Twocubdad

So the answer is, "absolutely, unquestionably and without doubt, it depends."

Unfortunately this is the state of modern TV journalism -- crafting a compelling tale is more important than the facts, much less, fairness or balance. I agree the three BSA folks were remarkably ill prepared.(although I'll cut them some slack and assume all their good answer were omitted.) This is another example of BSA being back on its heels on defensive instead of being out front, telling its story. They had such a great opportunity to hit a homerun: Yes, BSA learned from its mistakes at the 2005 Jamboree and instituted major changes to its health & safety program at the 2010 jambo, including comprehensive planning for heat emergencies; we have comprehensive and progressive training for leaders at all levels for most major Scout activities -- swimming, boating, climbing, hiking, even a specific course on weather hazards; and twenty years ago BSA was out front among youth organizations in the area of child abuse prevention by training its to recognize abuse and developing systems and procedures to avoid it. Still, accidents happen and on very rare and tragic occasions, fatal accidents happen. But the most dangerous part of a Scout outing is the drive to and from the event. Which, by the way, BSA has training and procedures in place to minimize automobile accidents. We as an organization should be proud of our safety record. In 10 years of Scouting with hundreds of boys I've seen a fraction of the injuries during Scout activities than the 30 boys on my son's football team experienced in just four months this fall. Although I question his information, the parents' lawyer in the Nightline piece cited "a half-dozen deaths going back to the 1990s". Really? Six fatalities in 20 years out of millions and millions of Scouts? That's remarkably low. If correct, scouts are statstically more likely to die in their sleep that at a Scout activity. Wow. On the other side, I will add to something Moose mentioned -- BSA does need a better procedure for dealing with such tragedies on a personal level. In no way do I fault the Scoutmaster who apparently called the family the following afternoon. That had to be incredibly difficult and showed great character. However, councils or maybe even regions need to have trained teams to deal with such situations. At minimum, the local Scout Executive, someone trained to deal with grief and possibly the minister from the CO should have made contact with the family, offered any resources they had available and followed through with the family over the coming weeks. Most importantly, it's the right thing to do. But it is also a smart thing to do. When families have a personal connection with an organization and feel the organization cares, they are much less likely to point fingers. Clearly, the Scouting community does care and feels this family's loss but there needs to be methods in place so the family understands that and doesn't feel abandonded by the scouts.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

When a Scout turns 18 in the middle of the charter year and registers as an adult, is that considered a transfer or a new application? Cutting to the chase, do you pay $1 or $15?

This is pretty clearly one of those local option things. No one from council or national is going to tell a unit they can't have unit by-laws, unless it's something in the bylaws which contradicts BSA policy. If your unit leaders feel the BSA's silence regarding bylaws means they are prohibited or unnecessary, don't have them. If your leadership believes the silence equals the BSA aquiescence toward bylaws, and believe they are needed, start writing. Different strokes..... And B-P, you've totally misconstrued my advice to 83Eagle in the other thread. I'm not suggesting he ignore his CO, his CC/COR/CO is ignoring him. He's tried to engage the lady and she's gone ROAD on him. My advice is to take the path of least resistance and play the hand he's been dealt. If the CC/COR/CO decides to re-engage, then he needs to work with her, which is what 83Eagle was trying to do in the first place.

You may be right, Beav, and if so it then become incumbent upon the COR and IH to clearly communicate those values to the pack, not for the pack leaders to devine the CO's intent. The baseline assumption with most scout leaders is the unit will pay it's own way through some combination of dues and fundraising. Certainly, there are folks out there, God bless 'em, who take on the added responsibility of operating units in under-priviledged areas. If you're signing up to go out and shake trees to raise money for the pack, you sure better know that going in. From saschuster's description (and that's the only info we have to go on) sounds to me like the COR is just one of those big magnanimous guys who's uncomfortable asking folks for money. But if the CO really has an expectation that the unit run like a church (everyone chips in what they can and the leadership figures out how to make ends meet), the COR and IH have an affirmative obligation to explain that to the pack leadership. It doesn't sound as though that communication has taken place.

