Lisabob

If you are considering taking wb through a neighboring council then you'll probably meet some folks from your own council too, esp. since your council's class didn't meet enrollment last year so there are probably several people who would've taken it in council last year, who will now be considering the neighboring council's program this year. Around here, we've got three councils that work together. They rotate courses so that each year it is in a different council, but participants come from all three (and elsewhere). If your council offers wb every other year then they may have a similar system set up with the nearby council. Lisa'bob

We typically have a dinner event (BBQ chicken in the late spring) once a year and people pay out of pocket. Otherwise refreshments aren't usually offered at rt. Lisa'bob

gwd, that's an interesting point regarding the history of the pledge. Let's add that in the Barnette case it was a religious group (Jehova's Witnesses) who opposed mandatory recitation of pledge in public schools. It is also worth noting that, among those who objected to a mandatory salute (right arm extended, palm upward) to the flag while reciting the pledge (which was required under WV law at the time) were the Boy and Girl Scouts of America, and the Red Cross. After this case, this was pretty much a dead issue (at least, legally speaking) until after 9/11 when several states started trying to pass laws mandating the pledge again. I believe Pennsylvania was one that did this fairly recently. I've lived in other countries where there is no comparable public repetition of loyalty, yet I did not find people in those countries to be less patriotic; they just expressed it differently. I guess my question is: do arguments about how, or if, people recite the pledge further the cause of patriotism? Is this necessarily the best or only way to demonstrate one's loyalty and duty to country? I've seen some groups get so caught up in arguments about how to say the pledge that they seem to lose track of the actual meaning of the words. Lisa'bob

Funscout, I apologize if what I said came across wrong. You're right, it would be incorrect to characterize your post as suggesting that liberals all *hate* scouts. Let me try to re-phrase what I was trying to say. I think it is more accurate to put it this way: while many liberals don't agree with some specific BSA policies, many of us *do* still value the larger ideals and lessons that scouting teaches. This difference gets overlooked a lot of times and many people seem to assume that liberals are all out to get the BSA. Happily, I have noticed that matters of interpretation and emphasis (unlike bedrock ideals) differ from one unit to another. Most of the liberals I know who are involved in scouting belong to units that take a big tent approach and try to keep the overtly political stuff to a minimum, rather than alienating otherwise good volunteers and members. BrentAllen, yes, this is the issues and politics forum. Does that mean we check reasonable discussion at the door? I find some threads here to be quite interesting too. I just personally don't see a need to engage in polemics. I find it makes it difficult to have a serious conversation about the very issues and politics that we're here to discuss. Also it gets quite predictable. Now, others may disagree and if you prefer to let loose, go right ahead, I'm not trying to stop you. I just usually don't respond to that sort of "discussion" because to me, diatribes and rants tend to signal that the people involved aren't interested in having a serious discussion anyway. Lisa'bob

BrentAllen, I don't have a problem with your political views, I just probably won't ever agree with you. Well hey, that's ok, you probably aren't going to agree with me either. And I do have strongly held views. But I also have family members whom I adore, who fall on all sides of the political fence (including under and over it) so over the years I've found it is far better to keep the polemics turned way, way down. At least - if I want to have a serious conversation or share thanksgiving dinner with the family. I think, though, that there's an assumption out there (look at the first line in funscout's post, for example) that liberals all hate scouts. That's inaccurate, if not myopic. That was kind of my point. Lisa'bob

BrentAllen, I don't have a problem with your political views, I just probably won't ever agree with you. Well hey, that's ok, you probably aren't going to agree with me either. And I do have strongly held views. But I also have family members whom I adore, who fall on all sides of the political fence (including under and over it) so over the years I've found it is far better to keep the polemics turned way, way down. At least - if I want to have a serious conversation or share thanksgiving dinner with the family. I think, though, that there's an assumption out there (look at the first line in funscout's post, for example) that liberals all hate scouts. That's inaccurate, if not myopic. That was kind of my point. Lisa'bob

