NJCubScouter

You'll get no dispute from me on that Bob, though I have not actually seen the online YP course. I'm just reporting what my council does.

I realize I'm coming into this thread a little late, but since online Youth Protection training was mentioned, I just wanted to say that even if your council offers YP online, taking the course will not necessarily result in being considered YP trained. In my council, if you have not taken YP before, you must take it at an in-person course with a certified YP facilitator. (It does not necessarily have to be a regularly scheduled course; anyone who has completed the YP facilitator training, which is offered at least once a year at the University of Scouting, may run a course by following the prescribed procedures. A facilitator must actually run a course at least once a year to remain certified, which is why my facilitator certification has lapsed.) Anyway, once you have been YP trained, you may RENEW your certification (required every 3 years) by doing the training online. That is the way it is in my council, I do not know about any others.

Did you work for Kerry? Nah. I have dabbled in active partisan politics at times, but I tend to stay low-key these days since I hold a non-partisan elected office. My youngest brother did work for Kerry. You know, Rooster, I've noticed you live in a "blue state," and one of the bluest of blue states in fact. For all the terrible things you say about "liberals," you have ended up living in a state dominated by them. Even the Republican elected officials in Maryland have been pretty liberal. I won't ask why you live there, because it's none of my business, but I just find it kind of ironic. As for my "comic book" remark, I said it because it's true. Everything with you is oversimplified, bad liberals vs. good conservatives, "supported" by Bible passages that could just as easily support an opposing argument. It's not real life. And by the way, I noticed in the third debate when President Bush was asked whether homosexuality is a choice, right between him saying he doesn't know (an honest answer) and opposing gay marriage (a position with which Kerry agreed), he said something about gay rights that sounded pretty liberal to me. Nothing about perverts or the wrath of God. You should be worried, Rooster, the president may turn out to be a uniter, not a divider, after all.

Rooster's posts are a good example of why it's a good thing we did not have this discussion before the election. Before the election I probably would have felt compelled to respond to his comic-book version of politics in this country. Now I don't. Except maybe for this: Try trusting your President, his administration, the intelligence community, the US military, and those empowered to represent these United States. Really, Rooster, do you say that when Democrats are in office, or only Republicans?

I find it amusing that nobody wanted to debate the issues, or the campaign in general, BEFORE the election, but people want to debate it now. (To be fair, Rooster did take a couple of jabs at John Kerry in the past month or so, but apparently nobody (including me) felt like taking him up on it.) The election's over, and I for one don't feel much like debating the issues now, after the horse has left the barn, or the elephant has left whereever it is that you'd keep an elephant. I have no problem with OGE's desire to open a discussion of "lessons learned," which is a legitimate subject for after the election. However, I am not surprised to see what it has devolved into. I think it's a bit soon for most people to step back and look at "what it all means." Most people, especially some who frequent "Issues and Politics," are going to see it in terms of the other side side won (or lost) because they are liars, cheats, thieves and scoundrels, with Rooster adding in that the moral people won out over the immoral people. It's predictable, but it doesn't seem inviting as a discussion topic at the moment. To underline the point that it is a bit soon to step back, yesterday I received an e-mail from a relative of mine who doesn't think Kerry should have conceded and thinks the results in Ohio should be challenged. This is just to say that I am seeing a range of viewpoints on how ready we all are to learn our lessons from this election. (Now that I think about it, the person who sent me this e-mail is an Eagle Scout.) I do agree with Bob, and Rooster, that there doesn't seem to be much room in this country for "can't we all just get along." We can't, unfortunately. Look at the map. The last time it looked that way, we had a Civil War. Listen to the rhetoric from this election, not just from the candidates but especially from some of their supporters and "independent" groups. (I suspect that my view of who is mostly responsible for the divisiveness differs somewhat from that of Bob, Rooster, eisely and others, but I'm trying to make an objective point here.) On a smaller level, look at the "level" of discussion in this forum sometimes. "Getting along" in politics is a thing of the past, and where that can ultimately lead, I hope we never find out.

