NeilLup

Bob White is exactly correct. I should have said garter tabs.

This particular set of yellow garter tabs had great meaning to me because they were presented by Bob Untch, former Director of the Cub Scout Division at Philmont Training Center. Bob passed away last year and we lost a great Scouter.

Hello Proud Eagle,

I would be very comfortable with your statement if you would have written "The units claim that they don't have any leaders to spare to move into district positions."

We have one unit that has 10 ASMs, 20 committee members and a war chest of over $10,000.

They say:

1) We don't have any leaders to spare

2) We don't have any money to spare and won't have a Friends of Scouting campaign

3) Besides that, the District and Council never do anything for us.

I don't necessarily fault this unit too much. It is our responsibility to make District and Council service sufficiently worthwhile for them to participate. But Lordy, Lordy, they make it difficult.

The problem as Bob White has written is getting them to look beyond their own unit. But almost as a matter of faith, they refuse to do that.

When I look into my Scouting closet, I see:

1)The uniform from when I was a Scout. (It has really shrunk although I was my current height at age 15.

2) My green exploring uniform from when I was an explorer

3) The khaki (tan?) uniforms from when I was first an adult leader and did my first Wood Badges.

4) The forest green (khaki?) uniform from when we had Leadership Corps wearing forest green at Wood Badge

5) The current uniforms.

6) A yellow uniform shirt I picked up by error (oops, forget that.)

Which do I like best? The forest green uniforms. I remember when I first saw the current uniforms what my thought were. They haven't changed

And when you write that the Troop uses the "old" uniforms, I might ask "Which old uniforms?" The 1910 uniforms, the 20s-30s uniforms? The 40s&50s uniforms? The 60s up to early 70s uniforms?

I even have some green and yellow garters. So if anyone needs some old uniform parts, I have plenty.

Proud Eagle wrote this in another thread

"I think part of the problem is, no one wants to do anything for the district. All the competent leaders currently in Scouting are up to their eyeballs in unit level stuff. No unit has any leaders to spare to move into district positions. The district hasn't had much luck in getting people outside of Scouting to help out either"

This hits extremely close to home. If I had a nickel for every time a leader in my council told me "The only place that real Scouting takes place is a Troop" I'd be a wealthy man.

I was Council Commissioner of my council for about 4 years. To meet the needs of our units with one UC for every 3 units, I would have needed about 150 Unit Commissioners. When I started, I had twelve names on the books and several of those were names only. In four years, our District Commissioners got the number of Unit Commissioners up to about 40 but still, many many units got no Commissioner service.

There is somewhat of a paraphrase of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." It goes "Don't expect to get a lot from your council unless you contribute a fair amount to your council." This isn't some kind of threat or extortion; it is just a statement of fact. Commissioners don't grow on trees or come down from Mars, particularly if they are experienced. They are leaders who got experience in units and then choose to contribute to units other than theirs by being a Commissioner.

I don't agree that units don't have leaders they can spare, but I certainly agree that I often see my picture posted at the door of units with "Shoot on sight if seen recruiting."

So my challenge and question is this. How can we get leaders to look beyond their own unit and contribute to Scouting and youth by serving as a Commissioner or other District/Council leader and helping other units? How can we make doing the job of a Commissioner something that good, experienced leaders will want to do?

Great question, FOG,

To some extent, it might matter why the adults are shepherding the boys. Is the reason

1) safety

2) ensuring that the boys maximize their badges earned, learning,etc.

If the former, then you need to look at the camp layout, structure, etc. and do what is necessary to ensure the safety of the boys

If the latter, then some training of the adults may be in order. Maybe some adult related activities or else a set of easy chairs to enable the adults to join with the SM ("The test of a good SM is the easy chair.") I have read about "hyperparenting" and being an adult at Scout camp may be another place where hyperparenting can come into play.

Hello CW,

You haven't said where your SM is in this. Have you counselled with your SM and with the other adults in your Troop? Even when you are 17, it is their job to help you and provide guidance and assistance.

Particularly when you are dealing with peers or individuals who were your peers and now are in subordinate positions (always a very difficult thing), you need the help and support of your SM.

Hello Greg,

You're in a tough situation. Thank you for sticking with it.

I've seen situations where the employees "fired the boss." One time, to my deep regret, I was the one being fired. If one loses the confidence of the employees, morale drops and productivity drops, then the bosses boss notices. If this person is any good, he or she begins making investigations talks with the employees, forms an opinion and does what they think appropriate. It doesn't necessarily even mean that the boss is completely wrong and possibly the employees are. But if the boss says "we'll all go the right" and instead the result is a random walk, for whatever reason, the boss is ineffective.

