Twocubdad

I'm a bit confused. Is your point that the article inaccurately -- and I assume unethically -- reports the facts of how ISPs operate and the technical possibilities of diagnostic software? If I've accurately captured your point, I would respond that in the full article ( at http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/1001/d-ethics.html ) the story is clearly labled as hypothetical, that is, fictional. As such I don't have a problem that the writer creates details to better illustrate a point. If one wanted to do so, could you not question the ethics of omitting that the story is hypothetical?

Yeah, my father-in-law pulls that crap all the time. We're out for dinner and the check comes. He drops a Krugerrand on the table and says, "sorry, I don't have anything smaller."

I'm really looking forward to the airing of greviances this year! We've had our pole up for weeks!

We've done it both ways. The pre-established course at camp (which our older boys could navigate blindfolded and in leg irons) is a distance/bearing course. But in the past year one of our ASM has hooked up with the local orienteering club which runs their courses using maps. (They've done a couple meets on a local lake and you have to run the course by canoe. That's pretty sweet.) I prefer the latter method. It's a much more realistic navigation problem and can include using bearings and pacing distances. Honestly, every course I've seen has a rather contrived use for the height/distance measure. At the beginning or end of the course you have to figure the height of a flag pole, or something similar.

I would definitely stick with the one patrol. With only four regular guys, why would you split? The traditional number for a patrol is 8, the thinking being that seven is the right number of a Patrol Leader to manage. But as you have learned, with attendance issues, you rarely have that many on a campout. I think more current thinking is to bump patrol membership to 10. Even when everyone shows up, that's not an unmanagable number. If a patrol consistently has 6 or 8 guys camping, things just go better -- more fun, more hands to help with the chores. We're in the process of reorganizing our patrols after about two and a half years with the current alignment. With 40 boys, the PLC made the call to go with four, 10-man patrols basically for these reasons. The Scouts correctly understand the math and figure slightly larger patrols are going to make sure they are more likely to have critical mass on campouts.

I would disagree that Scouts are a bunch of geeks and nerds. We have some real geeks and nerds in our troop -- you know the stereotype: introverted, very smart, nose buried in a book or computer -- and frankly, they don't usually do that well in Scouting. Standing up and running a meeting and participating in high adventure activities are rather ungeeky persuits. I would say that Scouting helps the more nerdy kids out of their shells. I see most of the harassment of the guys as part of the usual teasing that is a constant in middle school. Kids get teased for anything and everything -- being in Scouts, going to church, fat, skinny, short, tall, playing in the band, taking advanced classes, doing well on a test, failing a test. When my boys were suffering through this garbage in middle school, one thing I told them was it was simply part of middle school. By high school, most people grow up enough that they quit worrying about everyone else, and develop more of a live and let live attitude. Now that both my boys are in high school, I think that's the case. They, and most of their friends, are comfortable enough in their own skins that they don't worry about it too much. Both are at a new school and are frequently surprised to learn that their new friends are Scouts. They think it's cool to learn someone else is an Eagle, or SPL. But they're still careful about who they let know they're in Scouts and I would be surprised if they showed up in uniform. For your timeline, as cubs in the late '60s I had the same experience of wearing our uniform on den meeting day and going to our Den Mothers' house right after school. I grew up in a fairly small town and just about everyone was in Scouting at one time or another. I was still a very big deal to be an Eagle Scout and I think we were held in relatively high esteem even by the other kids, who at minimum saw Eagle as a leg up. My senior year (1978) a member of our Philmont crew was killed in a climbing accident and his dad, the SM of another troop, asked the other crew members to serve as honorary pall bearers. The timing of the funeral was such that there were quite a few Scouts at school in full uniform and checked out early for the service. I remember six of us lined up outside the office waiting to check out in full, formal uniform. We didn't get any snide comments as the group of us included the student body president, starting quarterback, an all state wrestler, editor of the school paper, and president of the Key Club. Not an especially geeky crowd.

