Lisabob

Interesting idea. Who should pay this bounty? I think Illinois should pay for it.

Scoutfish, I think if you look at the Tiger book and Tiger Den Leader book (which I don't have so I can't be sure) you'll find a bunch of places where it explains that Tigers must be accompanied by their adult Tiger partners. To me, that says that every Tiger ought to have his adult with him, every time. Adult can't come? Then Tiger can't either. That might seem over the top. And I know a few folks who have "solved" it by being the Tiger partner to multiple Tiger scouts in the same den (not siblings), which can raise eyebrows. But I think with Tigers, it is clear. With Wolves, Bears, and Webelos, I don't think there's a clear policy answer. In practice, I think Wolves probably still need a pretty high adult: youth ratio, especially at the start of the year. Bears and Webelos can handle more distance, unless there are specific behavioral issues that require a more one on one presence. By the time they're starting 5th grade, most boys should not need mom or dad to be there for the meeting at all, unless mom or dad have a defined role to play (teaching a skill, etc.).

the former, not the latter. "Car camping" is sometimes ridiculed because the temptation is to bring every comfort of home (after all, the car is only a few hundred feet away! No need to pack light). Car camping isn't exactly roughing it in the back country. But realistically, it is what most troops I know of do, most of the time, and for a lot of folks, it is their first and primary exposure to camping of any sort.

People joke about this and yes, politics is involved (ugh). But I have read that these fish can weigh up to 80 pounds, jump 4-6 feet in the air, and eat 4 times their body weight daily. Not being a fish specialist, I cannot independently verify that. But if it is even 60% true, well, wow. These are not cutesy little goldfish. These fish have, evidently, had pretty devastating impacts on the local environment in other places where they've not been controlled. I'm sorry for Chicago and Illinois if the closure of the canal would cost them money but I think there are (sorry, but) bigger fish to fry here. Beavah - our Gov is term limited, and of the opposing party from A.G. Cox, but yes she is a vocal supporter of this suit. Looks to me like the Democrats are going to suffer a drubbing in the next gubernatorial election. And fishing/outdoor stuff is a big deal in MI, and it is nice to have IL as a scapegoat. So as far as I know, no state Democratic leaders have come out against this suit. Wouldn't be politically wise. In fact I've heard they're all in a tizzy trying to one-up each other and be tougher!

Well I don't know that I would characterize the various "types" of troops in the way that was done in the parent thread, nor do I know that I would buy the percentages listed there. But I do agree that many troops fail to live up to the expectations of the boys (and sometimes, of their parents) on a frequent basis. Sometimes that's also because the boys (and often, their parents) don't understand the responsibilities that they need to shoulder, if they want to do more. And then some do understand, but aren't interested in doing the work - they just want to show up and have it all done for them. I do think, though, that skill levels are a serious issue. I'm not often deeply impressed by the real woodsman-like skills of many scouts I meet, including some of those in my son's troop. On the other hand, let's not downplay what boys do learn that we adults might take for granted. Yes, I wish scouts were better able to cook over a wood fire and get away from the big coleman stoves. But then I know darn few 10 and 11 year olds OUTSIDE of scouting who could cook a half-way edible meal in the comfort of their own kitchen. The fact that boys do learn some cooking skills, even on big gas stoves, is a plus in my book. Similarly, I'd like to see more high adventure and better quality instruction at summer camps and other events. These are areas where legitimate gripes exist. Regarding bullying, I think Beavah may have over-stated my past comments so I do want to clarify. Troop cultures can be such that bullying is routinely tolerated or overlooked (much in the way GAH described in the original thread). That's a real problem. I would not say it is endemic to all, or most, troops I know of though. In my area, I don't think we do a fabulous job of encouraging youth leadership and the patrol method. Most troops I know of are somewhere on the "troop method" spectrum, ranging from small troops that only have one patrol, to troops where patrols advance together, earn merit badges together, etc, to troops where patrols exist, do not advance or move in lock step, but are consistently undermined by routine troop practices like forming ad hoc patrols on camp outs, or not giving PLs any real authority, etc. If I were pointing a family toward troops in my area, I would tell them that each troop has strengths and weaknesses. Some people really like the troop where the whole patrol advances together. Some really like the more independent nature of the troop where patrols are stable but not rigid like that. Some favor a smaller group environment. Some like larger troops with more opportunities available to them. I think fund raising and popcorn are irrelevant to the nature of the program, and don't fault troops who engage in these - AS LONG AS the boys have input and know what the funds are going toward. Adult leaders - it takes all kinds. To be a good, active troop it does seem like there needs to be a minimum number of physically fit individuals. But maybe that morbidly obese scouter with an inability to walk 3 miles is also a great mentor in other regards. One time I met a guy who I think was about 90. He has mobility issues, but man, could he tie and teach knots. You have to put people in the right positions to make the most of their talents and abilities. As for my son's troop - they camp 10 months a year (taking off December and August) but it is mostly car camping. Most boys enter the troop with little or no camping experience, and car camping is better than nothing - but I would like to see other, more intense, activities from time to time. The boys, though, routinely vote (literally and with their feet) against a lot of serious backpacking and back country activities. They have provided some high adventure options, usually coordinated with summer camp. They have (in my view) accepted sub-par instruction at summer camps in certain situations, but as permanently Out of Council troop, it can be hard at times to effect change in a given camp's approach to instruction. Advancement does sometimes seem a little soft, with younger boys whose skill levels are questionable and a few older boys who (again, in my view) don't demonstrate good leadership or scout spirit. But I think most advancements are within the realm of reasonability. In the final analysis, we're not perfect. I've been candid about that on the forum, and those who have read my posts know that I get frustrated with that sometimes. There are specific areas I'd like to see changed. BUt then again, there is still great value to be had from what does exist, and that shouldn't be overlooked either. Anybody who is looking for "perfect" is bound to be seriously disappointed.

