Rooster7

It was Montgomery County Maryland...But a county executive (with at least half of a brain in his head) vetoed the county council's proposal. I live in Bowie, Maryland and was quite upset to hear the storyJust because I hate residing in a state where such inane laws are concocted. Fortunately, this one didn't get through.

By the way, down south from Montgomery County, in Kensington, Maryland, their city council tried to ban Santa Claus from the annual tree lighting ceremony. There was such a backlash, the city council had to backpedal on their position. In fact, by the time it was over, the city councilmen were trying to say they never actually banned Santa (Ho! Ho! Ho!).

The following is from the Guide to Safe Scouting (page 19):

IV. Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Use and Abuse

The Boy Scouts of America prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members.

Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco and may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants.

All Scouting functions, meetings, and activities should be conducted on a smoke-free basis, with smoking areas located away from all participants.

Note: - NOT ALLOW THE USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AT ANY BSA ACTIVITY INVOLVING YOUTH PARTICIPANTS

(By the way, the caps are for emphasis...I wasn't trying to shout)

To the point, you are mistaken. Your adult friends (if they fall into that category) were wrong for admonishing you. It's not only the proper thing to do, it's dictated by BSA policy.

eisely,

They (Bay area activists) will never accept BSA because we don't embrace the politics of the day; we stand for the same "old" values that they despise. Even without the camo, they're going to find something wrong with us. That being said, I say let them write their stories. People, who can think for themselves, will see through it. Those who don't think for themselves, will believe whatever the media tells them. We'll never win those folks over anyways.

sctmom,

You got me to bite on your last post...

Don't you see the difference between openly accepting a behavior and knowing that it exists? Of course, behavior of all kinds exists in every corner of the world. I'm sure there are numerous rapist and murders hiding in the military ranks as well (although not disproportionately to the rest of the world). Existence is not justification for acceptance. Not when you're talking about behavior.

This is a great topic. I find myself agreeing in total with Chippewa29's last post. I DO believe that ADD exists. I don't question the fact that some people have tremendous powers to concentrate and others have to struggle with a wandering mind.

I am 42. I stand convinced that I have ADD. Perhaps one day, like Chippewa29's friend, I will look into it more. Still, I have managed to cope. I don't use it as an excuse. My mind wanders way more often than I like, but some of it is a matter of choice.

I've seen parents use ADD and other disorders as an excuse for bad behavior. Could someone explain to me how any of these disorders compels a boy to be rude (i.e., tell someone to "shut up", or take a swing at someone)? I've heard the compulsiveness argument, but I don't buy it. At some point in time, a person has to say to himself, "hey, I can't do that. It's not acceptable". I know it's a problem. I feel for people that have to struggle with the disorder. Nevertheless, I feel if we raise our kids properly, they will overcome. I'm not willing to buy into the ADD defense for murder (not that anyone here has suggested that). In short, when Chippewa29 said -

I think the big question is this: at what point in their lives is it appropriate for the Scouts to say "I am responsible for who I am"?

I am compelled to say - AMEN. This is no doubt a very sensitive issue. For some, ADD may be a greater problem than I could possibly imagine. To those folks, I apologize. I don't want to imply that everyone is in the same boat. However, from my observations of boys in my Troop and elsewhere, parental indifference and/or parental acquiescence is as much of a problem as ADD. Even ADD kids need discipline. Some of them get it and others are sometimes given way too much room to breathe.

I would argue that the full uniform is not the best choice for camping trips. It's not particularly comfortable and shows dirt easily. I prefer class B's on camping trips...giving the Scout and Scouters more of a choice for comfort and durability.

I don't know the rules for uniforming a Venture crew. The local Scout executive may well be within his rights/authority to tell your crew "no camo". However, I would call National before accepting it as a definitive answer. Often, local officials don't really know what they're talking about, but feel inclined to act as if they do. He could be using his presumed authority to enforce his personal opinion. You owe it to yourself and your crew to check it out a little further.

