Twocubdad

Ten o'clock in the east. Still here.... My wife came in to tell me she hasn't been swept up yet either. She's Jewish! What the heck is she expecting?!?

I can't say the letters add much to the process. For one, there is the usual problem with references that no one ever provides a contact for someone unless they're sure they will provide a good reference. Secondly, with most Eagle BoRs being conducted by troop members with one rep from the district, most of the folks on the board have known the candidate for years. So a candidate shows up for his board with his Scoutmaster's and Committee Chairman's signature on his application having met all the requirements, but is turned down by the BoR on the basis of a poor reference. What do you think will happen on appeal?

Advancement Committee Guide, Policy & Procedures, pg. 31, Twelve Steps to Eagle, #5: "When the completed application is received at the council service center, its contents will be verified and ther references contacted. the council advancement committee or its designee contacts the person listed as a reference on the Eagle Scout Rank Application either by letter, form, or telephone checklist. The council determinse the method of methods to be used. The candidate should have contacted those individuals listed as references before including their names on the application. The candidate should not be involved personally in transmitting any correspondence between persons listed as references and the council service center." Somewhere else, and I can't find the reference right now, the book specifies that collecting reference letters in not the responsibility of the Scout and that an application or Board of Reveiw MAY NOT be delayed due to the failure of a reference to provide a letter in a timely manner. Sounds like your council is operating by the book. I wish they would talk to our advancement committee.

Data management? I don't recall any of that stuff at the pack level. And with as many as 120 cubs, we looked like an army division coming through the woods. We mostly handled registration by den. The den leaders forwarded a list of attendees and any money they collected. We kept the den lists and checked off who had and had not paid. No refunds once food was purchased regardless of reason. We were clear that parents were responsible for their children. No formal check-in or out, but we did ask folks to let one of the key leaders know if they were leaving early. (BTW, I was also day camp director for years and understand the difference between "with your parent" and "got dropped off". Huge difference in responsibility. Our day camp had a staff of people who tracked rosters, attendance and dismissals in detail.) And tell your council to put it in their ear. I'd SWAG a number and write them a check. If the want to know details, tell them they're welcome to come do a head count.

I don't understand. Are you saying having a record of the communications is the problem?

There ought to be a square knot for cub leaders who survive PWD. Understand that while PWD can be the highlight of the year for the boys, parents can make it a tremendous pain for the leaders. You may be absolutely correct in your observations and perfectly reasonable in your approach, but the last three parents who had the same point were all jacka**es. You may be paying for their sins. As Momo2 suggests, the pack leaders aren't in this because they enjoy tormenting boys. Many PWD rules and procedures are in place to correct some over-the-top transgression in the past. Perhaps the "no repair" rule was instituted because some parent's idea of a "repair" was to add weight or swap out axles after the car was inspected? Maybe the guy who set up the bumper spent 13 hours the day before trying to turn you pack's sow's ear track into a silk purse and just doesn't want to hear anymore about it? (I got the t-shirt AND patch for that one.) For better or worse, many Tiger parents come away from their first PWD shell-shocked wondering what the heck just happened. Your post sound like you have a healty attitude toward the process, although not a lot of knowledge or experience in how cub packs operate. Unfortunately, may leaders have learned through grim experience that a parent who wants to "discuss" or "report" issues with the race is just another jacka** ticked off because their son lost. The antidote to that is having a great deal of empathy for the pack leaders. I'll bet they see the same problems with the track, but I also bet they spent a lot of time setting it up. I bet they also spent a lot of time trying to get boys to sell popcorn last fall to raise money for the pack. And organizing the campout. And Blue & Gold. And last week's den meeting....

I tried the brake fluid and granular chlorine thing once. Absolutely nothing. Have the changed the formulation of brake fluid?