That's an interesting point, acco, about making requests in the moderator forum (or pm'ing a moderator) rather than putting it in the thread, itself. For my part, I'm never sure where moderators are likely to look. The inactivity of the moderator forum suggested to me that this really wouldn't have been a place to catch anybody's attention. So let me just ask - do you guys read/monitor that forum? And if I wanted to contact the moderator in charge of a particular part of this board, how would I know which one of you regularly reads which areas? Do you have some kind of division of labor that you could publicize in a thread in the moderator section, or something along those lines? About the rules of decorum, yes, in the I & P forum there needs to be a lot of leeway since people will inevitably, and passionately, disagree on sensitive topics. I would have preferred to think that this could be done in a more civil manner than was displayed in toward the end of the recently closed threads though. For me, when it gets to a point where posters are seeming to threaten each other, it is time to step in. So I suppose I was ok with OGE's actions, though I would also have welcomed a public or private statement from moderators to the posters who might have been going a bit overboard. As noted, that could have occurred already, too, and I just didn't know about it.

Well let me just add that the state's attorney general (who initiated this suit) is also running for governor.

Depends a little on the age, too. For Tigers, their adult partner should be with them at every event.

For the record, I hope that Terry (or his moderating staff) DOES tell you to knock it off. It is wholly inappropriate and violates many aspects of the Scout law. HEY MODS!!! I HOPE YOU SEE THIS!!!! The fact that you are now saying you haven't had the time, but might consider tracking down other posters whom you suspect, comes very close to internet stalking, in addition to bullying. I stand by what I said earlier, it is getting to be creepy. If you are wondering what I'm talking about, here's a quote from a recent post of yours, to refresh your memory. "I was over the top, with my remarks about others here. I can only plead that I was dismayed to find that a prolific and long-term poster here is not a Scouter at all, nor even friendly to Scouting in the least way. There IS some evidence that there are others, but not proof, and I haven't been able to go further, without spending more time and effort than I'm willing to put into it. But, if I find other non-Scouters here, posing implicitly as Scouters, and I can verify what I suspect, I will expose them, as well. If Terry Howerton publicly tells me that I should not, or if it's in forum rules (which I can't find at the moment), then I won't. It's his forum, not mine. "

There are certainly a lot of questions to be asked here, but I do not think the involvement of a mental health agency is a guaranteed problem. It is not uncommon for mental health agencies to be involved in the provision of service at shelters. The better questions are, who are these men, and also how will the shelter be run and managed? Those are not things we on a discussion forum can know about your local community. Good luck with your decisions.

