Lisabob

After I finish snorting my coffee, you mean? We had a couple of these dads in my son's webelos den. They crossed over into the same troop as us and this was their primary concern. One of them expected his sons to be Eagles at age 12, because the dad allegedly had done it. Guess what, the kids are 15-16 and not yet Eagles. The SM at the time simply told them that it was not impossible, but quite unusual in this troop for boys to get to Eagle before they're about 15. He told them that the troop does not do merit badge classes. At some point, he indicated that adults would do a lot to encourage a boy to get to first class, but after that it was really far more up to the boy. One other thing that may work for you - ask the parents to pick out a couple of young men in the troop that they would like their sons to use as role models. These are typically going to be older boys who show a lot of patience, responsibility, kindness toward the young kids, leadership, etc, right? Then tell them how those role models advanced in rank. I know when my son joined, the boys I most wanted my son to emulate (in terms of behavior, comportment, skill, etc.) were mostly Star and Life scouts. They did not make Eagle until they were junior and seniors in high school. Maybe pointing this out to your new parents (if it fits your troop's profile) will help them recognize that there's more to scouts than rank advancement.

Ed, you make some unsupportable assumptions in your last post. First, that the union wasn't doing their jobs, second that they have control over what management assigns them to do in their day-to-day jobs, and third, that they could have avoided lay-offs if they had somehow done their jobs better. Given the realities of the workplace (rank and file workers typically don't get to go start projects on their own, even if they see a need/have the desire) and the economy (terrible in PA just like everywhere else, right?), these don't add up. The fellow could have phrased his concern more delicately. But I think Eamonn had it right. If the city had not wanted to have this contract that they entered into with the union, then the city should have negotiated for different ideas. Unions do not just present contracts to management and make them sign on the dotted line. Management is equally responsible for, and legally bound to, the details of any contract. They agreed to it! About a year ago there was a city gov't - I think in NJ but I'd have to re-find the story - that laid off all of its grounds crew. The city then requested that volunteers show up a couple of days a week and mow the city's lawns together, a job that used to belong to the grounds crew.

Just wanted to point out that I don't recall Owl saying this scout's performance in POR was unacceptable - but rather, that Owl wanted him to hold a different position of responsibility, such as PL or SPL, rather than den chief. In fact, I'm pretty sure I read in one of his posts that the den leader said the boy had done a good job as den chief. So the question at this point is, can a scout master tell a scout that a particular position isn't suitable? I think there may be times when the answer to that should be a qualified yes. For example, a scout who only wants to serve as troop librarian or something like that. Getting the boy to try something new could be useful and prodding the ones who just want to coast is important sometimes too. This is part of the mentoring and "adult association" that are so vital to scouting. I do not think it makes sense to tell a boy they must serve as a PL or SPL or ASPL in order to gain a signature on an eagle app though. In the meantime, it appears that this scout's position as den chief did not become a major issue until 20 days before the boy finished his 6 months. If it had been a major issue sooner and Owl had never wanted him to serve in that capacity, then presumably the boy would have been removed from his claim on that position 5 months and 10 days ago. Having waited to the end game, I do not think it is a good plan to try to block the boy's advancement on this basis now. Despite good intentions, it will almost certainly be perceived as very unfair (the boy's dad's comment about "moving the goal post after the kick" is not surprising, I suppose, even if it is disappointing in some regards) That said, I think I understand - and appreciate - what Owl is trying to do for this boy. I just think he needs to use a different carrot to get the boy to move on to a more challenging leadership position. The advancement carrot (or stick - refusing to sign the app) is unlikely to work here, will probably create a lot of ill-will along the way, and is more likely to cause the boy to leave the troop immediately upon receiving his award, than to cause him to take up the SM's challenge and grow a bit more in the process.

I agree about the importance of communication in this matter. However, I think the burden was on the employer - not the scout - to communicate effectively with the union leadership.

