader specific training may not be the same as a presentation that works for packs/troops/teams/crews where you are addressing both youth and adult members (and maybe also parent non-members) together. Personally I'd stick with a format that would work for roundtable and leader training because I think you'll get the most mileage out of it. Emb says: "I get annoyed by those WBs who continue to wear their WB patrol medallion after being beaded... " I'm just curious and don't mean to hijack the thread but...why does this annoy you? Seems reasonable that it might be an expression of pride in their patrol? And why AFTER they've been beaded - is it ok prior to beading? I don't wear my BobWhite emblem on my uniform but as I say, I'm just curious about this. Lisa'bob

My son's cub scout pack participated in the popcorn sales. His current boy scout troop does not. Part of this has to do with market saturation (8 packs and 2 other troops in our town, plus umpteen more packs and 3 troops in the next town 2 miles down the road all sell popcorn). In all honesty and purely selfishly, I'm kind of glad we no longer sell the popcorn. I was our pack's "kernel" for several years. I got real tired of constant push from council to sell more. Also my son consistently did sell a huge amount, typically over $1000, and we got burned out on it. Someone said in another thread a couple months ago that they came to loathe the smell of the stuff in their living room and I completely understand that sentiment. At any rate: yes, I do think the program is reasonably well designed to help scouts learn about salesmanship. I think the program does a nice job, if used properly, of helping scouts see just how much support they get from their community. When we did show & sells outside local stores the boys were always amazed at how many people would support scouting, even many who just gave a few dollars and didn't buy any product. Also they were always surprised at how many people were former scouts, including many store owners/managers who went out of their way to help them as a direct result. With cubs I don't think selling popcorn had an effect on how careful they were with equipment - the connection was too distant for them in some cases. Not to mention that most packs I know don't have much equipment (other than a pinewood derby track maybe), and tend to use the money raised for program, awards, and outings instead. Maybe it would make a stronger impact on boys in a troop, who would see that the money they raise directly funded their tents or stoves or something. My son's troop does a variety of fund raisers instead of popcorn. (Yes I know that these do not provide financial support to the council. Please don't jump on me, this is not a decision that's mine to make.) We sell wreaths in the fall and plants in the spring, both through local nurseries. In the case of the plant sale what we actually sell is coupons that people can take to the nursery and pick out their own plants. This works really well, people are supportive, the local nursery appreciates our partnership, and the boys love that they don't have to do a return visit to deliver a product - just sell the coupons on the spot. We also perform clean-up at a couple of major community events each year, for which we are paid. Again this seems to work fine for all involved. Oh and all the adults in our troop are easy marks for an enterprising younger brother who is in cubs. All they need to do is show up at a troop meeting and we all end up buying the stuff. Usually from 2 or 3 different boys in fact. So I like to think in that way that we're still contributing a bit to council's welfare AND the packs. If our troop were selling it too, we wouldn't be supporting the pack sales. Maybe a self-serving thought, I don't know.

I took WB as a cub leader too, along with our Cubmaster. In our case, the pack paid something like $50 each. We each paid something like $120 plus any other costs out of pocket(like uniforming - both of us were still fairly new and working on acquiring pieces of the uniform). We each also applied for and received WB grants from our council's WB association to cover the remainder. I thought that was a pretty fair division. I know that it would have been financially difficult for me to pay the full cost at the time and I also would not have felt right asking the pack to pay the full cost either, given the budget they had to work with. But I do also think asking the pack to pay part of the cost is fair. If nothing else, it provides another incentive for the WB'er to make sure to finish his/her ticket because the pack is investing in you and that's part of the "pay off" for the pack. And it gives the pack a greater interest and stake, may also help to get "buy in" from pack leaders into what you're doing. Hey Dan - hope you get to be a BOBWHITE! Lisa'bob

