mk9750

Ed, Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don't but the one thing I will always envy is your ability to keep it short! Mark

Allow me to do a bit of bragging. I think I'll get to a point that is on topic near the end... Last night, my youngest son, the Patrol Leader of one of the regular Patrols, was asked by the SPL to have his Patrol be responsible for demonstrating rescue carries and coming up with an activity that includes them. This was in response to an injury one of our Scouts sustained on a repelling campout. The SPL thought it a good idea to bone up on the skill. My son accepted the request (Score point one), and sat down to determine who best in his Patrol to ask. As I have mentioned before, our Troop subscribes to the "See One, Do One, Teach One" methodology of medical schools. He has two boys in his Patrol that have recently been signed off for rescue carries, and thought giving these two guys the chance to teach the skill in order to reinforce it was a good idea (Score point two). He met with a large bit of resistance from the first of the two Patrol members he called. In his last stint as PL, his reaction immediately would have been "You're going to do it because I am the PL and I say so. If you don't or if you screw it up, you'll be doing KP all weekend!". But this time, instead, he used every bit of the training he has had to explain all of the reasons why this boy should accept the challenge. "See One, Do..." "You've learned this the most recently, therefore it's freshest for you. You're the best one to do this", "we have an obligation to the Troop", and probably 6 or 8 more reasons that I missed as he paced into and out of the room where I was watching the ballgame (Score Points Three through Ten). At one point, call waiting rang and my wife used the phone while the other boy was on hold. I asked my son why he just didn't call the Patrol's Assistant Scoutmaster, Or the SPL, to get some backup. He was offended. "Dad, I can can get him to do this. He'll understand sooner or later that he needs to do this. If I ask Mr. X to call him, how will I ever convince anyone to do anything? (Score MAJOR Points for that one!)He spent almost an hour on the phone, but this guy and his buddy will be doing the presentation, and I'll bet it'll be excelent! And that is my point. We use Assistant Scoutmasters who are assigned to specific Patrols. We also have two "at large" ASMs. The number one duty of these ASMs, after assisting the SM in training youth leaders, is to be the adults the Patrol can count on for adult leadership when they plan a Patrol event. It's not to get the adults to make decisions, or enforce the rules or plans. Once in a while (rarely), an ASM has to step in when he sees something truly amiss that the PL isn't going to recognize on his own. These ASMs stay within sight, but rarely within earshot, of the Patrol during their Patrol meetings. That way, if the Patrol needs the resources of an adult, he can be waved over. I'd guess in my son's Patrol, other than asking if one of the ASMs will be available for an outing, they've called an adult over 1/2 dozen times in two years. This certainly isn't what I would classify as meddling. It so much not meddling, that a PL was offended when someone inappropriately suggested he involve the ASM. On the other hand, we had a New Scout Patrol a couple of years ago that had an ASM assigned to it. The ASM had been the Den Leader of most of these guys in Cub Scouts. We probably should have figured that there would be a possible problem when they chose "Bobcat" for their Patrol name. Because that's what this Patrol ended up being for the 18 months of its existence: A Cub Scout Den, with the ASM playing Den Leader. He's a great guy, and still a part of our program, but none of these guys began to flourish as Boy Scouts until that Patrol was assimilated into existing Patrols, and the ASM assigned as an at large ASM. My points: 1) I'm VERY proud of how my son handled his PL responsiblities. He's been trained well. 2) ASMs assigned to Patrols works for us if... 3) ASMs who are assigned to Patrols understand their role is one of support from afar, not very hands on. Most of the time, it works. Once in a while, it flops. 4) Real leadership doesn't require very much ordering of others. Duty rosters should either be made by a collaborative process, or, when a Patrol becomes really cohesive, the PL can make up the duty roster KNOWING that all his mates understand that someone has to do the work, and they're going to be willing to accept anything asked of them. If we have a leader we feel is trained sufficiently and we observe him resorting to arm twisting (I mean the "Because I said so" routine), we would immediately ask the SPL to do a quick session with the PL, either with our without the SM (at the SPL's prefernece) to remedy the deficiency. That just doesn't happen too much in our Troop. Man, another long one. My apologies. Mark

