Lisabob

It depends a little on what the dens are doing, too. Reality is that Webelos tends to be a little more expensive than Tigers. More materials needed for some (larger) projects, field trips more likely to be to places that cost some money or are a bit further afield, camping with boy scout troops tends to have a cost attached (food, site reservation, etc). Meanwhile, Tiger go-see-its are typically right in town and to places that are free, craft or other activities are usually small and cheap. So I don't necessarily see a problem with the funding being a bit uneven. What you might want to think about is setting aside money for the ranking-up at the end of the year - example: buy the handbook for the next rank, for your current scouts? That may come out to be more expensive for the Tiger/Wolf group, than the Webelos, who don't need a new handbook. If you do that, then your spending per den will likely even out in the bigger picture. But I also like the idea of a minimum $$ amount per den, plus a per-boy amount on top of that, to recognize the challenges of smaller and larger dens.

At the bottom of the first page, Calico made a really good observation. I see it hasn't gotten much response. The first pack my son was in, the den meetings were awesome, action-oriented, hands-on and FUN. But the pack meetings were a total drag. A few adults would stand in the front of the room and read off reports or blather on for about an hour. Not one boy in his den had issues on the autism spectrum, but they still had real difficulty being still and paying attention to endless announcements (as did most adults in the room). It got to the point where we'd just skip pack meetings. His entire den moved to a different pack after that year (for other reasons, but this certainly was one). The pack we moved to had a reputation for fun, active, pack meetings without long-blathering adult announcements. They relied on newsletters and other means to communicate info to the adults. The boys loved it, could hardly wait til the next pack meeting. Not saying that Scoutfish's meetings are as announcement-laden as all that! From his descriptions, I think they probably aren't. But maybe there's a way to slim down the adult-driven announcement stuff, further still?

ex Eagle? (sorry, couldn't pass it by) Maybe the kid is missing scouting and wants to be involved with an organization he has been part of since 1st grade? Maybe the kid enjoys being in the outdoors and wants to get away from the college dorm at least once a week? Maybe he has an insatiable craving for dutch oven cooking and dump cake? Maybe he saw the local troop at some event recently and thought "hey, I bet I could lend a hand?" Of course in a lot of college towns there's a sharp class distinction between locals and the college population. But that's a shame. Here's a kid who does not want to be cut off from society for the next 4 years of his life. He wants to be part of a community. And the boy scouts are turning him down? Hmmm...

I was a leader in a "friends of" pack for a few years. The leadership basically mirrored the PTA leadership at a local elementary school. Few of them had kids in the pack. Many of the kids in the pack attended other schools. Maybe once upon a time there was a lot of convergence between the two groups, but not anymore. On the plus side, they didn't meddle in the pack's business. On the negative side, they provided us with nothing since they had no physical location or assets to speak of, they didn't want to get involved when some nasty internal leadership stuff starting happening, and it was a pain to get them to sign stuff. So here's my suggestion: Before you go down this road, you need to have a good conversation with some folks who were affiliated with your pack back when the pack changed over from being a "Friends of..." group to being chartered by your current CO. Find out exactly why they changed over to the church as CO. You should also talk with your DE about how to establish and build a good relationship with a CO - what you expect, what they should expect, how to ensure good communications, etc. Most DEs will do quite a lot to help you improve an existing relationship, if asked.

That's funny because I'm still getting the "bad idea" t shirt ads. But maybe "she" is really a "he?"

Oh please, yourself. If you have ever gotten to know somebody who actually is transgender, then you probably also know that it goes way beyond enjoying drawing, cooking, or playing with dolls. Nobody who is serious makes an argument that a boy is really a girl, because they like to cook or draw. That's like arguing that a girl who likes baseball is really a boy. There's a huge difference between kids who tend to defy gender role norms (girls who like sports, boys who like drawing) on one hand, and people who believe they are in the wrong physical gender (physically a female but identify as a male or v/v). As I understood it, Nike was asking about the former and not the latter. Let's treat this as the serious issue it is, rather than lampooning it.

basement, we all have the right to our beliefs. I disagree with yours, but ok. Two points. 1. What makes this "mom's" job/fault? I find it irritating when people insist on blaming the MOTHER for every perceived fault of the child. 2. More importantly, I don't really think either parent is going to have much influence on the innate identity of that child. Kind of like trying to force a left-handed kid to be right-handed. Yes, maybe you can make the kid conform to social norms to some degree, but they'll still probably be left-dominant. If a kid really prefers dolls to cars, good luck making them change. They'll find a way to play dolls anyway. Not to mention the psychological problems associated with trying to force someone to be what they aren't. We tend to recognize this about the left/right thing today - so I don't see why we should continue trying to force kids into changing other fundamental aspects of their identity, either.

