Twocubdad

Eamonn -- Would you feel the same way if you found out that people were playing silly games by using you to approve rules to further their own private agenda? SMRon -- what if you wrote a letter/petition and presented it to the CC, COR and IH? In it lay out you case against the rule: that it is unnecessary, that it seems to unfairly target only one ASM, that it is not something supported in BSA policy, that it is an extraordinary rule for a CO to have, and that, frankly, it is offensive. Signed by you, the three ASM and the five parents, I would think it would carry a lot of weight. By putting your objections in writing to the entire chain of command, you can't be accused of playing politics. My hunch is that the COR & IH were sold a bill of goods and really weren't aware that what they were agreeing to was controversial. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Wow! An actual announcement from national instead of the endless speculation and guessing we usually get. What a concept! I wonder if this means the Tiger parents drop the uniform all together? Ours (usually including the den leaders, although they should be in regular leader uniforms) have always worn the orange t-shirts along with the Tiger Cubs.

I thought chihuahua cheese was what you put on the roasted Chihuahua you get at Taco Hell.

A well-trained Webelos is only the 30-day fitness requirements and a campout away from Tenderfoot. Six of my 8 Webelos who crossed over March 1 are already Tenderfoot. The other two missed the campout and are short the two or three camping and cooking requirements. It shouldn't be a big deal. AoL recipients coming into the troop should receive their Scout badge the first or second troop meeting. They should have the opportunity to earn Tenderfoot within their second month. For one, just crossing over from Cubs boy and their parents have the expectation that advancement is a big part of the program. We need to strike while the iron is hot. Secondly, it gets the guys off to a good start towards First Class First Year. Even though Scout and Tenderfoot aren't too tough, earning two ranks in 10 months sure sounds easier than four in 12.

We give our "graduating" Webelos I's a BSA name plate like the Boy Scouts wear. We only have their name and a flur-de-lis on the the tag so they can still use it after they cross over, regardless of the troop they move to. The boys think they are really hot stuff since only the WII's and adults have name plates. Plus, they're less expensive than the neckerchiefs we give all the other Scouts.

About a year ago our pack pieced together a ceremony using things we liked from several different ones. There are scads of different ceremonies on the Internet. The funny thing is that most are different, but all very seriously state, in bold type, that things MUST be done according to their script. You MUST cut the canton out first! You MUST cut the stripes apart first! You MUST burn the stripes last! You MUST burn the stars last! But as FOG says, there is no official method. Burning isn't even proscribed, just traditional.

The local SAMS post does a big retirement ceremony here and always has a huge pile of flags. They ususally go through the ceremony with just one flag and have all the rest folded and draped across the fire lay. They have a special metal A-frame they use. We've done the same thing on campouts lashing together a simple A-frame. Be prepared that most current flags are nylon and make a mess when burned producing a ton of black oily smoke.

If instead of going to the council for a separate budget request, what if you ask the camp director or ranger for the materials? (I'm assuming your COPE course is at your council's camp and is part of the summer camp program.) If so, the camp director has equal responsibility to make sure the course meets BSA standards. Secondly, he should have some descretion in his budget to shift some dollars your way. At least our day camp works that way. Once the budget is approved, the camp director (me) has a good bit of leeway in how the money is spent within that budget. If all our safety glasses disappeared during the winter at the council warehouse (which is highly probable), then I've got the authority to move money around within my budget to replace the glasses. Otherwise we don't have a BB range this year. (And oh by the way, the new glasses stay in my pack's storeroom next winter.) $100 for glasses is no big deal. $1400 for your COPE course is in another league. Maybe you can break it down into smaller phases, and/or convince the camp director to pay for part of it out of his camp budget, the ranger to pay for part of it out of his maintenance budget and that sort of thing.

Don't bother calling the old DL, it doesn't matter. The ODL has been replaced, and it's time to dig in your heels. "I'm sorry if we weren't clear, but NDL has taken over the den and is doing a great job. And by the way, if you have any further questions, I'm the committee chair so please ask me and not NDL." Sounds like this guy was flying the den into the ground and needed to go. You guys made the right call -- don't go back now.