Bob says: It may often appear that council and district boundaries follow county lines but in fact they usually follow school district borders. Since school districts, for government funding purposes, and tax purposes, are usually encapsulated into a single county it makes the scout maps at first glance appear to be divided that way. I often forget that in many states, school districts are county-wide. It's easy to forget in New Jersey, where every municipality (some of which are very small) has its own school district, unless it has chosen to regionalize with other districts. Even with regionalization, we have something like 550 school districts, in 21 counties. In fact, regionalization can create even more districts, because there are a number of high-school-only districts, usually with one high school, while each municipality in the district still has its own district that operates the schools for K-8. We even have some districts that have no schools at all, and when the governor recently proposed abolishing these districts, there was an outcry. By amazing coincidence, our school property taxes are also among the highest in the nation, if not the highest. (That was sarcasm there, about the amazing coincidence.) So in NJ, school district boundaries don't help in setting district or council lines. The council lines do mostly follow county lines, though exceptions exist. The district lines don't seem to necessarily follow county lines at all, and I guess now that I have read Bob's post, I understand why. There is no need to follow county lines when the county might have 30 school districts within it. None of which helps Cajuncody, I guess. In fact we don't even know whether the schools in question in her post are in a different district, so maybe she doesn't have a problem. (I just realized that in another thread I may have called Cajuncody a "he," if so, sorry about that.)

I realize this thread was starting to fade down the list, but I did want to comment on one thing, and it was the issue that Uncleguinea focused on: The problem of disappointing a youth (and his parents) because he/they had the expectation of being able to join, and now he cannot. Among other things, Uncleguinea said: "The dilema is this . . . who has to tell the kid he has to wait a year?" That may be the real problem in this particular case. The mother told her son he could join, or confirmed the statements of others than he could join, and now she does not want to disappoint her son by telling him otherwise. Unfortunately, that is what she has to do. Instead she is in the process of setting fire to the pack in other to avoid having to carry out this responsibility. At least, that is how I view it. I recently witnessed a very similar situation in my son's troop. One of our (relatively new) ASM's, the parent of one of the boys in the troop, arranged for his grandson to visit a troop meeting and join the troop. (Yes, this man has a son and a grandson within a few years of age of each other, though not few enough as it turned out.) Evidently the boy's grandparents and parents told him he was joining the troop. The ASM had first spoken to the SM about it, and the subject of the boy's age and grade in school was discussed, but apparently Grandpa was either mistaken or the information was misunderstood. So here is the boy at the troop meeting, and the SM has his required conference as stated in the joining requirements, and the SM asks me to sit in. To make a long story short, it turns out the boy is 9 years old and in the fourth grade -- perfect age and grade for a first-year Webelos, not a Boy Scout. When this becomes clear the SM starts panicking a little and starts saying things like, well, you should be registered in the Cub Scout pack, but maybe you can come to troop meetings and go on camping trips. At this point I give the SM a look, and say, "we need to talk." Obviously I did not want say anything more than that in front of the boy, who at this point is looking increasingly disappointed. (At this point whichever adult had brought him to the meeting, I think his grandmother, was gone and had not returned.) When the SM and I were alone, he knew what I was going to say, and had no choice but to agree, though he was somewhat embarrassed and a bit defensive about the fact that he had dug a somewhat deeper hole than already existed when the conference started. But he got over it -- the important thing is that when the grandmother returned she was told the boy needs to be enrolled in the Cub Scout pack and that he can join the troop when he meets the requirements. Fortunately, in this case all the adults involved are acting like adults.

Well, originally I was going to say that doing it as just a den trip is preferable, but "counting" the field trip would be acceptable. Fotoscout has convinced me otherwise. Too many aspects of the "Tiger experience" -- the reason for doing the trip -- would be lost if you "count" a trip done as part of a larger group. I think the most compelling factor is that on a class field trip, either none or some (but presumably not all) of the boys' "adult partners" would be present. At the Tiger level, it is supposed to be a shared experience between the adult and boy, so that among other things, they can have a meaningful discussion of their experiences later. My own experience as a parent suggests that when you ask a first-grader what he or she did on the field trip today, the response may not be particularly enlightening, and it's difficult to ask follow-up questions since you weren't there. In Tigers, you are there and can have a real conversation about it later on. It's not the end of the world if a boy visits a fire station in November and another one in January, though the "boredom level" is likely to be higher the second time. Since as you say the go-see-it is to either a police or fire station, maybe try to go to a police station in January instead?

