Lisabob

I recall from my BALOO training that there were program requirements, or expectations anyway, for all age groups present. If you were going to allow younger sibs at cub camping events, you were supposed to provide age-appropriate activities and supervision for them. For that reason, my recollection is that we were strongly advised to discourage tag-along sibs. I don't know if that would help you, but it might because you mentioned that you're appealing to the sensibilities of several families who still have at least one foot in cub scouting.

If you found yourself in a situation where the entire troop would be unable to attend camp unless this parent could come, and the parent could only come if they could bring their 9 year old (6 year old? 2 year old? infant? where does it stop?!) with them, then...eh....maybe. Even then, I would do everything in my power to come up with an alternate arrangement.

But what you're describing isn't that, and shouldn't have happened.

So how to try to keep it from blowing up? Might be impossible, but perhaps framing it like this:

Mr. & Mrs. Smith had only good intentions, but here are three examples of how this didn't work out so well (list examples in neutral tone). And since we can't allow every family to bring their non-member children with them, we should be fair and have one rule about this that everyone in the troop follows.

If you want to turn the screw, then turn to the parents in question and add, pleasantly:

I think Mr. & Mrs. Smith could agree with that, right?

Engineer: Sounds like that one used pair are a candidate for hazardous waste disposal.

I knew one leader who stashed a spray bottle of febreeze in her glove box for just such occasions as the drive home from summer camp. Having to transport a bunch of smelly kids home can leave your car smelling rank for a long while after.

(In my car, there's a LEAVE YOUR SHOES ON" rule. I don't care how long the ride is or if their feet are hot. They're not airing their stinky sneakers/hikers out in my car.)

AWESOME!

I'm happy to hear your guys had a better experience this time around. Make sure your older guys who were there last year and didn't have such a good time then, also reflect on this. People actually listened, cared, and took their constructive criticism seriously. That is a big realization for a lot of young folks to make and can be very empowering.

I think a 3 strike policy for minor infractions like language/minor name calling/insubordination would be tough to enforce and cause more problems than it would solve.

I can easily, easily imagine a boy goading another one into saying something stupid, or an immature youth leader (say, a youngish PL or APL) throwing around "insubordination" at every turn. Do you want to end up the judge on just how insubordinate the boy was actually being, whether he had a good reason, etc? I don't.

What will you do when a boy claims that another called him a name or used bad language, and the boy denies it? He said, he said. How many witnesses must there be? What specific names or words are ok and not ok? My son had a teacher in middle school who got all worked up when a kid would say some *thing* (not even some *one*) was stupid or dumb. Meanwhile others didn't seem to notice or care when kids directed racial slurs at people. Where will your line be?

Would this apply to adults, too? I know a few who have challenges controlling their use of expletives.

And when you say "3 strikes" do you mean you'd send a kid home from the event? Boot them from the troop? What?

Please understand, I'm not saying you ought to ignore or condone bad behavior. I just am not certain that a rigid "3 strikes" kind of approach to minor behavioral issues is a good way to go because you'll end up with a troop full of mini-lawyers (and parents playing lawyers) who want to argue about every called or perceived "strike" rather than dealing with the actual problem.

Find a more flexible way to deal with the minor behavioral issues so you don't end up in arguments about what constitutes a "strike" and you'll probably get better results.

PS: Acco, the meaning of "liberal" has changed quite a lot over the years. I am not certain, but I suspect BSA24 might mean "liberal" in a different way than you are thinking. Depending on the political tradition one derives the meaning of "liberal" from, you both could be right. And anyway, I think it is a mistake to assume that conservation and environmentalism are necessarily political values. My experience is that people who spend a lot of time outdoors, as scouts tend to, develop a stronger appreciation for, and desire to conserve, nature. That's personal first, only political later. And can it be helped that in recent decades Democrats seemed more concerned environmental conservation than many Republicans?

