Lisabob

There are 3 troops and 8 packs in our town, plus another 2 troops (and 3 or 4 packs) in the next town over, 5 miles away. Generally, troops recruit based on school district lines but there is one pack in my town that's right on the line and sends a few boys to troops in the next town every couple of years. In our town, the three troops are widely divergent in terms of "personality," recruiting style and relationships with packs. One troop is small, doesn't recruit much, and only has a close relationship with the pack sponsored by their church. Ironically they were also the most helpful to me when I was a WDL. Although they had never received any boys from our pack before, they were willing to attend occasional events with us and invited our webelos to a couple of their events, including a district camporee. They tried (without success but at least they tried) to get den chiefs for us, which is more than I can say for the other troops in town who appeared to ignore the matter. They were also very up front with parents that any boy who joins is expected to have at least one parent be active in some manner. I'll be honest, this scared off a few of our families. As a somewhat burned out WDL at the time, I could understand this but it was a shame; they are a really nice group. The other two troops are generally more competitive in terms of recruitment and have "feeder" relationships established with multiple packs. Our pack usually "feeds" into troop A, so troop B didn't even bother to contact us for their events. In fact they were surprised when I sought them out so our boys could get to know them. Troop A, the one our pack usually connects with, more or less ignored the pack except for inviting us to one lock in, and coming to B&G. They're nice people but I was unimpressed. My son chose troop A anyway because that's where his friends were going and he wanted to be with them. His friends wanted to go there because a) it is the biggest troop in town with a reputation for doing a lot of camping, and b) it has a reputation for being the best organized (well this was their parents' interest, not something the boys cared about - but it was a big, big draw for several parents). I think changing these "feeder" relationships is healthy. Things get stale and neither side is terribly helpful to the other in a lot of these relationships. Lisa'bob

Have you talked with the parents? If it were me I'd try to arrange as many events with as many troops as possible. It may be the case that the boys will go to some events with a troop they have no intention of joining (or that mom & dad have no intention of driving to every week, to be more accurate). But so what? At least they get a wider exposure. Additionally, it might be that some of the boys are unable to attend one troop's webelos-oriented events (schedule conflicts, illness, etc.). Purely for AoL requirements, it would be nice for them to have multiple opportunities. So sure, I'd schedule as many things as possible and then leave it up to the parents and boys to make decisions about what they'll attend. Lisa'bob

Calico is correct that the dominant interpretation of the clause that fgoodwin cites has been that Congress cannot limit the scope of the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction. However, Calico, it would be incorrect to state that this clause allows Congress to "upgrade" a class of cases from appellate to original jurisdiction. This matter was ruled upon in a definitive manner in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison), in which the Supreme Court determined that if Congress wishes to alter the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it must do so by amending the Constitution itself, and not passing an ordinary law. As to whether Congress can alter the appellate jurisdiction: this comes under more debate but most legal scholars agree that if Congress were to pass laws prohibiting review of cases in a way that otherwise contradicts the Constitution, then the courts would strike down such attempts as being, themselves, unconstitutional. Consequently, any "Pledge Protection" act is likely to be challenged on first amendment grounds. Congress cannot constitutionally prohibit the courts from hearing such cases and an attempt to do so would almost certainly fail. Surely Mr. Talent is aware of this, which is what makes me think that this was just a raw political ploy on his part. If he *really* wants to "protect" the pledge, I suggest that instead of using boy scouts for political ends and staging a meaningless vote for partisan electoral purposes, he might consider what the pledge embodies and work at promoting and protecting those higher ideals.

Congress can pass any laws it wants regarding "Pledge Protection." Unless or until a Constitutional amendment to the contrary is passed (highly unlikely in my view), The US Supreme Court can still strike those laws down as being unconstitutional. If they choose to, the Supreme Court can decide to rule that "under G-d" is an unconstitutional addition to the pledge too, although personally I doubt that will happen either. I suspect that as a member of Congress Mr. Talent knows this and is using this issue as a way to score political points rather than a genuine effort to "protect" the pledge. A photo opp. with a group of Boy Scouts and veterans at his back will certainly "play well" with his constituents but, regardless of the issue, I find it unfortunate that the Boy Scouts have allowed themselves to be used in this overtly political manner. By the way I'd feel the same way if some liberal Democrat were using the Boy Scouts for their purposes too, though I think that is less likely to happen. Lisa'bob

