NeilLup

Scouting's Journey to Excellence is the new program to replace the Centennial Quality Award program. It will provide recognition for Councils, Districts and Units for improving their delivery of good Scouting and/or for achieving specific measures of good performance.

A series of webinars will be held over the next months or so for leaders at all levels of Scouting to introduct the program and help put it into use.

For council level leaders, the website to sign up is:

http://journey-to-excellence.kintera.org/council-staff-volunteers

and for district and unit leaders, the sign-up website is:

http://journey-to-excellence.kintera.org/district-unit

All BSA leaders are welcome to participate in the webinars. However, space is limited and signing up before the meeting is required. There is no cost.

There will be webinars for district leaders and individual webinars for Pack, Troop and Crew leaders. The schedule is given when you go to the sign-up web page. Commissioners are encouraged to participate also as Commissioners will be implementing the program.

Your local council has also received information on these webinars.

Please plan to sign up for a webinar in the area of greatest interest and value to you and encourage your Scouting friends and colleagues to do so also.

I had our 18 year old Lodge Chief recently ask me about Wood Badge. Here was my response:

"My observation is that some younger leaders, like XXXXXX, did not have a good experience with Wood Badge. Others, like YYYYYYYY, had a great time and benefitted greatly.

Here are some of the factors to consider:

1) The actual material in Wood Badge is very close to the material now in NYLT. So in terms of actual material learned, there won't be much new or different. I believe this was a frustration for XXXXXX because much of the material from Wood Badge was taken from NLS where XXXXXX had staffed and he thought NLS did these things better than Wood Badge (perhaps he's right.)

2) So the key difference is that Wood Badge approaches training from an adult point of view while NYLT (and NLS as I understand it) are from a youth point of view. Your peers in Wood Badge are adults, they think like adults, they act like adults and they approach learning and fun from the point of view of adults. That's totally proper for an 18 year old if the 18 year old is planning to make the transition to an adult leader and wants to think and act like an adult Scouting leader. But if the 18 year old is still thinking of himself as a youth and wants to do youth activities and provide leadership in the manner of a youth, then the combination of no new academic material and a peer group with interests which are very different can make Wood Badge a less than great experience.

3) So my recommendation would be for you to look honestly in the mirror and ask if you are ready to make the Scouting transition to adult. If you are, then Wood Badge is a very good start. But if not, and there's really no hurry as you'll be an adult a long time, then as an experienced NYLT staffer, I'm not sure that Wood Badge would be right for you at this time.

4) Lodge Chief is a youth position. If you then plan to run for Section Chief or for National office in the OA, those are youth positions. Perhaps one such guideline is that if you are in a position that has an adult adviser, it is a youth position. However, if you potentially could BE the adult adviser, then it is an adult position. Do you, at this time, want to be the youth leader or the adult adviser?

There's a symbolic transition that occurs. At what point do you comfortably stop calling adult leaders Mr. ZZZZZZ and instead refer to them by their first name in informal conversation. Doing it either way has never bothered me (I was a child of the 50s and 60s) but in more recent days, there has been a return to the much more rigid formality of names. When you feel comfortable in trying to make that transition and believe that the other parties are ready to try to welcome you as an adult, it's a major milestone."

Hello BadenP,

With respect, I believe that you are correct logically but probably not correct technically. I understand that the SM, CC and other adult leaders serve "at the pleasure" of the chartered partner and the IH whose representative is the COR. While you are correct that arbitrarily removing or replacing an SM, CC or other leader is likely handicapping the unit, that doesn't mean that the IH or COR can't do that.

I believe that there probably also is no law against shooting yourself in the foot. It's just that it really hurts and you have to limp afterwards. Same sort of thing.

But I don't believe that the COR or IH need to have or state any reason to anyone to make such a change. It is courteous, kind and friendly to have and state a good reason, but it is not required. The only exception MIGHT be if the removal violated the rights of a member of a protected group i.e. if the COR said "We refuse to have any Asians or any African-Americans in our unit." But the institution certainly can say "We demand that all leaders be members of our institution." I believe that an institution can say that they want all their leaders to be male.

Not in any way saying that it's a good idea. But I believe that it is permitted.

