Twocubdad

Sorry for the mutiple posts. Something was gummed up with the network.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I would say that's a fair conclusion. I don't think anyone believes it proper for your SM to not even consider the boy's project.

Since you are the advancement chair, what is the opinion of the troop committee chair? If the CC is of no assistance, perhaps it's time to contact your unit commissioner.

Mark -- based on your criteria for Personal Finance, that is, being old enough to "take Lucy out and need money for a movie," my boys at 14, 15, or 16 won't pass either. I know that was just an off-the-cuff example, but how is your minimum budget not an added requirement?

As leaders, I think we need to meet boys where they are. Certainly I would expect a higher level of sophistication and refinement from a 17-year-old than a 12-year-old. But that's true whether the badge is Personal Finance or Basketry.

If national intends to set a minimum age for Eagle, they'll write it into the requirements. Until then....

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

A difference is that in Boy Scouts, the ranks of Scouting are cumulative. Every First Class Scout has previously earned Scout, Tenderfoot and Second Class. That's not true of Cubs. The oval Webelos badge gives no indication of the prior awards the boy has earned.

Now I can't say that the average nine year old thinks of it in those terms, but I can tell you that none of the boys in my den wear the tan uniform without the diamond badges -- even the brand-new boys wear their Bobcat on the tan shirt. They give them up only after earning Webelos and going to the oval -- no one wears a tan shirt with nothing on the left pocket. I can also tell you that every boy who has joined part-way through the program eventually asks if he can go back and earn the awards he missed (they can't).

I can't say it doesn't make sense. In Cubs, so much effort is placed on achievements and we make such a big deal out of award ceremonies, I sure as heck hope the boys are proud of their advancements and want to wear them.

Here's something else I noticed at our crossover last month which surprised me. Only four boys of the 13 who crossed over were in the tan uniforms. The remainder were in blues. Our pack policy is to let the boys naturally move into the tan uniforms as the blues are outgrown. I didn't bother to ask why. I don't know if the boys are buying a second blue uniform late in their Bear year, if they are inheriting larger blues or what. Unofficially, I tell the boys in my den that they should be in tan uniforms by this fall when they become Webelos IIs.

I know my own son (now a Webelos I) has totally outgrown his blue pants (with the hem let out twice) and the blue shirt was getting snug. He got a tan uniform for Christmas (yes, it was his favorite present, and thanks for asking). He earned his Webelos badge at the December pack meeting, so the new uniform had the oval patch on it Christmas morning. He did, however, insist that we sew the blue diamond on the old uniform, even though he has never worn it.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

You are correct that a boy joining as a Webelos could wear his Bobcat badge on his tan uniform, but would remove it if he wears the oval Webelos badge. That boy would also have the option of wearing both the Bobcat badge and below it the blue Webelos diamond, as long as they are available. Scout's choice.

I joined in '67, shortly after Lion was dropped and Webelos implemented. We received a Bobcat pin (which everyone quickly lost) and Wolf and Bear badges. No one thought about "completing the diamond," there were just two badges, side-by-side. Back then, the Webelos Award WAS the Arrow of Light. The two were separated some time later when Cub Scouts became more grade-base and Webelos became a year-and-a-half program.

Depends. G2SS says drugs and alcohol are prohibited at "activities on property owned and/or operated by the BSA, or at any activity involving participation of youth members." So wine with dinner is okay unless your dinner is held at a Scout Camp or if boys are present (and don't forget the color guard).

My understanding is that the blue diamond will be available for another two years, until the last boys to start under the old Tiger program age out of Webelos. Those boys should be Bears this year. Our pack still awards the diamond, since the majority of the junior Webelos are still in the blues.

For these boys and older, everything I read in the Insignia Guide makes either the diamond or the oval optional, regardless of which uniform they wear (blue or tan). When a Webelos changes to the tan uniform, it is permissible for him to move his Bobcat, Wolf and Bear badges and add the blue Webelos diamond when he earns it. If he decides to wear the oval Webelos pach, the earlier diamond cannot be worn with it.