Definitely wait until all the legal stuff shakes out. A lot is going to depend on the Scout and his parents and their attitude toward the whole thing. Hopefully they are contrite and willing to work with the troop. In an ideal situation I would suggest the Scout lay back for a while, keep his nose clean and take the time to show everyone he made a one-time mistake and has learned from it. Whoever you spoke to a your council is chicken poop. If someone needs to call national, THEY need to make the call. Talk with your district or council advancement chairman, assuming that's not the same bozo you already spoke with. Ask them, hypothetically, if the troop delayed or denied the Scout Eagle based on a DUI and then appealed, how would the council handle it? What's their view of how national would rule on such an appeal. Personally, I don't think a DUI at 16 is an Eagle game-stopper. My hunch is that the council and especially national would not support a denial. If that's the bottom line, then the troop's position needs to be how to make the most of the situation with the Scout.

In my book, dealing with an actual situation trumps precautions for a hypthetical one. If a scouts is seriously ill enough to warrant a trip to the hospital, getting him help trumps the compliance with a policy. Of course everything depends on the exact circumstances. Above, I'm assuming this is somewhat of an emergency situation. If the kid is just sick and we're taking him home, that's different. We maintain two-deep and his parents' come pick him up. Depending on the circumstance back in camp, it may be prudent to load everyone up and all go the the hospital. It all depends on the specifics, but I'm going to do do what's in the best interest of the Scouts.

Yeah, B-P, that's the correct, by-the-book answer, but the world is full of hand-off Chartered Organizations, name-only Chartered Organization Reps and uninvolved Committee Chairmen. This is just how units often have to operate. I have never had my COR or IH question -- or hardly look at -- any adult application I've ever submitted to either of them. Even the few times we've registered new chairmen or unit leaders, I always go in armed with a presentation on why the person is right for the job. Invariably, my COR will hold up his hand and say, "you're running the show. If you're okay with him, he's okay with me," or something similar. Yes, 83, it's a two-edged sword. Your situation can be a lot of extra work, but also an opportunity. Look at the number of posters here complaining about their COR picking through their lunch box.

I have to say that if my CO had recently bailed out the pack's finances, I would expect to have my COR knee-deep in the pack finances for awhile. I know you're working hard to make sure you don't need another bail out, but so is the COR. Yes, you're paying for the sins of your fathers, but for a while you should expect and be as accommodating as possible to the COR's hyper-interest in pack finances. You need to be in heavy-duty bridge building mode. Does the pack have a formal budget? If not, you need one and you should sit down witht he COR and ask for and take his advice. Make sure the budget you give hime says DRAFT in big letters across the top so he knows he's not being asked for a rubber stamp. Include with the budget what you're doing with the Webelos IIs and how that translates into the budget. Get the COR and everyone else on board so you don't have the same problem next year. As to the issue with the Webelos, as noted, much depends on your particular recharter date. Do your boys all typically cross over into one troop? If so, I'd put in a call to the troop committee chairman and see how you can best cordinate with the troop. Again, depends on recharter dates. And of course, if the troop is with the same CO, get the COR involved to coordinate. But I have to say, as a parent, I would have a problem with paying $100 for only a short time remaining in the pack. Like Eagle732, we had a pro-rated dues schedule. I think both the WIIs and the Tigers got a break as neither earned as much bling as the other years. That said, I don't have a problem with the pack paying for the WIIs' extras out of the general fund. As long as you're consistent from year-to-year everyone will get their turn at the table. But that really goes back to budget. Many units' budgets are built on an ala carte basis. If you're doing that, then the WIIs' pro rated, fair-share dues need to reflect their expenses, but not necessarily so if you're building a unified, across-the-board budget. It comes down to philosophy, and you all need to agree on one.

