Lisabob

Eng, I'm not disputing your general point, but...um...

....waves arms....

(there are plenty of females in scouting!)

WestCoastScouter, just for background: what is your position in this? Are you the cubmaster or committee chair? Do you have a boy in this den?

What to do:

I believe that there are two ways of qualifying for membership in cub scouts - by age OR grade. While most non-LDS packs tend to use grade-level, there is room for flexibility here. If he meets the age criteria (but not the grade level), then let it be and allow him to continue on to wolves next year. No different, really, than a boy who is held back in school but advances with his den (which happens more often than you might think). Not a big hairy deal right now.

The bigger deal is why the dad/DL felt like it was a good idea to lie about it. If he's been doing an ok job and the pack committee and CM are happy with him then this might be a matter of a friendly conversation over the proverbial cup of coffee. If he's been a disaster as a Den Leader, then the CM and CC might want to take a different approach.

I never got one of these before (and I probably never wrote one, as a kid, either). This one arrived yesterday: "hi mom, having fun. Please send hot peppers and duct tape."

:0

"Personally, I prefer scouts join together and stick together with their friends to share similar scouting experiences. "

Psst, fred: that only works if the boys actually are friends. On the other hand, if you've suffered all the way through (age/grade-based) cub scouting getting stuck with the same couple of jerks just because they're the same age/grade as you, you might feel pretty differently about this idea in boy scouts! Just goes to show that what works varies, not only across troops, but even across cohorts within a troop.

bnelon, now I hope you're just yanking Beavah's chain. What on earth would be the point in interpreting the requirement like that? Why would the BSA even have a requirement that allows for a boy to prepare a meal, but in an unhealthy and risky manner, right along side requirements that he know how to do it safely? That would be both contradictory and stupid of the BSA.

Were you also a fan of Pres. Clinton's now-infamous parsing of the word "is?"

SP: baloney.

I guarantee you, you never went to any of the den meetings in the pack I was part of. We had male and female den leaders. The dens that were strong had great programs. The dens that didn't, had lousy programs. It wasn't about the gender of the leader. It was about the creativity and ability to use resources of the leader.

Yes, there were things that I didn't know how to do or wasn't especially comfortable doing. That's where using your resources comes in. So I'm not awesome with wood carving. There's a dad, grandpa, uncle, cousin, guy from the local wood carver's guild, neighbor, etc., SOMEWHERE around who actually is good at that stuff - just gotta find them and ask.

And by the way, the (male) leader of one of our webelos dens taught his boys to sew. And they loooooooved it. Their standard line (remember, 4th graders): well if we can cook and sew, then we never have to get married!

I don't think it is necessarily the case that we should "blame" either gender or expect them to be the same, or seek to exclude, or whatever. I was just irked by the "its the women's fault" or wait - "wimmen" - that several of you fellas were tossing out there.

Eh, yeah. I live in a state where members of the legislature just got sanctioned (not allowed to speak in the legislature to which they were elected to be the voice of their constituents) for daring to say the "v-word" while talking about women's reproductive health (the body part that dare not speak its name). This, on the grounds that it ain't polite to talk about that and women are just getting so uppity, these days. So I'm not entirely surprised that women are suddenly being attacked and blamed for all of society's problems.

But you guys who are blaming women here - get a grip. Darn few women wake up one morning and say "you know, I think I'd enjoy being a single mom." Look at the economics of single parenthood - it is grueling. These moms are mostly just trying to get by and give their kids a decent life, making all sorts of sacrifices along the way. We should be applauding them, not castigating them. And yeah, my lesbian friends are really ruining our society. oh no! They're raising children in a loving household with two committed parents! We can't have that!

More to the point, if it weren't for the women who step forward around here in scouting, most cub packs and many troops and crews would fold. District committees would be unstaffed. Cub Day Camp wouldn't exist. And SP, I'm sorry you found your cub experience lacking IN THE 1950S - but c'mon, blaming all women 60 years later for that is sort of dumb.

