Lisabob

Thanks, folks, for letting me vent. I feel better now. Numbers - of the 6 boys who went, 2 did not have parents in attendance (mine being one of those). 5 of the adults in question were parents (1 boy had 2 parents there). The remaining 5 adults were not parents. 1 of these was the ASM who is also the venture patrol adviser. Again, I happen to like most of these folks on a personal level, but I can't understand why they feel such a need to crowd in on the boys' experience. Well they'll be back late this afternoon and I'll hear from my son then, how well things worked out. Maybe having the group separated so that some of the adults were a little ways behind will have worked out ok. I sure hope so, because this same group of 10 adults is going to accompany the boys on a week-long trek in northern MI later in the summer.

Let me add some things: 1) My son does not want to change troops, but he has expressed that he would like more independence in the troop he's in. He has talked to the SM, the CC, brought it up at his BOR, pushed the issue with the ASM who is the venture patrol adviser. All of that, independently from me. I'm supporting him in this, but not pushing him in this. 2) I really like the Scoutmaster. However, the venture patrol is not really overseen by the SM, but rather by another group of adults who loosely touch base with the SM. I also really like most of those adults, and particularly respect the one ASM who helped the boys get this patrol started last year, but they just don't seem to "get" the idea of a boy-led program. This isn't about adults drinking and carousing. They aren't "that kind" of folks. There are some helicopter adults in the group though. I think it is mainly about many of the adults wanting to do cool stuff too. But, I'm sorry, it isn't their club. There is an all-ages hiking club in the area. I am thinking of bringing in their literature for these adults and saying something to the effect of "here, go hike with these folks." This will likely make me unpopular. Pack - I do appreciate your idea of getting more boys to dilute the ratio. But this is a patrol, not a whole troop. And frankly, why would any other older boys want to join, just to be mother-henned (and mostly father-henned) like this?

Maybe I ought to just give it up. This weekend my son's venture patrol is going on a 20 mile hike. 6 boys. 10 adults. In the past there have been some issues of adults being overbearing (and to be fair, boys not always "shining" in their independent leadership efforts, with adults breathing down their necks all the time. Sort of a chicken-egg situation.). So this time, in the spirit of "compromise," the boys will leave 30 minutes ahead of most of the adults, and will take "only" 4 of the 10 adults in their group. The remaining 6 adults will be a mile or so down the trail. The boys don't get to choose which 4 adults accompany them - adults have already done that. When I asked "why do they need 4 adults? They'll only be a couple miles down the trail!?" The answer was "in case anything happens" and "BSA policy requires 2 deep leadership at all times, so if a boy gets injured, 2 adults can leave with the boy, while the other 2 stay with the group." No discussion to the contrary appears to work, including the fabled "show me where that's written." Honestly. Am I that far out on the fringe here, that I expect a group of 13-15 year old Star and Life Scouts, all of whom have the first aid merit badge and prior hiking experience, on a trail that is not particularly challenging, in terrain not different from their own backyards, and in hospitable weather conditions, NOT TO NEED A RATIO OF 2 ADULTS TO EVERY 3 BOYS?? You might have noticed, tact isn't always my strength. And I've gotten almost nowhere, in my (more tactful) attempts at talking with these adults. Far as I can tell, the consensus is that a) they don't trust these boys to be on their own in even the smallest of ways and b) they want an adult camping club disguised as a boy scout troop. I don't think that I'll ever be able to encourage them to see things differently. What a shame.

Yes Scouter&mom, I do think the new supplex shirts fit women better. I tried both the new women's and men's shirts and I thought the cut of both were improvements over the old women's shirts. I ended up buying a men's shirt for my son (and didn't buy one for myself due to the cost - couldn't blow $100 on shirts that particular day) but I would probably buy the women's shirt for myself when I have the extra cash to sink into a new uniform for me.