OK I think it is pretty creepy that you are keeping "notes" on posters and, apparently, half-threatening to make them public. You're outing people on a scouting forum?! That makes you sound like some sort of internet stalker. That you are evidently encouraging your son to engage in that same behavior is disturbing. Also, I wonder if you don't have better things to do.

Right, Ed. Changes need to happen. The more I've thought about it and as I've read through all the responses, I've come to realize that my question is fundamentally: Given that I am one voice in about thirty, and often a voice in the wilderness at that, how can I increase the probability that those changes take place? I realize that I cannot simply go in with guns blazing and lay down the law. Approaching this situation like that has a very high likelihood of backfiring. Not only would that probably mean that the specific matter at hand would not be resolved in a manner to my liking, but also that it would be harder to get the attention of the people who are in positions to make changes on other issues, in the future. I didn't mean what I wrote in my previous post as a criticism directed at ScoutFish. I really appreciate his or her input and time, and actually I think I agree with the sentiment in ScoutFish's post. If anything, ScoutFish has helped me figure out what my concerns are, and how to better communicate them.

The degree of interaction between the girl scout troop and the men in the homeless shelter is a question that should be discussed between the leaders of the girl scout troop and the church. There are a lot of variables involved, including the age of the girls and the setting. I don't think a situation like what basementdweller describes is something any of us would be pleased with. But I also don't think that's the situation that was suggested by the original poster. Many people like to blame the homeless for their condition. There is certainly a stigma. In some cases, it might even be appropriate. In a lot of cases, there are some heart-breaking circumstances that snowballed beyond people's abilities to manage. Most Christian groups have, as part of their mission, service to those who are less fortunate. What would it say to the church, if the girl scouts got all upset because the church was trying to minister in accordance with the tenets of their faith? If I were a church leader and that happened (after, of course, taking the reasonable precautions mentioned in the first post), I'd have to think that the Girl Scouts needed to get a grip on reality. Hosting girl scout meetings is less central to the mission of most Christian faiths than helping those who are truly in need. Well-off, secure, families understandably want to shelter their children from harsh realities, but too much sheltering results in self-absorbed brats with no capacity for sympathy or charity. We have enough of those sorts of folks in the world already. Again, it comes down to the age of the girls, the specifics of the situation, and the ability and willingness of the adults involved to sit down and have an honest and respectful conversation about how this will all work out. It certainly doesn't need to be a major problem. (By the way, I never took a sociology course in college...)

You know Scoutfish, it is not that I disagree with the general idea of what you've written, but 1) as someone who is neither the Scoutmaster nor the Committee Chair, and 2) as someone who is usually in the minority viewpoint on matters like these, and 3) in a troop where most of the adult leaders have been around for much longer than I have (even though my son is ending his 5th year in the troop) and are accustomed to certain ways of running things, and 4) in a situation where other local troops are really not much different, my son isn't interested in changing troops, and starting our own troop isn't on the horizon, I have to tell you that what you've written isn't especially realistic. It is not a question of finding something in the BSA literature. It is a question of whether other, generally well-meaning, adult leaders can be convinced to act. What I've discovered, to my frustration many times, is that a lot of adults will put up with all sorts of crap if it means avoiding conflict and confrontation. When those are the people in charge, it can be quite a challenge to effect change in a group. This is something I personally find very hard to deal with because it is not my style at all, which is why I've posted here looking for input. If it were up to me alone, I'd have dealt with the issue a looonnnggg time ago. In fact in cub scouting when it was up to me, I did deal with these same boys and their parents in no uncertain terms. I have plenty of backbone, thanks. But I am not in charge in my son's boy scout troop. I am one voice among many. I cannot simply impose my will, even if I want to. And that's probably the case for a lot of people who post here, maybe even more so in boy scouting than is the case in cub scouting.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

This is a web forum, not a court. No one is obligated to post anything here. The original poster owes us nothing. And Ed, two days ago you were certain this was all a scam! I hope the process works the way it is intended and that a clear decision is reached and communicated to all parties. That's all I have to say. Don't bother replying to me because I'm not about to post more in this thread.

