Twocubdad

Sounds like our local school system. If the goal is to have 80% of students at grade level and School A has a 90% score and School B has a 70% score, how do you raise School B's score? By rejiggering the attendance zones so that both schools are at 80%! No actual educational improvements needed! Our council went through this shell game about five years ago. Two out of five districts always struggled so the solution was to merge those districts into the other, stronger, districts. As with the schools the averages improve but not the net. Unfortunately, a funny thing happens in a merger. One of the two CSDC staff's decides two camps aren't needed and this is a good time for them to retire. The extra District Chairman, Commissioner and many of the district subcommittee chairman see it as a good time to bail as do many commissioners, who were simply worn out and looking for an excuse. The result was that you have twice the units to service, twice the membership and FOS goals and twice the territory to cover with half the volunteers. It took us about three years to get back to Quality District status and even now we are still weaker in some area than before the merger. Lessons learned? First, tinkering with districts should be done for the right reasons -- to better serve the units. I won't disagree that something needed to be done to rescue the two struggling districts, but leaving them on the doorsteps of two healthy district wasn't the answer. Secondly, doing this in secret is a really, REALLY bad idea. As in this situation, our realignment was decided in secret by a committee of four. The volunteers were given less that six weeks notice of the change. (We were told that an open process or more lead time would just allow for more complaining and dissent. No Doubt. But perhaps to the complaining and dissent was due to the change being a bad idea.) In my opinion, the lack of the opportunity to plan and manage the change, led to the mass defection we endured.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Bob, when were we told what the policies are regarding the new uniforms? I don't see anything one way or the other regarding uniform changes, new uniform or conversions between new and old in the Insignia Guide. I do read about the benefits of uniforms (much the same as what we are taught about uniforming as one of the methods of Scouting. I guess it's my assumption that when they talk about uniform they mean uniform, as in all the same. On the other hand, what you are saying is consistent with what I've always been told and understood, but perhaps that's just BSA myth? I can only imagine the amount of money the supply division has spend on developing the new uniforms. Couldn't they have spent just a bit of that on a clear and concise reminder of the related policies and practices? They could have sent an email at relatively no cost. They certainly don't have a problem sending me an email when the extra Cub Scout shot glasses -- excuse me, Cub Scout toothpick holders -- go on sale.

Add to your list, Lisabob, that Cubs cannot camp in weather below 32 degrees. Although that may be a regional thing. I suppose some of you rarely camp in weather above 32 degrees. My personal favorite is the ban on open toed shoes, which, like some others mentioned here has been elevated to an official camp rule. A couple years ago, when crocs became popular, open heeled shoes were added to the ban. With a straight face the camp director explained that they had some Scouts get hurt wearing open heeled shoes. I suppose we are fortunate that no one has ever been injured while wearing hiking boots. Of course wearing flip-flops or going barefoot at camp isn't a smart thing to do, but our guys go way overboard. This year you could just see to old geezer shoe cops gritting their teeth and developing facial tics when someone would walk by with a pair of Keen's. You really have to love that. At world jambo last year there were always two ways to tell an American, even when out of uniform -- BSA socks and massive hiking boots. Jamboree was held on a huge lawn. Grassy meadows for as far as the eye could see. Many Scouts were in sandals or even barefoot. Not the Americans. It was if hiking boots were the footware eqivalent of SUVs.

So here we are a week out from the rollout date. Has anyone seen anything official about this? I don't recall anything in BL or Scouting magazines (although I haven't made and specific search and I'm not going to take the time to dig out back issues). There's nothing on the web site. The Scout Stuff site is still running only a teaser. Can we expect something definitive? Maybe even an official FAQ? Roundtable sessions? Anything? Or are we left to guess, speculate and conjure info from 1981?

Thanks for the input, Bob. That's pretty much the process we've, been through, although I have been working all the patrols, not just one at a time. Pushing and prodding was just a figure of speech. Coaching and teaching would have been more accurate. The one success we had was a patrol that got together for a movie was a result of that process, but we weren't getting any traction with any of the other patrols or much interest from the first patrol for another activity. Part of this has been bringing the adults along. I spent a week fielding phone calls for the movie outing. Prior to our emphasis this spring, I went through it all with the troop committee (which in our case is a mix of ASMs, interested parents and true committee members), explaining the rules and process and asking their commitment to help with logistics. That seemed to make a difference, too. This is like any other sales job -- they've got to hear the message many times before they bite. The TJLT program is just another medium.

