Twocubdad

Some of the guys -- typically the older ones -- are going to buck the system for the sake of bucking the system. That's just what teenagers go. Welcome to our world. As a leader, you need to learn to pick your battles, change the things you can control and move beyond the others. Pushing to hard with those guys probably won't be too effective and likely more trouble than it's worth. Sooner or later they will outgrow their need to buck the system or not. The opportunity you have is to cement the tradition and feeling of pride the younger Scouts have in their uniforms. The absolutely best thing you can do in that regard is exactly what you are doing -- set a good example. If the younger guys only see the bozos who don't wear their uniforms properly, they will want to copy what the older, "cool" guys are doing. But if you set a counter example, the younger guys will at least have a someone they can look to. We've gone through exactly the same process in our troop. Among the older guys (age 15+, a total of about eight guys), probably half will be in full uniform on any given night. The leaders -- SPL, troop guides and most PLs, are the ones in uniform, setting the pace. Of the younger guys (the majority of the troop, about 35 Scouts) nearly all will be in uniform. As far a practical advice, first decide what "in uniform" means for your troop and push that. For us, we push for "all six parts" -- that is troop cap, troop neckerchief, scout shirt, scout pants, belt and socks. That's a full uniform to us. Every once and a while, we'll have a surprise prize for everyone in uniform. Sometimes an adult will bring a couple boxes of ice cream bars to troop meetings. Everyone in full uniform gets one. A couple months ago we were loading out from a campout and the adults had a couple bottles of soft drinks and a few bags of chips left over. Everyone in full uniform was invited to divide what was left. Keep it up man, you are doing a great job and serving your troop well.

Hey, I could not care less about the loops. Our troop converted over to green this winter when the new Webelos crossed over simply because we couldn't get enough red one for the new guys (I suppose the eradication program is working). I can't understand why anyone gives a hoot.

Was it Justice Blackman who said he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it? There are pictures of naked ladies (I suppose they would qualify as nekkid)and then there is porn. Yes, context and content matter. However one of the prime context issues is that we are talking about a Scout function. There are much younger boys around which we have to consider. One of the reasons parents entrust their sons to us is that we do have higher standards of behavior. You may call it stuffy, uptight or prudish, but you can also call it Scoutlike.

What is remarkable to me is that somewhere someone is getting paid to worry about lingering red loops and plotting their eradication.....

Been down that road John. What do you do if it's another year before #11 comes along? What if neither of the two boys' parents are able to serve as DL? What if #10 is the best friend of an existing Scout who recruited him into the den? It's the old saw about boiling a frog. You'd be nuts to start a den with 14 boys but occasionally they get there. With 12, 14 or 16 kids in a den woulda, coulda, shoulda is easy at that point. But how do you make that call when #9 shows up and wants to be in Cubs with the friend who invited him?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Very difficult. Most times you're going to end up with haves and have nots and that's not a good situation. The first issue is obviously den leaders. Unless there are problems, most folks will want to stay with their original leader. Who will be DL of the new den At the cub level I think you have to work through the parents. As DG noted, the big thing with the boys will be staying with their buddy. The parents generally know who that is and can provide that input. I would suggest an initial "what if" meeting with the parents. If you haven't done so, that gives the parents a chance to buy in to the split. The parents may all be fat and happy, not realizing the DL is going nuts with 14. Make the case for the split to them. Don't go in with how are we going to split the den, but "IF" we split the den, what would it look like? You may come out with a 7-7- split, two great DLs and meeting nights arranged. But if not you at least get an idea of where the meat hooks are and the problems you have to over come. One option may to be to consider A and B dens which meet on the same night at the same place. The original DL would still be the DL but you would have two ADL for each sub den. Meetings would run almost like mini troop meetings. Everyone together for the opening and closing and maybe a quick business session, then split into breakouts for activities and advancement and other things where you need closer supervision and lower cub/leader ratios. The advantage is that you haven't "split" the den -- everyone still feels like they are still in the same den. But you've brought additional leadership in keep things at a more managable level when needed. Admittedly, if this is a Tiger or Wolf den, you probably want to bite the bullet on the split. But if you're going into Webelos and only looking at a year or 18 months, this may work.

