Twocubdad

Listen to your volunteers, they pay your salary, but develop a keen ear for the sound of an ax being ground. Pay special attention to the Cub Scouts. They pay next year's salary.

From your post, that was my suspicion. (Now back in the can....)

I'll put my worm back in the can. It seems to me we have such a divergent understanding of both faith and it's role in Scouting that continuing here is likely counterproductive. Respectfully, Twocubdad

This isn't a made-up requirement #13. This is requirement #1. I have the book in my hand. I'm looking at the requirement. Why can't we enforce the participation requirement to the same level of expectation as the other requirements? For the First Class requirement to demonstrate how to find direction without a compass, we expect the Scout to demonstrate the skill. Not to have the Scoutmaster demonstrate it to him and not for his parents to buy him a GPS. Why is the activity requirement different? (Actually, that was a rhetorical question. I know the answer but don't care to argue right now.) Again, let's not make this too black and white. Participation should be an objective measure, the same way Scout Spirit is judged subjectively. There are shades of grey based on the reason why a Scout misses activities (school, church, other legitimate obligations), what he does when he is in attendance, and his attitude toward participation. I've had boys miss activities for good cause, but then show up at the hut later in the week to get his job done. That shows me more than a boy who attends regularly but coasts through. But just because there are shades of grey doesn't mean it doesn't fade to black at some point.

This is is not about faith. It is about this guy using faith to throw his weight around. He's not asking that the district accommodate his special needs. He's he's asking for special treatment. Let's stick with GoldFox's query: the Scouter "is insisting that we provide a location and time on our schedule for them to hold their own religious service for anyone at the event who wishes to come." That part of his "request" is for this special service to be open to anyone at the event makes me suspicious of his motives. Is to trying to provide for the special needs of his Scouts is he looking of an opportunity to proselytize for his particular cause? He's not asking for accommodation, he's asking for the rest of the event to come to a halt so his service can be front and center. These are not Jewish Scouts asking to be excused from the Friday night camp fire so the can hold Shabbat. These aren't Muslim Scouts asking for a private location from Friday morning prayers. Perhaps GoldFox will clear this up by noting the particular faith involved. And John, with all due respect to you PTC education, I disagree that separate services are the preferred model. Scouting is a nonsectarian organization. From a standpoint of diversity and tolerance I think it is important that Scouts come together to acknowledge the commonality of faith in Scouting. A Scout's Own service is a perfect example of what is intended by A Scout is Reverent -- not just the part about being faithful in his religious duties, but also the second part about respecting the belief's of others. There is no question that Scouting should - and does -- accommodate the various form of worship of its members. No one should ever be blocked from worshipping as they see fit. But in my opinion, that 20 minutes at the end of a campout where we come together, sing God Bless America and Morning Has Broken, and acknowledge that we are all part of God's plan is a very important part of Scouting.

Two questions (not rhetorical, I'm really asking): Those of you who recommend an evaluation period, what would you do to evaluate the situation? Assuming the situation is intermittent, do you assume after two or three uneventful campouts all is well? How do you implement the patrol system with a parent bird-dogging one of the Scouts? It's a fight to keep the parents of "normal" boys out of their campsites. How does having this dad in the campsite effect the program for the other Scouts?

(Oops, double post)(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

We don't put too many constraints on the patrols. We do have the ASM who advises the Patrol Leader review the menu. We want the boys to stretch and try new and challenging dishes. We only have two rules: No PopTarts and no Ramah noodles. To easy (not to mention disgusting.) Hot dogs are okay, but I want to see the fixin's to go with them -- chili sauce, cole slaw, chopped onions. (And don't write me about kraut or that neon-green crap from Chicago. I don't care.) We encourage the guys to cook hot meals everytime. Occasionally we'll see cold cuts for lunch, but it's not a big deal. PBJ for lunch and cold cuts for dinner would be an issue, though. A couple time a year we have cooking competitions. Most recently we did a utensil-free dinner in conjunction with a wilderness survival campout. We've done contests which required a Dutch oven. We've had "Iron Chef" competitions where the troop provides a fixed set of ingredients and the patrols take what they have and figure a menu for the weekend. We've had open competitions where the patrol simply tried to make the best meals they could. (The winner showed up with table cloths, candles, plastic wine glasses and sparkling apple cider.) Prizes vary. Generally it's a hot cobbler provided by the adults. If you really want to get their attention, make the grand prize a steak dinner, cooked by the adults, including clean up. That was big!

