Twocubdad

Boy, I sure wish someone would tell Congress and the Administration political showboating doesn't work. They're spending trillions on it.

The basis of the program is trust and an underlying desire to follow the Oath and Law. I've always thought Scouting was cumulative, meaning the first thing we teach the Cubs, "Do Your Best," continues to apply all the way through. If the Scout and his family won't TRY to live up to the ideals, I don't think the program has much to offer them. Sometimes I think the lesson we are best at teaching kids like this is how to take their behavior underground and not get caught. I hope that doesn't become the case.

A couple of these would indicate a lax attitude; 10 is a disturbing problem. Our CO takes this very seriously and some fairly tough standards with their own version of YP. Over the winter the senior pastor invited the key leader of the troop, pack and two girl scout troops who meet at the church for a meeting. He reviewed the church's YP program and we all discussed how our standards fit. Most all the rules are essentially the same and no changes were made, but I did get the church to pay to install glass panels in the doors to our meeting rooms. Point being, in my situation, we would have a meeting between the Scoutmaster, committee chairman, Chartered Org. Rep. and the Senior Pastor. I have absolute confidence the minister would "clarify" the rules and expectations in no uncertain terms. The time frame for compliance would be about as long as it takes to say "your services are no longer needed." If no one in the troop or CO is able to have such a clear, sharp conversations (and I absolutely understand, it's not easy) I would bump it up to the SE. He gets the big bucks for having those conversations. Either way, I think it wise to involve the SE in the process as the folks on the ground see fit. If the SE's input is needed up front, get it. At minimum, I would suggest to the minister that he follow up the meeting with a letter outlining the expectation and send a copy to the SE. Not to jump the other thread on what the SE will do, but I really don't know. He may say, "this guy is outta here" or he may say, "looks like your CO has it covered, let me know if I can help" or something in between. But my feeling is it is critical to get folks like your SE and IH involved in these situation and supportive of your actions. By the way, as everyone seems to agree, #5 is fine. I was going to say #6 could be okay in certain circumstances, but when I re-read it, you're saying the SM has a note which gives him a blanket exception for one-on-one contact with some boys. No. Not even close. Hypothetically, however, if our family is particularly close with the family across the street and my son and I always give the neighbor kid a ride, I don't think I'm precluded from offering the ride if my son isn't present for some reason. A year or two ago we had a thread about someone who would give his nephew a one-on-one ride to Scouts when his own son was sick. That's nuts. YP rules don't apply outside Scouting and parents and families have ultimate say over what their son does. Personally, a parent, I see a difference between someone with whom I've had a long-time relationship who happens to be a Scout leader vs. someone with whom my only relationship is through Scouting. I'll trust my son to go to Scouts or anywhere else with my long-time friends, but when the new ASM who just moved to the neighborhood offers rides to individual Scouts I will be very leary.

A couple of these would indicate a lax attitude; 10 is a disturbing problem. Our CO takes this very seriously and some fairly tough standards with their own version of YP. Over the winter the senior pastor invited the key leader of the troop, pack and two girl scout troops who meet at the church for a meeting. He reviewed the church's YP program and we all discussed how our standards fit. Most all the rules are essentially the same and no changes were made, but I did get the church to pay to install glass panels in the doors to our meeting rooms. Point being, in my situation, we would have a meeting between the Scoutmaster, committee chairman, Chartered Org. Rep. and the Senior Pastor. I have absolute confidence the minister would "clarify" the rules and expectations in no uncertain terms. The time frame for compliance would be about as long as it takes to say "your services are no longer needed." If no one in the troop or CO is able to have such a clear, sharp conversations (and I absolutely understand, it's not easy) I would bump it up to the SE. He gets the big bucks for having those conversations. Either way, I think it wise to involve the SE in the process as the folks on the ground see fit. If the SE's input is needed up front, get it. At minimum, I would suggest to the minister that he follow up the meeting with a letter outlining the expectation and send a copy to the SE. Not to jump the other thread on what the SE will do, but I really don't know. He may say, "this guy is outta here" or he may say, "looks like your CO has it covered, let me know if I can help" or something in between. But my feeling is it is critical to get folks like your SE and IH involved in these situation and supportive of your actions. By the way, as everyone seems to agree, #5 is fine. I was going to say #6 could be okay in certain circumstances, but when I re-read it, you're saying the SM has a note which gives him a blanket exception for one-on-one contact with some boys. No. Not even close. Hypothetically, however, if our family is particularly close with the family across the street and my son and I always give the neighbor kid a ride, I don't think I'm precluded from offering the ride if my son isn't present for some reason. A year or two ago we had a thread about someone who would give his nephew a one-on-one ride to Scouts when his own son was sick. That's nuts. YP rules don't apply outside Scouting and parents and families have ultimate say over what their son does. Personally, a parent, I see a difference between someone with whom I've had a long-time relationship who happens to be a Scout leader vs. someone with whom my only relationship is through Scouting. I'll trust my son to go to Scouts or anywhere else with my long-time friends, but when the new ASM who just moved to the neighborhood offers rides to individual Scouts I will be very leary.