All very good suggestions and the kinds of things we are trying to implement. For a year I've been pushing and prodding the patrols to plan an outing. I think we got one. This spring we cancelled a troop campout and told the patrols it was their responsibility to do something on their own that month. My only restrictions was that it needed to be some sort of Scout-related activity. While a movie or video games at a patrol member's house is okay, for this first one I wanted to set a better precident. Wow, crash and burn! Honestly Bob, I'm not sure these guys could pull off a baseball game. They would all probably wait for their mom's to sign them up of a Parks & Rec league, then wait for the coach to call. At the end of the month, not a single patrol had pulled anything off. At the PLC that month we ran a short discussion of the things they needed to consider. Actually, I had a pretty good analogy: the girl you've been chatting up at your locker every day finally agrees to go out with you. Now what? You have to find out what she likes to do, when she's available, how much it will cost, arrange transportation, etc., etc. In the end, three of four patrols pulled off an outing, although attendance was way off our expectation, generally because the patrols didn't really consider the affordability of the activities or try to reach a concensus on schedule. My objective here is to expand on the conversation we had at the PLC meeting, covering the subject in a bit more detail and with more guys. Barry, I hear what you're saying about agendas, which is why I want to build this around a worksheet, something along the lines of a troop meeting plan. Unfortunately, anything involving paper, kids immediately seem to associate with homework. It's taken three years, but we're finally getting patrols to use the set of campout planning sheets (menus, gear checklists, shopping lists, duty rosters, etc.) They are finally beginning to realize that the forms really do simplify the process. But I still can't get the PLC to really buy into the troop meeting plans. Thanks.

We've decided to include a session on how to plan an activity in this year's troop junior leader training program. Does anyone have an outline or syllabus for something like this? Or perhaps just your ideas. My initial thought is to put together a worksheet for the patrols to use, then teach the session around that. Basic time, location, cost, transportation, etc. This spring we've been encouraging the patrols to plan and go on their own patrol outings. It's been a challenge for the boys to pull together the logistics for the outings, so we're trying to beef up the training in that area.

Well said.

You are right, USR, I encourage the OA eligible Scouts to talk with the troop OA Rep or other brothers to find out about the organization. And that's pretty much the point -- to learn that they are being elected to membership in an organization with it's own meetings and activities. I think many Scouts look at OA as just another check box. I had not thought of your point about Scouts being more disappointed if not elected, Neill. And it has happened. But I suppose it's a two-edged sword. Are we better of if a Scout has no understanding of the OA, fails to be elected and consequently doesn't really care? I've always had a concern OA elections become a popularity contest, but I've been surprised that the Scouts are usually rather thoughtful in their voting and those elected are usually deserving.

Hi, Woopz, welcome to the forums. Our council has many rules regarding Eagle projects including an out-right ban on blood drives. I disagree with many of their rules, but I have to say I agree with this one. I think some of the other posts have explained the real reason behind the concerns with bloodmobiles. Due to privacy and disease concerns, the only thing bloodmoble volunteers (including Eagle candidates) can really do is to line up potential donors and serve cookies. I have to agree that such a project would be difficult to meet the Eagle requirements. I have to say, however, that my heart is with you. About 35 years ago my Eagle project was to sponsor a bloodmobile. Back in the day, not only did I recruit donors, but I organized, managed and trained 20 or more volunteers who did everything but stick people with needles. It was a much different project then.