Sorry for coming late to the party, but we were camping all weekend. When OneCubSon and I joined the troop six years ago, the weekly program alternated between British Bulldog, dodgeball and an occasional game of capture the flag. When I took over as SM we went heavy into the PLC planning and executing seven-part troop meetings. We had monthly themes with the instruction time focused on the theme and the activities sometimes a little less so. We spent a great deal of time training the guys how to do the instruction and working with them individually. Unfortunately, it rarely went well. We are a fairly young troop, and certainly were back then. The older guys did fine teaching very basic skills to the new kids, but when they tried to lead more advanced instruction for the older boys, they simply didn't have the expertise in a given subject to really bring anything to the table. Many 13- and 14-year-olds are going to struggle with content. Trying to then make a presentation both instructive and entertaining is exceedingly difficult. We came to the realizations that our troop meetings -- at least instruction portion -- was 25 kids bored to death by another kid who didn't want to be there either. A ripple effect of this was that the activities were also suffering. The Scouts responsible for the meetings were spending so much time focused on instruction they frequently forgot all about planning an activity or patrol game. Consequently about two years ago we made a commitment that the adults would take a heavier hand in the instruction and the boys would re-commit to running the activites. It's not a 100% thing but varies greatly depending on the topic. For example, one month this winter the theme is built around Law merit badge. (No, it's not a merit badge class, we do it the right way.) Our SPL has arranged for one dad, an attorney, to do coordinate the instruction, including bring in guest speakers. I know a lot of the kids a looking forward to it. But the Scouts still get a chance. Since December is a short month with only two regular meetings, we had the new Scout patrols do presentations on cold weather camping and first aid. It was pretty bad. The only guys doing any learning were the guys doing the presentations. But that's okay too. That's still part of the process and the other guys in the troop understand that, too.

I'll agree with da Beav. While I'm sure there are SMs who do nothing to help a Scout through a POR then refuse to sign at the end of the term, I think it's more likely that SMs do everything they can to drag Scouts across the finish line. I know I've painted myself into that corners by continuing to work with boys who show little initiative far past the time they should have been removed from office. I think most of us in Scouting are here to help boys succeed and are pretty loathsome to fire a 13 year old. National's policy make sense if you're sitting in an office in Irving and are trying to avoid conflict and keep your job easy. But it STINKS as a way to run a Scout troop. I just spent two months crawling through that pile of broken glass. We had an Eagle candidate (I may have written about him before) who did a poor job in his POR. By national's way of thinking, in July I should have told him, sorry, your not making the grade, no Eagle for you. Because of his looming birthday, he had no chance to try another term. Instead, I left him in the position for a total of nine months and spent a great deal of time working with him. So at the end of the nine months, what are my options? Did the extra time and effort pay off? Or did the boy continue with the sub-standard performance from the first six month. According to National, it doesn't matter. When the calendar page turned to September and the boy was still in the position, he completed the requirement, regardless of what I think. My willingness to DO MY JOB and work with this Scout means I give up the ability to judge his performance? Back to attendance -- I've got boys who attend something short of the 50% standard we like to see for Scouts wanting to advance. Does national really want me to expell them from the troop? Can you just imagine showing up at the council office on a routine basis with letters asking for boys to be dropped from your charter for lack of attendance? What do you think is going to get more notice from council? A unit that enforces attendance standards or which routinely boots kids from the program? An odd way to run a railroad.....

Dang lawyers! You keep contradicting all the opinions with the law. I suppose, Beav, are here to suggest that the Rules and Regulations of the Boys Scouts of America have more weight than a FAQ web page targeting merit badge counselors? Bah! I find it interesting that a usually argumentative group of experienced Scouters posting here is in fairly close agreement as to how this SHOULD handled, and all generally disagreeing with the national proclaimation on the subject.

