Twocubdad

Here's the link to the old thread. Much of the information is pertinent to TDavis's question. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=11588#id_11588

This is a sore spot for me. Looking for information on this very thing was how I first found this web site and forums. Just as I became Committee Chairman, I had leader who had been a DL with his older son and was starting over at TDL with his younger boy. Our Cubmaster was recruited away by the district to start a new troop and this guy agreed to become the Cubmaster. Because he had made the commitment to his son to be his den leader, he wanted to finish out the year with both jobs. Being Cubmaster, there was no way to "fudge" his registration, and he was registered as Cubmaster immediately. At the end of the year, he submitted his application for the Tiger Leader Training Award (square knot). I signed it and included a note explaining that although his registration had changed, he had completed the full year as a Tiger leader. Not only was this guy the leader for his den, but because the other tiger den was rather weak, he included the other den in many of the Go See Its he planned and the essentially carried both dens. He was and is a very dedicated Scouter. As you may have guessed, his knot application was turned down. The woman who handles Cub Scout training and approves Cub Scout Leader awards, would only say "he didn't earn it" with no further discussion. Everyone I spoke with (DE, district training chair, district chairman, commissioners) agreed that the knot should have been awarded. The training chairman (who in our district only does Boy Scout training) said that if the guy were a Boy Scout leader, he would have approved the award. But because she is the Grand Dame of the district, no one had the cajones to do anything about it. Two years later, this still steams me. Largely because I was the only one willing to go to bat for the guy's award. If anyone deserved the recognition, it was him. He had completed all the requirments, done job -- and done it very well. The only reason his registration changed was because he stepped up to the plate to serve the unit at a higher level. From time to time, I believe the written rules require the application of a little common sense. The name of the award is the Tiger Leader Training Award, not the Tiger Leader Bureaucratic Compliance Award.

We had a pack in our district that moved to the adjoining council. They were chartered to a church which built a new building just over the county line in the other council. When the CO moved, the unit moved. Coincidently, it was an LDS church, but to my knowledge the move had nothing with reorganizing the church wards. Under those circumstances, I don't know why any unit wouldn't be allowed to change councils. If you're looking to move for "political" reasons, I'm sure the answer is BW's flat NO.

I believe the point is that a new boy should have the opportunity to earn their Scout badge at the first troop meeting, if they are prepared. Even a new boy with no Cub Scout experience should be able to meet the Scout requirements if they spend a few minutes reviewing their handbook. All my Webelos are within a requirement or two of completing their Arrows of Light. With maybe a few refreshers, they should be able to knock out their Tenderfoot requirements in short order. At our den meeting tonight, we talked about what to look for in a troop. I was pleasantly surprised that when I askes what was important to look for, the first two things they came up with was whether or not the Scouts run the troop and how the patrols and leaders are selected. They didn't have the "boy led" lingo right, but I was impressed that they remembered the concept from our earlier conversations. Thanks for everyone's input.

I assume Proud Eagle is referring to some of the details of OA ceremonies. I wouldn't be approproate to discuss them in a public forum.

Oh come on folks, lighten up. The number of Eagles, etc. was so tounge-in-cheek my face hurts. I thought for sure it was beyond the need for a little smiley face. Good questions so far, but keep in mind I'm looking for questions for the Webelos to ask. Perhaps "questions" isn't the right word. Maybe I should ask for a list of things they should learn about a prospective troop.

There was a similar thread a year or two ago. I can't remember enough to do a reasonable search. Can anyone else help me find it? Short of that, my Webelos den is discussing what to look for in a good troop. Other than asking how many Eagles the troop produces in a year, a list of the merit badges they are planning to teach at upcoming troop meetings and getting a copy of the troop rules and regulations, can anyone add anything?

The race may not always be won by the swift, nor the fight by the strong, but that how the smart money bets. If poor attendance is a valid indication of a poor program, why isn't the reverse true?

In our area, two deep leadership is enforced with no exceptions, even with some fairly silly results (like two adults escorting one Scout to the bathroom across a crowded day camp). If people are under the impression that two-deep leadership is required 100% of the time, I see no reason to dissuade them of that notion. DS writes: Three: Suppose you have a den that consistently can't come up with a second adult. That den would never meet under the two-deep leadership policy and would quickly die and leave the boys with no Scouting at all. If I were the den leader and none of the parents were willing to even serve as a warm body in the back of the room, the den would die a quick death indeed.