Never said it was stolen, said it was taken. When asked, I've told several folks that I was the one who took it. That many of the boys have jumped to that conclusion, however. I'm okay with their assumption as it works for teaching the lesson of accountability and consequences.

As I said originally, advancement is besides the point. If he has otherwise met the requirements, sign him off. But you have bigger fish to fry.

Troop QM does not check patrol equipment in and out and he's for dang sure not cleaning it. A standard kit of equipment is assigned to the patrols and it is the patrols' responsibility to maintain it. With the PL and PQM, the TQM inventories the patrol gear twice a year at the time of PL elections. The TQM is responsible for taking care of the troop gear (anything not assigned to the patrols), working with the PQMs to help them if needed, keeping the store roome neat, and working with the ASM/QM on equipment purchases, as that comes up. Our system is for the patrols have their own gear, which they are responsible for. If they don't clean it, it's still dirty next month when they need it. If they break or loose a tent pole, they either get it fixed or replaced or they have a broken/missing tent pole next month. In otherwords, they are responsible for their on stuff. The former system we had when we joined the troop was all the gear was on two racks of open shelves in the back room. Everyone just grabbed what they needed. There was supposedly some checkout system, but it didn't work. With all the stuff on shelves, it was easy to dump dirty/broken gear back on the shelf because chances were you could grab a good on next month. No accountability. The system we have in place works when we have a strong TQM who enforces it, which admittedly, we don't have right now. He has allowed the patrols to get slack about securing their equipment back in their lockers which was a contributing factor to the problem with the stoves.

Yeah, Hawk, I like the way you're thinking, but I hope we can make a turn round before we get there. As many of you have suggested, our underlying problems is patrol QM is a throw-away position. No one wants to do it, there is no advancement credit involved and the guys see is at being stuck cleaning up after the other slobs in your patrol. Heck, I wouldn't volunteer for that, either. Frankly, focusing on the QM -- troop or patrol -- is part of the problem. The other guys DO think the QM are their maids. We need to instill the idea that EVERYONE is responsible for ALL the gear. There were 30 guys who got up and walked away from the instruction and left the stoves lying about. Granted, four or five of them had responsibility for the program, but if the rest are living the Oath and Law, they should be standing in line to help clean up. Servant leadership, living the ideals -- that's the goal.

You folks do understand that when we write of "advocating for the Scout" or "counseling him out of Scouting" that there is more to it than "here's your hat, what's your hurry?" don't you? Do we really need to spell out all the hypothetical conversations which would occur with the Scout and his parents before he the Scout leaves the troop?

