Lisabob

I see people here saying that some people don't think parents ought to attend, or at least that parents should try to be unobtrusive if they do attend. I see no one saying that parents are not allowed to attend, or that the lodge actively turns them away and that that's acceptable. I admit it would have been nice to see my son get honored by induction into OA. I'm his parent and I'm proud of him. So I can sympathize with an uninformed parent who is used to most award ceremonies for their child being very public & very family-friendly. That parent may not have understood that bringing grandma, little brother, neighbor, the postman, and the family dog is not quite fitting for an OA ceremony, although it is just fine for pretty much every other scouting ceremony. A solution to this is to offer family some other venue (like a troop COH) in which to appropriately and publicly honor their son's membership. As is, I know my son was chosen by his troop to join OA, but the troop never mentions OA again after that. OA becomes invisible (outside of OA circles) as a result. So, no opportunity for the troop (or family) to honor the boys selected, except perhaps (wrongly so) at the actual OA ceremony. All that said, I kept my distance and didn't demand (wouldn't have dreamt of it) to see my son's OA ceremony.

Back to PTAs and PTOs, maybe it would be good in the long term if more of them dropped their charters. I say this for a couple of reasons. 1. Pragmatically, they tend to be lousy charter partners. They have high turnover, often don't have a clue about the BSA, let alone the unit they sponsor, and often can't provide much (if anything) in the way of material support. In my experience, these factors combine to make for unpredictable charter orgs who typically don't want to be more involved than is absolutely necessary. Not exactly a good relationship base, there. 2. All parents should feel welcome at their PTA or PTO. It is harder to pull that off when the PTA or PTO sponsors discriminatory groups. From the PTA or PTO's stance, sponsorship seems problematic. So, too, from the BSA unit's perspective. 3. I don't believe that the BSA should retain its discriminatory membership policies. More pressure from (former) COs might help the BSA come into the 21st century on this issue.

SP I don't know where you are getting your info from, but the analysis is flawed. Here's the deal: Anyone can pray in public school. You can, I can, your neighbor can. A person cannot coerce others into praying, and one should not disrupt the normal flow of lessons (breaking into noisy worship during math class seems like a good example). But the law does NOT prohibit prayer in public schools. The law also doesn't prohibit student religious clubs or groups from forming (in fact, the Supreme Court has said such groups must be allowed, if other student groups are also allowed). If students want an after school bible study club (or koran study club, or bhagavad gita study club, or whatever religious text you wish to insert here), they can do so. If they want to pray together before school, or at lunchtime, they can do that, too. Further, if schools allow some community groups to use school grounds after hours, they cannot exclude most other groups, including religious groups. Finally, there's actually a provision in the Patriot Act that obligates schools to provide access to the BSA, in particular. There can be debates about what "access" means, but public schools cannot simply bar the BSA from school grounds. So I do not understand why you are determined to believe that somehow, schools have been made into "religion free zones" in violation of the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. Because they have not been. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is pushing an ulterior agenda.

PTA and PTO are not the same as public schools (gov't organizations). Public schools (gov't organizations) by and large no longer charter traditional BSA units. PTA/PTO are not gov't organizations and so they have mor latitude. As for whether these units are real, or on-paper only, all I can say is that in my experience, these are real units. The pack my son belonged to for 3 years was sponsored by a PTO. True, they were minimally involved and didn't fully understand (or seem to want to understand) their role. But they did sign the charter agreement and follow through on other responsibilities. There aren't many other such units in our district, but again, I know all of them and they are real. If the PTA and PTO drop scout units, those units will likely migrate to other groups like the American Legion. It isn't too likely that the units will shut down. And finally, I think the guy quoted in the article is very short-sighted. If he and his scouts refuse to support the PTA (or PTO) then they are basically refusing to support groups that help their public schools. That's cutting off a nose to spite the face.

So then I see two paths. 1. You are venting here to avoid venting at home. That's acceptable (I suppose) and in that case I guess I'm glad we all provide a community function for you. 2. You are venting here and venting at home, and thus undercutting your scout's experience and self-confidence. Because kids are savvy and if you think he won't eventually pick up on your attitude, well, you're most likely wrong. If the former, sigh, go for it. If the latter, sigh, really a shame, but that's your prerogative. Either way, as a volunteer I have little time for people who are hell-bent on second guessing, yet who have no interest or time to help, and also no interest or time to learn. These folks are drains on the program and not in a positive sense. Please don't expect a warm reception if that's the approach you insist on taking. A lot of folks (me, too, sometimes) complain on this website, but having some skin in the game makes a difference.

