neil_b

I did not notice that, sbemis1. Evidently, boys can also now learn knife, axe and saw without being on a camp out at the time.

The frequent changes can be annoying. I sometimes wish we could go back to the 1911 Handbook and/or B-P's Scouting for Boys.

Unlike most other activities, Scouting is a year-round commitment that lasts for years.

If a boy plays football, he is very committed in the latter part of summer through fall, but come winter the season ends and he can do something else. However, because he misses some troop meetings during football season, some Scoutmasters want to label the kid a "sloth". Sorry, but that's just not a fair attribution.

It sounds like some people would want to create a "select" Scouting troop kind of like the select sports teams that demand 100% of a kid's attention and charge tons of money to go to tournaments in faraway cities. "Sorry, we only admit the most committed Scouts who are willing to pay for all the camping up front and won't miss any meetings. We take our Scouting seriously. If you want to be in a 'recreational' troop, there's a fine one down the street, but you will miss out on the advanced Scout skills we teach here." My kids would be with the recreational troop down the street.

I have an old 1970 Scoutmaster Handbook which lists requirements for ranks. I thought it was very interesting that for First Class the Scout was required to go on a backpacking trip where they would pack in at least 1 1/2 miles carrying all the equipment and food they needed, tent camp over night, and then pack back out at least another 1 1/2 miles.

Evidently, in 1972 the program was revised drastically to make it possible for urban kids to advance without doing any camping at all. As some would say, they took the "outing" out of "scouting". Years later Green Bar Bill came out of retirement to re-write the handbook again and there was a return to a program more similar to pre-1972. However, today's first class requirements still lack the backpacking requirement.

When I crossed over with my son into a troop several years go I was surprised to learn that they seldom went hiking and nobody could recall the last time they'd been backpacking. The new parents wanted to know why that was and were told "we're more of a car camping troop." Evidently with the rank requirement for backpacking removed, there's little incentive to do something that takes more planning and is a lot more physical.

As a side note, we had some people in our troop working on the hiking merit badge a few years ago, and they went on some "urban hikes" where they covered the distance required but weren't in the wilderness. Personally, I don't consider walking around in the city to be the same as "hiking". When people walk around the neighborhood they don't say they are "hiking", they say they are going for a walk. Maybe that's just me.

Anyway, does anybody out there think it would be good to put backpacking back into the first class rank requirements? Anybody think it would be a terrible idea? Anybody remember when it was a requirement?

Dictionary says double jeopardy is, "the subjecting of a person to a second trial or punishment for the same offense for which the person has already been tried or punished."

Don't like arguing about semantics.

Not giving an award because you are seeking retribution is punishment. Otherwise I agree.

qwazse - "Returning to the OP's question. Here's another 'stamp stopper': When I cover the scout slogan, if I ask a boy 'so what was your good turn for today?' and he comes up with nothing. That's a definite 'see ya next week.'"

I like this, qwazse, and totally agree. I want to draw a distinction here between "see ya next week" vs. "let's give it another six months and see if your Scout Spirt improves".

Our troop has a BoR once a month, so delaying a Scoutmaster Conference by a week might or might not actually delay the advancement. Either it will delay it a month (which isn't that long unless the boy is about to turn 18) or not at all depending on the timing.

Neil

qwazse,

Jesus was always getting accused of breaking rules like working on the Sabbath or eating with gentiles. I guess if he was a scout he might get his advancement denied for not being reverent enough.

Not saying you shouldn't tell a boy that breaking the 3rd Commandement in your presence is offensive to you, and they are supposed to be sensitive to other people's beliefs. I just am not sure it is grounds for holding back their advancement.

Neil

Beav,

I didn't say it would be a double jeopardy for the troop to punish a boy for getting into trouble with the law, only meant if the troop punishes him twice.

And, no, I don't think delaying advancement for Scout Spirit is always punishment, but it certainly can be used as punishment.

In the case of the vandelizing Scout, I believe it is punishment, because it appears they are seeking retribution for this one act and wanting to penalize the boy. The other things like his taking off his uniform shirt quickly are minor things which would have been overlooked if not for the vandelism.

qwazse,

The BSA definition of reverent is: "A Scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion."

There is no mention of not taking God's name in vain. The bit about taking God's name in vain is the 3rd Commandment from the Bible and therefore belongs to a particular set of religions. Scouting is non-sectarian, and that is why they don't get very specific about what it means to be reverent.