That's the theory, but the problem is if a boy outgrows his blue uniform and goes to tan prior to earning his Webelos badge. Boys don't want to wear the tan uniform without any of the awards they've previously earned, and the parents aren't thrilled about moving all those patches for a relatively short period of time. Also, if you put the Bobcat/Wolf/Bear diamonds on the tan shirt, when the boy eventually goes to the oval, the diamonds are going to leave a mark on the shirt.

In this case, I'm willing to allow the boys to use the plastic patch holders. I realize they aren't legal, but given the circumstances, I think a little lattitude is needed.

I look forward to taking Wood Badge at some point, hopefully the next time it is offered. Unfortunately, because we are a small council, it is typically offered only every two years or less. I had wanted to take the course offered last fall, but the timing was bad and I was already committed to camp school, so my hour a week was booked.

At the time, there was a similar thread to this one which I read with great interest. I have to say I was somewhat put off by the lack of information both here and in the information coming from our council. Wood Badge may be the greatest thing since sliced white bread (and it sounds like it is), but it is also a big commitment. I think reasonable adults want to understand what that commitment is going to be. I get "two, three-day weekends" but a "ticket" that takes 18 to 24 months to complete is a vague concept to most folk.

So instead of all the "it will be revealed to you" mumbo-jumbo, give us a straight answer -- "your ticket will include five service projects which will benefit your unit, district, council or community. Some of the projects may take only a few hours to complete, some much longer, but it's ultimately up to you. You shouldn't, however, try to write your ticket before the course as an important part of the ticket is implementing what you learn at Wood Badge. If you try to develop your ticket before hand, you don't receive the full benefit of the program."

If I can explain that, having never set foot in a Wood Badge class (and assuming I've got it right), why can't the Beaded Ones explain it that way?

Isn't there a great whitewater river up in the mountains they're getting ready to dam up? You probably can get one last run in before the dam is finished. And don't forget to take the archery equipment!

Serious, some of the best whitewater on the east coast is in the mountains of GA and NC. Warner Robbins is in the southern part of the state, right? So I don't know how much of a haul that is. There are tons of river services around that area, but the granddaddy is Nantahala Outdoor. Their web site is at www.noc.com .

I think the exact quote for the G2SS makes it clear: "The activity commonly referred to as "War Game" -- in which individuals shoot paint or dye at one another -- is an un authorized activity." As you can see, the section self-defines "war game" as what is probably more commonly known as "paint ball." It isn't a ban on games in which boys pretend war manuvers, like capture the flag, king of the hill, or anything similar. I wouldn't read this to prohibit laser tag.

I think the policy was probably written as much in response to the version of war game/paintball where people run around in the woods in cammo, shooting at each other, as much as any danger inherent in the game, which isn't much. BSA steers a wide swath around anything that hints of paramilitary. This is one of them.

I thought someone asked about go-karts. It's out for Cub and Boy Scouts. Only Venturers may used motorized go carts and they may not race each other.

With Easter around the corner, look for the little Peeps candy. Used to be only yellow chicks, but now they come in all sorts of colors. I think I remember little white bunnies from last year. Add a licorice string for a tail and you're set.

You may try shaping and painting marshmallows, too, but that sounds like a lot of work in you need a bunch of them.

Amen to the cheap prizes. This year we had a bunch of boys order the Scout walking stave. It's a rake handle -- a plain ol' round, unfinished, yellow pine stick. They're $1.99 at a hardware store. Very disappointing. Same with the football. Looks like a real football in the picture, but is really only a 4-inch ball. You can usually get the new kids to sell (usually with a lot of parental participation), but the older kids, who ought to be your best salesmen, won't participate if they think the prizes are a rip-off.

This year my son's just got Scout Bucks, which I think is a great way to go. I don't know why the council doesn't emphasize that. Give them the gift certificates and a copy of the Scout Stuff catalog and tell them to go for it. We spent two hours last Saturday milling around the Scout Shop buying craft kits, canteens and all sorts of fun stuff I wouldn't have otherwise bought for the boys. The other advantage of Scout Bucks is that it makes it easy for the boys to use popcorn sales to pay for uniforms and other stuff they need. Depending on how the council is set up, I suppose Scout Bucks could also pay for summer camp and other activities.

