Twocubdad

Forgive me, Bob, I didn't understand that to make a point about one detail of our program I had to substantiate it with a description of our entire program. If you offer a post about how you teach your Scouts to season a Dutch oven should I assume that you are failing to teach any other part of campcraft? Yes, in addition to the "skit" at the pack meeting we do other things to teach the Scout proper uniforming. For the record, we ask our adult leaders to correctly wear their uniforms and set a good example(although according to your last post, we can drop that since there is no correlation between the adult uniforms and the Cubs). At the beginning of the year, we include uniforming on the agenda for our annual leaders' conference, the new parents' orientation and our general meeting of all parents. We explain to the parents the purpose of the uniform and the lessons we are trying to teach the boys with it. As for the boys, they are all given a copy of the uniform inspection sheet at the beginning of the year and asked to check their own uniforms with their parents. Den leaders are encouraged to hold informal inspections and talk about uniforming during den meetings. Some of them play the Pin the Badge on the Cub Scout game we are taught in training. We occasionally select a random Scout in full uniform and hold him up as an example of a properly dressed Scout and give him a small reward. Personally, I try to compliment Scouts when appropriate. And yes, if a Scout is grossly miss-wearing the uniform, we may pull him aside and mention it. On a district level, as Roundup Chairman last year, I came up with the idea of making the day before School Night Round-up uniform day and encourage all our Scouts to wear their uniforms to school. We have not had a formal uniform inspection since I've been in the pack, but we plan to. The purpose of the leader inspection was to lead by example -- we're not asking anything of the boys we aren't willing to do. We also tried to show that the inspection could be fun and not the equivalent of being sent to the principal's office. But most importantly, we wanted to make the point to the Scouts and their parents that proper uniforming is important simply by the fact that we are taking the time to talk about it. True, pointing out a leader's Eagle square knot or Woodbadge beads doesn't mean much to a Cub, but the overall effect is to show that we care about being properly uniformed and take pride in it. Measurable changes? Hard to say. Honestly I can't say that any of the above methods result in measurable changes. You nibble at it from various sides and trust that the combination work. Maybe one boy responds to an inspection, another boy responds to a private conversation, and another to a silly skit. We just try to run a good program the way we've been trained. The results flow from there.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I don't know that there is an official right or wrong answer, but I prefer to wear my hat flat and think it looks better that way. You are correct that the hat sits higher on your head than what you are accustomed to with most other hats. It also takes some time for the hat to conform to the shape of your head. They are rather uncomfortable until then. The strap across the back of your head is limited use in keeping the hat on. It helps a little, but not much. If you look at old photos of the doughboys or Rough Riders, they often wore the chin straps under their chins. I don't think the BSA chin straps are long enough to go under your chin, even if you wanted to. Bottom line: no, they're not the most practical hats around. But I just think they look sharp.

"So while I'm standing there dressed like a slob, the Cubmaster is going down the line of adults, checking their uniforms, praising one for having a spiffy bolo, pointing out the significance of the funny wooden beads another wears, knocking off points for one not wearing a Scout belt. Quickly, checking whether or not the leaders is wearing official socks becomes a big deal. The leaders ham it up, slowly pulling up their pants legs. Big cheers for the guys with official socks, big groans for the others." (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

If I had arrived at the meeting dressed as I was, said nothing about my appearance, conducted the pack meeting as usual and relied on a bunch of 8-year-olds to comprehend the subtlety of my point, then you would be 100% correct, Bob. But I would be a moron to think that is effective. The bad example, all by itself, is no more effective than standing in front of a comatose audience explaining the fine points of service star spacing. It's part of a process which includes leaders being well uniformed, providing inspection sheets to the Scouts and parents, praising boys who are properly uniformed (from time to time, we randomly select a Scout in full uniform and award him a small prize), and privately talking to boys who are grossly out of uniform. The bad example is only part of that process. Only part of it's purpose is to demonstrate the wrong way of doing things. It's primary function is to provide a little levity to the program. If a Scout or parent sees himself or their son in the bad example, that's just gravy.

You asked for an explaination of how this could be used to improve uniforming in the unit or with an individual Scout. I provided one. But because it didn't support the preconceived point you wanted to make, you've labeled it a "waste of time" that will only "confuse minds" of the Scouts. I've pointed out -- for the third time now -- that using this to humiliate a specific Scout would be wrong. But also tried to show how this can be used positively, especially with Cubs who enjoy a little silliness at pack meetings. Is that the part you don't get?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Here is what I don't get. How does this improve uniforming in the unit or in the specific scout. I am open to explainations. So when you wrote that, Bob, it was just a rhetorical flourish? That I have shown how we used the "uniform slob" to have a good time and teach the kids about proper uniforming without humiliating anyone isn't good enough? It doesn't sound like you weren't open to much except the preconceived point you were looking to make in the first place.