Gotta say, I about fell off my bench when they did the "diversity" talk at WB. I've never been around such a homophobic group of people in my life, and yet these were also the same guys who incessantly joked and talked about being gay, gayness, and gay um...personal relations, and CROSS DRESSED for various purposes. Yes, we had a night where one of the senior staffers came to camp dressed as a woman and proceeded to do all kinds of dumb stuff, some of which was rather lewd. I'm reasonably certain that's not in the syllabus and apparently part of "local tradition" because everybody acted like it was this big deal that they got to see Mr. Smith's...act.

But heaven help me, during the diversity lecture, I dared to suggest not-so-under-my-breath that if BSA were serious about diversity then maybe it should consider dropping the prohibition on homosexual leaders. And of course that was heretical.

Richard: I asked whether you had kids because what you wrote isn't the normal experience for folks I know in my area who have kids and who regularly deal with the camp physical-sports physical- school physical - extracurricular physical etc. paperwork. So I asked. You responded. We're good. Always nice to know that folks have different experiences.

Scoutfish: I don't think we're in any sort of disagreement about the desirability of routine physicals or that many insurance policies will pay for that routine physical. My insurance, like most, only covers one a year. It isn't a secret. That's fine, except when the dates suddenly don't align with when you actually need another one for a particular form to be considered "valid." Just a feature of our current system and sometimes, a little bit irritating. That's all.

Scoutfish, "routine" doesn't help when your kid's troop leaves for Camp on June 18th and his physical from last year "expires" on June 19th. As I mentioned, the camp wouldn't accept any form that wasn't "current" for the full week of camp, regardless of what RichardB posted about forms being good through the end of the month. Their camp, their rules. Fair enough. Meanwhile, insurance wouldn't cover a physical until June 20th.

So we had the following choices:

1. pay out of pocket for another physical before June 18th

2. convince Dr. to fill out a new form for this year, w/out actually having an appointment, based on a physical that happened close to (but not quite) a year ago.

3. don't send him to camp.

Happily, son doesn't have any health issues, isn't due for immunizations, and so we were able to go with #2. And son will get his annual physical again in the fall. My sense from RichardB's comments, though, is that it has probably been a long time since he had to deal with this stuff as a parent (if he ever did). And Richard, that's ok - just know that it isn't quite so simple as you seem to think.

So I hear Columbus OH got hit with a pretty bad storm last night - 80/90 mph winds, fires, uprooted trees, downed power lines, massive power outages, etc. I know there are a couple of BSA camps right around Columbus. And there are a few posters from Central OH on this forum. Everybody ok down there?

RichardB, do you have kids at home these days? If so, are you the one who takes them for their annual camp physicals? I'm guessing you don't, based on your questions. Three responses:

1. The "end of the month" thing might be ok with BSA, but not with some state laws about camps, or with some camps regardless of state law. The camp our troop attended this year was one. They would not accept a physical that "expired" mid-week (which was also mid-month). Since the troop went to camp about a month earlier than usual, there were lots of folks with mid-week/mid-June expiration dates, who all were required to get their forms re-done before camp, or else not go. The camp said this was part of state law regulating youth camps. Maybe the camp was being overzealous in their interpretation, but arguing with them about it wasn't going to get us in the gate.

2. While many Drs WILL fill out a form with a new date based on a physical within the last calendar year, many of those same Drs WILL NOT fill it out based on a routine check up. Don't ask, I've been told it is something to do with billing. And anyway, as Moosetracker said, if you have a healthy teenager, they may have no need to see the Dr in between physicals (immunizations aren't frequent for teens). Since most of us have to pay a hefty co-pay every time we walk in the Dr's door, most folks aren't interested in a frivolous visit just to say hello.

3. Some of this is "if I knew then what I know now" stuff. For example - the first time my son needed a class C med form for BSA camp was the year he crossed over. Cross-over was in March. We didn't know about camp, let alone whether he was going and what forms he needed, until about May. By the time he got his physical it was June.

OK so that puts us on a June physical schedule from here to the end of time, assuming he needs one annually, and assuming we don't want to drop $100 or more to have an extra physical just for paperwork reasons that our insurance won't cover.