ASM59, I can understand your frustration in your original post and I think it is unbelievable that a pack would invite you to their ceremony, only to inform you *after* the fact that those boys you just crossed over were going to some other troop. Really bad behavior there. All of this webelos-scout transition stuff seems to bring out the worst in people sometimes. I've been amazed at the number of opportunities for mishaps, miscommunications, hurt feelings, etc. along the way. Worse, I think most of it could be avoided if units (troops and packs both) had a decent transition plan in place and communicated more effectively with each other. As a former cub leader, here are three things I wish all troops would do to smooth the way: 1. Have a dedicated ASM for new scouts who handles the transition stuff all the way through - or a committee member - but someone who can serve as the contact person. In our experience, some troops had no one in this role, while others had someone but that person was usually wearing so many other hats that they really couldn't focus on this one area. Not having a specific person in this position leads to chaos and miscommunication. 2. Share scheduling information with packs much earlier. Most troops around here set their annual schedules in May or June. Why, then, do they all seem to wait until about a week before their upcoming events to let the WDLs know about them??? There seems to be this misconception that packs and dens don't have a set schedule; wrong. Webelos dens in particular tend to be pretty busy in my experience. 3. Think about building that long term relationship from a long term perspective. Once our boys were webelos IIs getting ready for cross over, we got a lot of attention from local troops. But we'd been trying to build that relationship for years prior to this with very little luck. Where were these same troops when we asked for Den Chiefs? Why couldn't they ever help us out when we asked for a few scouts to come to our "big" events like the pinewood derby, or even just something as simple as some older boys in uniform to do an impressive flag ceremony? Where were the troops when we were looking for scouting for food partners? How come I couldn't drum up any interest in doing a joint campfire or any other event besides a "canned" webelos recruiting event? Wonderful as those events are, they don't build long term relationships because they are one-time deals. Along these lines, I have to agree with Dan. The troops that view cub packs as "feeders" only tend to also view recruitment as something that happens with webelos II dens between November and February. The rest of the time, they're MIA from the pack scene. Not surprisingly, cub leaders don't appreciate that very much. And then, there are some things I wish more cub packs would do too. 1. Encourage the boys to get to know several troops in town and not just one. Families can't make a serious choice if they don't know what the options are and no pack has an obligation to serve as "feeders" for any particular troop, no matter what the history is. 2. Encourage Webelos boys to do an SM conference with the troop that they plan to cross into. I know that they can do the SM conf. with any troop for the AoL, with no obligations to join. But it makes sense that they'd do it with the troop they plan to join, even if that means that they end up doing more than one SM conf. 3. Be up front with troops in terms of where the boys are likely to go. Troops would rather know in advance that Johnny is on the fence and may join a different troop (or quit) than find out at the cross over ceremony. I'm glad your story had a "happy" ending to it. But you know, I would also encourage you and your troop committee to go back and reconsider your approach to recruitment. What kind of relationship do you have with this pack beyond recruiting time? What kind of relationship would current pack leaders like to have? Do these match? Could you do more? Lisa'bob

oh, oh, can we add the other two "G" issues? That should really get things going, lol. Being just a little bobwhite, Trev's mud flew right on over me and splatted on a bunch of eagles. We bobwhites know when to duck. Lisa'bob

You're welcome to your opinion Ed. I was trying to provide you with a context though, in which a person might use G-d in a way that is intended to be respectful. While you're right that the "dash" has also been used as a written form of a "bleep" to suggest vulgarity, I think context matters a great deal too. I've never met anyone who uses the formulation "G-d" who has meant it in a disrespectful way. On the other hand, I've met (and read comments by) lots of people who use the full word in a variety of disrespectful manners. If nothing else, the use of "G-d" signals to me that someone may have given some minimal consideration to the meaning of the word and how they are using it. Of course, you may infer something different from it if you choose. My only point to you, Ed, would be that by asserting that it is one form! and not the other! (!!!) you risk coming across as someone who has a "my way or the highway" approach to other people's faiths and beliefs. I'm sure that isn't your intent. Lisa'bob