Here's some more practical and/or concrete ideas (IMHO):

Size 50 to 75 boys

5 to 7 Patrols

1 SPL, 2 to 3 ASPL's

Troop produces at least one Eagle every year

Chartering Organization loves what BSA stands for and stands behind them 100%

Chartering Organization has some money to throw the Troop's way every year

Scoutmaster Corps (1 Scoutmaster, 6 to 8 AMS's)

Committee (1 Committee Chair, 6 to 8 regular members)

Troop owns the gear with an assortment of 2 and 4 man tents

Troop's income out gains expenses every year by at least $200

Everyone participates in fundraisers

Every outing is at least 3 deep in leadership

At least one Troop outing every month

Patrols meeting at least once every two weeks

Everyone believes in the program - CHARACTER COUNTS

Boys are eager to be in a leadership position, before and after acquiring said position.

Troop's Favorite Movie is "Follow Me Boys"

The boys have fun, but character development reins supreme, even above camping skills.

The boys learn to be leaders, but not at the expense of belittling the wisdom of adults.

The adults have fun, not at the expense of belittling the boys.

Politics is only something you read about in the Washington Post.

Actually, my troop is pretty good and we don't really have these problems (at least not consistently). However, in my idea troop, the above would be true. Probably not what you were looking for, but it popped into my head (a dangerous thing you know).

eisely,

I agree with your comment, "BigBeard is the scoutmaster and vested by the committee to act within his own discretion." The Scoutmaster should be able to meter out discipline in a manner that he deems appropriate (within reason of course).

However, I have to take issue with your first statement, "Terminating a youth's participation in scouting should be a rare event and undertaken only after all other approaches have failed." More to the point, I'm willing to terminate a boy's participation much quicker than your troop. No offense intended (all of your posts reflect a thoughtful and principled man), but given the facts in your most recent post, wouldn't you have to say that your troop's policy (i.e., expel only all other approaches have failed) failed to protect the boy who was injured? You make a valid point when you note that the adult leadership was exposing itself to serious personal legal liability by keeping such a youth around. Nevertheless, the fact is, serious damage was already done (i.e., injury to another youth) by attempting to accommodate and reform a boy who obviously was unwilling to yield to your authority and/or leadership.

FScouter,

You said, "Scouting...won't be better if we start 'kicking out' scouts."

I agree with your intent (don't give up on the kids), but I also feel kicking out a scout is not an admission of failure. It may not be appropriate in this particular case. However, in some cases, I feel it is not only appropriate, but it's the wisest course of action. A troop of boys should not have to continually suffer the misbehavior of a few. I'd rather have a group of 45 boys in a well-run, well-behaved troop, whereas all of the boys enjoy the program as it was meant to be; than to have a group of say 49 boys, whereas four boys have "fun" and 45 boys can only imagine what a real troop would be like. If the "troublemakers" cannot be reformed relatively quickly, then I feel no shame in seeking their removal.

In this particular case, I would only be guessing. As first blush, I have to agree it appears like the parents are overreacting. A warning seems proper and just. Still, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's a bully. If this represents one in a series of incidents perpetuated by the same character(s), then perhaps a mock trial would be appropriate. Assuming the boys have no unusual history, then I agree with Ed and the other posters, the trial would be too much and could definitely create hard feelings with the boys.

It's a miracle...Someone finally fixed my account. Thanks, whoever you are.

Either an administrator deleted my duplicate posts or I've been cured...Let's see what happens to this one.

test

Sorry...Thanks for the suggestions, but it appears I'm stuck with this cyber stutter. I think it has something to do with the way my account was setup (I remember having some difficulties establishing an account). Regardless, I appreciate your attempt to help me out.

Amen. I think this is true for all of us. One thing I learned after 9/11, I love our Arm Forces. I'm praying for them everyday. It pains me to think that one day, one of my sons might have to face this kind of evil. I'm grateful for the boys who have volunteered to fight this fight. I pray God watches over them and gives them strength to endure.

bigbeard,

This one is a little difficult for me to sort through...Let me tell you why.