Abel, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the advice you received from John (and seconded by Nike and (thirded? that's not a word, is it?) by myself). It is not the case that you are being told your concerns are invalid or to be taken lightly. I read every word of what you posted. I have been to a couple of camps that had problems similar to what you are describing. I agree that this is a terrible way to run a camp, and a great way to run it into the ground. The problems you are describing are not falling on deaf ears here. The advise was more focused on how to effectively present your concern, in order to increase the likelihood of seeing positive results. While I really did read every word, chances are good that a lot of people would not. That is more true if you are a known figure in your district and council, where people might be prone to say "Oh that Abel, he's off on another one of his rants..." and dismiss your lengthy report. That is probably terribly unfair, but it is also still possibly true. Sometimes shorter is better, even though you have more you want to say on the matter. Paradoxically, it is much harder to ignore a short report, than one that can serve as a door stop.

Scoutfish: Replacing union work with "volunteer" work can also be a way of breaking unions. I am not arguing that in this specific case, the city colluded with the BSA to bust this particular union. But it has been tried before, and it will probably be tried again. That's why unions have problems with this sort of thing. Eamonn is right that some basic communication between city and union could have avoided the scene entirely, though. As someone involved with unions, I will also say that there currently exists a need for more unions. Poor treatment in the workplace is not a thing of the past, unfortunately. Stories I could tell you... The existence of unions also makes it more likely that employers will actually follow existing labor law - because realistically, it is challenging for a lone employee to stand up to a large employer on their own, if the employer refuses to follow the law. But union-management relations do not have to be hostile. Unions do not have to be greedy and divorced from reality. Those are very 1970s-era views of how unions and employers relate, for the most part.

I am a union leader. I think I understand about this. First, most unions have recall clauses in their contract to protect the rights of their members in the situation where lay-offs happen. These recall clauses typically specify that laid-off members are the first to be called back (or some order of preferences for call-backs) when work becomes available. This is a necessity - it is not childish - because otherwise, an employer could be free to "union bust" by simply laying off all or many union employees and hiring somebody else instead. Second, the way contract law is typically enforced, once a union lets work go, it can be difficult to claim it back. A failure to challenge a violation of the recall provisions, for example, could make it harder or impossible to apply those recall provisions in future situations. This could be construed as a violation of the legally binding duty of representation that unions have to their members. In other words, unions can be sued by members who feel the union has failed to represent them adequately. Third, the grievance process exists to resolve differences over contract administration. Both sides - employer and employee - have a say in negotiating the grievance process, and it is therefore reasonable to use it as a dispute resolution mechanism. Fourth, every provision of the contract was agreed to by the employer. Unions do not simply impose their will on hapless employers, especially in these tough economic times. If the employer didn't like the terms and was unwilling to abide by them, then the employer shouldn't have agreed to the contract. Fifth, PR matters. The fact is that the union is probably between a rock and a hard place here. On one hand, if they fail to file a formal complaint then they are failing to protect the future rights of their members (see #2 above). On the other hand, it looks really, really bad to be seen as being against boy scouts or against Christmas decorations. So what this union probably did was to file the formal complaint to protect their future rights, and then agree to drop the matter as a practical solution. But it gets portrayed as "stupid union goons are against the boy scouts and helping old ladies" or something. This is not to say that all unions are always smart about how they do things. Some are too dogmatic, some expect pie-in-the-sky benefits and perks. Most, though, form because there is a real and demonstrable need for them. Many of the basic rights people expect on the job today in terms of reasonable, fair treatment come from the long, hard work of unions in the past -whether a current job is a union job or not.