If I were on the NATIONAL committee, I would NOT try to create a national definition of active, rather I would provide units with guidelines for reasonably defining the requirement for their units. Unit policies should be reasonable and designed to encourage boys to get the most out of the program by participating in it. They should acknowledge that Scouts have other priorities including family, church and school. Policies should be flexible enough for boys to participate in other activites, such as sport and music. I tell my Scouts that if they are going to miss several months of Scouts because of a sports conflict, fine. We'll see you at the end of the season. You should not, however, expect to advance during your time off and you most certainly can't earn credit for a Position of Responsibility if you're not coming to Scouts. Unit policies should allow leaders to consider a boy's individual situation and make reasonable exceptions and not be bound by strict, numerical percentages. I have a Scout with divorced parents. He dad absolutely does not want his son in Scouting. So weekends when he's with his father, he can't go on campouts. I can't hold that against the Scout. Same story with a boy (now aged out) who lived with his elderly grandmother who didn't drive. He was dependant on others to get him back and forth. Of course we would cut him some slack. Policies should not be punitive. Boys should have the ability to make up missed meetings and campouts through attendance as special activities, OA functions, jamboree and Philmont shakedowns, etc. For example, I have an ASPL who missed several meetings earlier in the fall and is a bit short of our expectations for a leadership position. But he's also attended special leadership training, PLC meetings and has met several times with the SPL and the other ASPL for extra planning sessions among the three of them. Does he still met the requirement? Dang right he does! Along those same lines our troop only looks at the most recent six months in determining a Scouts participation. Say a boy didn't attend one single meeting January through June. Starting in July, he attends every meeting. By the end of September, because we would only look at the most recent six months, his average would be back up to 50%

So if I'm hearing ya'll right, geocaching as a Scout activity generally involves someone going out and setting out a course or a number of caches all within reasonable hiking distance of each other. All not unlike a typical Scout orienteering course. For that matter, I could take the existing orienteering course at our camp, record the coordinates for each marker, and make it a geocache course. What I'm not hearing is anyone who goes to geocache.com, downloads coordinates from the couple dozen caches within a 10-mile radius and tries to use those as a Scout activity.

My new phone has the world's greatest app! An off button.

Sounds to me like they're not dropping anything, just cutting staff.

You bettcha, John. Let's not forget a membership application still requires the unit leader's signature. In addition to basic M&M concerns, active=registered is a bureaucratic response to a problem the bureauracy can't handle: appeals of subjective requirements. Can you imagine national trying to subjectively decide appeals of scout spirit, "Be active" and "Serve actively"? How can national apply standards to subjective requirements which ultimately come down to both individual units' intrepretation and expectations for the requirements AND the individual situation of each Scout? The options are limited: 1) Lawyer it to death. Be prepared for explainations of the requirement running into tens of thousands of words with regular updates based on recent appeals and exceptions. Scoutmasters and advancement chairmen will need annual training on the changes. 2)Trust the local units and councils to apply reasonable standards. For this to work, national would have to give up control over these requirements and who wants to hold their breath until that happens?. I believe our unit has reasonable expectations for these requirements which comply with equally reasonable instructions from our coucil advancement committee. Unfortunatly, those instructions come with the caveat that we're unlikely to prevail on appeal even if we follow the instructions. 3) Change or delete these requirements. They could do this one of two ways, either by actually changing or dropping them, which they seem unwilling to do. Or they can gut the requirements by making them meaningless, which is what they've done. My personal speculation is that national is between a rock and a hard place in how to deal with this. On the one hand, these requirements -- to participate in activities, to show leadership/responsibility and to live by the Scout Oath and Law -- cut to the very core of the program. To eliminate them would evicerate the basics of Scouting. On the other hand, administering these requirments on the national level is difficult. The compromise? A faustian deal on the model of "don't ask, don't tell." Units and councils are free to implement reasonable expectations for how Scouts meet these requirement. (Has anyone failed their advancement audit over this?) Reasonable expectations are okay, firm percentages are out. As long as no one complains, everyone is happy. Government by consent of the governed, so to speak. But when the metal hits the meat, and someone complains or appeals, national throws up its hands defaults to their easy, one-policy-fits-all, least common denominator interpretations.