Yeah, you know it is funny. I was thinking about Eagle92's pet peeves post (why we preach giving youth responsibility and then don't trust or empower our 18-25 year old ASMs). I think it is because many troops DON'T really give youth responsibility - at least not for anything that matters - we simply pretend to do it. Maybe we even fool ourselves into believing it (though I don't know that we fool the youth so much). Your comment about the tangible "stuff" concern (which I think you're right about, btw) is a good example, no? Then, when the youth suddenly cross the magic line into adulthood we can't play that game anymore because the things adults are supposed to be responsible for, actually matter, and we know that we haven't honestly trained these young adults to handle it for real. Or maybe I'm just feeling cynical today.

Interesting question, WAKWIB. I think the answer is probably still "no." I am pretty sure that parents in my son's troop would have a hissy fit about it. No matter what is included/excluded or what is said or how it is presented, we'd have angry parents pulling their kids out. I think many parents are uncomfortable talking about this stuff with their own children, but they are even more uncomfortable with someone else discussing it with their children. I say this based on the reception that the human sexuality unit of our middle-school and high school-level health classes has received from the community where I live. To say the very least, it has been controversial.

There's such an issue of balance in the situation you describe, desertrat. On one hand we do not want to encourage or condone helicopter parent behavior, with adults swooping in to "save" kids from situations of their own making at every turn. With younger scouts and sometimes with older scouts who are only children, I see this from time to time. Issues arise where the kid is being a real pill, but maybe they don't have older siblings (or any siblings) at home who have ever put them in their place a bit before. In cub scouts, they're mostly associating with their age-mates as equals, and anyway it isn't usually more than an hour a week, under close adult supervision. Boy scouts is often the first time they're brought up short by the fact that their own behavior is causing a negative response from other kids. On the other hand, we don't want to turn a blind eye to bullying and bad behavior, especially from older kids directed at the weaker/younger kids. I agree that it is a little much to wait around for the victim to figure it out in such a case and demand that the situation be addressed. In this scenario it is easy to end up with a "Lord of the Flies" troop. We have a responsibility to set up an environment where that sort of bullying is not the norm. Otherwise, why would younger/weaker/marginalized kids ever want to be part of the troop in the first place. Going back to my original situation, I've asked the committee chair and SM to bring the matter to the committee for discussion. I've pointed out that we seem to have a situation where the majority of our younger leaders and some of our older leaders are united in their distaste for how the troop has handled these bullies. I've attempted to frame it as a question of whether youth can trust the adults to mean what we say about not tolerating bad behavior and about using the oath & law as our guidelines. I'll let you all know what happens, in general terms.

I like that approach, Eagle92. Shows real youth ownership and identity. I think what Guy is working on is a constant struggle for practically all troops (except those that have thrown in the towel and operate as fully adult-led troops). I know that i see this struggle in my son's troop on a fairly regular basis, and sometimes there is progress, sometimes they backslide. One thing I think would be helpful is to bring the committee and SM corp to agreement on one or two very specific areas where they will relinquish specific types of control to the boys. Generalities are easy and breezy to accept, and hard to enforce or live by. ("We're going to be more youth-led!") Specifics give you guidelines and way-markers to help you stick to your path. For example, my son's troop has an adult Quartermaster. I, for the life of me, do not know why we need this. We also have a youth QM. Hey, guess what, the youth QM hardly ever does much - because the adult does it instead, so why bother! And that's the justification given to me for why we have an adult QM (because the youth don't do the job well). We're in between adult QMs right now, so I'm trying to encourage our CC and SM to dump the designation of an adult to what ought to be a boy's role, and to return supervision of the youth POR to the ASPL, where it belongs (according to the SPL handbook). Or, at the very least, to outline specific duties of the adult vs. the youth positions. That might seem like a small step (and it is, and I don't know that they will even buy my idea on this). But if all the adults on the committee and SM corp agree to return this POR to the boys, then that's another move closer to making youth leadership meaningful again. And it is something tangible that we adults can consciously endeavor to do (or really, to NOT do). The other end of moving things back to the boys' leadership is that you have to actively teach and encourage initiative, assertiveness, and creative thinking to the boys. Adults intervene and usurp boys' authority when the boys are passive. Boys are passive when they don't believe they really have the authority to start with, and when they don't have the proper skills (because they've not been developed in the past!) to use their authority. Many times, I've heard from adults that this youth-leadership stuff is a sham because the boys repeatedly demonstrate that they do not WANT authority. And yeah, that happens. Because we encourage it, often unintentionally, by failing to provide the boys with the tools they need to take ownership, and by failing to be patient while they test the waters to see if we mean it. And by failing to teach the boys how to accept the responsibilities that come with leadership and independence. So what ever steps you take toward youth leadership, be sure you put the proper teaching/support mechanisms in place and that you give it enough time for the boys to be able to succeed at it. Which means expecting and allowing for some failures on the way to success.