It sounds as if being SM is an important part of your current SM's persona. I have seen and met people like that. It is sad when it gets in the way of service to youth.

As a Unit Commissioner, I was involved in the "firing" of a SM. It is never easy. In that case, the youth were complaining, the parents were complaining and the CO was willing to do whatever the group wanted.

You are taking the appropriate steps. The choices would seem to be:

1)Let the SM continue in position. Accept the risk of loss of youth.

2)Arrange for the SM to leave the position voluntarily. This is much easier if there is some place for the SM to go. Is there something she can do which is worthwhile and beneficial but not involved with youth. Is she a reasonable trainer? Would she be a valuable contributor on Roundtable staff? Is she a camping expert?

3)Arrange for the SM to leave the position involuntarily. Painful, but it may be necessary. You haven't said what type of organization your CO is, I believe, but that can matter. If it is a church, for example, and the SM is active in the church, it can make matters tougher. On the other hand, if many of the Troop families are active members of the church, it can make the discussions with the CO more focused and likely encourage a resolution by the CO.

4) Start a new Troop. Ultimately, if the CO won't act, the choices are to have the boys fall by the wayside or do something else. I know that discussions of loyalty always come up with this is discussed but loyalty can cut two ways

5) Start a Venturing Crew. If you mainly are losing older boys, this could keep them around.

6) Involve your District/Council - This doesn't change the other actions but can help them. Possibly, the Commissioner and/or DE can help you in going to the CO and resolving matters.

One other matter, Greg, and I don't want to be picky or off topic. YOu said that you are ASM and Advancement Chair. There is something of a contradiction there. Advancement Chair is a Committee job. This isn't a trivial matter because a Board of Review requires committee members as the participants and if you aren't a committee member, you don't meet the letter of the advancement guidelines to participate. Of course, you don't need to sit on boards of review to be advancement chair but still, there is the contradiction between your serving as ASM working directly with the boys and your serving as Advancement Chair guiding and monitoring the Boards of Review which have as large part of their purpose monitoring the people who work directly with the boys. It's tough to be both pitcher and umpire.

Has your Committee had the Troop Committee Challenge Training. Have you and the other ASMs has training?

Hope the matter gets resolved in a way that preserves Scouting for your youth.

I believe there may be some other factors at play here. The primary one is the "I'm an important person, those rules don't apply to me." There have been cases where very prominent Scouters went to Philmont who were clearly out of shape but insisted that they go on a trek, etc. It put the local Philmont staff and even the National office in a difficult position when someone says "I give a million bucks a year to this organization and I demand to go." At that point, Philmont can point to the weight rules which apply to everybody

There also might be (although I'm not sure there are) legal considerations if one started arbitrarily saying "Weight rules apply to everybody but, of course, not to you."

I do know from personal experience that exceptions to the rules are not made. We had been told by the conference chairman (top volunteer) at PTC that we would be permitted to do a certain activity which he offered, we didn't ask for. The matter was referred by the staff to the Director of Philmont who overruled the conference chairman and said no exceptions would be made.

As I am sure you know, Bill, remember that you can, to some extent, govern his rate of earning of Merit Badges. If you don't approve him for counseling, he can't earn the badge. And while I would not ordinarily suggest a quid pro quo (I will only approve one merit badge application for each month that you are active. And active, in this case, is MY definition of active.) it might be appropriate in this case.

Again, you need to make this quite clear in the Scoutmaster's Conference you hold with the boy.

Hello Bill,

Welcome

You have a tough challenge. That's why a Scoutmaster gets the big bucks

Scouting at the 2nd Class and 1st Class level is designed for 11 and 12 year old boys. A 14 year old is a little old for that but it is no big problem. If he wishes, he could be able to speed through.

However, there are requirements to be met. If the boy chooses to meet the requirements, he can advance. If he doesn't want to, then he shouldn't advance.

It sounds as if the boy and/or parents read a book on college admissions and found the line where it says that being an Eagle Scout will help. So they want the short path to making that happen.

YOu get to have a very interesting Scoutmaster's Conference with the boy and likely another one with the parents. You lay out the requirement and you tell them what active means (in your Troop.) They accept it or they don't. You then get four more Scoutmaster's Conferences (1st Class, Star, Life, Eagle.) If he doesn't meet the requirements, he doesn't advance.

Lay out the requirements and make sure that they are clearly understood.