When dealing with a bullying type situation or other behavior issues, what's the role of the committee, in your view? Is it to direct the SM? To offer over-sight (ie, to ensure that the issue isn't swept under the rug)? To provide for follow-up on a situation over time? To help the SM outline options? To set policy to deal with a specific scout and/or his parent(s)? To offer moral support for whatever route the SM may choose (within reason of course)? Is there, maybe, not a role for the committee to play here and rather this is solely the domain of the SM/ASMs? This issue seems to be coming up lately on the board and unfortunately it is coming up in my son's troop too. I can see several approaches to the above. One is that since it is mainly the ASMs and SM who work directly with scouts (and attend camp outs, for the most part) that there are times when behaviors are dealt with just by those individuals. The committee may never even know there was a problem. But then later, when it comes to BORs and/or when the problem is raised to the committee by irate parents whose kids are quitting in part as a result of past bullying, what is the committee supposed to do? Say, "we didn't know?" Say, "this is the SM's problem, go talk to him/her?" I'm still turning this one around and trying to see all angles. Thoughts on the matter? Lisa'bob

Yeah I'd be real careful about the contrived award business though. Not knowing what he might experience in reality, a "survival" badge or anything else that makes light of his experience might be in poor taste.

Fred and Oak Tree, sorry for not responding more promptly. You sent me back to digging through my BALOO training material, which I first had to locate... At any rate. Yes, the ONE night perception does come from the G2SS discussion of webelos camping. It also comes from the interpretation we were given at our BALOO training. I didn't realize that this might be a local interpretation that could vary elsewhere. But, looking at the documents I found from my BALOO days where this is explained, those documents are in fact council-level (or maybe district-level, I'm not sure). They're not official BSA national publications. This has me wondering and I will ask our DE when I see him later this week if there is another source for this (he helped deliver BALOO so I'd hope he'd know, if there was). Lisa

OK so I agree it would be important to flesh out the political aspect. Does this group see scouting as a way to gain publicity or to further their political cause? If so I'd be wary. I hate it when I see scouting used as a political tool and even more when I see individual scouts get sucked into this (perhaps unwittingly). We're not a photo op for any group of politicos. As for the last point. I know a lot of units who do service, etc., for outside groups that are not their CO. My son's troop is sponsored by a Lions club, yet they regularly do service projects for the VFW, American Legion, Elks, and a variety of other community groups (including several churches). I don't see a need for some kind of "unofficial" sponsorship to do this. And I'd really want to know, what's in it for the Sons? Why do they want you all as members, particularly if they don't seem to hold meetings or whatever? I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth but I'm just concerned that this is a ploy to either inflate their membership #s or to use their support of scouts as a political tool.

Here's what the Guide to Safe Scouting has to say on the topic of non-scout siblings at camp: Under "Age Guidelines" for "Camping": "If a well-meaning leader brings along a child who does not meet these age guidelines, disservice is done to the unit because of distractions often caused by younger children. A disservice is also done to the child, who is not trained to participate in such an activity and who, as a nonmember of the group, may be ignored by the older campers." AND, under the section re: "Pack Overnighters": "If nonmembers (siblings) participate, the event must be structured accordingly to accommodate them. BSA health and safety and youth protection guidelines apply..." These would appear to limit the participation of a non-scout child, or at least to suggest that such children should only be there if there is an age-appropriate program for them too. For this reason, I know that our council strongly, strongly discourages the attendance of non-scout children at either district or unit-level events. This is hammered home in BALOO training around here. The only exception is that our district allows staff children under the age of 6 to attend cub day camp, and they have a special day care set up for them. HOWEVER, if you also look at the section of the G2SS that addresses family camping, here's what it says: "Family camping: an outdoor camping experience, other than resident camping, that involves Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, or Venturing program elements in overnight settings with two or more family members, including at least one BSA member of that family. Parents are responsible for the supervision of their children, and Youth Protection guidelines apply." And this seems to open the door to non-scout siblings attending a council family camping program (as opposed to pack programs). So I suppose it depends in part on how your council chooses to define the program they are offering. I could see making an argument in either direction for family-oriented events, based on the above.