Prairie_Scouter

Kristi, I can only imagine how your son must feel. My own son, who is now a Boy Scout, took a great deal of pride in each of his cars; similar to your son's, each was a "one of a kind" built more for the craftsmanship competition than the speed competition. He has every one of them on display in his room in a little display cabinet. I can only agree with those who have commented on the boneheadedness of whoever thought those cars would make nice table decorations. I'm with the Northwest Suburban Council outside of Chicago, and I'll check there to see if anyone might know anything.

Well, I'm not so sure that Europe is less religious than the U.S. They're certainly more liberal in their views on some things, but that doesn't necessarily make them less religious. Maybe the U.S. appears more religious because the conservative element of religion in the U.S. is more vocal? I don't know, really, I'm just not sure what measure you'd use to quantify the U.S. being "more religious". Canada? There's a country up there? I thought that that was all just "Upper Wisconsin"! Darn!

I like to think that BSA has used the "don't ask/don't tell" policy because they realize that singling out a single group as somehow being "bad" is wrong, and this is their way to save face while providing a mechanism for allowing gays in Scouting. I would think that if BSA really thought gays were an undesirable element, they'd be trying very hard to root them out, yet they don't appear to be doing that. That's different, of course, than openly welcoming gays, but that's probably too much to expect at this point. I hope that at some point BSA will come to the realization that gays are not "all bad" any more than straights are "all good", and get to the point where I think we should be, and that is welcoming everyone of good intent into Scouting, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. The world is made up of shades of grey and explosions of color. Seeing everything as simply black or white just doesn't work, regardless of how much our present government would like us to think so. Regards acco's scenario, that's a young man who is indeed in a tough spot. He probably doesn't feel comfortable talking about this with anyone, let alone his Scoutmaster. However, if he were to come to me, my counsel would be to carefully consider his feelings and follow his heart. If he wants to remain in Scouting, he'll have to deal with the reality that, in the present world of Scouting in the U.S., he won't be able to be open about his sexuality. He'll have to decide whether the value of the program is worth remaining "in the closet", so to speak, when it comes to Scouting activities. There's no easy answer here, any more than there are easy answers in any other area of his life if he's dealing with this.

Well Done, OGE. Thanks for your efforts to try to promote "smooth sailing" in the forums.

FScouter, I agree with what you're saying. I guess what I was referring to was that with a letter, you are pretty much guaranteed to control the "mechanics" of the notification (rather than "discussion", let's say). In a face to face meeting, the outcome won't change, but a forceful (in a physical way) presence could potentially hijack the meeting to become a personal rant. A letter, in effect, lets you control the emotions of the event. I think this is something you play by ear. In some cases, a face to face meeting is the best way, in some cases, some other method. Regardless of method, I think it's always best to follow up with a letter, copied to the Council/District, to get everything on record.

Boy, tj, I can't think of any better way to say what you just wrote. Excellent, and something that I agree with completely. Thanks for stating it so well. And now, I'm sure, we'll hear from those who think "differently"

CA, I think that it's a stretch to think that liberals have a monopoly on "heck-raising, tabloid type, inflammatory tactics". How long a list of conservative tactics would you like to see that fit that stereotype? We could start with the tactics of the Bush campaign in Carolina in 2000....... And continue on to the justification of the Iraq War....... And include statements about how awful the liberal Democrats are for attempting to block 10 of the Presidents judicial nominations......

I was only able to watch the first part of the discussion. The first speaker spouted off a lot of court cases that I had no point of reference to (I think he was supposed to be the "opposing side"), and the 2nd speaker, who I guess was the pro-Scouting person, basically spouted a string of sarcastic remarks. I hope it got better after I had to leave

In this case, if the family is aware of the situation, I think a letter might be the appropriate way to go. You can edit to make sure the letter is clear and to the point, and give them the opportunity to request a meeting if they'd like further discussion. This, in effect, puts the ball in their court. Rather than being for wimps, a well worded letter lets you control the situation, which can be more difficult in a face-to-face situation where someone with a "bully" mentality can gain control of the discussion.

They've probably already heard about their error through their Scouts. When giving gifts like this, the safest thing is to give everybody the same thing. If they want to give their own kids something special, they might consider getting that separately, and giving it to them separately. This is really not a big deal, tho, and unless you hear that they were playing favorites throughout the year, I wouldn't bother with it much.