I assume this was a pack event, which generally means no one outside the pack is going to want to get involved. The pack committee is going to be the final word. But you want some been-there, done-that, got-the-patch advice? Forget it. "Reporting" the problems isn't going to accomplish anything. You want to make sure things run better next year, volunteer to next year's PWD chairman. Ask to take the track home and tune it up. Or find out what would be involved in buying or building a new one. Research the various methods of running races to randomize the parings and lane assignments. If you'll research some of the past threads here, there are all sorts of suggestions for making PWD fun for the boys. OUr pack had an old track which was set up in the corner and boys who were eliminated fromthe competition were allowed run their cars to their hearts' content on the open division. One pack set up a big screen TV with a digital camera and replayed close finishes in slow motion. Lots of packs have pizza and snacks. BE POSITIVE! Your approach should be that this year's race wasn't much fun (but forget the reasons why) and you want to make sure the boys have fun next year.

I'm thinking it would be set up like Home Repairs or a similar Mb: 1. Discuss the general precautions related to dirty jobs. Name 10 safety precautions you should take with dirty jobs. 2. With the approval of your parents and counselor, complete two tirty jobs from each of the following categories: Dirty Agricultural Jobs Shovel one cubic yard of manure Insert your arm into a cow pas the elbow Catch and carry at least three pigs Harvest a root crop Dirty Industrial Jobs Clean a boiler Perform maintenance on a sewage pond Process one meat product Perform mainentance in a small, enclosed space Dirty Health Care Jobs Empty 10 bedpans Sanitize an operating room or procedure area Properly dispose of 10 pounds of bio hazard waste Operate a medical waste incinerator Dirty Household Jobs Pump a Septic system Crawl 100 feet a crawl space no more than 16' high Dispose of food in a freezer after a power outage Wash 12 dirty diapers

So, earlier this week, when we held our Board of Review with our firebug from the other thread, I pulled the Scout aside and gave him a few private words of encouragement before the meeting. That was prohibited one-on-one contact? What's the theory here? What is this trying to prevent? If I can phone, text or email a message to a Scout making a threat, soliciting sex or futhering some abusive relationship, why can't I do that in a face-to-face private conversation conducted in plain view of others? So if private, one-on-one electronic communication is problematic, why is private, face-to-face (but within current YP guidlines) okay? Before the board of review, I could have just as easily been telling the Scout, "you tell what really happened and I'll kill your dog." Who is to know? Classic bureaucratic scope creep. They are taking a policy which was written for one situation (adults and youth being alone in the same physical space) and applying it to another -- communications where physical contact isn't an issue. Perhaps, as Qwarze writes, communications can be construed as contact, but in this situation, it should not be. If BSA is going to regulate communications, it needs a totally new paradigm than the existing YP rules.

What guidelines would I like to see from BSA? If this is an example of what we can expect, then NONE. But if the are really serious about integrating technology into the program IN A WAY WHICH SUPPORTS AND BENEFITS THE PROGRAM, then here's my suggestion: Buy this site, USSSP, MeritBadge.com, Troop/PackMaster, ScoutTrack and maybe a couple more of the smaller market-share scouting software companies. Roll them in with ScoutNet, Scouting.com and MyScouting. Even something like SnapFish. Spin them all off into their own enterprise group, like Supply Division, and tell them to go make money. With a profit motive behind them, I guarantee they will get things figured out. I would really like our troop to have an integrated network which combines all of those above sites and software into one package which is secure and limits access on a need-to-know basis. A virtural troop meeting. Youth protection considerations could be built into the network. If everything needs to be public -- public meaning open to everyone in our troop -- fine. If all communications needs to be archived, fine. Make it automatic. Based on registered position (youth, adult, parent) there could be different levels of sharing. In otherwords, solve all my IT problems so I can go work with the Scouts. They have everything they need to do it -- names, addressed, unit info, emails. I should be able to flip a switch and have a default unit network come online. Would a FB-like feature on such a network catch on with the Scout? Who knows? I rather doubt the boys would hang out and chat the same way they use FB, but I bet my guys would use it for troop business. One of the problems we have with the boys trying to manage communications among themselves is there is no common platform everyone has access to. By the time the boys are in high school, they are all hooked up with text/phones, FB and email. But it's very spotty with the younger boys. Not all parents allow the younger boys access to this. I don't know why the BSA network didn't work. My hunch is, like a lot of stuff, it was done half-a**ed (like this policy) without any real concern for how it would be used within the program. My observation is that it was just a cheesy, "me too" rip-off of FB. It's like the Lucky Strike pocket on the shirts. Seemed like a "hip" idea, but no one really researched it or thought how it was integrated with the progam. Someone just thought it was cool.