Keep in mind, I'm talking about a healthy teen who does not need any updates on his immunizations at this point in time. Argh.

~rolls eyes~

There are three topics I really dislike talking about when it comes to people's political views. One is abortion, the second is the origin of sexual orientation, and the third is immigration. On all three, people tend to believe what they believe, no matter what the actual facts are. So I know I should let this go, but

"Cross the boarder 8 mths pregnat and drop the kid,

instance citizenship.. "

Moosetracker, you do realize that this is not new and is completely unrelated to the recent announcement about not pursuing law-abiding youth who were brought here illegally as (already born) children, don't you?

Back to George Takei...

Blech, I can't stand gatorade, etc., and it is a pet peeve when folks use a cooler for water that previously held flavored stuff (makes the water taste like the flavored stuff). Give me plain water. For most people under most conditions, that does the trick just fine.

Richard, thanks for the links. Good promo!

It is funny, I would think that folks involved with the BSA would be happy that insurance coverage for the kids is extended past the age of 18, and that children can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Think of the outdoor stuff we do with kids - don't you want them to have access to insurance when at all possible???

As the parent of a healthy and physically adventurous almost-18 year old, I am very thankful that he can be on my insurance for several more years (and even more thankful that I have insurance for him to be on). Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd be ok with him going backpacking for a week with his Venturing Crew (he left this morning - have fun, guys & gals!). I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable letting him go rock climbing next week with the Crew. Nor many of the other active outdoor things they do. Insurance doesn't remove risk of injury, of course, but at least I know he can get decent medical care if he gets hurt.

We can debate whether age 26 is too long and who should bear that cost and all. Those are fair questions. Personally, I think this allows many employers who rely on younger workers to pass the cost of their labor force onto other employers, and that's not right. If more entry-level jobs came with benefits, we'd probably never have needed to discuss this at all because the kids would've flown the nest, gotten a job, and had their own benefits by then.

But this is not the same world that my parents entered into as young adults, where a person who finished high school or college could realistically expect to find a full time job with benefits that included health insurance. Now, even many of the smartest and hardest-working college students I teach graduate into a bleak landscape of part-time jobs with no chance of benefits. They take what they can get to get by, and hope nothing bad happens in the meantime.

So I'd rather see us do SOMETHING, even imperfectly, than do NOTHING and collectively cross our fingers that none of the kids would need the insurance that they can't get on their own.

I agree that for the most part the boys don't care all that much, but we should still strive to be timely. They do care a bit more under certain conditions:

1. Younger/new scouts are more interested in getting that patch sooner than later

2. Scouts who are about to age out might like to actually wear that patch on their uniform before they are no longer youth (not necessarily just Eagle I'm talking about, here)

3. It depends on how long the delay is going to be. A week? That's not so bad. Til the next CoH? That could be a mighty long time.

As for Scoutnet records, I'm convinced of gremlins in the system. We just reviewed one of our older scout's records (again) for the second time in about 6 months as he gets close to finishing Eagle requirements. Things that were right 6 months ago were wrong this time. Things that were corrected 6 months ago didn't "take" and needed correcting again. Things that were entered just last week - some are right, some are wrong. Of course any adult who has been around for a while knows that's not an unusual experience and we all just shook our heads and moved ahead with the corrections (again). Kinda freaked the scout out, though.

Webelos was my favorite group. At that age, boys can do a lot more for themselves and you can have really great conversations, too. We had a total blast with the Webelos, working on requirements, but also just doing things the boys thought were fun. And our program wasn't boy-scouting-in-miniature but we did get them outside a lot more, and they did stuff the "little" kids in the pack did not do.

I remember some presentation from my BALOO training (years ago now) that included recommendations on sharing the drive, especially on the way home when people are tired. It was one of the sandwich/safety videos. Anybody else remember this?

Seems to me, it is unwise to expect to do all you did to lead this trip, and be the one to drive home. Delegate and possibly save some lives.

