shortridge

Another thing to consider would be implementing Youth Protection rules. Since you're making the religious service the central part of your unit's program, it would seem logical that you'd need to make certain that all Scouting rules were followed, including the prohibition on one-on-one contact. That may mean you'd have to guarantee that two servers - any combination of youth or adult - were present behind the scenes with the priest at all times. (Not being Catholic, I have no idea if two servers are required already or not.)

I'm curious - you say "we" are the CO, but have not said who "we" is. Are you speaking of a church? A group of Catholic Scouters? Personally, I would recommend a male-only crew, since it sounds like serving at Mass and the like are going to be an integral part of the program. I would think that would not be very attractive from a program standpoint to young women. I also would open it up to non-Catholics if they're interested in hanging out with their friends, but I wouldn't expect many. It sounds like the core program is going to be very specific and focused on Catholicism, and that's just not going to attract many people beyond the Church. You also should be considering the geographic reach of your crew. Are you going to be council-wide, or just focus on the city or area where your diocese is headquartered? A council-wide crew will be difficult logistically, and may spark some negative feedback from other crews or troops chartered to Catholic churches. (Just thinking out loud - I obviously don't know the dynamics there.) If you're concentrated in one city, you really need to take a look at your pool of potential members in that area. How many AAD and PPXII Scouts are there in your area? If you only get five percent of that group, will it be enough to sustain a crew over the long term? Before you get started, you should also plan to survey your potential pool of members to see if there's any interest in the program you propose. I'd be curious why your AAD and PPXII Scouts haven't themselves already taken an interest in serving Mass and such already - that could be a question to ask. BSA also recommends that crews use an interest survey to develop their programs (http://www.tidewaterbsa.com/forms/venture_interest_survey.pdf). It was obviously created by an adult for as broad an audience as possible, but it might be a good way to gauge interest in other, non-church activities as well.

Getting back to the OP ... when my daughter was younger, I looked into Camp Fire USA. There were no units or organization in my area. The closest leaders were about 2-3 hours away, and that group seemed to be dead on its feet anyway. The program looked lackluster. I was not impressed. She's now in Girl Scouts, and loving it.

Even when I was in high school, I was thoroughly jaded at the talk about future leaders, servant leadership, leadership skills, training for leadership, etc. I happen to believe that Scouting has gone too far overboard on this fad. It's pretty clear that not everyone is a leader, can be a leader or wants to be a leader. Some people are perfectly content being followers, members, joiners, gatherers and worker bees. What Scouting should be doing is helping Scouts find their skills and talents and use them in the most productive ways possible - and, on the flip side, teach practical skills they might not otherwise have gained. Keith may be a lousy public speaker, but he's great teaching one-on-one. Tim is a natural-born fisherman, but doesn't want to take notes. Richard loves firebuilding and knots, but the idea of planning a trek makes him break out in a cold sweat. And none of them want to be the SPL, because that job is mindless and boring. A good Scouting program should focus on imparting those skills - public speaking for Keith, note-taking for Tim and step-by-step planning for Richard - not through beating them over the head with the LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP mantra, but through going on hikes, fishing trips, survival campouts, backpacking expeditions, paddling treks ... so that those other, non-Scoutcraft skills arise naturally, as almost a happy accident. When they've mastered certain skills and their confidence rises, they'll naturally step into leadership roles themselves. It will work. (And an outdoor-focused program will attract a heck of a lot more boys than will the ridiculous TIMELESS VALUES garbage, besides.) Get 'em outdoors, and everything else will just happen. =========== Pet peeve rant: The LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP model being touted utterly ignores the fact that there are different types of leaders. Some lead from the front, very publicly. Some lead from behind the scenes. Some people are charismatic types who can pump up a group; others are more methodical planners who organize all the detail work. A one-size-fits-all model that uses vague phrases is just plan silly.

Desert - why does anyone need to "play" SPL? It strikes me that all of those things you mention could as easily be handles by a group of PLs who among them decide how best to come together as a troop, which patrol should handle which tasks, etc.

It's not a necessity, by any stretch. Not even a luxury. Just an adult-created add-on. In my old troop as a youth, no one wanted to be SPL. It was the crap job that removed you from your buddies. And when I was on the commissioner's staff at summer camp and had to work with SPLs to plan the campfire and camp wide games, I was always struck by the number of acting SPLs there were. Patrol Leader should be the highest job in the troop.

Eamonn, I would ask them why they wanted to do that. I would ask them how it fit into their annual Scouting goals. I would ask them how they considered cabins, basements or lodges to be camping. I would ask them why this wasn't something they could do on their own, outside of Scouting. And then, if they had good answers for all of those, showing thought had been put into this, and if they truly believed it to be an important, valuable part of their Scouting plan, I would likely agree to go along. However, that would be contingent upon my sleeping outside in my own tent, cooking my own food over a fire, eating my delicious desserts in front of them, building a pioneering structure, carving a neat gee-gaw, taking great photos on a hike ... showing them by example what they're missing out on playing Call of Duty or Risk. And I would work with them to balance it out by going on a great trek the next month.