That is why, I think, we need to be very careful about how we the people let religion inject itself into politics. There are good reasons why the founding fathers sought to stop the creation of a state religion. If you start letting particular religious groups pass laws based on their beliefs, you are headed down that path. And it's not all the land of milk and honey like some would like us to believe. For example, the Bible brings a lot of good things with it as a way of life, but it also brings mass executions of non-believers and public stonings. Be careful what you wish for. You only have to look as far as the Middle East to see what happens when you set up religious states. We only have to look to our own states to see the potential effects. There are attempts being made in some states to stop teaching evolution and teach Creationism instead. You don't happen to belong to a religion that takes Creationism literally? Well, too bad, you're going to learn it anyway. I see a lot of danger in the path we're headed down. Religions tend not to be tolerant of other views; they only see themselves as the true path to salvation. If we want to remain "America the light of the free world" we can't afford to let any single religious point of view dominate our country. They are all welcome; that is the American way, but when they try to force their beliefs on everyone else, that is just wrong and has to be fought every single inch of the way.

I've seen the "baby sitters of America" comment before, but it's not a term leaders use to describe themselves; it's a description for how the leaders sometimes feel the parents treat them. I've heard it mostly for Cub Scouts, actually. I agree with most of what FScouter had to say. Parents are always welcome, but to run troop meetings, you want trained leaders. Over the past few years, I've found it more and more difficult to recruit participating leaders. I'd say the majority of leaders I've gotten are folks who were Scouts in their youth. There's sort of two problems that I see. One is parents who basically don't want to do anything; in general, I see them hardly wanting to be parents to begin with, it's not just Scouting. Second, there are parents who do want to participate in their son's lives, and they are, in a big way. It's not unusual for me to talk to a good prospect and have them say, "I'd love to, but I'm already coaching my son's baseball and soccer, and my daughter's soccer, and, etc". It's a challenge to be sure, and there are more logistics in Boy Scouts as well. You need leaders, but you also need leaders with a trailer hitch. You need leaders, but you also need leaders who can take a week of vacation to go to summer camp. The list goes on. I have so far been blessed with a great group of leaders. I hope my luck holds out As far as advice, I have found that putting out sign up sheets for leadership positions doesn't work. Personal discussions sometimes does, if the parent is predisposed to helping out. The success rate is at least a lot higher doing that.

Kahuna, Well, we HAVE been looking for a place for high adventure next year. I think that we'd have a sudden influx of leaders if we decided to come there Regards what one of the folks above wrote, yes, for all of what we see here, it is fairly tame by comparison to some other forums I've seen. But, still......

Well, 1st a couple of thoughts, I think mirroring what some have said... One, the comment to the young ladies. Vulger, yes. Stupid, yes. Sexual harassment? Most likely not. Two, I'm a lot more worried about his actions with the knife/fork. That presents a danger to the other Scouts if he has trouble channeling his anger, which he almost certainly does, based on your comments. Regards the comment to the ladies, I would have suggested a private reprimand. I try to avoid reprimands/counseling in front of the other Scouts. Regards the knife/fork, this needs to be discussed with the parents. You are concerned about his behavior and the safety of other Scouts, and what are the parents going to do to ensure that the other Scouts are safe and that their Scout is well-behaved? If they don't convince you that he'll be ok (by some definite action, not just a promise), then personally, I wouldn't be comfortable having him in a tent with another Scout. And if I feel that way, I'd have to conclude that I don't want him on a campout. I have had a couple of Scouts that have had anger management issues, although not to the extent that they cause danger to other Scouts. In both cases, my route was through the parents. Others have said that this is the kind of boy who could really use the Scout program. That's probably true, but.......you can't help a boy if he presents a danger to the other scouts, and two, we are Scout Leaders, not child counselors, psychologists, etc., and are not qualified to assist children with deep seated emotional problems. And regardless of how much the program might be good for him, this is just Scouting, it's not a clinic for the emotionally unstable. I don't want to be overly harsh, but you can't take responsibility for something like that. But, #1 and most of all, you have to work through the parents, keeping your committee aware of the situation.

If I can speak as a typical Troop, I'd say that the typical Boy Scout troop doesn't really expect anything of a new Scout joining. You don't have to have been a Cub Scout to become a Boy Scout, so you could have a boy coming in with no experience in Scouting. If a boy crossing over has earned his Arrow of Light, then there might be some expectations of previous knowledge because several of the Arrow requirements match requirements for Scout rank (the 1st Boy Scout rank), but you never know for sure, so we don't really assume any previous knowledge. Troops will hold open houses, and when I was with Cubs, we used to encourage our Webs to visit a few to see what troop they might be interested in. As Semper noted, you can always invite an SM to one of your den meetings as well. I'm planning on visiting several dens this fall, for example, to drum up interest in our open house and joint Cubs/Boy Scout outing in early November. If you meet an SM who isn't interested in visiting, as Semper also said, I'd think twice about them.