Thanks for that clarification Ed, 'cause I can see that nobody would have had the foggiest notion about whom or what I was talking otherwise... FWIW I am not Jewish but I was raised to believe that one should not spell out the full name (or title or whatever) of the higher being to whom we are most likely referring here. This, I was taught, was a sign of respect as well as an indication that mere mortal humans cannot possibly know the nature of our deity. You may or may not buy that and I really don't have a problem with your view Ed (and anybody else). But you may find that deeply religious people come to different conclusions and I hardly think it is productive to berate them for not taking your view on the matter. Lisa'bob

There are a few of these types of lists on line. One I ran across and liked was Mr. D's Merit Badge Review: http://www.usscouts.org/advance/docs/MrDsReview.html The recommendations should be taken with a grain of salt though, in terms of the "zealot" factor in particular. Lisa'bob

CNY, it might be a good idea to take a breath here. I understand and agree that the BSA program is a national program and that units who claim to be part of the BSA should do their best to subscribe to and provide that program to their members. On the other hand: 1. Every unit has its own circumstances and there is a great deal of flexibility built into the BSA program so that units can provide programs that "work" for their members. 2. It is also possible to get the "patrol" thing basically correct and still provide a terrible experience that fails the rest of the BSA methods. 3. I have had the privilege of getting to know a lot of units in my area. Not one delivers the program in exactly the same way as any of the others, and I'd wager that someone with a chip on their shoulder (or a BSA policy book in their pocket) could find something that each unit is doing that isn't strictly speaking, BSA policy. I'm not talking about big, egregious violations of G2SS or YPT or the like; I'm talking about minor variations. Some of these variations need to be changed or done away with; units are nearly always works in progress and they make errors along the way. Units change and what works at one point may not, at another point in time. 4. I know from personal experience too, that taking a confrontational and accusatory tone is about the least effective means of bringing about positive change. If it were my unit and you responded to me in the way that you responded to Eagledad's post, I know my first response would be "who is this guy and why is he acting like this?" rather than, hmm, maybe I should think about what he has to say. The approach is just as important as the substance. 5. You've had numerous posts about how you aren't happy with the units in your area and how none of them truly follow the patrol method. That may well be true and I can understand your concern. On the other hand, I hope you aren't approaching any of them in the way you approached Eagledad here, because I don't think you'll get the kind of reception - let alone results - that you might like. The point of this forum as I understand it is to exchange experiences and ideas. Personally, I'm glad that eagledad and others have been willing to share their experiences - good, bad, and ugly - with the rest of us so that we can draw from their experiences as we think about how to improve our own units. Lisa'bob

t158 - Sorry about that! I went back to the wrong post to figure out to whom I was responding and managed to pick up your name instead of GS-CS. It was, in fact, GS-CS who asked about the possibility of joining a unit from another council. I should've paid closer attention... Lisa'bob

Good luck Ma Scout! Hope all goes smoothly for you tonight. Lisa'bob

And how would I react? Quite simply, I probably would not as long as the people in question were respectful of those who were reciting the pledge. I'm proud of my flag and my country. But if other people feel it is inappropriate for them personally to recite the pledge then that's their business. Attempts to compel speech, by peer pressure, ridicule, or harrassment, are likely to fail, both in form and substance. Lisa'bob

There are a variety of reasons why someone might choose not to recite the pledge. 1. religious reasons - some groups believe that it is improper to recite a loyalty oath (and that's really what the pledge is) that appears to put fealty to country on par with fealty to G-d. 2. other religious reasons - some people object to the "under G-d" portion of the pledge, as currently written, and choose to either stay silent for those two words, or not to say the pledge at all. 3. citizens of other countries who are part of a US scout group. Lisa'bob

Thanks to both of you for the feedback. After talking with this young man a bit further I'd say he falls into e-scouter's 2nd category (bright, interested, but probably will need a little more time than some of the older boys who have had prior exposure). He decided to sign up for the chem badge at an upcoming mb fair, with an understanding that he might not finish the entire badge at the fair. Happily, a couple of other fairly young scouts (7th graders) also signed up for the same badge so they should be able to help each other out a bit. Lisa'bob