Our Troop has three months every year that have no Troop events, to allow the Patrols to camp on their own. Our older guys (the Venture Patrol) do almost no camping on their own, given the conflicts other parts of their life present. They do participate in the all of the high venture stuff (climbing, rapelling, kayaking, hiking the AT), but these events are open to a select group of other boys, also. The two younger Patrols almost alsways have a weekend campout during the "free" months. In addition, my son's Patrol has started getting together every month for some Patrol activity. Sometimes it's been a nature hike, to work on the two requirements for 10 plants and 10 animals, sometimes it's not "Scouting" related, like bowling or Putt Putt. My son started this when he was Patrol Leader a year ago. It carried on when he left the position, and now that he's been elected again, he's got a number of ideas he wants to try. And they have historically slept over each other's house on a rotating basis, almost every week, for two years. There are nine guys in his Patrol, and they are VERY tight with each other. I have been encouraging him to consider doing an "adultless" campout, based on what I have learned here. He's excited about trying it, but some of the Scouts are having a tough time getting permission from their parents. Getting our Troop to evolve from only doing Troop events to doing some Troop, some Patrol events was tough. But the rewards are worth the effort. It went better for us, I think, because we offered incentive to try - we developed a Patrol Contest to identify the Patrol with the best Patrol Spirit, and all that entails. We gave prizes to the best Patrol (four prizes to the winner - A headlamp, a pizza party, a custom designed "Honor Patrol" T-shirt, and cooking and KP done for the Patrol by the Geezer Patrol. The T-Shirt and the meals by the adults were the most covetted prizes!). this did wonders for encouraging Patrols to act like Patrols. Mark

We had an incident while rapelling and climbing this weekend that resulted in a broken wrist to one of our Scouts. It seems the cause of the injury, according to those who know rapelling and climbing, is the guideline in G2SS and the climbing "Topping Out" literature that requires rapellers to use two ropes. I don't understand all of the physics involved, but as I do understand, the additional friction caused by two ropes going through a figure eight is too much for many smaller guys to overcome by their weight. My point is not to debate the guideline. I don't know if it is valid or not. Our SM, who is the Council Climbing Director, is writing to National and the National Climbing Committee to object to the guideline. My point is though, that the materials are very clear that the guidelines are just that - Guidelines. However, all climbing instructors certified to lead climbing and rapelling events are required to follow the guidelines as a part of their certification. I found this somewhat interesting as it relates to discussions in these forums such as this thread. At least in this case, it doesn't matter whether a line in a piece of BSA lierature is a rule or a guideline - If you agree to undertake directing the event, you agree to enforcing the guideline, effectively making it an ironclad rule. I wonder how many other instances like this exist throughout Scouting? Mark

River2K, Congratulations on the upcoming new position! Let's dispense with one aspect of your post quickly: Even if it makes sense, we don't have the authority to change the requirements, and there is no requirement to finish in any specific time frame. But more to the point, I think whether it is a good idea to have a time limit depends on the purposes of the Merit Badge Program. If its main purpose is to make responsible Boy Scouts, then maybe a time limit would have value. But my understanding of the purpose of the Merit Badge program is to give boys a chance to expose themselves to activities, avocations, and hobbies that may interest them, and that will help them grow in mental, physical and spiritual strength. If I am right, I think the question then becomes whether a time limit provides assistance in getting to that main goal? My opinion would be no. I'd rather see a guy start a Merit Badge, lose interest or find another priority, and then "rediscover" it and complete it, even years later, than to try to force him to complete something for which he has no interest, in a short period of time. If a boy's Scouting experience is to be his and his alone (If HE is to be the captain of his Scouting ship), then he should determine when and where he works on any Merit Badge. And lastly, I worry that those who would want to add a time limit to the requirements are doing so to meet an artificial long term goal - Eagle Scout - rather than the real Aims of Scouting. And I think it is this emphasis that causes people to lament "paper Eagles", "Eagle Mills", and "13 year old Eagles". If the boy sets the goal, and does the work satisfactorily, he has earned the award. If we, as parents, or adult leaders, force kids to complete work on our artificial timeline, then there is credence, I think, to the charges. Mark