The other thing about Scout Bucks (and maybe this is why the council doesn't push it)is that it is hard to devalue the Scout Bucks. One Scout Buck equals one American dollar. They can't slide-in cheap rake handles or footballs.

Something else to watch with Trails End is the product. This year the $30 three-way tins contained a lower cost mix of popcorn and our popcorn chairman (who is also the district popcorn chairman) didn't like the new sampler pack for some reason. I don't remember all the math, but I'm sure she knows what she's talking about.

Acco, you are right about the responisbilities of the CC and CM and the relationship between the two. I equate the two to being Chairman of the Board and CEO of a corporation.

What I don't agree with is keeping the den leaders separate from the pack committee. No, the den leaders don't need to sit and watch the treasurer and I pay bills, but we don't do that at committee meetings anyway. We do, however, plan upcoming pack meetings and special events. Input from the den leaders regarding these events is very important. They are, after all, the people with the training, knowledge of the program and experience with the boys. They are also the people primarily responsible for implementing the programs.

But I am willing to lump that under the heading of "What Works Best for Our Pack" -- your results may vary, as they say. But I don't believe it is accurate to say that one way is right or wrong. Other that the couple of paragraphs I cited above, I don't see anything in the Cub Scout literature demanding that pack business must be conducted one way or the other. If you have a reference I don't, please let me know.

We are fortunate enough to have two tracks -- newer one we use for racing. We set up the old track and have a couple Boy Scouts run it as an open track for the boys who have been eliminated from the official racing. We kep tying to get parents to build car to race, but no luck yet.

We also sell pizza and subs by the slice (at cost) and have a big bucket of lemonade for anyone who wants it.

Honestly, we don't have a big problem entertaining the boys during the race. Our guys really get into cheering for their buddies and watching the race. One thing that helps is that we schedule the race for a Sunday afternoon, and stagger the start times by rank. That way, you only have to show up in time for your rank's race and can leave as soon as you're eliminated, if you want.

Acco-- you hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why I think the system is broken. Most Scouts see being a den chief as a really tough, lousy job (and I know we've heard from others here who don't) and SMs see sending a "good" scout to a pack as a net loss from the troop leadership pool.

I don't know how to accomplish this, but I'd like to see as sense of duty or obligation attached to den chief service, the way some churches view missionary service or some countries require mandatory military or community service. (No, I'm not suggesting that den chief service be mandatory -- if you don't want to be here, I don't want you to be here.)

I don't think it matters. Anyone with a good understanding of what needs to be covered is fine. I think the Cubmaster is the logical choice.

When I first became involved with our pack, we had a similar situation with our CC. Attended half the meetings, hadn't a clue what was happening in the others. Generally, whether he was there or not, either myself or one of the other den leaders, would scribble out an agenda on the blackboard. Being a group of reasonable adults, we worked through the agenda and went home. The lack of an official chairman didn't make much difference to us.

My understanding of a pack committee (and troop committee, for that matter) is that it is not a decision-making body, but a group of people who work on their assigned tasks independently and come together only to report their progress, plan and coordinate with others as necessary. Looking at it from that approach, a chairman isn't really needed to run the meetings. Of course, the CC has responsibilities other than running the meetings, so I'm not saying the pack can do without a chairman completely.

While we are here, I'd like to put to rest the notion that Cubmasters and Den Leaders are not part of the pack committee and should not attend the committee meetings. Actually, the Cub Scout Leader Book doesn't talk about "pack committee meetings," rather it talks about "pack leader meetings" and specifically says that all adult den and pack leaders should attend (page 24-4). It also says one of the Cubmaster's job responsibilities is to help the committee chair conduct the monthly meetings.

The whole purpose of the pack committee is to facilitate and support the delivery of the Cub Scout program. The Cubmaster and den leaders are the people delivering the program to the boys. Why in the world would you keep the two separate?

I agree completely with your definition of discipline. I don't believe discipline and punishment can be used interchangably. I've wanted to make make that point a couple of times, but didn't want to get side tracked.