Basement & Skeptic - I hear what you are saying, don't know how to fix it (basement, maybe have this conversation with that football coach and school principal, when you meet with them over the summer - recruit THEM? - not entirely joking, here). Seems like this is a situation where paid staffers (scoutreach) should be able to serve as second in command, etc, to support a unit with thin leadership. Or where there should be some kind of floating district-level position as "on-call ASM" for troops who would go camping, if only they could get a second registered adult to go?

I've been thinking about this: why do people stay in units with the level of chaos and poor programming that the OP in the original thread describes?

You know, I've seen some fairly big-time dysfunction in units. I served for a while as district membership chair, and that was eye-opening. One of the things that all of us struggle to balance is the desire to "save" a unit on one hand, (whether out of personal pride or desire to maintain a unit's history, or to serve the boys who are still hanging on, or some mix of these) and the reality that some units can't or maybe even shouldn't be saved. At least, not by anybody who is currently part of the dysfunction.

When I say some units can't or shouldn't be saved, that might sound harsh. But seriously weak and dysfunctional units, limping along with a poor program, high drama worthy of its own soap opera, and adults flinging accusations left and right, are not serving the scouts who join them, or the larger scouting movement, or the CO who chose to sponsor a unit as part of (hopefully) a larger commitment to serving youth in the community. Most of those scouts who enter a seriously weak and dysfunctional unit will probably quit, having had a negative experience. And from a membership perspective, I know that it isn't common for those who quit to go in search of another troop. They just leave scouting. There are plenty of other activities for kids to choose from.

In those situations, if the CO isn't willing to "clean house" then it is probably better to let the unit fold, disperse the equipment/people, and start from scratch with a new unit at some other CO in the neighborhood.

Now I've also seen a few situations where a committed group of fresh leaders come into a messed up unit and work wonders. But that's not likely to come from within, if the drama is in full swing among current leaders and parents, and it only works if there is a supportive charter partner. And it isn't without pain and cost, either.

What's the wisdom of the crowd? Is there a time when folks should just step back and let a unit die? If so, what do you think are the telltale signs that a unit has reached that point?

"and after doing some digging i found out that"

Here is my only other piece of advice to you, although I recognize that it is unsolicited: JUST STOP DIGGING.

You've acknowledged that there is drama aplenty in this troop - refuse to be part of it. If you are unhappy with the troop, as you have described elsewhere, leave. Don't bad-mouth them to others. Don't try to take others with you who might not be ready to go. Don't make it your business to alert others to the internal problems of this troop. You will not change this troop, and you will do yourself and others no favors by continuing to dig, by burning bridges, or fanning flames.

This has drama-llama written all over it.

Bail out. Find yourself a functional unit that doesn't require you to navigate the complicated family relations across (at least) 3 generations that you are describing here, keeping secrets from your COR/SM's dad (really? these are adults we're talking about?). More so, considering your recent update in the advancement thread. Just go. Find a healthy troop and you'll probably all enjoy scouting so much more.

(To respond to your original question, I believe one's romantic life should be conducted in other venues than at scouting events. This would be true for me, regardless of the orientation of the individuals in question, or their relationship to the SM or COR or whoever else.)

See this is the thing. People tell you they want the GtA to better reflect an idea of skill mastery, and that they think boys at higher ranks ought to be able to use the skills they acquire at lower ranks, and you simply quote the GtA back at them as if their problem is that they don't know what it says now. That's not conducive to discussion of "what needs to change."

Since it is clear to me that what you want to do is defend the existing GtA, rather than entertain ideas about change, I think I'll be done with this thread now. I do appreciate reading people's thoughts on this, though.

Too true, sometimes. I think that's why it is also important for the SM, CC, and COR to be on the same page - so that they can recruit a solid core of other adults who "get it" and who will run interference/teach the other adults what to expect.

Along those lines, one difference I notice between my son's current (reasonably boy-led) troop and his former (very adult-driven) troop:

In the current troop, while everybody is friendly and welcoming, etc., specific adults will be asked to join the ASM core or the committee after having been around for a while. There isn't a constant cattle call for adult leaders. In his former troop, at practically every meeting they were asking parents to sign up as leaders. In reality they didn't need more people (they frequently already had more adults than boys on outings); they needed a core of people who understood the program. Instead they had lots of new parents, or parents who didn't get it, running the show. Bound to cause problems.