By the way - why don't you get a couple of den chiefs from the troop to go with you next year and help out? Doesn't have to be a one-man show and the Webelos will probably enjoy meeting a couple of the cool older boys in the troop.

Dszczepa, can I ask you a few questions to try to get some clarity here? Just short answers, mostly yes/no, should do, no long explanations needed.

1. Who was your old charter organization (not precisely, we don't need to know where you live, but give us some way to refer to them that is clear. For example: CO 1 = Catholic Church in the town you live in)

2. Who is your new charter organization? CO 2 = ?

3. Am I correct in understanding from the discussion that CO 2 is located physically in the New Council, but wants you to hold your meetings in a physical location that is in the Old Council?

4. Has CO 2 signed a charter agreement yet and appointed leaders?

5. Have you been officially appointed and registered as a leader with the new pack at CO 2? If so, what is your official role?

6. Have you been trained yet in your official role?

7. Bottom line right now, what is it you want? Are you looking to get revenge on CM from old pack in CO 1 for failing to remove the CM? Or are you looking to start a new pack with CO 2?

Thanks for answering. I think it might help folks give you better feedback if they have a clearer sense of what's going on.

One way I've found to deal with the 1-year insurance window:

Suppose you get your physical in mid-June 2012.

3 or 4 months later, ask the Dr's office to fill out another copy of the form, based on the previous physical. If you don't have major health issues, many Drs will do this for free, no hassles. They'll date the new form on the day they fill it out again.

Now your paperwork is good for a year and 3 or 4 months from the original physical - through September or October 2013.

When your insurance kicks back in you can schedule a new physical without the hair-pulling frenzy because summer camp in 2012 AND 2013 is covered by the extra 3 or 4 months the second form got you. And now you have some leeway to set your annual (covered) physical in a month other than June going forward, so that you don't have to worry as much about whether your troop is going to camp early/late this year, or whether your Dr's office is really busy the week before you go to camp.

Yes, I asked my son about that! A wall-o-duct-tape was built in front of a leader's tent as a practical joke (don't worry, they checked to make sure he had other ways out of the tent). Another leader's wood carved bear (WB totem) found its way into a thicket of duct tape (and was eventually rescued). Duct tape also featured in their patrol's costumes for an evening event. And repaired a sneaker.

Peppers were used to make camp food taste like "anything else." I guess it wasn't naturally yummy.

I'm just happy to know they weren't used in tandem! I had visions of some irritating young fellow being taped to a tree with peppers stuffed up his nose...(not really!)

BSA is not a government organization, so being a taxpayer is not relevant.

If you do not like the pack your son is in, move to a different pack. Most towns have more than one. If your town only has one, drive him to a pack in a nearby town. It might be helpful to contact your current pack's Charter Organization Rep (the person who represents your pack's sponsor) and clearly and briefly (and unemotionally) lay out the concerns you have. While you as a parent may not be able to effect change in pack leadership, the Charter Org Rep has more authority there. That is, if they agree with you.

You cannot relocate the pack to a different council. You can, however, relocate your participation to an existing pack in another council. (Please be aware that not all councils or districts end at the county line.)

Now about how to present your complaints:

1. Make sure you have a clear picture of the relevant facts. Don't include irrelevant info. (It doesn't matter that your husband is an Eagle - kids with non-Eagle parents deserve a good quality program too, and being an Eagle doesn't mean your husband necessarily knows anything about the current cub scout program. It also doesn't matter that you are tax payers.)

2. In all seriousness, I suggest that you edit yourself to remove the emotional stuff. The more emotionally you protest, the less likely people are to take your complaints seriously. That's terribly unfair sometimes, but it is also true. You might find it helpful to write up your complaints twice - once, for yourself and let it all pour out. A second time, for whoever your complaint is going to (your pack's Charter Org. Rep, for example), where it is very fact-based and not wrapped up in emotion. Phrases like "abuse of power" and "completely ignored" and lots of exclamation points might be in the first draft that you write just for yourself, but shouldn't be in the draft you present to people who you want to do something about the situation.

