Twocubdad

A, A, B, B. As a WB21C-er, how did I do? There were a lot of nuiances in the course I missed. That the course is laid out in the seven parts of a troop meeting, for example. On the other hand, I serve on staff of the next course. Part of the staff training for that course was a debriefing on the earlier course comparing perspectives of the staffers and participants. None of the participants had caught these nuiances, so in the following course the troop guides spent a few minutes here and there discussing what had been presented and making sure the participants were connecting the dots. Guided self discovery is a great teaching method when it works. But if you don't get it, you don't get it. The new Wood Badge course needs to be accepted for what it is: a course for unit leader to teach them to better lead their organization and to pass those leadership skills on to the Scouts. We can bemoan the loss of the old "Advanced Scoutmastership" style course if we like. Personally, I would like to see more of that taught. But I appreciate what WB21C teaches and think it has value to the program. There are certainly a lot of folks out there who feel Scouting in general would be better served if the there were higher level of training in the traditional Scoutmastership skills. I don't necessarily disagree. But I do disagree that the so-called "corporate management" style of leadership, and WB21C inparticular, is the nexus of evil you make it out to be. Now, Kudu, if you want to complain about the SM/ASM position-specific course, I'm right there with you. I think it is just short of useless. It is absolutely inadequate training for someone to take off and lead a Scout troop. The reason your Scoutmastership skills aren't taught, Kudu, is because they can't be crammed into a 6 or 8 hour syllabus. While I have taught the classroom course several times, It's been many years since I took the outdoor skills course and have been on the course staff either, so I'm fuzzy on that syllabus. But my memory is that it was at a very basic skill level. I would be in favor of totally revamping the SM/ASM training, not just to focus more on the Scoutcraft skills, but a better general understanding of the program overall. How many of the folks who post fairly clueless questions here are trained to position? Probably a good number. One possibility for revamping the training would be to make it progressive, like commissioner's college. A master's degree should be required for an ASM to be considered trained to position and a doctorate for the Scoutmaster. Two or three years of experience and training for a SM would be a very healthy change. But national will never go for it as it will limit their ability to whip together new units and convince well-intentioned but untrained folks to lead them. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

"The heart of scouting is at the troop, pack, ship, crew level. National can change it's philosphical direction, or the uniform, whathaveyou, and true scouting still clicks along at the unit level. " That needs to be engraved somewhere, man. Seriously. One thing I always tell my junior leaders is that when you are a leader it's always good to turn around occasionally and see if anyone is following. National could take that advice. Good thread, Kudu. I appreciate your historical perspectives, especially when presented in this context.

You know, Daddy-O, when you first posted with the question about finding a do-nothing Eagle mill troop for your son, my first thought was "this guy is my worst nightmare." But I tried to tone down my response and politely suggested you consider another outlet for your son. I even felt bad when others jumped in with much more Scout-like explainations of the methods of Scouting One lesson I have to learn over and over is my first impressions of people are usually correct.

Yes. Turn it over to the Scout Executive. Not the DE, but the council executive. If this guy got six months active jail time, it wasn't likely his first time. He may well get a letter telling him he may not drive on pack outings and quite likely further sanctions.

Figure it this way: Most Cub Scout day camps are held off council property and are required to turn a profit. So not only are they not getting the benefit of hidden subsidies (think ranger salaries and maintenance) but are 100% pay-as-you-go and then some. So take the cost of your Boy Scout camp for a week and subtract the day camp fee. Do you really think Boy Scout camp can really operate for the difference? Here day camp is $95 and Boy Scout camp is $215. There is no way the Boy Scout camp operates on the $120 per boy -- paid staff, food, program cost, vehicles -- not a chance.