Pack 212 scouter

An internet forum is not the place to get information like that. Speak to your local Boy Scout council. Providing information and support of that sort is one of the main reasons they exist. If you don't know how to reach them, go to the National BSA site www.scouting.org and I believe there ie a locator where you type in your zip code and it tells you the contact information for your local council.

Hello Nancy,

I just came to this and read it. There would seem to be some very unpleasant things happening. However, when you mention physical abuse of your son, that takes matters to an entirely different level. There is a way that matters such as that are handled within Scouting. May I suggest that you consider doing the following:

1) Get your facts very straight and in writing if possible. When you make an accusation of physical abuse, you will likely be expected to state when, where, who was involved, whether there were any witnesses and possibly what went on. I apologize for possibly doubting your credibility but if the discussion becomes "I heard from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend" or the Scout says when asked by someone investigating "I dunno, nothing happened" and then afterwards tells you privately "I was scared. Mr. XXXXX is big and mean.", it is worse than if nothing was done. (Yes, I had that happen as a Scoutmaster. And then I was forced to apologize to the abuser for a "false" accusation.) If the accusation is adultery in the context of Scouting, you need to have more than innuendo and "everybody knows."

2) Particularly if you believe that your credibility has been attacked and you are considered a trouble maker, take several deep breaths. Consider what you are going to say. Imagine that you will be before the Supreme Court. To the fullest extent that you can, eliminate emotion, eliminate that you don't like some people, etc. Be prepared to present facts simply and unemotionally.

3) Contact your local council Scout Executive -- the top guy. You have written about the local council and the Omaha council. I believe that the local organization you are talking about is called a District in Scouting. You need to ask for an appointment to talk to the Scout Executive of the local council -- probably what you are calling the Omaha Council -- on a matter that may involve child abuse. I assure you that if you say those words, the Scout Executive will meet with you, even if you are the Wicked Witch of the West. He will listen very carefully to what you have to say and make a careful investigation. The abused child may be asked to speak. The individuals involved may be asked to speak. He will decide what action to take.

4) This approach is the nuclear weapon of Scouting and is about as subtle as a nuclear weapon. If you do this, do not expect the people you accuse to be pleasant to you.

5) If you meet with the Scout Exec in this way, you can bring up the other matters at this time if you wish but be careful as the farther you stray from hard facts, the more credibility comes into issue. The absconding of funds is a serious issue. The hanky panky between adults may be more scandalous than serious. Can you imagine the reaction of a Scout Executive hearing "We've got Trouble right here in River City! In our unit, the former Committee Chairman is having an affair with the Unit Commissioner, oh sin and perdition! And the former Committee Chairman and former ASM absconded with Troop funds, God safe the mark! And, oh by the way, my son was abused." compared with "I'm not at all certain how to proceed with this, but I fear that my son was abused in our Troop."

6) Even if you don't want to bring up the matter of abuse, the absconding of funds is appropriate to bring up to the Scout Exec. I know of leaders who were removed from Scouting for not turning over unit funds when they were removed from their job.

7) As far as going to the police, if your son's Jamboree funds were being held in this manner and they appear to have been absconded, I certainly imagine you can go to the police by yourself. You don't need to go through the Chartered Organization for YOUR money although they probably need to go for the Troop money and records and the argument might be made that once you turn the money over to the Troop, it is now Troop money and the Troop has a custodial relationship for the money for you. If you have a friendly lawyer who will write a letter for free for you, that might shake loose the money and records without going to the police.

8) One last thing and I apologize if it sounds condescending. If you're throwing around nuclear weapons like police reports and child abuse reports to the Scout Executive, make sure that nuclear weapons are warranted. Sometimes this kind of thing is a spat that can be resolved much more simply. Nuclear weapons are sometimes warranted but normally when they are used, nobody really "wins." The best you do is break even.

Please let me totally support John-in-KC

Scouting works best as a consensus organization. Any time that I have seen or gotten involved in a "you work for me" discussion or a "who's the boss" discussion or a "who can fire whom" discussion in Scouting, it's a really, really bad sign. We have enough challenge trying to keep up with and stay ahead of the Scouts. We don't need to have fellow adults going for our ankles.

If there's an honest, friendly discussion among adults about how best to do things, that's one thing. But when it's "You work for me, do what I say!" all is not well at all.

