Twocubdad

Good luck. I work with a historical association which wanted to bring the personal papers of Gen. William Davidson home from the UK. Davidson was a officer under Gen. Nathaniel Greene during the southern campaign of the American Revolution. He was killed in North Carolina and some of Cornwallis's troops "recovered" his wallet and papers during the battle. Returning the materials to Davidson's descendants was not even up for discussion. They were, however willing to loan the papers and wallet for display at a historic site. The conditions of the loan were silly, including paying first class airfare and accommodations for an officer of the museum in the UK to hand deliver and pick up the wallet. But I suppose the English have to be careful about returning artifacts to their rightful owners, less the collection of the British Museum be reduced to a few executioners' axes and some of Henry VIII's old turkey leg bones. But other than that it sounds like fun. I'm in.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Dan, maybe I misunderstood your initial post, but all you said they were doing was asking those with an interest to put their name in the hat. Nothing precludes them from following any of the very good advice which has been offered as to the actual selection of a new SM. But considering the huge number of adult volunteers, asking for a show of hands of those interested in the job sounds like a good PR move to me. It could prevent hard feelings from some who feel they were never considered.

Okay, DS, now you're starting to scare me a little bit. You're supposed to be on vacation, right? What are you doing, just sitting home in your underwear reading bulletin boards? I realize there is probably still snow on the ground up there, but hey, get out and go watch the river break up or whatever you guys do up there. Sorry for the flashback, kwc. Sure, stuff happens to schedules and budgets, but if it were automatic, we wouldn't need managers. I negotiate back-end schedules and budgets all the time. But I tell clients I'd rather take a whipping now while we're negotiating deadlines, than to take one later for having missed one. As you said, you had to push back deadlines twice in 22 years. BSA is hitting us with late-summer changes for the second time in TWO years. I think it was after Aug. 15 that the new Tiger books came out. They are either doing a really lousy job managing the schedule or they think two weeks is enough time for units to accommodate the changes. So, DS, seen any good movies lately?

Mr. Man-of-Steele: Okay, now you are getting into my area of expertise. As a contractor, project scheduling is how I put food on the table. I fully understand the concept of sandbagging or padding, and trust me, "stuff happens" is a thick, thick folder on my desk. This has been the wettest April in recorded history here. Contractors all over the east coast are jumping off buildings. But I digress... I equate both budgeting and scheduling to an airline pilot calculating the amount of fuel he needs for a flight. You only guess low one time. Telling me Oct. 15 when you think Aug. 1 is realistic doesn't help much when were ordering bunting for the Independence Day party. At the beginning of these overhaul projects, there needs to be an absolute drop-dead directive from the highest levels of management(Roy, you listening?)that program changes will be ready for public release by Jan. 1 and new books on the shelf by June 1. Then, a roll-out campaign is at least possible. The program managers then need to figure sub-schedules, lead times, contingencies, "aw-shoots," and anything else into the mix to meet those deadlines. Camp school included a really good module on taking the opening date of camp and working backwards to create a critical-path schedule. These folks should consider it. DS, I'll grant you that probably 80 percent of Cub leaders won't pay a bit of attention to this stuff. They'll show up in September and start working out of whatever book is dropped in front of them. If half their kids have different books with different requirements, no biggie, we'll work around it. And by Christmas, none of it will make a bit of difference to anyone. But until then, and for the 20 percent of us who do try to take planning and training seriously, it would be nice if National at least tried to manage these things professionally. Foto -- content is a whole 'nother topic. Just based on the little bit in Sctmom's original post though, the changes sound pretty good. I'm a big fan of the 12 Core Values and try to work it into leader training for the our pack and day camp whenever possible. I agree that input from the great unwashed masses would be a nice touch, even if it's largely a PR move. Bob White seems to know some of the people who get asked for input on programs, but to me they seem like the Nielson families who determine TV ratings. Have you ever met one?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

DS -- I'm right there with you on the "where the rubber meets the road" part of Scouting. I gave being Roundup chairman for our district because it really came down to being just an administrative job. My new job with the district is Cub day camp director. It don't get much more hands-on than that. I appreciated the math, but I didn't suggest providing advanced copies of the books to anyone. The things I suggested are very inexpensive or free: a detailed article in Scouting, updates to the training syllabi, training materials to distribute at Roundtable. National could privide originals to the Councils and they could reproduce the copies they need, spreading the cost across the board. But the biggest thing they can do is schedule the release date earlier. No cost there. These changes have been in the works for years, right? It's simply a matter of better management to set an earlier release date and sticking to it. And they're telling us that for something as big as a re-write of the entire Cub Scout program, that as of May 1, they can't provide a more accurate date than "in July"? That's insane. I work on projects with a 6-to-8-month time frame. If one of my project managers didn't have a better handle on schedule than that, he needs to reconsider his career choices.