A couple of comments... 1) Yes, this happens a lot in the "real" world. 2) But there are some lines that really ought not to be crossed. The CM ought NOT to hold ANY other position. You risk burning out a great CM and/or creating a very serious and potentially unhealthy concentration of power by doing this. Same goes (in my view) for the CC. A lot of times, people in Cub packs do not fully understand the potential authority that the CC holds, particularly in packs where the CO is uninvolved. The CC should not take on other roles because they'll get burned out too, and/or end up crowding out other volunteers. 3) Spouses are often easy marks for volunteers. I'm the CC so you (dear hubby/wife) will be the CM, or treasurer, etc. Be careful about power/authority combos here, too. CC/CM and CC/treasurer spouses are not usually a good idea. Think about accountability, and think about what happens if/when that whole family leaves the pack. 4) It becomes easy to just "do it myself" because then you know that it will get done. Constantly bringing in new people (as is the necessity in cub packs where there's a lot of churn from year to year) can be exhausting, and you risk getting burned by people who SAY they want to help, but then don't actually do the work. I've been there, and fallen victim to this mentality. The down side is that, as a small group takes on more and more of the burden, they get burned out. Other potential volunteers feel intimidated ("gee I'd like to help, but look at how over-burdened Mrs. Smith is...I wouldn't enjoy/couldn't do that so I'll just keep quiet"). And eventually, that core group of leaders leaves the program (for boy scouts, or just drops from scouting entirely). Then you have a vacuum and the pack is at risk of falling apart. This happens a lot, despite good intentions. So. You have a committee member who is also a den leader? Well stuff happens and the real world isn't an ideal place. But be really careful about putting multiple hats on people, or allowing them to take on too many hats, even if they can, they want to, and they are good at it. It isn't in the long-term interest of the pack to allow it.

I really appreciate your inputs. Yes, these are brothers (parents are not active as adult leaders, which is fine) and in the past, they've had protection from the committee chair. CC has recently changed. And yes, this is a troop where adults often step in and play roles that probably belong to the boys (we have some "world's oldest SPLs and PLs in the group). My concern is not too much in how the youth will handle the matter - most of the more active youth leaders in the troop have clearly stated that they have problems with these two boys. My son, who is SPL, cannot stand them and is willing (maybe too willing?) to lead the way here. My concerns, I suppose, are two-fold. First, I know that I am biased against these two boys because of their past behavior, which has sometimes been directed at my son. Grrr. I don't sit on their boards of review for this reason, and they don't typically seek me out as a MBC (though I'd try my best to be totally fair, if they did). I also know my son is biased against them because of past run-ins. So, although I am not involved with the PLC (I'm a committee member, and this year, a nominal one most of the time - trying to avoid impinging on SPL son's activity), when my son asks advice or uses me as a sounding board, I want to be careful I'm not letting my personal dislike of these boys color my responses too much. Second, we have a lot of adults who just about bend over backward to avoid conflict, and who aren't usually willing to stand up and say much. I'm not sure how we get around this, at the committee and SM/ASM level, and in the past I have sort of gotten disgusted with the whole deal, but I think it is probably time to try again. I appreciate your input thus far. I think the point that we have an active, large, vocal, group of boys who are leaders and good scouts expressing discontent, vs. two boys who are bullies and not behaving as good scouts, is a good one to start with. Two other questions, from those who suggest having the PLC weigh in. The two boys in question are part of the PLC. Awkward... How would you coach your SPL to guide the PLC through that? Also, is it appropriate for the SPL to work out a range of options with the SM? Or do you feel that the SM should (with the CC's input) decide what ought to happen? Basically, how much weight should the SPL's view hold here?