Our troop discipline policy begins with the Scout Oath and Law. Clearly this is a violation. The kid's parents would immediately be called to pick him up. Hopefully this would all take place very late at night and several hours away from home. Back at the ranch, we would consider the situation before deciding on a course of action. Generally, the SM (me) makes a recommendation to the troop committee as to what the consequences would be. Without knowing any other circumstances, I would be inclined to consider a short/medium-terms suspension and a longer term probation.

Clearly you are dealing with two issues: one is that the troop and seemingly the advancement committee has botched how they handled the denial of the Scout's application. I think you will find one of the main reasons for the appeal process is to make sure boys don't get burned by the adult's ineptness. That would seem to be the case here. If the troop can't provide a copy of the letter they wrote the boy advising him of the appeal process, I would think that is clear grounds for an extension. It would also be good if you can find some documentation for when the family submitted the application to the council. Scouts and their parents don't know the appeals process. It's not something folks are routinely taught and I doubt the average parent has ever heard of the Advancement Policy Guidebook. That is why leaders are required to provide the appeals process to Scouts in writing if an advancement is denied. As I mentioned in the other similar thread, I am concerned that your family has been invited to attend "some meeting." Likely this is part of the district/council's fact-finding process. If these folks go in thinking this is just a discussion but it turns out to be a quasi-hearing, they're probably not going to be in a position to present their case effectively. That's not fair to the Scout. Hopefully your involvement will help. The second issue is the underlying question of Scout Spirit and attendance. Generally, those are tough for a troop to sustain. But I don't think you can resolve that problem until the first is addressed.

Let's not turn this into another thread on the definition of active. There are plenty of those floating around we can pick up if we like. Whatever definition of active you use, keep in mind the requirement is to be active for six months. That six month period could have been immediately after the Scout earned Life YEARS ago. Under no definition of active is there a requirement that the active participation be in the six months immediately proceeding the Eagle application. I don't recall much previous discusion related to MDsummer's Scout's attendance. (And, no, I'm not taking the time to re-read 20 pages looking for it.) It seems to me this is a fairly new argument. If my recollection and assumptions are right, it sounds like a bit of piling-on occurring. When forced to justify a decision, who of us wouldn't pull out all the stops (and I'm not suggesting anything unethical) to support our position or place it in the best light. If your boss questions something you've done at work and schedules a meeting to discuss it, we're all going to prepare our best case, right? No doubt that the Scoutmaster and troop committee is doing that. I would too, but in this situation I have to question the basic fairness of that. It concerns me that with the adults circling the waggons, that we expect the 17-year-old to go it alone and defend himself. I don't disagree that the Scout should be the one speaking in his own behalf. My concern is with the folks on the other side of the table: The Scoutmaster, the troop committee, the district advancement chairman and committee.... These folks likely have decades of combined Scouting experience and hundreds of years of professional and life experiences in making presentations, defending themselves, negotiating with others, debating and thinking on their feet. Maybe I would be more comfortable if this were like a college Honor Court where the "prosecution" is another student. Perhaps it would be more fair if the troop's case were presented by the SPL, although I know that's not appropriate within the structure of a Scout troop. Perhaps council advancement committees should have designated "public defenders" to help Scouts and their parents through advancement issues and prepare for meeting with committees. I make that point because I think it's now time for the adults to take over. The original controversy with the Scoutmaster and now two rounds of appeals is enough. As with the real legal system, we are beyond the point of finding facts. If the troop denied the Eagle due to lack of attendance or Scout Spirit, the facts on which they made that decisions should be on the table. From this point forward the appeals should be on how the troop and council applies BSA policy to the know facts. Subjecting the Scout to further questioning and interviews is pointless. Either the coucil is going to apply policy properly or not. This doesn't need to take another two months. The council advancement committee should be able make a ruling quickly and move on. Personally, my approach would be that the council has had their bite at the apple -- they just chose to let the district do it. On to national.

Sometimes maps are printed with stuff on both sides. They make those compasses to use on the reverse maps. The same is true with nails. When you buy a box of nails, you'll notice half of them have the heads on the wrong end. Those are for use on the other side of the wall.

