Twocubdad

Minor league baseball, pool party and day hike at a local park. Since our annual pack picnic/campfire/campout fell into June, we could count it as a summertime activity. Don't forget day camp and Webelos resident camp. Although not Pack activities (and don't count toward the Summertime Activity Award), they are a big part of the summer program. Taken together, that ends up being a Cub Scout activity every couple weeks.

Technically, we don't have a Tiger program. The real Tigers just moved up and are considered Wolves. Although rising first graders can be registered as Tigers, it's not practical to think you could register and plan a camp in 10 days. However, this year we have enough rising first graders in our sibling program that we are going to treat them as a Tiger den. It's really just a matter of what you call them. They are still going to be under the sibling program and won't be in the mix with the rest of the Cub Scout campers. We are going to include elements of the Tiger program into their activities. The bottom line is that some of these kids have been coming to day camp for years and are tired of the sand box. They are chompin' at the bit to go to "real" camp, so we are trying to accommodate. As with the 11-13 Boy Scouts, these kids are allowed at camp only if one of their parents is an adult volunteer. It's not open to any Tiger.

I'll agree that there are no hairs to be split. Foto DID say he is BALOO trained (actually he said he sat through the class). Being BALOO trained, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he obtained a tour permit and was in an approved location. I agree he has no reason to deny it being a Scout activity, since he has followed all the proper procedures. But even that is not outside the spirit of recreational family camping, were all families are responsible for themselves, they just happen to be with other Scout families. So the only remaining issue is whether or not a den can camp. If they meet all the standards for a Pack campout, what's the difference? A committee member's signature is required on the permit, so it's not as if they are sneaking around behind the Pack. Slice the problem in the other direction -- you plan a Pack campout, but only members of one den choose to attend, does that violate policy? Of course not. I know that idea of a "den campout" conjures the specter of an untrained den leader hauling six boys out into the woods by himself, a la "Follow Me, Boys." (I know how much you love that movie, Bob.) There are policies which must be followed to take Cubs camping, regardless of the makeup of the group. From the information here, Foto seems to have followed them. If you want to leave a warning to others, how about this: get trained, read Guide to Safe Scouting, follow the procedures to the best of you knowledge and ability, go have fun with the boys.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

"Family Camping: an outdoor camping experience, other than resident camping, that involves Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, or Venturing program elements in overnight setting with two or more family members, including at least one BSA member of that family. Parents are responsible for the supervision of their children, and Youth Protection guidelines apply." G2SS, pg. 19 "Recreational family camping: when Scouting families camp as a family unit outside of an organized program. It is an non-structured camping experinece, but is conducted within a Scouting framework on local council-owned or-managed parperty" G2SS, pg. 19 "Pack Overnighters These are pack-organized overnight events involving more than one family from a single pack, focused on age appropriate Cub Scout activities and conducted at council-approved locations...." G2SS pg. 20. "Den Family Camping" may not be the official lingo, but the program they are describing is legal as long as they follow all the other rules -- tour permit, BALOO training, etc. (Fotoscout mentioned that he is BALOO trained and I assume they were at a Council facility due to the presence of the other Scout troop.) The policy on Pack Overnighters specifically says "more than one family" from a pack. So if there are five families represented who all happen to be from the same den and all the other guidelines are met, where's the violation?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

DS is correct about the standards. The rank thing sounds like a local rule imposed when they were flush with Scouts wanting to volunteer. I don't see any real reason for it. But a more practical answer to your question may depend on how you define "camp staff." We have quite a few 11- 12- and 13-year-old Boy Scouts "working" at day camp. Boys that age are allowed only if they have a parent in camp working as an adult volunteer. We operate similar sibling programs (glorified daycare, really) for the children of our adult volunteers of all ages and gender. In the case of the Boy Scouts, we treat them all the same, regardless of age. Actually, we probably have only 2 or 3 Scouts 14 or older. They are under the supervision of a day camp "Scoutmaster" and SPL. They typically work half the day doing things like helping with games and the obstacle course, or refilling water coolers and emptying trash. They other half day we try to give them a Boy Scout activity, usually working on advancement or a merit badge, depending on the wants/needs of the boys.