Boy, tough putt. I think the best, most positive outcome would be to go to the pack committee with some ideas for solving the problems. Perhaps you could offer to publish a pack newsletter or web site. One of the advantages would be that such a job would give you standing to go to committee meetings (not that you really need a reason, all parents should be welcome) and have a reason for "bugging" pack leaders for info about upcoming activities. If the pack committee doesn't really function as it should or if most pack matters are really decided after Sunday School, you would at least have a pretext for going to the leaders for info. Being a new to the program you could play up the "I'm new, explain it to me slowly" angle. It's a bit of a game, but if it ultimately results in better communication through the pack, it may be worth the trouble. A couple times over my time as committee chairman, I've had two dens with problems due to lack of communication. Usually the biggest problem was that neither of the den leaders or assistants ever attended the committee meetings so they and their dens were out of the loop. The solution was to appoint a parent to be responsible for attending committee meetings and reporting back to the den. Ultimately, those parents became more involved and stepped in as den leaders. As painful as it may be, it's probably best to let the regatta issue be. At this point there is probably not much that can be done. The pack leaders fouled things up by allowing your son to race and then essentially deciding to disqualify him. But I think you have to assume that they were trying to do their best. We had precisely that situation at our regatta two years ago, but decided that because the rules didn't prohibit split hulls, we let the boy race. Of course, he smoked everyone and went home with the hardware. We have since changed the rules. It's a tough position to be in and sometimes you have to make judgement calls which are bound to disappoint someone.

Excellent thread and even better post, KS. I may print the third paragraph of your post and give it to all our leaders tomorrow night. Your comments regarding balance is especially important. In the couple troops with which I'm familar I see a lot of "all or nothing" as it relates to the methods, especially advancement and boy leadership. Here's another situation when it may be appropriate to step in and that is when the consequences of a failure fall disproportionally on someone other than those who caused it. Example: Number One Son has been in the troop about six weeks and went on his first campout last weekend. Of the six troop meetings he has attended, his Troop Guide has attended maybe two. Typically, at the last minute the SM shanghis one of the older Scouts to work with the NSP for the evening. As a result, the instruction the NSP has received has lacked any planning or forthought, although I will say the substitute guides have done a decent job given the situation. Two weeks ago this was the case and the boys talked about what to bring on a campout and how to pack. They covered personal gear, but never got around to talking about patrol gear. Last week, with another last-minute instructor, they did menu planning for the weekend. The instructor who worked with them did a good job and the Scouts came up with a great menu. They went through the process of breaking the menu down into a shopping list, but didn't have time to go to the next step of figuring out what cooking gear they would need. The bottom line was that Friday night everyone was packed, sitting in the vans ready to roll before I asked the NSP Scouts if anyone had packed a patrol mess kit or stove and suggested they consult the SPL as to what they should bring. (I also knew I had enough of my own gear to cover anything they needed.) Now if this were a patrol of second- or third-year Scouts, First Class and up, I would have kept my mouth shut and enjoyed watching as the boys learned utensil-less cooking for the weekend. But what would the new Scouts have learned had I allowed the controlled failure to continue? That their instructors were incompetent? That no one had bothered to teach them how to cook without utensils either? That I was a jerk for setting them up? That they would have to wait another month to complete their cooking requirement and reach Tenderfoot? That Scouting is no fun? The failures in instruction and leadership occurred above the level of the NSP. Relating to what KS wrote, because of the disconnect between cause and effect, there was no learning opportunity there. The lessons these boys needed to learn was how to light a camp stove, how to scramble eggs and how handle camp sanitation. The school-of-hard-knocks, we'll-never-forget-the-mess-kit-again lesson can come another day.

T stands for twill meaning that part of twill background fabric shows through and is part of the design. S is for solid and means that the patch is covered solid in stitching. There are are several other types of patches: felt, bullion (made with thick stitching, almost like a rug), woven, and a few more. The numbers are assigned sequentially as the patches are issued.

Brother, I feel your pain. Our council has a separate special needs district that does basically what your field director is doing. The rely heavily on paraprofessionals (i.e., paid volunteers) to run the units. While a good chunk of money goes to support the district, at least they're not taking away time and attention as the twit is doing to you.