Cajuncody, there may not be a map but there may be a council newsletter or something like that online. My council's newsletter always has a page for each district, and each of those pages has a box that says "(Whatever) District, serving the communities of..." Your council's web site may or may not have something similar. As has already been suggested in this thread, district boundaries often do not follow county lines. Up until a year or so ago, almost all of my county was in one district (the exception being one town that is in another council), and there were a few towns in other counties in the same district. Then they split the district up and added the pieces to other districts with towns from other counties. Even if the schools in question are in another district, I am not sure there is any rule against recruiting boys who live in another district. Or even another council, though I suspect that if there were organized recruiting efforts going on across council boundaries, there might be some intervention from the council level. "Recruiting" aside, I'm pretty sure there is no rule against having a member who lives in another district, or even another council. At least one boy in my son's troop lives in another council. He was not "recruited" in the usual sense; there was some problem with the troop he was in in his home town (I think it may have collapsed), he and his father (now one of our ASM's) were aware of our troop because he has relatives in the troop (our CC = his uncle and our former SPL = his cousin), so he decided to join us. They drive quite a distance to be in our troop but this is where he wants to be. But as I said, that instance of council-jumping did not result from any organized process.

The red states are not ready for a majority of the Democrats social agenda and that has to be tempered. OGE, I have a couple of questions: 1. What do you think the "Democrats social agenda" is, that the "red states" are not ready for? 2. Do you really think the result of this election was determined by whether people agreed with the candidates' "social agenda"? As opposed to say, peoples' perceptions of things such as which candidate would "stronger" in dealing with the "war on terrorism," and whether the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terrorism?" Or as opposed to people's perceptions of the candidates' personalities, or whether people liked the candidates' wives, or things like that? From where I sit, either of those factors played a larger role in this election than social issues, and regardless of which issue you look at, perception (as filtered through the "media," including talk radio and "pundits") played a bigger role than reality. But I do agree with you in the sense that the Republican's methods of persuasion proved to be more successful. What that says about any particular issue, I don't know.

Den3702, thank you for clarifying that the roster on which the girl's name appears is a unit-level document and not the official charter roster from council. I think a number of people here were a bit surprised and concerned at the idea that the council had actually accepted the girl's registration. I was wondering whether the girl's first name was "Terry" or "Pat" (shades of Saturday Night Live) or something else that would not call attention to itself when the council registrar looked at it. I think this situation also points out the extent to which councils have to rely on the unit-level volunteers to do their jobs. How does the council registrar really know that "Terry" or "Pat" or any other name is a boy? They really don't. They are relying on the Cubmaster not to sign an application for membership for someone who is not eligible. (The same also applies to age eligibility, but with age the parent has to affirmatively write the child's birth date, and this provides information that the council registrar (or his/her computer) can use to independently check the child's eligibility. Of course people can lie on the application form, but that's a different subject.)

Several words come to mind here: Psychopath, stalker, restraining order... Even before I got down to all the terrible details of the destruction this woman has wrought upon your pack, it occurred to me that something is backwards here: This is a mother who intentionally held her child back in school by having him repeat kindergarten -- a rare decision that I will assume is in the best interests of this particular child. Some children are not ready for kindergarten even when the calendar says so, especially if their birthday is right before the cutoff date. But then, having held her child back in SCHOOL, she becomes concerned with not having him also held back in CUB SCOUTS? And not just concerned, obsessed, to the point where she has turned the pack upside down, made a lot of peoples' lives miserable, and apparently helped several people at council ruin their own future credibility. It doesn't make any sense. Even if she "wins," what has she gained for her son? Maybe we are all destined to know one parent who is willing and able to destroy the entire world around them due to a perceived slight to their child, either real or imagined. I have known one, fortunately she was not connected with a Scouting unit, but she did a large amount of damage to the local school system and came very close to destroying another worthy local organization that I was involved in. Not counting actual criminals, this type of person is the scariest on Earth.