Maybe I'm wrong and Nike can no doubt clarify, but I thought we were talking about a situation where a child is biologically female without question, but dresses "like a boy" and likes to do "boy" things. That, to me, is a tomboy. Whole different world than an intersex child or a transgender child. By the way, I'm kind of a tomboy. I love sports, my favorite clothes are jeans & a sweatshirt, and most of my friends through life have been male. Going to the mall is my definition of torture and I don't own a curling iron. When I was a kid (1980s, not so long ago) the neighbor lady who is my parents' age was always chastising me for running around in shorts & T shirts in the summer because I might get tan (not ladylike), and for riding a bike or rollerskating because I might fall and scrape my knees, and "then what man will think you're pretty when you grow up?" So "tomboy" used to be a bad thing, at least in certain circles. Not unlike "sissy" is still widely considered a bad thing for boys who have overly "girly" interests. Today, I think far fewer people would agree with my neighbor's assessment of my tomboyish ways. Maybe 30 years from now, people's views about "sissy boys" will have changed, too. Social and cultural gender roles are fascinating.

My teenager sometimes likes to tell me this, too. "It's all your fault, mom!" Maybe you'd let your kids get away with that one? But I don't. And if it ain't gonna work for the kids, then it ain't gonna work for you, either. Mom's fault, gimme a break.

Oh no, birthers applied to scouting! Ahg! Honestly I would feel bad for the kid, but I wouldn't register them with the cub pack or scout troop. Why? Because they don't meet the requirement. I would: a) invite them to attend and participate in any family events we hold (and at the cub level, there are a LOT of these) b) try to help them find a really outdoorsy and strong program that isn't gender specific (or a great girl scout troop - those do exist) c) keep communication open with them so they can join a crew the day they turn 14 One other note. Being a tom-boy is in a different universe than being transgender. Tomboys like to go and do the fun stuff that is sort of culturally "boy-ish." Transgendered people psychologically identify themselves as being the other sex. One might like to play baseball and go fishing and wear jeans and sneakers all the time (tomboy) without thinking that one is really a male put into the wrong anatomical form (transgender).

Yes, learning to disagree without being disagreeable is a life skill and no, you don't have to attend every argument to which you are invited. Knowing some of the stories that get told here, and locally, I also recognize that this advice applies not only to the boys, but to the adults who hold rank advancement (or project approval, or whatever) over their heads. And more than likely it will be some adults who cannot remember to follow it. They're just so used to being "right" all the time. Anyway, just made me smile because there are a bunch of really great young men in my son's troop who will probably have read and internalized that new Eagle workbook in far more detail than the Scouters on their eventual Eagle boards. I hope it doesn't end up tripping them up.

Reading through the other thread made me smile a little. I can just imagine some well-informed young fellow explaining (patiently, politely, but firmly) that in fact, the BSA does *not* require Eagle projects to demonstrate "lasting value." And the adults in the room, looking like they just sucked lemons, complaining that the boy is "mouthy" or "disrespectful" or "rude." Know what I mean? Anybody else know "that boy?" I sure do.

Basement, I totally understand where you are coming from and I, too, have backed waaaaayyyy off from my prior involvement after some very disheartening experiences (though in my case, mostly not at the district/council level, where things were more or less good) But it is also important not to generalize too far from local experience. What happens in your district does happen elsewhere but it may not be the norm, and it certainly won't be true for all new leaders. And in any case, you undoubtedly have made a difference for the boys in your district - meaning, those in the unit(s) you serve. I think the more realistic advice is: leaders should measure their commitment level and not get sucked into the myth that only they can do "it" (whatever "it" is that needs doing). Give what you are willing and able to give of yourself. Don't let scouting take over your life, just like you shouldn't let most other causes or activities take over. Balance in all things.

