shortridge

On all of those topics you mentioned, I don't see much of a reason for guidelines or policies or what-have-you. There's no reason for the committee to hash these things out when there's already a body in the troop that should be addressing these issues - the Patrol Leaders' Council. But let's look at them item by item. Advancement certainly doesn't need guidelines. It's up to the Scouts. The only thing that the unit might want to address is who pays for the badges & pins - and that's an easy thing to make a decision on. Fundraising should be organized by the PLC. No committee involvement needed to develop guidelines. Uniforming is a non-issue, by your own description. Electronics use is a decision that can be made by the PLC with advice from the SM. Discipline on really serious issues should be handled by the SM in consultation with parents. The committee shouldn't really get involved. Issues of minor discipline can be left up to the PL or PLC. Parental participation is an odd subject, considering that Boy Scouting isn't a parent-kid program. Parents should support their own children; if they have time, they should be encouraged to volunteer and get involved on doing things only adults can do, driving vehicles or using heavy equipment or whatnot. Remember ... an adult should never do anything a boy can do. That goes for guidelines just as much as cooking a meal or setting up a monkey bridge. Addendum: Speaking generally, I really dislike the use of the word "committee" to describe the group of adults that support the unit Scouting program. It's not a problem if run correctly, but in the hands of grownups who think the Committee is a policy-making, rule-drafting, legislative, powerful body like on C-SPAN ... well, it can create a mess.

Sorry for the delay in replying, but I've been out of town and tied up with work for a while. Beavah, you wrote: Shortridge's SSD duty as a non-aquatics guy is to step aside and let the folks with aquatics experience set up da system. If he doesn't have folks with experience to set up the system he shouldn't be doin' it at all. Certainly shouldn't be directing others. Half an hour of online trainin' ain't enough for that. That online training was meant to tell non-aquatics folks "hey, you don't know enough to do this on your own. Job 1 is gettin' qualified people who can run this." I respect your opinion, but also just as respectfully disagree with your take on SSD. Again, as above, I have the feeling that you and I are reading two different documents or took two different training courses. SSD is expressly designed for an adult leader to run a unit swimming activity. It does not require a BSA aquatics director/supervisor or even a BSA Lifeguard. Nor does it require someone with that level of training to interpret the rules - that's why they're so straightforward and simply written. I've taken SSD training multiple times over the years since the mid-'90s. At no time did the trainer inform me that the SSD training was worthless because I wasn't experienced enough to set up a safe swim area. To the contrary, SSD training qualifies me to set up a safe swim area, using the explicit rules that I agreed to follow. I don't see much wiggle room there. ============ As to your previous questions about what to do with ability areas at a public pool - really, I don't know, because I've never encountered that situation. My troop and OA chapter always had the privilege of using a private pool owned by a huge Scouting supporter. However, I would point out one misconception about using public pools - you wrote: "And nobody is goin' to let you string your own lines or appoint your own lifeguards in their swim area." SSD only requires unit lifeguards "in areas where lifeguards are not provided by others." ============ Again, if the OP's unit on these trips just includes all swimmers, then the entire thing becomes a moot point.

Well, if you can be your own grandpa, I'm sure you can be your own assistant!

SMT224, Thanks - I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Hope you guys have a good time this summer! Beavah, I find myself wondering if we're reading the same document. The SSD material that I've been reading and going by is all about running safe swim areas in natural locations, not at pools. It's expressly designed for unit leaders out in the field, *not* at developed camps. I freely admit that I'm not an aquat. What I know is from my SSD training and the materials I have, which are perfectly clear to me. I agreed to follow the rules; there they are, in black & white. I just don't see the need to decide that the rules are just guidelines.