Grumpy says: I would have to believe the DE was there because the CM knew this volatile issue was to be raised. If your speculation is correct, the CM's plan seems to have backfired, because this DE seems to be the one professional Scouter in the country who does not know girls aren't allowed in Cub Scouting. My personal speculation is that whoever told Den3702 that this person was the DE was incorrect. I have spoken with a couple of DE's who seemed somewhat shaky on the details of the Scouting program (and now that I think about it, Cub Scouts in particular), but a DE having to check on whether girls can be Cub Scouts does not seem possible. What does seem possible is unit-level Scouters not understanding the structure and personnel at the district and council level, and I don't mean that as a negative. My guess is that if I asked all the leaders I have served with in the pack and troop what a "DE" was, or any other basic question about the structure or staffing above the unit level, at least half wouldn't know, and most of those who would know are either THE unit leader or the CC. It seems like I have always known, but that's because when I was an older Scout, my father (the SM) would take me with him when he went to the Council service center, and he would introduce me to people and tell me what their jobs were; and after I turned 18 I would tag along with him to roundtables. Most unit Scouters haven't had that kind of background. Den3702, you ended your first post with the question of whether people feel girls should be allowed to join Cub Scouts. This issue has been discussed a few times on the "Issues and Politics" part of this forum and it belongs there because it can be a controversial issue. From past discussions, there are some people who believe Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts should not be gender-restricted, but most disagree. (Including me, but maybe not for the same reasons as most others.) However, the question raised by the discussion at your committee meeting is not really whether girls SHOULD be allowed to join, but whether they ARE allowed to join. The people at your committee meeting seemed to think this was an open issue and that your pack can make this decision. It is not an open issue and your pack cannot decide to admit girls.

SW, that whole article (actually 3 different sections linked together) is very interesting, at least to someone who was in Scouting long ago (1960s and 70s in my case), then was out for awhile and back in for just the past few years. I remember a lot of those changes being made and it is interesting to see when some of them were un-done.

ProudEagle, it is understandable that you would be troubled by what happened in the committee meeting you describe, but try to look at it in a more positive light. You have accomplished something that I'd consider pretty remarkable for anyone, but especially for someone of your age. You walked into a room full of people who did not understand an important aspect of the Scouting program (how the SPL is to be selected), and one that relates to and impacts on other aspects of the Scouting program (youth leadership, citizenship, patrol method and others.) Now, solely as a result of your efforts, about half of them do understand. Maybe the CC did not understand, but remember this happened last night. Most people, especially those of us who are twice your age or more, do not change their minds on the spot, or even in a day or a week, most of the time. Give him time to think about it. Maybe you should call him (and/or suggest getting together in person) and tell him how you want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between you, you want to work with him for the benefit of the boys, and point out to him the benefits of going "by the book." It sounds like this latter point may not have been received very well last night, but maybe you can correct that. (I realize that might be a difficult call to make, but I think you already did something more difficult last night.) Maybe it has been awhile since the CC has opened any of the handbooks, and maybe he never has read any of the SM handbook. Perhaps now he will be motivated to do so. Or perhaps he will decide that doing things by the book isn't his style, and give up the job to one of the other parents who you were able to persuade last night. Either way, the boys win. Even if not, and even if you are indeed in "poor standing" and remain there, you have done the best you could. You have provided leadership, and now the others have to decide whether they will follow. Either things will get better or they won't, but if they do, it will be in large part because of what you are doing. That seems like quite an achievement, regardless of the end result.