Those certainly could be issues. On that, Owl needs to make his own judgment call because from where we all sit, it is really difficult or maybe impossible, to know how severe these issues are. Also, I know that there are a couple of scouts I've met who just really irritate me. An off-hand response by them that displays incidental rudeness would stick in my craw in a way that it might not, from a different boy. Knowing this, I try very hard to avoid being unfair to them, while not excusing horrible behavior, either. Sometimes that line is a challenge to find and I don't think that it can be done well over the internet. But the POR is the one I'm seeing Owl make his stand on here, and I don't think Owl has a good argument there. (Sorry.) I do believe a boy can continue to benefit from scouting after Eagle. I also think most boys are not well suited to be SPL before age 14. Expecting them to hold that position at a young age is probably unrealistic. We might all agree, philosophically speaking, that being PL or SPL or ASPL *ought to be* a requirement for Eagle (I'm not saying we *do* all agree - just that in theory we might). But in fact, that is not the requirement as currently written. Consequently, even though I think I understand why Owl wants this scout to do more, I don't think he can require it of the scout in return for allowing the scout to have his EBOR. By the way, we have a scout in my son's troop who will be awarded Eagle sometime in the not-too-distant future. This boy's "responsibility" has been primarily to serve (and I use that term lightly) as troop librarian. I'm not impressed. I'm also not the scoutmaster. If I were, I would push this boy to stretch a little and try something a bit more demanding. Together with the SPL I might work on appointing some other boy to be librarian instead (actually I'd probably abolish the position since the librarian never does anything much). But if I became SM tomorrow, I could not tell this boy he had not met the POR requirement. He has. I just don't care much for the manner in which he was allowed to do it. My choices going forward would be to encourage, cajole, push, and prod the boy into doing more, but withholding my signature on his Eagle app would not be a choice available for this reason.

I'm with Nike and John on this. It is clear that you are passionate and that is a good thing. But sometimes one needs to take a step back and dispassionately organize one's approach. This seems to be one of those times. Pick one aspect of the problem. Identify it in a paragraph or so with a few bullet point examples. Explain probable consequences of the problem in another paragraph or so. Then have a section labeled "possible actions" or something similar where you lay out two-four concrete steps that can be taken to address the problem. A page or two, max - printed, double spaced, normal fonts and margins - is all you'll get to sink in for starters. If someone asks you for something longer, by all means, oblige them at that point. But in the meantime, keep it to business-letter-length. (and good luck to you - these problems you describe with inadequate staffing are pretty common, in my experience, and they do indeed rob boys of the promise they're given when they sign up for camp)

OK I am unclear on something here. The boy met the standard (except he's 20 days short). You agree that he served well as a den chief and that den chief is one of the positions of responsibility accepted for Eagle scouts. He has the other parts of the requirements completed (merit badges, project, etc.). Your complaint appears to be that you want him to grow and develop more as a leader. Certainly, that's a worthy goal. Why, though, are you treating Eagle as the end game? The boy is 14. He has another 3 plus years to be a scout. Presumably he will continue to mature, grow, and develop during that time. Why must he have all of these formative experiences like NYLT and being SPL before he reaches Eagle? Is this boy planning to quit scouting the day he gets to Eagle? Supposing he sticks around, are you going to stop helping him grow on the day he gets to Eagle?

This is a call you have to make. But whatever the outcome, keep in mind that Eagle is not the end of the process. The boy has a lot of time AFTER he gets to Eagle, to work on his leadership and responsibility. I'm sure you'll offer him those opportunities, too.

I think scouting pride has to do with a lot more than wearing a uniform. I'm with Eamonn. It is about program.

Well yes Hal, in some regards it is adult-led and this is one of those.

My son's troop does a restricted thing with neckers. You get a troop necker when you make tenderfoot. Til then, you have a "joining necker." Most of the boys can't stand either necker and would prefer to go without. I don't think making them larger would improve their appeal. I think the boys just don't like wearing a "scarf." Unfortunately for our guys (maybe), the necker is "troop tradition" which means the PLC can't get rid of it even if they want to.