A very similar thing happened in our troop recently. Our troop's policy is that boys Star and up can sign off on most T-2-1 requirements. One of our new Star scouts signed off on 2nd class requirements 2c and 2f without verifying that the scout in question could actually do those things. His explanation was that the boy in question had his totin chip and firem'n chit and so was more than likely qualified. While perhaps that would fly for 2c, it definitely doesn't work for 2f. A quiet word to the Star scout who signed the book was enough to help him better understand his new responsibility. As for the other scout, the Star scout went back to him, explained his honest mistake, and offered to teach the younger scout how to actually do the skills in question/let the scout demonstrate his knowledge on the next camp out. Problem solved, I think. One thing this did highlight for me was that if boys are going to be given the responsibility for signing other scouts' books, it is also incumbent on us to teach the boys what the expectations are, that accompany that responsibility. Once they know, they are usually very good about abiding by those expectations but we shouldn't expect them to be mind readers.

Well to be fair, my "contact" isn't in the decision making chain re: national uniform policy and I also didn't get a timeline for these alleged changes. So it may be wait-and-see, but I hope that what I was told is correct. In the meantime, I did purchase a new supplex shirt for my son a little while back. Ended up borrowing it and wearing it to an event, myself this week (it doesn't have most of the youth patches on it yet and I was in need of a shirt for this event). I must say that I appreciate the change in fabric, despite all else that we collectively have griped about. Maybe it was because this is a men's shirt? But I also thought the short sleeves were a little longer on this version of the shirt than was true in the past, and I kind of like that too.

I go back and forth on the "OA is a popularity contest" complaint. To some degree it is. But then, let's look at what makes a boy "popular" in most settings. He's helpful to his patrol mates and the troop, rather than being the last one to lift a finger and then only under duress. He's friendly and cheerful, rather than scowling all the time and moping around (his nickname probably isn't "Eyeore"). He's kind and doesn't make fun of those who are struggling with something. He's trustworthy; others know he's reliable, lives up to his word, and won't back-stab them. Granted, sometimes you just get cliques in a troop, and those might be based on other, less desirable factors. But I think that a lot of times, boys (and parents) who complain that they didn't get elected because they're "not popular" could stand to look a little more carefully at how they live the scout oath and law in their daily lives.

I heard yesterday from a reliable source that national is going to do away with the "tech" or "cigarette" pockets on the shirt sleeves, going forward. Seems that maybe they listened to all the feedback after all. Now if only they would make a shirt with a lower "dork factor" (as my son has called it)! I mentioned in another thread that he'll happily wear the switchback pants anywhere, and he wears his troop T shirts out & about too, but the uniform shirt? No way.

My son has had a pair of the original switchbacks for 2 years or so. He loves them, probably wears them three times a week. He wears them camping. He wears them to troop meetings. He wears them hiking. He even (happily) wears them to school on a pretty regular basis. They have held up wonderfully. Although they were on the expensive side, at least I feel we've gotten our money's worth out of them.

I'm with Ed on this one. Sheesh. I would be sorely tempted to send that letter of concern to the DAC and cc the district chair, district commish, and DE - After your son gets through his Eagle BOR and necessary paperwork. But then maybe this guy is new to the DAC position and is merely trying to be thorough, which could explain his over-zealousness. At any rate, try (hard) not to communicate your annoyance to your son. Not worth it. Let his Eagle process be as untainted with dumb adult goofiness as you can manage, so he can fully enjoy the experience.

"to insure that they have the knowledge, ability, skills, and maturity to be an Eagle." Why couldn't they do the same thing by rigorously adhering to existing requirements? For example - make sure the boys really, truly, own the skills before signing off on T-2-1 requirements. Make sure PORs are fulfilled, and not just "held" for the minimum length with any warm body getting credit. Expect scout spirit to have meaning. Etc. You said this is a fairly young/new troop. Here's what I can see happening. A couple of years down the road, the original folks will have moved on in life. New folks will have come in and will inherit the "no Eagles before 16" mantra, but completely divorced from the original logic behind it. At that point, it will become a problem in the troop, generating appeals and challenges, and causing rifts among the families that make up the troop. Far better to actually follow BSA policy, and to go all out, than to put in arbitrary road blocks that can be warped out of all reasonableness.