Scouting for adults is supposed to be fun and rewarding. Ultimately, each of us has a personal bank of good experiences that draw us to Scouting. When a good meeting occurs or a youth does something special, that's a deposit in the bank. But when negative things happen, it's a withdrawal from the bank. And if it's a really negative thing, it can be a big withdrawal from the bank and maybe even a "bankruptcy."

As long as the bank balance is nice and positive, then one's experience in Scouting is strong. But if the balance gets close to zero, then it's very appropriate to ask how one should change one's relationships with Scouting so that the experiences become very positive again.

I just came across this thread and have now followed it from beginning to end. It's good when the system seems to work the way that it is supposed to.

5ScoutMom, it is none of my business what your son's challenge is and I am not asking. But if it is what the behavior described sounds like, you might want to look at a recent Scouting magazine (I believe Nov-Dec '09). There is a story about a young man with what I believe is a similar challenge and what he has accomplished. Scouting can empower great things.

One of the great things about Scouting is that the standards do not require perfection and they do not require success. The standard of the Scout Oath is "I will do my best." If one does that, even if one is wrong and even if one does not succeed, one has met the standard to be a good Scout. After some rough patches, it sounds as if all the leaders in your unit plus the Scouts are doing their best to measure up to that standard.

Tokala, I think you are selling your council's size very short.

Check out Piedmont Council in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The US Virgin Islands are a council and their area is about 134 square miles.

In fact, I believe that my own Boston Minuteman Council is probably smaller than 750 square miles.

I'm pretty sure that Annawon council in our area is smaller than 750 square miles.

There are, I believe, at least 8 Boy Scout councils in Eastern Massachusetts and I'm pretty sure that several are smaller than 750 square miles.

You guys are actually pretty big. Unless, of course, 90% of your council is under water.

"I wish more councils took into consideration that the 30% staffing request is just that -- a request. If it means short-changing your course to have a perfect ratio of old:new staff, it's only penalizing the participants of the best program that could be given. "

Hello Tokala,

This is one way of looking at it. There is another way.

There is more than one training course going on during your Wood Badge Course. There is the obvious course for the participants. But there is also a training course for the first time staffers. It has a lesson plan, a course objective, even a recognition for completion (the third bead). There is a training course for experienced staff. And there definitely is a training course for the Course Director.

I believe that first time service on a Wood Badge staff is the most powerful training course that we have in the BSA. When I look at the capability, attitude, understanding, etc. of people going into the first time staff experience and compare that with what they are when first time staff is completed, I am amazed and impressed. I believe that the more potential District and Council level trainers we have who have had Wood Badge staff service, the more capable are our training committees and training teams.

And, I might add, first time staffers commonly do a great job as staffers and as TGs. There are exceptions but there are exceptions to every rule and the CD has to be ready to provide support for a weak TG.

So the 30% guidline is indeed a guideline. But if you are having trouble meeting that guideline, it potentially speaks problems for your district and council training teams and committees. You aren't getting the new leaders that you need to stay active and healthy.

Don't think only of participants. Think of the learning going on by staffers too.

I believe that the whole point of this thread and discussion has been:

1) Did the young man meet the requirements to be a Eagle Scout?

2) If not, what requirements did he not meet? (And no, it is not sufficient for the Scoutmaster to say "I have decided that you have not met the Scout Spirit requirement. I have spoken! So let it be written, so let it be done! Go away!")

3) If he possibly did meet the requirements to be a Eagle Scout and still was turned down at several levels, how should one appeal to the National Council?

My understanding is that the matter was appealed to the National Council and a definitive answer from National has not yet been received.

I don't believe the question is whether the young man is a "little angel" or if his mother has personality or other conflicts with the Troop/District/Council. The question is if he met the requirements to be an Eagle Scout

I wonder why the young man bought a Carolina Panthers jacket and not an Official Scout Uniform including Official Scout Trousers.

I know -- I have no common sense.

Hello Buffalo Skipper,

I emphathize totally with what you are saying. As a youth, I was not elected the first two times I was eligible. Some of the Troop members had no problem making fun of me for that. It did hurt and I did try not to be resentful. Not always successfully.

I hope that your Ordeal is a great experience and that OA membership has been worth waiting for.