It is possible to buy a compass that's too cheap. You would think they all point north, right? We had a pile of $2.99 compasses from W-M and I took one when I took IOLS. Our whole patrol would line up on the orienteering course, take a bearing and head off -- except me heading about 20 degree to the right every time. A couple tips for teaching wee ones map and compass. It's a bit etherial for little guys you have to make it concrete. Get one of the large-scale demonstration compasses sold at the bigger Scout shops so they can all see what you're talking about. The best tip is to make sure the map you're using is of the immediate, visible area. When you orient the map, it needs to be a real-time one-to-one relationship with what they see. Using a map of the state, pointing east and saying "the beach is that way" (for those on the east coast) means nothing. You have to point to the flag pole on the map, then turn and point to the flag pole over your shoulder.

I actively go out and try to hire college freshmen and sophomores. I like to get them while they still know everything! Any Scout in our troop who is still active at 18 is almost automatically registered as an ASM. It's no big deal and almost an honorary thing. Rarely do we ever get much help out of them, usually because they tend to head off to college in a few months. Right now I have one 19-year-old ASM who is just now finishing high school. He's a year behind his age group, so he was around a full year after going turning 18. He even took SM/ASM training last. Unfortunately, he also got a job which pulled him away troop meeting night and most weekends. I really haven't seen much of him. I have another recent Eagle who turns 18 in a couple weeks, but is a rising high school senior so he will be around for another year. But other than helping his best friend make Eagle, I don't really expect to see much of him either.

That's pretty cool. I wonder if they will create a new patch for learning differnet ways to use your own urine? Maybe we could get Les Stroud?

I wish I were. A friend of mine is receiving the Silver Antelope. But the trip is a bit pricey for going to a recognition dinner.

How does HAVING cell phones accomplish the purpose, mission and vision of the BSA? Nothing requires me to scratch every little itch that comes along. I could teach responsibility and how to appropriately handle technology by taking ATVs everywhere we go instead of hiking. Responsible handgun use would also be a good lesson. Nationally, BSA did the math and figured the risk and rewards don't balance. (And I understand there is a safety component in these two examples which aren't a concern with cell phones, so let's don't go down that trail.) We have lots of tools and methods for teaching the same lessons. Uniforming, a traditional method of Scouting, can teach boys the lesson that what is appropriate for one situation isn't appropriate for another. Camp stoves, sheath knives and axes are all part of the traditional outdoor program which teach boys how to be responsible with tools which have the potential for abuse. Cell phones are an attractive nuisance. Boys just don't want to leave them along. Now it's a not just a matter of talking on them, when you get tired of talking you can text. When you're tired of texting you can play games. When the games get old you can listen music. Then you can start over with a phone call. Maybe your son, Tombitt, can handle the gear responsibly. I know a lot of guys who can't. My older son can take it or leave it. My younger son would be glued to something electronic 24/7 if he were given the opportunity. And a whole bunch of boys in the troop are just like him. To the basic desire/addiction of the gizmos, add the possibility to show off you toys in front of your buddies and it becomes a constant distraction. And let's just mention the 1200 pound gorilla in the corner. As a matter of personal preference I don't like having the intrusion on the outdoor experience. Part of what we seek to teach boys is to enjoy the solitude of nature; the experience of getting away from everyday conveniences and the comfort of being alone with your thoughts. You miss that if you're glued to and LED screen. In our troop, we choose to solve the problem by just banning electronics outright. The time we would spend managing them is not worth what they could possibly add to the program. Almost all the leaders and most of the parents agree. Most parents enthuiastically support the idea that the boys have to give up electronics for a weekend now and again. (Why they don't have the cajones to enforce that themselves is another thread.) If they disagree with the troop policy, they are more than free to find -- or start -- a troop with policies more to their liking. One of the great strengths of the BSA is the flexibility of the program. Each troop has the opportunity to craft a program that works best for the members of our unit.