Are you kidding? The whole point of this stuff is the butter and sugar. The rest is just a carrier. You can put the butter and sugar on a piece of cardboard and it's just as good.

The thing to keep in mind is that hazing and bullying is about pecking order, and putting people "in their place." I teach my guys one element of bullying is if the target of the bullying is perceived to be a weaker or somehow lower in status than that of the bully. Funny, you rarely see the kid that's 6-1, 230 lbs and the star linebacker on the football team getting picked on like this. I loved that episode of Cheers. It's a classic. (My favorite is when Carla's ex tries to seduce Diane by hypnotizing her, but it works on Woody instead.) But the difference between fun and hazing is that the guys are considered equals. The ASMs in the troop who are my buddies can joke about my belly. I can raz them about their bald spots. As Frasier says, "That's what guys do." But it would be wholly in appropriate for me to make similar comments about a youth. The night the new boys crossed over my first year as SM three of the 17 year olds lined up all the new guys and started making up nicknames for them. I put a stop to it. The ringleader complained that everyone had a nickname. "Fine," I said, "you're B.O." I turned to the chubby guy next to him and said, "You're Bucketass." And to the third guy I said, "Your name is Dewey, but of course that's spelled D.U.I." That last one, in particular, hit a nerve. "So," I said, "are we sticking with the nicknames or do you think it would be more Scoutlike to go with everyone's real name, at least until we get to know them?"

We have this dust-up every year or so. It usually involves someone volunteering to run the Scouts' Own service and then turning it into a tent revival. Of course, when someone points out that as a district function, the event should be inter-faith, the guy takes offense. Tell this guy he has three options: 1. Attend the Scout's Own service along with everyone else. 2. Conduct their own service according to their own faith elsewhere in camp. They can invite whomever they wish. 3. Attend the house of worship of their choice when they return home. 4. Not to attend the event at all. 5. Pound sand.

Here's the rub: "Be active in your troop, team, crew or ship for a period of...." Words have meaning. If National's intent is a boy only has to be a registered member of BSA to qualify, they can dang well change the handbooks. "Be a registered member of a Boy Scout troop, team, crew or ship for a period of ...." is a perfectly reasonable requirement. But that's not what is in the handbooks. Active (ak'tiv) adj. 1. Being in physical motion. 2. Functioning or capable of functioning. 3. Disposed to take action or effect charge. 4. Engaged in an activity, participating. Active DOES NOT mean registered. It DOES NOT mean my Scoutmaster initiates contact with me occasionally. Active DOES NOT mean your mom dropped off a check at recharter time. I can go along with the idea that strict numerical attendance requirements implemented by a troop are not in keeping with BSA policy. It is a principle of Scouting that the program is flexible and we are to judge a Scout on his own merits. To disqualify a boy because he attended only 49.3% of meetings allows no room for a reasonable judgement of the Scout's abilities and personal situation. But a kid who has gone on two campouts in 3 1/2 years and attends something below a quarter of troop meeting, including prolonged absences, DOES NOT meet the simple definition of "Be active in your troop...." I'm going to do my job as Scoutmaster to the best of my ability and according to my plain language understanding of the requirement. If the Director of Gutless Definitions in Irving wants to overrule me, it's his obligation to do his job as he sees fit. But I don't have to sign the application and I don't have to make the presentation.