Dean, I understand your point of view on this matter and I think the pack's committee chair would be well within rights to place a friendly call to the DE to explain why the pack would prefer the DE not return with another FOS pitch, if that's the case. (I forget, are you the CC?) On the other hand, while perhaps the DE might have been a little smoother in his/her delivery of the request to you, I don't think this is something to be offended by. Even DE's are human and this individual probably just got chewed out by their boss for having lower-than-average FOS contributions this year. So now they're scrambling. Yes, it would be nice if they had answered your questions more effectively first but from what you described, I doubt there was any malice afore-thought in the way they responded to you.

I have seen this every year since my son joined the troop. Most of the time, those boys do not stay with scouts for more than a year, although there have been some exceptions. Luckily for us, most of the public schools in our area have run a half-week outdoor education camp for fifth graders in the spring, so parents like this have a chance to "try out" letting their child go away for a few days before scout camp rolls around. Sadly, the schools are probably going to cut that program due to budget issues. A few things that seem to help (for some folks): 1) Some will let their kid go if they can go too, that first year. Consider asking if they'd like to register as adult leaders and participate. This will mean you'll have other things to juggle like making sure parent doesn't follow the kid around all day at camp, but it can work in some cases. 2) Some are simply not comfortable with the troop's adult leadership yet. Do what you can to help them get to know/trust you. Maybe get them to either camp a couple of weekends with the troop or at least visit during the day on Saturday, if they're not the camping types. 3) Some will cave to pressure from their child. That is, if the child really, really wants to go and isn't taking their cues from the parent on this. 4) Some are ok if they have a ton of information about exactly who/what/when/where. I dunno, maybe it makes them feel in control. I think as your troop expands and you get more young scouts whose parents do not know you or the scouting program as well, you are likely to see more of this sort of thing.

We have women SMs and women ASMs. I guess your ASM would have a hard time with that too, but those women I've known who serve in such roles are among the very best scouters I've had the privilege to meet. Last week I went to an Eagle CoH. One of the people who the Eagle Scout asked to speak at his ceremony is a former ASM who was instrumental in guiding him through many challenging times. And (gasp) she is also a woman. So you might have guessed, I think the whole "no women camping with the troop" thing is stupid and you should not cave to the ASM on this. And I would add that while excessive "mothering" is of course to be discouraged while on a troop campout, so is excessive "fathering" and I've certainly seen plenty of that behavior from many dads. This isn't a gender thing; it is an expectations thing. On the other matter, no, a 10 year old sister should not be a tag-along on a typical boy scout camping trip any more than a younger brother should be. What would be really nice is if some other family in the troop offered to pitch in and help the mom come to some other solution. While of course not mandatory, it sure would be a nice gesture.

Nachamawat, you seem to be in a contrary mood here. Really no need for that as I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. You asked for explanations, and I offered two of the more common ones. Feedback is a gift, you know Boys should not be prohibited from working on a particular MB due to their familial ties to the district's one-and-only MB counselor for that particular badge. On the other hand, the reading MB is not rocket science, and if a boy wants to work on it, maybe he could go up to the local public library, talk to the librarians, and ask one or more of them to register as MBCs. Or his English teacher, or school librarian (if you have one). Or the kindly neighbor. While Beavah's right that recruiting MBCs falls under the district advancement chair's duties, there is nothing saying a scout can't help out. Most of the time, all a boy has to do is ask.

It is perfectly acceptable for a scout to work on requirements for all three ranks at the same time. No harm in that. What you shouldn't expect, though, is the same level of proficiency on all three levels. Most troops will want to see a better grasp of skill at the 1st Cl. level than they'd expect of a tenderfoot. So, while the scout doesn't necessarily have to work on the requirements in order, it isn't necessarily going to happen that he gets similar-sounding requirements for all three ranks "knocked out" together, unless he really knows his stuff. Hope that makes sense.