Oh dear BrentAllen, I should've known that would touch off a screed. Look, I understand that there are people out there who treat the BSA poorly and label this "liberalism." This is a very unfortunate mis-use of what it means to be a liberal though. I also understand that there are people out there who call themselves "conservatives" who take actions that a great many people find either dunderheaded or offensive too. Thank goodness I know that "conservative" is not necessarily synynomous with "horrible person." To me, being liberal means standing up for core freedoms listed in the first amendment (among others), working tirelessly for rights for both the minority and majority voices in society, and doing what we can to make life better for all people. The main difference that I see between my view on liberalism and conservatism is that I believe government both can and should play a big role in helping people improve their lives, whereas most conservatives tend to see government as part of the problem and not the solution. OK, so we disagree on that. I really don't think it is necessary or productive for people to create a caricature of the "other" side as a result. Now yes, as I said in my earlier post, I disagree with some BSA policies and the policy toward openly homosexual members is one. I think that the BSA suffers in terms of its public image because it/we get beat up for being anti-gay instead of getting recognition for all of the wonderful things our program offers to today's youth. I also think the policy is short sighted in its own right. However, I don't think forcing change from the outside would bring about the desired results and I do agree with the court that (like it or not) the BSA is a private organization and can therefore set membership requirements. In my view, change - if or when it finally happens - in this particular policy will have to come from within the BSA in order for it to be effective. You may disagree with that, and that's fine with me. I won't think less of you for doing so (grin). I guess I just take a pragmatic approach. I happen to prefer yellow-and-purple plaid uniforms but unless I start the "Lisabob Scouts" I'm probably not going to succeed in getting everyone to wear uniforms like that. One has to balance one's preferences. I find things I don't like in youth soccer leagues around here too but in the balance, I think the leagues offer more positives than negatives. Same with scouting, the good far outweighs the bad. But...it would be incorrect for people to assume that liberals don't share many of the same basic values that scouting teaches. We liberals value trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courtesy, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thrift, bravery, cleanliness and reverence too. We want our kids to learn to be healthy, happy, independent, self-confident young leaders too. And no - most of us do not have a pair of horns poking out from under our hats. So it seems to me like, when people suggest that all those liberals (or all those Democrats) are anti-BSA, that people are relying on a caricature instead of taking time to really share views with each other and LISTEN to the responses they get. It leads to a poor debate when that happens and people end up shouting past each other instead of talking to each other. Lisa'bob

Well no, I don't think you can rightfully insist on one job-one family. Who are you going to exclude? Mom? or Dad? If the pack we were part of had done this I'd have been royally cheesed off, either way. Besides, who are you (as an outsider to the family) to determine what this family can or can't handle? And you may be unwittingly inserting yourself into a contentious marital debate or power struggle here too. Do you really want to go there? I know that's probably not what you meant at all. But, that's how it may be perceived. OK, so what to do? Just like with ANY volunteers, start them out with smaller tasks and let them get their feet wet. Try hard...at least at first... to honor the one job per person idea. No point in overwhelming brand new volunteers anyway. Work hard at "shedding" some of your own roles until you are down to just one. Personally, I found that the more roles I took on, the harder it was to get others to step up - they just figured I'd do it, or that if they volunteered that they, too, would end up having to do way more than they really wanted to or had time for. I realized, eventually, that I was being a poor role model for other adults here! It was sometimes hard for me to relinquish certain jobs but if you're going to tell others to do it, you have to also. So you have 4 openings from the sound of it (CM, CC or DL, ADL, Advancement Chair) ADL and Advancement Chair are two jobs that are simple to do and you should be able to fill quickly. Get those off your plate. If you already have 2 ACMs, can one of them step up to be the new CM? Have they been asked directly? As a new volunteer I might be leery of becoming CM right off the bat, but if an experienced person took that job I'd probably be more willing to serve as their ACM. So that makes filling vacancies less problematic both from your perspective (steady leadership) and theirs (new volunteers get to start small). As for being CC and DL at the same time - I've done that too and as you know it is a tremendous workload, esp. since (as you know too) in the absence of a CM, the CC takes on that job too. Of the two, I think it is harder to find someone to be a good DL. So if you really enjoy being a DL and nobody else in your den is willing, then start looking for a new CC. But...to sell this job...you need to whittle it down to something mere mortals can handle. If it looks to the other parents like the CC ends up doing everything (which is what happened with our pack for a while) then it is easy to understand why nobody in their right mind would want to take that job from you. This CC role might take a litte while to fill. Maybe one of the new volunteers would be a good candidate to serve as your assistant for a while so they can learn the ropes. Shedding other responsibilities that seemed to fall into your lap just because you're the CC and nobody else would do them is also difficult because, let's face it, nobody else would do them if you don't. Honestly that's the hardest thing I had to do because I HATED to see things go off less than perfectly due to lack of adult participation. Once I really understood this though and I let some things go undone, and people began to pipe up (well why didn't this or that get done?) I found myself in a position to recruit more people, more easily. "Hey, I agree, this needs to be done. Would you be willing to handle this for next month's meeting? Here's what this would require, it's actually pretty simple." It worked. I was surprised at first. It kept working. Now the pack is in a spot where they've got a bunch of leaders. I'm very happy about that. (In fact,the only position they continue to have a hard time filling is the CC - but all those "extra" tasks that the CC used to do have been farmed out to new volunteers so this isn't nearly as big a hole as it might have been. They're working on it though.) Lisa'bob