IMHO, and this is only my opinion, meant as constructive criticism - By emphasizing advancement and quality control and making that your priority, you're implicitly telling Scouts that they need to focus on checking the boxes and reading the rules. That's a skewed focus. The emphasis should be on program and outdoor adventure, not advancement policies and procedures. Advancement will happen naturally in a troop that has a good outdoor program, almost accidentally. There's no need to worry about retention of skills, because the Scouts are using them every month. It is harder to do, especially in a troop with lots of aggressive parents. But it is the way Scouting was intended to be done.

Hanging out in a cramped tent playing cards and telling stories for hours because there's a huge snowstorm raging outside can bring people together. It's the shared experience of adversity and overcoming a challenge that unites us. Years later, Scouts are going to tell tales about how they paddled 10 miles in a monsoon, found that hidden swimming hole during a 110-degree heat wave, lashed together a snowball trebuchet during a blizzard and fired on the adults and scrambled up that mountain just ahead of those grizzly bears. (Even if the reality was a minor downpour, 90-degree heat, sprinkled flurries and climbing a hill after hearing chipmunks rustling in the leaves.) Something tells me that these Scouts aren't going to have the same tales to tell about how they hung out in a heated cabin playing video games being waited on hand and foot. Kids will take you up on whatever you offer. If it's electronics and sluggishness, sure, that's cool. But the same is also true for challenge, adventure and the outdoors. Which one's better for them? Which one is Scouting based upon?

I'm sorry he had that experience. It sounds like a very slipshod Ordeal. One of the great things I remember about mine was being welcomed into the Order by the other members - older boys I looked up to and admired - not just the ceremonialists. As for the lodge "saving money" - if he paid his dues and fees, he should get a sash. That's a fundamental part of being a member. I hope his lodge gets its act together in the future.

Sleeping inside a building isn't camping. Is there more to the story? Are the tents in bad condition, or are there not enough to go around? Do the adults prefer indoor sleeping arrangements? Do the boys like hot showers? This seems like a point where the SM, in his role as mentor to the PLC, needs to step in and say "Waaaaait just a minute ..."

Service projects, patrol hikes, Scout Sunday/Sabbath, camporees, campouts, etc. On a practical level, though, this should not be an issue for an active unit. If you camp every month, a Scout who joins in March can have these knocked out by December. No biggie.

That's pretty much always been the challenge and the excitement of Jambo - so many Scouts, the opportunity to meet people from all over the country, etc. Unfortunately, that means logistically it's more like an amusement park than a summer camp. I've never been all that interested. Attended for a day once as a Webelos, and was not very impressed. Let's not lose sight of the big picture, either. Despite all the hooplah and focus, especially now, the Jamboree isn't something that all Scouts can attend, or want to attend. Only about 6 percent of Boy Scouts and Varsity Scouts in the country are able to go. Let's focus instead on the 802,065 boys who don't go to Jambo.

JoeBob, Absolutely. The idea that NCS could be replaced with online or video training is ludicrous. It's a week-long (or multi-day) event, covering everything from program tips to rules and regulations. And the benefits from getting to know other people and learn how their camps work is incredibly valuable. I attended for outdoor skills director training back in my younger days, and while I didn't learn a whole lot of new skills, I did pick up some program ideas that proved very helpful. I also learned the basics of supervising and training staff, doing evaluations, how to handle problem situations, etc. - stuff that not necessarily every area director or senior staffer has had experience with. That's ever-so-much-more-so multiplied in the Cub world, when most of the day camp staffers are volunteers, in my experience. Boy Scout staffers often work their way up through the ranks and have a decent amount of experience. Cub leaders may be parents with a few years under their belt as a DL or CM, but have no practical experience in putting on a day camp. There is no "sales pitch" to get people to attend NCS. It's a requirement, so they have to go if they want to run the camp.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