I'll try to back fill -- I am the Scoutmaster. TCS is a JASM and PL or the "Leadership" patrol. We have patrol names, but all gear is numbered and/or color coded as are the lockers which do have operable locks. There is plenty of blame to go around. Personally, I see the major responsibility on the Scout who was responsible for the program and who used the stoves. Then there is the ASPL/Program who missed the meeting that night, the troop quartermaster who doesn't believe he has any responsibility for patrol's gear (which I agree with, up to a pooint), the SPL who had overall responsibility, and the adults -- leaders AND parents -- who only want to blast out as soon as the Scoutmaster's Benediction trails off. Ultimately, the buck stops with me, the SM. I, however, did do a walk-about, discovered the mess (after everyone was gone) and decided to leave it and call the SPL to deal with it. Of course the other two patrols share in the responsibility for leaving their gear either out or their lockers unlocked (no one is sure which since the other two patrols' stoves apparently walked themselves out to the program area. If the stoves were taken from unlocked lockers, I'm willing to cut the other patrols some slack since we've not really made an issue of locking the lockers. The locker room is fairly secure and it's not really an issue. Personally, we could take the doors off the lockers and I'd be thrilled to get the gear IN them. The CO doesn't really care about our area -- totally off the trail for anyone else at the church. Frankly, we do so much to maintain and improve our area, the properties committee would love to have us take over upkeep of other parts of the church property, too. I think we will convene a meeting of the PLC Saturday morning before we leave for the camping trip and let them come up with a solution. Dang shame, too, since we're camping at a local lake and the whole program is just goofing off and playing in the water, fishing, swimming, canoeing -- one dad is bringing a ski boat. Hope the PLC doesn't take too long to figure things out. Edited to respond to rdclements -- I assumed someone would take that point of view, but the gear "belongs" to the troop, it is "assigned" to the patrols. Do we have an obligation to keep giving the patrols gear if they have a demonstrated lack of interest in taking care of it? How would you handle the situation if the stoves were actually stolen? We would be in exactly the same position as we are now, with me returning them obviously not an options. Actually, I have a whole locker full of gear left unattended by the patrols. This is just the first time it's been a critical piece of the gear they can't work around. (And, yeah, there are some pretty obvious solutions here, too, but I'm more than pleased to let responsibility for the stoves to be the issue.) As SM, me being Scoutlike is teaching the Scouts to live by the Scout Oath and Law. "A Scout is Thrifty...He is careful in his use of time and property." We've gone round and round with this issue -- talking, reminding, teaching, fussing, training and bailing the kids out isn't working. Choose the behavior, choose the consequences. I think it's time for the Scouts to start living with the consequences of their behavior. Having your gear ruined or stolen is a fairly foreseeable consequence of leaving it outside, unsecured in the weather. If that's not Scoutlike, I can live with it.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Yep, I agree with Basement and the other -- warm handshake. We've given of ourselves for many years. How do you top that?

Advancement is besides the point. Sure, I'll sign the book, but if the kid doesn't care.... I will assume the kid is older, has been in the troop awhile and has given Scouting a fair shot. That being the case, I offer the young man my support. If he likes, I'll meet with him and his parents and help him explain to them why he doesn't want to be in Scouting. I've learned I need to be an advocate for boys like that just as much as the boys who want to be in the program but don't have the support at home. Now if the kid is 11 and just being whinney and rebelious, my advice to the parents is that they are the parents and if they want their son in Scouts it's their call. At that age they get to decide such things for their children. But after a year or so, if the fellow still wants out, we need to listen to him.

No, Parkman, I wouldn't like to see age requirements as I don't necessarily see age as a corelating with Scouting advancement. I would like to see the advancement program beefed up which would have that net effect -- multiple POR requirements, for example. OGE -- I think you offer a false choice, although I were to choose a course for my own sons, it would be that of Scout B. I'll read into your hypothetical that Scout B just didn't care much for advancement or jumping through hoops, but that he was engaged in the troop, attended campouts and activities and generally immersed himself in Scouting. I'll move heaven and earth to help a kid like that make Eagle in his remaining 10 months. Now if your hypothetical is that Scout B goes dormant for four year, like Spencer's guy in the OP, well, I don't care much for either. The false choice is that if we use the tools we have (before the next edition of the advancement guide takes them away) we should be able to guide our all-star Scout A to use his enthuasism toward a long, action-pack and rewarding career in Scouting. My point is this -- Scouting is to be experienced, not completed. Experience takes time.