I can tell you that, after my election experience as a youth, my selection for the Vigil Honor was one of my great rewarding moments in Scouting.

Jeffrey, I'm sure you know this, but the criteria for adult membership is not whether the person will enjoy it nor is it whether the person is an honor camper. Rather, "in general, the adult qualifications are different from the youth requirements. Adult selection is based upon their ability to perform the necessary functions to help the Order fulfill its purpose, and is not for recognition as an honor. Selected adult Scouters must be an asset to the Order because of demonstrated abilities, and must provide a positive role model for the youth members of the lodge." (from the National OA web site.)

Hello Scoutfish,

You may be able to get some help and guidance on this.

If you have a good Commissioner, I might invite them to the next Pack Committee meeting to participate in the discussion. Have them forewarned and forearmed. If you don't have a good Commissioner, then you might ask your District Exec to participate. It's tougher for the DE because it is close to a "no win" situation to tell a unit that they can't do what they want to do.

But I would suggest that your District and your Council exist to help you in situations like this. Let them provide that help and get them involved.

" I had lined up 2 previous staffers that could fill in as troop guides at the last minute, but they both decided that if they weren't good enough to be 'on' staff than they didn't want to be 'standbys'."

That's sad and somewhat at odds with "A Scout is Helpful" and "To help other people at all times." It's truly a shame when that happens.

Sounds as if you were well prepared and handled it very well. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

39 is a nice reasonable size. AS you get to 48, schedules start to get pushed.

At one time, I directed a course of 61. This was before the current number limits were in place (2001.) We had 8 patrols of 7 and 8 and schedules got extremely tight.

One question and I know that the Course Director does what he or she has to do.

I had been trained that patrol sizes should be a maximum of six participants to give each participant a chance to serve as PL. That's how the course maximum of 48 is achieved. Six participants per patrol times 8 patrols = 48 participants. If you have 39 and only 5 Troop Guides, you have 8 person patrols. For 39 participants, shouldn't you really have 7 patrols? If you were short TGs, could you get some last minute TGs. I know, for example, that in our council, was have a "swat" team of former course directors and other experienced staffers who can step in at the last minute to fill in. These could either be a last minute TG (it has happened) or else step in as Scribe or QM to allow the current scribe or QM to move to TG.

Hello T2Eagle,

Interesting thread. I hear the strains of "Rum, by Gum" in the background.

"We never eat fruitcake because it has rum

And one little bite turns a man to a bum

Can you imagine a sadder disgrace

Than a man in the gutter with crumbs on his face"

I don't believe that cooking wine is an alcoholic beverage. Particularly if you've tried drinking it.

But having said that, one of the principles that I try to use is to set the example for Scouts and not to do something that we would be troubled if they do.

What would be your reaction if you were on a Troop campout and a small bottle of wine fell out of one of the Scout's packs. You sniffed it, identified it and he said "Don't worry, that's just cooking wine for dinner tonight."

I suspect that the Troop leadership would have a flock of birds at that point.

The point is that I would suggest that you should set the example in the cooking you do and the menus you choose for the Scouts with which you work. If they can't do it, it can be argued that you are only frustrating them by showing them a technique and then saying "Nyaah, nyaah, nyaah, not for you." You certainly are missing an opportunity not showing them something that they CAN do.

Congratulations, fellow Bob White. We are lovers, not fighters.

Sounds as if you are having a fantastic course. You may want to rethink and polish a few of your ticket items as you go through the second weekend but that, of course, is up to you.

How large is the course?

Have a wonderful time at the second weekend and working your ticket.

Loquacious Bob White

R-12-25

Is your copy of the bylaws current? I ask because when I looked at a recent copy of the bylaws, I couldn't find the definition of an "associate member." Of course, I may have just messed up and missed it.

A couple of posters wrote "every Scout deserves a second chance."

Within reason I agree with that if:

1) The Scout acknowledges that he has done something wrong and/or inappropriate and

2) The Scout ASKS for a second chance

What has been discussed here is, in my opinion, not a second chance. It is turning Nelson's blind eye to a potential problem situation.

I can understand Scout leaders being very reluctant to confront a Scout accused of offering to sell pot. There are a lot of ways to lose and very few ways to win i.e.:

1) Scouts denies it possibly reinforced by parent saying "MY SON DOESN'T DO THAT KIND OF THING". Someone is lying or at least misstating facts.