The definition of discipline I like comes from The Citadel, I think. "Discipline is training which makes punishment unnecesary." A disciplined scout has the self control and character to keep himself out of situations where punishment may be the end result. To become disciplined, one undertakes training, practice and study in advance of a situation where he may get himself into trouble.

It is also interesting that the word discipline is derrived from disciple, which is one who follows a person, ideal or philosophy. Hmmm...there's a good Scoutmaster's Minute in there somewhere.

But back to the discussion, Bob wrote that "You can accomplish more personal growth in a 15 minute conference than in 15 hours of chores." I'm not sure that's true. If it were, we could reduce all of Scouting to a series of Scoutmaster conferences, and do away with all this camping and hiking.

Of course I'm being facetious, but doing is a lot more effective that hearing, regardless of the lesson. The beauty of the 15 hours of chores is not resulting clean latrine, but the 15 hours of quiet introspection one gains while staring at long end of a row of dirty toilets. The conclusions a boy draws about his own behavior are going to be much more meaningful than those he hears from his Scoutmaster.

Eisley makes another good point that the "victims" of the misbehavior need to be considered, too. In pamalam's original post (remember pamalam? Hi pam, you still following any of this?), the two boys' misbehavior included shirking their cooking duties. Someone, presumably the other boys in the patrol, had to do more than their share of work or not eat. "Making things right" with the other boys needs to be part of the equation.

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

If a scout leaves the latrine a mess, making him clean it is an appropriate "punishment" and may teach him that there are consequences for his actions.

If a scout causes his entire patrol to be late for, and thus miss their free swim period, revoking that scout's swim privileges the next day may be an appropriate, constructive form of discipline.

If a scout abuses troop equipment, giving him extra quartermaster duty may allow him to better understand the need to properly care for equipment.

And I say MAY in each case as it is the responsibility of the adult leader know each boy and to use good judgement to ensure that the punishment is constructive and reflective of BSA values. The guy who made the scout sleep in the rain is an idiot and should not be a scout leader. But let's not use a case of poor judgement to argue against the use of sound judgement.

Bob, you asked for a reference from any BSA source that gives "ideas or guidelines on punishments or disciplining that includes anything other than involving their parents for assistance." Here's one, which I noted earlier, from Section I of the Guide to Safe Scouting, page 4: "Constructive Discipline: Discipline used in Scouting should be constructive and reflect Scouting's values. Corporal punishment is never permitted."

Ed, can you and Bob define punishment for me? Can you provide me with some documentation from the literature?

Thumbing through the Guide to Safe Scouting, I find the following (all of which are in bold-face type. Added emphasis is mine.):

"Constructive Discipline: DISCIPLINE USED IN SCOUTING SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTIVE AND REFELCT SCOUTING'S VALUES."

"Adult leaders of Scouting units are responsible for monitoring the behavior of youth members AND INTERCEDING WHEN NECESSARY. Parents of youth members who misbehave SHOULD BE informed and asked for ASSISTANCE in dealing with it."

"The BSA does not permit corporal punishment by unit leaders WHEN DISCIPLINING YOUTH MEMBERS."

"The unit committee should REVIEW repetitive or serious incidents of misbehavior...."

"If problem behavior persists, units MAY revoke a scout's membership...."

What I'm hearing here (reading this thread) is that the only recourse for a leader (either a boy or adult) is to verbally remind an offending scout of his responsibilities as a scout or to send him home. A leader has no option for corrective action (action as compared to talk) when dealing with misbehavior.

But what I read in the G2SS is CORPORAL punishment is prohibited (and I would define that as ANY physical punishment, including the ol' "drop and give me 20"), but I don't see where ALL punishment is prohibited. I see a strong bias for involving the committee and parents in discipline, but I don't see where ONLY parents and the committee can discipline a boy. I read that the unit MAY suspend a boy's membership, but not that it is their only option.

Eisley, your post slipped in ahead of mine, but I agree with what you are say, particularly the first paragraph. I also agree with you that discipline is a chain of command issue and should be handled at the lowest appropriate level. But as the G2SS says, adult leaders are ultimately responsible.