I am worried when someone uses the phrase like "given a position of responsibility" (not an exact quote) when it refers to rank advancement. A boy should earn the right to be considered for a position of responsiblity as it relates to advancement, not be handed it. He earns this right to be considered (voted in by his peers for some positions, selected by his PL or SPL for others) by showing evidence of the willingness to try to learn and do the job well (not necesarily that he will do it well, but there should be some evidence he will try). A Scout SHOULD NOT be "given" a POR just because he needs one for a rank advancement. The Troop program should help develop a boy's desire and abilty to do a job. But if the boy doesn't convince someone that he will make the effort, the position should go to someone else. If that means he doesn't advance, that's his decision. We've two boys that are good examples. One would run through a brick wall if someone asked him to, but just doesn't have the personality to get himself elected or appointed to a POR. So we developed a leadership task for him to complete, and he worked the daylights out of it. I was proud to agree that he had completed his POR for Eagle. We've got another guy who has been Star for easliy 3 years, all because he readily admits he doesn't want to make the effort to do any of the "hard" jobs, and won't lower himself to do a less glamorous position. He's still a Star, and will be until he changes his tune. As to the positions Bob speaks of, every new boy in a quality new Scout Patrol gets one of these positions. In my Troop, we don't give them a patch for it, and the jobs rotate around to everyone. It's called a duty roster. But they are positions of responsiblity, none the less, and important ones at that. And the purpose is exactly as Bob says, for each boy to begin to understand the workings of the Patrol, and his responsiblity to it. This has to be taught some time. If not right from the start, then when? It is helpful to me to remember that all of Scouting is practice. Sure, it might be easy to say that petey can't cook on his first campout because he doesn't know anything, but if that's how it goes, than Petey doesn't know how to cook on his second or third campout, either. With the right help, guidance, and encouragment (mostly from a good Troop Guide), Petey CAN cook on his first campout. And Joey CAN lead songs. And Louie CAN make the fire. Why wait until some other time to allow them to practice? Mark

JimmyD, I suspect that how you phrased your Council's practice was not exactly how things are. I'm guessing that in your experience, most of your friends finished all of the requirments for Eagle right at the deadline - Their 18th birthday. That being the case, then a BOR obviously cannot be completed before a Scout turns 18. However, I am certain that if the boy finished his requirements enough before his 18th birthday to allow the Council to do all of the things they do in the process of arranging a BOR, it can happen before a Scout turns 18. Heck, even my Council wouldn't drag their feet 3 years if a Scout were 15 when he turned his application in! Mark

As both of my sons got older, they took over more and more of the making of their cars, with me moving from doing @ 70% to me doing about 5%. The less I did, the better the car finished. Can't agree with Twocubdad more. Although one has to be very cognizant of the fine line between doing with and doing for, there are few oppurtunities as precious in my memory as working with my guys on their cars. One of the picture I have in my office is of my 2nd year Webelo, my Wolf Scout, and I holding all our cars at the top of the PWD track. You'd have to pry that picture out of my dead hands to get it from me. My eyes are welling up typing this. Wish every dad took the oppurtunity to be with his kids like I've had. I'll never forget it, and the memories sure make "one hour a week" a lot easier to swallow. Mark

Our Council utilizes the same method as OGE's (verify the badges and dates from the bottom of the Eagle Application). The blue cards have no official use in our Council. Scouts turn them into me (Troop Advancment Chair), I record them in Troopmaster, and send an Advancement Report to Council. The blue cards are never checked. We've joked that from the Council's perspective, anyone could pretend they are a MB Counselor and sign the blue cards. Of course, we check to make sure everything is on the up and up, but who's checking us? The only problem we've run into is when Council went to the new computer system. Any time the name on our report didn't match theirs exactly, it got kicked. Makes sense if your talking Charles to Robert, but we had Bobby being kicked because they listed him as Robert. Once I got all my records matching theirs, and enter new Scouts into Troopmaster using a copy of the application, everything has been fine. Mark

