mk9750

KS, Haven't heard too much from you recently, and was hoping everything has been OK for you, your family and your associates. Not necesarily looking for political commentary (although always welcome!). Just wanted to make sure you guys are all right. As the news from your side of the world gets to us, I think about you and pray for you, and all who find themselves in your position. Mark

We have handled this issue a little differently in our Troop. As our guys decided they wanted to get into more high venture activities, we made them responsible for planning, learning and being trained properly, and funding both the activites and the equipment. As such, our guys have purchased 11 kayaks, rope and rock climbing gear, and rifles. As they have gone through the training, so have adults. Right now, we have 7 certified climbing instructors, and by the end of the summer we should have 8 American Red Cross certified kayak instructors among our boys (I guess I'm not really sure the ARC would call them "instructors"). As this program got rolling (it's taken us 6 years to get to were we are now), we had a conversation with the boys about whether to charter as a seperate Venture Crew. We layed out all of the pros and cons as we knew them, and the boys decided to maintain the program within the Troop. Most of the reasoning behind the decision was exactly as OGE describes: An additional strain on active teenagers' time. One advantage we think we get from this is that with our Venture Patrol being an inergral part of our Troop, the incentive for the young guys to stay with the Troop until they qualify to participate is right in front of them. The Venture Patrol determined that Scouts must be 13 and 1st Class in order to accompany them, although each of our activities (Rapelling, riflery, kayaking) is incorporated into one campout out during the year for each, so that all the guys get the chance to taste the fun. These also give the Venture Crew guys the oppurtunity to teach the skill to the young guys, reinforcing their knowledge. It was a blast at summer camp watching the older guys demonstrate doing Eskimo rolls for the young guys! We have been very lucky to have boys in our Troop who expressed an interest in doing something, and when challenged with making it happen, came through with flying colors. We also have been fortunate to have had adults willing to put in the time, and expense, to be trained along side the boys. I don't know whether the boys were able to do this because we let them, or we let them because they could handle it - Probably a little of both. but it has worked for us. The two things we are missing compared to a regular Venture Crew are the Venture awards, which our guys say they don't care about, and girls, which they say they do care about. We have tried to put together co ed outings with girl Scout Troops, with the intent of demonstrating and teaching one of our skills, and having them teach us one of theirs (the joke in our Troop is "you show me yours, we'll show you ours"), but we can't find a GS Troop that has enough girls interested in something high venture like this. Again, I find I have filled up far too much space with my ramblings. Mark

Eagle90, You can bet that it was exactly that point we used to twist a little arm. He kept telling us that what made him want to be an Eagle was being at an Eagle C of H back about 3 months after he joined the Troop. The ceremony impressed him enough to want to make Eagle himself. We tried to get him to think about one of our smallest Scouts sitting in the audience at his and thinking the same thing. Mark

kwc57, You're absolutely right. In this case, we spoke to this guy from @ 8 months before his BD until @ 2 1/2 months before his BD. At that point, I spoke directly to him and said that if we got together THAT night (during a Troop meeting) to develop a list of chores, we can work something out. I really wanted this guy to make it, and was willing to try to "arrange" something to make up for the lost 2 weeks. He shrugged his shoulders and said something like " I guess I'm out of luck. I'll never get everything done". A few weeks later, Mom and/or Dad must have started turning up the heat, because it got important to him then. I didn't even know he was starting to work at it again until he showed me the chores list. I am comfortable we did what we had to to get him moving earlier. I'm not sure we did everything we could, but I'm not sure we should do everything we can. If we did, I'd feel like we should get part of his medal pinned on our chest. But the bottom line is exactly as you say. Remind these guys what is expected of them. Help them along the way, but eventually, as my dad used to say, "you gotta sleep in the bed you made" (man, it would have been his birthday today!) Mark