Need your help settling an issue with TwoCubSon (now a 17-year-old Eagle Scout and defensive nose tackle): The issue: Last Tuesday another Scout from patrol #5 was responsible for a cooking demonstration during instruction time. For some reason, three different patrol stoves were pulled out for the demonstration (no on is admitting to have brought any stove out, except for patrol #5's own stove.) Apparently, the other patrols' stoves were use without asking those patrols. Instruction went well but clean up was aborted. Wednesday afternoon I discovered that two stoves, a propane tank, camp table and a general mess had been left outside, beside the hut. I called the SPL and asked him to handle it. Sunday, with the mess still left outside, I cleaned up the mess, put the table and propane tank back in storage but locked the two stoves (#2 belonging to TwoCubSon's patrol and #6 belonging to one of the new Scout patrols) in my locker. Tonight, as the patrols were checking their gear for this weekend's campout, patrols 2 and 6 discovered their stoves to be missing. Once the missing stoves finally made it up the food chain to me, I reported that they and been left outside all week and had been "taken." TwoCubSon, the PL of patrol #2 (our "leadership" patrol) and who has been down the trail a time or two, immediately figured I had them locked up. I fessed up, but held my ground that because the equipment had been left outside for a week, it would not be available for use this weekend. They're lucky I got to it before it was stolen for real, or they wouldn't have it at all. Since he's sitting here in my office pecking away at his iPod, I'll let him make his own case -- TwoCubSon writes: As stated before, I have been around the block a time or two. I was never informed that they wanted to use our patrol stove nor was I asked about it ( and for that matter would have told them to use their own patrol stove had I known it was being used). Since I or any other member of he patrol was unaware of the use of our patrol's stove, we should not be responsible for the actions of the instructors. They refuse to admit that they ever took the stove out and that somebody put it there. The SPL,in response to the phone call with my father, called the instructor and told him that his stove was left out and that he needed to come to the hut and clean up the mess that he left. Needless to say, he did not do what he was told. I don't believe that the new scout patrol and our patrol should be punished, however I do understand that the locker should have been locked. If we are punished for their actions, it sets a precedent that I can go into any unloked patrol locker and use things without permission and come off scott free, which isn't right considering that I can think of at least 9 points of the scout law this breaks. The punishment should be given to the instructor, not my patrol. How to do this? Well...thats the million dollar question, now isn't it. TCD again -- Part of the problem we're having is the Scouts don't take responsibility for their equipment. It's been on-going for quite some time and nothing seems to get the Scouts' attention. I started collecting gear an stashing it in my locker for several months, but the kids so far have figured some work around and haven't been too inconvenienced. Each patrol is assigned a standard set of equipment -- tents, stoves, cooking gear -- and have secure lockers to store their gear. Everything is labled with their patrol number and/or color. But there is always a pile of gear which never makes it back to the patrol lockers or the locker are left open. Had patols put their gear away and locked it up, we wouldn't have an issue. So I don't think the two patrols which had their stoves used and left out are without responsibility. I've asked to Scouts to figure it out. TCS has told the Scout who used the stoves that his patrol needs to give them their patrol's stove or cook for them this weekend. As the other Scout denies any responsibility, I don't see that happening. I've told TCS and the SPL that they need to resolve it before we leave Saturday morning. The one solution which is off the table is for me to return the confiscated stoves. That's the expectation and part of the problem. Thoughts?