Rooster: You needn't worry about your ability to communicate. You do fine. Packsaddle and others don't understand you because they start from a position of disagreeing with you. They have the same problem. They don't communicate well enough to make you understand either, because your position is almost diametricly opposed to theirs. Packsaddle made a comment exactly on this point. He said "Rooster, I and others in this forum have some understanding of your feelings on this subject. But your view, like the views of the rest of us, is just that - your own personal view. And an attempt to convince rational persons on faith-based arguments will only please those who already agree." He's right. You're not going to convince them they are wrong, any more than they will convince you that you are wrong. And I think the reason for this is obvious: For people like you and me (and many others), Homosexuality was, is, and always will be wrong. For Packsaddle (and many others), homosexuality is not wrong. Only our appointment with death will allow any of us to know for sure who was right. Assuming God exists, assuming he judges homosexuality to be wrong, we will know that trying to uphold morality was the proper thing to do. If, on the other hand, we have been wrong, then our intolerance might be held against us. You and I know what we believe to be true. The only difference between us is that I sense you feel an obligation to help those people who don't see it our way to save their souls. I figure that if they have been given the chance to repent, and don't, their eternity will be of their own doing. You do very well making your arguements (well, except for the 12th century thing!). don't let the fact that someone who is disinclined to accept what you say doesn't accept what you say. Mark

Scoutdad, The one absolute in this is in the comment you made "If he had been firmly interested in going the money problem could be solved." As long as that's true (and I believe it's ALWAYS true), then it becomes a matter of judging the politics of the situation. And it sounds like your right - there isn't enough interest to justify the spitting contest you'd have on your hands if you made issues about this. Now, why you have a SM with whom your boys don't want to take a great trip is another issue... Mark

Fog, your risking raising the ire of a couple of Air Force guys in these forums. A bit of disdain, eh? And by the way, I am not one. I didn't think serving my country was the honor that I believe it is now. Sure wish I had been smarter then. Thank you to whoever did. Even the Air Force guys. Mark

Yes, congratulations! If it means anything, it must be a great job. Our SM and two ASMs both stayed on after their sons graduated out of the Troop. The program must have something to offer back! Best of luck. Look forward to hearing about your fun (OK, and maybe a problem or two, if you have them). Mark

Dave, Adventure is one thing. What you describe is peril. Seems like you're leaning the way I know I would... Mark

Laura, you make many good points here, but I do disagree with one of them. You are right that a youth has no standing to make a legal commitment, that that is the parents right and responsiblity alone. but I don't see a cimmitment to attend a Scout event, even one as arduous as Philmont, as a legal commitment. And if it isn't, then we are sabotaging our efforts to allow boys to be responsible for themselves if we don't hold them responsible for their actions. As I suggested before, I am not saying make him pay the whole thing, but he did make the commitment, apparently, and people counted on his word. It sounds like he has an unfortunate situation at home (your point about the parents being too selfish in this case is perfect!), but he should have gotten their permission before he said yes. If we let guys off the hook for stuff like this, without at least some consequences for his actions, then we run the risk of teaching him (and others) that I can make commitments all the time and change my mind with impunity. I also want to point out how right you about the overdrawn Scout account. That is irresponsible of the person who controls those accounts (the assumption I think was that it is an adult, but it could have been a boy). Either way, they goofed not the boy. He should not be responsible for anything over what was in his account. Of course, this is all just my opinion. Mark

When a group of our boys decide they are doing a high venture trip, they elect an crew leader. One of his responsibilites is to plan and lead a crew meeting that includes the parents of potential crew members. At the meeting all of the expectations of each member of the crew is discussed, including payment schedules. We've kicked around requiring at least the initial down payment being made in real money (cash or check instead of out of a Scout account), but we've never been stung yet, so that hasn't been initiated, but it might be a good idea. We've never done the alternate idea before, but we've never had someone drop out either. We did have a tough time filling the last spot of a second crew that went to Tinnerman this summer, but one of the boys asked if he could invite a friend from another Troop. That boy came and had a great time. I agree with most everything said here. SM over reacted, and could have used the oppurtunity to teach instead of embarass. you've got a great oppurtunity to involve someone else, either that terrific up and comer who is just short of qualifying for the trip, or someone from out of the Troop. I do believe that the boy should be responsible for part of the cost, just to teach that irresponsiblity has consequences. Maybe the first $75.00. but after that, unless someone else has to pay the difference and not get any benefit from it, I'd say let the kid off the hook. I think FOG is right, that if this wasn't fun for the adults, it would be tough to get adults to go. BUT, if we don't know and accept that sometimes there will be sacrifices, we're in the long line of volunteer work. If it were easy, everybody would be doing it. Mark