Which is why I wouldn't want to try and collect $6,000 one dollar at a time. Hey, read my earlier posts -- I agree with you that trying to fund a pack budget this way would be a nightmare. But I'm willing to write off a small amount at the pack level in order to create the learning opportunity. Sure, there needs to be some ground rules for the boys. I think it reasonable to tell the boys they are responsible for paying their dues even if they miss a meeting, since the DL will be buying stuff in anticipation of their being there. At least in our case, I don't think we will be short-changing the Den Leaders either. Most of our dens never spend all the money in their den budget now. Unless they have a big expense, I think most DLs just eat the few dollars they spend here and there -- it's not worth the trouble to save the receipts and file an expense report. If they are collecting the den dues themselves, they are probably more likely to reimburse themselves out of the envelop. At the end of the year, they can either spend the remaining money on a den party or turn it in to the treasurer.

Don't let it be said that no one on this board ever learns anything or changes their mind.... Currently, our Pack budgets $15 per Scout for den activities. This can be spent however the Den Leader chooses, generally for craft supplies and such. When the den leader buys something, they turn their receipts in to the treasurer who writes them a check. It occurs to be that their can be a diffrence between Pack dues and Den dues. No way would I want to count on boys bringing in $3 per week to meet our pack budget. But if we cut the Pack dues $15 across the board and then ask each Scout to pay $1.00 per meeting, we could simply let the den leaders keep the Den dues as petty cash and spend the money as they see fit. Yes, there are accountability issues there but the amount is fairly small and I guarantee our den leaders are currently spending a lot more money out of pocket for which they aren't being reimbursed. That may be a way to make everyone happy. I'll put it on our the agenda for our annual planning meeting in August and see how it goes.

I like Bob's tone for contacting the guy. But I don't think you have enough information to take any action until you get his story straight.

Hmmmm, I don't know about that. The gay threads tend to argue against that, but I understand your point. In 98% of situations, the "book" answer is the correct one. But I think those last couple of percentage points call for more flexibility and adaptability. Because we are talking about the last few percentiles, by definition we are splitting hairs leading to some fairly arcane -- and verbose -- threads.

Bob writes, "The coach has ample opportunities to instill his/her own methods in how he or she teaches and motivates. They can even customize plays that stay within the boundaries set by the league. But they have a resposibility to the players and to the league to teach the same fundementals to everyone so that everybody understands the same game." EXACTLY! Not only is a good coach going to customize his teaching methods to suit his players, but will also adapt his practice sessions to work on he parts of the game where the team is lacking. If you have a team full of sluggers who can't catch a ball in a bushel basket, do you still spend half your practice time on batting? That doesn't mean you ignore batting, but you certainly change the basic practice schedule to emphasize fielding. I'm not suggesting trainers should have license to teach their own version of the program. A Scout trainer telling his class that Scout pants are an optional part of the uniform because he doesn't like them is no different that a baseball coach telling his to skip first and second base and just run to third. There is a big difference between teaching wrong information or skipping important elements of a course versus simply adapting your presentation to the knowledge and experience of your audience. What's worse, someone who just "wings it" or someone who reads every word of the outline, regardless of the needs and questions of the class. Either way, not much learning is taking place. As the Man of Steele said, "training has the flexibility, in the hands of capable trainers, to be adapted to the audience."

Obviously, fotoscout and One Hour, you guys aren't saying teaching responsibility isn't worth the effort. Responsibility is one of the 12 core values of Cub Scouting and I would add that it is one of the most important. There are many ways of working responsibility into the program, dues is one of them. I do agree with you guys that using dues to teach responsibility is an expensive lesson in terms of leader time, attention and aggravation. Perhaps if the amount is fairly insignificant and only goes toward snacks or a den party, it doesn't have to be that big of a deal. But it becomes a different league if the money is really needed to operate the pack. Weekly dues for our pack would average about $3.00 per meeting. My own kids don't have that much money on a routine basis. Do the math, and as a pack we would be managing several thousand transactions over a year. Then deal with past dues, kids who drop out owing money, etc., etc. Frankly, it's a hassle collecting a check once a year from the parents. At crossover this year, we had to tell several families that their sons' AOL and crossover stuff would be on a COD basis. (Of course we were only kidding -- well, sort of kidding -- no, to tell the truth, we really meant it.) Philosophically, Bob, you're right about the lessons that dues teach the boys. But we all have to budget our resources, both time and money, and make choices about how we can be most effective.

I read the original article and the first few posts of this thread a week or so ago. I decided not to follow it becaue I figured it would be the same old arguments rehashed. Then I realized no one was paying much attention to the other threads, and that this one was pushing 150 posts, so I decided to have a second look. After reading a several pages, I realize my initial assumptions were correct. Hey Bob! How about a thread on female Venturers joining the OA! (All intended with tounge planted firmly in cheek. Don't anybody get your shorts all in a wad.)