This reminds me of the healthcare debate. Everyone is okay with the healthcare they receive, the debate is over how we pay for it. You may not like paying $100 for a uniform, but the truth is national probably makes more off the purchase of a uniform than the $12 they charge for membership fees. Yes, they could turn uniform sales over to Wal-Mart and the cost of a uniform would probably a third of what it is now. But how would national replace that revenue source? Local councils don't really have that option. Scout shop profits are limited to about 5% (E92 can't tell us for sure.) Popcorn is a big money maker. Activity fees are usually break-even or less. But beyond that councils are generally limited to traditional fund-raising campaigns. Part of the fundraising is directed to corporations and foundations, but a big chunk of it is donated by the families of the Scouts. Eamonn's question is really this: is relying on a minority of the families to voluntarily pay for everyone else really the best way to go. Would it not be better to spread the burden around, even if it meant mandatory fees? Firekat and ScoutMomSD, this really isn't about you. Scouting has and always will do everything we can to make sure disadvantaged youth can participate in the program. In our council, pretty much every cent we get from United Way goes to Scout Reach and other special needs programs. In our troop we have made a commitment that we will make sure every boy in the unit is afforded the same opportunities regardless of his family's ability to pay. We've waived troop dues, paid for summer camp, and even collected frequent-flyer miles to get a kid to Philmont who would not have gone otherwise. I know there are a lot of folks with nice cars and houses who are pinched right now -- I'm one of them. There are also folks who simply cannot afford to pay for Scouting at all. But don't argue the margins here. The vast majority of people who don't give to Scouting CHOOSE not to contribute. This isn't about the current economic situation. Most people who aren't contributing now have never contributed. The people who sit on their checkbooks are the same ones who sit on their hands when we need help in our units. I am more than happy to write a check to FOS knowing that my contribution covers the council's cost not only for my two boys, but for two other, disadvantaged kids. But I'm really getting tired for paying for the kids who parents simply choose not to contribute. And we know who you are.

How would a local council membership fee be different from the one national already charges. How would charging a couple bucks for weekend camping (which many councils already do) be different from charging for a week of summer camp?

How many boys total are in the patrol? Are there adults going who aren't parent's of the boys? I dont' understand why the extra 6 are going. Just for the fun of it? You should buy these guys a bottle of single malt and a dozen cigars and suggest they go for an adult campout somewhere.

How many boys total are in the patrol? Are there adults going who aren't parent's of the boys? I dont' understand why the extra 6 are going. Just for the fun of it? You should buy these guys a bottle of single malt and a dozen cigars and suggest they go for an adult campout somewhere.

How many boys total are in the patrol? Are there adults going who aren't parent's of the boys? I dont' understand why the extra 6 are going. Just for the fun of it? You should buy these guys a bottle of single malt and a dozen cigars and suggest they go for an adult campout somewhere.

Two different numbers. In our council our total budget is about $3 million with about 16,000 scouts and thereby a total cost of about $185 per Scout. Eamonn's original discussion was to eliminate Family FOS. Here' that's about $300,000 or 10% of the total budget. That's where I got the $18.50 number as being the cost per Scout to replace the Family FOS campaign. As I said, a few assumptions involved, but probably within shoutin' distance. Noles -- I can't give you a break out of all the FOS sources. Here the Family campaign and Community campaign are run by the district; family being the unit presentations and community being solicitations of local businesses. The community campaign is a very small fraction of the family campaign. From my experience doing presentations and collecting pledge cards, I would say that a quarter to a third of families contribute to FOS. Others may have different observations. Moving up the food chain we have the "Patron" level and the corporate campaign, both of which are handled at the council level (although Patron is really a combined effort.) Corporate is obviously the soliciting the large corporations and foundations in the area. The patron level is for individual contributors at the $500 level and up. But if you are giving through your unit in the $3-400 range, you'll probably get an invitation to the patron dinner with the hope that you will boost you contribution to $500. All that is one of the reason's family FOS will never be eliminated, even with a local membership fee, voluntary or otherwise. It where the large contributors are identified to move up into the other levels of the program. Of course this is just my point of view from the volunteer side. Maybe some of the ex-pros out there who have gone through the fundraising training will clarify.