Sorry I don't have the details as to which editions I am speaking of, but here's what I can add: My oldest son (now 18) had the handbook that was in use immediately prior to the major requirements change (requiring Personal Fitness for Eagle, etc.). My youngest son (14) has the handbook that was issued right after that change. My older son looked through the entire new book when he heard our SM complain that it wasn't as good as the previous. My son said he was shocked by the amount of Scout Skill info they had taken out, although most of it was available in the Fieldbook. Once he said that, my younger son stopped using his handbook for anything but having requirements signed off. Anything he studied, he studied in the old handbook. If my two boys are any evidence, the newest editions don't measure up to the older ones. Mark

I too would allow the Counselor to make the determination for himself, as long as he is consistent with his expectation. But remember, the requirement is optional. a scout only has to do this requirement (just like any requirement for any MB) if he decides he wants to pursue Camping MB. If he sets a goal to become an Eagle Scout, then he must choose to meet this requirement. But until that becomes HIS goal, camping 20 nights is not required. Mark

KS, We have a trailer now but are considering selling it and finding a box truck. Here are the reasons: 1) 8' x 12' has become a tad too small 2) We only bought a single axle, and we now believe a tatem axle trailer would be better. 3) For a number of reasons, including above, we almost had a disaster going to summer camp last year. As we started down a pretty good size hill on the interstate not 10 minutes from home, the trailer started swerving terribly. At one point it was close to 45 degrees off center, until a tire blew and caused it to start tracking again. We had two adults and 6 Scouts in the Suburban pulling it. I was the next car behind it, and was certain they were going over the guard rail down a ravine. the SM who was driving the Suburban credits only his experience as a pilot with keeping him cool enough to keep enough control to keep everything upright. 4) If there are any troubles like above, only one or two adults are affected (not that this is good, but it's better than including 6 boys!) 5) pulling a trailer is limited to who has the vehicle / hitch to do so. We believe in our state, a CDL license won't be required in this circumstance. I'd strongly urge you, from our experience, to look at spending the extra money and getting a tandem axle if you buy a trailer. We spent $3,200.00 on ours about 6 years ago, and if we had just had one more pancake breakfast, we could have upgraded to the tandem axle for about $850.00 more. Our biggest problem after the above has been storage. Our CO church has a storage barn, with space reserved for our trailer, but it always seems to be filled when we get back from a campout, especially if we're gone for a week, like summer camp. If you have someone who has some property that can store it there, you'd save some headaches, although I'd guess maybe you'd encounter others. Nice to see you back active in the forum. How's the new assignment? Mark

We use Scout accounts, and we use Troopmaster, although we don't use Troopmaster for Scout accounts. We had a policy a few years back that all money in Scout accounts reverted back to the Troop if a boy left the Troop. that was fine at the time, as all monies in the accounts were earned doing Troop fundraising activities. A few years ago, a number of us, including our Quartermaster, began purchasing needed items with money from our own pocket, and trying to make things easier on everyone by turning in the receipt and asking that the money be credited to our (or our son's) Scout account. This was still not a problem until someone who had done this left. At that point, a portion of their account was actually their money, not "Troop fundraising" funds. When he asked to have his son's money refunded, and he explained his reasoning for believing he was entitled to it, it became obvious that we should give him the money. We considered trying to determine what he should have simply been reimbursed for, but the transactions were over two years old, and impossible to reconstruct. We have since rewritten our policy to refund all money. I don't think this is the best way to do things, but we had no solution other than to disallow other transactions into and out of Scout accounts, and no one liked that idea either. I'm with FScouter. If you are meeting the guidelines for fundraising, I won't worry too much about a threat like that. Do what is right. Mark