I thought it was my machine. Only seems to be on my laptop (I'm on an old desktop now.) I've been on chat with Norton all morning. It seems to have been going on since sometime yesterday. I started to post something, but I figured I'd wait for someone who know more about it that I -- which is generally most everyone.

So Scoutmasters are now prohibited from being counselors, mentors, friends and someone a boy can talk to. "Mr. Smith, I'm having some personal problems I'd really like your advice on." "Sure Tommy, but first I need to find another adult, my attorney, someone from the Department of Social Services and a stenographer." When did youth protection change to prohibit one-on-one communications between Scouts and adults? One of the big YP rules has always been when you need to speak privately with a Scout you should do so in an area out earshot of others, but still in plain view of other people. Has that changed? Or is this simply another example of BSA inability to write a rational policy? Please tell me they had an intern write this. I hate to think we paid someone for this level of work. This is all about National making things easy for them or covering their own butts. It does nothing to help units deliver a better or safer program to their Scouts. What I know about Facebook or Twitter probably wouldn't fill an old 5-inch floppy disk. So someone please tell me why it is better to have everything totally open to the public? Isn't it better to have Scout communications and information in a password-protected area? Yes, I would question one adult having a private area with one or two Scouts, it just sounds creepy, but what's wrong with a page that only troop members, youth and adult, have access? Seems to me there is a much greater risk of an unknown predator contacting a Scout through a public site than a registered adult or parent doing something inappropriate on a troop-only page. Where do you feel your children are more safe? Hanging at the mall or at a troop meeting?

Yeah, everyone in the article carefully avoids anything which would stir the pot, but let's cut to the chase and assume the Rainbow Council is making this change because the rainbow has been adopted as a symbol by a number of other organizations with which the council would prefer not to be affiliated. So? Didn't Robert E. Lee Council do the same thing? Didn't East Carolina and a number of others not change their CSPs for this reason? Sauce for the goose..... The obvious question is am I equating racism, slavery and the Confederacy with being gay or seeking civil right for homosexuals? No, I'm not. I'm equating one political point of view with another. If a council can disassociate itself from images and icons used by right-wing groups it disagrees with, can it not disassociate itself from images and icons used by left-wing groups with which it disagrees. And that the volunteer president of a small 5,000-member council makes a statement contradicting national policy doesn't really concern me. I imagine if the issue ever rises above talk there will be some "clarification" of the policy. How did this strategy work out for Cradle of Liberty?

So we had a really, really good meeting with the Scout and his dad tonight. As our committee chairman said, he's never come away from one of those sort of meetings feeling good about the situation. The young man came in prepared with a written letter describing what he had done, why it was wrong, how serious the situation could have been and then apologized for both his behavior and the grief he had caused the troop leaders. Although he had the letter, he made the apology unprompted and impressed me as being very sincere. This is normally an extremely quiet fellow, so just stepping up and delivering the apology in front of a half-dozen adults was a big step. At circle-up at the end of the troop meeting, he made a similar apology to the whole troop. In the end, he's been given the assignment to write an essay of the effects of severe burns and to turn that into a presentation he will deliver to the troop at the end of the month. I don't think I can describe to you all the sense of contrition the young man expressed, but you'll have to take my word for it. I don't think we could have expected much more. ENG61 -- I'm not trying to justify to young man's behavior now or in the future. We're just a bunch of regular folks trying to do our best to deliver a good, safe program for all the boys, this one included. I can't promise that someone won't do something boneheaded and dangerous again next month. Actually I probably can promise someone will do something boneheaded sooner or later. But I'm pretty sure this fellow won't be stepping out of line anytime soon.

Of all the nerve, Beavah! Don't you know you're supposed to take Merlyn's bait and comment on the part of the story he wants you to?