Cherry-Pineapple Cobbler 2 can cherry pie filling 1/2 can Sprite 1 sm can crushed pineapple 1 box spice cake mix 1 stick butter 2 tbs. sugar cinnamon 1/2 cup chopped pecans Dump cherries and pineapple in oven and stir in 1/2 can of Sprite to thin compote (it needs to be a little runny for cobbler to "work"). Any liquid will work -- soft drinks, water, bug juice. The kids think it's really cool if you use a can of Red Bull. Dump cake mix dry on top of cherry mixture. DO NOT STIR. Slice butter on top of cake mix, sprinkle with pecans sugar and cinnamon (sugar gives the top a nice glaze, but be careful not to burn it. Cooks for about 45 minutes. The pineapple is the secret ingredient. Gives the cobbler a nice tartness and takes the edge off the syruppy-sweet cherries.

Lack of support. Much of this has been mentioned by others, but I think the support should be coming from three locations. Parents -- Since I'm obviously on one side of this fence I have a hard time understanding parents who have absolutely no involvement in the program. Hardly slow down to let their kids out of the car at den meeting, then show up at pack meetings and sit in stoney silence on the back row. I know some folks can be intimidated or "don't know how to help" but how cool would it be if two moms approached a DL in mid and said "we think the last den meeting before summer should be a cookout. You don't have to do anything, just show at the park and we'll handle everything." Wouldn't that be cool? And what parent can't throw together a picnic for 8 kids? Pack -- too often pack leadership is too involved in other stuff to really support the DLs and/or expect the DLs to be involved in running all the pack activity. Pack leaders should be out front feeding ideas and activities to the DLs, not expecting the DLs to provide programming for pack meetings or pack campouts. The old idea of having a Den Leader Coach at each level is one that packs should strive for, even if it's no longer an official position. District/Council/BSA generally -- training is long on policy and procedure and way to short on "now what do I do with these 8 kids?" More focus needs to be given to Pow Wow-type training and Roundtable meetings that provide program help, not just announcement regarding Popcorn Sales and Woodbadge. Someone mentioned that the number one reason leaders quit is that their boys just age out. Well duh. I think more effort needs to be given to developing the leadership format where DLs stick with a program and not moving up from year to year. That allows leaders to use programs more than once and not feel like they're constantly re-inventing the wheel. But the feeling that parents are in the program to spend time with their own son is a strong one. I don't know how to overcome that or if overcoming that connection is even a desirable direction.

My mother's chocolate chess pie fits in with the overall theme of this thread -- flakey with a few nuts.

Highcountry, I believe you're problem has solved itself with at least one of your scouts (if I'm following the post and don't have the two Scouts confused. And as a point of style, an occasional paragraph break would make your posts much easier to follow.) You wrote that the one boy earned Life in December with seven months to go before turning 18. Since then he has done nothing, including -- I assume -- his Position of Responsibility. Do the math. That ship sailed. I'm figuring his birthday is July-ish and here we are in April. He cannot possibly get his six-month POR in. But you've got to be proactive. If he is technically registered in a POR, you have to take steps to remove him from it due to his failure to perform. At the end of six months, you can't then say, "sorry, that didn't count." Don't wait for him to show up with the blue cards and a project proposal. You need to meet with the Scout AND HIS PARENTS and let them know what the score. It will probably get ugly, but a whole lot less ugly that it will in three months after the kid has busted his hump for the merit badges and a project. Put it all in writing and give the Scout and his parent a letter at the conclusion of his meeting. Include in the letter the information about the POR. The other thing you must do is to document all your conversations with the Scout. All those conversations you and the other leaders had trying to get the kid motivated and moving need to be included. You need to show that the troop provided the boy every opportunity to complete the requirements and finish Eagle, but he chose not to take advantage of them. His attendance is secondary. That he was told that he needed to get involved and demonstrate leadership but failed to do so is the point. I'm not sure what to tell you about the other kid as you didn't give us as much info. But the thing that jumped out at me was Den Chief. Maybe that's his calling. If we exclude goofy, disconnected teenagers from the program, troop meetings are going to get pretty lonely. One other thought about older guys who don't attend. The troop I inherited was full of 16 and 17 year old who tended to disappear for a couple years only to show up a few months before their 18th birthday to finish Eagle. Of course it bothered me to sign an Eagle app for a kid I had laid eyes on only a couple of times. Naturally, I had to rely on the input of the ASMs and committee members who had been around longer. But the way I finally got comfortable with the situation was to ask if the Scout had "walked the walk prior to taking his break from Scouting. In my first couple years as SM I probably had 6-8 Eagles in this situation. I had a couple boys who remained active until the day they left for college. And I had one who sounds a lot like Highcountry's Scout who never "walked the walk." He was the source of my initiation by fire to the appeals process and ultimately he was never awarded Eagle. That a boy takes an 18-month break from the troop should make no difference to us. If a boy dropped out of Cubs but came back to the program at age 13, or of they left for a couple years half-way through First Class, but later rejoined, we would celebrate their return as a success. What's the difference if they take the break as a Life Scout with 20 merit badges and a half-finished project?