I agree with Barry. Essentially you just redraw the organizational chart with the Committee Chairman as a figure head and everything else led by you, the Cub Master. Create Asst. Cub Master positions to run everything -- ACM finance, ACM membership, ACM administration. There are a lot of units which run this way, but keep the traditional org chart and titles. They're the units with the strong CM or Scout Master who is obviously in charge and directs the other adults top down. Our troop ran this way for awhile when we were transitioning to a new CC and trying to build the committee. But I will caution you that you need a designated Number 2 guy. Maybe he/she is ACM program or First Assistant CM. First, you need a clear line of succession. Second, you need a go-to guy to handle problems you can't. There will always be a parent or a kid that just gets under your skin and you need some else to step in. Most importantly, you need a partner -- a second set of eyes on the pack. While you're running the pack meeting, your #2 needs to be working the parents in the back of the room. You need someone who sees the things you don't and catches things you miss. You know, all the stuff a good CC should be doing. THEN, when the time is right, you mention to your current CC that if he has ever thought about stepping down as CC and only being COR, then Bob over there would make a great CC. You may be surprised at the answer.

Does your district have specifications for sleds? The Seely sled you posted would not be allowed here.

It ain't your party. If you aren't invited, that's the end of it. This whole situation is toxic. Stay as far away as you can. If the Webelos parents want to take on the pack, it's their fight to persue. Focus on your job. Register the boys and plan a really nice Scout-led welcoming ceremony for them, preferably on a campout far away from all the drama.

Great discussion. Beyond bylaws, this goes directly to the heart of what it means to be boy-led. I disagree with the point of view that the boys can change the bylaws if they like because "it's their troop." No, it's not. The troop belongs to the Chartered Organization. Everyone else is an invited guest. But more to my point, every unit has different constituencies which have varying levels of influence over how the troop operates -- certainly the Scouts are the main one, but also the adult leaders, committee, parents, COR and Institutional Head, the members of the CO (any troop registered to a church crosses the Women of the Church at its own peril), of course BSA through its various policies and program elements has a tremendous influence on how a troop operates. Even outside groups with no real input should be considered like donors, the pack that feeds the troop, even the community at large. That, all by itself, is a pretty good lesson for the boys. Just because the PLC may change the bylaws doesn't mean they should. Boys need to learn to see beyond their own navels and consider the big picture. It is a well established fact that the part of the brain which allows us to predict consequences doesn't finish grown until about age 20. We need to help them see around corners and understand they don't operate in a vacuum. A simple understanding of power is also a good lesson. "Because the Board of Deacons will throw us out on our collective kiesters," is a pretty good basis for a decision. There are absolutely things the PLC should have primary if not total control over. Say they want to change the troop's standing lights-out time from 10pm to 11:30. Great. Tell me how that will work. But here's a different example: after Troop Leadership Training, we have a movie night lock-in. The rule is movies must be PG-13 or better. The PLC decides wants to change the rule to allow R movies. Most of the boys in the training are 15 or up and everyone's parents allow them to see R movies anyway. There's no BSA policy and no direction from the CO. Purely a troop rule, no doubt handed down by adults at some time in the past. Most teenagers will look at the same way as trying to convince their parents to let them do something. They're not going to consider what happens when the church minister wanders by during exactly the wrong movie scene, or when the parents of the younger Scouts or Cub Scouts hear rumors the troop lets the boys watch "dirty" movies. This isn't a "controlled failure" situation. This is a "interact with an adult of good character" situation. Mainly because the consequences of their decisions won't fall to them. They won't get hauled before the church Session or the Scout Executive. They probably won't see the decline in troop membership when the Cub families start looking elsewhere. In this case the SM needs to share his experience, wisdom and point of view. He should explain the big picture; that as a Scout troop we have higher standards and expectations; and besides if their parents are okay with them watching R-rated movies, they can do that any other time they like, just not with the troop. Back to JMHawkin's OP, how to respond to the PLC which more generally wants to have input into the bylaws: short answer, "It depends on what you want to change." Longer answer: "No one person or group gets to change the bylaws -- not the SM, not the PLC, not the committee. We are all responsible to each other. But let's talk. What do you want to change?"