There are a couple of boys in my son's troop who are known to be problems. They can be very manipulative, can be bullies, frequently show poor judgment and lack of leadership, and one of them has, over the years, driven other scouts away with his language and behavior. (We know this because former scouts, and their parents, have told us - after the fact) They both have long histories of getting away with things. They've both caused problems at each of the last two summer camps. The troop's adult leadership has not responded very forcefully in many past incidents (much to my annoyance). The boys are under a great deal of pressure from home to stay in scouting and "make Eagle" (which they probably will, because they're both Life scouts now - a problem for a different thread though, please). The parents are not easy people to deal with, either. I have known these people since the kids were in 1st and 2nd grade - they are in high school now. As a den leader I was often on the receiving end of their parents' wrath so I understand why many conflict-avoiding adults just go along to get along with them, although I don't often agree. We now have a core group of other boys in the troop who have just had enough of this. They complained to the SM after a somewhat minor incident at a recent event (one of the boys allegedly went through someone's bag, took, and ate their stash of food - this was a lock-in event where the kids often bring junk food with them, not a camp out). The complaining boys want these two boys kicked out of the troop. I was not there and was not directly privy to the conversation so I am aware that there may be more to it, but from what I am told by my SPL son, the SM's response was that the complaining boys are holding a lot of grudges from past problems (from before he was SM), and that a person shouldn't be kicked out because he ate someone's chips. The complaining boys evidently gave him a laundry list of all the stuff these two boys have done/gotten away with in the past (many of which adults didn't know about at the time they occurred, or were glossed over at the time, and are more serious than taking chips - physical attacks, breaking gear intentionally, verbal harassment, refusal to lead or be led, general disruption, extremely foul language, property damage, etc). The complaining boys feel that this latest matter is the last straw. This matter will come to the next committee meeting. I am asking for your input because I know that I am not impartial. At what point do you decide that a boy's behavior is enough to remove him from a troop? Is this enough? Scouting would be a lot more pleasant for many of the boys if they didn't have to deal with these two. Then again, the troop has allowed these fellows to get to Life rank despite track records of such behavior. Please note, I am looking for constructive suggestions and other perspectives for how to respond to this specific matter - I am not looking for invectives against the troop's past handling or practice (which, I agree, has not been stellar at times).

Probably. Just be friendly and explain that you are helping your pack collect that info so they can get a more accurate picture of their training status. My experience is that the council staffers will print out those records with few questions asked, as long as you're nice about it. Also, the unit rosters show whether an adult has been trained for the position they're listed under. (Just a simple Y/N, and in my experience, often inaccurate, but I suppose it is a starting point)

"It seems to me BSA is being taken over by professional educators who confuse checking a box with actually improving the product (Scout leaders). " Generally speaking, I understand your point, and I've sat through some lousy trainings, myself. So I can sympathize. But I feel compelled to note that most professional educators wouldn't commit the error you describe; on the other hand, people who assume that teaching is a breeze, who have no background in teaching, might. To the broader question, I guess my answer would be that I'm very sorry to hear Mr. Smith can't take the time to get trained as per BSA (or troop, or CO) requirements, and I hope he'll contact us again when he is in a better position to serve as a unit leader. In the meantime, has he considered serving in some other capacity?

I understand what you are saying, DanceswithSpreadsheets. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I don't think this would take any special emphasis though - as you say, the greater challenge would probably be to limit the teasing (or less kind) treatment of the openly gay scout, by other scouts. As we see here in this thread, the notion of a scout being a friend to all, and helping his brother scouts, is one that some folks would apply only to their hetero, or maybe closeted gay, brethren. In the rare instance where a gay scout did need to be told in no uncertain terms to stop cruising for hook ups, I would like to think that this would be in response to an actual problem (and not the only response) as opposed to a pre-emptive thing. I say this too, because we do not ask boys to identify their sexual orientation upon joining a troop - and I would not want to, either - so knowing when to issue this sort of pre-emptive warning would be really tough. Hmm, Jimmy here seems to dress a little different...he might be gay...better tell him not to look for boyfriends at the troop meeting... The guess work involved in that!