SW, this is from http://www.troop97.net/bsahist1.htm#bsdiv Age Range. The upper age limit for Boy Scout troops has always been 18. For almost 40 years, the entry age was 12. The BSA lowered the entry age to 11 in 1949. In 1972, the entry age was slightly lowered again, to 10-1/2 if a boy had finished Fifth Grade. In 1988, the age limit was further adjusted to allow a boy to join either at age 11, or upon completion of Fifth Grade regardless of age, or upon earning the Webelos Arrow of Light award; in 2004, this requirement was clarified to set the minimum age at 10.

KS, I think those are great ideas, and I suspect that somewhere in the BSA, all or most of them are seen as "goals" for the future. I think at least two things may be delaying that day, one being security. Firewalls and all of the other security measures are great, but they are not foolproof. Every month seems to bring another example in the news. Security has gotten better and better (with some hiccups along the way like the original release of Windows XP), but I am not sure it is "there" yet, to the point where everybody is going to feel "safe" with the level of access and connectedness you are talking about. Second, there are still a lot of adult volunteers who are not "online" or who have e-mail access at home but never use it or check it. My son's Scoutmaster has an e-mail address but won't give it out, and says he never checks it anyway. Our camping/activities coordinator is not online at home at all; it is not a money issue, they have a computer, but the impression I get is that they view the "bad side" of the Internet as outweighing the benefits. Rather than take steps as most families do to protect their children and themselves from that aspect of the Internet, they simply don't let it in the door. I can respect that choice, but it doesn't advance the day when all Scouters can communicate by computer. (You mention tour permits and, ironically, this particular person is the one in the troop who does all of the tour permits, so I don't think our troop will be fully joining the technological age anytime soon.) But I hope what you propose does come to pass before too long.

Oh Barry, one more thing. You mention Tiger-age boys not being able to read. I realize part of this may be in how you define being able to read. But in my area, almost all boys in first grade are at least beginning readers -- they aren't reading War and Peace, but they "can read" as I would define it. My school district has a special program for those children who, by the beginning of first grade, still cannot read. It is an intensive program to get them to be readers as quickly as possible. It is separate and more intensive than what (in my day) was called "remedial reading" (now called "literacy support.") But the idea is that by that age level, children should be able to read. That aside, I think the BSA has addressed the issue of limited reading ability among first graders. When I first saw the "new" Tiger handbook (now 2 or 3 years ago) I noticed something interesting. It is the only handbook in the "Scouting family" that seems to be designed primarily to be read TO the boy, not BY the boy. In other words, the Bear book is written at roughly a third-grade reading level and the Wolf book is written at roughly a second-grade reading level, but the Tiger book is written at an adult level. (Actually it is written at what I would call a "basic adult" level, meaning a high school reading level.) I picked up on this when I did "Tiger parent orientation" that year; I told the parents that when they get the book, they need to be reading it "with" their son, and not just giving it to their son to read, even if the boy is a good reader. I don't think that's an accident either, everything about the Tiger program is designed to be done by the parent (or other adult partner) and boy together.