So while I'm standing there dressed like a slob, the Cubmaster is going down the line of adults, checking their uniforms, praising one for having a spiffy bolo, pointing out the significance of the funny wooden beads another wears, knocking off points for one not wearing a Scout belt. Quickly, checking whether or not the leaders is wearing official socks becomes a big deal. The leaders ham it up, slowly pulling up their pants legs. Big cheers for the guys with official socks, big groans for the others. Unfortunately, one of the younger Cubs, a little guy who is very sensitive, leaves the meeting crying. His mom later tells us he was upset that he didn't have "real" Cub Scout socks and was afraid he would be laughed at because of it. So what could we have done to spared this kid's feelings? Held the inspection quietly, privately correcting them later? Handed the uniform sheets to the boys and ask them to consider for themselves if they're are Doing Their Best to wear uniform properly? Or just set a good example and hope the boys "get it" on their own? Or maybe we just blow off this whole "proper uniform" thing out of fear of hurting someone's feelings? I've written it once, but I'll write it again: anyone who does something with the intent to embarass or ridicule a boy, or who does someting where that is the forseeable result, is out of line. But it seems to me we are in the business of teaching boys right from wrong. Sometimes that involves setting an example of what is right, sometimes it means pointing out what is wrong. If we can do that in a fun, light-hearted and entertaining way, where's the problems? P.S. I made up the part about the kid crying over his socks. Never happened. But my point is that just about anything we do can be offensive to someone. I had a kid leave a campfire last year in tears because I told "his" joke first. (That one really happened.)

Try http://www.tandyleather.com/ I don't know much about it but one of the ASMs in the troop does a lot of leather work and orders a lot of stuff through them.

The long sleeves under short sleeves is a common thing. Not many folks spring for the long sleeve uniform shirts nor are they going to run around all winter with bare arms. Most people are pretty good about wearing a color that compliments the uniform. As to your question, Bob, if the intent is mean-spirited and to embarass a specific Scout, then obviously it's out of place. But I doubt that was the case. Unless the leader announces "Hey, Tommy, this is exactly what you were wearing last week! How stupid does this look!?!" I doubt anyone will make the connection. But as evidenced by our inspection Monday, everyone had a good laugh and learned something at the same time. Hmmm.... Fun with a purpose. I think I've read that somewhere. If a kid was thinking to himself, "I wonder if I look that dumb with my hat on backwards?" or if a parent was thinking, "Boy, I can't believe I let him out of the house wearing those same shorts!" all the better.

I'm not sure about that, but my son may take you up on the offer. After the meeting he says to me, "Dad, try to have a little self respect. Show some dignity!" I think his old man embarassed him.

Funny you should mention this. Night before last at our monthly pack meeting we had a "surprise" uniform inspection for all the adult leaders. We thought inspecting the adults would be a good first step and we could make a few points without embarassing any Scouts. My uniform consisted of a uniform shirt, unbuttoned and untucked, about six temporary patches hanging from the right pocket and two from the left, no shoulder tabs, a medal I won in the fifth grade, a Florida Marlins baseball cap on backwards, a pair of floral print shorts, official Scout socks and loafers. Mama always said I would be good for something, even if it were a bad example. Not only did we have fun with the inspection, but made a point. Every uniform "error" I demonstrated was one I have seen Scouts make over the years. I'd say it made a very effective point for both the Scouts and the parents.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I was just going to make that very point, Acco. I've been my son's leader all the way through the program. I look for opportunities for him to interact with other leaders, even though I should officially be his contact. He and I have a rule that when ever possible, he is to go through his Asst. Webelos leader to sign off requirements. That was a good lesson learned from my old Scoutmaster. Although the local lodge begged him to join the OA an get involved as an advisor, he refused. OA was the one thing in Scouting his son did without him and he didn't want to horn in on that, too. Working with adults is one of the eight methods. As leaders we need to make sure our own sons don't get short-changed on that one.