"I cannot remove my step-son...as I have said many times, it is not my decision, I just get to worry about it. " And if you continued to read what I wrote, you may have found that I suggested you look at other troops in the area. I understand you don't seem to like scouting and it makes you nervous, and you don't really feel like being involved in it, anyway. But if you have a problem with this particular troop - you and your wife just don't trust the leadership's judgment (and that is certainly what it sounds like) - then find a different troop! Most areas have at least a couple. Does your wife's ex require that the boy be in scouts, or that the boy be in THIS troop? As for your experience level, where do you think most people begin at? You don't need to be an expert to go a few times (on some of the more basic camp outs, no high adventure stuff) and get a better feel for the leaders who are donating their time to your step-son every camp out. If it is important enough for you that you know and understand and can trust these people (or not), then you can live with sleeping in a tent for a couple nights. On the other hand, if all you want to do is complain, and you aren't willing to take any steps that might alleviate your concerns? Well, that's your right too, I suppose.

So you don't know whether the boy was paired with someone who could have ensured his safety, yet you assume that he might have drowned, anyway. You know, people who can swim can still drown in a puddle if the conditions align just right. So I understand that there is always concern when on the water. But let's look carefully at this situation: he's in a canoe with an adult. The adult may have lifeguard certification (you aren't sure, didn't ask). There are other canoes with additional scouts nearby. The boy is wearing a PFD. Could he still drown? Yes. Is it probable? No. At the end of the day you need to make your own risk calculations. And it is clear that you have a somewhat complicated family situation to take into account, which may alter your calculations and bias you toward a more conservative assessment. That is your right. I don't think your expectations of the troop are reasonable though. They cannot possibly plan for every family's complicated marital or post-marital situation. If they make the program so incredibly safe that no boy is ever threatened with so much as a paper cut (which, to me, is more along the lines of what you would like), then no boy would want to be part of that program, either. Troops have a responsibility to be open about the nature of their program. Parents have a responsibility to evaluate the program and make decisions based on their family needs. That includes parents evaluating whether or not they trust the judgment of troop leaders, because events on the ground will sometimes result in minor modifications of the initial plan (as happened in this case you describe). Also, leaders will sometimes have access to new info, or more info, than the parents have (as also may be the case here). Judgment is important. If you do not agree with the program, and/or if you do not trust the leadership of the program then either get involved, get trained, and become leadership yourself, or remove the boy. There must be other troops in the area, maybe one with which you would be more comfortable. Does your wife's ex require that the boy be in THIS troop? Bottom line: your risk assessment is your own business, but because you, yourself, admit to a very conservative bias given your family situation, your assessment is unlikely to be the same as that of many others in the troop. The whole troop shouldn't be expected to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Eng, I (think that I) understand your concerns. On the other hand, I also (think that I) would find it difficult to be a leader in a unit where you were raising these concerns. Your concerns really have little to do with scouting, and more to do with your particular blended family situation. Apparently you have had, and your wife currently has, very tumultuous relations with your exes. Unfortunate though that is, it isn't a scouting problem; it is a family problem. Your (step)son's scout leaders can't, and shouldn't honestly be expected to, deal with it. They should be expected to deal with providing a safe, quality, program for your boy. My comments will focus on the scouting program, as a result. From the posts you have made over the last year or so, I am not sure whether that is happening or not. It could be that the troop is great, leaders are on top of things, and you just are uncomfortable with the whole idea of youth leadership & learning through experience which are at the core of boy scouting. Or, it could be that the troop leaders are inconsistent in their judgment and not to be trusted. You seem to believe the latter. Without being there, none of us can truly know if that is the case or not. The fact that they deviated from the shoreline doesn't worry me a lot, unless there's something that all local folks know about the middle of the lake that we on this board don't know (lake monsters?). Without actually being there on the day of the event, it is very difficult to know what conditions prompted this decision, and it may have been just fine. From your post, the problem appears to be that the boys got wet and that the water was cold. Certainly, concerns about hypothermia should be taken seriously, but how do you know they were not? From what you describe, the boys were fine. Suppose that your boy had not been "made to" pack a change of dry clothes by "mom." What do you think would have happened then? Do you think he would have spent the whole weekend shivering away in sodden clothing? Is that what you are worried about? Are you worried that your boy didn't have the common sense to pack a change of clothes without somebody forcing him to do so? (He's what, 12 or 13? Goodness knows, common sense seems to desert a lot of boys at that age.) Or are you worried that you don't have any control over the situation? You thought you had set limits ("stick to the shoreline") but the fluid dynamics of an event that you weren't at resulted in changes to what you thought were the limits, and you didn't know until afterwards? What's the real problem here?