The facts as stated are - 1) the boy was having fun; 2) even after being dumped was happy; and 3) was unhurt.

Given these facts, I have to say the parents of the boy must be nearly insane for pursuing this matter. But there seems to be something missing. Another fact given was the "victim was upset". This is the part that baffles me. Why was this kid upset? Have you asked him directly? Who provided the "information gathered"? Who are the witnesses? Friends of the kids doing the dumping? Or are they friends of the dumpee? Both? I can't believe the boy was upset for no reason. Before you attack this problem, I would suggest gathering more information. You said these kids had a history in and out of the troop. What does that mean? Do these two boys have a history of bullying the third?

From my observations of boys in my troop and elsewhere, I can imagine a whole range of scenarios, from the very innocent to pretty darn evil. As stated above, it does sound very innocent. Still, since you weren't there as it was happening, I have to wonder. Suppose the two boys, not liking the third, told everyone they were going to dump the third boy in the dumpster like he was trash. Suppose the third, feeling like there was nothing he could do about it, tried to laugh it off and make it look like he was just one of the guys having fun. Suppose, in reality, the whole thing was very humiliating to him. Yet, in an attempt to save face, he tried to make it sound like it wasn't a big deal (to those witnessing the event). Suppose this was one of a string of incidents involving these boys (since you stated there was some kind of a history). Suppose the parents know the reality of the situation better than you do.

I may be way off base. But based on the given facts, I'm trying to figure out why the third boy was upset. This is why I think you may want to do a little more fact finding. If my alternative story comes closer to reality than yours, then the parents do have a pretty strong case to get these boys banned from Scouting.

The following is from the Guide to Safe Scouting. Whether or not it is applicable, depends on an accurate accounting of the story. Was this kid a victim or a participant? If he was a victim, just how bad was it?

Youth Member Behavior Guidelines

The Boy Scouts of America is a values based youth development organization that helps young people learn positive attributes of character, citizenship, and personal fitness. The BSA has the expectation that all participants in the Scouting program will relate to each other in accord with the principles embodied in the Scout Oath and Law.

One of the developmental tasks of childhood is to learn appropriate behavior. Children are not born with an innate sense of propriety and they need guidance and direction. The example set by positive adult role models is a powerful tool for shaping behavior and a tool that is stressed in Scouting.

Misbehavior by a single youth member in a Scouting unit may constitute a threat to the safety of the individual who misbehaves as well as to the safety of other unit members. Such misbehavior constitutes an unreasonable burden on a Scout unit and cannot be ignored.

Member Responsibilities

All members of the Boy Scouts of America are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Law. Physical violence, hazing, bullying, theft, verbal insults, and drugs and alcohol have no place in the Scouting program and may result in the revocation of a Scout's membership in the unit.

If confronted by threats of violence or other forms of bullying from other youth members, Scouts should seek help from their unit leaders or parents.

Unit Responsibilities

Adult leaders of Scouting units are responsible for monitoring the behavior of youth members and interceding when necessary. Parents of youth members who misbehave should be informed and asked for assistance in dealing with it.

The BSA does not permit the use of corporal punishment by unit leaders when disciplining youth members.

The unit committee should review repetitive or serious incidents of misbehavior in consultation with the parents of the child to determine a course of corrective action including possible revocation of the youth's membership in the unit.

If problem behavior persists, units may revoke a Scout's membership in that unit. When a unit revokes a Scout's membership, it should promptly notify the council of the action.

It may be very innocent...But it sure doesn't sound that way. This is why a committee is so important. It removes all specter of wrongdoing and gives the parents confidence that the funds are being disbursed in a prudent and ethical manner. Even if your Cubmaster has acted honorably, you will never know for sure because he's been operating without checks and balances.