Actually Hunt, over time Merlyn has laid out a very thorough case for his point of view. He has provided links to most the pertinent case law relating to Freedom of Religion and usually makes a very rational argument. Of course few people here agree with him. I'm not sure why his motives are important. We don't question the motives of other contrarian members. If he thinks it important to represent his viewpoint to a hostile audience, that's his choice. There are a couple threads going on now about squelching or boycotting posters who some find rude or offensive. Merlyn is neither of those, although an number of folks have done their best to goad him into it. Many of the posters who have argued against squelching or boycotting have done so on the basis of freedom of expression. If we are willing to tolerated the rude baloney some spout in the name of free expression, why aren't we willing to tolerate a well-stated position with which we simply disagree?

Where is Wheeler when we need him? (Yes, I'm biting my tounge HARD, but thanks for reminding me.)

Supply division sells a ribbon holder that attaches to the top of the flagpole. It's a halo-like gizmo with 7-8 hooks around it to hold the ribbons. I bought one for our pack flag last fall and reorganized all our ribbons. We have probably 60 or 70 ribbons and have room for plenty more. It looks sharp and works well.

If I'm reading the post correctly, it sounds like the problem is largely solved. The Scout's behavior is improved and the mom has calmed down after having the problem with the badges explained. She's now just generally carping and whining. It may be that your den leader, and maybe you, need to be a little thicker-skinned about that kind of stuff. There is always going to be someone like that around. I just comes with the territory. On the other hand, if you really feel she is causing a problem, I would do two things. First, get backup. Your pack committee chairman really should be involved already, more so than the Cubmaster. If you don't have an active CC, go to your Chartered Organization Representative of the head of your chartered organization. Outside the unit, as NeillLup says, you should contact your unit commissioner. Your professional District Executive really isn't the one to get involved in a problem like this -- in fact they are trained to stay out of the middle of these kind of conflicts. They will, however, refer you to other volunteers who can help, most likely the commissioners. Secondly, if it comes to it, you need to very plainly tell the mom to quit the e-mails and complaining. If she is so unhappy with the den then she and her son need to find another situation. If she continues to be disruptive, then I would ask the CO to remove the family from the unit. If a problem comes down to a choice between one Scout or a den leader serving 6 or 8 Scout, I'm going with the den leader every time.

I have to admit that Acco's approach has a certain dark appeal, however I don't think it's the right way to go. Forgetting for the moment all the leadership problems in your pack, and since you've tried the hombre-a-hombre tact, how about this: next time he use foul language in front of the boys, stop him -- in mid sentence -- and say "Oh gosh Mr. Bill! We don't use that word in Cub Scouts!" Repeat it every time he lets one slip. "Oops! Cub Scouts don't use that word either!" The bigger the crowd the better. If quiet reason doesn't work, maybe public humiliation will.

Here's the practical answer: it's not your call to make. Don't worry about it. I'd apply to use the space and let the chips fall where they will. If someone at the storage company feels BSA discrimates, it is up to them to turn you down. Thank them for their time and move on.