I'm studying on our council's current FOS brochure which includes the usual financial info. 26% of our budget comes from fundraising. 15% of the expenses goes to fundraising expenses. Not very efficient, eh? I just did a little math and figured out that in our council the cost per boy to eliminate the Family FOS would be $18.50. (There are a few assumptions in that number. I'm extrapolating from what I know about our district's goals.) We could eliminate FOS totally -- Family, Corporate, Patron, Community -- for $47.41. I know there are folks out there living on the edge of absolute poverty, and I know there are whole units and communities in that situation. But $18.50? That's in the ballpark of the 25-cents per week dues we used to pay back in the early '70s. If everyone paid a $20 local membership fee, let's think about what that would mean to the program. First of all, there's a supply/demand curve to everything, so I have no doubt there would be some folks drop due to it. I suspect most of the fall out would be from folks who object to the fee on principle rather that due to economic reasons. But think about the amount of staff and volunteer time that goes into FOS. I would bet most DE spend a third to half their time on FOS. I know the standard is to keep fundraising below 15% but that's on average with all the program guys. At the DE level I bet I'm close to right. So what would your world look like if your DE had another 12 or 15 hours a week to spend on program? Or how much could our $18.50 be reduced if staffing level were adjusted down by that amount? Or if the pros could spend more time courting the $500 individual donors rather than chasing the smaller amounts? And I can't beging to calculate the value of the volunteer effort which goes into FOS. I know the world doesn't work that way. Scouting is like any other bureaucracy. If they had a $20 fee they would still be going after the FOS contributions. The money would go somewhere. What frustrates me why everyone doesn't DONATE the $18.50. I believe I am correct when I say that about 25% of Scouting families contribute to Scouting. That's probably about right for the units where I've done presentations. It's also probaly true that there are about as many $100+ contributions as there are contributions in the $20 range. Firekat, I'm sure there are many folks who honestly can't afford $18.50. But the vast, vast majority of Scouting families can. I'll bet many folks who walk away from a FOS presentation with their unsigned pledge cards in their pockets spent that much at McDonald's on the way to the meeting.

No policy on this just the Scouting equalivent of urban myth. My advice would be to wear them any time you're not afraid they will fall off and get lost. Even then, you can buy the participation medals (PWD, etc.) by the gross. I would be a little more careful with a religious medal, just because it's more special and a little more difficult to replace (but not impossible). Otherwise, let the boys wear them whenever they like. That's why they were given to them.

You beat me to it Ed. We DON'T have a national definition of active. We've handbooks saying one thing, the bylaws something else and a stupid Internet FAQ related to merit badge counselors going in a completely different direction. On the other hand, we DO have a clear advancement policy that says a Scout shall not be penalized by the failure of his references to submit the reference. DAC's can tweak stuff all they like. Mail the app to the new guy versus the old guy like you to bring them to Roundtable. Whatever. But when you have it in front of you in black and white.....

So the general concensus is the mom's in but the sister's out. So let me throw a little Coleman fuel on the fire. What did our Chief Scout Executive recently have to say about this? Didn't he tell us that we needed to start accommodating families on campouts? Don't we need to be reaching out to communities where the norm is for mom, dad, aunts, uncles and siblings to go on these activities? Yeah, it's a blatant highjack and we've plowed this ground before, but I figured if the thread had degenerated to the point that bnkrtskt is trying to hit on the mom in question, it's open season.

What he said, but it's the Emergency Preparedness counselor's call.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Oh yeah, like I need more paperwork to do. We don't even issue the cards. The boys complete the requirement and that's it. We don't give them cards for other requirement?

Unfortunately, to serve as Day Camp Program Director you must be certified by National Camping School. All day camps must have two leaders, the camp director and the program director, who are NCS certified. Depending on the part of the country you're in, most of the camp schools have finished for the year. You need to have a heart-to-heart with your district executive. Unless there's just been a misunderstanding about your role, I would be very cautions. You've been put in a very difficult situation. I teach the day camp section at NCS. If you would like to PM me with specifics I'll be glad to help.

I don't think that will be a big issues. Normally, one of the easiest things for an appeals committee to correct are procedural error made by the unit. Listen to you DAC. Get him the blue cards and other info he wants and chill.

I sew all my patches but for the life of me get them on straight. I've learned that if I staple them in position, I can hold the shirt up, check the position, then stitch around the patch. Unfortunately, from time to time I miss removing one or two of the staples. Oops. But I know that's not what your taking about. I've seen technique you're complaining about -- the badge hanging on by one corner swinging back and forth like a broken sign. The last time I bought a new shirt, I used the badge magic stuff to tack down my square knots so they line up neatly. I don't like it either as with the heat from the dryer or iron it tends to bleed out from under the patches and leaves a stain. Supposedly it is removed by dry cleaning, but I've not tried that. Back to your stapled badges, I don't think many units or individuals understand the purpose of the Uniforming method of Scouting. It's about pride and discipline. It's about learning to hang up your uniform after a meeting so it look nice the next time you need it. It's about learning. It's about caring about how you present yourself and the opinion others have of you. This weekend we were at a local community festival where a number of Scout troops were helping out. A couple times I stopped a group of Scouts and complimented them on how they looked -- full uniforms, no blue jeans, shirts tucked in. I also make it a point to point out to my Scouts when other troops look like a bunch of schlubs. We're a full uniform troop -- hat, necker, shirt, belt, pants and socks. My guys will gripe, especially when the hit the too-cool-for-school phase, but when we're at summer camp, looking sharpe and one of the other SMs says something to them, you can see the shoulder go back and the chin go up.

