Twocubdad

Horse hockey. Ridicule and belittlement have never been among the methods of Scouting. Even if these adults were trying to make a good point, they chose a lousy way to make it. If they feel there is a weakness in the program such that boys aren't adequately mastering skills and requirements, they need to bring that up with the people running that part of the program. If they thing the Scout isn't doing his part, it needs to be the subject of a Scoutmaster Conference. These guys were just having fun at the boy's expense.

I didn't attend, but I recall that the fee for our council's course last fall was $245, the highest amount I've seen mentioned so far - a fact which doesn't surprise me in the least. The course was held at our local scout camp. Last month I attended National Camp School and the cost was $215 for one three-day weekend. The school was held at a church camp with nice conference facilities, bunkhouse-style sleeping arrangement, an a FINE buffet for meals. The food was as nice as any banquet facility anywhere.

All the adults in question should be required to diagram sentences and recite the quadratic equation. Maybe solve a few differential equations in front of the class .... I had a conversation recently with an ASM from one of our local troops regarding their practice of making boards of review a cumulative exam on all the Scouting requirements upto the rank the boy is being reviewed for. I can see the value of that for some of the big-picture things which are recurring, like the meaning of the law and oath. But is it really a problem if a Life candidate can identify only nine of the ten native plants or confuses a taut-line hitch with two half hitches? Of course this is different than a boy being put on the spot and teased, but what is the official advancement policy regarding this?

KWC is right on the money. I'd add that you have an obligation to report the situation to the proper GS officials. Someone, somewhere will listen.

Frankly, I don't see the big moral issue here. Why is a raffle inherently immoral? I understand the BSA's policy that Scouts should only take money for a value received. That's a good lesson for boys in thrift and industry. I also understand how a raffle doesn't meet that criterial. Every time I've ever bought a raffle ticket, I just considered is a cash donation and rarely even worry about what the prize is -- no "value received" whatsoever, and I've certainly never won anything. But on the other hand, Ed, if you do view raffles or bingo games as immoral, how to you justify a unit receiving ANY resources from a CO which uses such games to raise money. If such funds are "tainted" then what's the difference if the CO makes a cash contribution to the unit with the tainted money or make an in-kind contribution by using the funds to pay for utilities for the unit's meeting space? From a moral standpoint, what difference does it make that the CO laundered the raffle money by co-mingling it with other funds?

Ed, if that's your personal moral choice, fine. But I certainly don't see that BSA policy draws that fine of a distinction. You wrote that "if the funds being donated to a Troop come from something that is illegal then the Troop should not accept these funds." Absolutely! If your CO is running a ponzi scheme to support the unit, it's time to look for a new CO. But in the example given, a raffle conducted by the church or VFW post is not illegal. In most states there exceptions in the gambling laws allowing games of pure chance (i.e., bingo and raffles) by charitable organizations. What's the difference between a VFW post using raffle proceeds to buy its chartered unit a new trailer and using the same money to pay the power bill for the building in which the unit meets? If the raffle proceeds went to the CO's general operating expenses, would you refuse to met there? If the BSA expects all CO's to adopt it's fund raising policy, how can VFW or American Legion posts -- or many churches for that matter -- charter units to begin with? As Bob White has pointed out a couple of times, BSA policy controls what the boys are doing while in uniform representing BSA and in the name of BSA, not the activities of the CO. This ties in with the wine tasting fund raiser thread. There is a difference between what is done by or in front of youth and the things adults are permitted outside the presence of the boys. I see nothing immoral about "donating" five buck to benefit a scout troop with the possible chance of winning a used computer. Neither do I see anything immoral about a group of consenting adults attending a wine and cheese party to benefit the Scouts. But I also agree it would be distasteful at best (illegal at worst) for Scouts to participate in these events. But again, that's just my judgment. Your results may vary.

Right on, hops. Finding a balance that you and your family are comfortable is the key.

KWC - Playing a sport at that level can be a great experience -- if you can play at that level. But I don't believe that would be a good thing for Scouting. In the first place are the numbers. In our town of about 20,000, we have one elementary school of 1200 kids. We support one baseball team playing at that level. So that's 12-15 kids with that kind of commitment to baseball. From the same population, we probably have 150 -175 boys in Cub Scouts. (I'm looking only at the elementary school here, simply because I know these numbers.) By the way, from the same school, we also have recreational baseball league with probably 250 kids playing. Still more play in YMCA and church leagues. It's classic economics. As the cost goes up, the number of buyers goes down. Would you prefer a troop of four boys meeting four nights a week, camping every weekend, or a troop of 40, meeting on a more usual schedule? The other issue is accommodation. Your son was able to join Scouts as a Webelos with no prior Scouting experience. Would a competitive baseball team offered the same opportunity to a boy with no baseball skills but who just showed up and wanted to give baseball a try? What if he showed up in a wheelchair? What if he joined the team only with the condition that he miss Wednesday practice and Saturday games due to church commitments?