Barry, I went back and found my old post on this, it turned out to be from November of 2002 in a thread on the Cub Scout forum entitled "Program Below Tigers." It is still there, though you have to scroll down to January of 2003 (the date of the last post) to find it. Here is what I said then, and what I still think: I personally do NOT think Cubs should start in kindergarten. I think many of the boys in Tigers now are really too young to get a lot out of the program, at least in the fall of first grade. I do see the benefit in starting them a bit before they are really ready, so that when they ARE ready, they are already signed up and don't have to decide whether to join. They are already there. But that's for Tigers -- in my school district those are boys who are between 5 years 11 months and 6 years 11 months old when they get started in September. Roll that back a year -- as early as 4 years 11 months old! -- and I really don't think more than a few of them would be anywhere close to ready. It's really too soon, in my opinion. Also, there is the burnout factor. Right now boys are in Tigers-Cubs-Webelos for a bit more than 4.5 years before they cross over, and that is enough time for a lot of kids to decide they have had enough. Do we really want to increase that to 5.5 years? As for Daisies, I don't know if that provides any support for Cubs starting younger. One of my daughters was a Daisy, and this is 10 years ago now so I don't remember it with precise clarity, but I do seem to recall wondering at the time what she was really getting out of it. On the other hand, the average 5-year-old girl is better at sitting down for a meeting than the average 5-year-old boy, and specifically is more interested in the artsy-craftsy stuff, so I don't know how valid the comparison is. It seems to me that I also wrote a post at one point about seeing several of the Tigers over the years "staring blankly" and really not seeming to understand what was going on. That would usually improve as the school year went on and they got to know their den-mates better (though sometimes the result of that was more horseplay than participating correctly in the pack meeting.) I just think that the younger you go, the more of that you are going to find. And as I suggest in the quoted portion above, I don't expect a first-grader to necessarily "get it" right at the beginning, but I think admitting kindergartners could very well add a whole year of "not getting it," and I don't think that's going to help the retention rate. One more point about Girl Scouts that I did not make previously. To my recollection, each "troop" (roughly the size of a Boy Scout patrol or Cub Scout den) was of a single grade in school. For example, when my daughters were in second grade (which I believe corresponds to second-year Brownies), all the other girls in the troop also were second-year Brownies. So in other words, any issues resulting from "age-mixing" do not come up; the program for each troop is completely age-focused because the girls are not attending meetings with higher or lower grade-levels. (I don't know if this holds once the girls are in high school, because neither of my daughters made it that far, but it's more of an "issue" in the lower grades anyway.) Barry, you ask how I "feel about Tigers." I have mixed feelings about the program. I think some of the boys are too young for the program, but I'd rather the BSA have a program for them than not. You have to balance the rewards against the challenges. At the first-grade level I think it is a net positive, any younger than that I think the challenges tip the scale. I don't think my son's pack had the same retention issues you are talking about. When boys quit, they did so at all levels. If there was one point at which more boys dropped out than any other, it was in moving from the pack to a troop. I'd say roughly one-third of each Webelos den would attend one or two troop meetings, or none, and never be seen again despite follow-up phone calls. (The calls have brought the boy back in a few cases.)

Barry, I have posted before about why I do not think Tigers (or the BSA "programs" in general) should be expanded to include kindergartners. Wherever that post may be, it is still how I feel. As for separating Tigers from the Cub Scout pack, isn't that how the Tiger program started? Although this is "before my time" as a leader, it is my understanding that until the late 90's, Tigers were a completely stand-alone program and did not meet with the pack. Then they started meeting with the pack, but still did not have an actual handbook, advancement program, or "den leader." Those points were then changed about 2 or 3 years ago, in an apparent attempt to further "integrate" Tigers into the rest of the Cub Scout pack and program. Most recently, the blue Cub Scout uniform has been introduced to the Tiger level. So the trend seems to be toward eliminating all most all of the distinctions between Tigers and older Cub Scouts. Plus, if Tigers were again a separate program, I don't see how that eliminates any of the challenges or improves the "leader burnout" situation. It seems to me that it would make leading a Tiger den MORE challenging because you would be removing the "support system" that currently exists in the pack, of the more experienced leaders who can advise and mentor the Tiger leaders. And regardless of whether it is one program or two, chances are that the "Wolf den leader" is going to be the same person who was the Tiger Den Leader, so people would still be spending the same amount of time as a leader and get "burned out" just as fast. (Or faster, if the Tiger program starts in kindergarten.)

OGE, my council has adopted training requirements as well. The details such as dates, phasing-in, who must be trained when, etc. are different but obviously the concept is the same. After Sept. 30 of this year, all NEW SM's, CM's, Crew Advisers etc. must complete new leader essentials and position-specific training before taking their position, though there is an exception for Scoutmasters who may complete the outdoor portion at the next available course if scheduling problems prevent doing it earlier. All new leaders in any other position (all "assistant" positions, den leaders, etc.) must be trained within 3 months after taking the position. Effective at the next recharter, which for us is next March, all "required" leaders must be trained (whether new or not.) I think there was a thread a few months ago in which this was discussed and several people said their council had adopted training requirements.