I think they're finally going in that direction. The advances they've made with interconectivity in the past year are amazing, at least in relation to where BSA has been. Our training folks have struggled for years just to get folks to list their name consistently on training registrations. I might be Two Cub Dad, Two C. Dad, Two Dad, T.C. Dad and maybe "Duce" -- none of whom are trained to position. We tried to get folks to provide their ID number when registering for a little over a year now. When you ask for the number and explain that it's on their membership cards, everyone just rolls their eyes. Until now, unless their was a possibility of a Scout discount at the local camping shop, no one kept up with the cards at all. Slowly, folks are catching on an using the IDs. We've only recently gotten to where ScoutNet talks to Troopmaster. Now that you can link advancement reports electronically, there is a reason for troops to track Scout ID#s. Now that using the IDs is finally catching on at the grassroots level, I bet you will see more applications such as what you're talking about. I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Heck, I'm amazed that I can take Safe Swim online and it automatically shows up on my ScoutNet record. Our troop is doing its part. This year we laminated all the membership cards before distributing them. We also attached a note explaining the expanded use of the member numbers and the importance of keeping up with the card. By the way, here's a hint: laminating cards individually is about $.50 a card. If you go to Staples and ask for a 11x17 sheet, you can laminate about 30 cards on a page for $2.00 It takes a little time to space them just right and then cut them apart, but at least the cards will make it through the first time it get washed along with the shirt.

Okay, just us guys here, right? How many of us really get up, dress, put our boots on and hike to the latrine in the middle of the night? Good luck, CA, let me know what you come up with. The same kid just crossed over into our troop without -- so far -- the bladder issues. The ASMs all have a pool on how many day of summer camp he makes it through. This kid wants to be one of the big dogs, but when the dogs get to scrappin', he goes crying to daddy. His dad sees his job in life as walking the trail in front of his son, picking up pebbles and sticks. Last troop meeting some of the guys were standing around and this kid come up and tells another boy the he was standing "in his spot." The second kid tells him that we don't have assigned spots. (Which I thought was a great answer!) The first kid nudged the second kid out of the way. The second kid then put the first guy on his butt. Of course, he started balling. The SPL witnessed the whole thing and told the kid he needed to find his dad and hang out with him for awhile. A pretty good outcome, I thought. So far, my inclination is to let the herd take care of itself. I told the SPL to keep and eye on things and to make sure I am aware of what's going on. My experience is these things tend to work themselves out over time. Your case is slightly different, in that there are potential medical issues to consider. I wish I had a better idea for you, but maybe you just let it run it's course. Maybe the boy does a little growing up. Maybe the mom gets tired of midnight trips to camp.

I spent about two hours last night writing the initial post on a debate of Kudu's traditional methods vs. the current program. When I hit "submit" it disappears and I got some server error message. The post was totally gone. Time allowing, I'll give it another try, but not right now.

That would be a #6. No, Kudu, it isn't a personal attack at all. It was a sarcastic means of noting my weariness at the constant criticism of the modern program. No different from your sarcastic responses to Daddy-O in his thread. I'm not attacking you personally. I don't know you. Why can't anyone express an opinion of your posts without you accusing them of making it personal? Even when you complain about alleged personal attacks against you, you turn that into a swipe at Wood Badge. You want to debate specifics? Show me the page in the Wood Badge syllabus where we are taught ad hominem attacks. Oh please. Since part of my objection is to hijacking thread, I'll spin this off to another conversation.

If you remember at the time, there was no Tiger necker. So it was just a question of splitting the Wolves and Bears. When the Tigers went to the blue uniforms a couple years ago, it made sense to give them their own neckers and hats since they had their own program identity before. I don't mind it. We're talking something this side of $25, right? My old pack always made a deal of presenting the Cubs with their new neckers at the last pack meeting of the year. That was a nice tradition. I think the boys appreciate the recognition of moving up another year. As an adult, 48 or 49 isn't a big deal, but when you're 8, being 9 is definitely a big deal.