In Boy Scouts, the Scouts approach the Scoutmaster to say they want to work on a merit badge. The SM gives them a name or list of names of counselors to contact. The Scout and a buddy make the contact with the Merit Badge Counselor and start working on it. The SM doesn't quiz or sign off on individual MB requirements - that's the MBC's role. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. If your son has an independent interest in a subject, or if the two of you are working on a hobby together that falls under a MB subject, great! That puts your son a step ahead when it comes to working on the MB, but it doesn't mean you can sign off on a requirement. Some Scoutmasters allow their Scouts to work on MBs with MBCs who are their parents; others don't. The bottom line, however, is that your son needs to be the person taking the lead on this, approaching the SM, deciding on what MBs to earn, etc. - not you. That transition from CS to BS is difficult for many parents. The best thing you can do for your son right now is to take a deep breath and a step back, and let him find his own space. If you're going to be a committee member or ASM, go get trained immediately. Take the online training. Hang out with the adults on campouts, not with your son. Also, as a general principle, he might want to focus on his T-1-2 rank requirements first. A Scout can start on MBs at any time - you don't have to be First Class to work on them, as some people mistakenly think - but mastering the basics of camping and the outdoors is usually the best place for someone to start. Addendum: Merit Badge Counselor is a registered position. If you're not on the rolls as a registered MBC, your signature or initials are invalid. An ASM or SM or even a random parent who's an expert can't just sign off on requirements willy-nilly unless they're also registered MBCs.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Jeffrey H. wrote: She may not want to let go because she may not have any other "hobbies" or interests outside of Scouting. Just a guess but that is sometimes the case. ... I enjoy Scouting, but I do not want to put myself in a situation where I cannot let go. I could easily hand over my CM duties to a capable, enthusiastic leader. Transition/Succession plans are important. It's fairly easy for each of us to know when's the right time for us to go. But how do you let other people know that it's time for them to go? How do you nudge that 20-year veteran out the door? How do you convince someone that it's time to start a succession plan, when that person doesn't want to give it up? How do you do all this gently and respectfully, honoring their years of service, while making room for new blood? Concrete advice desired. Let's brainstorm.

JoeBob, Accreditation depends on a variety of factors - some program and training, some health and safety, some paperwork. My understanding is that camps that do not meet mandatory standards or don't meet at least 90 percent of the other standards are only "conditionally accredited." Mandatory standards include having a physician in charge of health care; safe drinking water; protection for bad weather; written emergency plans; key staff is properly trained; etc. Camps can be shut down when there is an immediate threat to health and safety - not necessarily if someone doesn't have their paperwork on the correct forms. I couldn't find a current day camp standards list, but here's one from 2008: meritbadge.org/wiki/images/f/fe/2008_Day_Camp_Standards.pdf Eagle92: Good luck. Sounds like you're going to need it.

Dual registration with a crew is not mandatory for camp staff members. It's common, but not required. So if a Scout is not dual registered, the CD or PD don't have the ability to sign a blue card as the unit leader. Simple.

I'm not trying to be critical. Just pointing out the obvious lesson. If a group of boys involved in an outdoor adventure program propose a trek that's safe and financially feasible, though perhaps physically challenging. but then can't find enough adults to commit, what the boys learned is that their adult mentors are basically wimps. It's the job of the SM and his program team to provide enough adults for trips decided upon by the PLC. The boys shouldn't have to go begging to each adult to come along, unless there were major scheduling conflicts with work or family. And it doesn't sound like that was the obstacle here. I don't mean to pick on fred and his unit, but he brought this example up in the first place.

One side benefit of the PLC adopting gear shakedowns before trek departures, if time and space allow: The PLs can easily see that five Scouts have 20 pocketknives between them, raise their collective eyebrows and call a halt to the shenanigans.

Ditto CalicoPenn, on all points. The knife-throwing would have been the tipping point for me. Dangerous, inexcusable behavior.

Not functioning the same - functionally the same. Following the same process of leadership and planning. "They asked a few but could not find any willing to commit." Easy to guess the lesson learned from that.

I agree that the units leadership on both the program and support side should be united and work together toward a common vision. But that means communicating clearly and effectively, not getting your back up over an issue of "integrity." IMHO - rather than telling these Scouts that what they did wasn't official because of some nonexistent rule, in this situation, the OP should have said "Hold on a second," stepped over to the SM, and asked for his take on the situation. It is not the ACs role nor the role of any member of the troop committee to second-guess the program team on issues of program, unless they have to do with health, safety or overarching issues of finance. If a TC member wants to ensure the integrity of the program, he or she should become an ASM. Im speaking broadly here, not about tramthums situation, but weve seen quite a few threads over the years with problems triggered by overzealous Advancement Chairs who get swelled heads and think their job is to interpret rules and enforce standards. Thats just nonsense. I believe that the formalization of the AC role really has the potential to damage the Patrol Method. An adult AC does nothing that the PLs and Troop Scribe arent perfectly capable of doing. In a well-run unit, the ACs job could be abolished without affecting a single thing.

Crews are only for boys and girls 14+. Boys 11-13 can't join crews. Crew members are encouraged to teach Boy Scouts the skills and subjects they learn, but not required.

If you don't mind me asking, what's standing in his way of completing the AoL? That seems a little odd, especially since he's planning to join Boy Scouts.