In the face of mutiple, contradictory standards, I get to pick the one I like. I go with the one from the Rules and Regulations. When national clarifies the documents, I'll be happy to comply.

Unfortunately, when an appeal goes national (or even to council around here) it's all about checked boxes. "Active participation" and "Scout Spirit" requirements are all but thrown out. That's where you get idiotic intrepretations like "active" means he paid his dues and it's the SM's responsibility to contact the Scout regularly. Laughable if not so pathetic. So that leaves we Scoutmasters to tip-toe around the margins, trying to make the advancement program mean more that "I checked off lots of boxes" and trying to breathe a little life back into the Scout Spirit and Active Participation requirements. mdsummer -- I hope you will indulge us a minor hijacking of your thread while we wait for a report from your son's meeting with the committee next week.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Next time someone quotes that FAQ I'm going to puke. I put very little stock in it. Our council advancement committee tried that route about a year ago and almost had their giblets handed to them. They've backed off and the official word now is that hard-and-fast attendance percentages aren't allowed, but judiciously applied attendance guidelines are okay, but don't count on a favorable ruling from national on appeal. In other words, a 50% attendance rule is okay as long as you don't really enforce it and no one questions it. Actually, I'm okay with that. With our youth-led attendance records I'm not going to court and swear that your 49.647% attendance average is accurate. So I'll give a kid the benefit of the doubt if it's close. The main thing I like is that it gives me a little leverage in dealing with attendance issues.

I hear what you're saying, Beav, and won't disagree. In fact, I think there's a pretty good Scoutmaster's minute in there somewhere. But at this point, the process has moved into a different realm. Once a Scout has met all the other requirements, the fact is that a SM better have more than, "He's not Eagle material" to deny an award. Looking at it from a Scoutmaster's point of view, if I have an issue with a Scout beyond the fine, letter-of-law-requirements, I need to be addressing those concerns at Star or before. For any number of reasons (many of which have nothing with BSA Advancement policy) the unit has much more control at Star and Life than it does at Eagle. If a SM is going to make any significant changes in a Scout's advancement path, it needs to happen by Life. For example, I have one boy who will probably reach Eagle this year. For the past couple years his attendance and participation have been very poor. But at his Life SM conference, I told him I wouldn't recommend him for a Board of Review until he improved his "active participation" in the troop. His dad griped and I would have clearly lost if he had chosen to appeal. But the kid stepped up and a couple months later he made Life. He very quickly started talking about his Eagle project, but I put him off and told him he needed to show me something in his leadership position (patrol leader) before we talked about a project. So far, he's continued to show commitment. We're working through his project proposal which I expect him to complete in the next few weeks and complete the project itself over the summer. The point is, I used a little bit of carrot and a little bit of stick to manage the situation and motivate the Scout. If I waited until the he finished all the other requirements, I wouldn't have nearly as many options to influence any sort of change. The plain truth is, Ms. Summer, your son will receive his Eagle. With all the other requirements met -- merit badges, project, leadership, service -- there has to be some affirmative and provable character deficiency for it to be turned down (felony convictions, religious objections, etc). Now that's not to say you won't have to go through a good bit of junk to navigate the appeals process. But in the end, barring some big issue you've not shared with us, your Scout will receive the Eagle Award he has earned.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