I don't see anything wrong with visiting the webelos (upon invitation by the webelos DL, of course), along with your scouts. I would, of course, want to make sure that the scouts are on the same page as you in terms of the kind of message you want to deliver and the ways in which you'll deliver it. And I'd be real sure to make it fun for the audience (boys) and not just more adult blathering. In terms of contacting other troops: yes, if you contact the SM and committee first and explain what you are trying to do. I've met very, very few scouters who want to see another unit fold and they'll probably be willing to lend a hand if and where they can. On the other hand, I think it would be inappropriate to contact boys in other troops directly, as this might appear to be poaching or raiding. If you haven't done so already, I'd also suggest you start attending your district roundtables and any other scouter gatherings in your area, so you can build a good relationship with the other troop and pack leaders. That may go a long way toward improving your chances of recruiting new scouts. Again if you haven't already, consider signing up for Woodbadge this summer. In addition to specific skill sets, you'll develop a fantastic network of dedicated scouters in your area, which you can then draw upon as you rebuild this troop's program. Once you think you can manage it, set up a couple of events that you can invite webelos - or even bears (looking ahead a couple of years)- to attend, and (along with the boys in the troop of course!) make sure they're well planned and fun. Alternately, if your troop is willing, you could contact cub leaders and offer your troop's service in terms of teaching scout skills. I know as a webelos den leader I was thrilled to have some local troop members come to a meeting and do some cool lashing projects with my webelos boys. We also had a joint patrol/den cookout that went over very well. Yes, I could've pulled off something similar myself, but they had so much fun doing it with other boys, and they were slightly awe-struck that older boys would pay attention to them. BIG recruiting bonus there. If you can get a handful of new boys who are excited about your program based on actual experience, it'll make your recruiting pitch a lot easier. Good luck and let us know how things are going. Lisa'bob

"republican" can mean those who support a republic-style of government, where people choose representatives to make decisions on their behalf. In that sense, we're all republicans, even those of us who are also liberal Democrats. Scoutingagain I'll admit: you hit on one of my hot buttons. Why is it that people assume liberals are necessarily anti-scouting? Yup, as a liberal I admit it...I disagree with certain policies of the BSA (3 guesses as to which ones). But you know what, we liberals can also see the tremendous value that scouting offers to our kids too. I'm willing to balance those factors. By the way I also disagree with certain stances my political party takes on some issues. But I still support them because in the big picture I think they have the right general ideas. Lisa'bob

This council is pipe dreaming if they think their existing scouts are all going to roll over and pay the $52/yr additional fee, or that they'll manage to attract many new scouts with this new fee and the added negative publicity that the council is receiving. Just from personal experience: the packs and troops we've been affiliated with have charged anywhere from $30/yr to $70/yr in dues. Of this, it is true that $10 goes to national and about another $12 goes for Boys Life, and our council gets zip. And even at $70/yr scouting is a tremendous value, given what the scouts (and often, the whole family) receive in return. But still, many parents find these annual dues to be high and would balk - no wait, they'd turn around and run - if we were to add another $52 to the cost. Most of them won't take the time to ask why. They just won't pay it and they'll find something else for their kids to do instead. And those who do take the time to ask why won't be at all pleased to learn that this is to compensate for the council's financial mismanagement and a good chunk of those folks will leave scouts too. So I'm sorry but if adding a $52 (!!) surcharge for every scout is the best plan that this council can come up with, then perhaps they deserve to become extinct. Maybe whatever council they end up merging with will run a better, more responsible program for the scouts. Lisa'bob