Ditto to what DS, FScouter. Well said. Bob, I apologize for not responding to your questions. I'm not sure how the thread dropped, because I do enjoy our jousts. But before I respond, let me begin by noting that, once again, in 95% of the cases, I agree with you completely. Most classes are going to be diverse groups of people with varying experience levels. In that event, a trainer needs to stick closely to the syllabus and make sure the basics are covered -- "Leave No Scouter Behind" to mangle the current edu-babble catch phrase. But in very narrow instances -- my scenario or FScouter's example of holding a session for an individual -- there is nothing wrong with adapting the order, emphasis or length of the training. Note I didn't say content. We should stick to BSA program and policy -- I'm only talking about varying the method. Just to follow through, I'd suggest the D) answer to your question: these five highly capable guys are taking a basic Scouting course because they are changing positions and it's required of them. Maybe they've been in Cub Scouting 4-5 years as a den leader and are moving up to Cubmaster or assistant. Logically you would expect most people taking the Cubmaster course are exprienced Scouters. I know some folks are rank newbies jumping into a Cubmaster role (such as with a newly formed pack), but at minimum I think it reasonable to expect a higher experience level in a Cubmaster course than, say, Tiger Den Leader. It is noteworthy that you refer to the Cubmaster position specific course as a "basic" course. That's unfortunately true. All the Cub Scout leader courses are basic, in my opinion. When Cub Scout Basic Leader Training was dropped in favor of New Leader Essentials and the position-specific courses, much of the basic material from the joint session of CSBLT was pushed into the position specific classes. That makes sense if you assume everyone is taking their first class. But by the time you move through the ranks from Tiger to Den Leader to Webelos Leader to Cubmaster or pack committee, the pin-the-badge-on-the-Cub-Scout game sure gets old. I hope this is something national takes a look the next time they tweak the Cub Scout courses.

More data please, Hal. So is the thought here that someone is running a con using a Scout uniform? Or is the guy a FOS Chairman From Hell (or maybe Heaven, depending on the outcome.) What happened to the $100? Did the check ever make to the council? Does the man know who the "Scouter" was? I suppose if I were only given the information on the note, I would call donor and ask some of these questions.

The key is going with the flow. We work with whoever is there. Don't worry, be happy, as the man says. Usually, we have two or three activity periods during the day. 9-11, 1-2:30, 3-4:30, something like that. That way folks have some idea when they need to arrive to participate in certain activites. The activities themselves are fairly open ended, like beltloop. If you are there at 1:00 and want to do Flag Football, great. We divide those who are there into two teams and go at it. If you miss that session, you can catch the next one. One of the sessions is usually a break-out by rank, working on specific skills. Last time we had a couple of Boy Scouts show the Webelos IIs how to set a fire lay. They thought that was really cool. Knot tying is a good one. Whittlin' Chip was fun, especially once we discovered that there's a McDoctor's nearby. I the Pack record still stands at 7 stitches. The other advantage is we have a great campsite so that the kids have plenty to do on their own or with a parent -- fishing, playground, trails, etc. Honestly, it's usually a hassle pulling the kids together for the planned activities. I'm a believer in free time.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Bob, did you notice that everyone was perfectly okay to let the two of us slug it out, but when we tried to settle it, they all jump back in?

While Bob White and I are busy making up over on the thread about OA membership, that topic has drifted to that of Webelos-to-Scouts Transistion. That is important enough to merit it's own thread, not just tacked on to an acane debate about adult OA membership. Web2Scout transition is arguably one of the most serious problems facing BSA. The drop out rate between the end of Webelos and the first year in Boy Scouts is astronomical (I don't recall the exact figure, so I won't guess). As a rising Webelos II den leader, this is something which concerns me and which I've been studying lately. I had made a point of the importance of building relationships between packs and troops. According to the Webelos-To-Scout Transition pamphlet, "The key factor to improved Webelos transistion is the ongoing working relationship of the leaders of a Cub Scout pack and a Boy Scout troop. Ideally, a community organization would have both a pack and troop with leaders who work together to help move Webelos Scouts into a Boy Scout troop the same way schools move students from elementary school to middle school." While I'll let Bob make his own points, where we disagreed somewhat was whether a pack should concentrate on one or two troops or broadly work with many. I think there is advantage in working closely with a small number of troops, building relationships with the leaders, Scouts and den chiefs. We can be much more effective if we concentrate our efforts with one or two units. From a practical standpoint, trying to arrange troop visits and campouts with a half-dozen or more troops is virurally impossible. Our area is very heavily populated with Scout units. Literally, I could be at any one of eight troop meetings inside a 15 minute drive. That may not be a concern in a town with only a couple troops. That's not to say I would do anything to discourage a boy from visiting with any troop he likes. As I mentioned on the other thread, our pack's last class of Webelos went into five different troops. Don't care where they join as long as they join!