Some of you guys are being nasty. Cut it out. This mom is upset because her kid was hurt in what she thought would be a safe environment. She also sounds upset that she let her child down. What parent doesn't feel that way, when they encourage their child to do something a little scary/risky, and it backfires in a big way? HER CHILD WAS SENT TO THE HOSPITAL AS A RESULT OF INJURIES SUSTAINED AT A SCOUT EVENT. (sorry to yell, but this doesn't seem to have penetrated for some of you) If you don't get that, then I don't know what to say to you. ---------------- Singlemom: I'm sorry you and your son had that experience. Sometimes, teen and pre-teen boys (and girls) can be unpleasant to each other, and sometimes they don't even really mean it, but are simply thoughtless. Sometimes, adults don't fathom the depth of the problem at first. Please do not judge the entire scouting movement on the basis of one bad experience, though. Let me also point out that the bulk of responses here have been very supportive, and have offered multiple approaches and feedback. Consider that as representative of what's good about scouting. Obviously, none of us know you in person and can't speak specifically to your circumstances. And of course, there are always other sides to all stories, and many people here have been round the block a few times with folks who cry wolf. That doesn't mean everybody thinks YOU are crying wolf, but rather, that for some people, they take everything with a block of salt, instead of the proverbial grain. If some people's advice doesn't fit your situation, please feel free to disregard it. As a mom whose son switched troops this year after a pretty rough time in his previous troop (though older - my son is almost 17), please also believe me when I say that the right troop, and the right outlook, makes all the difference in a boy's experience. I hope you and your son will consider finding another troop that is a better fit to your needs, rather than dropping and condemning scouting altogether. This could mean taking a slower approach, and it could mean traveling a little further to find the right fit, but it will be worth it if your son (re)gains his confidence and love of scouting, as a result. And finally, almost all of us in scouting are volunteers, doing the best we can with what we have. Sometimes, we get it wrong. It may be a lot to ask, but I hope you will forgive mistakes and continue to look for all that is good in scouting.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Could be because of the near-permanent bans on open fires (and on opening fire) in some parts of the country??

"gritty mean street smart man -killer lesbians" Well you just never know what you'll find on the scouter forum, now do you. Seems to me, we've strayed rather far from the original starting point of this thread.

Eagle92, you're correct that one can get by in the field with the uniform shirt, esp. in decent weather. The material is a better choice than the old poly/cotton ones. On the other hand, just because you can survive a weekend in it, does not mean it is a great option. Based solely on functionality (and not objections to design, of which there are several), the current uniform shirt is still a long ways from fabulous, all the more so in lousy weather (cold, especially).

Now I really have to ask: SP, have you ever been a teacher? If so, what did you teach? Did you teach in a public or private school? We might actually have some common ground on some aspects (I agree that not everyone wants to go to college, and that we ought to have better educational options for those who want to pursue a vocational or trade education). But on the whole, what you are describing is pretty far off from any reality I've ever encountered at the 3 public universities where I have taught (one open-enrollment, one top tier flagship, one with relatively lax admission standards but still with a cut-off). I'm in a hurry this morning but later today I'll tell you about a college-prep program I worked in for several years, that targeted students who barely graduated from some of the country's worst public schools. It was fascinating, and forever changed my ideas about who could do college-level work. But I don't have time to do that right now because instead, I'm on my way to a senior research presentation by one of my former students, who is the first in their family to attend college and who is about to start grad school. Lots of people were betting against her success, too.

Yeah I'm still here, no worries; just didn't see much point in responding. (Just FYI, I've lived in countries where I didn't speak the language well, or where language was a dividing point between groups. I know what it is like not to know what others are saying.)

Don't really want to jump on you mate, but think carefully about what you're saying. There are probably some of those failing kids in your neighborhood scout troop. They're the ones who we often say "really need scouting" because so many other aspects of their life are troubled. We reach out a little more, not less, and often it makes all the difference for a kid. Since this thread is about "sound financial management," let's just note the findings of this study, which indicates that the 1 in 33 adults were in the correction system in 2008, more than double what it was in 1982. In Georgia, 1 in 13 adults is in the system (yikes). http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/02/us-usa-prisons-idUSTRE5215TW20090302 The article also finds that the average cost of a year of incarceration in a state prison is about $29,000. In my state the basic outlay of state funding per pupil in K-12 each year is about $7100 (the "foundation allowance"). A well-regarded, fiscally conservative think tank, the Mackinac Center, estimates that the total per pupil spending is, on average, $12,825/year. (and that's a contested figure that many say is on the high side) http://www.mackinac.org/12615 So let's see: we can spend $12,825 educating the little rascals, or $29,000 throwing them in prison where they'll have no futures. Which of these options makes more financial sense?