Granted, there are some image issues associated with middle school aged boys (or girls, for that matter) in scouting. Still, when I talk with boys about what they do and don't care for, they almost never tell me that they don't like to camp, or go canoeing, or go climbing, or a hundred other "scout" activities. What they don't like: - boring meetings - the uniform - adults who harp on them all the time - adults using them as pawns, or tokens, while pretending to let the boys make decisions for themselves - long-winded lectures - rituals that lack meaning for them (even if they have meaning to a previous generation) - things they have to do in order to get a check-off, rather than because they want to do them or understand the value in doing them - having to deal with nasty kids (when scouts becomes Lord of the Flies) - failure, or fear of failure - programs or activities that are poorly executed and so don't deliver what was promised (feeling gypped) - unfairness/injustice and inter-adult drama (This message has been edited by lisabob)

Perhaps that's a valid EBOR question: Tell us what you've learned about how the scout law applies to the process of scheduling your EBOR. Of course, any EBOR that asks that question had better be prepared to hear some things about how the scout perceives *their* actions, too.

Yes it is definitely hard on many parents. After such a long time of making sure everything runs smoothly so that the boys can just arrive and have fun in cub scouts, the somewhat more chaotic nature of boy scouts can be a real shocker. And as adults, most of us are probably accustomed to having things be organized - or stepping in to provide organization when it is lacking. It is tough to stand back and watch as the boys struggle with things, or to provide quiet and steadfast support when YOUR boy comes home with complaints about things (some of which might be valid, but it is often part of his experience to figure out how to address or resolve these). It was especially hard for me to know where the line was between appropriate adult involvement, and too much or too little involvement. Too much and you undermine the whole idea of youth leadership and limit the boys' opportunities for personal growth and self confidence. Too little and some of the younger guys may reach the limit of their frustration capacity and quit. It helps if there are seasoned adults in the troop who you trust and feel comfortable approaching when you aren't sure where the line is. You know the other thing that I think was tricky is the dynamic between much older boys and the new scouts. Most webelos are used to being the "big kids" in their pack and in their school. Maybe some have older siblings, but few are used to running around with teen agers for a whole weekend. This is a real big adjustment for some guys - esp. those who are the oldest sibling or only child in their families. It is worth asking the troops what they do to manage the wide range of ages in their troop. For example, do they have age-based patrols? A "new scout" patrol? Do they try to integrate the new boys into existing mixed age patrols? How do they help the new guys learn basic skills while still keeping the interest of older guys who know those skills already? There are advantages and disadvantages to different approaches (and many other threads discuss these). But I think the important thing is to get a good sense of whether the troop has some kind of plan for incorporating the new guys into the mix, or whether they give you a blank look.

The "beef" is that the shoulder loops are dorky. They serve few useful purposes. If people cannot tell, based on the activities in question, the location, the size/age of the kids, and other identifiers (like a unit flag, head gear, neckers, etc.) what part of the BSA program they are seeing, then the shoulder loops probably aren't going to help them all that much. Maybe those loops are more useful in identifying adult affiliation at training events, etc. But for the boys? They are unnecessary and just froo-froo decorations.

Mom2Scouts, I apologize if anything I wrote came across as diminishing what you do in your program in any way. I recall being very annoyed with some boy scout leader types who assumed that, as a webelos leader, I spoon fed everything to our boys. It was definitely not my intent to turn around and cause that same sort of annoyance to you (or others). All I was trying to say is that it isn't only the completion end of things that requires a great deal more out of the boys in a troop - it is also the independent decision to seek out opportunities (you have to know they exist before you can take advantage of them) and then to begin things, that requires so much more personal initiative. I think that's where a lot of the frustration comes from because, naturally, most 5th graders have limited experience with really behaving in self-directed ways. At most, they might be used to being aimed in the right direction and then set loose. Part of the difference in boy scouting is also that they have to select the direction to aim in, themselves. This is all something I have come to better understand in the last 5 1/2 years since my son and most of his den joined a troop. Knowing what I do now about where the usual stumbling blocks seem to be for most of our troop's first year scouts, I think I would emphasize this point more to the boys if I were to serve as a webelos den leader again in the future.