Have you asked the SM why he thinks that way? You don't specifically say, but it sounds like you're a fairly new ASM? All things being equal, I also would suggest a year or so time in position before taking WB. I think a bit of practical experience and a better understanding of the program and your role in it makes WB more valuable. Otherwise it tends to all be theoretical. Others, of course, will disagree. But their opinion, like mine and that of your SM, is worth what you pay for it. It's your decision. If your rational for taking WB now is that you have HA stuff on the books which will make good ticket fodder, I think you're looking at the ticket incorrectly. Don't let your preconceptions about the ticket drive your decision at all.

I'm sure a beneficiary would be very happy with a project if a kid's parents stroked a check and hired a contractor to complete the project turn-key. What the beneficiary wants from a project is different from what the unit is looking for. I sure hope the council understands that. Flip side, I can envision a project where the beneficiary is unhappy but the Scout satisfactorily completed the requirement.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

While what everyone has said is correct, the information you're looking for is from the Declaration of Religious Principles, which is included, in part, on the adult application: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership." Talk with the leaders of the unit you son is interested in joining. BSA provides that units affiliated with churches may require membership in their particular church or faith to be a member of the unit, although I believe most units maintain open membership policies. You may also find some individual unit leaders more accepting of you family's beliefs than other. This doesn't mean you have to get into a long theological discussion with the leaders. I think all you need to say is something like, "We're not a particularly religious family and we're not members of any organized church. We've read the DRP and while my son and husband can agree to it, I cannot. My son wants to be a Scout and my husband may like to be a leader. I of course understand I would not be a leader." Then listen to their answer.

"But back in the day before being married and responcible ...." And you want us to believe you're a responcible adult now? That's rich. Sorry 'fish, couldn't resist. And Ed, I don't disagree with you. I can't see any of my leaders taking off for a night during a week of summer camp. But maybe in a narrow circumstance where several guys had taken a summer to staff camp for six weeks, I can see going out a time or two. And I'm not advocating getting totally ripped and knee-crawlin' you're way back to the tent, either.

Yeah, 'fish, I'm holding on to that, too. We don't do Firemen Chit or Totin' Chips. Just seems like paperwork to me. Stove use and safety is something we teach all new Scouts within their first month in the troop, prior to their first campout. It's a Second Class requirement. To me, anyone who is Second Class or above, OR has that requirement completed knows better. Besides, it's not like this guy forgot the rules and needs to re-learn them -- it's an issue of judgment and applying what he has been taught. And as I tell all my Scouts, the whole program works on trust -- can I trust you to do the right thing when no adults are around? What prevents some kid from getting up at 2am and deciding to use fuel from the stove to re-light the campfire? Are we supposed to have adults take turns staying up just in case? We can never provide enough supervision to prevent every single stupid thing someone wants to try. As far as that goes, the kid is probably better off at Philmont than on a troop campout. At Philmont the crew will be 2:1 Scouts to adults and the adults will be camping with the crew. On troop campouts we're usually closer to 5-or-6:1 and we try to keep the adults in our own campsite 300 feet away. ENG61 -- I think we're giving the Philmont crew advisor a little more than a "heads up". Please give us a little more credit than that. For one, the advisor has been an ASM in the troop for six years and has known this Scout since he was a cub. In fact, HE called ME today (apparently the Coconut Telegraph was working overtime) to discuss the issue and to say he still wants the boy on the trip. As I noted before, the crew advisor has been asked to sit on the Board of Review, so he'll have an opportunity to be involved first hand. I appreciate all the input. Like many of the old-timers who have been around the program for a long tmiime, I think we generally know the right answers, but for me at least, the ability to think aloud and bounce the thought process off others if helpful. And Gary, I appreciate your comments too, as I know they were offered in good faith and with a sincere concern. My apologies for my smart-a** retort. I honestly disagree with you and my reply was going to be either two words or 5,000. After two nights on the trail, I just didn't have the energy for the longer response. But that doesn't justify being a jerk to you. Again, please accept my apologies.