If the boy feels he is doing his best to satisfy his personal religious obligations and demonstrates that in tangible ways (like attending church) it is not for you to impose your personal religious beliefs on him as a Scouter.

Basement,

It had better be something serious.

Holding up a 17 year old's advancement who is trying to go for Eagle is big deal. At that point you might as well have kicked him out of the troop.

On the other hand, the younger boys may be very sensitive. Holding up a boy's advancement if handled poorly may really upset him and he may quit in shame and frustration.

So, never take it lightly. I think if what you're wanting is to punish a boy there are better ways.

First of all, make sure you really know the facts. Not knowing all the facts about this vandalizing incident, I am not quick to pass judgement. I have heard of people pressing charges for somebody writing on their car window with a washable marker even though there was no permanent damange to the vehicle.

Personally, I would not hold back a boy's advancement because of a harmless prank that somebody got upset over (if that is the case). Also, the fact (from the previous thread) that the dad of the boy who was offended is active in the troop should not be an issue.

Nor would I hold up advancement over a boy not liking to wear his uniform shirt or whether I personally like him or not. I have heard (probably on these forums) of a boy being held back because his hair was too long. Give me a break. Everybody has their pet peeves, but they should not enter into it.

I feel that punishments should be handed out when the incident occurs, not months after the fact in a BoR. If he's already been punished, punishing him again is double jeopardy.

If you feel the need to kick him out, then get it over with and maybe he can find another troop and maybe rehabilitate and finish Eagle someplace else.

Don't keep him in the troop if you feel you could never sign off on his advancement. That is just stringing him along.

I agree with others that "unit leader" means Scoutmaster, not CC.

I don't think a boy not liking the uniform is an issue. Evidently he wears it when he is required to, and if he takes it off at the first opportunity that's his business.

The vandalism is upsetting, but if it wasn't sufficient to kick him out of the troop why are you bringing it up now? You say you "goofed up", well two wrongs don't make a right. It would not be fair to approve his project and let him stay in the troop only to hold this past stuff against him right at the end.

BTW, how can you be both COR and CC? Makes no sense to me. Seems like you should resign one or the other regardless of this boy and what you do with him.

I like the sunrise story. I heard a similar story about a boy who had a kind of religious experience when hiking on a mountain side.

On the other hand, there is no way to know the boy will ever change his mind. I have a cousin whose parents are very religious but he ended up being an outspoken atheist. I don't know why exactly. Maybe other influences in his life including the music he listened to, drinking and drugs, role playing games, or maybe rebellion because his parents were so religious. Maybe none of the above. Atheism has become very socially acceptable. Christians are often portrayed as narrow minded. As somebody else said, bad reactions to a particular church or pastor can cause people to be turned off to religion.

Anyway, I bet that my cousin's parents would have appreciated a heads-up if he had made such statements as a kid.

If you don't do anything now and just hope that he changes his mind it could be more painful down the road. Maybe he gets all the way to applying for Eagle and gets turned down. Then you will have a lot of explaining to do as to why you did nothing sooner.

If you have new scout patrols, it doesn't make sense to say that a PL has to have previously been an APL.

Unfortunately, the adults can sometimes over-think these things. Setting the bar for SPL too high can backfire as it did once in our troop when the only boy who met all the adult-imposed requirements didn't really want the job. He got talked into it, and he did a terrible job and didn't get along with the Scoutmaster.

Regarding the job of the SPL, Stosh has some good points.

However, according to the literature, the SPL is supposed to run all the troop meetings, events, activities, PLC's, and annual planning meeting.

I guess that begs the question, what is meant by the word "run"?

One former Scoutmaster told me that he would meet with the SPL and PL's before each troop meeting to rehearse and "make them look good".

Most of the time when I've seen boys (even older boys) who appear to be running things in the the troop or in the OA, they have been very well coached by an adult adviser (the SM at the troop level).

So, are they really running things? Why not? Even the President does not typically stick his neck out in public without having a speech written by his speech writers and having been coached by his advisers and staff.

Of course, the Pres is a politician, which fits in with Stosh's idea of the SPL being a political leader.

However, don't pretend that the SPL is doing things that he is not. Be honest with everybody how it works.