Color me amused, every time the majority within some group complains that the minority is somehow abusing its position or misusing the rules, or becoming "dangerous" (my current favorite characterization of the Occupy Wall Street folks - really? dangerous??), whenever the minority speaks up. If you look at the preponderance of politically oriented posts in this forum, I venture to say there are a lot more Republicans, Libertarians, and conservatives here than there are liberal Democrats. So all I can conclude, then, is that we lib Dems make such wonderfully compelling arguments for our side, that everybody else feels intimidated by us. To which I say, excellent

You know what basement, I think it is time you just start ignoring your DE. And possibly most of the rest of your district. Run your program (as you are already doing) and enjoy the boys. Hand off the necessary paperwork and interaction with "council" to somebody else, and don't pick up the phone if the DE calls your home #. It takes a lot for me to get to a point where I'd say that, but what you describe is just unacceptable behavior by your DE.

I was a membership chair in my district for a little while. I discovered that numerous organizations charter packs but can't actually provide the meeting space directly. For example, "Friends of " or "Parents of" charter orgs that do not have a physical location, or service clubs like the local Lions, etc. One troop I know of was chartered by a service club that had dwindled over the years to just a handful of elderly members. The club met in somebody's living room. What they did to try to fulfill their charter obligation to the troop, was to help the troop identify places in the community where the troop could meet for free. That same school hosted all sorts of other outside groups, including a couple of cub packs. Scheduling was occasionally a challenge. Point is, providing a meeting space doesn't mean the CO has to set aside a room in the CO's building. It could just mean that the CO helps the unit find a spot somewhere.

Scouter indulgences?

So sorry to hear that, wing nut. I will definitely share this with my young man. Thank you for passing along your message.

Not being much of a movie buff I realize I'm biased here. But seriously, I can think of 101 things I would rather be doing outdoors, day or night, than watching a movie. When I did WB, this was my absolute least favorite part of the course even though the movies themselves were not bad ones. Glad things worked out for you as they did, Ann.

Remind me why you can't recruit in schools? This is different from schools chartering units (which won't or shouldn't happen, given BSA's exclusive stance) My understanding of the PATRIOT act renewal is that it contained a provision requiring public schools to grant recruiting access to the BSA on par with any other group. So for example, if any other group can distribute flyers or send things home in the kids' weekly packets, so can the BSA. Is this not the case where you are, Moose?

Frankly, one of the biggest complaints I hear about Troop meetings (from the boys) is that they are BORING! This is a big reason many boys who loved the high-energy atmosphere of cub scout den meetings, quit after crossing over into boy scouting. I don't see how it would be to our advantage to replicate that at the Cub Level. Bore them sooner?

Dunno Beavah, there are plenty of social scientists using modeling techniques to do this sort of thing in ways that aren't so different from modeling the arc of a pendulum. (though generally speaking, I'm not a huge fan of this approach) Anyway, one thing that's different about student debt is that students are typically a rather invisible political group and so there's little incentive to change the laws on student loan debt. And unfortunately I don't think that'll change anytime soon. Many younger people are becoming more politically active, yes, but not in conventional politics.

vol, the Constitution is clear about who gets to declare war, yes. Not about how the powers of the Commander in Chief may be used short of a declaration of war, though. But to compare the situation BS-87 mentions, or even the Libya situation, to the Iraq war at this point in time is ludicrous. We've been in Iraq for how many years now? How many hundreds of thousands of our men and women have served there? How many American soldiers have died or been wounded there? What has been the cost of fighting this war, both in terms of money, reputation, and lives? For what reasons, exactly? How has that senseless war of choice worked out so far? When the death and injury toll, not to mention myriad other costs, of sending a few advisers to Uganda (as Calico notes - because Congress told the President to do it) starts to parallel those costs in the Iraq war, then I will be happy to start this conversation afresh. Til then, equating one with the other is horse hockey.

~ rolls eyes ~ If you want to look at the history of the war making powers, you'll discover that presidents at least as far back as Jefferson claimed the war making power without consulting Congress. And you'll find that this has frequently upset some in Congress who see it as over-stepping. Presidents have tended to argue that they have a prerogative to do what's necessary in terms of using military force (and advisers) without having to defer to Congress at every turn. This is certainly not unique to Obama, or to any one political party. But perhaps you aren't a fan of Thomas Jefferson, either?

Well shoot, that's an easy one. Get somebody else to agree to pick up the awards. Have him keep right on doing the paperwork end of things. THat way you are also training his eventual replacement, for whom it will be natural to step in and do the whole job once he actually really and truly retires from being your "advancement guy."