I've never watched any of the Survivor shows, so I can't comment on the above, but I did see a People magazine which has a couple photos of her in uniform. From the insignia, I can add to her resume: OA member National Jamboree Philmont Webelos Leader Award Scouter's Key Scoutmaster Training Award District Award of Merit (another knot I can't make out) (something which appears to be a regional insignia on her right sleeve.) Say what you will, she seems to have earned her stripes as a Scouter.

Agreed, Bob, which leads us back to my suggestion. If achieving QD required us to think long-term, the focus would shift from chartering new units, regardless of their strength or commitment, to nurturing those we already have. I don't know that counting membership and units only after they complete a year is a good idea or not. But the thought behind it -- focusing districts on the long-term health of the program not just the immediate numbers -- is sound.

Interesting. I'm just a "Bear dad" this year and haven't paid that much attention to the details yet, especially as to arrowpoints. In the past, if you completed requirements 3a, b, c and j and counted them towards the Bear rank, you could then complete 3d, e, f, g, h and i toward an arrowpoint. That's not allowed now. But if you use achievements 3, 4 and 5 for the Bear award, the individual requirements for achievements 6 and 7 for arrowpoints.

You're absolutely right, Bob. I made my point poorly and that's not what I intend to say. In my district, we have a relatively good training program, at least in terms of getting new leaders through the basic courses. On the other hand, virturally no training takes place at Roundtable. The commissioner staff does little if nothing to directly support their units. As a result, for new units with no experienced leaders to give them a jump start, Scouting can be like trying to grab a fast moving train. I may be a bit jaded and myopic. I helped our district committee set up two new units in the past year-and-a-half and both are floundering. In my view, neither have been given the support they should have. I also know that we have a constant turnover of 6 or 8 units every year. Where our QD goal should be one or two new units, we are constantly faced with 8 or 10 new units to make up for those we loose. I don't think it is fair or accurate to say that all those unit leaders chose to run away from the program.

I think we are all mature enough and have the integrity to understand what is meant by "you can't be quality every year" without using that as an excuse not to do our best. A good leader needs to know when to let the team off the hook. If you've given it you best and still come up short, a tactical retreat may be the best plan. Live to fight another day, and all that.... I had written a long post basically carping about how the goals are set, but what it comes down to is that as long as the quality district/council goals are strictly numerical members, money and units, we will be focused on the numbers game. (I know there are more requirements than just those three, including a percentage of Quality Units, but anyone involved in district or council-level administration knows those are the big three.) I have a modest proposal I think will change the emphasis of how districts operate: only count membership and units if they are still registered/active for one year. Two big changes: for both units and members, retention becomes important. For unit recruitment, the quality and commitment of the units becomes important as does training and follow-up to ensure that units suceed. I see problems in both these areas in our district, especially with units -- anyone who can scrape together five boys, the minimal leadership and twenty bucks has a unit. Beyond that, it is generally sink or swim. Scout retention is totally up to the units, with no support or training to help units retain Scouts. We can and should do better.

Although each Scout may be properly uniformed but still wearing different things (like sashes, hats and neckerchiefs), I'd suggest having all the Scouts coorinate and all wear the same uniform elements. Personally, I'd vote for everyone wearing their meirt badge sash, or the OA sash if you are representing the OA, as Bob suggests.

The chartered organization has the ultimate say over questions of unit leadership. Your friend should contact the Chartered organization representative and ask if his dismissal is the decision of the chartered organization. If it is, he needs to move on. If not, the COR needs to deal with the problems in the pack. There are other resources for the COR to avail himself of (the unit commissioner, the district executive, etc.), but ultimately the COR needs to deal with it. Personally, I wouldn't put up with that junk. I'd move on either way.