Twocubdad - I believe you were referring to the three-piece flashing cutlery set - "all the bells and whistle for celebrating at a Blue & Gold banquet." The leader or parent who gets those for their kids has got to be certifiable. Sorry, back on topic now. I think part of the reason Scoutstuff is so good at its communications is because it's an entity focused on sales & marketing. Your customers can't buy if they don't know what you're selling. Generally speaking, by contrast, the program and rules people who promulgate stuff like the new YPT rule aren't in the business of marketing. And IMHO, they need to take a page from the people who are. Part of the challenge, I'd guess, is that National leaves it up to the councils to spread the word. And depending on where you are, the council staff can be awful in spreading the word. Another challenge is that once upon a time, like back in the '70s or '80s, it was OK to take a month or longer for word to filter down from National to the Council HQ to the DEs and DCs to Roundtable to committee meetings to the rank-and-file leaders to the parents. Nowadays, we want (even need) information immediately, and I don't think National (or the bulk of Councils) have caught up with that concept. The throwback MBs are a perfect example. Scouts shouldn't have to wait three months for requirements to come out about something that's only available for one year. Because even once the requirements are out, you have to recruit MBCs, the MBCs have to check out the requirements ... and it's already June and half the year's vanished. Imagine if this were the '80s - it'd be September before anyone started working on them. There really is no good reason for National - or a decent Council - to be lagging in the internal communications department. There are plenty of youngsters around who could create and oversee e-mail lists, Facebook pages, blogs and Twitter feeds to keep folks up to date without having to bother any SEs who are still afraid of teh intertubes.

One point of clarification to acco40's comment... the U.S. Flag Code, while written and presented as a set of rules, is not something that you can break or violate. In the words of a 2008 report to Congress, "the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups." There are no penalties or enforcement provisions involved. That said, the Code does refer to a "flag patch" authorized for use by military personnel, police, firefighters, and members of patriotic organizations. I guess we fall into the latter. briantshore - I like the idea. I might also bring in the point of respect to oneself - a uniform shirt with your troop number, patrol emblem, rank, etc., is also a representation of who you are. Think of how your uniform is a personalization of you - you couldn't just swap it with a friend's or a leader's. It presents you to the world. Do you want yourself known for being a wrinkled, musty shirt? Or for looking sharp?

SMT - I read your original post to mean that you had a mixed-ability group. But if the group is all swimmers, then of course you don't need to designate the areas. The markings, buoys, lines, etc., are for the Scouts' safety, not to satisfy some random rule. But if you do have a group with non-swimmers, beginners and swimmers, then you do need to mark off the area as SSD prescribes. If you don't, you're not conducting a safe swim under the rules that you agreed to when you took SSD training. It's simple. Saying the rules don't apply because other people use the swim area is simply grasping for straws. Here's a thought. Say you go swimming this summer at one of these holes and don't put up the markers. Next summer, one of your Scouts takes SSD training as part of his BSA Lifeguard certification, and notes the discrepancy in what the rules are and what you guys did. How do you explain that?

"So bottom line, how do you prevent a scout from advancing if they're not living the oath and law"? The Scout Spirit requirement. It's a simple tool, but I'm amazed by how few SMs use it.

I believe one of the other reasons is to accomodate parents with both girls and boys in that age range - so they don't have to drag their kids to one end of the earth or another for the different camps. I'm just not sure how large that potential customer pool would be.

My home council, Del-Mar-Va, is experimenting with a new camp program this summer - a "fusion camp" for Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts and anyone else who wants to come, grades 1-5. Dens/groups will be separated by gender and age. I'm really curious whether anyone else has done this or seen it done, and if so, what your experiences were. It sounds like a really interesting concept. (And no, this isn't a challenge to Camp Fire USA. CF is almost nonexistent in this area.) Details are here: www.doubleknot.com/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.asp?LinkKey=34482

I know this was a few pages back, but wanted to clarify something that bacchus wrote: "When somebody uses a phrase (such as morally straight) you need to apply the definition at the time that the phrase was used. You can't change the definition by using the modified fad definition from the past decade that morality is really "anything goes". You can argue he was wrong to apply morals to scouting if you so desire, that does not change the fact that it was included in the scout oath, and we must use the original meaning." and "How so? Because he didn't live by your definition of "moral" or "clean" or whatever? To whom do you refer when you say "your"? The person who initiated the definition 100 years ago? Who are you to change Lord Powell's definition?" It's important to note that the phrase "morally straight" is an American invention - it's not from BP's pen. The original Scout's Oath was simply: On my honour I promise that - 1. I will do my duty to God and the King. 2. I will do my best to help others, whatever it costs me. 3. I know the scout law, and will obey it. The whole "morally straight" line was from James West. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._West_(Scouting)#Scouting)(This message has been edited by shortridge)

And I'm not saying that your Scouts, or any others, wouldn't obey that imaginary line. They probably would, and nothing untoward would happen and everything would be OK and everyone would go home from the outing having had a lot of fun. But the fact is that a Scouter trained in SSD and carrying out a Scouting swimming activity is bound to follow the rules laid out in SSD at this Scouting swimming activity. We can't, in good conscience at least, pick and choose the rules we want to follow. That's breaking the promise we made - it doesn't set a very good example. I can understand why someone would want to minimize a troop's presence at this swimming hole if it's open to the public - kind of like LNT for the water, right? But I can't understand why someone would want to knowingly ignore the most basic mandatory water safety rules.