In my mind push ups, when used in this manner, are corporal punishment and I would never use or allow it to be used in our troop. What happened to praise in public, criticize in private? How about the concept that we don't "punish" Scouts, we expect them to behave as Scouts and if not they simply don't participate as Scouts? No, push ups are not banned in the G2SS. We've been down that road enough to understand that BSA isn't going to create a list like which will never include all the knuckle-headed things people will dream up. I think many of you are confusing discipline and punishment. Discipline is training which makes punishment unnecessary. Scouts who fail to behave as Scouts aren't "disciplined." A Scout is taught to "be disciplined" or "have discipline" and thereby avoid behavior which would lead to punishment. Scouts in our troop who fail to behave as Scouts are not punished. Punishment is properly the responsibility of the parents. Scout may be removed from the activity and given the opportunity to correct their behavior. Removal may be just long enough to be reminded what they should be doing up to permanent expuslion from the troop. I will allow that sometimes these reminders may be rather loud and forceful. And I'm sure that some of the boys would just as soon "drop and give me 20" as listen to another lecture. Other stuff, like singing to have a lost item returned, is out too. I've seen little guys break down crying when forced to sing to have an important item returned. Is that Kind? Wouldn't the Friendly, Courteous thing be to return the item to the Scout without humiliating him? Hauling trash or extra KP duty? Nope. Those are things we have to do as part of normal patrol activities. If I have to take out the trash and clean up after measl as punishment, what does that say the the chump who did those things yesterday because it was his responsibility? Or the guy who got a free pass on his turn at the duty roster?

It think Buster Brown's dog was named Tad (or at least something that sounded close to it.) I remember looking at the ads for the official shoes in Boys Life and thinking you had to be really, really rich to have those. Seems like they were $45. I think I was out of college several years before I had shoes that cost that much. I don't remember why I joined Cubs. It would have been late '67. A lot of the boys in the Pack were in our church, so I suspect my folks had contact there. I don't recall knowing any of the other boys particularly well. They were mostly a little older. Back then you joined and moved up on your birthday and I was the oldest of most of my friend. I do remember going to my very first meeting. It was a pack meeting and we did a flag ceremony where the Scouts reinacted the raising of the flag over Iwo Jima. The had a bugler play taps and everything. I was in hook, line and sinker from then on.

I read somewhere that what boys learn from their fathers/male partners is limits. The boys can figure out how to wrestle, climb trees, throw rocks and generally get into trouble all by themselves. What they get from their dads is the ability to stop before it goes too far. "Okay, boys, now that's enough." But for that to be effective, they have to get up a head of steam. If you never let them get close to the line, they never learn where the line is.

I'm coming to the conclusion that dust-ups like this are the price we pay for working with other people's kids. Seems like I'm dealing with stuff like this on an on-going basis. Lately it's been rare that there hasn't been some on-going issue in the troop that has consumed far more of my time than is should. Basic gameplan: Make sure you are doing the right thing. Make a decision. Announce the decision. Move on. Oh, they'll be squabbling for three more weeks, but let 'em go.

I doubt seriously it works. My experience is they just say the heck with it and quit. Or their parent's beat or bribe them into submission. One nearby troop has a series of age requirements, Star 13, Life 14, Eagle 15 plus a whole bunch of other stuff not in the book. They are one of the mega-troop with lots of influence at council, so they get by with it. I don't agree that holding a kid until he is almost 18 is a desirable thing. What's the point? If they don't want to be here I don't want them here, I don't care how old or what rank. Frankly, junk like this tells me that the leaders aren't too bright. Setting up BS stumbling blocks or creating extra requirments is ham-fisted. Show a little creativity and figure out how to slow over-achievers down by distracting them. Find things for them to do besides advancement. Jamboree, OA, Hornaday, Den Chief. There is a bit of art to this Scoutmaster thing. Our troop has a long history of deathbed Eagles. Finally, for the first time in YEARS we have a 16-year-old Eagle. I'm looking forward to seeing what this kid can do. In the past he's shown a real interest in working with younger boys -- den chief, troop guide, working at day camp. He's finishing a term as SPL right now, but I'm looking forward to working with him to figure out how he can give back to the troop.