Lisabob

I guess I'm going to veer off in a totally different direction. My advice would be, first and foremost, don't push the boys to do MBs if they're not interested. I know that for a lot of parents who are new to boy scouting (like I was when my son crossed over) the wide array of merit badge choices are just so tempting. There are a whole bunch of MBs that I looked at and thought "hey, yeah, my kid will LOVE this badge." As it turned out, he was plenty busy with other aspects of scouting, and not so interested in earning merit badges right away. Even now, I have to pull back on that a bit. There are a lot of easy badges that he could earn with hardly any effort (music, pet care, scholarship) and some others that I think he'd really enjoy/benefit from. But the experience is HIS, not MINE, so I've learned to let him make those decisions. All that said - if I were to recommend a couple of badges to an eager, first-year scout, I'd recommend some of the fun ones. Things like fishing, reptile & amphibian study (you get to keep a frog for a month!), maybe woodcarving or leatherwork if he likes that sort of thing, maybe one of the shooting MBs. There will be plenty of time for the boys to work on those Eagle-required badges but I think they should start out with something that they're doing just because they want to do it.

Beaver, that's a valid question, and one I've also been trying to keep in mind. The answer that I've come to is that at least SOME of the boys want to do this in a more boy-led fashion and thus far that has been quite challenging because of the large # of adults. This includes hte patrol leader, who is my son. He is chomping at the bit to be able to make more decisions among the scouts. But, he isn't the only one in the group who feels that way, I'm pretty sure. Now there are a couple of boys in the group who probably don't care, too. And I'm not attending the events so I've had to ask myself why this irks me so. My conclusion is that Barry has it about right - we've found the outer limits of what the troop is willing to allow and I'd prefer to see those outer limits be a bit further away. Within the troop there's an underlying, on-going disagreement about what boy leadership means and how to develop that leadership I guess.

If I am reading this correctly, another district is running a MBU where a counselor from that other district is signing off on merit badges in what appears to be undue haste. Boys from troops in your district sometimes attend and "earn" merit badges at the other district's event. Is that all correct? If it is, then there are some rather limited options for you here, because it is not your district. Now in my council, the district adv. chairs meet periodically at the council advancement committee. If your council does this then there may be an opening there for the discussion across districts about this problem. If you have a council advancement chair (and I bet you do) then you would want to let that person know about the problem and ask him or her to put it on the agenda for discussion at an upcoming council adv. meeting. Maybe approaching it from the perspective of talking in general about the pitfalls of MBUs, rather than dealing with specific counselors by name, would be a good way to get into the matter without ruffling too many feathers. This is a top-down solution where the council tells the districts what to do/not do (hopefully in a way that will be accepted by the districts). Another option is to work with scoutmasters in your district. SMs help guide scouts to a suitable MBC and (if your council uses them) are generally the source for blue cards. SMs could make clear to boys in their troop that merit badge work done without first receiving the name of a suitable counselor and SM-signed blue card may very well not "count." That is a debatable strategy, but it does prevent parents signing their kid up for umpteen badly-run merit badge classes at the other district's MBU, without the scout first talking it over with his SM. This solution puts the burden on the troops to discourage participation in the inferior MBU that the other district offers. Other than that I don't see where you have a lot of opportunity to influence the situation. It would be easier if it were your district running the MBU because then, as advancement chair, you could (perhaps) decide to discontinue that practice. By the way - I've participated in a couple of MBUs. I no longer do so because I wasn't pleased with how it worked out. I reached most of the same conclusions that people have posted on this board. But, one twist was that the MBU in my council was run NOT by the council or district folks, but instead by a service organization that used the MBU as a fund raiser. They were a whole lot less interested in doing right by the boys, than they were in just doing something and making a bit of money. Coordination was poor, MBCs were found at the last minute, classes were either over-subscribed leading to chaos (ever try to do the communications badge with 150 scouts at a time? I don't recommend this) or under-subscribed leading to last minute cancellations and scouts being shunted into other classes that they weren't interested in taking. Because it was being run by an outside group and not by scouting volunteers, it actually could be easier to clean up because the council could pressure the group to change, refuse to share a list of qualified MBCs, or refuse to promote the event. If that's what is happening in your neck of the woods, then you may want to pursue those solutions in addition to the above.