Years ago, at one of my early training sessions, it was explained that while smoking is permitted just not in front of the boys, there is a total ban on alcohol consumption because alcohol use is a youth protection issue. Because alcohol tends to lower folks inhibitions, alcohol use is usually a precursor to abuse or at least an element of abuse. Not necessarily sexual abuse, but -- as it was explained to me -- say a kid does something boneheaded, like throwing Coleman fuel into a fire :-) . His dad, who may be fairly restrained otherwise, may go off on his own kid with his inhibitions lowered by a couple snorts under his belt. Personally, I'd love to finish a long day with a nice single malt in front of the fire. But just because the boys are asleep, I don't feel like I'm "off duty." I could be summoned to deal with an emergency or drive someone to the ER any time. While a few sips isn't likely to make any difference, I just don't think it's worth all the possible complications. If you can't go 36 hours on a campout without hitting the sauce, you really need to have a chat with the fellow in the mirror. Consequently, based on my understanding of the principle behind the rule, I would have a problem with these leaders grabbing a few while on an errand to town. Especially considering the earlier conversation about not drinking on the job. Come on, you really want to shave the rules that close? I get enough of that sort of crap from the 13 year olds, I don't need it from the adults. If having a drink is that important to you, stay home and drink all you like. I will note that on a long-term camping situation which Beav describes, I wouldn't have a problem with the fellows going to town for a nice meal and a drink. But if you're off for the night, you're off for the night. See you tomorrow morning.

I had a really good conversation with the boy's dad this morning. The boy told his dad he "really screwed up bad" and was pretty upset and remorseful. We can work with that. My hunch is we'll go with the essay and presentation to the troop and move on. Seems to me we're all headed for a good result. Eamonn, I hear what you're saying. His Philmont crew advisor will be on the board of review, so he'll have full access to the infomation and input into any any final decisions. Per usual, Eagledad hit it square on -- "Our scouts learned that observers were held to the same consequence as the offender." Yeah, that's the next step. There were a number of guys standing around the fire watching and I know of at least one as-of-yet unindicted co-conspirator who needs to be dealt with. I'm thinking the two patrols involved (because of the constraints of the campsites, patrols were paired up into trail crews for the weekend) may not be allowed to use stoves for the next seveal campouts. There are all sorts of great lessons there. The number one co-conspirator is going to be a bit tougher. He's a real Eddie Haskel type. He never has the guts to pull the trigger, but anytime theres' a problem, this same kid is ALWAYS standing in the wings, holding coats and enjoying whatever mischief the other guys get into. Always manages to maintain a plausible defense, but sure does enjoy other folks misery. Going to think on that one a while longer....

Horse hockey.

It's always something different. We went from white gas to propane about four years ago, mainly because the old stoves were getting leaky and difficult use and because of the danger of white gas. The first boy who got into trouble was just after the conversion and he figured out to jam the small propane canisters open with small sticks and was trying to light them on fire. He's no longer with us -- I mean he got the boot from the troop, not that he's dead .... yet. Possibly a future Darwin Award Winner. (He wasn't expelled for this alone, but after returning from a suspension it became clear he would continually violate any and all rules just to see how much he could get away with.) The last guy to get in trouble would hose-down his hand with body spray and light it on fire. This was a skill he felt important enough that he chose to teach it to a group of Webelos. This weekend we were backpacking and several of the patrols were using the Coleman Expedition stoves the troop has which use white gas fuel. (These aren't the old ones we got rid of, but backpacking stoves which are in good condition.) The stoves were fully fueled before we left, but for some reason this patrol grabbed a MSR bottle with extra fuel. I sppose the temptation of that much fuel around was just too much to pass up. The campsites were were in had established fire rings and most of the patrols passed on stoves and were simply cooking over the campfires. The two older patrol, many of whom are on the Philmont crew, are accustomed to using the backpackign stoves. I suppose that's part of my frustration -- this numbnuts dang-well knows better! And yes, you can bet your sweet bippie if we set the report and presentation as a condition prior to the Philmont, if the condition isn't met, he WIll stay home. We've done it before.