This whole thread is about what needs to change. People are telling you what they think needs to change, and your responses tend to be along the lines of "but that's not what the GtA says," or "but that's not how it has been in the past." Right, got it - and that's why some folks think it needs to change. Honestly, this sort of has the feel of attending the mid-week adult leader meetings at summer camp where the camp director asks for suggestions for improvement, and then shoots down every suggestion offered. I'm reasonably sure that's not your intent bnelon, but that is how it reads (to me, at least).

I am often surprised at how willingly people go down the road of comparing sexual orientation to mental illness, drug addiction, or felonious criminal behavior. Seriously? People can make these comparisons without a shred of doubt or sense of hyperbole?

Twocub - my son did that with rifle shooting, too. This will be his 3rd time through the badge.

SMT - great idea! If more camps got into a "program" mode instead of a "MB class" mode, then they could do that sort of thing and boys could continue to enjoy and progress in the activities.

Congratulations! Glad to hear it worked out, and thank you for the update.

There's been a few threads lately about what makes a troop/scout/leader work. So in that spirit, I thought I'd share this.

I happened to be sitting nearby while a long-time scouter talked with my son last night. My son is closing in on his 18th birthday, has been in scouts since he was 7, and is loving scouts now, more than ever.

This long-time scouter asked him: Some troops lose a lot of boys in their first year. Others lose a lot of boys around age 14-15. But this troop has grown a lot in the last few years, because almost everybody who joins, stays until they age out. Boys in high school are even joining for the first time. What is it about this troop right now that works?

My son's answer (I swear, I'm not putting words in his mouth):

This troop was a real shock to him, after being in another troop for several years and then visiting a variety of other troops to decide where he wanted to transfer to, or if he was just going to quit scouts. This troop functions in ways that he had never imagined could happen, until he saw it in action.

What he thinks makes this troop different is

1. Taking boy leadership seriously - giving responsibility and space to the boys to try things, even if they don't always work, makes it "their" troop and not the adults' troop. Boys feel loyalty and pride at being a part of it.

2. Patrol identity - In some troops, it is really more about troop identity so patrols, while they exist, are not that important, get reorganized often, and never gel. In this troop, patrols matter. They're the bedrock from which the troop is built. He likes that the patrols all have different characteristics and do their own thing. Being in this patrol vs. that one actually matters, and patrol mates feel a responsibility to support and look out for one another.

3. Friendship - because they have a strong group identity and do things together, he has become good friends with his patrol mates. That makes it fun.

Because of this, he said, younger boys want to join and be part of it. They feel like they're part of a community, with older guys to look up to and follow. The middle guys want to stay because they're having fun and getting to try out new ideas. Then they start to realize they have a responsibility to keep it going for the younger guys too, so they can have the same opportunities. That gives the older guys a good reason to stick around and anyway, they're still having fun. The older guys have so much fun, their friends from school want to be part of it.

It boils down to this, he said: Do the program right, and the boys will be there.

That long-time scouter just smiled and thanked him for sharing his thoughts.

You know what, all this talk and hard feelings being flung around here are making me more sympathetic to the "let's just get rid of the adult knots" camp!

Technically speaking - It depends on your specific bylaws, which might include a definition of who "members" are, and/or who gets to vote (members in good standing, for example?). If your bylaws are silent on this matter, then move on to the next sentence.

Practically speaking - in the only unit where I was involved and where bylaws existed, the on-the-ground practice was to allow all parents of boys in the unit to vote, if the parents showed up to committee meetings. This was an outgrowth of the culture of that unit, that those who showed up were de facto deputized as committee participants. I guess it ultimately comes down to what you hope to accomplish (or avoid).

yeah, I get that there are burn bans on a pretty regular basis in some parts of the country, but still - really? Build a fire but don't light it? Aw, come on, joy kill!