We once had a boy who crammed like you describe: 5 MBs in the last few weeks, a half assed project, a leadership assignment from the Scoutmaster, all trying to get him finished before he turned 18. A few days before, he came to me to show me a schedule he had completed for the "chores" requirement for Family Life. He had about 3 weeks filled in, and promised me he would complete the entire three months after he turned 18. As much as I wanted to, and as hard as I tried to figure out how I could, I just couldn't make myself ignore this requirement. I felt horrible. Despite everyone who I talked to about this, I still feel I kept him from being an Eagle Scout. I really know in my head I didn't. It was his procrastination that cost him the award. But I have always felt very sad when I think of him. By the way, as has been pointed out numerous times in this forum, it's always the adults that make things tough. Although he tried to convince me to change my mind, and even though he won't speak to me more than to acknowledge my presence, he agreed that I did nothing wrong. His parents, however, were another story. I took more abuse from them over the next few weeks than I have ever received from any boss I ever had. they even threatened to sue. I know that the only way I had the strength to do this was because I was one of those people who sat on a BOR for a Scout I still don't believe exemplifies what it means to be an Eagle Scout. I have kicked myself for a number years about that one, and vowed I wouldn't ever pass a boy who didn't deserve it. It's not easy though. I guess the best we can do is to help the boys who are in the program now not fall into the same trap. Maybe we each had one or two get away from us, but if we use that frustration to teach the boys the importance of meeting deadlines with ALL of the requirements done, we won't have these kinds of situations too often. Mark

Barry, Great story, one I have seen play out a couple of times in various areas in my 7 years with the BSA. I wish I could take credit, but it was really our Scoutmaster who has the entire Troop believing that our mission (the adults to teach and allow, the boys to learn and practice), is not so much to be leaders, but to be leaders of leaders. So few people have some of the skills that most of the boys in our Troop, and most of Scouting have: The ability to plan and knowledge of planning's importance; The ability to speak in front of a group and not sound like an babbling idiot; how to put together an interesting presentation; how to teach a skill; how to be a follower when it is appropriate to do so; how to work with dissimiliar types of people; how to control a group without raising a voice or making a threat; Direction; Purpose; Confidence. And so many more things that just can't fit into this little box. I think the boys and men who have come through our Troop are people to be proud of regardless of the above. In almost every case, they are very fine people. But Scouting has given us as adults an organized method to affect young men as they grow to manhood in ways far deeper than teaching knots, 1st aid, and all of the other really cool stuff. If we ever have a boy who can say he learned how to be a man without learning the Scout skills (probably not possible, at least in our Troop), I'd feel we were still a success. Your title is SO perfect. In 7 years, I have gotten two, three, I don't know, maybe ten times back what I have put in. I could never pay back the joy I have gotten for having been a small part in any one of our Scouts' life. To whomever deserves this (BP?) THANK YOU! Sorry if there are typos (even more than usual). I did this misty eyed. Call me a sap if you want. Mark

Eagle74, Thanks for asking. The SM and I spent the better part of an evening discussing with him the merits of doing a C of H. Mostly it centered on him being willing to allow others close to him to celebrate his acheivement, even if it makes him feel uncomfortable. He spent the evening agreeing that it should be done, but every attempt we made to come up with a date had a valid reason why it couldn't be: April 11, - no, I'll be in France with the French Class. May 12th, - no the SM will be out of town at a wedding. etc., etc. He is leaving for West Point in July so the window is kind of small. It turns out that the school district cancelled all class trips this year, so the trip to France is off. Although we had tentitively set a date that he didn't like ("jet lag"), it looks like it will be fine and the ceremony will go ahead. He has even picked out some Scripture readings he would like, so I think he is at least is on board. The guy is a terrific young man. Heck, he is an Eagle Scout, an honor student, plays two varisity sports, and is going to West Point. He has every reason to be proud. I think he just isn't comfortable in the spot light. But we've agreed to tone down the ceremony and our comments, and it looks like the tone might become more that of a roast. But that's what he's comfortable with, and I'm just glad to see it's happening. Mark