T158 - no, you will not "get in trouble" if you join a pack in the next town, which happens to be part of another council. The area that I live in is in the far corner of "our" council and a 15 minute drive from 2 other councils. I know people in my town who belong to all three councils. Frankly, the councils do not communicate much at all with each other, so if your son switched to a pack in the next council, chances are good that your original council wouldn't even know - not that they could stop you anyway. Brian - does your unit have a unit commissioner? If so, it sounds like this is a good time to talk with that person. He or she should be an experienced scouter with a somewhat more objective perspective because s/he isn't part of your unit. They may be able to offer some solid advice and work with you to help make any changes as smooth as possible. Do you get the feeling that your CC would probably step down if only there were someone else in place to step up? Or would he fight this tooth and nail? In the first instance you have an easier task because you really do not need to "remove" him, only provide him with a willing successor. But in the latter case..."removing" is difficult, particularly if it is primarily a conflict of personalities or styles rather than blatent violations of BSA policy. All the more so since your CO wants no part in the process. Rather, I'd focus on building a strong committee around this person. CC is a powerful position but often, that power is extended due to the vacuum around the position. Get someone else to handle the B&G, Pinewood, Advancements, etc. (several people - not one). That will reduce the CC's reach and probably, provide better results. Now you're a small pack - 11 boys. Ok, you may find the parents in your group can't contribute a whole lot more than they already are. What about extended family? Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, etc. make great leaders too. What about other community members? Do you have a troop you work with? How about asking them (and their charter org.) to help provide ideas for adult recruitment - or volunteers, outright. It isn't in the troop's interest for the pack to wither either or they'll have no new scouts. If you move to another pack: I did this with my son after his first year. Actually our whole den went together. We were glad we made the change, but moving to a new pack did not mean less work for us and it didn't guarantee a smooth ride either. Every pack has its problems and weak areas. Be prepared for that, but also take a little time to get the lay of the land so that you don't come across as the person who is always saying "well in my old pack we did it THIS way..." Bottom line: What's the best move for your son at this time? Lisa'bob

I had a conversation w/ our district adv. chair about this situation not too long ago. Her take was that, while the leader who is not a MB counselor might be acting in good faith here, it is still a MB counselor's job (and only their job) to sign off on MB requirements. Someone who is not a registered counselor shouldn't be doing so, for any reason. I know people do it anyway but I'm inclined to agree with her. Lisa'bob

This happened at an OA event. The OA is an honor society. Quite aside from whatever the troop decides to do, shouldn't the OA chapter be doing something about this too? I thought OA youth were supposed to be role models and that membership is a privilege and honor, not a right. That ought to mean something. Lisa'bob

I'm with you LongHaul. As much as I distrust and usually dislike pretty much anything Cheney has to say, I also don't think this should be treated as a major crisis. But sensationalism sells. In the meantime, imagine the possibilities. If Cheney is smart he can probably make a nice retirement income out of this, not that he needs it. Imagine, he can go on Oprah decrying his folly (related to this matter only...let's not get into politics here). Then a "hunting accident mea culpa" book tour. For the younger age groups, he could endorse a hunting themed "Where's Waldo" book. Heck, he could even do a spot in a hunter safety video for the bsa hunting mb. Lisa'bob

GS-CS, I can certainly understand your dilemma. Trying to remember back to my own GS days (fuzzy memory at work here). I think one difference between GS and cub packs is that within a given GS troop there isn't that age division like you typically see with the dens in a cub pack - and the adult leadership that dens add to the pack is vital, IMO (ie, not just a Cubmaster and Asst but also all those den leaders to help provide a program). It is too bad though, that nobody in your area could or did start up a "sister" troop for girls of different ages (but still too young for the cadet troop) than the ones you were able to take. That might've worked nicely. Also just one question, what happened (will happen?) with the troop when your daughters age out? Will/did it fold? Will/did someone else start a new group again for the younger girls to keep things going? Lisa'bob

Try googling "blue and gold decorations". Last year our bear den made "lanterns" for each table out of wax paper and popsicle sticks (painted blue and yellow). Take a sheet of wax paper, make 4 adjoining squares by glueing on the popsicle sticks, and when they're dry you can fold them into a box. Glue the 1st/last edges together and you're done. They're really easy and you can glue on cub symbols to the sides if you want. You could put votives inside but since we can't have live candles in the schools we hung little party favor sized flashlights inside each one from some fishing line. Worked great, kids had fun making them. Only downside is, you need time for the paint to dry before glueing, and the glue to dry before folding into boxes. Wolves weaved paper placemats. Tigers made "future cubs" with styrofoam, paint, and fabric. Have fun with it. Lisa'bob