To your point, honey, the essence of our disagreement is that I don't read that verbage in the membership requirements. "The lodge adviser, district chairman, council president, or professional staff may recommend ADULTS to the lodge selection committee." (emphasis is mine.) No requirement is given as to how those adults are registered. In fairness, the second paragraph down says, "Adults may be recommended for membership only one time per year, either as unit Scouters or district/council Scouters, but not both." I can see where a reasonable person could read that and reach your conclusion. But another reasonable person can read the two paragraphs together and conclude that a person's precise registration is not critical. I don't intrepret the passage to exclude anyone. But if I'm the lodge advisor and have identified a Venture leader as a good resource for the lodge, we can easily tack "Council Scouter" onto his registration and make everyone happy. No big deal. As to your question, I don't really have a yes/no answer but I will tell you that we have working relationships with two troops, obviously only one of which is chartered to our same CO. While our Scouts are free to go anywhere they want (this year's class of Webelos went to five different Troops) I will say our relationship with the two troops makes it much easier for our boys to gravitate there. I'm in violent agreement with your statement that our goal should be to cross over every Webelos into Boy Scouting. I'll add the goal of sending them off with the enthusiasm and excitement to carry them through much of that first critical year to First Class. But the idea that exclusive relationships between packs and troops is counter to that goal is out of line with current thinking. Let me quote from the publication titled "Webelos To Scout Transition": "The key factor to improved Webelos transition is the ongoing working relationship of the leaders of a Cub Scout pack and a Boy Scout troop. Ideally a community organization would have both a pack and troop with leaders who work together to help move Webelos Scouts into a Boy Scout troop the same way schools move students from elementary school to middle school." Since my Pack work with two troops, I agree with you that there doesn't need to be anything exclusive about the relationships. I can certainly see where an exclusive relationship may be taken for granted -- "familiarity breeds contempt" as they say. But according to what I've read, BSA feels the "ideal" situation is for a CO to have both units, one feeding the other -- even if we don't like that wording.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

It is amazing, Bob, that you and I can be in utter agreement on 98% of things, but still manage to get into it over the remaining 2%. One generally finds that level of arguement only among married couples, but that's the topic for a whole 'nother thread, if not another web site. If you will re-read my posts on this thread, I was the one who made the point that OA, like Scouting in general, is a program for THE BOYS, that we adults are members only to the extent we serve the boys. In fact, the crux of the adult selection process is based on selecting adults who can make a contribution to the Order. The selection committee is given wide discretion to call out adults they believe can add to the program. Clearly, the adult membership requirements allow any registered adult to be admitted to the Order, if the selection committee approves. Does it really matter if a Cub Scout or Venture leader is formally nominated by a troop committee, or if his or her name is informally submitted to the committee for consideration as a district Scouter? "Your nomination from the troop is rejected, but you're accepted as a district Scouter." It's a distinction without difference. In the same post I noted that service is of equal importance to camp promotion for the Order. I'll add here that I believe service is of greater importance. We are, after all, the "Brotherhood of Cheerful Service." While I admit I may have some misconceptions about parts of the program, the essential nature of the Order of the Arrow is not one of them. Moving on.... Having been in the PR business many years ago, I will say that "brother unit" certainly sounds better than "feeder pack." Like most things, one can take a good, positive part of the program, execute it poorly and turn it into a negative. As one of my hats is that of a rising Webelos II den leader, Webelos-to-Scouts transition is something we have been studying of late. Being a "Brother Unit" (with its positive connotation), rather than a "feeder pack" (with its downsides), seems to be one of the keys to a sucessful transition. If Webelos are comfortable, secure and excited about joing a troop, rather than seeing it as something they are being "fed" into, I'd say the leaders of both units are doing a good job.