I see your points and I think we probably agree more than we disagree. It may be a matter of semantics. Competitiveness or a desire to excell, is a wonderful, important character trait. Unfortunately, it all to often becomes simply a desire to win. Sticking with baseball, there is a lot a kid can learn from the game -- the satisfaction of mastering a set of skills, teamwork, scarifice, humility. Unfortunately, most coaches I seen don't teach those skills -- hell, most of them don't even teach baseball. They just want to draft a team of ringers which will guarantee a winning season. Competition -- the disire to win -- is paramount. I just think it's a matter of honest disagreement between us. I think the silliness of not calculating class rank or forming sports leagues where they don't keep score and "everyone's a winner" is far more than compensated by parents who unreasonable push their kids to win.

You make some very good points, but I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. True, we don't keep score in t-ball, but isn't t-ball supposed to be an instructional league? Thirty years ago, there was no such thing as t-ball. When I was a kid, we didn't start playing competitive baseball until we were 10 or so. Now, 6-year-olds are not only have their own organized leagues, but also competitive "traveling" leagues for these kids. Last season I overheard the coach of a 9-10-year-old team complaining that he got "stuck" with a 10-year-old who had never touched a baseball and that the parents had the gall to expect that the kid would actually get to play. Unless a kid shows up for tryouts with a golden glove, they don't have a chance. When are these kids supposed to learn the game? Every kid knows exactly where they stand in school, too. And they better. Second grade is when kids start being considered for the more competitive programs and classes. What's sad, is most of this competitivness is forced on kids by their parents. In all the years I've worked with Cub Scouts, I can't think of a single time when the boys have taken a free-play period to organize a game in which they kept score. Even when they play a competitive game, like baseball, it ends up being some goofy variation of the game. Note that the problem in Matua's original post (remember Matua's original post??)was not that the boys were stretching the rules, but that the ADULTS were stretching the rules. I do agree that your example of the school district dropping class rank is just silly. That would be like having a ballgame just shutting off the scoreboard. Everyone knows what the score is, just as everyone is aware of their class rank (although perhaps not as precisely.) That's why we're changing the whole format of our regatta, not just eliminating the awards at the end of the race. Hopefully, we can replace the competition with other elements which emphasize core Cub Scout values like compassion, cooperation, respect and resourcefullness. To me, one of the great things about Scouting is that everyone can "win." And it's not a contrived "everybody gets a medal for trying" win either. Everyone has the opportunity to to earn the badge and make the rank. It's up to the boy if he earns it or not. The first kid to Wolf isn't the winner. As far as the overall competitivness of the country, I just think that's wrong. Innovation and productivity in the US has never been higher. I can't think of a single area in which the US doesn' dominate, save some low-level manufacturing jobs.

I understand how frustrating dealing with this can be. I suppose one solution is to make a cover-all rule that says that camp staff can add and/or waive rules to keep the competition fair and within the spirit of the Scout Law and Oath. That, however, requires having staff on hand who can make those calls. It's unlikely that a 17-year-old Scout is going to enforce that with a gruff, grey-bearded Scoutmaster. Another option may be to think outside the box and completely restructure the competition so this kind of attitude doesn't give one patrol a competitive advantage. I don't have a solution for how to make this work with your camporees, but here's a Cub Scout example: One of the reasons we like the Raingutter Regatta is that it is much more dependent on the sailors' blowing skills and less on design and construction. Unfortunately, over the past few years, our regattas have become more and more competitive with some boys using design tricks (like splitting the hulls and making catamarans) to gain an advantage. We keep adding rules to the effect that the race is a "one design" regatta but people keep pushing the envelope. Next year we've decided to eliminate the problem by eliminating the race. We're moving the ragatta to our summer pack pool party and letting the boys sail their boats while in the pool. We're coming up with a number of non-competitive games like obstacle courses. Now before someone complains that we're "dumbing-down" the regatta by making it non-competitive, I have two thoughts on that subject: 1) kids these days have PLENTY of opporutnities for competition these days. EVERYTHING has become a competition, not just sports but everything from scholastics to Scouting. 2)we're not holding the same races and just eliminating winners and losers, we're completly restructuring the program. While we haven't completly ironed-out all the details, we hope to make the event more fun and encorporate more of the core values. We'll see how it works.