No one has addressed what I see as the real problem here -- that this young man was allowed to blow through to Life in two or three years. I don't know what sort of program this Scout was in. Maybe he was UberScout in his old troop, but something happened that he was barely breathing in the new one. Consequently, this isn't aimed so much at this particular young man or either Spencer's troop or the other one, rather all the Scouts who quit Scouting but remain on the charter. First of all, I think Beav's thought to regularly purge the unit of inactive Scouts is a good one. His reasoning for doing so is sound. Not that our troop does it but why not assign scouts to "inactive" status (as provided for in the BSA bylaws) for Scouts who don't meet activity expectations? Instead of abruptly dropping them at recharter, put them on inactive status for a period with a clear outline of what they need to do to regain active status. As this is a membership issue (not advancement) it would seem to be the CO's call. Let's jump back to the discussions regarding Scoutmaster's approval of blue cards and related topics. (Sounds like a high-jacking, but bear with me.) The situation in the OP is what we cruel, egotistical child abusers are seeking to avoid when we throw up road blocks, add to the requirements and torture boys by making them hold off on merit badges at our whim. Our -- at least my -- purpose is to help the Scout get the most out of the advancement program by taking the time to mature through it, to understand the sense of accomplishment of really mastering a subject and achieving a goal through real effort and determination. That doesn't come at a six-hour merit badge university class. Keeping older Scouts is all about presenting them with programs offering greater and greater challenges resulting in greater and greater payoffs. It's a three legged stool -- adventure, leadership and -- wait for it -- ADVANCEMENT. Everyone understands the adventure part -- starting with simple campouts and moving on to backpacking, climbing, Philmont, Seabase. The progressiveness of adventure programs is built in. On the front end, younger Scouts are limited by physical ability and, in some cases, age restrictions. On the back end, there is no limit to the challenge of high adventure programs. Anything the Scouts can safely do is wide open. Leadership is more subtle, mostly because leadership itself is more elusive. It's easy for the boys to decide they do or don't like backpacking, or climbing. Figuring out their place in the leadership of the troop is more difficult. But for the boys who take up the challenge and put the work into in, it can be as rewarding as summiting Mt. Phillips. But frankly, when it comes to advancement, BSA has allowed the wheels come off the wagon. Reading the new Advancment Guide and the blogs and newsletters from the national advancement team, it is clear to me these folks have NO CLUE how to maintain a progressive advancement program which is attractive to Scouts aged 11 to 18. They've take what should be the reasonable flexibility of the program and twisted it into a mandate that everything must be doable by an 11 year old. "Any Scout can complete any MB at an any time" should mean there are no impediments to an 11-y.o. Scout training for a spot on the Olympic swim team to complete Swimming or Lifesaving MB. A state finalist debater should be allowed to work on Communications. But that directive has been twisted to mean that EVERY Scout should be allowed to complete EVERY merit badge NOW. I have no problem with boys choosing the MBs they want to persue on their own timetable. But when and 11-y.o. "Scout" Scout wants to pull blue card for Personal Fitness, EnviroSci, PerMgt and all three citizenships, the anwser is going to be "No" followed by a nice chat about his journey through Scouting, smelling roses and the Tenderfoot requirements. Advancement isn't like backpacking. If you earn Personal Management as a 12 year old, you're done. No one goes back and re-earns it as a 17 year old, this time on a steeper, longer trail. And even though the requirements are the same, there is a difference between earning a badge at 11 vs. 17. If we allow or encourage our Scouts to blow through the requirements at 11, 12 or 13, we've taken the advancement leg out from under the stool. We have one less tool for keeping an older Scout interested in the program. The number of 13-year-old Eagles who stick with the program for another five years are as rare as hens' teeth (and I know of what I speak as I stare at one of those young Eagles in the shaving mirror.) And even looking at my own Scouting career and all the fun stuff I did as 14-, 15- or 16-year-old Eagle Scout, one thing I did not do was to learn from the advancement program from the perspective of an older Scout. Regarding participation. I was hopeful the new advancement guide's provision for allowing troops to set reasonable expectations for attendance would be a step in the right direction. It's not. It's the same policy as before, they've just taken two pages of smoke and mirrors to get around to it. The devil is in the details. Troops can set expectations, but as Calico points out, a Scout can cobble together six months of activity any way the like. Show up late and leave early for one troop meeting -- I can count that as a whole week active, right? Or if I'm generally good person, I can count being on the baseball team or attending church as being an active Scout. That's rediculous. Kudu is on the right track, but I don't think we watered down the actual requirements so much as we've created an environment in which they are meaningless. Active doesn't mean active, active means do whatever the hell you want and we'll figure out a way to make it count. We haven't watered them down so much as we've lawyered them into absurdity. (No offense intend, Beav and NJ.) Fred is correct that we do want to our Scouts to apply the lessons of Scouting to their every-day life. I've preached that sermon a number of times. But twisting that to mean other experiences are a substitute for the Scouting program is nuts. So let's take that to it's absurd end -- send district advancement chairmen to every high school graduation ceremony this week and have them hand Eagles to all the JROTC graduates or anyone else deemed to be Scoutlike. Sure, we'll need to do some of that box-checking with which we are so adept, but we can substitute high school civics for the citizenship badges, health classes cover First Aid and Family Life, etc. If we're going to substitue "life experiences" for active membership, why not make these other substitutions? Why not? Because it's not Scouting. As someone else wrote, if they are being honored with the highest award in Scouting, they need to be committed to Scouting. Someone else ask how you write requirements which do that on a consistent basis? Easy. First, we start to look a re-building the advancement program so that Eagle isn't targeted to 14 year olds. We put time-in-service requirements back in the T-2-1 program. Require two Positions of Responsibility for Eagle, one of which should be a LEADERSHIP position, not manager. Heck, add another rank between First Class and Star -- now THERE'S and idea. Secondly, we get rid of the check-box mentality and the folks in Irving who think that any requirement should be doable by an 11 year old. We quit looking for ways to solve every little problem with an exemption -- an exemption which gets twisted as an exception for everyone. Take fire building -- I understand there are some areas of the country under permanent fire bans. In those cases it is reasonable to allow a Scout to complete the requirement without lighting the fire. But instead of a reasonable exemption to solve a specific problem, sooner or later we'll have a kid who wants to build a model of a camp fire instead of building a for-real fire and half you guys lecturing me about "adding to the requirement" for not accepting it. Last, we start building a culture were excellence is rewarded. Promote Beavah's idea that character is the goal of Scouting, not making advancement goals. Emphasize learning and mastery, not merely completion.