I'm all for doing more online training and I think BALOO includes a lot of material that would be suitable for online delivery. OLW (or WOLS or whatever your current name for it is in your council) is not a very good candidate for online delivery though. There's too much hands on content that doesn't lend itself to simulated online learning. Clydesdale, if you are unable to get set up for WOLS, have you considered taking hte boy scout OLS? Most councils around here offer OLS in the spring and fall, while WOLS is often only available in the fall. There are some differences (OLS is typically 2 nights while WOLS is 1 night; WOLS is geared specifically toward the webelos program and includes specific ideas for several of those webelos activity pins, while OLS teaches skills geared toward tenderfoot-1st class; of course WOLS participants are likely to be cub leaders while OLS will draw mostly troop leaders). But many of the underlying skills are the same and as a former Webelos den leader I can tell you that the foundation you build with your webelos will have a direct impact on how easy the boys find it to handle many of the tenderfoot-1st class skill requirements too. And you can certainly adapt the OLS material to a webelos-appropriate level. The two big disadvantages to doing OLS instead of WOLS are: 1. you need WOLS (not OLS) to get that WDL knot, and 2. you need to do more work yourself to apply the OLS directly to the webelos activity pins. But as long as you talk w/ the OLS course director a little bit about your situation in advance, I'm confident that you could make it work just as well. Lisa'bob

Rooster, you're right that this challenger is not a big national name and he might be off the deep end (judging from the article posted, I'd say he is anyway). But that's beside the point. If you really want to pick big names and talk about how they stick their feet in their mouth and swallow up to their knees, we can find plenty of those folks from both the liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum too. And an interesting little point about the Conservative party in NY: they often endorse Democratic candidates over Republicans. It is one of those weird local twists. Zahnada I'd have to agree that the Dems don't seem to have a good national voice or message coming from Congress right now. But then again most successful presidential candidates come from the states, not Congress, and are not all that well known nationally prior to starting their campaigns for President. Bill Clinton was a classic example of this - honestly, how many people would've picked the governor of Arkansas as a likely two term president, in 1990? Lisa'bob

Yup vmpost is right. C'mon guys, imagine if the uniform were designed in ways that fit most women's bodies but routinely provided an ill-made or downright embarrassing fit for you guys. You'd be hollering too. I don't wear a turtleneck under my shirt either seed...though I too have seen plenty of others do this. Personally I've noticed that wearing a turtleneck underneath tends to exacerbate the fit problem of the straight cut BSA-issue shirt. Of course, it does provide backup in case of button disasters though. Yes - tailoring is an option but designing a uniform that fits better to start with is a better one. Yes - the idea is to be uniformed (for a host of reasons suitable to another thread) and not to be fashion plates. But ya know guys when I'm forced to choose between a tent-sized shirt to fit my chest even though the rest of the shirt is much too big for me and worrying about busting a button and inadvertantly providing a show, YES IT DOES get to be a bit annoying. (and no, I'm not abnormally well endowed either) I'd even say that yes, it could get to a point where it could detract from attention to one's job. Yes - there are plenty of women - and I'm one of them - who wear the uniform correctly and with pride in what it represents, who do a great job in scouting, and who just would love for BSA to take a good look at how they could better serve their dedicated volunteers. It would be so simple. I won't even care if it is made of the same crummy material as the current uniform - I'd just love for it to made to fit. And seed...how 'bout a nice pair of woodbadge "critter" earrings? Lisa'bob

Well Beavah, that's a different perspective. Thanks for that. Venivedi, according to my son the PL does most of the patrol cooking "because he's quicker at it." I agree the PL and APL could use a little help with delegation and maybe that's a suggestion I can make. They have a patrol scribe and patrol QM but these seem to be positions in name only. Perhaps the patrol advisor is a good person to talk with about this. And for clarification, with the exception of the assigned PL and APL (who are in 8th and 9th grade), the patrols are age based. The rest of the boys in this patrol are 6th graders. Maybe this is just the nature of 11 and 12 year old boys to look to others for leadership rather than stepping forward themselves. Like EagleinKY mentioned, I am also hopeful that these guys will begin to see themselves as "experienced" scouts rather than "new" scouts once we get a new group of webelos at cross over in a couple weeks. Maybe Beavah's right that this was actually a smart decision on their part. I can't help but wonder though, if they keep deferring based on a lack of experience, at what point are they ever going to feel "ready" for that responsibility? Lisa'bob