I'm not certain, but I thought that the composites MB was only introduced last year?

John, I'm curious, where would a person find the list of the bottom 10 (or top 10, for that matter)? Ed, I'll concede that some parts of the reading badge do take time and effort, particularly 1b, 1d, and 4. I do think requirements 1a, 1c, 2 (to some extent) and 3 sound like better Wolf and Bear cub scout requirements than age-appropriate boy scout merit badge requirements.

OK this is really getting to be an "Issues and Politics" thread. Regarding the degree of evil in communism, I would only say this: What Lenin and Stalin and most his successors practiced in the Soviet Union was a form of totalitarian dictatorship. It barely even resembled what Marx and other "communists" were talking and writing about. Now, if one wanted to argue that totalitarian dictatorship is evil, perhaps one could get somewhere with that. But communism itself, is not what the world has seen or experienced, even in places that label themselves thus, and so claiming that it is "evil" is a bit misguided. Now back to the regularly scheduled debate about whether non-Christians are bad parents...(Sheesh - maybe folks should all go and call their state Child Protective Services and report all those horribly abusive parents who are raising their children in some other faith tradition than Christianity.)

What donert describes can be the case in situations where the CO (sponsor) neither knows, nor particularly cares, about the unit that it sponsors. Sadly, this is frequently the case and if it is true for you then someone has some work to do in order to educate the CO. That someone may not be you, depending on your position in the unit. It might be an outsider like your district executive (the paid professional who works on the business side of scouting in your area). Personally, I do not advocate the route that donert suggests, where the SM makes the decision about who can, or cannot be, the committee chair. Not only is this not the SM's job, but also it can lead to situations where the SM over-steps his or her power and "fires" anybody who dares to disagree with him/her - ever - about anything. That, in turn, can result in a tyrannical SM who gets so far off track from what the boy scout program is supposed to be that whatever he/she is running no longer resembles the BSA version of boy scouts, which eventually tends to lead to an even bigger melt down. Not saying this is the case for donert, but that is a frequent medium-long range outcome of the path he mentions.

There's a bunch of stuff going on here, in terms of why all these adults want to go. One of the adults is the patrol adviser. He has worked very hard to help this group get up and running, in order to give the boys some experience beyond the typical "car camping" that the troop does. Not that car camping is necessarily bad, but this fellow rightly saw that the troop program lacked a certain level of adventure for the older/more experienced boys, and he wanted to get the boys turned on to real backpacking as a venue for more adventure. This guy is great. Many of our Eagles mention the role he plays as a mentor to them in their Eagle courts of honor. And while my son isn't (yet?) an Eagle, he really respects and admires this leader too. So this adviser is coming along, and his son (who just aged out and will shortly be off to college) and his wife (who is a committee member) are also attending. The adviser, understandably, wants to be able to spend time with his son too and only has so much free time. If forced to choose between the two, he would choose family time, leaving the scouts without his support and they both need and want him to be there. Another three boys and their families are just very close. The parents do EVERYTHING with their kids and use scouting as family bonding time. I think one of these two boys doesn't mind that - the other two probably would be quite happy to leave their family members at home, but there could be some mixed messages between boys/their parents there, as shortridge suggests (and in both cases, the parents aren't the types to take subtle hints). So that's another 5 adults there. Another boy - he has had some behavioral problems and his dad has been specifically asked to participate in the past. Additionally his dad has pretty solid back-country skills and has a lot to teach the boys, usually in a low-key and fairly positive way. If it were up to me(which I know it isn't), I'd want this guy to be there. The remaining 3 adults include our committee chair and two ASMs without kids in the patrol. They're going because they like hiking and backpacking, the treks will be fun, and there were openings (max crew size is 20 - the VP consists of 8 boys right now). It does cut down on cost per-person when you fill all spaces. I got told point-blank that telling these adults they can't attend isn't going to fly. And telling the patrol adviser that his wife and aged-out son can't participate would likely mean losing the most experienced, dedicated adult in the whole group. It does raise some real challenges though! Honestly, I like most of these adults, know that they mean well, and recognize that telling adults that they can't participate/have fun with the troop may mean that you lose the support and participation of those same adults later in places and times when you actually need it. There's some need to tread lightly (I'm better at being blunt). I will take your various pieces of advice about how this can be managed and think carefully about it, so please KEEP IT COMING.