Bob, you want to focus on the list of advance committee responsibilities but ignore the two references which specify that the responsibility for summer camp advancement is to be "in cooperation with" the camping committee, camp director and program director. Of course this is all from the Advancement Committee guidebook, so perhaps it is written for, and from the perspective of, the Advancement committee. What do you want to bet that the literature for the camp staff has a whole lot more to say on the staff's responsibility toward advancement? Could it be that neither group is given absolute authority over the advancement program because they are expected to work together in the interest of the boys? Maybe if the Advancement Chairman and Camping Chairman or Camp Director are as hard-headed and pedantic as some forum members, the Program committee (to which they both report) could get involved. Could it also be that the answers to your questions are -- particularly as they are currently worded -- more than simple, one or two word responses? I would guess they are pretty good conversation starters, but maybe a bit imprecise for a written quiz where folks have a chance to vett every answer. Most of these questions require a few more words to adequately capture the nuances of the program. Then too, perhaps it takes a little experience and wisdom to apply the policies and procedures. And perhaps the policies are not all perfectly lawyered in order to allow wise and experienced Scouters the room to apply them in a way that fits the strengths, weaknesses and resources of their local council.

Eamonn; National Camp Standards require all camp staff to be registered members of BSA. I suspect a Venture crew is the easiest way to register girls age 14-18. Staffers over age 18 could be registered as district committee members, but I don't know how else you would register a girl. I suppose one could reasonably ask why a girl under age 18 is on staff at a Boy Scout camp is she isn't already involved in Venturing, but I digress. We have a similar problem at day camp where the same standard applies. Our camp is 100% volunteer run, with most of the volunteer being the parents of the cubs. A fair percentage don't hold positions within their packs and aren't registered. It's a big expense and hassle. Perhaps the new "Scout Parent" registration will solve this. While I understand the camp thing, I, too, would be suspicious of council- or district-owned units popping up. Seems like these shennanigans pop up around December 34th every year. Some DE needs one more unit for Quality District. We went though a phase where every district registered their OA chapter as a crew. I think wiser heads put a stop to that.

Baloney! Wear the necker! Wear it to the next pack meeting and tell everyone about the camporee. That's a great part of Scouting. I'm not saying you two should wear from from now on, but for something special go for it.

I just spent 30 minutes on the ScoutParent web site and and honestly say I didn't learn a thing. Hopefully it's just a crummy web site -- long on sizzle, short on steak. Their FAQ page contain three questions. Really? My impression is that this is the creation of a PTA or Parents' Auxillary organization for Scouting. If someone wants to make the a case for why that's needed, I'll listen, but I remain to be convinced. The issue of a unit level position of Parent Coordinator seems to be a totally different topic. I certainly understand that much of what may be in that job description is stuff that is already being done by others in the unit. But if I have someone who understands the program and can answer all parents' questions, I need them doing something more valuable than babysitting parents! In my little part of the universe, I don't see a huge demand from parents for more ways to get involved with either their son or the troop. Those who want to do so have more than ample opportunities to get involved. Out troop offers a basic training for parents class the first month after the new Scouts cross over. We strongly suggest that both parents attend. I think that happened once (and both those parents are involved in the troop still). Usually we don't get every family represented for the sessions. Parents always complain about communications. If they had attended our parent orientation course, they would know that we put the responsibility for informing parents on the Scouts. We don't send home notes pinned to sleeves. Yes, it can be a messy system, but the best way to teach responsibility is to give responsibility. At the same time, all info is available to parents by back channels. Our calendar is posted on-line and a hard copy is hanging in the hut. If parents will attend the last 15 minutes of every meeting (instead of waiting in the car) they will hear all announcements and troop business first hand. But few do. As I said, I remain to be convinced that any of this new stuff will be an improvement.

I require the elegible Scouts to let me know why the want to be in the OA, have a general understanding of what OA membership entails (meetings, etc.) and make a commitment to be active in the Order. I ask that the Scouts put this in writing, but if a Scout takes much initiative at all to let me know that he really interested, I will approve. It bothers me that so many Scouts look at the OA as simply another cool patch. They get elected, go through the ordeal and never participate in any other OA activity. Aside from that, whether or not I would sign off on a Scout for OA, jambo, Philmont or anything else generally depends on whether or not I feel like I can count on the Scout to behave himself and represent the troop well. Over time, I've had one or two I could not. In those situations, I'm won't to dump a problem on another leader.