I might add one additional possibility. I don't think that it would work for this boy but you never know. There is the Venturing program for youth 14 and up. It is, in some ways, more appropriate for older youth. Once the boy earns First Class in a Boy Scout Troop, he can then go into a Venturing Crew and complete the rest of the requirements for Eagle Scout.

It is very unusual for a boy to earn the Eagle in a Crew unless he is very close to Eagle when he joins, but it does happen. This might offer the boy an opportunity to be in a group which is more in line with his age and interests

I agree with Its Trail Day. I found myself posting much less. I would request that the stars go away.

Eisley,

There are many ways that a child can make their parents proud. Your son has certainly chosen one. Congratulations and thanks to you both.

You mention that he never earned the Eagle. So what? It certainly appears that he understands and is displaying Scout Spirit.

My prayers and best wishes are with you.

Last September, the Key 3s of our council met and determined that volunteer leader recruiting was the most serious problem that we had. They asked the council to do something about it.

So the Scout Executive and I prepared a 90 minute training on how to recruit. We start off with 45 minutes of instruction then do 45 minutes of practice and case histories. Surprise, we use the methods Eamonn listed. They work extremely well if you use them.

We have now presented this 4 times to 4 districts. We have been asked back to two of those districts and last Monday, I was asked to present the session to the entire professional staff of our council. That hasn't happened to me before

One thing I would add to Eamonn's excellent post. Recruiting is hard work and if you start out when your leader has quit, it has been 3 months without a leader and everybody knows it, it it tough. Really successful recruiting is a continuing process and a good Pack or Troop (or District or Council) should be continually thinking about who will be the next leaders. Ideally, if the SM or CM were to be abducted by aliens tomorrow, there would be a back-up leader ready to take their place. That isn't always the case, but it is a goal to work toward. The selection committee is really doing a good job when its main job is to select the back up to the leader, not the leader himself or herself.

Not necessarily any from the point of view of KA6BSA. However, in your latter case, if the plaintiff learns that all the boys are Troop members, the plaintiff might well include the Troop, the sponsor, the local council, the BSA and possibly all the other Troop adults as defendants. And the BSA's lawyers will work hard (and probably succeed) in having them removed as defendants. If not, I believe they would be covered.

Several years ago, I had the dubious privilege of being a defendant briefly in a BSA related case. I had been Council Commissioner of our council during the time that an incident occurred at one of our council camps. I didn't even visit the camp that summer but was brought in as a defendant. The BSA's lawyers defended me and quickly had me removed as a defendant. No cost to me and very little time.

If you like the new requirements, may I suggest that you write to National and tell them that. In particular, tell them why you like them vs. the old ones.

Normally, they hear only the complaints.

Hello Outdoor Thinker,

1) It wouldn't bother me

2) Almost a dozen years ago when my daughter was on summer camp staff, the Program Director was female. Great lady.

Since that time, I am very pleased to have successfully nominated this woman for the District Award of Merit, Silver Beaver and Vigil Honor. I suspect that she is a member of one of very few families where all the members are Vigil Honor (her husband and their three sons also.)

My daughter was Archery Director at camp and told me that most Scoutmasters took her at face vallue, no problems. A couple gave her some trouble. I would expect that number to have decreased substantially since then.

If you want to be Program Director or Camp Director, then go for it. Put together a good summary of credentials and do it.

Packsaddle - This is very old information for you now but tomato juice does work. About a decade ago, in downtown Boston where we lived, we had a skunk living under the deck in our yard. At about 11PM New Years day, one of our cats introduced himself to the skunk. So I had to go running down to the local 7/11 saying "I need all your tomato juice RIGHT NOW!"

But it was amazing. It cut the odor immediately although even though we shampooed the cat (one very happy pussy there) there still was residual odor for a couple of weeks on the cat.

I agree with almost all that Bob White has said. My understanding and observation on liability situations is that the facts are lined up and the more you did in line with BSA policy, the stronger is your case and the "cleaner" is the discussion with the insurance company.

So, if your checklist goes

1) Tour permit - Yup

2) Following the Guide to Safe Scouting - Yup

3) Two deep leadership - Yup

4) Proper preparation - yup

5) Using common sense - yup

6) Registered members and leaders - yup

Then you and the BSA will be standing shoulder to shoulder should there be any controversy with the insurance company.

But if instead, it goes

1) Tour permit - That's a pain, we don't like to do that

2) Guide to Safe Scouting - our guys really like paintball, so we were playing that

3) Two deep leadership - We started out with two, but one had to go home for the evening

4) Proper preparation - Can of Spam and a sleeping bag, what else do you need?