A project may be completed using all non-scout help. There's no requirement to work with other Scouts. The candidate could recruit workers from school, church, his neighborhood, anywhere. It's still leadership, regardless of who is being led. Am I correct in understanding that the project was completed in one day with just three people? My greater concern would be with the overall scope of the project. It's hard to judge without details, but I would be very skeptical of a project which could be completed in that little time. It doesn't seem like much of an opportunity to demonstrate leadership. But I dont' think we would be doing you any favors if we don't mention that evaluating another Scout's Eagle project isn't usually part of a SPL's responsibilities, unless the Scoutmaster has specifically asked for your input. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but tread lightly. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Do you mean one Scout and 12 friends from school, or one person total? What was in the original, approved proposal? If the proposal was approved with only one person helping? What were the circumstances which led to there only being one other person working on the project? Did the candidate try to recruit others? What did they do to try to recruit more. At best, the candidate would need a really good explaination of how he demonstrated leadership. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

No, Dan, you have it backwards. Based on results, most folks either don't care or are comfortable with how the charter is being interpreted. Only after you fall through the looking-glass of this thread is the charter not being followed. The federal courts are available to those who disagree with the intrepretation, use and/or enforcement of a statute. That's an option to anyone who feels BSA is ignoring it's federal charter. Seattle has asked a couple times but no one has been able to cite a case where anyone has taken that position. Unfortunately, the energy expended in attacking Kudu's views has caused this discussion to escape Earth's gravity. That's got to be the most ironic thing I've every read. The energy WE are expending? And while I hear what you're saying, I don't think this thread is going to lead to the downfall of the forums. Scouter Terry has been pretty smart in structuring the forums in a couple ways. First, he allows folks to blow off steam through the Issues and Politics forum. You'll never find anything like that on a BSA site. Secondly, he has made it very easy to ignore threads and even individual you don't care to read. And we've survived much more zealous posters in the past. Heck, there used to be a guy who had two screen names and would argue with himself? He was eventually banned -- several times, as a matter of fact.

That the Charter is valid and legally enforcable -- not just an honorific bestowed by Congress -- because the Wrenn case found the trademark protections of the charter valid, is true enough. But it is not valid to then claim that every clause of the Purpose section is legally enforceable. To make that claim begs the question that if BSA's program has been in violation of the charter for decades, why didn't Wrenn argue that? Wrenn wasn't simply a trademark case, Wrenn was challenging the BSA monopoly on Scouting generally, and trying to establish his YouthScout program. Suing on trademark ground's was BSA's strategy. If Wrenn could have broken the monopoly on program grounds -- or any other grounds -- don't you think he would? Did he just have dumb lawyers, or maybe there was no case there? And with the millions spent by all sorts of organizations suing BSA for dang-near anything they think can stick, why hasn't someone tried suing to void the charter based on non-compliance? More dumb lawyers? Clearly, because there's no beef here. Bringing suit against BSA based on the "purpose" of the congresional charter would be like suing someone based on the Preamble to the Constitution. You better be able to cite something more than "pursuit of happiness". Suing over what may or may not have been common to Scouting in 1916 isn't going anywhere. Actually, based just on the requirements posted here, BSA could make a pretty good argument that they DO use those methods. A reasonable person could compare the requirements and decide that BSA reasonably follows the original program, now 100 years later. First Aid? Check. Camping? Check. Emergency preparedness? Check. BSA's congressional charter is simply a glorified set of incorporation papers. Historically, most organizations with congressional charters were simply the means of incorporation for companies residing in the District of Columbia. At some point Congress gave DC the power to create corporations itself. By 1992, it quit issuing charters completely. And no one puts much stock in the "purpose" section of corporate papers -- I believe the technical term is boilerplate, From a legal standpoint, BSA's purpose is especially anachronistic. The law is full of stuff that simply gets ignored. I once owned a house with restrictions in the deed which prohibited a Jew from ever owning the house and which mandated that negros should enter the house through the back door via the alleyway. Ignored. This may be an in interesting academic debate for a cold winter night, but it's clear that from it's early history BSA has NEVER felt locked in to particular program elements by the charter. Debate the merits of the program one way or the other, but pretty clearly the purpose statement in the charter carries no weight.