Laura, I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time I have seen a reference to a committee member not signing off an advancement because that committee member could be on a Scout's BOR. I've been an Advancment Chair for 7 years, and think I am pretty well versed in advancement policy. I can't think of anything I have ever heard or read that prohibits this. My personal belief is that knowledgable boys should be signing off most requirements. However, if that doesn't happen, I think any KNOWLEDGABLE adult can and should be able to test a boy and sign the requirement. I think it is bad practice to allow a parent to sign off their own child, especially if it becomes a large percentage of the requirements. But to preclude a potential BOR member from evaluating a boy's skill doesn't seem right to me. Doing so logically leads to prohibiting a Committee Member from being a MB councelor for a boy in his own Troop for the same reason. I've been wrong before (and I can prove it!!!), so if you know of some regulation I've missed, let me know. But I think you might be a bit off base on this one. But on the topic... OneHour - first, I love your handle. Wish I had thought of it! I thought you were talking about a unit and a CC I know. As I read on, I realized you weren't, but man there are a lot of similarities. From my view, I'd stay on the committee. As you might note from my point above, I see little that a Commiteee Member can't do (they can camp, they can teach, they can test, they can influence, etc.), but in your particular case, you can also help shape the role of the committee by being on it. As I'm sure you know, the committee's job is to support the Troop program. If you believe the SM has the right attitide and will work on being more boy led, then let him grow into a SM teaching boys to run the Troop. Concentrate on using your influence to meet the requirements of the committee. And lastly, I would question someone with council or district authority about your Unit Commissioner having an interest in your unit. I guess I can see where it might have to happen for lack of volunteers, but it really is a bad idea. Good luck! Mark

Packsaddle, I'm with you on the death grip thing. Problem is, we all defend positions to the death, because we believe in them so intensely. If we took a position that could easily be swayed, what would that say about our character? And having such strong opinions makes everyone on the other side of the arguement idiots (LOL! - please!!) Ed, I think that Bob, I and others are trying to point out that you are adding the requirement of attendance to the the list of other requirements. Everything you say makes it appear as though regardless of the candidate's other traits (his Scout Spirit), you can't get by his lack of attendance. And this is adding to the requirements. If you are saying that in judging his Scout Spirit, you would include his attendance AS A COMPONENT OF LOYALTY (not entirely loyalty, as he could have been loyal in other aspects of his life), and include Loyalty AS A COMPONENT OF HIS OVERALL SCOUT SPIRIT, than I agree with you. But in such a case, I would be shocked (and I mean really, really suprised) if a boy who finds Eagle so appealing would not be able to show evidence of Scout Spirit that more than makes up for missing Troop meetings and events. I'd like to point out one other thing. I believe much of what the process Scouts go through to prove themselves worthy of Eagle is similiar to what companies who try to become ISO 9000 certified go through. An ISO auditor does not try to find examples of failing to meet the requirements, he tries to find evidence that the company has complied. I think this is true for the Eagle "certification" also. In Boards of Review, I want to see evidence that the candidate has lived the Scout Oath and Law. If in looking for such evidence, I uncovered that the Scout lied, even a few times, for instance, but generally is truthful and trustworthy, the couple of small incidents would not keep me from "certifying" him. Would I look for more evidence that he complied because of the those failures? Yes, probably. But if I saw that the boy had generally lived a life that would make Boys Scouts, and Eagle Scouts, proud to have him, I'd never let that one transgression stop me from voting yes. But if all I was looking for were reasons to fail him, than that would be enough, I guess. Ed, your dogged determination to keep the rolls of Eagle Scout filled with only the cream of the crop should be commended. But for this one, I really think you're off base. Mark