I had exactly this conversation with two parents my first summer as SM. Their son had taken his cell phone to summer camp despite a troop rule against it. He was using his "power" to award and withhold phone calls to get other guys to do his bidding. Ultimately he and another guy got into a fight over using the phone. When we met with the kid's parents' their defense was just as you have said "we want him to have a phone for emergencies." So precisely how will that work? Your son is a camp and trips and sprains an ankle. Who does he call, you? You're four hours away. 911? Is your son aware of the agreement the camp has with the local EMS that EMS waits is to be met at the front gate by an escort who will tell them where on the 1300 acre camp the emergency is located? Does he know the camp well enough to direct help to his location? Does the EMS operator know the camp well enough to know what he's talking about? On the other hand, if your son is following what he has been trained to do, he will have a buddy who can either help him or go get help. There will be mutiple layers of people trained in local emergency protocol who will provide the help he needs. Do you really think the phone company can triangulate his location in the same time the camp medical can get there? I don't really think it works the way it does on CSI. While I'm sure it happens, I have never had a Scout use a cell phone for anything that even resembled an emergency situation. I have had boys get in fights over cell phones, protracted arguments between families spilling over to troop meetings over who is to pay for damaged phones, hours wasted with boys wandering camp in tears looking for lost phones, Scouts texting their girl friends requesting various "favors" when they get home and one Scout almost arrested for using his cell phone at the shower house and having another Scout accuse him of taking photos of other boys while in the shower. There is a pretty clear risk and reward equation for all this. Sounds like your son's Scoutmaster has run the math. Give the man a break and support his judgement. My question for you is this: are you listening to the vast majority of Scouters here who support your SM, or are you using this as an exercise to sharpen your arguement with him?

Been in the woods a couple days, so just getting back to the conversation. What's struck me from the last couple days of posts is the conversation about Cubs. Several threads in the past have discussed the downward age creep of the program. Clearly, the strength of the program -- at least in terms of members and money -- is in Cub Scouts. After 15 years, Venturing doesn't really seem to be gaining the traction it should (That's just based on what's I've seen, I can't back that up and I'm not really trying to take the thread in that direction.) Around here, at least, we would be in a world of hurt if it weren't for the numbers generated by the cub program. Perhaps one of the demographic changes we are facing will be that most traditional Scouting will take place with 9 to 14 year olds, not the current 11 to 17 year olds. Honestly, that doesn't scare me. I can even see some benefits. In terms of BSA's emphasis on values and character development in their marketing programs, the target market is absolutely the parents. Parents are the key decision makers in whether or not a boy joins Scouting -- Cub Scouting. Even within the program, day camp promotions are directed at moms. Do you really think most moms (most moms -- those of you here are exceptional) are best approached with a message that we want to take your son in the wilderness and let them jump off cliffs? Parents are better sold on the personal development aspects of Scouting. When was the last time any of us had a brand new boy join a troop for the first time after age 13 or so? Never, right? Somewhere around age 11 children begin to develop a sense of their own abilities and can objectively judge what they are good at what what they are not. A nine year old can wiff every pitch all season long and still be convinced he will start for the Yankees one day. But by 12 he clearly understands that he stinks at baseball and will be looking for other activities. It is also about this age that he begins to specialize in those things he's good at. This, inpart, explains the huge drop off (about 50% nationally) between Webelos II and first year Boy Scouts. The boys who really aren't into Scouting take the "break" between Webelos ant the troop to make their exit. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, I wish all those boys would stick with the program, but would our troops really be better off with a bunch of boys who really aren't into Scouting? The point of all is that trying to market Scouting to Boy Scout-aged boys is swimming against a strong current. (And I haven't mentioned all the other options and distractions opening to boys in their early teens) Maybe we've passed the point in our history where Scouting is the mass-appeal program it may have been when some of us were Scouts. Maybe our future is as a more specialized program focused on younger boys and the character and leadership development, but not necessarily through the outdoor program.