Heres my frustration: What ought to happen: 1) In January or February a detailed, feature article in Scouting announces the changes to the program and breaks them down for leaders. 2) Sometime in March addenda are made available to local training committees so that they may incorporate the program changes into their late-spring courses for leader looking to get a head start on next year. 3) Locally-reproducible flyers are sent to districts for distribution at the May or June Roundtables. CSRTCs are encouraged to make supplemental training on the new program a part of their Cub Roundtables. It is emphasized that units have the option of continuing with the old program for another year or switching to the new, depending on the inventory of books. 4) New books are available at Scout Shops by June. A note makes it clear that Cubs should make sure they are buying the book their unit plans to use for the coming year. 5) At Roundup night and at the major fall training sessions, the new programs are up and running with units having a clear understanding which book they will be using. What usually happens: 1) A memo is sent in May to Councils announcing that the program change will happen in July. Some professionals pass the info along to their volunteers, some dont. Rumors of the change begin to appear on Internet bulletin boards. 2) Many Packs buy the old books for graduation presents at their May Pack meeting, not aware that there is an option. 3) A four-paragraph article on the changes appears in Scouting. Leaders who have the ability and initiative to research the changes can get accurate information, but misinformation abounds. Most Cub Leaders are still unaware of the changes. 4) The new books ship from Charlotte on Aug 10. For fear of being stuck with inventories of old book, some shops still dont have the books available until weeks later. 5) September den meetings begin with Scouts in the same dens with different books and different requirements. On their own, trainers try to incorporate the new program into the syllabus, but many just teach the old program. Okay, so maybe not all of this happens, but those of you who have been around awhile know this rings of he truth. When it comes down to it, Im just an ol carpenter. I have no experience developing or implementing national programs like this. But if it takes me 15 minutes to write a rollout plan that gives everyone the opportunity to get up to speed, why does National insist on releasing program changes in July? Maybe Im missing something and if so, please enlighten me. But they sure seem to be making this more difficult than it needs to be. Dave, Im not picking on you in the least bit. Bless you for even bothering to keep up with the boards while on vacation. I know you have less to do with this than anyone else at least we volunteers can gripe and moan without fearing for our jobs. Its a shame no one with gold tabs is a member of the forum, but thats neither here nor there. Whew, maybe a little WD40 on the vent key will help unstick it. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I don't disagree that dumping the books would be a waste, but how would you like to be the one or two odd kids in a den who have the "wrong" book? I suppose there is a matter of degree, whether or not there is a significant change in the program or if the only problem is that some of the page numbers are off. But there are things national and the local shops can do to make the transition easier. For one, new materials need to be released in January or February so that the transition can be complete when the Scouting year starts in September. That way Packs like Kassie's who give boys their new books in May and June aren't stuck. Seems like the new tiger books didn't hit the shelves until mid-August or later. The local shops could also post a notice on the bookshelf letting folks know of the change, that the old books are still valid for a year, but that they should check with their den leaders to see which version they will be using. Yes, you may not sell as many of the old books that way, but you just can't beat being upfront with people.

I would be very cautious about having the entire committee dealing with a situation like this. I think that's just asking for trouble. Unit committees don't have the structure to handle problems like this. You very quickly get into questions of who is really a committee member, who has a vote, who is allowed to present "evidence", etc. This is not a public judicial proceeding and I think a unit takes its life into its hands if it tries to make it one. We've debated the issue of committee membership and voting rights before. If your unit doesn't have all these details worked out in advance (and I doubt many units do), trying to decide these issues in the middle of a firefight isn't the time to try. You also need to understand the differences between Cub Scout and Boy Scout unit committees. Ultimately, the Chartered Organization Representative is the one with the authority to decide unit membership. The COR needs to be brought into the situation EARLY. To my view, one of the likely downsides is that a COR with no history of the situation will say, "Shucks, guys, I'm not going to throw anyone out of the unit. Why don't you just try to get along?" Then where is the unit? The COR needs to be brought along so that once the chairman and/or unit leadership asks that the person be removed, the COR is onboard.