While I agree that there is an issue with burn-out and that the program itself can be an issue, I also think we need to consider the nature of elementary-aged youth programs and the take-all-comers recruiting appeal of most cub packs.

Many families join cub scouting as a "try it out" activity for a year or two. Many of these families just don't commit to any one activity for an extended period of time. They do soccer this year, scouting next year, youth group the year after, lego league the year after that.... By design, they're serial participants in many different youth offerings so that their kid gets a "well rounded" exposure. They want their kids to be generalists, not specialists. And boy scouting in particular, is for specialists.

Then many other families don't have it together enough to stick with it. We got a LOT of messed up people in cub scouting. Parents who were, themselves, still more like children (it is sort of shocking, now, to spend time around the oldest boys in my son's troop and realize that some Cub parents are only a few years older than them!). Parents with addiction problems. Parents with a lot of social and economic strain in their lives. Parents who were in process of losing custody of their children. Parents who had gone/were going through nasty divorces, and couldn't work cub scouting smoothly into their joint custody agreements. Parents of kids with serious behavioral disorders who hope cub scouts is going to work miracles for them.

All of these folks signed up their kids for a year as Tigers or Wolves with good intentions, but quickly faded out of the picture because they simply could not (did not) get there for pack and den meetings. The commitment and structure was too much. These folks almost never were still around as Bear and Webelos participants.

I'm not denying that there are program issues that result in drop-off at both ends of cub scouting (new recruits, esp. Tigers, often leave if the initial experience isn't good, and Webelos get burned out or find other, more challenging youth programs instead).

But I do think that cub scouting fishes with a large net. It shouldn't surprise us, then when a lot of the fish slip through the holes on us. If we were more selective about who and how we recruit (fishing with a smaller, more tightly woven net), we might see a higher retention rate, but the overall population we serve might also diminish. This is just the nature of open-access elementary age youth programs.

That is a very exciting first night at camp! I heard that the storm is moving off the coast now, so here's hoping you have a few dry and tornado-free days ahead.

I don't know what the policy is in your state, but in mine, the "blame" can be placed squarely on the camp. State law requires that the camp have up to date med forms for all attendees. No form, and the camp won't allow you in the gate. There's no arguing with them about it.

Do you tell parents that many doctors will sign off this year's form based on a physical within the last calendar year? That might help if the real problem is that their kid had a physical last August and insurance won't cover another one until this August. And usually, doctors (or their staff) can turn around a do-over form like this in just a couple hours.

I know we've done that a few times - and while the staff always says "oh we don't know if the dr. will do that," the answer has always been "sure, I'll do that" when asked.

About the refund: if the camp will give a refund, even a partial refund, then I think you must pass that along to the family. It would be unethical to deny the family a refund that they could have gotten, or worse, to keep the refund in the troop's funds. But if the camp won't give a refund at all, then you certainly aren't obligated to provide one to the family out of the troop's coffers.

Some years back there was a 14 or 15 year old boy in the troop my son was in, who went to summer camp and convinced several young MBCs to give him signed blue cards for a fistful of Eagle-required badges, without ever having attended (or even signed up for) those MB classes.

The boy thought we wouldn't notice?!? In fact, the whole troop knew because the boy bragged about it to all the other boys as in: "ha ha you chumps, you actually did the work" etc etc.

Much consternation followed. The boy was aware of the "once it is signed, it is done" concept and threw that in the face of the SM (the SM was not inclined to turn the blue cards in to council).

The decision was to tell the boy, fine, you "get" (not "earn") those merit badges, but it is going to be a very cold day before the SM is ready to sign off on your scout spirit requirement for your next rank, and just what sort of leadership position do you think you're likely to get chosen for.

The badges were duly presented at a court of honor just like all the others and the boy seemed pretty embarrassed at that point since, through his own actions, everyone in the room clearly knew the back story. It was an interesting lesson in trust and reputation.

The boy did eventually earn Eagle.

Oops, wrong thread!

(This message has been edited by lisabob)