It is reasonable for a parent to want to know the nature of the proceeding your son is getting into. I think it would be appropriate to email the DAC for clarification. Is this meeting effectively your son's Eagle Board of Review? Is it more of an administrative hearing? What are the possible outcomes? Could the issue be referred back to the troop (which doesn't seem likely or productive)? If the committee finds for your son, will/can they give final approval his Eagle Application or will that require further action? What is his status regarding his 18th birthday (which I'm figuring is now only a week or so out). My experience with this is the meeting was strictly a fact-finding hearing, Ultimately, the committee ruled in favor of the troop. Had they ruled in favor of the Scout, I'm not sure what would have happened. The Scout most certainly had not had a traditional Board of Review. My guess is they would have just awarded the Eagle. A BoR at that point would have been meaningless. Ask. It can't hurt.

A couple years back we had white-on-red numerals made with the integral service bar. I figure we're set for another eight years. My replacement can deal with it then.

It's more complicated than simple demographics. There are a lot of other factors involved, what we used to call sociographics. Two men, age 45, married, two kids, business owners, making $300k. One's a lawyer, one's a plumber. Similar demographics, way different sociographics. Which one is more likely to have sons in Scouting? Which one's more likely to be a Scoutmaster? Sociographics has a lot to do with how people see themselves. I think Scouting is seen as a middle class, somewhat archaic activity. Wasn't Beaver a Cub Scout? (not our Beavah, but the one on TV.) Scouting has done a very poor job over the past 15 years of selling itself. We have let others define us. When we try to define ourselves we do so in the negative by talking about what we aren't. I was heartened that in one of his early interviews, Mr. Mazzuca made a similar point. Perhaps he plans to be more aggressive about selling the program. Locally, if you look at the Council's promotional material, the FOS brochures and news releases, you would think we are a social services organization serving the handicapped, those in poverty, minorities and soccer players. (Just kidding about the soccer players -- well sort of kidding) We down-play the upper-middle class kids who excell at Scouting. These boys plan and lead Eagle projects which contributes tens-of-thousands of dollars and man-hours to the community. They do really interesting, significant things. But we don't promote that because the United Way doesn't want to hear it's money is being spent on middle class kids. One issue which needs study is our basic volunteer model. Most of us have an expectation -- I know that I do -- that when a boy joins Scouting, the parent will support the program. We often settle for supporting your own kid, but we expect most parents to support Scouting in general with their time and money. Certainly there are single-parent/single-income families who don't have much of either to spare. But I bet there are a bunch of boys not in the program because their parents reaction to the idea of their kid being a Cub Scout was "I really don't want to get involved." I know very little about Y-Guides, but a couple of my ASMs are in the program with their daughters. They are constantly amazed that the program is basically run by YMCA staff. They just show up with their daughters and the program is laid out for them. They just sit back, drink sodas and munch cookies. While the stereotypical little league parent is way over involved, how many parents think city rec leagues are great because all they have to do is pay their fee and drop their kid off at practice and games? A couple of gung-ho dads are more than happy to be coaches. For families who are predisposed to Scouting, they don't care. But for the average parent shopping retail for activities for their kids to do, they may prefer the drive through at McDonald's to cooking themselves. It should be noted that if I want to join Y-Guides I'm looking at a $1,250 membership ($95/mo family Y membership pluss $100 program fee). Rec league baseball was about $85/season a few years ago, plus it is supported by the town's P&R department staff plus many millions of tax dollars for ball parks. Mazzuca's comments on NBC a few weeks ago really got me thinking. I was particularly struck by his comment that the culture of hispanic families is that they won't drop their 12-year-old off to go camping with strangers. He concluded that we need to adapt the program to include moms and dads, siblings and the random tia or two. Will we have separate Tia & Me troops or will I be expected to drag the whole family along on outings of our traditional troop? Ultimately, most organizations can change only as fast as it's core constituancy will allow it to. (Anyone remember the Republican Party?) Someone wrote here recently in an advancement thread something to the effect that Chief Scout Executives come and go, but it's the front line, unit-serving volunteers who sustain and define the program. Whether any new initiatives succeed of go the way of Urban Scouting will depend largely on the buy-in of folks like us. Apologies for the rambling post....