Grumble! Just found out that the venture patrol in our troop has a couple of upcoming backpacking treks planned where there will be almost 2 adults for every 1 scout in attendance. For the life of me, I cannot get through some people's heads that the boys in the venture patrol neither need, nor want, this overwhelming presence of adults on their trips. Yet, several adults have voiced the sentiment that they WILL attend (with their child) and that the VP cannot prohibit them. And these are typically the most involved/over-bearing adults. Not the quiet ones who let the boys do their thing. This is just unacceptable. How can I help them to understand that they do not need to be there in such overwhelming numbers? It isn't fair to the boys, and especially not to the patrol leader who is really trying to move the venture patrol to a more boy-led place. Grumble!

You need to go to your Charter Org. Rep. Your Chartered Organization (sponsor) should be appointing, or at least approving, your unit's leaders. That is particularly true for the CC and the SM. If reality is that your Chartered Org. has no clue (which is not uncommon) then you have a different set of issues to deal with, but that is the first place to start.

We had one boy last year who chose not to have an ECOH. He said he just didn't feel that being the center of attention for an event like that was his thing. So we formally presented his rank to him at a regular troop COH and that was that.

My son earned the BSA scuba patch a couple of summers ago. The camp had a couple of hours of instruction on one evening, and that was it. As presented to the boys at the time, it was in no way comparable to the depth of most merit badges. He had fun though, and would probably love to do a full-blown MB form of this. In fact, his venture patrol has considered taking scuba lessons from a local scuba club as a possible activity, which was a direct result of the SCUBA BSA patch experience.

In the other thread, discussion turned (briefly) to the reading and scholarship merit badges. And in another thread there is mention of some possible new MBs coming into existence, and maybe replacing some existing badges. So I was thinking about what I'd get RID of, if the decision were mine. As a former counselor for both reading and scholarship, I hate to say it, but I find these to be two pretty uninspired badges. They're ok for an early middle school boy who enjoys school and wants a quick & easy first merit badge, but even so, they're extremely simple and lack much in the way of adventure and for most boys they probably don't require much or any personal growth either. Most of the requirements are things even younger boys already know how to do (use the catalog and the internet, for example). I would never push either of these badges on a boy who needed some serious inspiration though. Now please, don't take that to mean that I think school or reading are bad or unimportant or something! I'm an avid reader and an educator. I just don't see much "merit" in either of these two badges, as currently structured. So for me, I think I'd nominate one or both of these as badges that could be consigned to the dust heap. What do all of you think? Good badges? Or not so good? What would you get rid of?

Kudu, you don't know the situation on the ground at all, beyond what the original post contains, and even that is hearsay (the poster was looking for info for a friend about a boy in the friend's troop - no indication that the poster has ever even met this boy - he may be passing along what he heard from the troop leader, accurately or not, and that troop leader's perceptions may be accurate, or not). Your assumptions could be right on or they could be totally wrong. I do consider them to be arrogant and irresponsible. I don't expect you'll agree, and I don't care whether you do, either. I just hope that others will think carefully before leaping to the conclusions you seem to have reached. That's all I have to say to you on this topic.

Excuse me Nissan, but I excluded DL from that particular snippet because I already knew (from previous posts) that this poster is not the boy's DL. I did not know whether the poster is in another position that would make his opinion relevant to the matter. Nowhere did I say that boy's DL has no role - rather, that the original poster might not have a role.

Nissan, I don't think anybody said the boy's DL should not have a voice in this. The original poster is not the boy's DL though. Nor do I read very many people's responses (and also not my own, although I do not agree with BSA policy on this) as saying that if the boy actually is an atheist, that he still meets the membership requirements. The bigger question is, on what basis have people in the pack determined that he is an atheist to start with? Sometimes people have a tendency to jump to erroneous conclusions when it comes to this kind of thing. In fact I was reminded of this just the other day. My son (a high school-aged teen) came home from school kind of laughing about a similar situation. A classmate had informed him that a) he was an atheist and b) he would be going to hell, because he does not subscribe to her particular version of Christianity. Never mind whether he is another variation of Christian, whether he adheres to some other non-Christian religious belief, whether he is merely uncertain or "unchurched," or what. Nope, she made this conclusion: "You don't believe what I do. Therefore you're an atheist." Happens more frequently than one might like to think, among both youth and adults, especially those who have an evangelical bent to their beliefs. So, is the kid really an atheist at all? Who knows? But I hope the pack's leadership takes a moment to assess before kicking the kid out.