I think the scripts are on another computer. I'll have to dig, but will try to get them for you. I don't think I've ever seen a perfect definition of hazing, but the one I use, which the boys seem to understand, is that hazing is having fun, making a joke, or making yourself seem important at another guy's expense. Snipe hunting is the perfect example. If everyone is in on the joke and having a good time, it's okay by me if the whole troop wants to stand on their head in the dark and yell "Sipe" all night. But if the point is to make a goat of the kid who's not in on it, then it's hazing. Invariably, I get, "Aw, geez. It's no fun if everybody's in on the joke." Right, then don't do it.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I suppose we are now quibbling about quibbling? My quibble on the responsible party for summer camp merit badges is based on the Advancement Committee Guidelines, page 34, "Advancement in Summer Camp," second paragraph, which reads. "The procedures for advancement in summer camp are established by the council advancement committee in cooperation with the committee responsible for summer camp, the camp director and the program director." I suppose we could continue to quibble about the meaning of "responsible for" and "in cooperation with" if we choose to so quibble. My quibble regarding a scout signing his own handbook is based on same book, page 24, "Four Steps of Advancement", step two being "The Boy Scout is tested. A Scout may be tested on rank requirements by his patrol leader, Scoutmaster, assistant Scoutmaster, a troop committee member or a member of the troop." Additional quibbles may be based upon the notion that the Scout himself is "a member of the troop" but I would further quibble that is a rather convoluted use of the Queen's English. If that were the intent, would't they have added "or the Scout himself."? You can quibble with the application of the above, however it is unequibblical (if that's not a word, it should be) that the above is right out of the book. Quibble on!

I didn't had time to take the full test, but in looking over the questions, I was in arguing distance of being right on most all of them. I would say I correctly understand the principles, but may not have provided the answer you were looking for. For example, I was unsure of the Eagle recommendation letters question. I understand that the candidate is not responsible if the letters don't come in, but he is requried to provide the references on the app. I just wasn't sure how to answer the question. (Which, oh by the way, is another complaint I have with our council advancement committee -- they require an Eagle candidate to collect and submit with his application four sealed reference letters. The app is not accepted by the council office without them.) I would disagree with that a Scout can sign his own handbook. While I understand that the handbook says that a Scout is the best judge of his own Scout spirit, I would call that more of a philosophical discussion rather than a statement of advancement policy. I would defer to the advancement guidelines on the "testing" step of the advancement process. I'd also quibble with the question about who is responsible for the merit badge program at summer camp. I would say the correct answer is that it is the joint responsibility of the advancement committee, the camp director and program director. But, admittly that's being fairly picky. Thanks for posting this, Bob. When you brought it up in another thread, I had intended to ask you for it. I like this sort of stuff. We have created a similar Jeopardy-style game for the troop that we've used with categories in advancement, Scout history, first aid, uniforming, OA and all the Scout-skill areas we can work in. It's a great way to make some specific points with the boys without lecturing. "Uniforming for $400, Alex." "Answer -- Over the right shoulder, never tucked into the belt." "What is the correct way to wear a merit badge or OA sash, Alex!" We will be sure to work some of these questions into this year's version of the game.

I have a parent who feels we should spend a half-hour a week on anti-bullying training or at least make it one of our monthly themes. (Of course her kid is one of the worst offenders I have.) I spent a fair bit of time looking for appropriate resources for a troop program. I hope you hae better luck than I did. Ultimately we developed our own program in which several of the adults act out instances of hazing. We tried to act out subtle things that the Scouts may not consider hazing. For example one of the skits acted out behavior which may be appropriate kidding and joking among friends and peers could be taken as hazing if the same behavior was targeted toward a younger or weaker boy. I think we had three or four skits. The skits were much more effective that just talking and even the mom said afterwards that it was a really good program. Somewhere I have the scripts. I'll try to find them and PM them to you or maybe post a synopsis, if you're interested.

I try to make it a bit of an ice breaker for the candidate. While we're waiting in the hall, I crack jokes and give him a little pep talk. When we're called in, I introduce all the board members and have the Scout shake hands. Execpt for the district representative, he's likely known all these people since he was a Tiger, but it gets everyone up and talking. I take about 30 seconds to introduce the candidate with highlights from his resume. I use the Scout's individual history report from TroopMaster for a cheat sheet -- he joined our pack as a Tiger and earned the Arrow of Light. He's been to Philmont and NYLT. He's served X, Y and Z leadership positions. If it's appropriate, I may tell a quick story about something the Scout has done. Yes, I usually end by recommending the young man to be an Eagle Scout. Not that it's necessary (they have my signature on his application) but it's a nice touch and gives me a good line to exit on.