5) Common sense - There couldn't be any problem with paintball, our adult was playing it too

6) Registered members and leaders - well yeah, there was one under age boy and one girl sibling who was dropped off there but what't the big thing?

Then there could indeed be a discussion about whether it was a BSA activity and whether it would be covered. In this case, whomever was injured would sue everybody in sight and the BSA might try to get out of liability stating that with all these deviations, it wasn't a BSA activity or else that the BSA's fraction of liability is exceedingly small (and guess whom that would leave holding the bag.) Would they succeed? Good question and probably determined by the individual facts, court and jury. But you really don't want to have that kind of question asked; you want to have them as in the first case, standing shoulder to shoulder fully covering you with absolutely no question.

And, among other things, if you did follow all the rules and guidelines as in the first case, the judge/jury/mediator/arbitrator would likely feel much more kindly toward you and would agree that you had taken all reasonable precautions and the incident was an unfortunate accident with possibly some liability but a much lesser chance of a punitive element. In the latter case, if it looks slapdash and arrogant, then the judge/jury/mediator/arbitrator could look to punish the party who was responsible.

Why take the risk?

I was an Exploring Post Committee Chairman from 1971-1973 and your facts are correct. We did have OA elections with only male members eligible for election.

The reason for the advancement non-requirement is that,as I remember matters, there was only one advancement alternative at that time for Explorers -- Eagle Scout for male members. There was no advancement to First Class as an Explorer.

I believe that also there was very serious consideration of youth female members of the OA at the 1973 National Conclave, where it got about 30% positive vote. I don't believe that the proposal has ever gotten that close subsequently.

Hello Laura,

There very definitely is a National plan. However, National things are done by volunteers too. Sometimes, things don't get done on time. Sometimes, the requirements recommended by the task force are not approved by the oversight committee and need to be reworked. And then, there is a schedule for printing of the advancement books.

I think there is a very simple solution although I know this will incur the wrath of a number of posters on this forum. In the words of my old Wood Badge Course Director "Don't overwork the problem." If the boys cannot conveniently get the materials needed to use the new requirements, use the old ones. Presumably those are good requirements too and even if there is a major revision, working the old requirements will contribute to the citizenship, character and fitness of youth.

Life is too short. You and the Scouts should be worried about Scouting and about having fun. You shouldn't worry about haunting the National web site or the Scout Shop to ensure that you have the new requirements the moment that they come out unless it is a very major revision as the last revision to the Eagle requirements was. In that case, there commonly is a drop dead date established and the last time, almost a year overlap was allowed.

Among other things, typically, a Scout Shop will sell out of their old requirements books before they start to sell the new ones. Would you (or any other forum member) fail to accept the merit badge of a Scout who bought a requirements book in good faith from the Scout shop and worked those requirements. Particularly if he was the last one to buy that book and as he walked out of the shop, they cracked open the box of new requirements books.

Hello Eamonn,

Tickets are a pain. Tickets were a pain when I first was on staff in 1971. They have been a pain ever since. They don't HAVE to be a pain and I would never suggest that someone not go to WB because of the ticket. They aren't THAT much of a pain.

But they are a pain because they require that we look at our job in Scouting and decide and plan what we will do.

My guidance to people I counsel and on the 21st Century courses I have done is to do the following:

Vision -- Think about your job in Scouting. What is your job? What would be a really good job. Not a perfect job, nor a super job, but for you, a really good job. That's your vision. Think about some of the elements of what would make a really good job.

Now think of five specific actions or groups of actions and things that you can do which will contribute toward your doing that really good job. One of these actions or groups of actions must have something to do with diversity. One of them can be a personal 360 degree assessment if you wish.

That is what makes up your ticket. Note that these five items don't need to add up, in total, to all of what would be a really good job. Rather, the five items need to be significant contributions to your really good job.

Your ticket, as I see it, is not supposed to be asking you to do a new job or more than your hour a week But it is saying that you need to identify what a good job is (you're not just doing what you did last week or trying to keep your head above water). Then you need to identify how to use the time that you spend in that hour per week to make that really good job happen.

Not saying that this is any kind of official interpretation of a ticket nor that there aren't plenty of other interpretations, but this is mine. And it shouldn't cause trouble for any potential participant.

Hello CampfireFairy,

I apologize for the use of an acronym. G2SS stands for the "Guide to Safe Scouting" which is a publication that outlines, in detail, the procedures, leadership, etc. that must be used by and that is recommended for Scout leaders. You can view it or download it from the BSA national web site www.scouting.org.