That's a fine idea. Still, boy scouting is much more scout-driven than that. One idea I know "my" group of webelos found hard to grasp was that, not only will the boys be expected to complete many more things at home, but they will be expected to take the initiative to decide to start on their own. In the first several months as boy scouts, our boys would frequently come to me and say "what are we working on this week?" to which my answer was "I don't know, why don't you see if your patrol leader can offer some input." The boys, more than the adults, simply did not understand that the adults would not be giving them the framework. It is hard to blame them for this, since most of their lives did/do revolve around adults setting things up for them, and then they just have to do what they're told to do (school, cub scouts, probably family life). Webelos activity pins - we DLs often would say something like "Ok, we're working on pin X. Here's what needs to happen at home." The boy then goes home and does what was laid out for him. Boy scout merit badges - totally up to the boy to look at the list of (121 or more) options, explore the requirements on his own to see if he's really interested, get his hands on the merit badge book, go to the Scoutmaster and request contact info for an appropriate counselor (and a blue card, if your troop/district/council uses them), contact that counselor to arrange a time, do some work in advance on their own, attend that meeting, do the follow up, schedule and attend more meetings with the counselor, and turn in the completed blue card. Many boys don't even get past the point of deciding that they want to work on a merit badge. Nobody is going to pressure them to do so, either, since they don't "need" any merit badges for the first three ranks. Rank advancement is the same way - sure the troop is going to teach and model and regularly use various skills (one hopes) but the responsibility lies with the boy to take the initiative to practice many skills on his own, read his handbook, take his book to an appropriate signatory, and to demonstrate that he is proficient in the skill in question. Unlike in most cub settings, nobody is going to say "OK, we have been working on skill X. Pass along your books and we'll sign off on that requirement." You probably know all of this already, Mom2Scouts. The boys MIGHT have heard you say all of it, but I find that with new scouts, this is one of those things they often do not understand, and that leads to a great deal of frustration in the first six months or so - especially among those who were used to being "super achievers" in cub scouts.

It sounds to me as if we are discussing two separate (though related) issues here. On one hand, we have the specific case of CNY's son. From what CNY describes, his district is not of one mind on how the Eagle application should be handled. I think everybody could probably agree that there needs to be a clear and consistent set of guidelines to follow, and that this doesn't appear to be happening in CNY's district. They would probably benefit from getting all of the principles together to figure things out and clarify for the entire district. On the other hand, we are talking about the general idea of expecting Eagle candidates to ask their references to provide a letter of recommendation (or a rec. form). This more general idea, I don't have a problem with, as long as the district (preferably the council) is clear and consistent in its expectations. Scouts should not have to have a super secret decoder ring to discern the process. But nor should they balk at an otherwise reasonable request that is designed to help the process work more smoothly in their favor. CNY, I wish your son the best of luck.

Hello and welcome, Mom2Scouts. You've received good advice so far, and it is good to hear you will be visiting both troops. Regarding your last post, it would probably help a lot if you make sure the boys understand that advancement in boy scouting is very different than in cub scouting. I know many webelos/new boy scouts do not grasp this and find it difficult/frustrating/off-putting that advancement in a troop is individually paced and often requires much more personal initiative than was the case in cubs, where opportunities are usually organized for them (by adults). It is one thing for the parents to recognize this - another for the boys to get it. Eagle732- There are three scenarios I can imagine here. 1) Somebody in that pack is actively encouraging boys to join a different troop. 2) There is something about your program that is off-putting to the families in that pack. 3) The pack leaders are overworked, overwhelmed, and/or disorganized, and just don't manage to get the word out to the boys' families. My guess is that it is a combination of the first and third. Having joined other troops in the past, the pack has an established and recent relationship with adults in that other troop now. (So & So joined that troop last year - we know him - we'll join that troop too.) It only takes a couple of years for this to become the "way it has always been" in a cub pack, due to the constant influx of new families and high adult turn-over rate. If you share the same charter org, I think you could utilize that fact to at least have a sit-down with the cub master & committee chair of the pack in question. Ask to meet with them over coffee. Explain that you'd like to help this pack out - not that you expect them to automatically join you, just that you want to be helpful to them - and ask whether the CM & CC are interested in having you provide den chiefs, do a couple joint activities, a joint service project in the name of your shared CO, etc. Once your troop is a more regular presence in the pack's operation recruiting becomes much easier.