We used to take the amount sold and divide it by hours available to establish an hourly "wage." That way, a boy who worked one hour got the base amount, while a boy who worked 2 hours got twice as much. That seemed to encourage boys (parents) to stay longer, rather than showing up for half an hour and expecting to make an equal amount to the kid who was there all day. We also took the total amount from all store sales, so a kid who worked a less profitable day or shift or location didn't get a raw deal. (hey, we need kids to cover those days, shifts, and locations too!) That was just for popcorn - never did the card sales.

In my council, the council rule is that no one may be a counselor for more than 5 badges at a time. Yes I realize this might run counter to some of what national says, but the fact remains that my council does this, precisely because of situations like what you just described. That also offers easy cover for a troop that can't find a way to say "no" to a parent on their own. "Sorry, but council won't let you" is much easier than "that's not a good idea and WE won't let you." Aside from that, I think this is a strong troop culture thing. Some troops set the standard that you can't counsel your own child, period. Or that you can only do so in certain situations (no other counselors exist, or as part of a group, or only for non-Eagle, or whatever). Troops where that's the standard can simply tell new parents "this is how we do it." If the new parent disagrees, the troop will find strength in numbers to say "ok but this is still how we do it, and you're welcome to move on if you feel so strongly about it that it becomes a deal breaker for you." If you don't have that troop culture and if no one is able or willing to stand up to this parent and tell them NO (and then to work to intentionally create a new troop culture), then you are going to have to just grit your teeth. The fact that your advancement chair aids this behavior and your SM and CC aren't intervening, suggests that you should plan on the latter course of action.

Ah you guys are missing it. You are still arguing about whether boy scouts should be able to wear jeans or swim trunks with their uniform shirts. Meanwhile, I was trying to say: ditch the boy scout shirt - keep the pants! (This is different in cubbing. There, I'd say, ditch the pants, keep the shirt! Scoutfish totally explains why I feel that way.) For me, it is about what's functional for the activities at hand. Uniforms that aren't functional don't make a lot of sense for an active organization like scouting. In cub scouts, the shirt is what's important, but the scout pants are both too expensive and not necessary. The little guys love the symbolism & status and "bling" that the shirts provide. They don't usually do a lot of heavy duty camping and can get by just fine with the pants they currently own, for nearly all cub occasions. In boy scouts, what makes sense outdoors is what's really important. The newer pants are pretty darn functional for camping. The shirts, not that much. Older boys are less concerned about wearing their status (literally) on their sleeves. Bling does not matter as much to them and may actually deter them. By the way, I own a full uniform with correct insignia. My son has been in two (full uniform) troops, is in OA, has gone to NYLT and jambo. He has (and wears) a full uniform with proper insignia too. I still don't think the boy scout shirts make much sense, except at ceremonial events.

The question I have isn't "can he?" but "why should he?" Nothing wrong with hiking with your aunt or practicing bugling with grandpa. Does it have to be for a scout badge? Couldn't it just be for fun and something you do together? Wouldn't it be great if he could come back to his bugling MB counselor and say "check out what my grandpa taught me this summer" and blow the guy (or gal) away? I've thought about this too because my son has some relatives who could be MBCs for a variety of things. But I decided that the only reason I'd encourage that, is if there is no way of finding a decent MBC for that badge in our local area. So far, that hasn't been the case. Still, my son has had a really fun time shooting targets with grandpa, building fires with his uncle, camping with his cousins, fishing with his aunt, etc., just because he knew he could, as a result of his scouting experiences. And I think that's how it works best. But that's just me and your mileage may vary.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

For a good six months or more when he first joined as a 10 year old, my kid was the last one ready to leave for home on Sunday morning. He just couldn't get his gear packed, or his tent taken down, or couldn't find his uniform shirt, or whatever. He just did not have it together. This was hard on him. Other boys were sometimes unkind (cold Sunday mornings, everybody waiting around on the new guy). Some adults were sometimes impatient. A few times people really yelled at him. I heard all about it when he got home. I remember being of two minds. One, that he was learning a valuable lesson. The other, that I wished some of the more unpleasant behaviors toward him might be toned down. But I was willing to let him work through it and figure it out, which he eventually did. I still recall when the troop came back (late) one time, and he proudly said "yeah but at least it wasn't because of me!" I have shared that with several other parents over the years, all to say "he'll get it eventually" and "be patient." Now I do remember talking with the SM at one point, after one much older scout took the tent down with my son inside it, then punched my son, another scout was screaming swear words at him, and an adult was evidently nose-to-nose with him and shouting to hurry up (or to that effect). I remember the concern I tried to convey to the SM being "this won't motivate him and it won't teach him." More than likely, he'll just shut down completely, which the SM agreed is what he did. Who knows? Maybe that SM interpreted my concern as yet another parent trying to over-protect her kid. Constructive failure doesn't bug me much. Simply tearing somebody down is not constructive. Finding the balance, especially on a cold, wet, Sunday morning when you want to go home, can be hard.