I'm in absolute agreement with you there, Bob. I am perfectly willing to accept that in my combined 17 years with BSA, I have not experienced or learned everything. I also believe that it is possible that veteran Scouters with more experience than I may operate in a certain way because "they always have" without really reading the plain language of what the policy says. They may even seek to parse the laguage of a policy to support their particular view of things. But one of the great thing about these campfire debates, whether real or electronic, is that different people can share their perspecitves for the betterment of the program. What a great thread this has been: you and I and others have expressed our opinions and have even linked the official documents folks can read and make up their own minds. As far as discussing this with our chapter advisor, he's the one who originally told me that our Pack's adult registration counted toward our Troop's number of nominations. Clearly that was incorrect. Last night I mentioned this to our DE, who honestly agreed with you, but wasn't aware of the district Scouter nomination process. He admitted that since I had recently read the policy that I probably knew more about it than he did. He suggested I talk to the Lodge staff advisor, but unless I happen to bump into him, I won't waste his time for a largely academic question. Lastly, I think we should be able to communicate using plain language which may or may not be part of the "official" BSA lexicon. Consequently "Class A," "Class B" and "Brother Unit" have meaning, even though those terms aren't found in the official literature. When a SPL says "Saturday is a work day, it's okay to wear your class B's," the Scouts generally know that means a Scout T-shirt and maybe/maybe not Scout pants, depending on how grubby the work may be. Likewise, when I write of my "brother unit" most folks understand that to be shorthand meaning the Troop chartered to the same CO as our Pack. Our units coordinate Webelos transition and many (but not all) our Scouts and leaders naturally progress from one unit to the next. Frequently, families may have brothers in both units, hence the nickname. As you point out, there is no official relationship between the units. But I'm sure you agree that such relationships are beneficial to all involved and should be cultivated. Obviously, that's a fairly long-winded explaination for a concept more easily conveyed by the phrase "brother unit." (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I believe the primary purpose of den dues is the lesson in responsibility it teaches the boys -- having to remember dues and possibly earning the money themselves at home. That said, tracking dues can be a huge pain for the leaders, especially if the amount is significant and intended to pay for den programs. Our Pack does not collect den dues, but collects annual dues at registration time. All the money goes to the Pack treasury. Den leaders are given a budget for den supplies and are reimburesed by the treasurer. True, we miss that lesson in responisbility, but there are other ways of making that point -- being responsible for tracking your own achievements, taking care of your uniform, bringing you handbook to every meeting, etc. -- which don't create a huge administrative problem.

You guys are having to dig awfully deep to support your position. If the policy is "Adult candidates must be registered Boy Scout or Varsity leaders," then those words were certainly available to the the folks who wrote the book. If that is the intent of the policy, we shouldn't have to parse other sections to devine the intent. That's especially true when the very next section of the policy details how the selection committee can approve any registered leader who can contribute to the Order, even if that means waiving the camping requirements -- arguably the core of OA membership. It's also interesting that former youth members can become active adult members regardless of their registration. Me, for example. If adult membership is limited to traditional Boy Scout and Varsity leaders, why isn't the policy consistent and have folks like me wait until we move into a troop?

Sorry Willy, according to the Insignia Guide, merit badges are for Boy Scouts only. Merit badge counselors wearing the badge, maybe with a different color border or a "Counselor" tab, is an interesting idea, though.

Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) Cub camping requires a parent, with certain narrow exceptions for Webelos. Some families just aren't going to participate in the campouts. Our Pack has managed somewhat of a compromise by finding a camp site only about 20 minutes away from our regular CO meeting place. It took a little work to get our site inspected and approved, but it was worth it. We encourage families who don't want to camp to at least attend the day-time and evening activities and go home at bedtime, if they like. It also allows families to come and go around sports and church commitments. The boys are still getting most of the Scout program, even if they miss the actual overnighter.

Okay guys, fine. I'm really not trying to pick a fight. I'm only asking where it is written that the person being nominated by a troop or team's committee must be registered to that unit. I don't read that in the text that has been quoted thusfar. Any registered Scouter can be nominated to OA membership, as a district Scouter, if nothing else. What's the difference if a troop or team wants to use their slot to nominate a worthy Cub Scouter or Venture leader? htc, if you will read back through the thread, I'm the one who pointed out that OA is for the boys, not the adults. Adult membership is for those whose talents and abilities can be an asset to the Order. If an adult can make a contribution, what's the difference how they are registered or who brings their name to the selection committee?