I hope I can ask a question without being judged to be for this or against that. I have never played laser tag, or paint ball, but it seems to me the risk of injury is relitively low, especially if goggles are required. If I am right, why is this deemed more unsafe than say kayaling, or climbing and repelling? Also, as much as I agree 1000% with Bob White about things being done in Scouting having a purpose, it seems to me very few things that a youth leader could dream up would not have at least an indirect Scouting purpose. Would not laser tag or even paint ball contribute to physical growth? Ed mentioned that his Troop goes bowling. He says they do it for fun. And that's great. But there is also value in participating in the individual sport that bowling is. Competition, learning to be a good sport if you lose and gracious if you win. These are things that definitely advance the purpose of Scouting. My point is that even if Ed thinks that they go bowling because it's fun, there's more to it than that. To answer the initial question, as much as I would try to steer our boys toward more traditional activities, I don't think I'd have a leg to stand on to prohibit it. It seems like it isn't prohibited by G2SS, and I think the relationship to the Aims of Scouting are there. Mark

Laura, Our Council has a link to most of the forms necesary for running a unit on its website. however, I can't actually copy and past the direct link. go to http://www.bsa-gwrc.org/ and follow the path through the forms. Be carefull, as I think the first form you might come across is specifically for my Council. Keep going, you'll come to a complete balnk one. Hope this helps. Mark

OGE, If you're starting the movement to create Eagle Cum Laude, etc., count me in! I'll bet some might say that that is what Palms are for, but I think you mean honoring a Scout who has exceeded minimum requirements on his way to Eagle. for example, w e have one boy in our Troop that earned his required MBs and the rest were basketry, metel working, etc. He certainly deserves to be Eagle. But we have another boy who did his required, plus all of the optional required, and for electives did Fish and Wildlife Mgt., Law, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, etc. In addition to fulfilling his minimum leadership role, he serves on Council JLT staff for 3 years, the last as SPL. He designed his project so that it continues to this day, 4 years later, making him come home from college reguarly to keep his project up to date. doesn't this guy deserve a distinction even greater than Eagle? You put the committee together, I'll serve. Ed, Without taking the time to reread all of the posts, my impresion of your scenerio is that the boy is coming back just short of his 18th birthday. this wouldn't leave any time to observe the boy within the Troop, so some other criteria for deciding the issue of Scout Spirit would have to be used. I see this as a great oportunity. As Scouters, the best evidence we have that the influence we, and Scouting, have been on the youth we serve is to see that they have "walked the walk" of Scouting in their every day life. Let's face it: It's most common to see a boy behave like a Scout during a Scout event. If an active Scout carries his Scout character with him outside of Scouting, we have reason to be proud. If an INACTIVE Scout acts like a Scout, then we've really done our job, as I see it. And if that young man has completed all of the other requirements for Eagle, I think it's time to stoke up a Board of Review, and then most likely a Court of Honor. I respect your desire to keep the ranks of Eagle Scouts free of the slackers. But I don't think it's fair to assume that a boy who hasn't come to meetings is a slacker. And one more qwuestion - Did this boy let his registration lapse? Mark

DS, thanks for the info and the extra private note. If Iwould have guessed on my own, most everything you said is what I would have guessed, including the Central region. I even told the Scout that, but told him that the scholarship application was too important to answer based on my guess. Is there any thought to eliminating this layer too? All of the work you described is important, but it seems it could easily be split up between National and local councils. I'm not recomending this, but just asking. I also truly did not mean to suggest no one else but BW could answer, and I hope that no one took offense, especially BW. Thanks again for the info. Mark