Whether boldfaced in the G2SS or not, the rules of Safe Swim Defense are just that, rules: "Before a BSA group may engage in swimming activities of any kind, a minimum of one adult leader must complete Safe Swim Defense training, have a commitment card (No. 34243) with them, and agree to use the eight defenses in this plan." The defenses are not that onerous. They're also very clearly written (in sharp constrast to much of the piffle put out by Irving). If you want to swim on a Scouting outing, you follow the rules: "When setting up a safe swimming area in natural waters, use poles stuck in the bottom, or plastic bottles, balloons, or sticks attached to rock anchors with twine for boundary markers. Enclose nonswimmer and beginner areas with buoy lines (twine and floats) between markers. Mark the outer bounds of the swimmer's area with floats." I must strongly disagree with Beavah's argument that SSD was designed for a camp waterfront, and that parts of it don't apply if you go to someone else's property or a public swimming area. SSD is clearly designed for any BSA swimming activity. Period. All quoted material from www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/Aquatics/safe-swim.aspx.

A few thoughts... "We have never included the patrol leader as a part of the review of a scout for advancement." Start doing this, and it'll solve many of the problems brought to light by this episode. The PL should have the most detailed knowledge of his Scouts' skills than any adult. In some troops, the PL and other youth leaders sign off on T-2-1 requirements. Even if you're a young troop and your PLs are mostly inexperienced, the boys will ride herd more closely on themselves if brought into the advancement process. "Some scouts could have several patrol leaders before making a rank advancement." Why? Only if they take a really long time to move from one rank to another, or if the patrols are more makeshift than real. Besides, is it too onerous a burden for the SM to talk with more than one PL and get their input and insight? "Do you have them speak to living the scout oath and law? Not all patrol leaders go on campouts or are able to attend every troop meeting." OK, I'm curious. Why aren't the PLs at every meeting, at a minimum, and at a strong majority of campouts? I can understand missing one or two campouts out of 10 or 11, and maybe a meeting or two during the course of a year. But it's their job to lead their patrols, and they can't do that without being there! Not to seem critical, because I don't know your troop's special dynamics, but as a committee member, you may want to take a second look at how your troop emphasizes the patrol method. The patrol leader's job should not be viewed as a stepping stone to the "real" importance of the SPL's job, as many unfortunately people see it. The PL stands at the head of his patrol, the very building block of the troop. He leads them on hikes and campouts, guides skills instruction and has a voice and a vote on the PLC, the program decision-making body of the troop. As such, he is the most important leader. So why wouldn't the most important leader in the troop *not* be involved in advancement? Edited to add: In looking over this thread, my understanding is that there are two ASMs assigned to this single patrol. That seems like incredible overkill, even with a new Scout patrol. That's two adults to assist eight boys - boys who are supposed to be leading themselves! That has the potential to have the PL seen as just a figurehead. Am I misunderstanding the situation?(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Eagle92, I don't believe that statement has anything to do with this announcement (or whatever it is). I took YPT and a lot of the other online courses before I was formally re-registered - you just create an account and do 'em, and then it hooks up with your actual registration number once you get it. That link highlights the one thing I really dislike about the doubleknot web system ... it may be convenient for councils, but you can't always tell where an individual page came from.

Sorry, the Double Post virus took over my computer for a second.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

OGE, I think that's a great question to ask at BORs or SMCs. Really gets the Scouts thinking about the whole "daily life" thing! I'm a fuddy-duddy. I'm only Facebook friends with - gasp! - actual friends. I've broadened the definition in recent months to include more co-workers. My rules are that I don't friend my bosses; I don't post anything that I wouldn't want my mother to read; and being a newspaper reporter, I don't friend anyone I'd consider a "source." So however nice a guy the state agency spokesman is, I don't friend him. I guess that explains why I only have about 120 friends when others have 1,000-plus. Quite a few of them are former camp staff co-workers, btw. But I probably wouldn't seek out a Scoutmaster whom I'd met the week prior and friend them.