CRW, are you the committee chair? It might be good to tread lightly. I understand why you're annoyed and I agree the SM should not have done what you described. On the other hand, if you are an ASM or a committee member, or "just" a parent, you going back to the boys at this point may look just about as bad as the SM trying to manipulate the boys into choosing his preferred option. Aside from that - the meal thing sounds like a wonderful service project idea.

The statement Trevorum quoted in the other thread suggests to me that there are internal fractures within the BSA's top leadership on this matter. I recall that when I attended WB in 2003, the "diversity lecture" was fairly amusing. Not that it was poorly presented, but it was just so at odds with what I had seen in scouting up to that point and it did not ring true. For one thing, I've never been anywhere where I've heard so many jokes and comments about homosexuals, as I was hanging around with a bunch of (overwhelmingly white male protestant) scouters at wood badge. It was clear that there was a powerful sense of homophobia. For another, as Brent says (and I think it is probably accurate but I don't have any statistics), scouting is a primarily white, middle class, organization. And it is perceived that way, too, which probably reinforces the fact. I think this middle class bias is especially true in boy scouts, which is a more expensive and time-intensive endeavor than cub scouts for most families. While many units do offer financial assistance, people are understandably reluctant to ask for it, and/or may rule out joining to begin with, before they ever find out that aid is available. Nobody likes being a charity case. Back at that wood badge lecture, I made the error of asking whether, by the term diversity, they meant to include people of different sexual orientations. I suppose that made me a heretic. And most of the "diversity" ticket items I've seen have been sort of soft. One I liked was, in a town of a few troops with very similar demographic backgrounds, the troops would do some joint activities to learn about each other. While this is actually a fine idea on its own, I don't see how it really adds to anybody's understanding of diversity. By 2050, census estimates are that the United States will be a predominately non-white population. The growth in Latino communities is very strong. People of mixed racial backgrounds are also becoming far more numerous. I agree with Oak Tree that the BSA's ham-handed approach to racial and ethnic minorities (scouting & soccer seems like a good example of this) just doesn't work, and is likely to work even less well in a society where more people are multi-racial and can't be neatly pigeon-holed at all. And I see little coherent effort to promote scouting in ways that really work, in lower income communities (yes I know - scoutreach - does anybody want to say that's a booming success?) or to lower income families in middle class and wealthier communities. I agree with others here that the policies on the "3 Gs" will probably change or be re-interpreted. It is difficult to cultivate an image of a diverse and welcoming organization on one hand, when the BSA is also known as a discriminatory private club that trumpets its exclusionary membership policies, on the other hand.

I guess I do not understand the tempest in a teapot over this issue. For starters, unless (even if?) the boy is a truly horrid person, what boy is going to find it impossible to get several reasonably positive letters written on his behalf - especially since his parents can be references. I've not yet seen any parents throw their kid under the bus in this context; maybe others of you have. Second, making the request to have those letters takes minimal effort on the boy's part. Even if he has to make a couple of phone calls to ensure that the request has not been forgotten or the form not lost, it really is not that difficult or time consuming to do that. And of course he's requesting letters from people who probably like him, making this easier still. Third, it would be quite illogical to put up a major fight over this matter. The potential costs are great, while the benefits are minimal. So although I understand the "no adding to the requirements" business, this particular matter is not a hill to die on, in my estimation. There are a lot of things we all do every day in "real life" that are technically not required but are just basic common sense and survival. I know that if I pulled the "it isn't required in my contract" bit every time I was asked to participate in something at work, I'd probably be replaced. Same thing at home. Where does it say on my marriage license that I have to do the laundry?? Teaching kids to always take that approach is probably not serving them well in the bigger picture, especially over matters that are relatively simple.