Acco40: Yes, I typed what I meant. If the Pack committee meeting only included the CC and the COR, then it would be a quick but ineffective meeting. I don't speak from official knowledge, but from what I remember I was told in basic training, and how the one pack with which I was affiliated ran: There were not two leadership bodies, as you describe. The adult committee consisted of all registered adults, including CM, DLs and all related positions. Having two groups seems awfully difficult to coordinate, and I can't imagine any reason for it. Having one provides all who have leadership responsiblities in the Pack the opportunity to communicate directly with one another. I do agree with you about the role of the Cubmaster usually being overstated. When I was Cubmaster, it was easy to be what I understood the Cubmaster to be, the master of ceremonies at Pack events. Our CC was remarkably capable of doing far more than even I thought possible. I often commented how much credit I got for the work she did. I only got it because I was the guy in front of the meeting. But she did practically ALL the work. To get back to the original point, in my experience (again, only one Pack), a committee that excluded CM and DLs would have included only only CC and COR (and our COR never once came to a committee meeting, even though invited all the time). Others who helped (popcorn Kernel, pinewood derby coordinator), were either already DLs or they didn't register. Oops, I did forget treasurer, who also was registered and was on the committee. I think the confusion might be on your part. I think you might be confusing the make up of a Pack committee with that of a Troop committee. Because the way you describe your vision of a Pack committee is exactly what I think is the correct way to address the adult roles in a Troop. If I am wrong, I am sorry. Mark

Ed, Can I take from your continued discussion of this that you feel those of us who believe this hypothetical Scout should be given the chance to explain his adherence the the Oath and Law while he was away are wrong? Are you saying this boy should not be allowed to earn Eagle? If so, do you have any reference from literature that says that attendance IS a criteria for rank advancement? Mark

Kind of funny you asked... I got a call from a boy in our Troop who is completing his NESA Scholarship application, and it asked for our region. although I kind of vaguely remember that there is a layer in the system called region, for the life of me I can't remember ever being told what region we are in, and I certainly don't know what purpose it serves. I eagerly await an explaination (and you've just got to know it'll be Bob White, right? - Just kindin' on ya Bob!). Mark

TwoCub: Glad you said something, because I wanted to but wasn't sure I was right. In Boy Scouts, boys lead the Troop, and the committee exists only to support the program. It makes sense that the adult committee be separate from the program, so SM and ASMs are not official members of the committee. But in a Cub Pack, the adults run the program. The adults that run the program are the CC, the CM, and the Den Leaders, along with anyone else who is needed to accomplish the task. In my limited experience (1 pack), registered leaders who are not CM , ACM, or DL, would include only the CC and the COR. Makes for a quick, but ineffective meeting. Mark

To add some clarification to the issue of continuous service: In many Troops, elections are held in timeframes less than one year. When this is the case, unless a boy earns his new rank (1st class, Star, or Life) in sync with the election cycle, he is likely to not serve either four or six months in the same position. this would make it unfair to insist that it be the same position continuously, or even just continuously. Mark

Eisley, I couldn't agree with you more as to your point about some kids needing the program more. If a transgression comes from a regular or "star" Scout, we often dismiss it with an oppurtunity to teach, and let it go at that. When it is a boy who shows a propensity for negative behavior, we (adult and junior leaders) all too often swerve into the punishment lane. If we overdo this, we certainly run the risk of sending off a boy who probably will benefit from the program more than the "star" Scouts will. We feel we fail any time a Scout leaves us, but the partings that affect us the most are the ones by boys who aren't the easiest to deal with. They're the ones that need us the most. They need our attention, and usually in quantities that border on absurd. But despite common thinking that any attention is good attention to these kind of boys, the right attention is the only thing that is likely to make a good man out of a "bad" boy. Mark

Ed, Given the parameters of your hypothetical, I would be forced to say that I would sign him off. But again, the only way to tell for sure he has met his obligation to live by the Scout Oath and Scout Law is to speak with him and get examples / evidence of doing so. If he can, that makes his attendance either irrelevent, or at the very most, a minor consideration in the overall spectrum of "Scout Spirit". If the only thing one has to base a boy's effort at living up to his Oath is attendence, then it is the adult half of the Scoutmaster conference that isn't doing his job completely. I have read so many great posts from you, and think I know for certain that you value both the program and the rank. I cannot imagine you sitting in a Scoutmaster conference in this situation and basing the decision soley on his atendance. Say it ain't so! And all this comes from someone who feels his low moment in the program is voting yes at an Eagle Board of Review for a boy I don't feel lived up to his obligation to live by the Oath and Law. his attendance was fine, and he met all of the "hard" requirements. But to this day (and this happened 6 years ago), I am ashamed I let others on the Board convince me to go against my conscience on that one. There were far too many known examples of un - Scout like behavior to justify the Board's decision that he should be an Eagle. My point is, I take this issue of Scout Spirit VERY, VERY seriously. And I can't imagine myself denying a boy Eagle (or any other rank) in your hypothetical. Mark