uz2bnowl...we birds must stick together in this fox & bear infested world, so welcome to the nest. I think the answer to your question depends very much on the strengths and weaknesses of the troop you are joining. As an example, my son crossed over last year at this time. He joined a troop that has about 18 ASMs and they all have far better outdoor skills than I do. I'm no slouch but these people are serious; one guy leads wilderness expeditions for a living. I found there wasn't a lot I could add there. So I joined the committee, where I discovered that there was a serious need for people with organizational and communication skills. I've got those, they surely do need them. This year, I'm helping with the troop's webelos-scout transition plan from the administrative end of things. On the other hand, a different troop we were looking at joining is much smaller and has few ASMs. If we'd joined them, I probably would've signed on as an ASM and, after a year with the troop, I'd probably be preparing to serve as a patrol advisor for this year's new scout patrol. So I guess my advice is to talk with the SM and the CC, observe for a little while, and see what holes exist that you are willing and able to fill. Lisa'bob I used to be a bobwhite...(and nope, I wouldn't make a good dinner - bobwhites are much to small for that!)

I have a question about how/when/where you wear your wb beads. Are there some unspoken rules of bead etiquette? For example: do you wear them every time you put on the uniform? How about to troop meetings? Court of Honor? Roundtable? District meetings? Just wb events? I got my beads in June last year. I'm proud of what they represent and I can imagine that they'd serve as a conversation starter and recruitment tool among those who haven't gone to wb yet. But I don't want to appear to be showing off either. Also I'm in a troop now where there are a lot of very experienced scouters with a great deal of expertise and I am learning a lot from them. Apparently I'm the only person in the troop leadership who has done WB though! And I can absolutely see how the leadership and people-skill aspect of the current WB course would be extremely helpful to some of these folks, even though their knowledge of scout skills is phenomenal already. So I'd like to quietly promote WB without seeming to play any one-upsmanship types of games. So what's the etiquette of wearing those beads? Lisa'bob

I meant to add: We never ran a regular den program during summer months and did not try at all to get a new tiger den up and running until after our fall round up. At most, we had a few very simple pack events. So I don't think it is necessary to try and get the whole tiger program started in order for spring recruitment to be a successful recruitment and retention tool. In fact this might have backfired, as people around here are so busy in the summer and the new den might have fallen apart due to low attendance. Lisa'bob

We have recruited new tigers specifically for day camp every spring, except for last year. In a pack of approx 30-40 boys we typically got anywhere from 7-12 new tigers who signed up and went to camp. Of those, some parents were very clear that they simply wanted a cheap, accessible introductory day camp experience and that's ok with me. However, probably 70% of the boys who signed up and went to camp with us came back in the fall as part of our pack's regular program. Also, the parents of these boys tended to be fairly willing to get involved as volunteers, once they saw how the cub pack works and what fun we all had at camp together. By the time fall rolled around, these families had already become acclimated to the program, which made getting our regular tiger den up and running much easier. The only downside to having that many new tigers at camp was that these guys are really young and were pretty worn out by the end of the day camp day. So we told their parents that we strongly recommended that the parent - or another adult the boy already knew well - attend day camp too, when possible. At least for the first day. That seemed to work best. Last year, we did not do spring tiger recruiting. The person who was supposed to be in charge didn't carry through and no one knew until it was too late (long story there). Interestingly enough, the pack got very few (3-4) new tigers to sign up in the fall this year and of those who did, the parents were pretty unwilling to take on any responsibilities at all in the pack. So I'm inclined to think that we reached a different population of families with the spring recruiting drive, and got people who otherwise wouldn't have joined if we waited until fall. On the downside - yes, it is hard when you don't have a summer program beyond camp. Our pack dealt with this in 2 different ways. First, those years where we actually shut down, we were very up front about this with the parents so they knew what to expect. That worked ok. It worked better though (better retention rates), when our pack planned a couple of low-stress summer events and made sure to let prospective new parents know that they were welcome. Ex: we went to a minor league baseball game (June), had a picnic (July) and helped with a community clean up project (August). Lisa'bob

No no ozemu, you've got it backwards: they should separate them *until* they reach 12 years. OK I'm joking. But...if we were going to introduce co-ed scouting further into the BSA I actually think it makes more sense to have co-ed troops and leave the cub program alone. At least by the time they're 12 or so boys appear to begin viewing girls as part of the human species again. I can't say the same for many 6-10 year olds. I even remember, as a cub leader, that one particular 8 year old boy paid me the highest of compliments. He said I had come up with a really cool idea for a pack activity...even though I was a (shudder) girl! Then again, this might be a reflection of the fact that my only boy is 11 years old right now and his opinion of girls (well, some of them anyway) seems to have changed quite a bit all of a sudden. Lisa'bob