You guys are making my point for me. You're right, at the top of the pyramid, there's no effort or cost involved at all. And if only five percent of scouts transfer a year, that's a quarter-million in found money going to national. But starting with the Scout, think about all the hands that dollar has to pass through: his den leader, the cub master, the pack treasurer (who has to account for the deposit, write a check and record the expense), the counter person at the Scout office, the council bookkeeper, etc. Compare that to submitting the application alone: Scout, den leader, cubmaster, registrar (all of which can be handled by mail). Just because most of the people in the process are volunteers doesn't mean their time has no value. And I don't believe that the dollar is any sort of deterrent to frivilous transfers. If I'm cheesed off (is that a Wisconsin thing?) at my SM, the time it takes to complete the application will give me much more pause than attaching a dollar to it.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

What's the point of the transfer fee? Is it just "found money" for national, since they don't do anything to earn it? Can't anyone figure out that the cost of handling that dollar from the Scout to the unit to the council to national far exceeds it's value? Or does national just not care since they get the revenue but not the expense?money but not the work?

I'll second the accurate records, including adult training records. Actually, I'd settle for having records, period. Let's start there and work our way up to accurate records. But my big improvement would be communications. (Note: I started to post this on the New Leaders' thread, but it seems more appropriate here.) Why does BSA insist on using as it's primary means of communication with volunteers a system of communications that is at least 100 years out of date? Just because it worked for Baden-Powell in the Zulu Wars doesn't mean we still have to use it today. I'm talking about this chain-of-command, national-council-district-unit-volunteer model of doing things. Even Tiger Cubs play "Telephone" and learn how messages get garbled when they pass through too many layers. Councils and districts need to be communicating directly with the volunteers who need the information. Trying to use Roundtable to communicate with volunteers is similarly inefficient. We have approximately 500 volunteers in our district. Average attendance at Roundtable is 50. Anyone need to borrow a calculator? Even if you count on unit leaders to attend Roundtable and pass info along to their volunteers, probably less than half the units are represented at any given meeting. Assuming people will take an entire evening to attend a meeting simply for the purpose of receiving information which could have been mailed (or e-mailed) to them is a very poor and inefficient means of communication. (I know the Roundtable Commissioners in the crowd will point out that announcement and updates are the bain of a good Roundtable program. But let's face it, for many average DLs or ASMs who don't know the "real" purpose of Roundtable, news and info is likely their number one interest.) Newsletters are my other pet peeve. I will note that our local council's newsletter is the only Scout newsletter I've seen. But as a former PR and corporate communications exec, I can tell you 90% of all newsletters are worthless. Our council's newsletter is definitely in that catogory. The front page is always a predictable feature article: August is Roundup, September is Popcorn, December is the new Council officers, January is FOS, March is camp promotion, blah, blah, blah.... Page 2 is always a really lame letter from our SE and a column from our Big Buck Donor professional on estate planning. Page 4 is a list of the month's Eagles and the mailing panel. Out of four pages, that leaves one page for the five districts, the OA, Scout Reach and Venturing to share. One page out of four for the info folks can really use. At the national level, Scouting magazine is another communication tool that misses the mark. It is a wonderful tool to showcase Scouting to outsiders. And occasionally I'll read about something another pack is doing and think, "Hey, that's a great idea we should try here." But where are the nuts and bolts, the how-to articles? Why wasn't half an issue last winter devoted to rolling out the program changes in the new Wolf, Bear and Webelos programs? Given current technology, it's just waaaay too easy to customize messages for relatively small groups and individuals. E-mails, Internet-based mail servers or even databases to sort and identify individuals for hard-copy mailings could all be used to improve and target communications. And don't talk to me about cost. We're already spending the money on printing, postage and web sites. We need to be making better use of the dollars we are currently spending. Sorry, my computer's rant key seems to be stuck again. I know I have a can of WD40 around here somewhere.....

Back to the original question: As everyone has pointed out, care and feeding of a new leader is primarily the responsibility of the unit. But what's wrong with building some redundancy into the system? In addition to the list of things Bob suggested the unit can do, what would be wrong with adding the following: -- a letter from the SE or Council president welcoming the new leader along with a copy of last month's newsletter. -- a similar letter from the District commissioner inviting the leader to Roundtable and briefly describing the commissioners' purpose. -- a letter from the district or council training chair with a list of training requirements and training award scordcard for the specific position and a schedule of upcoming training opportunites. I'm not suggesting the SE sit down and personally write 400 letters. Obviously these are form letters and getting them mailed can be staffed-out. But not only are you welcoming the new leader, but you've put in their hands the few key pieces of info they need to have reinforced and/or given the first time if the unit failed to do so.