Boy you guys are rough. Without knowing more than a couple of lines you decide you know enough about this kid's family to assign blame. Whether you like it or not, divorce and blended families have been a reality for a long time. You have absolutely no idea why the divorce happened. Nor do you seem to have any concern that the boy's dad isn't around - which could be just as much his fault as the mother's, or it could be better for all involved, depending on what "dad" is like and what the background is (abuse? drugs? we certainly don't know). No, based on practically no information, you instead decide to blame the mother for all of this. Sheesh. You should be ashamed. I sure hope you don't live in glass houses. Bottom line is that any person who attempts to harm themselves, needs help. Such attempts are often a desperate cry for that help. Whether there are other issues and who is to blame is irrelevant. The question is how his scouting "family" can be helpful and supportive of him during a difficult time in his life. I pray that nothing like this ever happens to my son. I think every parent would agree that this is one of those "worst nightmare" types of what-if scenarios. But if he was having thoughts along those lines or, heaven forbid, if he ever acted on such thoughts, I would be extremely grateful for loving, kind, quiet, gentle support from those in scouting whom he looks up to. And, I think, so would he. Just knowing that there are people who care can make a huge difference. Arrogant finger pointing based on no information serves no one.

I recognize the BSA's right to have this policy, though personally I find it short-sighted. But arguing about the utility of the policy probably belongs in the issues & politics thread. As for parents signing off on webelos achievements - actually, the DL can delegate that responsibility to whomever they choose. Many DLs I know (including me, when I was one) delegated signing responsibility to different adults, for different requirements, depending on the expertise of those adults. We had the guy who is a forester with the state dept of natural resources sign off on the boys' forestry pin. We delegated the religious requirements to each boy's parents and/or religious leaders, after discussing the intent and the boundaries of that requirement with the parents. Our pack, chartered by a public school PTO, felt it was not the pack's place to engage in religious instruction and that at the cub level, this was better handled by parents. The pack also helped boys who were interested arrange to work on the appropriate religious emblem, but the pack itself did not sign off on that, either. Parents and religious leaders did.

I'm with Trev on that. Get a grip, BadenP. But I would just add that we should remember the flap last summer when then-candidate Obama was trashed by some parts of the media for "refusing to meet with" and/or "refusing to allow media coverage of his meetings with" soldiers in a military hospital in Germany. Turned out the story wasn't accurate at all, and anyway, he would have been equally criticized had there been a full-blown media circus surrounding his visit to the troops. I don't know the details of the BSA meeting, but I can't help but wonder if this isn't another example of certain media types blowing half a story out of all proportion. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

Troll: "someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." (from wikipedia) The fact that you are persisting in asking for minutia about stuff that rarely happens and then adding twists to it, seemingly just to make the scenario even more bizarre, and that you seem to persist in willfully obfuscating policy that most people find to be quite clear, is probably what has prompted a couple of folks to suggest you might be a troll.

I routinely teach large numbers of first-year college students from Detroit. To a one, they can tell horrible stories about people being harmed in the supposedly "safe zone" of their public middle or high school. Most know someone who was shot. While of course that is merely anecdotal, it leads me to believe that Acco is right, school shootings happen with alarming frequency in inner city schools. We just don't usually hear about them if we don't live nearby. Now the ones that happen in leafy suburbs tend to get national attention.

Hello dvan, just thought I'd mention to you that the Supreme Court has ruled consistently for the last 50 years that children cannot be compelled to recite the pledge at school. Generally speaking though, I tend to agree with you that throwing out children from the program because they are atheists is short-sighted and probably counter-productive (but the BSA has the right to do it anyway).