Eagledad has the right idea, I think. We did the auto mechanics theme two years ago (man, it's been THAT long?). The SPL assigned a boy to contact a car dealership and got us a mechanic who volunteered to bring us into the shop, where he went over all of the basic maintenance needs of a car and how to do them, and a real nice presentatation on what to watch for to identify potential problems. The next few weeks, boys rotated tires, changed oil, replaced headlamps, and about 10 other things on mom's and dad's cars. the guys who had their own cars really got a lot out of this. The PLC tried to push this as a MB, and even got the mechanic to register as a counselor. Not one guy pursued the badge, but there was so much value from doing this. now that some of the then 14 year olds are driving, they're talking about doing it again. Mark

Mike, Let me see- 9 days hiking 105 miles on the Appalachian Trail 4 weekend kayaking trips 1 week at Tinnerman Canoe Base in Canada One weekend at Climbing instructor training for 4 of our older Scouts to be Junior instructors One four day weekend of climbing and repelling coming up in October A weekend kayaking trip in PA scheduled for October Trying to count everything up, I think guys in our Troop will have spent 432 days doing high venture stuff. That doesn't include the approximately 140 days adults in our Troop will spend with these guys, nor does it include about 70 total days that Scouts from outside out Troop will spend with us. We routinely invite Scouts of other Troops to come along with the hope that they will take programs like these back to their Troop. I think our Troop does all right. But through these other guys that we invite, we know that few other Troops in our area do much like this. We had one boy go to tinnerman with our guys this year. Their most adventurous activity was going to a major league baseball game this summer. Mark

Eamonn, I don't know about pedantic, but in this case, you were certainly redundant! Mark

Mike, Your description is almost exactly how our venture activities work. When the older guys get together and decide they want to do something, one guy is elected (although I suspect that the "election" is a very informal activity) as crew chief for that event. If not already trained, that boy is responsible for becoming the expert in whatever they decide to do. For instance, when our guys wanted to do more extreme kayaking, one guy arranged for 5 of the boys and 4 of the adults to go through the complete American Red Cross Kayaking program. With the confidence that comes from "becoming the expert", leading a group like this in making plans, preparations, and execution, high venture events usually come off pretty well. We have a venture Patrol, although events like this are very often attended by the oldest, most mature, able boys in our regular Patrols also. For instance, even though my son is in a regular Patrol, he is the crew chief for the venture Patrol doing a kayaking trip in PA in October. It is likely that the venture Patrol will be inviting my son into their Patrol after the first of the year. This works very well for us. Every once in a while, a crew chief lets his group down by not following through, etc., and although it's sad that the guys don't get to do what was planned, or that it ends up not being the adventure that was hoped, everyone seems to learn a good lesson, and the problem doesn't usually get repeated. Mark

FOG, Sorry, but I've got to disagree with your last point. I don't think the the BSA requires that we live by their rules outside of Scouting. We certainly should be living by the Scout Oath and Law, and I also think we are expected to be a role model to the boys in our units even outside of Scouting. But I don't think it is Scouting's position to regulate our actions outside of Scouting. Some examples (I know some of these have been debated before, and few have been agreed on. But I think you'll get my point): 1) We are not permitted to smoke in front of Scouts. But there is nothing that prevents us from smoking outside of the Scouting program. 2) Same with drinking alchohol. 3) We are not supposed to discuss topics of a sexual nature with Scouts. Such a discussion outside of Scouting is not regulated (except to the extend of following the Scout Oath and Law). 4) We are not permitted to parachute, if I'm not mistaken, as a Scout event. But I doubt the BSA would want to remove us is we become avowed parachutists. 5) The BSA does not want us pointing weapons, or facsimiles of weapons, at people. They are attempting to promote safe gun use. But they don't go so far as to say we can't hunt, or belong to the military, or police units while being a member of the BSA. I could go on, but I hope my point is clear. Yes, we are all expected to act Scout - like. I don't believe that being Scout - like can't include some of the activities listed as unapproved as Scouting activities. Mark