DS, I agree completely with you that the steps you outlined are the preferred way to handle the situation. That's why I was careful to note that I HOPED the SE had been more politic and that I was TEMPTED to write the letter. One of the limitations of this board we frequently deal with is having partial information and almost always just one side of the story. You filled in the blanks and assumed that the SE was dealing with some surprises. Unfortunately, that's probably not a bad assumption. But regardless of the problems he is dealing with, changing the district's goals (already a sore spot, apparently) without consulting the key 3 was a poor way to handle it. It may be within his authority to dictate to the DE, but to the volunteers. Another assumption could be that the changes were communicated to the DE, but the DE, ticked off about the added responsibility, stuck it to the SE by communicating poorly with his volunteers. Again, that's one of a dozen likely assumptions we could make, but none in the original post. Once the new goals were handed down, there are a lot of ways to handle the situation. As hypothetical District Chairman, I believe my "chain of command" is to go through my Council President. As hypothetical chairman, my hypothetical letter would no doubt be much longer and more politic that the one line in my response, above. But however you want to word it, if the SE expects our district to buy in to his new goals, I believe it is up to the SE to communicate the problems/needs to the district volunteers. No one likes being dictated to.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Correct, DS. I was mildly shocked at the low level of uniforming among those attending the course. I'll cut some slack to new leaders who don't yet have a full uniforms. But if you are at a level where you can commit to national camp school and eventually run a major district or council program area, you should be able to make the commitment to a pair of Scout pants. It was nice that once we got there the staff allowed us to wear civies. Although I had another clean uniform, I suspect most folks didn't.

I have no clue how our goals are set locally. I only know that we usually meet them. (We typically sweat membership numbers at year-end.) I'm also proud to say that my unit had about a 40% increase in our contribution this which represents about an eighth of our district's Family FOS goal, out of about 50 units. While I can't really answer your question, the thing that bothers me most about your tale is that the SE unilaterally changed the goals set by the key three. I hope he was more politic about it that your post suggests. Otherwise, were I the district chairman, I would be very tempted to write a letter to the Council president letting him know that my district would stick to the goals we had set and suggest that he review with the SE some of the basics of working with volunteers.

The Heritage Award is really cool. Both my boys are really into history and this is something we can get into. I'd like to suggest it to the entire pack. Does anyone know if this is an authorized program, like the religious awards? That is, is the patch/medal okayed to wear on a Scout uniform? Have any other packs offered this? Honestly, the requirements aren't too tough and I can envision quite a few boys completing it. At $8 per award, that could be a big hit on the pack budget. How do other packs handle this? Do you ask the parents to pay for the award?

Our registration packet for camp school suggested bringing "a Scout uniform, if you have one -- two if possible." Everyone showed up in uniform and wore it the first day. We were told to wear civies for day two but be back in uniform for graduation on day three. This was a totally classroom school, so technical clothing wasn't a concern and we were at a retreat center with non-Scouters, so we didn't have the traditional openings and closings with meals.

No, we're not all in agreement. Have any of you been to a wine tasting? The few I've been to, no one wore a toga, got drunk or went home with some else's wife. For most of these things, drinking wine is not the focus. Some of them have an expert or representative of the winery talk about their wines. Most are "wine tasting" in name only -- simply fund raising parties serving any variety of food and drink. (If we served exactly the same menu but called it a cheese tasting, would you feel better?) They are often sponsored by a restaurant or club which uses the event as a promotion. Part of the agenda usually involves a silent auction and/or a raffle (gasp!) I'm no big drinker. I'd be surprised if I average two drinks in a month. But I don't understand why some folks seem to think consumption of a glass of wine by consenting adults is immoral or inappropriate in the context of an adults-only Scout function. If a wine tasting isn't appropriate for your unit, fine! Don't have one. Frankly, I don't think the church that charters my unit would be thrilled with the idea. But that's a decision WE get to make. BSA guidelines are very clear -- not on BSA property (I'm sure liability was the concern there) and not in front of the children for obvious reasons. If they mean no alcohol at any Scout-related function, the policy would say so.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

A very interesting observation, Saltheart. I wouldn't have thought of it that way. Sometimes we look at ethical decisions as strictly black and white with only one "right" choice. We further take a puritanical view that we are required to fall on our own swords to do the right thing, even when it's against our best interests. Sometimes that is the case, but not always. Adapting and overcoming, making due, and solving problems -- all important skill and atributes of a good Scout -- sometimes involves "working the system" or street smarts as you describe them. The trick is knowing where that fine line is between stretching the rules and breaking them. Example: Klondike derby rules call for a 10-foot length of rope on the sleds. One of the challenges is using the rope to cross a 20-foot obstacle. One patrol unwinds their three-strand rope and makes a 30-foot length out of the three pieces and easily crosses. Was that cheating or just smart?