"Must good leaders first be good followers?" was our original question posed. This was a good, though-provoking thread and I'd like to get back to the heart of it. I think most of us agree that if by "followership" we are suggesting some sort of servile, subordinate role, then the answer is no. But if by follower we don't mean "subordinate," then how do we define follower? Bob's earlier question, "Are you a follower of your state senator?" got me thinking about this. Heck no! I didn't even vote for him. But I do strive to be a good citizen, obeying the laws he and his other honorables enact and giving due respect to the office. If we substitute "citizen" for "follower" I believe we are much closer to what we mean. We hope our Scouts will be good patrol citizens, conscienciously voting for a good patrol leader, working to make the patrol successful, following the PL lead. So do you have to a good citizen/follower to be a good leader? In this connotation I think so. I certainly wouldn't vote for a senator I didn't believe was a good citizen. I would hope our Scouts would select as patrol leaders those who demostrate themselves to be good patrol members and good Scouts generally. I'll allow that there are different circumstances which require different type of leadership -- some situations may require leaders with specific skills or those who can make quick decisions under pressure. But the senator and the patrol leader are examples of voluntary governance ("...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just poweres from the consent of the governed"). In that narrow situation, a good leader will be a good follower. DSteele gave a good example of this leadership/followership in the thread about popcorn. I think his SE provided a good example of a good leader being a good follower by pitching in with Dave's popcorn distribution without interferring with Dave's leadership or methods. As I said, this thread has been very thought provoking. How does this apply to the traits of a good leader generally? I'm not sure. I'm going to give it some more thought and listen to what the rest you think.

Not only does our pack pay all the dues for the adult leaders, but also the cost of any training they may take. This may be one of the philosophical differences between Cubs and Scouts. I understand DS's point about paying for adult dues with troop funds earned by the sweat of the boys' brow. I think it's different with Cubs in that all the money essentially comes from the parents in one form or another. Even money raised by cubs selling popcorn popcorn is dependent on the parents' support. Since the money is theoretically coming from the parent's pockets, I think it is perfectly acceptable for the pack to pay for those parents who volunteer to be leaders. Granted, it is a small token and I'm sure most of the leaders would pay it themselves if asked, but it is one way we can show our appreciation for the time they invest. This is a little of Hotdesk's original post in that all but one (mentioned earlier) of these adults are active volunteers.

You are correct, NJ. The present Bears are the first to go through the the new Tiger program. If they've completed everything, they should have a Bobcat, Wolf and Tiger badge on their uniform now.

I'd suggest that if you are limited to one uniform, go with the one where you have the most influence with the Scouts. If you are an ASM and a Roundtable Commissioner, make sure you are properly uniformed as an ASM.

My Council can't verify the Webelos den leader training I completed a year ago. How in the heck are they going to verify a badge I earned in 1970 in a Council that ceased to exist 15 years ago and has merged twice since?

Still off topic, but Dave, dude, why are you loading popcorn? When we pickup popcorn, there's one Council volunteer there who sits behind a desk with a cup of coffee, a clipboard and points at your pile. Units are required to bring enough help to load their own order. The only exception is that if you have a truck that will hold full pallets, the regular warehouse guys (who donate that space to the Scouts) will load it for you with a forklift.

Unless the practice is creating a hardship on the troop treasury or done with some ill intent (like plumping membership numbers or filling required positions with inactive leaders), I see no harm. Our Institutional Head is a former den leader whose sons have aged out. We keep him on the roster as a committee member as a courtesy to him so he gets newsletters, mailings from the Council, Scouter magazine, etc. He's not active in the proram, but occasionally attends pack meeting in uniform.

Welcome to the campfire, Pam. No one has mentioned that in addition to the COR or IH signing the adult application, the Committee Chairman's signature is also required. So if you have a situation where a group of parents are trying to "pack" the committee to to exert more influence over the program, the chairman can decline to approve their applications. Whether or not that's the appropriate the way to handle the situation is another question.

Just got our recharter kit at Roundtable last week, so I'm looking at our roster. According to this, we have one trained leader -- and it ain't me. I understand that the records aren't going to be perfect, but this isn't close. What I find especially irritating is that last winter our commissioners decided that "they" were going to conduct a training inventory and get the records updated. I put "they" in quotations because it was really the unit leaders who did the inventories, collecting the data, making copies of course completion cards, etc. As best I can tell, none of the records were corrected. I don't mind if you want to waste your own time by starting a project you never finish, but don't ask me to jump through your hoops for nothing. It bothers me that no one seems