2) Scout acknowledges it. Says "everybody does it."

3) Scout acknowledges it but says "I was kidding. I didn't mean it and they knew it."

4) Scout denies it. Turns out he was being set up by his "friends."

5) Scout acknowledges it. Are Scout leaders now required to report to police.

6) There is some law enforcement officer on the SM staff or Troop Committee. Is the person from the Troop asking the Scout about the incident required to give a Miranda warning lest the Scout, by answering, frees himself from consequences as a result of anything that he says or, alternately, SM finds himself subpoenaed as a result of what he learns. (serious question here; I really don't know.) Scout leaders, if I am correct, are not privileged like attorneys, physicians and clergy. SM could be compelled to testify and any promises like "this is just between you and me" cannot be honored in the face of a subpoena.

But in spite of all of this, if it were my unit, I would speak with the accused Scout right away. I would get his side and point out the consequence of drug possession or drug dealing charges. Regardless of what he said, my attitude would be "Even having accusations of this sort is totally unacceptable in this Troop and in Scouting. We simply do not do this kind of thing. This kind of accusation forces me and the other adults to watch things extremely closely and destroys, to some extent the attitude of trust that there needs to be in a really good Troop." If the Scout acknowledges it and asks for a second chance, I would give it to him.

I would also go back to the accusers and compliment them on their courage but also note to him the seriousness of such an accusation. That is not in any way blaming the accuser, just acknowledging the courage to make a report with such severe consequences. I might particularly lean on this if my conversation with the initial Scout caused me to believe that there was something a bit fishy about the report.

Finally, every so often, I would have a conversation with the Troop about drugs, alcohol, risks, etc. I would point out that trying out things like this has been part of youth for as long as there have been young humans However, our current society in the US has become particularly draconian and unforgiving about what would have been considered juvenile pranks and sowing one's wild oats in previous generations. A youth may be enticed by your friends, peers, etc. to do something like this and may be called "chicken" or "baby" if you don't do it. But if they do it and are caught, it will likely be part of their permanent record to their detriment in college applications, scholarships, military, jobs, etc. It WILL be found and they will pay the price.

And if data is needed about this, in my company, we were working with our law firm and there was a sharp new associate that joined the team. Their CV was provided and it was most impressive. However, I checked them on the internet and, in addition to a lot of good things and honors, up popped an incident report from smoking pot in a dorm room as a freshman in college more than 10 years before. No big thing and it in no way bothered us. But there it was.

This is probably very unfair to today's youth. In the past, youth involved in incidents were often given a choice of the Army or jail. Now, the incident might well keep them out of the Army. But in a world of zero tolerance and Google, there can be little room for forgiveness and for youthful mistakes and, unlike previous generations, those mistakes, incidents, etc. WILL be found. Huck Finn would likely be put on serious meds today.

Scouts need to know this and hear it. Some will listen.

"They don't even talk to ordinary people on the phone,",

I'm sorry nldscout but I can't let this pass. It simply isn't true.

1) You're not an "ordinary person." You're a Scouter.

2) The National Council and the personnel at the National Council exist to assist local councils and to assist Scouts and Scouters. They know it too! They know that their salaries are paid by registration fees and other sums paid by local councils and Scouters.

3) If you call the National Council, you will reach the receptionist. If you explain what you want, he or she will try to identify who can help you and put you in touch with them. They likely will not be there and you will leave a message. They will call you back.

4) Very likely, they will refer you back to your local council and this is as it should be. It is the job of the local council to assist and support local Scouters. But if it is information or literature or something else, the person WILL talk to you and will do their best to help you.

5) National Council employees are human and you can hit one on a bad day. Messages do get dropped. But I truly find it inconceivable and completely out of line with my experience that a National Council employee would say. "You're an ordinary person. I refuse to talk to you." (This, by the way, is not necessarily the case in dealing with banks or credit card companies or phone companies or some governmental agencies.) National Council employees do believe in "A Scout is Friendly", "A Scout is Cheerful" and "A Scout is Kind."