What are the legal requirements for a CO? Not the physical requirements to provide meeting space and leadership, but the organizational requirements. Does it have to be a legal organization, i.e. incorporated? Can a couple parents get together and say they are "Friends of Pack 123"? I know businesses charter units, but can a sole proprietorship be a CO?

So Hops, you seem to be saying that if a story is good/inspirational/interesting/motivational enough, that we should let it slide, even if we have fairly good information that the story is false. Would I be doing the right thing to let the story stand, especially if I think folks -- good intentioned as they my be -- are planning to pass the story along to Scouts as the truth? You should read the link I posted, it is one of those "myth debunker" sites. (Wow! Maybe we can start a BSA version?) The history of this story is very interesting. Apparently it has gained steam recently after appearing in one of the Chicken Soup books, but can be traced as far back as a 1925 Mary Pickford movie. Something which had occurred to me, but is also mentioned on the web site, is the flip side to the story. What does it say about this Scout and his parents that he would assume that his parents were willing to sacrifice his life for his sister?

Well how ethical is that? Isn't that just dumping the problem on the kids and families who will be stuck with the old books? How is this supposed to work for a den leader trying to run a program with boys with two different books?

Um, folks, I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but this story has been going around the Internet for several years. Last time I heard it, the story was a four-year-boy donating a kidney to his sister. See http://www.snopes.com/glurge/transfus.htm(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I don't disagree with anything posted so far, but I in somewhat defense of your Den Leader, I'd ask you to make a honest evaluation of how your three-year-old is effecting the den meeting. There is always one kid who is more of a discipline problem and takes more of a leader's time and attention. Dealing with that is just part of being a Den Leader. But if that kid isn't really member of the den, I can see where a leader could be unhappy about it. Another thing to consider is how you are handling the little one. Are you supervising him or is he put in the mix with the older boys with the Den Leader being expected to manage everyone? It doesn't have to be an either or thing, but if the Den Leader is feeling dumped on even part of the time, it could be a problem. A third consideration is how this arrangement effects both your sons. Many times these Junior Cub Scouts are burned out on the program before they are old enough to join, especially if they go to all the meetings but don't really get to participate fully. Also, is your older son getting short-changed by having little bro' tagging along all the time? I've got a Wolf and a Webelos and am Den Leader for one and assistant for the other. Both my boys would be perfectly happy to go to the other's den meeting all the time, but I make it a point not allow it, unless it is absolutely necessary. Primarily because I think it's important that I spend that individual time with each boy. Don't take this wrong, I'm not pointing a finger at you. I'm only suggesting you consider another point of view.

A Cub is permitted to wear his Progress Toward Rank patch (although it's not really a patch, what DO you call that thing) over top another temporary patch. I seem to recall there is one more item which can hang in front of a temporary patch, but I don't really remember what. Since it seems like all activity patches now come with a loop to hang them off the shirt button, a lot of boys wear several patches hanging from the button. I wouldn't burst a kid's bubble over it though. If he's proud of all those patches, great. The mom who is sewing the entire patch collection all over the shirt may require a conversation....

The Cub Scout day camp course at National Camp School, hands down. Even if I never set foot in day camp, the depth of information on Cub Scout programming was worth the three days. I wish that type of material were offered to the rank and file Cub leaders as an advanced course.

Dave, when you ran your search, did you click the "include closed sales" button? Still, I think you only get sales within the last 30 days. The other thing is that the stuff you mention is so esoteric there won't be much of it on line. The other problems you have is with the search criteria. You may end up doing a very broad search, then having to go through a lot of stuff manually.