I'm sorry, Bob, but I may have missed part of what you posted. You said you gave specific manuals and pages of resources. Was that this thread or another? Can you please point me in the direction direction of that info? That's the main thing I'm looking for. Again, my apologies if I'm making you double your efforts. I do have a copy of the Advancement Committee Guidelines and see the reference on page 27 to Eagle projects being "outside the sphere of Scouting." Is there more? You may reasonably ask why I need more. I'm looking at a whole lot of institutional momentum here. I suppose all the advancement committee guys have copies of the guidelines. No doubt they've read that sentence and have chosen to ignore it. I don't think simply pointing out that sentence is going to change many minds. And I do understand that The Scoutmaster isn't required to sign for every requirement. I simply used "unit leader" generically to include the list of people who are authorized to sign for completed requirements. I will note again, however, that the Eagle project is different as the Eagle Project workbook does require the signature of the "Scoutmaster/Coach/Advisor" on the "completion" side of the workbook. Personally, because leadership is such an important part of the ESLP, I feel a responsibility to be present for at least part of the project work to observe how the candidate is leading the project. I have shown up at projects and found that a dad or other adult had hijacked the project. I even arrived at one project where the Scout had taken the facility's maintenance crew up on their offer to handle the major portion of the work on the project. But that one is a point in your favor -- no I didn't trust that kid's word and no, he never made Eagle. (But that's another thread.) Checking a project after it is completed doesn't tell me how it was led. And not all projects are physical things which can be inspected afterwards. No manual to reference or training to cite, but my word and my honor require that I have some first-hand knowledge of the project before signing the workbook.

I assume from the context of your post that you are using "discipline" to mean "punishment." My apologies if I assume incorrectly. Discipline is training which makes punishment unnecessary. We don't punish our Scouts. That's up to the parents as they see fit. Our only recourse is to remove the young man from the activity, if that's warranted. The Scout may be removed just long enough for an intense Scoutmaster's Conference, or as long as being permanently removed from the unit. Part of our training is to review with the Scouts, on an annual basis, our troop behavior expectations. Along the lines of what John said, our Number One expectation is that the boys will live by the Scout Oath and Law. Also, just before the new Scouts join us in March, we have a troop session on hazing and the Golden Rule. We use adults to act out hazing, harassment and intimidation scenarios. We try to yuck it up and make it fun, but we try to highlight things that the boys may not perceive as problematic. (I'll send you details if you like.) Of course, teaching the Scout Oath and Law should be occurring informally all the time. From time to time, it is necessary to provide a particular Scout with some individualized "retraining" in response to a particular behavior which does not meet our expectations. I like essays and letters. Written and personal apologies are good. I recently required our troop pyro to complete the requirements for Fire Safety merit badge. I didn't require him to earn the MB -- from an advancement standpoint I wouldn't do that -- but he did have to complete the requirements for me. Once he did all that work, I suggested he contact the counselor and get the badge, so it ended up as a win-win. One thing we DO NOT do is require Scout to do stuff like wash dishes, clean the latrine or pick up trash. Those are not punishments, they are chores we need to do to take care of ourselves. If one Scout is given KP duty as a punishment for something, what does that say to the poor guy who did it yesterday because it was his turn? Plus, using chores as a punishment fouls up the patrol's duty roster.