I just clicked on the blog and read it. Here's the very first response: "It is nice to get some insight from National BSA on issues such as this. As a volunteer it's frustrating that we don't get more clear guidance on what should be simple policies. "On this specific question, however, the policy seems to be there is no policy. If "active" means "registered", then change the requirement to "registered". "Otherwise we'll continue to interpret "active" as, well, "active". John Shepard SM T25 Sioux Council You tell 'em John!

While they are fortunate to share a building with the BSA "decision makers" apparently the folks who publish the handbook are somewhere off site. In the brand new, hot-off-the-press edition, requirement one for Star, Life and Eagle still says "BE ACTIVE...." If and when BSA changes the requirement to read "Be a registered member of the Boy Scouts of America..." or when the common, every-day English language meaning of the words "be active" changes, then I -- and many other leaders -- will accept the rediculous idea that active equals registered. In reality, Mr. Evans's answer is another non-responsive response. It doesn't deal with the real issue that all a Scout need do to meet the requirement is mail in his registration fee once a year. Few people will disagree that a hard, inflexible percentage figure is inconsistent with the philosophies of Scouting. We need to consider each Scout's situation individually and consider what active should mean. But the idea that a Scout could fulfill the requirement and never attend a single meeting or activity is beyond inconsistent with the mission, aims, methods or purposes of the program. Just for fun, let's look at some other requirements and apply the active=registered logic: Second Class Requirement 3a. "Since joining, have participated in five separate troop/patrol activities...." The Scout registers to attend five separate activities, but doesn't actually show up for any of them. Of course his leaders have an obligation to contact him and let him know how the activities went. Tenderfoot requirement 4a. "Demonstrate how to whip and fuse the ends of a rope." The scout sets up a DVD and plays the appropriate segment from the BSA basic skills DVD. Eagle Requirement 3. "Earn a total of 21 merit badges." The Scout mows lawns and rakes leaves to earn money then buys the 21 merit badges on eBay. Star Requirement 4. "While a Life Scout, take part in service projects totalling at least six hours of work." The Scout attends another Scout's Eagle project work day and stays for about 15 minutes. Overall the project totals more than 6 hours. Of course we have learned above that he really didn't need to show up for the 15 minutes, he could have simply registered to attend and done nothing. Supply division better gear up to produce more rank patches and Eagle medals.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

How about the local 911 call center? Or a visit with a local ham operator? Nothing in the requirement says it has to be a commercial radio station. Most newspaper offices now are just offices. Not much to see unless you have the chance to go to a larger metro paper. The old days when every newspaper had it's own press room are going by the way. How about a commercial printing company?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Can someone explain how this works as a Scout program? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the sport is that one enters the coordinates of a cache into your GPS unit and you follow the GPS to the cache. Seems like a really fun add-on for a family which travels around to different locations. If I'm on vacation at the beach, I may load the local caches and spend some vacation time looking for them. Over time you end up with a collection of cache trinkets from all over. Cool. But I don't see how this works as a Scout event. Of the caches I've seen in our area, there seems to be one or two caches per location. Once you find that one cache, you've found it. You then load up in the car and drive to the next location. For Scouts to spend the day or a campout geocaching there would seem to be a good bit of driving to the different locations. I suppose one could set up multiple caches in one area, but that strikes me as just using a GPS unit on an orienteering course and would require someone setting up the course first. What am I missing?

One cold, rainy January Saturday afternoon, I had opened my woodshop to anyone who needes a hand with their Pinewood Derby car. I had Scout popcorn, soft drinks and hot cocoa for anyone who wanted it. One family (mom, dad and son) came in and I asked if they would like anything to drink. "Oh, yes," said the mom, "I could really go for a gin and tonic." I thought our Cubmaster, who was standing behind the mom, would bust a gut laughing.