Ahh, the warm tropical breezes..... Been there twice, stayed at a wonderful place called the Coco Palms, which has the chapel on its grounds that Elvis used in "Blue Hawaii". What a great place. It was pretty much destroyed by a hurricane sometime back, and I don't think it's been rebuilt yet. A shame. Now, that's my typical tourist view, and I'd bet Hawaii has many of the real world problems that we on the mainland have, but still.....Ahhhhhh. Where was I?

There's a new development going up near where we live, with a big billboard that says "single family homes from the $400's". So, first of all, I think, "not in my lifetime", and second, "where will they find people to buy all those houses?". Yet, I'm sure I'll drive by in a couple of months and they'll all be sold. We live in a nice middle class (whatever that is) neighborhood. We all have kids; I'm putting away money for their college (as much as I can which I'm sure won't make a dent in the real cost), our retirement, and a new business I'm hoping to start on a shoestring. My neighbors all have kids, yet one neighbor drives a Jaguar, and the other drives a Lexus SUV. I've got a 15 year old car with 190,000 miles on it. I wonder how they do it. Don't get me wrong. I make a decent living and we do have some nice things. But I see kids at the local high school tooling around in all manner of "out there" cars. No kid I know of can afford those kinds of "rides", so you know the parents are springing for them. And yeah, we know parents who give their kids cars for gifts. My wife and I just laugh at that. I tell my kids that their bus pass comes with a $100K limo. Anyway, I don't think the world has gone nuts, necessarily (or maybe yes, but not for these reasons), but I think people do create their self-image these days based on what they have, not who they are. We've tried real hard for our kids to not be that way, and luckily, we very seldom here anything about, "well, so and so has the latest whatever". They are fortunate to have all their grandparents alive and well and nearby, and a family gathering doesn't go by without some tale from the Depression, so my kids know how hard life can be. I've been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to visit a couple of 3rd world countries. Life in the U.S. is not like life elsewhere. I've seen people living in cardboard boxes. Life in the U.S. is some sort of fantasy (for most people) that has a price tag that somebody, sometime, is going to have to pay. Unfortunately, I think it's going to end up being our kids, and their kids.

I believe very strongly that the quest for knowledge always "wins" eventually, regardless of the efforts of some governments or religions to stifle the process. The human desire to explore and learn cannot be denied. There was a time when teaching that the earth was not the center of the universe would get you burned at the stake. Nowadays, as conservative governments push scientific research into the private sector, the danger is that this knowledge is gained without the openness of a true scientific process to confirm validity, and that this knowledge becomes available to a privileged few, and then only for profit. This has the potential to put us all at risk. Putting the scientific process in the hands of legislators is problematic. You end up with space shuttles built by the losest bidder, launched by engineers forced to push the safety envelope for the purpose of political expediency. You end up with stem cell reserch, a scientific endeavor, limited not because of scientific ethics but because of the political clout of particular religious groups. Knowledge is the only way I can see to combat this. Our country used to develop the best minds in the world. We need to get back to that, and keep those minds here. The quest for knowledge just for the sake of knowledge has to be re-introduced into out culture and supported by our government, with the belief that this will eventually show tangible benefits. The space program put men on the moon and the spinoffs of the program gave us Teflon, medical monitoring systems, and computer systems that would have taken much longer to develop without government support. Science, religion, and government politics can all survive and thrive together, but only if we recognize their appropriate places in society. Like the theoretical separation of church and state, they work best if left to their own devices, with minimal intrusion from each other. This provides, we might say, "balance in the Force".

Well, back from a beautiful weekend campout here in the Midwest. Thanks, Kahuna, for starting this thread. As Fuzzy said, there are those here who have urged the posters to try and be courteous and civil, even if they are passionate about the issue being brought up. Perhaps this thread will give us a chance to air this out a bit. Kristi, I understand where you're coming from and agree that having someone be able to point to a BSA rule for you can save a lot of searching. My issue has been, and continues to be, those who comment back by not just pointing to a BSA rule, but feeling the need to add a "tone", either explicitly or implicitly, that comes out sounding like "any MORON know that BSA rule x forbids that". And, there are people visiting here that are looking for advice on how to handle situations that aren't looking for responses like "everything you need to know is in the Scout Handbook (you idiot)". I've had mostly very pleasant discussions here, even with those who are very opposed to some of the views I've expressed. I've used the "ignore posts" option on just one poster, and that really did make a difference for me. Not sure what else can be done. I've suggested to the forum moderators that particular posters be asked to "tone it down" a bit; I don't know if they follow up on those kinds of things or not, but I assume that they do. Beyond that, this particular forum is one that's going to draw very passionate responses, and that's going to lead to sometimes unpleasant remarks being made. I think if most people try to rise above that and not respond in kind, eventually the tone will settle down. I'd hate to see the moderators outlaw particular topics known to cause response problems; this is the one forum that's been provided to talk about these kinds of issues. I think we also need to be kind of "self-policing", not that we can ban anyone, but if people uniformly respond back to an abusive poster to "chill out", that might be all we need. I don't believe for a second that anything we discuss here is going to lead to changes in policy. It's not like BSA National is watching this forum and one day says, "golly, they're right. We shouldn't ban gays". This is just a place for interesting discussion. Not everything in BSA work is as black and white as some might think. So, while it's perfectly fine to be passionate in discussion, there's simply no reason to be abusive.