I'm not sure I understand this Blog thing. I read the page and don't understand why you couldn't just post it here, but that's your call. I suppose the primary point of the post was that training should be mandatory. In principle, I agree with that. The other problems you listed sound to me like local problems related to the lack of training, leaders who just don't get it, or who think they should run "their" (and in this case I use the possessive in it's negative connotation) unit as their own fiefdom. If someone chooses to run a unit counter to the stated methods and policies of BSA, training isn't necessarily going to help. It doesn't sound like these guys are ignorant of the program, they're just set on doing things their own way regardless. But back to mandatory training. While I agree that every leader should be trained, I don't think that BSA training is ready to back up a mandatory training policy. Before someone decrees that everyone must be trained, you better dang well be prepared to train them all. We're not ready for that. A couple points under the general heading of the Devil is in the Details: 1) The current position-specific breakouts for Cub Scout leaders is a waste of time and resources. For the volunteers, it is a waste of time to take three, virtually identical courses (Tiger, Cub and Webelos leader specific) with the span of three years. There just isn't that much difference in the programs. A Den Leader Basic course could easily cover Tigers and Cubs. The program material for Webelos leaders could be folded into Webelos Leader Outdoor course. That would reduce four courses to two. Committee member and Cubmaster could be combined. Actually committee member specific could be dropped as it contains nothing that isn't covered in any of the other courses. From the training committee's perspective, the five courses means that to teach a Cub Scout leader course you need five instructors, five class rooms and five sets of computers and projectors. (Apparently no one is capable of teaching the courses with flip charts anymore.) We frequently have courses canceled because of a lack of instructors or a lack of students. While 8 or 10 people may register for training, they need to take five different classes. The same is true at the pack trainer level. It's not difficult to teach Youth Protection or New Leaders' Essentials the the pack leadership, but s pack trainer has the same problems delivering the position specific courses causes that the training committee does. Bottom line is this: If a Scoutmaster or ASM can take Scoutmaster Fundamentals and be considered trained to position to handle Boy Scouts from a new Scout patrol of 11 year olds all the way to a Venture Patrol of 17 year olds, why am I required to have two different courses to handle 7 year old Tigers or 8 year old Wolves? 2) Mandatory training is a crutch for the training committee. I'm beginning to see that locally already. Sooner or later the attitude will creep in that "you have to take the class, we don't need to make it convenient or interesting." Our training chairman went on and on recently about the vast number of training opportunities the committee had planned for the coming year. How many of them are schedule other than on a weekend, I asked? Zero. What are you doing differently to promote the courses? Nothing. This is the same level of customer service you get at DMV. Anyone tried to get a driver's license lately? 3) Administration. From what I see, the poor state of BSA record keeping is a universal problem. You are going to deny membership on the basis of the world's worst database? Until you can accurately tell me the current percentage of trained leaders, you're not ready to mandate 100%. I've tried for two years to get my pack's training records corrected. We've submitted training inventories, we've sent in copies of training certificates, and I've corrected the records at recharter time. All has been ignored. One day I spent 45 minutes with the council registrar going through old notebooks trying to correct my own record and still didn't get it right. At that rate, it will take 20 hours to get all my leaders updated. When national, the council and the training committee solves these problems and gets their house in order, then I'm all over mandatory training.

You're truly nutty. I've never worried much about the ribbons. Our pack has been around a good while and we have a large wad of them hanging from our pack flag. Whenever we get one, we let the boys involved (or the Web2s in the case of the QU) add it to the flag pole. I will admit wrestling with a bunch of 8-year-olds for our den flag from day camp. My son and his best friend made the flag. The friend was moving out of state shortly after camp and we wanted him to have it. Now that I'm camp director, to prevent squabbles the rule is that the den leaders get to keep the flag. If they want to give it to one particular Scout, they are encouraged to do so privately.

It is perfectly acceptable for someone to decline a FOS contribution based on the time and effort they put forth as a volunteer. It's not unreasonable to say 'I do this much, someone else needs to carry the rest of the load.' I hate to think of the amount of money I "contribute" to Scouting under the table -- gas, mileage, uniforms, in-kind materials, things I buy but then forget to turn in or loose the receipt, etc., etc. (But don't worry, I still contribute my share to FOS and host a table at our Patron's luncheon. ON THE OTHER HAND, it is not okay for someone to have a poor attitude about financial contributions and try to poison the well for everyone else. They need to keep their dang mouths shut.

I don't hear anyone lobbying to eliminate the squelching. It seems quite obvious that anyone can choose to use it or not.

I agree with you guys. I've not squelched anyone (although I've thought about it) because I think it would make following the threads difficult. I'm a big boy and can read, assess and, if necessary, ignore posts as I see fit. Actually, I've thought it may be better if we could squelch whole threads that are of not of interest so that they just don't show up at all on the current threads list. That's more of a matter of customizing the forums you want follow rather than squelching on particular person.

I ignore FOG and quite a few other posters all the time. I have no difficulty completely ignoring things I find it to be offensive, inane or false. As has been noted, if you have trouble doing this, Scouter Terry has provided the means of squelching particular individuals if you like. I judge individuals on their own merit. FOG's tirades and sniping only undermine his own arguments and ability to make a point. If people learn to discount the baloney he spouts, they will discount everything he says. But that's his problem. I believe the cream will eventually rise to the top. And speaking of offensive, I don't know why others feel the need to police what I choose to read. Whether it is an article (or even the pictures) in Playboy or FOG calling Bob White names, it is only up to Hugh Hefner, Scouter Terry and me to determine if I may read it. The first two control the content of their magazine or web site, I control my computer's delete key.