I think your hypotheticals are getting extreme and silly, but I'll play. What if the participants don't have the interests of a quality program in mind? They need to be out of the program. Just because the group votes to drink beer and watch stag movies doesn't mean we have to go along with it. What if they all they want to do is complain about the professionals? If it's turning into a monthly **** session, the meetings are getting out of hand and need to be refocused. But at the same time, the chain of command dang-well needs to be addressing the problem with the professionals. Granted, Roundtable isn't the venue to solve personnel issues, but if that's the number one, burning issue at Roundtable, the SE better be working on it. Like it or not, intended or not, by the book or not, Roundtable is the one time a month that Scouters from across the district come together to share and socialize. Good managers, the Key Three in the case of a Scout district, need to avail themselves of that opportunity to learn the needs and concerns of the Scouters and units in the district. 2. If by "the program" you mean the Scouting program, then obviously no, it does not get changed to suit the Roundtable attendees. But if you're talking about the commissioner's prepared program for the evening, then yes, he better adapt it to his audience. Here's the problem with my local Roundtable: the bulk of the meeting is doing a craft every month. There's not a single den leader in attendance. Everyone is a Cubmaster or Committee Chairman. Talk to us about volunteer recruitment, pack finances or rechartering. Leave the styrofoam snowmen at home. 3. Same as with number two, Know Thy Audience. If your Roundtables are inhabited by large numbers of rookie den leaders who don't know how to structure a den meeting and need program ideas, then the model den meeting would be a great technique. As to your swimming analogy, I believe both Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat are taught in a classroom without so much as a Dixie cup of water needed. My point, which as an experienced trainer you well know, is that some topics lend themselves to classroom teaching and some are better presented hands-on. Why should CSRTs be locked into the model den meeting method? I believe Johnsed and Jbroganjr agreed that sometimes it needs to be dropped. 4. No argument here. Bob, I saw on the other thread that you are the director of marketing for an advertising specialties company, an industry I have a little experience with, but from the other side of the desk. Do you only sell refrigerator magnets? I'll bet you have a catalog with thousands of different products. I'll further venture that you see your company's mission as helping your clients develop creative ways of increasing their business. In otherwords, you take the marketing approach to your clients' needs by trying to find creative products that will benefit them. The opposite would be a sales approach whereby you try to convince them that they need to buy refrigerator magnets, mainly because you have a lot of magnets you need to unload. (And by the way, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence here, I know you understand this difference, but I'm spelling it out for those who may not have a marketing background.) Roundtable Commissioners need to bring a marketing approach to Roundtable. As Jbroganjr said, the first step is to make a realistic evaluation of the units in the district and see what their needs are. Know your customers, meet their needs.

1. Anyone providing a service to others must balance the things the customers say they want with the things we know they need. You try to give them what the want; sometimes you have to give them what they need. Let me turn your question around: What if the two purposes of Roundtable (which I'm sure will be revealed in due course)aren't meeting the needs of the participants? 2. The Roundtable's "customers" are all the Cub Leaders in the district. If people aren't attending because Roundtable doesn't provide the support they need, the RTC needs to adapt the program so it does. At some point, however, you either fish or cut bait. Do you tailor your meetings to people who still don't attend or do you serve those who do? 3. This question and #4 assumes that a Cub leader is unable to learn a program on an adult level and then present it to the boys on their level. I didn't suggest that Roundtable shouldn't provide leaders with program ideas, games, songs and skits. In fact, if you'll re-read my post, I said that teaching new songs and skits by performing them is great. My objection is to wasting time by repeating tired, old songs and skits that everyone knows, just for the sake of modeling a den meeting. I'm there to learn new material for my den. Walking through the elements of a modeled den meeting simply because the book says to is not an efficient use of my time. I believe the element and agenda for a good den meeting was covered in basic training. Presented properly, I can learn a craft in five minutes and judge if it is something I want to do with my den. Spending 30 minutes playing with paint and glue isn't necessary. 4. Leader training, an interest and ability in working with Cub-aged boys, and common sense.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Understand that this is just the personal preference of a curmudgeonly old coot, but I have to tell you that a little bit of this "modeled den meeting" stuff goes a long way with me. I really don't think that in order to learn to run a program for 8-year-olds, I need to get on the floor and act like an 8-year-old. Don't get me wrong -- if you want to open the meeting with "God Bless America" just to get everyone on their feet and to get the blood moving, that's great. And if someone has a new song or skit to teach the group, singing or performing it is the best way to teach it. But singing the same old song, or doing the same old skit just because there is a slot on the den meeting planner for it is a waste of time. Crafts are another pet peeve of mine. Our CSRT commish thinks we have to make a craft every month. I really don't need to spend 25 minutes watching glue dry. Show me the finished product, give me a written set of instructions and materials list and move on. It should take three minutes. Spend the time saved letting other folks present ideas or send me home early. I'd much rather see my own boys off to bed than to build another styrofoam snowman. Cub Scout programs are designed to entertain and educate 6-to-10-year-old boys. Roundtable programs need to entertain and educate adults. Hopefully, there is a difference (and please don't write me about tapping my inner child.) The key is content. I'd rather sit through a 90-minute, monotone lecture on an important, interesting subject than to "play" Cub Scout covering old material. To me, the best Roundtables are where the commish opens a subject with a short presentation, then throws the discussion open to the group. The exchange of ideas and the opportunity to tap the experience of the other Scouters is the value of Roundtable.