Keep in mind this is from 30 years ago, but the camporees I remember as boring were the ones where we went from station to station, building fires, tying knots and demonstrating first aid. Same ol', same ol'. One that I remember as particularly fun was a survival skills campout where we had to make camp with only the gear in the survival kits we made. We spent most of the day Saturday building shelters and setting up camp. We were graded on our camp site and a utensiless meal we had to show the judges. At various times during the day there were demonstrations by experts on survival topics like edible plants (Euel Gibbons was big back then) and search and resecue. Some of the things we do now that I think the kids really like are some of the "out of the box" campouts. One was held on the infield of a local racetrack and the demonstrations and events were automotive or technical (auto repair, metal working, small engine repair -- is that still a merit badge?). We've had campouts at historic sites and related the events to the site (a restored gold mine was really cool. The boys spent part of the day panning for gold and found quite a bit.)

"Our insurance company won't allow it" is the last great defense of all true bureaucrats. And it's 90% baloney. Insurance companies aren't in the business of telling people what they can and cannot do. They assess risk and assign a cost (premimum) to that risk. Someone at the COUNCIL made the decision that they didn't won't to either bother with the requirements for safely using liquid fuels OR didn't want to pay an additional premimum to cover the additional risk. An insurance company may suggest things that an insured can do to reduce their premimum, but taking those suggestions is the decision of the insured. Want to reduce your life insurance preminums? Give up smoking. Can't kick the habit? No problem, but here's your premimum. Councils could also reduce their insurance costs by eliminating aquatics, climbing, archery and rifle and shotgun. Of course the premium on a vacant piece of property is pretty low, too. But someone has made the judgement that taking the risk and paying the premium for those activities is worth the cost.

That's crazy. My Webelos use scrollsaws, bandsaws, power sanders, brad tackers drills and drill presses working on Pinewood Derbies and Craftsman pin projects. Of course it's in an EXTREMELY controlled situation -- one-on-one instruction, close supervision (usually me or another adult who knows what they're doing with my hands holding the Scouts' hands or just inches away) and usually with the Scouts' parents helping. These are all low velocity, low power tools. You would have to totally ignore all safety rules to get hurt on one of these. I wouldn't want a Webelos-aged boy using a table saw, radial arm saw or jointer. I've seen more injuries with hand tools than with power tools. I also got a chuckle that some councils put jack hammers in the same category as chainsaws and log splitters. Unless you drop one on your foot or get a hernia picking one up, I'm not sure how you get hurt with a jack hammer.

So how does this differ from our Council golf tourney, with an open bar in the clubhouse and a refreshment station every three holes? I don't see anything wrong will a tasteful, appropriately presented wine tasting. BSA policy prohibits alcohol consumption in the presence of youth, not that we all be tee-totalers.

PackSaddle -- I thought the same thing until I re-read the Insignia Guide. On page 45, it says that up to five medals may be worn just above the left pocket. Now it doesn't specifically say "adults may wear..." but this is the section of the guide relating to adult uniforms. The picture at the top of the page shows an Eagle and God and Country medal located on a pocket with square knots above. (I always thought it was a no no to wear the knot and medal representing the same award -- although from a practical standpoint, few people have a formal uniform shirt without the knots that they wear the medals with, and a second utility shirt with the knots.) More definitive is page 22 "Boys Scout Advancement" which says of the Eagle Medal, "Adults wear (the Eagle medal) only formal Eagle occasions," such as an Eagle Court of Honor. This is news to me. Maybe this should go on the thread about BSA policy myths. Makes me wish all my medals weren't sealed up in a frame.

Webelos must still have a parent or guardian with them. The only change is they are a bit more forgiving about allowing boys to be supervised by a non-parent adult. An adult may be responsible for two Scouts, their own and one other. The exception is the Webelos leader who may be responsible for only their own children. The idea is that the leader has enough additional supervisory duties without being asked to watch extra boys. Plus this prevents parents from taking advantage of Webelos leaders.

Here's one I'm still trying to run down: Youth Protection training is good for only two years. It's an article of faith around here. Even to the point that some trainers hand write "Expires on" dates on the training cards. But no one is able to find it printed anywhere. The best any has been able to do is that national required Youth Protection within the past two years for those applying to Jamboree staff.