While FScouter is correct that it's technically not the job of the district or Council to remove a disruptive Scout or family from a pack, you can approach them for support on the correct way to handle these kinds of situations. Support such as this IS their responsibility, especially if you believe that there is a concern over bodily harm. You're not expected to have the expertise or experience to know how to handle more extreme situations such as this, and they can and should help you there. When in doubt, giv'em a call; worst case is that they blow you off (not likely); best case is that they have experience with exactly this kind of problem and can give you good advice.

committeechair, Yes, you can "fire" a volunteer. Based on what you've written, I'd say the next step is a heart to heart with this person, the SM and the CC. Explain the situation, suggest some alternate approaches he might take, and simply tell him that if he doesn't back off, they'll have no choice but to remove him as a leader because at this point, he's doing more harm than good. They'll want to wrap some politeness around it, of course, but that would be the guts of the discussion.

I agree with Ed that if you haven't already contacted your CO, you should do so and get them involved as well. But, your Scout Professional should be supporting you on this; that's one of the things that they get paid for. If your UC is telling you that they won't, you should go "up the chain". Like I said earlier, volunteer leaders aren't expected to handle these kinds of situations on their own. I haven't been in your exact situation, but I have had an experience where we had to ask a family who's Scout was a behavior problem to leave the unit; it's not easy. But, you can't let your other Scouts be at risk, so you do need to get this taken care of. Now, let me play devil's advocate for just a second, just to make sure the bases are being covered. Is this the first time your unit has had a problem with this family? If the proper reporting has been done for YP, then another approach might be to sit down with the parents and explain the BSA perspective on this. You could tell them that Scouting might be a good thing for their son, and consider if there's any way that they can continue with the pack in some controlled capacity. I'm, of course, not close enough to the situation to see if this is even feasible, but it should be a part of your thinking. You know, as I'm thinking about this, if you contacted your district/council about the YP problem, they should be coming back to you with some sort of opinions on "next steps". Have they done that?

I find the safest route is to just not relieve myself for the whole weekend. Can't get in trouble if I'm not in there... Ok, just kidding. Q1 is an easy one. You're always ok with your own son. No prob there. Q2&Q3. Depending on the facilities, this can get interesting at times. Like others have said, I usually announce my presence to see if anyone is in there, and then wait if there is. Once in there, I usually make enough noise to make sure others know I'm there. I will say that most of our camps have the "flip" signs. Q4. I always push for the buddy system regardless of the distance, but especially if it's out of view. Easier than trying to figure out when it's ok and when it's not.

Main thing is, I think, that this sounds like it's outside what a volunteer leader can be expected to handle. You want to have the Scout Professional advise you on this, and possibly take over the situation for you.

Well, I guess I've got a couple of questions. First, what were all these people doing on a cub scout campout? Was it a family campout? Second, how did a leader with a record of criminal violence get past the background check, as superficial as it is? I think, basically, you've got a youth protection problem that needs to be reported to your district and council. You've got a Scout that's been caught, reportedly, doing inappropriate things outside of Scouts. I'm not sure how YP will deal with that exactly. Normally, you're dealing with things that happen within the context of Scouts, but if you know you've got a problem there, I think you should still report it. What did your UC and DE say? You didn't mention your position in the pack, but one thing that needs to be considered is to talk to the parents and tell them that what happened on the campout was inappropriate behavior for a Scout campout for the both the daughter and the father. Final thought. You don't have to deal with this on your own. You have professional Scouters who can assist you, and take over the situation if need be. You're a volunteer leader; it's time to make use of the "big guns". You always hate to lose a Scout, and maybe the professionals can figure out a way to work it out, but in a YP situation, you don't want to be making those decisions, especially if what you've got is heresay. Since it happened outside of Scouts, I'd expect the professional Scouters will want more information. My 2 cents.