How does your troop go to the restroom when you stop at McDonald's? Eagle92's method works if the troop has exclusive use of the facility, but are you suggesting you have to lock out adult Y members so the boys can change?

Patrols, Patrols, Patrols. The solution is to work with the patrols. We bought all new tents a couple years ago. Prior to that, the troop tents were fairly well maintained, just worn out. The issue was that when something would happen to the tent (poles break or go missing, holes, leaks, missing stakes, etc.) instead of the boys owning up to the problem, they would just put the tent back on the shelf, figuring it would be someone else's problem next month. When we bought the new tents (we settled on the Eureka Pinnacles) they were numbered and permanently assigned to each patrol. Troop policy is that at every PL election, we do an inventory and inspection and the members of the patrol are financially responsible for the patrol gear. Interestingly, most of the PATROLS have implemented an internal procedure for the individual Scouts to sign-out tent so that if there is a problem the individuals can be held responsible, not the entire patrol. I can't tell you the last time we went camping and had someone show up with missing tent parts. That used to be a constant. As best I can tell, the tents are being well cared for as well.

I could probably write a book on this. Trying to change a troop from adult run and/or boy-led-into-a-ditch is what I've been doing for the past six years. I figure I'm about half way through the process. So here are a few thought. Somewhat disjointed and maybe a little self-contradictory in places...... Eagle732 wrote: "When the parents start complaining and threatening to take there sons elsewhere that's when you know you're getting close to being boy led." That sounds to me like looking for a gas leak by waving a lit match over the gas pipe. Effective, but a dangerous. How effective is your program if you're running Scouts off? A troop can't sustain a consistent net loss of boys over time. Losses because the program is too wimpy or too tough are still losses. You need to make sure your program is meeting the needs of your Scouts and is supported by your leadership team. That said, you didn't give us enough info about your troop to know of the complainers are a significant number or not. A troop with 40 Scouts and four are unhappy is one matter, but a troop of 8 with four Scouts threatening to leave is a different issue. Generally, losing a few boys here and there doesn't scare me a bit. It happens all the time. This fall we lost a boy and a very dedicated ASM because the son just wasn't a good fit for our troop. The dad argued very persuasively that we needed to be doing things differently. But I was looking at 40 kids who were enjoying the program and thriving and one who wasn't. DUH! We gain more Scouts who like our program than those who transfer out. Last week we had two boys visit from other troops and one committed to join. Neither do we have much info on the experience and skill levels in your troop. Do you have boys available who can teach the skills? If so, your problem may be one of organization and/or training. If you don't have the experienced Scouts, it is perfectly acceptable for the adults to step in and teach the skills. "Youth Leadership" is an important method of Scouting, but so is "Adult Association." The troop has an obligation to teach the basic skills to the boys, whether its planning, organization, leadership or how to cook a pancake. Preferably, the instruction comes from older boys, but there needs to be instruction. Remember the seven parts of a troop meeting? Instruction Time is one of the biggies. We've had sessions in the troop during which the older guys literally teach how to cook pancakes -- the proper consistency for the batter, that you need a low heat, how to judge the bubbles to know when to flip the pancake, etc. Armed with that knowledge, then the boys are let loose to succeed or fail on their own. We need to set our boys up for success. That's not the same as guaranteeing success. Give them the proper tools for the job -- both skills and supplies -- then turn them loose. Another concept to consider is "controlled failure." Both words are important parts of the concept. When a program or activity is circling the bowl, you need to look at more than just safety. How will one Scout's failure affect the rest of the troop? Are the other Scouts still benefitting from a solid troop program or has the failure compromised the troop's ability to deliver to the other boys? Consider where the failure is occurring and what learning is likely to come from it. A patrol forgetting its stove and spending the weekend re-learning to cook over an open fire is a both a shared failure (although there is sure to be finger-pointing) and a terrific learning experience for the whole patrol. A good Scoutmaster will just step back and smile. But say the SPL and ASLP drop the ball in making arrangements for an outing or campout to the point the activity is cancelled. How does that effect the rank-and-file Scouts? How did they fail? What will they learn on a campout which never takes place? A good Scoutmaster will work with the SPL and ASPL to rescue the outing AND make sure the junior leaders understand and learn from the mistakes they made in planning. (And please don't tell me the younger kids learned to vote for better leaders. That doesn't work any better in a troop than it does in national elections.) Are the other leaders in your troop trained? Do they understand the program? If so, really listen to what they are telling you. They are on the ground and understand the situation in your troop. Honestly evaluate what they're telling you. We've all had clueless parents complain that their son isn't getting the five-star service he's accustomed to at home. But if you have trained, experienced leaders in the troop who "get it" you need to consider their input. Part of your job is as leader of the leaders. You need to integrate those people into the decision making and build your team -- exactly what we're asking the patrol leaders to do. Finally, one session of Wood Badge training is "Managing Change." For me, that session alone was worth going through the course. The key point is this: when you are trying to effect a change in an organization, you as a leader must have a clear vision for where you want the organization to go, and you must have the conviction to stick with that vision. Temper your vision with a realistic assesment of what the organization can do. Get the input from the other leaders and perhaps reconsider the time it will take to implement your vision. Get the others to buy into your vision, but be prepared for fallout. You may loose some Scouts and some good leaders aong the way. In short, make sure you are doing the right thing and stick to it! Your job then becomes managing progress toward the goal. A friend with 40 years experience as Scoutmaster once told me his most important job is to constantly assess the ability of his boys. Every six months you have to adjust the program to fit the abilities and interests of a new PLC. Every year you have to figure out how to integrate a new crop of Scouts and parents/leaders into the program (although I've learned that new Scouts provide your best opportunities to make big changes). Progress toward the goal will come in fits and spurts. There will be setbacks. (My second year my SPL was bipolar with serious ADD issues and was of the opinion that I had "ruined his troop." We didn't make much progress that term.) Don't let the setbacks deter you from the vision. Good luck with it. Sounds like you have the enthusiasm and vision you need. The rest will come.