Pronounced "body", like the island and lighthouse.

Get an Eagle? Probably. Earned Eagle? Probably not. Check-list Scouting. But if he's been in the unit four years, why is his involvement only now being questioned?

Will this person react the same way at your Court of Honor when some boys are rewarded with Orienteering merit badges and other are not? Does the rest of the leadership support you? If so, my inclination would be to ignore it and chalk this person up as a wingnut.

Absolutely right. Instead of national "embracing technology" how about embracing the technology of the 1990's? Do your dang job and provide support for the units delivering the program to the scouts. Google is almost 20 years old, yet we have the most byzantine website imaginable. Somewhere, the PR guys have a plan that if all these old geezers with gold tabs walk around with Crackberrys talking about how tech-savvy Scouting has become they will attract kids who spend all their time absorbing electrons. Actually, my hunch is they are more interested in attracting corporate sponsorships from AT&T. There's more to technology that hand-held computing. How about high-tech camping gear? Or high-tech SCUBA equipment? Or high-tech climbing gear? "Embracing technology" but only talking about using apps to ID poison ivy is a solution in search of a problem. Why do we need to embrace technology? Why do we need to spend $500 on an iPad plus another $40 a month for a data plan when Mr. Smith not only knows all the constellations, but is a terrific story teller and can keep a crowd enthralled for hours with the mythology behind the constellations. Why is your expensive technology so much better that the already-paid-for field book sitting on the shelf? Instead of running after the technology bandwagon flailing our arms screaming "me too, me too, wait for us!" Why don't we talk about appropriate technology? Focus on carbon-based memory units, not silicon. Focus on what makes Scouting unique, not what can make us like everything else.

Same ol', same ol'. We can use iPods instead of guide books to identify wildflowers and constellations, 'cause iPods are cooler that old books, give the marketing guys an excuse for ads and PR sounding hip, and besides, silicon is somehow better than cellulose. Whatever. I guess this is part of the new, ninth Method of Scouting, Electronic Association. For some reason I thought the way this worked was for the boys to associate with adults of character who know this stuff. Maybe I'm sensitive because the two examples which are always thrown out, plant identification and astronomy, are two topics I'm good with and really teaching the Scouts. If you know your subject, what's the need for either? And if you don't know the material, what's the point of fumbling with either field guides or electronics? "Um, I think it's a pine tree, let me look it up."

Yep, Beav, that was the impression I got from the video too. This guy is off playing with his Crackberry while the rest of us just want to know who in our unit is trained.

Perhaps this will answer your question.

Is this an announcement or a leak? 'Cause if it's an announcement, it's sure lousey. Doesn't even warrant a quote from Brock? It would sure be interesting to hear something about his vision, plans and priorities for BSA -- you know, all that leadership stuff we're supposed to do. I assume that info is being released on a need to know basis and, well, you know where the unit-serving volunteers stand.

I'd clean everything and start over with fresh fuel and good mantels. Question -- would you use carb cleaner on a lantern? Does Coleman fuel build up gunk the way real gasoline does?

Ya done good.