As far as the practical significance of capitalization and non-capitalization, in my opinion, there is none other than that it is the way that the BSA writes such things. Among other things, I suspect it enables them to protect their rights to use the words Scout exclusively for youth programs.

In the case above, I only mentioned it as an example of what I believe BSA national publications does do as it reviews publications. The matter really has nothing to do with registered and unregistered leaders.

Campfire Fairy, as usual, you write and discuss well. However, the BSA in considering its policies has to consider at least 3 factors:

1) Facts

2) Perceptions

3) Legalities and liabilities

The facts may be that the person or situation may be completely comfortable. However, the BSA has made the judgement that it creates an unacceptable perception to have a coed activity without mixed gender leadership. Particularly in some parts of the country, this would be considered Sodom. That is contrary to the values which the BSA wishes to espouse even facts in a particular circumstance to the contrary.

Sadly, in an organization like the BSA which has 5 million members, Murphy's Law rules in considering the many, many ways that activities can be run and can have problems. The BSA cannot count on the good judgement on leaders, so it has to err on the very safe side of policies and procedures. Just as one goofy example, remember the report this summer of the polygamist who had started a Boy Scout Troop for the sons of his several wives.

Legally, the situation is even more draconian. Can you imagine some kind of problem occurring on a coed Venturing activity and having the plaintiff's attorney say "And you didn't even have a female leader present! What kind of sex ring were you running?? We need to send a message to these people that this is unacceptable in our community!!" It doesn't take many multi-million dollar judgements to impact severely the program for all. So the BSA is extremely cautious and would rather have events cancelled than risk negative perception or an untenable liability position.

Bob, not to split hairs with a microtome, but you are both correct and a bit incorrect about the review of literature by National Publications as I understand matters. There is a review, but it is for form and style, not for content. As an example, Scout and Scouting and Scoutmaster are always capitalized in official BSA literature and there is an official BSA style guide. You will see the term "assistant Scoutmaster" with the "a" small and the "S" capitalized. That is the official style and the review is for consistency in that vein.

During this review, if there is some inconsistency or error in content, it might be caught by the reviewer but that is neither their responsibility nor their expertise. It is presumed that the material from the appropriate division is what they want said.

NJCubScouter makes very good points. I would only comment that there is no one "in command" of BSA publications at a level below Roy Williams, the Chief Scout Executive. Each BSA division publishes its own material. They try to coordinate with other divisions but sometimes things fall through the cracks, particularly when one publication is put to bed and ready to go out and another division changes something which is referred to in the publication. Or else, the publication is on a 3 year review cycle (or longer) and something changes during that cycle.

I completely agree with BobWhite that is is a good idea and probably the best idea for leaders on units to be registered and go through the procedure required to be registered. The duscussion is whether it is mandated or whether that is up to the judgement of the leaders involved.

Example:

It is mandated to have two deep leadership. If, at the last minute, one leader cancels and you have only one adult, you cancel the trip. No judgement required or permitted.

Now, let's say that at the last minute, the registered female Venturing leader cancels but an unregistered female also plans to come along as a "leader." Do you cancel the trip? Judgement is permitted here in my opinion.

The words in G2SS are written by lawyers and by very sophisticated laymen. Among other things, I believe it is presumed that they may be used in evidence in court cases. So it is appropriate to scrutinize them very carefully.

Don't we have fun!

Yes, Bob, I agree that for a coed Venturing activity, there need to be both a male and female adult leader present. I hope that I never implied that I thought anything else.

NJCubScouter. To me, your alternative 2 appears to be clear, logical and satisfies the requirement. The sentence from G2SS clearly states that there need to be two adult leaders and one needs to be registered. That pretty clearly means that the other one does not need to be registered.

I'm not sure where the implication is that "leader" means "registered leader." I don't see that at all. As I wrote earlier, if the BSA wants to say "registered leader" they know how to say it. I believe that, in this case, the G2SS is specifically stating that you can have a non registered adult who serves as a "leader" on a coed event.

However, you do raise a good point. The many elements of BSA literature are written by different human beings. Contradictions and inconsistencies do exist although I don't believe that this is one.

The BSA knows how to write the words "registered leaders." If that is what they mean to say, that is what they say. "Leaders" is not a synonym for "registered Leaders."

The specific paragraph out of the Guide to Safe Scouting which I just copied is the following:

"# Coed overnight activities require male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA."

Note please that the paragraph is extremely clear that ONE of the leaders must be registered.