I have this conversation with my son on occasion regarding school projects that require any kind of artistic endeavor (which he just despises - I don't know why, since he's actually pretty good). They tend to go like this. Son: OK I'm done. Me: Great, can I have a look? Son: mdhgjsmmmbd (non-commital mumbling) Me: Hmm, tell me about this. Son: well I had to (draw/color/paint/make a collage/etc) so I did. Me: I see. You've got one small (whatever type of art is required here) thing on the paper. Do you think that's what your teacher is looking for? Son: I met the exact requirement. I don't want to do more. Me: OK, and will you be happy when you get a C or D for this project? (minimally acceptable = D in his school). Do you think your teacher will feel you put much effort into this project? Tell me what you learned as part of doing this project. Son: No, and No and Not Much. Me: OK then you have a choice to make. Son: (grumbling, usually goes back and improves things to a respectable point - and is nearly always glad he did, later on) Somewhere along the way I hope he's learning that a) doing the bare minimum and slipping through is possible but usually not desirable and b) you just might learn something more - even interesting - by adding a little extra effort. If this SM is just on a power trip then that's one thing. If your son worked long and hard to come up with the poster he made and HE really feels badly about how the SM treated him and his work, then HE should respectfully ask for a discussion with the SM. In this case, your best bet is probably to provide some gentle hints on how to go about having that respectful conversation. On the other hand, if he slapped it together with minimal effort - as my son is fond of doing sometimes - and he got called on it, then he probably isn't feeling half as irritated as you are. If he isn't sure what else he ought to do, maybe you can point him (again) toward a respectful conversation with the SM. Chances are good he can take what he already has and add a few things to it, rather than starting from scratch. There may be a good opportunity for you to talk with the SM later on, when it doesn't revolve directly around your son getting something approved for rank advancement (lower tension, better results). The SM may have had the best intentions here but not realized that he appears to be setting a double standard. And yes, appearances are important. In that case, perhaps gently pointing that out and suggesting some constructive ways for approaching this situation in the future (ie, clear written guidelines re: the troop's program requirements for this sign-off) would be helpful and even welcomed. All the more so if you're in a position where you can offer to help with this in the future. Lisa'bob

My husband and I did this for a while. He was a den leader while I wore a variety of other hats. On one hand, we're both glad that we were involved with our son and his friends, and I like to think we did a good job. Also it was easy to coordinate activities since I knew I'd see him every day at the dinner table to discuss upcoming plans. On the other hand...we got to a point where we felt like all we ever talked about with each other was scouting. And we were both getting kind of burned out. Also we were both deeply involved in keeping the pack going. Negative sides to this were that when our son crossed over the pack lost two people, not one, and if someone didn't care for the way one of us was doing things, it might have been difficult to institute change. Not that I think this was a problem in our situation, but I can imagine some cases where it could be. I know one pack where the husband was CM and his wife was CC, and when the CM acted in some particularly egregious ways and needed to be removed, it put them (and the rest of the leaders) in a pretty awkward position. I would NOT discourage both parents from being involved though. Seems like units are perpetually short of willing, able volunteers so why turn them away? As with any new volunteers though, I'd encourage them to test the waters and start small to see what they enjoy and what works best for them. Lisa'bob

Personally, among the most useful things I got from wb are the network of scouters and the exchange of ideas/views/skills. Any scouting issue I'm working on, I know for a fact that I can contact any of my fellow woodbadgers and they won't hesitate to help out or offer feedback, or whatever I may need. You're right, there are many excellent leaders out there who have not done wb. But I'll tell you, I have yet to meet a lousy leader who *has* done woodbadge! Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

Setting aside the question of whether there *ought* to be female leaders in the BSA for a moment...From a purely pragmatic view I submit that a good number of units would fold if there weren't women involved because women frequently make up a majority of the adult leaders - especially in cub scouts. Going back to women's involvement: personally I think it makes sense to have dedicated adults, regardless of gender, involved in the program in as many ways as possible. I don't buy the argument that women will coddle the boys more than men (I've seen as many dads do this as moms). I also don't buy that women will treat boys as "bad girls" while men will not. There may be people out there who do treat boys that way but I submit that it has less to do with their gender and more to do with their lack of training or experience with boys. Now most moms I know who are involved in scouts HAVE SONS so they know at least a little about raising boys. I'm sure some will disagree but I'd say it is healthy for boys to be around caring, competent adults, period. Lisa'bob