I appreciate the input. Yes, I've had mutiple conversations with the lad about his behavior in very clear language. His parents are involved and we talk regularly. From a behavior management standpoint, I think we've dotted the "Is" and crossed the "Ts". I agree with those of you who feel advancement should be out of the question at his point. Technically, the kid is on probation with the troop for his last brain-fart. While we don't really spell it out, it is very reasonable that you don't advance while on probation. In some ways I suppose it is a rhetorical question in that the kid hasn't asked for an advancement conference and I don't particularly expect he will any time soo. I guess I'm just looking to Be Prepared. Perhaps a better way of looking at this is what must you do to deny a Scout advancement based on a lack of Scout Spirit and make it stick.

Which begs the question, why the difference? I have no idea. But I agree with the others and wouldn't read anything into it.

I have a 14-year-old Star Scout in the troop with whom I'm having problems. I don't care to go through everything he has done here, but I could cite chapter and verse on a half dozen specifics. As relates to the Scout Law, he isn't trustworthy. I don't trust that I can leave him without adult supervision without him doing something stupid and/or dangerous. I don't trust his truthfulness or sincerity. He is a bully. He will do or say very hurtful things toward even his friends if it buys him a few seconds in the spotlight. He is extremely discourteous and frequently distrupts meetings. He is at least consistent. I know he exhibits this sort of behavior in school, Scouts and other areas. I've discussed his behavior with his parents and they feel he is getting better. I think he's just getting better at it. He's learning to be sneakier and he can work up a tearful apology at the drop of a hat. A week later he's back to his old ways. He will be up for Life soon and I cannot approve his Scout Spirit requirement. As we all know, when we turn a Scout down for an advancement, we are required to provide him with a written reason for his denial, a plan for correcting the deficiency and the procedures for appealing the decision. My question is this: How would you write a work-out plan for correcting Scout Spirit? What would be an appropriate time frame over which to judge living by the Oath and Law?