PS: I still don't understand who these "uneducable" people that Seattle Pioneer wants kicked out of the public school system are. But I think maybe that discussion should be held in one of the threads on education so as not to further muddy the waters here.

To those who want to know: when a union spends dues money on political activity, they must keep very strict records of how much, when, and for what kinds of activities. Further, "political" can be defined to include a rather wide array of activities beyond just the obvious. When we send people to our national union convention and there are presentations about political matters, a portion of the cost of that convention becomes "political." The IRS is not kind to unions who fail to keep accurate records on this (and yes, unions have to get their books audited or reviewed by an outside firm). This is all in federal law, and in most places, also in state law. Woe and harsh penalties be unto the union that ignores it. In addition to keeping very strict records, unions in closed shop or agency fee environments are obligated (again, by federal & state law) to provide a reimbursement to any member who wants it, for the portion of their dues spent on political causes. All the member needs to do is ask by whatever the deadline is, usually in writing. I am an administrator for a union. We do typically have a few folks who request this reimbursement. In a typical year, they might get less than $30 back because my union is not terribly active in political matters. Some years, and this will probably be one of them, we are more active. This year, given the current legislative proposals being floated in my state and the incredible harm that we (our union) believe these proposals will cause to our members, the University where we work, our students, and the state as a whole, yes we are more active on these fronts. That means those members who seek reimbursements will probably receive more money back this year. Still, it will likely come to less than $50. The bottom line is that it is illegal for a union to force members to make political contributions that they do not wish to make, either through outright coercion, or through dues. These laws are very scrupulously enforced. Unions pay attention to this and most are diligent about staying on the right side of the law. There is a lot of mis-information about this matter "out there."

urgh, *waist* (did eye rilly rite that?)

First, I'm not a uniform freak. In fact I have never liked the notion of uniforming all that much - just irks me. But I do understand that it is one of the methods of boy scouting. Second, when we talk about uniforming, I think there's a key difference between cubs and boy scouts. It is far more common to see cubs in "waste up" uniforms than to see boy scouts in such, and it is also more understandable that parents who are new to an organization like the BSA (as most cub parents are), may be more reluctant to buy their 8 year old a pair of $50 pants to be worn once a week. And 8 year olds outgrow their pants on the order of about twice a month, as I recall. Not that older boys don't have growth spurts, but they seem to occur with relatively less frequency. So I'm more sympathetic to cub packs who take a stance that the scout uniform pants are optional, than I would be to a troop with that same stance. But Third, in BOY SCOUTING, the pants are actually far more useful than the shirts! Don't know about you? But my son wears his scout pants all the time! More than jeans, more than any other pants he owns. Not just to scout events. And when he goes camping? He takes the scout pants and wears them all weekend. On the other hand, the scout shirt goes into his pack the moment he arrives, so that he can wear more useful clothes while camping. Sometimes he does go to scout meetings in half uniform - and it is the bottom half that he's wearing, with a T shirt on top. Times change, the pants have changed (for the better, IMO). Given their druthers, I think "half uniforming" for the majority of boy scouts would now mean "ditch the shirt" and not the pants.

Gotta keep an eye on those fiends, you know. (sorry, couldn't resist) Welcome to the forums, and it is a good question. Unfortunately it is also a difficult one to answer, because each unit sets its own fees. I've seen them as low as $15/yr (covers the cost of registration with the BSA and nothing else), and as high as $100/yr in dues, plus extra costs for some of the other things you mention. Obviously a huge range. How old is the boy in question? Cost of cubs vs. boy scouts is another difference. In general, cub scouts tends to be cheaper. If cost is the determining factor for your friend, please let them know that most units will bend over backward to help a boy. Most have "experienced" uniform closets, scholarships, camperships, and fundraisers where a boy can help defray the family costs. I've never seen a boy turned away for economic reasons. (On the other hand, I do know some who chose not to join because they didn't know help was available, or because they didn't want to ask for it.)