BSA rules do not prohibit a parent from counseling their own son. The problem tends to occur when others perceive a parent as going lighter on their own child than on other children. Whether that perception is true (as it sometimes is) or false (as is probably more often the case) is almost irrelevant. The perception alone causes all sorts of trouble for a unit, especially if the adult in question also holds a position like SM, CC, or advancement chair. Most units do not want to invite such trouble. The other issue is understanding and utilizing the adult association method of scouting. Chances are good that by the time a boy reaches his teens, he has had PLENTY of interaction with his parents. Having a connection to other adults can be a strongly positive thing, which he will not get or will get less of, if he works with mom & dad all the time. Still, a parent can counsel their child, in keeping with BSA rules.

I believe it is standard in our area for FOS reports to be generated and returned to each unit. Last one I saw listed the names of previous unit donors as well as amounts donated. What units do with it is unclear to me and could vary from unit to unit too. Not sure whether this is a recent invention or a long-standing habit, but I do agree it leaves a bad taste.

Just another thought. In my son's troop, boys ranked Star and above can sign off on most T-2-1 requirements. Checking the books at BOR is also a check on whether that responsibility is working out well for any particular boy. Sometimes we get boys who either don't understand, or don't take seriously, the right to sign off on requirements and that needs to be addressed.

My son's troop does this too, although BORs are on demand and not limited to once a month. The explanation given is pretty much what Horizon wrote about the boys being responsible for tracking their own progress and the book being the item of record. Incidentally, I don't know of any boys who have been denied BORs in the last 3 years for this reason - they all know to bring their books, so it has not risen to the level of a challenge. While I am at best ambivalent about this practice and know that it is not supported by the BSA literature, sometimes you have to prioritize with regard to the battles you choose. In this particular case fgoodwin, perhaps a place to start is to ask the BOR to hold a do-over at your next troop meeting, instead of making the boy wait a whole month.

moxie, I think this was a fairly recent change. There is now a minimum age requirement, regardless of AoL status. And I, for one, am glad. One parent I know had her son skipped ahead 2 or 3 grades in school. She skipped him in cub ranks too "so that he can be with his classmates." And then she crammed in the entire 18 months of Webelos programming into about 6 months of super-concentrated effort. Well and good, but at 8 years old, he was in no way ready for the demands of boy scouting - physically or emotionally. You can see the current joining requirements here: http://www.usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsrank1.asp

"That might be viewed as a "fake" or "low standards" Eagle by folks your son really cares about. Or not. " On this, I don't think I can agree with Beavah. Anyone who would view a boy's Eagle this way needs their head examined. I would say, though, that there must be SOME adults in the troop who have given freely of their time and knowledge over the years, or else your son would never have made it to this point. Even some of those same adults who now back the SM's decision. Don't let your son lose sight of all that he has learned from these folks along the way. By the way, I spent the afternoon at an Eagle CoH today. Most of the troop including past SM's and a LOT of community folks were there. It was as much a celebration of the community's investment and involvement in that boy's life, as it was a recognition of the boy himself and his accomplishments. I thought that was fitting.

More likely, I think , is that you'll be able to get on to the committee but won't be able to influence it. Being the lone voice in the wilderness isn't much fun either. On the other hand, troop leadership comes and goes and maybe you'll see a slow changing of the guard.

I'm sorry to hear about how this has played out. Wish I could say I were surprised. The good news is that unless there is something big you've left out, this sounds like a pretty clear-cut appeal in favor of your son. I'd say call the DAC this afternoon. I feel for your younger son though. If he is bound and determined to stay in this troop, make sure he clearly documents every little thing he does (in multiple copies) along the way from here on out. I think he's going to have an uphill battle, with many of the current adults who seem to have ambushed your older son attempting to do the same to him.

bearshark, the answer to your question is still no. SM's are no different in this than anybody else - they are supposed to be registered as merit badge counselors if they want to have the authority to sign off on any particular badge.