Well, you said one, but I don't really have a major one so I'll mention a few minor ones. And I guess I would classify these not as changes I would definitely make, but as changes I would at least want the BSA to consider. Some if not all of these, I have mentioned in the past in this forum. I think they should try to develop a new position and/or status within a Boy Scout troop for 18, 19 and 20 year olds to "transition" the young person to "full status" as an Assistant Scoutmaster or Troop Committee Member. Whether this should be mandatory or an option to what currently exists, I don't know. The situation I am particularly aiming at is the young man in the troop who turns 18 and is suddenly an Assistant Scoutmaster, so maybe it doesn't apply to someone (say, a 20-year-old woman who joins as a leader rather than "aging out." I don't know. In considering such a change, they might also see if they could reconcile the status of 18-to-20 year olds in a troop with those of the same age group in a Venturing Crew, to end the anomoly of an 18-year-old being a "youth" one weekend and an "adult" the next, for Youth Protection purposes. I think they should try to find a new name for the Venture Patrol, so it doesn't get confused with Venturing. (I do realize they have been trying to find the right name for the "older boy" patrol for about the last 50 years, as the Leadership Corps patch on my old uniform will attest.) I think they should take a fresh look at what merit badges are required for Eagle. Maybe its time to put Cooking back on the list, and if I had to pick one to consider making an optional badge, it might be Citizenship in the World. If that looks like I am trying to undo the changes that were made in the early 70's when I was a Boy Scout, well, it's not my conscious purpose, it's just funny how things work out sometimes. Now, one might ask, are ANY of these changes really "program"? I don't know the answer to that, either. Having read the recent threads about "program," I think the discussions often get very confusing because, for one thing, different people use the word "program" to mean different things.

OGE says: Anyway, does anybody remember just what the Yippies were protesting anyway? It was some war or something, wasn't it? Or are you trying to exemplify the saying, "If you can remember the 60's, you weren't really there?"

bluegoose says: One of my personal favorites is: "The price of freedom is that we carry not a shield, only a sword." (note, this is not a reference to violence or military action.) The deeper metaphorical meaning of this quote seems to be escaping me. If it is not a reference to violence or military action, what is it a reference to? What meaning do you get from this quote, bluegoose?

I agree generally with what other posters have said, and I'll just add this. I've never heard of the idea of charging for a year's worth of events up front. It does not make sense to me. While I understand the administrative headaches involved in charging $10 for the blue and gold dinner, $17.50 for the hayride, and whatever for whatever, close to the time of each event (what EagleInKy calls "pay as you go," I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. As ScoutMomAng says, it's not reasonable to charge every boy for an event they may not attend, particularly if the cost is "significant" (whatever that my mean to each person.) And of course, as others have said, the answer is fundraising. My son's pack had had financial problems for years, selling popcorn but in a rather lackluster fashion and even missing a year. The result of which, as I understand it, was that the then-Cubmaster loaned the pack most of the recharter fee in the spring and was repaid from dues the following fall. Not an ideal situation. This provided the pack with sufficient motivation to sell enough popcorn to raise sufficient funds to at least break even overall the following year, but things were still not ideal. It was at this point that a new Cubmaster and Assistant Cubmaster (me) took over, and the easiest decision to make was to place much more emphasis on the popcorn sale, including doing a show-and-sell, which the pack had never done before, and also having a very serious talk with the boys and parents at a pack meeting about the program we could have, and even the events we could do at greatly reduced "pay as you go" costs, if we all took the popcorn sale seriously for once. That one year completely turned the pack's finances around, including allowing us to reduce pack dues to $20 the following year, and it is my understanding that the pack has continued to have very successful popcorn sales with the resulting benefits for the program. And, by the way, this was all done without creating "Scout accounts" as an incentive. I think the top 5 sellers get a gift certificate to the local sporting goods store (and Scout-stuff distributor) in addition to the prize from Trail's End, and I am talking about $20 and down in gift certificates. Most of the "incentive" has been "we have to do this, so let's do it," and to the surprise of some (including me), that has been mostly enough.