I've been trying to wean my teen from using that word. He thinks I'm hopelessly old fashioned. Conversation tends to go like this. Me: You shouldn't use that word - it is no different than using the actual swear word. Him: Yes it is different - it isn't the same at all. The real world means something vulgar. The replacement has no actual meaning. Me: Yes but everyone knows that it is a substitute for the other word and so they think you have a foul mouth anyway. Him: That's such a hopeless grown-up view! None of my friends think that. It isn't a swear word. Me: Perception counts - it isn't what you think, but what people on the receiving end perceive. It might not seem offensive to you but it is guaranteed to offend a lot of others. It isn't courteous and by the way it makes you sound like you have a very limited vocabulary. Him: (eyes rolling) Mom, get out of the 19th century already! Should I be saying "golly gee whiz" instead, or is that offensive too?? So. He knows my view on the word. He seldom uses it in front of me anymore. (probably to be spared hearing - again - my anachronistic view on the matter, rather than in deference to my actual opinion.) Either way, at least he knows there IS a standard, and when he interacts with other adults or in a more professional setting (like scholarship or job interviews or something), he is unlikely to trot out that word. For that reason, I think it merits a quiet reminder to the boys, even though they'll probably think you're a little silly for it. After all, teen boys don't seem to naturally think much about how they come across to other (non-teen) people, so it is our job to help them become more aware of that.

Hi Mike, Sounds to me like you're in the dreaded grey area, where there are lots of opinions to be found. A couple of things jumped out at me when reading your post. First, there IS a checklist for the boys to use for each rank. And guess what, it is in the back of the handbook! Second, this business about boys losing things is undoubtedly true, but the question is how your troop wants to respond when losses happen. On that front, here's what our troop does. 1) The boy is expected to have his handbook with him at BORs. Not only do we want it there so we can sign it, but it also serves as a conversation piece between the boys and the BOR members, especially at the lower ranks where there are all those skill sign offs. I've seen some younger boys who are really nervous and can barely speak, but put the book in their hand and start asking them about the specifics ("tell us about the hike you took for requirement#__. I see that you got your sign off last week from John for that.") then they're fine. Additionally, the book is treated like the "permanent record" in our troop so that if there's a question of whether the adv. chair entered something properly into troopmaster, he and the scout can go back to the book to check. 2) Losing books - it happens. My son lost his first one, which I had purchased for him. I made him buy his second one. He is much more careful with it, never leaves it out in the rain, doesn't mash it all up, etc. He found himself in a pickle because he was ready to advance to 1st cl, except he had no book. Well a scout is responsible, even though that's not in the oath or law. He found a way to earn some cash and bought it so that he would be ready for his BOR. By the way he had a whole stack of MB partials in the lost handbook. Oh well, going to have to go back to the start on those because the blue card was the only record of his progress. (In fairness, most were far from complete anyway and on many he could just go back to the MBC and get his new blue cards updated. But on a few from an out of state summer camp he was out of luck.) When my son got his new book, he and an ASM went through and the ASM re-signed everything from the previous ranks and put a note in the book indicating what had happened. We also keep patrol notebooks where, from time to time, progress toward the next rank can be recorded (more important for T-2-1 since there are so many more requirements). So a boy who loses his book can reference the patrol notebook too. But, end of the day, he is expected to have the book with sign offs at both his SMC and his BOR. About the Oath and Law. You state that you are "one of the many ASMs" in the troop. I think that this is a good topic for discussion at an upcoming SM/ASM meeting. While I tend to agree with your approach myself, this is something where you all need to be on the same page. Ideally, your SM should be setting the standard. Once everyone on the program side (SM/ASMs) is in agreement, then someone can work on communicating that agreement and expectation to the folks on the committee side, who are doing the BORs. And finally, about your son and his "books aren't required" approach to his BOR. There's a chance to point out that you don't get much in life by doing the bare minimum requirements, and going just a little beyond can make a big difference. Not that it is highly likely to sink in right away...he'll probably roll his eyes if he's anything like most teenage boys I know! Hope this helps.

Hops, I don't think you really want to go down that road on the vacation issue. President GW Bush spent more time on vacation than any other president since at least WWII. He took 5 weeks of vacation every summer. I am not suggesting that he didn't need the vacation time. Perhaps we'd all have been better off if he had taken more . But barely 40 days into the Obama presidency, your argument is rather premature and not well-supported by fact.