The only other sugestion I can add to the other great ones above is to consider scrapping the idea of radomly ssigning new boys to the NSP, and trying to keep kids from the same pack, or at least from the same den, together. Once in a while you might get a parent who approaches you and says they think their son would do better if seperated from a group of boys he has been with for a few years, but in general, we see that kids from the same den like to be in the same patrol. We almost always try to keep guys together during the transistion to Boy Scouts. It just seems like one less concern they have. Not as much need to get to know and get comfortable with all new guys. And suprisingly, two dens from different packs coming together to form a patrol works well for us, too. I would have though that cliques would form, but it really doesn't happen. Good luck! Mark

Ed, Scout Spirit does not equal attendance. It means different things to different people, for certain. And that may include attendance. But there is no way a Scoutmaster or Board of Review can make attendance the sole component of Scout Spirit. If, as I think Bob White is most vehemently trying to point out, a Scout's life shows evidence of living by the Scout Oath and Law, these should easily out weigh a lack of attendance. I can see no reason that a boy in this case can be denied Eagle. If of course, his time away from the Troop was spent carousing, marauding, piliging and plundering, then it isn't his absence from Scouting that precludes him from Eagle, it is his Scout Spirit. But in either case, this can't be determined without a conversation between a open minded adult, and an equally open minded boy (basically an adult in your example, as he is close to 18). And I think that is what Bob White is trying to say (my apoligies to Bob for attempting to speak for him). Mark

If you can stand an opinion from someone who doesn't actually know, but is using his common sense: I've never heard of a boy being being failed during a swim test for using nose plugs and goggles, nor have I read anything. Although I agree with Youngblood's intention that safety has to take precedent when deciding, it seems to me that the people who could probably be considered the strongest swimmers, swim team competitors (all the way to and including olympic swimmers) use goggles, and I have seen a few nose plugs while watching olympic diving. I'll bet that given the situation Youngblood describes, where his goggles are knocked off, if he could swim to safety with the on, he can do it with them off. Mark

HERE! HERE! to KoreaScouter's answer. If we try to find the best candidate to do any job in Scouting, all we'll ever have doing the job is the same boy. Leads to a Troop that is easier to run, but it doesn't meet the expectations, which is to teach leadership. Man, it's hard sometimes to watch a boy struggle while he's learning. It really is hard. But it's just those same guys that will get the most out of the effort (his and yours) when the light goes on. There is no better feeling in Scouting, in my opinion, than watching a boy who has made the job hard for himself finaly "get it" and be successful. What has always bothered me about the process (at least in our Troop) is the election process, which has boiled down in most cases to the boys electing someone because it his "his turn". I've talked about this in other threads. There is nothing official about this, but it just seems that the ASPL is always elected SPL, the best PL is always elected ASPL, and the APL is always elected PL. The boys understand that it doesn't have to be this way (I think - at least we've tried to convince them). but they still follow this pattern, almost like it was a rule. I'd love to find a way off this merry - go - round. Good luck to you! Mark

Laura, scoutldr is absolutely right. When we have identified an older guy who is weak on a Scout skill, he is the first person we send young guys to to be taught and tested. We also follow up with the older guy to let him know we will be very disappointed if his new protege' doesn't learn well. Practically always causes the older guy to study even harder than the boy who wants to pass the requirement. scoutldr also mentioned the see one, do one, teach one method of learning. I try not to make absolute statements, but there is no better way to get a person to learn than using this method. And the beauty of it is that it works better with younger people. See ya! Mark