And I wouldn't have a problem with this latest version of the song either. Here's what I don't care for in the original poster's version though: "We have no use for your bull now" is close enough to encouraging swearing to be out of bounds in my book, especially for little kids. It would be better (in my view anyway) if we were talking about older kids where ambiguity is better understood. But I can just imagine some 6 or 7 yr. old not understanding why it is ok to say "your bull..." and not "your bull---t" or when even the first one is unacceptable. Suppose that some cub scout informs his teacher that he "has no use for her bull". You can bet the boy's parents will be hearing from that teacher! So why encourage it at a pack meeting then? "You're so boring!" That's a different message than "they're [announcements] so boring!" Generally I'm not excited about teaching kids that it is ok, funny even, to call people names. Calling someone boring isn't that awful I suppose but it is still rude. If it were a pack that my son were in, yes, I would gently nudge people toward changing the lyrics that the original poster included. Personally I think there's a big difference between being "pc" and teaching politeness and respect for others. Not everyone will agree but hey, that's my opinion. Lisa'bob

I read an article in the NY Times today about how some people are now marking the end of adolesence as being in the early 30s. Yes, THIRTIES. The basic point: Young people are being ever more "groomed" with music lessons, sports, tutors, and other after school activities, but that when it comes right down to it, they are not well prepared to contribute to real life in a meaningful way, for all their education and enrichment, and that's why adolesence keeps stretching further and further. Given the extent to which life is "managed" for young people these days, they hardly have a chance to make decisions or take actions that matter in any true sense until they're well into their 20s. Sorry I don't have a link to the article...I hope I've done a fair job of summarizing it. (Don't misunderstand me - I teach at a large public university and I think education is really important - but I do meet an awful lot of 20-somethings who seem lost in the world.) Anyway the whole thing got me thinking about scouts. That's what we're about, isn't it. We don't promote scouts as just "something to put on your college application or resume." Ultimately, we believe scouts will make better adults out of the people who take part. Maybe even ease that transition from adolescent to adult. Most days, anyway. Right? Lisa'bob

We have several young men in the troop who have turned 18 in the last six months or so. Most express an initial desire to stay on as new leaders. Seems like those who actually do stay are those who have specific, defined roles to play. Those who don't have specific roles seem kind of lost and don't stick around for very long. So maybe this is something to discuss - how to carve out a specific role to play in the troop. Lisa'bob

Some boys have "fun" kicking and punching each other too but we wouldn't let them do that at cub scouts (I hope). So no, I don't think that's a good enough standard. I don't mean this in a nasty way Scotteng; I just think this gets to the main point of the discussion. I wouldn't have any problem with the song jtea describes in the previous post, either in terms of lyrics or how it is used. I would have a problem with the original poster's version. I don't let my child talk to or about other people like that at home and I wouldn't expect him to be encouraged to do so at cub scouts. Lisa'bob

Here are the potential down sides that I see; tell me what you think: 1. I think leadership ought to come from families with boys who are currently in the pack. If these families care enough to have their boys involved, then they should figure out how to get involved. If an answer to their leadership needs just seems to fall into their laps they'll never really get involved themselves. 2. I'm concerned that one person might end up doing the bulk of the work and others will feel they can free ride on that person's efforts. The potential returning leader in question has been known to spend a good bit more than that "hour a week" in order to ensure that pack events went smoothly. 3. As gwd-scouter said, fresh leadership is one of the big advantages of packs vs. troops, where people tend to get entrenched. Is asking "old" leaders to return setting up a situation where entrenchment and stale thinking are more likely? 4. The position in question here is the Committee Chair - a pretty important role in the pack. While I don't think there's reason to believe this person's return would cause a problem in and of itself, the fact is that the pack hasn't had a CC since about May. So other leaders - notably the CM - have sort of taken on these responsibilities on an unofficial basis, and giving them up may ruffle some feathers. This is a pragmatic concern, not a rulebook type of concern. (Don't ask me who has been signing off on things as the CC for them since May, I don't know. But, they've been told that without a CC the pack won't be allowed to recharter in Feb. and will have to fold.) 5. The person in question is involved with a troop and has been asked to consider serving as a UC as well. They might be over loaded if they agreed to return to the pack, or there might be a conflict of interests if they were asked to be a UC for the pack instead. It is hard for me to get an objective read on the situation because I know too many of the people involved here, and I spent a lot of time and effort helping this pack rebuild after some rough times. So I want to see it succeed and I want to offer good advice. Lisa'bob