Reminds me of the scene in one of the Harry Potter movies where Professor Umbridge tells the students that a theoretical knowledge of the subject should be fine, no practical application needed. And of course all the students think she's bat-poop crazy.

Inability to enjoy 13 year old boy humor (can you stand another fart joke?)

Tendency to yell and bluster at the boys on a routine basis (that'll get you tuned out real quick)

Unwillingness to take boys' concerns & worries seriously (they'll just stop telling you things)

Unwillingness to address "problem adults" who are causing trouble or just don't get the program (boys will lose respect for you)

Sucking the fun out of stuff that actually isn't risky/bad/scary(risk managers are probably terrible scout leaders)

Inability to shut up and let the boys try things their way. (hover-scoutmastering)

Being too used to automatic deference in your adult world so that you become angry when the boys don't grant that to you. (you are on a trial run with the boys until you establish grounds for them to respect you. It ain't automatic here.)

Not being able to earn the trust and respect of parents. (you're sunk, without that)

Not surrounding yourself with capable supporters who understand your vision, both in the troop (build the committee & ASMs) and at home (does your family know why and agree with the amount of time you put into scouting?)

Not knowing when or how to say no (over-commitment leads to burnout and resentment, and threads about "betrayal" on boards like this one)

The idea that a troop could be so presumptuous as to assign someone to a pack's committee, will likely offend many cub leaders (it certainly would have offended me). It would have been a flop with pretty much ALL of the cub packs I used to work with, in a town with about 12 packs and 4 troops.

It might work better in situations where there is a clearer one-to-one connection between packs and troops. That just isn't the case for many packs & troops in my district.

On the flip side, having a liaison who communicates the upcoming webelos events, helps find den chiefs for den leaders who want them, coordinates crossover details, and runs a new parent orientation shortly after crossovers join the troop - now that is something I've seen work pretty well (and I did it, myself, for a while after my son crossed over).

I don't think I have the answer. But my son just finished his Eagle project yesterday. He'll age out in under a month and should (fingers crossed) earn Eagle as one of those sometimes-dreaded "death bed" candidates - literally. He'll complete the tenure in Life rank requirement a day before turning 18. Along the way he has served as PL numerous times, SPL for a year, currently Troop Instructor for the NSPs, and is now just mopping up a small handful of remaining merit badge requirements. He did NYLT and is in OA, though not really active in OA. In his 7 1/2 years in boy scouts, he's been to countless troop, patrol, and PLC meetings, camped a bajillion nights, gone to summer camp 6 times (at a different camp each year) and attended one national jambo. He's on his way to his last boy scout summer camp next week and can't wait to go. Then he'll finish out his time in boy scouts with a week-long backpacking trip in Canada with his venture crew, almost all of whom are also current/former troop members (plus a couple of sisters and female friends). So I think he's been plenty "active" by anybody's definition, although it took him close to 3 years to earn 1st Cl, another to earn Star and about 3 more to earn Life.

He still isn't very good with knots and lashings. But he's gotten a great deal out of the rest of the program and will be a better man, for having done so. And as his parent and a scouter myself, I must say, seeing him go through the Eagle project process, I'm really impressed with how much planning and leadership a boy must show to get through that process. I've been around boy scouting for close to a decade, have sat on various Eagle boards, etc., but watching my own son go through it gives me a new appreciation for the process.

So for me today, the bottom line is: If a boy actually meets the current standards, he has done plenty. And thus it seems like the answer is probably "hold each boy to the current standard, as written" rather than "rewrite the standards."

I hope it works out! Please keep us all posted.

To play devil's advocate, just because someone is a successful and dynamic business leader, does not mean they will automatically understand and lead a successful non-profit/volunteer-run youth organization. Donald Trump would be a terrible den leader (or pack committee chair).

I don't have a problem with promoting environmental stewardship and better physical fitness. Both could be accomplished as part of an active, outdoor, program. Maybe making hiking/backpacking/cycling/swimming (one/some combo) a required badge for Star or Life would be a way to build existing fitness-oriented elements into the middle of the advancement program.

I don't see the BSA as a competent leader on the tech front, considering how remarkably poor the BSA's own IT capacity has been.