The first thing is to sit down with the young man and his parents and make sure he understands the program and what is involved. The have two options -- one is to kick back, makes some new friends in the den, work on a few activity pin, have some fun and get ready to move up into Boy Scouts in February. Option two is to develop a plan and schedule to try and complete his AOL in six month. It's tough, but I've seen it done (once). It took a good deal of organization (the kid and his folks put together a notebook to help manage working on multiple activity pins) and commitment on the part of the boy and his den leader. Either way, you really need to have the DL on board. If the kid wants to earn the AOL, the DL's going to put in a lot of time working with the boy. On the other hand, if the boy goes with the first option, the DL needs to make sure the boy is engage, having fun and doesn't feel left out when the den is working on AOL stuff.

At a UofS session once I did D.O. cooking on a piece of corrigated steel on a few concrete blocks. I put sand on the steel just to even out the corrigations and help hold the heat. One warning, sand stays hot a LONG time.

Search some of the old threads. Sometime in the past year, maybe back in the summer, there was a thread where all the guys who use these thing went through all the technical stuff, the gear they use, model numbers, etc. It's doable. Not for backpacking, but summer camp for sure. These things were all over jamboree this summer.

I'm with resqman. The best thing about neckers is they give you a place to put all the cool slides you make. Even as Cubs, my den made at least one slide every year. One year I found small wooden Christmas tree blanks at Ben Franklin or Michael's which the boys painted and decorated. (I still wear mine around the holidays.) Another year I make generic race car blanks and had every boy create a slide to match the look of his PWD. My guys came home from World Jamboree a couple years ago with a whole new appreciation for neckers. As resqman says, the neckerchief is the one ubiquitous piece of Scouting uniform world wide. You would see kids from other countries in cut-off jeans, an ABBA t-shirt but wearing their national contengient neckerchief. Pretty cool.

So now I'm confused, Kudu. Are you advocating for teaching Scoutcraft skill in common use in 1916, per the Congressional charter, or the Scoutcraft skills you think should have been in common use in 1916 had the BSA adopted BPs program wholesale?

I think we're in violent agreement, desertrat. I'm not suggesting we turn the program into a home economics/life skills class, but neither should be we be 1910 Scouting reinactors or even a modern-day camping club. If all we're about is outdoor adventure, then, as you say, there are plenty of other groups offering that, too. But when we start talking about those things in which we want the boys to be truely proficient and to carry with them for a lifetime, it gives me pause to consider the big picture. I'm not sure knot tying is going to make my A list. Don't get me wrong, there are scoutcraft skills in which I want my Scouts to be proficient -- certainly first aid, cooking, the ability to read a map. But I really see no reason to spend a lot of time retesting lashing, or particularly to resurrect retired skills from the past. While those may be fun -- my guys love building fires with flint and steel -- let's leave them in the category of fun things, not core skills to be retested again and again.