There are two additional restrictions on Webelos "guardians." The guardian may only be responsible for one additional Scout other than his/her son and it may not be one of the Scout leaders. Clearly, the intent is that a den leader can't take 13 Scouts out as a den and claim to be guardian for all of them.

My old flaps are worth a little bit of money, if they were mint. All the ones I have I wore. I wish I had a box full of them. The flaps, Tali Tak Taki 70, were restricted to two per year. But it never occurred to me to buy the two extra flaps at the beginning of the year. Hey, I had one on each uniform shirt, why do I need another? Actually I've discovered a trick for wearing old and semi=valuable patches without sewing them on or using those plastic protectors. I picked up a bag of brass backers for military service ribbons (KS, Matua, help me out. What do you call those things.) I got them to use the pin back as replacements, but I've discovered that you can sew or hot glue patches onto them without harming the patch (the hot glue only works on plastic backed patches. This lets me pin them on my uniform and then take them off for the wash. I wear my OA flap and a few others that way. I wouldn't do that with a truely valuable patch, but just those I want to take better care of.

It's the convention in this neck of the woods, with my pack and, to my knowledge, every pack in our district but one, that the Webelos II dens fold at crossover in February or March. Adios, see ya later, invite me to your Eagle COH, goodbye. It will come as a surprise to many Webelos II den leaders -- myself included -- to learn that they are responsible for providing a den program to one or two remaining boys until they meet one of the membership criterium. Hmmmmmm...... That's a result of the most common practice here that the dens follow the boys, with the leaders (almost always parents) tracking along with the boys from Tigers to Webelos. I only know of one unit in our district that has permanent dens and leaders and the boys move from den to den every year. Not looking for an argument, just trying to understand the full depth and breadth of the program. Okay, I guess I did say "for the sake of argument" but I really meant "as a point of clarification." You haven't been hanging out with FOG, have you, Dave?

So just for the sake of argument, DS, what do we do with boys who don't complete the AOL and don't turn 11 until after school is out. Am I supposed to move them back into the Webelos I den when their buddies crossover in February? Actually, this is more than just for the sake of argument. I've got three newly recruited Webelos IIs for whom AOL is a long shot. They turn 11 in April, May and September of next year. Their dens will crossover at the end of February. I can't imagine that standing down for a few months waiting for their 11th birthday will do much for their enthusiasm for Scouting or help our Webelos-to-Boy Scout transition rates. In the old days, you joined the troop on your 11th birthday, regardless of when it was. But that was before the shift to a grade based/school year Cub Scout program. My understanding was that the 10 1/2 minimum age was the accommodate the idea of crossing Webelos over in the Feb/March time frame in order to get them acclimated to Boy Scouts before heading off to summer camp. Seemed like a reasonable thing. Why the change?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I think registration should apply to both. The draft is another matter. The Selective Service has always expanded or contracted the draft using age and sometimes other factors (a shortage of doctors, for example) to meet the personnel needs at the time. I would assume gender could be thrown into the mix if the draft is ever reactivated. But I have another question for KS and some of our active duty guys. Given the technology and level of specialization in the military, is it practical that the draft will ever be reactivated? Don't modern training requirement preclude the WWII model of giving a guy a rifle, 6 weeks of basic and putting them on a ship? What kind of mess would we be in that would require the draft(political considerations aside)?

I choose to read, "may not allow" to mean "is prohibited" and enforce that as the policy of our unit. Unfortunately, I also acknowledge that the policy is written in such a way the it can be interpreted differently if one were so inclined. My question is this: Why hasn't BSA clarified the policy? This debate has been going on through at least four updates of the printed G2SS that I'm aware of. It's been debated here ad nauseaum and I've heard it questioned a number of times among real, live Scouters. At some point one has to question whether or not the obfuscation is intentional.

You can tell me all day long that the gun is not loaded, but I don't care. I'm going to check myself. Similarly, a prudent aquatics director is going to assure himself that the boys in his charge are capable swimmers. This is not a retest of the First Class requirement. No one has suggested that a boy's First Class badge be revoked if he fails a subsequent swimming tests. It's a safety check required of everyone entering the waterfront.

The only thing I would add to Bob's suggestions would be to take the three adults outside, line them up and smack them a few good times.

Is it not correct that the PL for new Scout Patrol is supposed to be rotated among all the members of the patrol so that all the boy get a taste of it and have the opportunity to attend PLCs?