Ed, I'd have to guess he learned a heck of a lot. You seem to be of the opinion that the only way he earned all the MBs was by cutting corners and therefore didn't learn much. Until I know different, I'm going with BW's view that he followed procedure and met at least the minimum requirements for the badge. At that level, he learned as much as any other kid completing any given badge. But in the bigger picture, he learned volumes more about a variety of subjects most kids never even approach. Even if the depth of study of some of the badges wasn't what you and I might expect, he sure as heck made up for it in the width of what he has learned. Long term, maybe all he learned about Woodcarving is that it is a waste of time and good lumber. That's mot a bad lesson to learn!

Will a 17-year-old's solution to an environmental problem be better and more thought-out than that of an 11-year-old? Hopefully so. The solution to the same problem submitted by a 35-year-old will be better still. But that's not the program nor the requirement for the badge. If we are saying that to adequately complete the requirement for Environmental Science you must have the higher-level thinking skills of a 16-year-old, then we've added a requirement. There is no difference in that versus requiring a certain number of sit-ups or pull-ups for Personal Fitness. If a 12-year-old can't do any pull-ups at first, but does one at the end of the 12-week program, that's just as good as the strapping 16-year-old who can do pull-ups all day long.

Ed, I don't get terribly upset by the boy's comment that all he had to do to earn woodwork/woodcarving is to "carve something." In the first place, if you ask a boy what he did to earn many of the craft-oriented merit badges, I think they would aswer "I made a basket," I made a belt" or "I carved something." Secondly, even if the boy quoted the requirements chapter and verse, a newspaper reporter isn't likely to add all that detail in a story like this one. Can a 12-year-old earn Eagle? Apparently so. It's a fairly easy to plug the tenure requirements into a calendar and see where it falls. Since the book outlines a minimum time to qualify for Eagle, I suppose it's inevitable that from time to time, someone will earn it on that schedule. I've always maintained that if National wants an age limit on Eagle, they can dang-well add it to the requirements. But Eagle74 asked the right question when he wrote, "The true, whole, and final measure of an Eagle Scout is what happens after that badge is pinned upon his chest." Exactly. At age 12 has this boy sucked all the marrow out of the program? Probably not. But obviously by at 16 it certainly seems he has gotten a lot out of it. My old troop graduated a number of fairly young Eagles, myself included. Most of the guys continued with Scouting until 18, attending Jamborees, Philmont, being active in the OA and serving the troop as JASMs. What does it matter that of the seven years I was a Boy Scout, five of them were as an Eagle? What would the difference have been if I spent most of those same seven years as a Star or Life, receiving my Eagle as I approached 18? Granted, had we grabbed Eagle and dropped out of the program at 13 or 14, we most definitely would not have received the same benefit from the program. I don't have evidence one way or the other, but my hunch would be that boys who are interested, excited and motivated enough to make Eagle at a young age are probably going to stick with it for a few more years. Advancement -- including Eagle -- is but one of the methods of Scouting. Ultimately our sucess is the character of the men we turn out, not the age at which they, as boys, earned a certain badge.

I realize this thread is over a year old (I must have missed it the first time around), but I think we're missing the forest for the trees. Re-read what this kid has accomplished and what he has overcome. Can anyone say this is not a Scout you would be proud to have standing with your Troop? Can you really question his maturity or character?

I married well. But just for practice, I own a home remodeling and repair business. Prior to that I was the project manager for a small custom home builder and the Director of Marketing and Communications for a large real estate development company before that. I've also worked in public relations and as a newspaper reporter.

I believe Overtrained is referring to the five position-specific courses for Tiger Leaders, Den (Wolf & Bear) Leaders, Webelos Leaders, Cubmasters and Committee Members. I've take all of the courses, save Cubmaster which I'm taking it next month. The four courses I've taken are very similar. I think they all follow the same outline, except one section on the advancement plan for the specific program area they are covering. In addition, Webelos includes and additional section of Webelos-Boy Scout transistion. Certainly, teaching the courses in individual sessions is ideal, but as you've discovered, that requires resources for five separate classes. Someone would need to study the syllabi to make sure you're not leaving anything out, but I would think you could combine two or more courses fairly easily. It just means the participants would have to sit through the extra material.