Disclaimer: I dropped statistics after two weeks because I didn't have a freakin' clue what they were talking about. But I did pass arthmetic. If 67% of children live in two parent households, but only 7% live with traditional married mother and father with their two natural parents, that means that of children living with two parents only 10% are living in traditional families? That doesn't seem right. My circle of friends must be absolute statistical freaks. On the other hand, I can tell you NORC is either part of or seriously connected with the Bureau of the Census. My father-in-law used to work for the Census and trained and conducted surveys for NORC. He worked for the part of the Census that does research year-round, not just the actual Federal Census every 10 years. Not that anyone cares....

Why? Criminal proceedings are a matter of public record. As a matter of BSA policy, a SE cannot divulge the results of a BSA background check. But if the CO does its own records check (many do) they are free to share and discuss the results as they see fit. I'm not arguing that they should, but let's not create "added requirments" (I'm cringing and ducking under the desk) where they don't exist. As to the Eagle SSN, where is it asked for? I'm holding the paperwork for the troop's latest Eagle which came back from National about two weeks ago. No SSN anywhere.

But this isn't McDonald's. For starters, our "franchise agreement" is one sheet of paper. And I, for one, ain't counting the sesame seeds on the top of hamburger buns. A regional Scout exec who retired with about 30 years in the business explained it to me that BSA policies are intentionally loosey-goosey for two reasons. First is to allow units the ability to craft a program which suits the needs of their Scouts, their CO and their community. Since B-P organized his second troop, I'm sure one of the two complained that the other was "giving away" proficiency badges. The other likely though the first was adding requirements. The second reason is that because the program is run by 1.5 million volunteers with untold variation in ability, training, intelligence, experience, eduacation -- any parameter you wish to consider -- that BSA doesn't want to create a detailed policy set lawyers can use to hang the volunteers. "Mr. Scoutmaster, I refer you to page 573 of the BSA policy manual 'Fires, Camp Stoves and Combustible Devices.' This policy requires units to provide their Scouts with wooden matches at least 2.6 inches long. On the day of the accident, how long were the matches your Scouts were using?" The lack of this sort of baloney regulations is why we get goofy rules like no sheath knives, no cigarette lighters and no open-toed shoes. Somewhere, sometime there seemed like a good reason for prohibiting these things. That's the point of my post about the insane specifications our council has for Eagle project proposals. Sometime the local paper ran a photo of a bunch of Scouts working on an Eagle project who all looked the were in a rap band. POOF! A rule that everyone working on an EP must be in uniform. Somewhere someone got hurt on a project. POOF! A rule banning power tools. Somewhere it looked like a kid "got away" with something and POOF! a dozen rules proscribing all sorts of silly details and added requirements. Of course we know bureaucratic rules like this, once in place, never go away.

Okay, let's work through this for a few. Let's say we have a good-sized pack of 64 boys, two dens at each level and for the sake of argument, no brothers. With a DL and ADL at each level, cubmaster and assistant 18. Committee chair and lets say five core leaders on the committee -- treasurer, secretary, outings, membership, advancement and Blue and Gold chairman. Frankly, you've go a heck of a great unit going at this rate. But how does it make sense that 3/4 for the folks doing the heavy lifting in the unit are ineligible to vote on issues affecting the pack? What do you you do it an issue come along and a number of upset parents ask to register as committee member?

Here's another angle on added requirement. Many of them are simply classic bureaucracy building. If you've been here long you've read my complaints against the insane level of picky bureaucratic hoops our council requires of Eagle project proposals. If I'm SE for a day (or even program chairman) the entire system, volunteers and all, get thrown out and we start over. But still, the guys on the committee aren't bad people or even bad Scouters. They've built a bad system, one stupid bureaucratic brick at a time. Anytime a problem is encountered, a rule is created to handle it. Part of the issue here was the decision many years ago that Eagle projects will be approved at the council level. Maybe that was good then, but the committee, which only meets once a month, usually has between 20 and 40 projects to review per month. That's an impossible amount of work. In response, the committee has created a rediculous list of items which has to be included in every project or the proposal gets bounced. It's the old fighting gators vs. draining the swamp. They are so focused on slogging through the stack of proposals in front of them, they've forgotten their purpose is to make sure the projects are of value and allow the boys to demonstrate leadership.