Baden-Powell's original program did not have an SPL, so how important is it really? How far do you take boy-led? Who planned the first boy scout camp at Brownsea Island? Baden-Powell did, of course, not the boys. I think the patrol method is more important than the troop-level boy leadership. It's the one thing all Scouts around the world have in common.

I know I know this is getting off-topic a bit, but as Stosh pointed out before you decide what the requirements are for SPL you do need to have an idea what you expect from the SPL.

If the SPL is a political leader who is going to be heavily coached by the Scoutmaster, I think even a younger boy could do that, and the need for NYLT also seems to be somewhat lessened.

I would say that such a boy cannot join as a Tiger Cub but could as a Wolf. However, the parent should be told the Scouters will not be responsible for the boy's transportation to den and pack meetings. It is a slippery slope.

Well, I have read that the SPL should be at least 1st class, and our troop has a requirement that preference is given to boys that are NYLT trained. We also at one time had an age requirement which got us into trouble, because we have a small troop and haven't always had very many older boys in the troop.

I have an older edition of the Scoutmaster Handbook mostly written by Green Bar Bill (his picture is all over scouter.com). He says the SPL is somewhat paradoxically both elected and appointed. If you don't have access Bill Hillcourt's writings, I strongly suggest you buy a copy of a the Scoutmaster Handbook from sometime between 1930 and 1970. Check ebay. But that's another topic.

Anyway, yeah, we give them an opportunity to talk about why they think they would make a good SPL. Then the election would be by ballot. It doesn't have to be that way, of course. If you really want it to be boy-led you could have the boys make motions and vote on how to do it.

Just wanted to add in a few years hopefully your boy will be crossing over into a troop, so if you change packs join one that has a good troop. That way your boy can stay with the same group when they move up. Find out how many older boys the troop has. If the oldest active boy is 14 you probably have a troop that has problems and people drop out quickly. If there are several active boys of high school age it is a good sign the troop is doing something right or they wouldn't still be hanging around.

"...'boy-led' used as an excuse to be 'do-nothing' leaders..."

Just curious. How do you know it was just an excuse?

Seattle is absolutely right. It's one thing to let an ASM have a vote in committee when he's not supposed to. It's quite another to put somebody down as Scoutmaster on the form that has to be turned in to national. When they go to type it into the computer it will surely get flagged that the person is not 21. Then the only way to get around that is to put a different name on the form, and that is just dishonest.

I don't think anybody has mentioned legal ramifications here. If somehow it were possible that somebody became Scoutmaster who did not meet the BSA's qualificatons, and a disaster happens on a camp out, will the BSA insurance pay? Will parents start filing lawsuits against the chartered organization for putting somebody in charge of their boys who didn't meet the most basic qualifications? I'm sure then the BSA would pull the troop's charter and wash their hands of it.

The BSA web site says one of the Committee Chair's jobs is "Assigning duties to committee members." It doesn't say the CC has to announce all open positions in advance and interview all interested parties or that he has to inform the COR every time he assigns duties.

You have to choose your battles. If you complain about things that are not real problems or minor issues he will be less likely to listen to you about the big issues.

I think the really big issue is that he is bossy, condescending, and not willing to listen to ideas, etc. I can sympathize, because we had problems with that in our troop in the past. What all these things boil down to is somebody who is selfish and self-centered.

Unfortunately, he has probably been this way most of his life, so it is going to be impossible for you to make him change.

So, as unpleasant as it may sound I would say if somebody else is willing to do the job the other leaders should ask him to step down or ask the COR to assign a new Committee Chair. Clearly being CC and Webelos den leader is too much for one person anyway.

But before you do that you have to make sure these other adults will back you up so it's not you against the CC. If you go about it wrong it could go badly for you.

I like Stosh's idea.

I just had to order some special patrol patches off the internet. Fortunately, patchtown.com had what I was looking for in their stock selection. They have a much larger selection than the BSA supply division.

Sorry. You said "go badly". I don't know where I got the word "disaster" from. Didn't mean to mis-quote you.

I would re-phrase, who are you afraid it will go badly for?

I am not trying to be smart. Just saying if it goes badly that is still opportunity for learning, so don't stress.

Disaster for who? For you? For the adults?

If you want everything to go smoothly you are in the wrong organization. A big part of Boy Scouts is to let the youth learn from their own mistakes.