If you had a bad experience trying to contact a National Council employee, that is regrettable and I am sorry for that. That is very different from my experience. But if you didn't have such an experience and are just blowing smoke, then with respect, I think you owe the National Council employees an apology.

I'm not commenting in any way on the idea that a National Council employee would discuss the situation of an individual Scout. I am simply commenting on the idea that National Council employees don't talk to ordinary people.

Hello twh,

May I suggest that you prepare a short summary of what happened and write it up. Then, meet with

a) Your Scout Exec or

b) Your Council Commissioner or

c) Your Council VP Program

Tall them what you know and ask how you can get consideration/reconsideration of the Heroism Award. Offer to write it up yourself for consideration by the Council Advancement Committee.

I know that if I were contacted by a unit leader, I'd listen very respectfully

Hello twh,

In my time in Scouting, I have been involved in applying for about 4 of these. Also, as my council's VP Program, I have oversight resonsibility for the Council Advancement Committee and so have some involvement in the awards. Our council this year will have gotten 5 National Court honors including one written up on page 7 of the current Scouting magazine.

1) If the victim will not cooperate, it makes matters very difficult. You can try but it is much tougher.

2) I always recommend to our committee that they nominate the Scout for the highest award that would appear to be appropriate. The National Committee knows how to downgrade awards if they find it appropriate. Do NOT count on the National Committee upgrading an award.

3) Put together the best recommendation package that you can. Send it in.

4) National likes to give out these awards. If you have a reasonable package and a reasonable application, it will be approved.

5) If there was any kind of news article, etc. about the rescue, be sure that is included.

So don't be discouraged about the approval at the National level. But your local situation makes it tough. Getting the application through the local advancement committee can often be the hardest step. Those committees can really be "Horatius at the bridge."

Please let me know if I can give you some additional information.

This thread may be much too far gone but kwikadaphoenix asked what I thought was a legitimate question, at least it sounded that way, and it deserves what is, I hope, a legitimate answer.

There are some terms that have come into common usage as perjorative terms based on a reference to some socioethnic group. Examples are, and I apologize if my use of the terms as examples offends anyone

To "gyp" someone - a perjorative term based on gypsies

To "Jew someone down" - a perjorative term meaning to negotiate very hard

"Niggardly" - There was an incredible brouhaha about some public official using this term last year even though its derivation is from the Norwegian and has nothing to do with the perjorative term for African-Americans

I believe that to call something "gay" fits exactly into this class.

What to do? I believe that if one hears a person using a term that clearly is perjorative based on a socioethnic group, one can stop the person saying it and ask "How would a person who is a Jewish, gay, etc. feel about hearing you use that term? How would you think that person would regard you hearing you use that term? You may not care but why ask for trouble for yourself and them if you don't have to?"

You don't have to like people who are gay although, quite frankly, you probably do know and like some people who are gay and just don't know that they are. And the "thin entering wedge" argument starting with homosexuality and ending with homosexual necrophilic beastiality and asking "where do you draw the line" has always struck me as a bit specious. As much as anything because one really doesn't start with homosexuality, you start with heterosexual hand holding, go from there and where the line is drawn by each person depending upon their religion, moral beliefs, feelings at the moment, etc.

If statistics are accurate and 5-10% of the population is gay, then anyone who is a Scout leader of a unit of 20 boys will, on average, have at least one who will be gay in his adult sexual orientation. We may personally believe that gay behavior is immoral but I hope that nothing we as leaders say or do will make that boy, when he grows up, feel worse about himself or make carving out a meaningful adult life more difficult.

We're in this for the kids. Even those who, when they grow up, are gay.

Were the questions on the order of:

"Tell me about your religion?"

or were they

"Convince me that Unitarian/Universalists are not atheists!"

Hello Doug,

Just saw your note. Sorry that things are a bit confusing.

As a former WB Course Director, please let me suggest that things should get a lot better the second weekend. The staff's objective is to make 100% sure that you have good solid, workable ticket items by the end of the second weekend.

But if you get toward the end of the fourth day and still are really uncertain about your ticket items, be sure to see your Guide. If you still don't get satisfaction, then you can see the ASM for Troop Guides or even let the Course Director know that you really want to get good tickets written and are having trouble doing it. Don't just sit there. Let the staff know that you want and need help and guidance. They will give it to you.