This is helpful, thank you. And please bear with me, I'm not looking for an argument, I do want to understand. Bob, you write: Where in ANY BSA resource does it say that ANY scout leader is to be present at an Eagle Scout's project for the purpose of observing and evaluating??? I would say that the last line of the ESLP workbook which requires the unit leader's signature attesting that "This project was planned, developed and carried out by the candidate" necessitates my observation and/or evaluation of the project. If I am to rely on the word of the Scout or the observation of the beneficiary, then their signatures should suffice. Why would the Eagle project requirement be any different from any other requirements that a troop leader signs for? And this is consistent with the training I have received. In the local Eagle Project training course offered here annually the point was made that the troop leaders need to be present at project work days. I, myself, asked the question, so the Scoutmaster needs to attend the workdays? Answer: "How else will you know how the project was carried out?" This is why I keep asking for references to national publications or a course syllabus. If we're being given wrong info, I'd like to share the correct info with the appropriate people. All your points regarding responsibility and liability make perfect sense, IF you accept the premise that an Eagle project is not a Scout activity. Our council certainly does not. One of the required items on our council advancement committee's Eagle project check list is "I have identified Youth Protection-trained adult supervision required for my project." And while it is not on the check list, I can tell you that the committee also wants two-deep leadership. Why would they require YP-trained adult supervisors if not to implement BSA YP and health & safety standards? They're certainly not expecting members of the beneficiary organization to take BSA YP training. I also spoke with very knowledgeable and experienced Scouter from a neighboring council yesterday. Her husband is their district's advancement chairman. Her response to the idea that Eagle projects are not Scout activities was "that's crazy." And from the responses to this thread it doesn't appear that the councils represented here are using it either. My point being, that if your interpretation of "outside the scope of Scouting" is correct (and again, I'm not arguing that it isn't) we would at minimum have to say that based on results, national is doing a poor job of communicating that interpretation and training volunteers in the appropriate methods. Truth be told, this is all fairly academic. But to me, it's just another example of how fouled-up the ESLP process is, whether locally or nationally. There's not much I can do about it. I'm just trying to slog through the muck and get my Scouts through.

It is my job to counsel the Scout as to what he should be working on and the signature gives me that opportunity. If a new Scout comes to me wanting to work on Personal Management, I'm going to redirect him. How about Pets? Have you ever done any leather working or wood carving before? I know some troops that have rigid rules and age requirements for certain merit badges and even ranks. That's wrong. But I will agree that some MBs are better suited for older Scouts. An 11-year-old isn't going to get much out of Personal Management if his budget consists of a $2 allowance which all goes into savings. We also have mutiple counselors for various badges. I know who runs a good program and who would sign the surrender papers, if they were put in front of them. It's my job to advise the boy as to their best course. The signature gives me a control point from which to do that.

Fascinating. I've read the "outside Scouting" phrase and wondered what it meant. Kinda like the extra part you don't know what to do with after you rebuild a carburetor. The point of view that Bob is presenting certainly isn't taught in SM/ASM training here and I'm sure it would be taken as absolute blasphemy in our council. If this is in fact the interpretation endorsed by National, I would say some clarification and additional training is needed. That leads me to a couple of questions: First, what training? Is there a training syllabus for council/district advancement committee members? I've taken the district committee training and no program area was covered at this depth of detail. Earlier in this thread Bob White mentioned that much of the misunderstanding relates to overzealous Scoutmasters retiring into district or council positions. I couldn't agree more. We call these guys ROMEOs -- Retired Old Men Eating Out. These committees and consequently their policies tend to be self perpetuating. Where's the training and/or documentation that helps break this cycle (And I'm sitting here with a copy of the Advancement Committee Guide. It is far from being clear on the subject.) Secondly, as a unit leader, how are we to supervise and/or evaluate an Eagle project if it is performed outside of Scouting? Depending on the project, I suppose we could inspect the finished product, but how do we confirm leadership? We can't rely on the benefiting agency as I've never seen a representative of any beneficiary on site supervising a project and I doubt many of them understand the leadership qualities we would be looking for. And third, to JET526's point, I really wonder about the liability. I think there would be a huge fall off from agencies participating in ESLPs. I don't think they have any concept that they are accepting responsibility for a bunch of teenagers doing work on their property. We recently had a project fall a part because the agency refused to provide the Scout with a letter of Worker Comp coverage which was required to pull a building permit. From the BSA side of the liability issue, I sure wouldn't want to rely on the "outside the scope of Scouting" clause to cover my biscuits. That the project proposal signed by the Scoutmaster, unit committee member and a council/district representative would be a high hurdle to overcome.