It's imperative that you organize the parents and serve the Cubmaster notice that the funds, in fact leadership itself, must come under the oversight of the committee. If there isn't a committee, then you need to establish one soon. If you meet resistance, then contact your local council. Also, contact your Chartering Organization and get a COR. He has the authority to make things happen.

How seriously does your SPL take his job? Or doesn't he know better? Either way, I would start with him.

Here's what I would think about:

1) Since you laid a foundation with the Pack, use that to your advantage. Don't lose contact. Let them know what you're trying to accomplish with the Troop. That way, when they come on board, you'll have some helpers.

2) If the Scoutmaster doesn't want to climb on board your train, then start looking at the Pack level for a future Scoutmaster. Perhaps the Cubmaster will bridge when his son does?

3) Stay the course, and be patient. It looks like the Pack will feed into the Troop and give you what you need - enthusiastic kids and their parents as volunteers.

4) Don't give up your Committee Chair spot and stay close to the Chartering Organization. Make sure they are "on your side". If these things remain true, you'll have the power/authority to make good things happen in the future. If you lose your position, you may be fighting an uphill battle.

Just some thoughts...

Ed,

Yes, it does that (double post)...It's a curse that I've been living with at this site. Don't ask me how it happens?!

P_Swigs,

"By what I see here, some of you as individualspass judgment on the worthiness of each potential new leader"

This is one of the jobs of the Troop committee. It's our responsibility to take on this task even if we find it unpleasant. Yes, in part it should be based on the Chartering Organization's position regarding these types of issues. Still, one must look at the standards and values established by BSA, the Troop, and within oneself. BSA indicates that married couples can stay in a tent together, but unmarried couples cannot. This sends a pretty clear message. I'm not particularly fond of passing judgment on anyone's character, especially when I am so familiar with my own flaws. However, these leaders are supposed to be mentors for the boys. If someone is unwilling to make the effort to change unacceptable behavior, then yes, I feel he/she is not qualified to be a leader.

"Rooster, please don't start twisting the gay issue into this particular thread."

I'm not trying to mix the two issues. My point was thisDo you believe the behavior is wrong? The answer to this question will put you on one side of the argument or the other (just like the gay issue). If one truly believes the behavior is wrong, then one should respond accordingly.

"But when we sit back as adult leaders and pass judgment on others based upon our own personal viewpoints, I believe it causes much more harm than good."

Then, I must ask, who does make judgments about character? Based on whose viewpoints? We are entrusting our children to the care of adult men and women. Shouldn't we examine the character of those people? Perhaps you're ambivalent, or uncertain about your position concerning this particular issue? Because others and I feel confidently about the wrongness of "living together", does not mean we enjoy pointing it out to the transgressor. On the other, because we are confident in our beliefs, we would be fools or worse if we did not speak up. As to personal standards and values, if the majority of the committee and/or Troop share them, then it's not just one person's viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with debating the issue and determining if the committee is like-minded. I believe it is much more harmful to let your convictions drop to the wayside because you're afraid of offending someone or being labeled ("religious nut", hypocrite, etc.).

P_Swigs,

This is really a simple matter. Much like the gay issue...Do you believe the behavior to be wrong? If the answer is yes, then stand by your principles and act accordingly. If the answer is no, then there is no issue.

In my Troop, I'm not in a position to tear up anybody's application. Nevertheless, I do believe the behavior to be wrong. By allowing the man to enter the Troop as a leader, you're telling all the boys that you accept the behavior. You're endorsing the man as a mentor.

Personally, I'd say no. Realistically, I think I'm in a very small minority (even most of my family would probably disagree with me). Few Troops would say or do much about it unless these folks were sharing a tent on camping trips. Most will probably say - "As long as he is not advertising/promoting it", he should be allowed to continue in the Troop as a leader.

Tachion,

I doubt it. As long as you respect the younger boys (don't mistreat them), I see no reason why you wouldn't be selected as an OA candidate.