As Gunny Highway (Clint Eastwood) said, "You can beat me and you can starve me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me." First of all I'm not a fan of Roundtables, so be forewarned. It is amazing to me how unproductive most RTs I've been to have been. If I can get 90% of the benefit of attending RT from an email or two or a half-decent web site, why do I want to waste two or three hours of my life and miss dinner with my family to eat stale cookies and sing Happy Birthday to people I don't know? The first thing a good RTC should do is find out what the leaders in his or her district want. That means getting out, going to unit committee meetings (NOT troop or pack meetings) and talking to people. My hunch is most direct contact leaders want practical ideas for what to do with their Scouts -- things like crafts and activitys for Cubs. Boy Scout leaders are always looking for fun new places to go camping or things like how to arrange for a shooting trip at the camp range. I've always though a real, actual Roundtable discuss amongst the leaders would be beneficial -- folks exchanging ideas, sharing experience, talking about what does and doesn't work. But apparently this is the Third Rail for RTCs. You can't trust Scouters to have meaningful discussions because they will always devolve into b**** sessions. I've always thought if all the Scouters in a district had a lot of complaints, it may be a good idea to hear what they are, but that's just me. Amazingly, I've always thought the actual idea of supplemental training was valid. You can do How To sessions on just about anything -- Religious Emblems, Scouts' Own Services, Hornaday Awards, Eagle project write ups, conducting Troop Leader Training. Bring in outside agencies to talk about the resources they have which units may take advantage of -- Red Cross, state wildlife officers, NRA, sports clubs (like biking, climbing orienteering, etc.). But I would put together a list of possible topics at the beginning of the year and ask folks to vote for what they want to hear so you don't risk under-shooting your audience. No sense in having the OA Lodge Chief do an intro-level discussion on the OA if most of your unit leaders are Vigil members. Work far enough in the future that leaders have time to implement what they learn at RT. If you're doing a session Blue and Gold Banquets this month, you're four months late. A CM needed to learn new B&G ideas in Sept. or Oct. to be able to filter that to a new B&G chairman. B&G plans ought to have been made by now. Now (January) you should be talking about ideas for a spring pack campouts or even ideas for summertime pack activities. This is just personal, but cut out the baloney. Don't sing the "Announcement Song" everytime makes one. Past age 12, no one really care about birthdays, so drop that, too. This is an adult meeting, so treat me like an adult. Beyond all this, I would challenge RTC to look at their jobs beyond the monthly RT meeting. If communications and common business is a big part of a RT, perhaps the RTCs need to be the ones to manage the flow of information for the district, maintaining the web site and managing email communications with the units. Maybe one RTC has the responsibility of capturing everything from the live RT meeting and posting it to the web. Something to think about.

Stosh, maybe you should start hanging around with healthier people! And I'm sure you will admit that your hobbies make you much, much more likely to encounter a runaway horse than most folks. desertrat wrote: "While I wouldn't recommend retesting the "homework MBs" (the citizenship series, etc.), there is benefit in remembering scoutcraft skills, in terms of credibility and reinforcing their value." While I wouldn't recommend retesting AT ALL, desertrat's comment made me step back, scratch my head and ask, "Really?" Twenty years from now we would prefer our former Scout to remember lashings over the lessons of Personal Management? The issue missing from this discussion is relevancy. Sure, when the war comes, knowing Morse code may come in handy. And a runaway horse may gallop through my front yard any minute now. The odds of either of those events occuring are probably approaching PowerBall range. But the past couple years has shown that understanding the financial markets is a rather relevant skill. I'm sure we can fill up 10 pages here with stories using long-rememberd scout skills. Some of our Scouts will grow up to be "Axe Men" or Army Rangers or even Civil War reinactors and will use scoutcraft skills on a regular basis. Or they may develop a love of the outdoors and make camping and backpacking a life-long hobby. And we all get warm fuzzies at the idea of an Eagle Scout stepping forward during some natural disaster and using his scout skills to save the day. But creating a network of survivalist sleeper cells isn't our mission. Most will be businessmen or lawyers or engineers and may or may not have a call for these skills again. It may be part of the depised corporate scouting, but I'm much more concerned with my Scouts becoming men of character, good citizens and good leaders. Those are the skills I want to reinforce with my boys.