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Well, in the situation presented, "deal with" could include re-working the duty roster for the patrol to require that the two boys who had shirked their responsibilities did their fair share.

I'm not suggesting corporal punishment, or anything that could be a YP violation. But what I'm reading here is that the appropriate response of the SPL and SM is to sit on their hands until a meeting of the troop committee can be called.

Tell me what I'm missing(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

We're splitting some pretty narrow semantic threads here. All the "methods for controling behavior" sure sound like punishment to me.

Certainly, serious infractions should be handled as you describe. But in Pamalam's situation, don't you think it would be appropriate for the SPL to assign the offending Scouts additional kitchen duty to make up for the assignments they missed, or something similar? This may be controlling the situation, but if you are one of the two scouts, I bet you think of it as punishment.

As you say, every scout has the responsibility to behave in scout-like manner as represented in the Oath and Law. But should't there be consequences if they don't? How is turning to scouts in to their parents or the troop committee consistent with boy led?

Learning to handle problems at lowest appropriate level is an important principle of leadership these boys need to learn. They also need to learn when situations are above their level of competence. I wouldn't expect the 11-year-old PL of the new scout patrol to do much to handle discipline problems, but I would expect a well-trained SPL to be able to deal with minor infractions.

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

What you're telling me is just the way I understand it. It's like the airline industry: at a given level of seniority, a pilot may choose to be the captain of a small plane, or the co-pilot of a larger plane.

In a position like this, where the job function is fairly static, 5 or 6 years is about the maximum anyone can be effective (and that time may be as short as three years). You spend a year learning the job. Another year is spent putting your program in place. After five years, you should have met your goals and be looking to move on. Beyond that, the job starts to become a bureaucracy and you loose the ability to judge things with a critical eye.

What has happened here, I think, is that these guys are at a point in life where they are comfortable in their positions and are established in the community. They have no motivation to try and move up. Their goal everyday is to not rock the boat.

Unfortunately, the entire administrative staff is in that mindset. They've forgotten who their customers are and who pays the bills. THEY need to feel my pain.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I've got a copy of "Age-Appropriate Guidelines for Scouting Activities" which is a bar chart listing probably 50 or 60 activites and a graph indicating which are permissible by age.

There is a distinction between tubing and rafting. Tubing is listed as a separate activity from rafting and the chart shows it as appropriate only for Webelos and up -- i.e., NOT permitted for Tigers, Wolves and Bears.

"Rafting -- flat water" and "Rafting -- flowing water" are listed separately, but both are approved only for Boy Scout and Venture ages. For Tigers, Cubs and Webelos they are approved as "Council/District Outdoors Programs Only".

So while rafting could be allowed if this is a district or council camp, tubing is not allowed for cubs, period. But don't feel bad. I took Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat last year and don't remember hearing any of this during training.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I feel like our council is fortunate to have a good corp of DEs. I know mine does a pretty good job and of what I know about the others, they seem to be pretty good as well. Most of the complaints I hear are a result of not understanding the DEs role.

I participate at the council-level on a couple of things, and my exposure to the middle management guys has been positive as well. My perception is that most of the guys in our council are already on the second rung of the ladder and are on a track to take them up through the organization. We don't have a lot of entry-level guys who burn a year to find out that this isn't the career track for them.

On the other hand, I don't have that confidence and respect for either the upper management or the administrative staff. Both our SE and Asst. SE for Operations have been in their jobs far too long. I know the pro ranks have a fairly well-defined pecking order for both jobs and councils. Not only do you move up from DE to DD to SE, but also to larger and larger councils. Our senior guys seem to have found a nice quiet cul-de-sac on the career path and have parked there.

As a result, the administrative end of things is a disaster. The scout shop never has all the awards we need, no one in my unit has their training properly credited (according to Scoutnet, my unit is 0% trained to position), I still have boys waiting for popcorn prizes, registration is a mess, on and on and on....

We are fortunately in an area with a very strong scouting tradition, and I think we deliver a good program through the efforts of the volunteers and DEs. But trying to accomplish anything which requires council-level involvement is a struggle.