Just trying to find something on the scouting.org site is a nightmare. It's horribly organized, and the search function is about as useful as a left-handed smokeshifter.

I admit I'm not as experienced on the aquatics front as others here, but SSD does state that the ability areas should be marked: * "The nonswimmer area should be no more than waist to chest deep and should be enclosed by physical boundaries such as the shore, a pier, or lines." * "The enclosed beginner area should contain water of standing depth and may extend to depths just over the head." In this case, since the depth doesn't go beyond six feet, it would probably be simple enough to string a line (ideally with floats - capped milk jugs work fine) over the swimming hole clearly marking the point between chest-deep (for your smallest Scouts) and the beginner's area. You also want to do a survey and make sure any hazards are clearly marked. I can see why you'd want your use to be as invisible to other groups as possible - you probably don't want it to seem like the Scouts are invading! But realistically, can lots of people (beyond standard Scout troop size) fit in a 10-20-foot-across swimming hole? I'd wager that y'all would be the only ones able to squeeze in.

< whoosh whoosh whoosh > Helicopter parent alert... While this wouldn't have worked in the OP's post about Cubs, IMHO, Frank17's 11-year-old is certainly responsible enough to take notes about upcoming events, deadlines, costs, dates, etc. He certainly has to take notes in school and keep track of homework and upcoming assignments and projects, doesn't he? That's not an unreasonable thing to suggest, and would certainly make both of your lives much easier. I would observe that some people just don't have access to e-mail, because of cost or geography (rural areas can't get high-speed Net); others may not be computer-literate enough to use it, and might be embarrassed to admit it.

RichardB, Thanks for posting. That was helpful info. Wish more folks from National would stop in here!

First things first: What do the Scouts want to do? Even with two patrols, there's really no need for an SPL, ASPL or TG in a troop of 12. Those duties fall naturally to a PL, which should be the most important position in the troop, anyway. Assessing the two-patrol idea with such small numbers: Let's say you have a patrol of four Scouts. If three don't show up to an event, you have a patrol of one - not very functional. But if you have a patrol of 10, and three don't show up, the resulting patrol of seven can still perform just fine.

I wish you the best of luck, but sorry - I don't join any group that I can't understand the name of. Subtitles might work if you're going for an international appeal.

lrsap - I certainly see your point, and didn't mean for my question to come across in a negative way. However, if I were an SM or CC or COR, I would definitely ask the same question of any parent looking to become involved, whether male or female. We're not members of the BSA - we're volunteers. Everyone should bring along some skill or personal attribute to help our children grow. Asking why someone wants to go camping with the troop is a perfectly legitimate question. "How would you help the boys?" is basically the same question that should be asked when nominating adults to the Order of the Arrow, and I think it's an excellent one. If a troop has plenty of ASMs and no problem getting two-deep leadership on outings, what skills would New Person No. 1 bring to the job? Are they particularly good at pioneering? At cooking? Nature identification? Or do they just want to hang out with their son? If the latter, then a Boy Scout camping trip is not the way to accomplish that. I've seen too many well-meaning parents, both trained and untrained, squash or ruin their son's Scouting experience because they hovered or micromanaged. I was lucky enough that both my parents were involved in my first troop - my dad as an ASM and my mother on the committee. But my dad also took a hands-off approach, allowing me to grow from interacting with other adults. When I switched troops at age 12, he took the opportunity to step down, and I stood on my own two feet. To tell the truth, I really enjoyed the time away from my parents! One of my close adult mentors as a youth was a woman, a leader with a local troop. I was her elangomat in the OA, and she later became chapter adviser - I learned a heck of a lot from her. Personally, I would love to see a troop that accepted only women as leaders. I think that'd turn the tables on the old guard right quick! But I also believe that asking any prospective leader, parent or not, about what they'd bring to the unit is a perfectly legitimate question. nwasness - to answer your original question, if I were in your shoes, I'd leave immediately and find another troop with my son. Lisabob hit the nail on the head. That type of an attitude is not one I agree with. If the troop stays in a hotel, mothers have to stay in an entirely different hotel? I mean, what kind of ridiculousness is that? What are they afraid of?

nwasness - Welcome to the boards. Can I inquire, for information's sake, how old your son is, and why you want to go camping with his troop?