Twocubdad

TwoCubDad - The other activities are I fear the hint to the BSA Soccer leagues.. Next will be the Dodgeball & Basketball leagues.. Gee, Moose, thanks a lot. I hadn't thought of it that way. Great. Or to quote Slim Pickens (Mr. Taggart) in Blazing Saddles, "I am de-pressed."

That the Boy Scouts need to be serving the Cub Scout packs is no more fair to the older guys than it is to assume Cub Scouting is just a run-up to Boy Scouts. We have a fairly large troop, about 60 Scouts, and supply a fair number of Den Chiefs to our brother pack -- I think we have 6 currently. However the pack is HUGE with 10-12 dens on average. When you subtract the Boy Scouts serving in troop positions, the guys who are red-shirted for a sports season, school or other activity; and relatively large number of guys who simple aren't old or mature enough for the job, there's no way we can supply the numbers they want. Besides, Den Chief is a HUGE time commitment for a Scout AND his parents. He and they are basically doubling their time commitment to Scouting, if they do the job right. That's a lot to ask of anyone. So every year I end up with three or four den leaders like AKdenleader with their arms folded, lips pursed and foot taping wanting to know why I haven't sent them their den chief yet. (Just kidding AK, I'm sure you're being very patient and polite.) ON THE OTHER HAND, I do know exactly of the arrogant attitude Lisabob describes. I've seen it first hand among The Chosen Ones in our council. They are BOY SCOUT volunteers here to deliver a BOY SCOUT program. The Cubbies are more than welcome to do their own thing, just don't ask them for anything. This is clearly a local volunteer issue, at least from what I've seen. The solution would be for councils to push to have all council committees reflect the makeup of the membership, in otherwords, roughly 2:1 Cub folks to Boy Scout folks and appropriate numbers from other programs. Of course that would mean committee chairmen would have to work to recruit new blood and The Chosen Ones would have to find somewhere else to eat lunch every Thursday. Interestingly, the professional staff gets this -- or they at least understand which side of their toast is buttered. Anyone want to take a guess at the source of most new members, popcorn sales, Scout shop revenues and FOS donations? But frankly I don't see this relating to membership losses significantly. I don't think most folks are aware of the politics. After six years of fairly heavy district involvement with the Cubs, I really didn't see the difference until I moved to the Boy Scout side of the aisle.

This is what rule-making bureaucracies do. They legislate for the last percent of everything. Ten-thousand troops build great monkey bridges and have a lot of fun with them, but some jackass builds one over a 30 foot ravine and someone gets hurt, so the rest of of get the legislation. The ones that really get me are laser tag and paint ball. Those are just political dictates. I am encouraged, however, that they do seem to be loosening up some. Near here in Scoutfish and Eagle92 council they're running a test program with jet skis and at other camps ATVs. They seem to finally be embracing SCUBA, although embrace may be an overstatement. And if you read the new 5-year plan, there's language in there about looking outside the program for find new outdoor activities appealing to youth. I just hope they don't legislate things to look like the old posters you used to see of a cowboy designed by OSHA.

That shouldn't be the case. I have several boys who have been working on these over the past few weeks. When school let out for the holidays, the kids have time to work on them. Of course the counselors are headed in the other direction. I called the council registrar and she said they had received word from national that they will be able to enter these badges into Scoutnet through March 31. We've told our Scouts they are on their honor to complete the requirements by Dec. 31. If it takes a little extra time to meet with a counselor and get the blue card signed, okay. We have set Jan. 31 as the deadline for turning in blue cards and our advancement chair can have everything to the Scout office shortly thereafter. And I don't care if Bob Mazzucca has to get out his needle and thread and embroider the badges himself, every Scout who earns the badges dang-well better get one.

Is Tiger Coach still an actual position? It was in, then out. Is it back in? The way I would look at it is if the pack didn't have either a Tiger Coach or a Pack Trainer, those responsbilities fall the the Cubmaster. As Cubmaster -- the so-called Chief Program Officer -- you're the Tiger Coach, Wolf Coach, Bear Coach and Webelos Coach, right? Don't worry about it and do what you think need doing.

Before the advent of online training, one of our best-attended RTs was the annual Youth Protection training session. That was back when you had to watch Cordelia and the gang on video. Most folks thought it was a quick and easy way to complete the training. Although you were required to take it only ever other year, enought folks needed it, or were willing to sit through it that it usually bumped RT attendance that month. However I can't see how running Scoutmaster or Cub leader position-specific training makes sense. You would have to split the course into six hour- to hour-and-a-half sessions held over six months. I can't believe that's an effect training method.

I love stories with a happy ending!

No, Moose, but let me clarify. My ideal program would be for Webelos II to be a seamless, year-long transition to Boy Scouting goal that by summer camp the Webelos have become fully integrated into the troop and are ready for camp with the troop. Now, we're try to do that in the three months between crossover and camp. But that's besides the point. The real purpose isn't to better prepare the Webelos for Boy Scouts, it's to keep them engaged until we get them there. The idea of making Webelos a separate unit isn't to segregate them from the pack and troop, it's to give them and equal opportunity to participate in both. Now, it's almost all geared toward the pack. The two Webelos years needs to be a slow fade from black to white, or from blue to green, as the case may be. At the end of Webelos II the boys should be fully integrated into the troop, ready and rarin' to go. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I don't think we will make major advances on the transitional membership losses until some major structural changes are made to the overall program. This is something I've given a good bit of thought to over the years. After pretty full careers as both Cub Scout and Boy Scout leader, I've always thought that when I "retire" I'd like to go back to be a Webelos leader. Let's review: 1) There's the problem of leader burnout which has been previously discussed. This is attributable to the idea that den leaders take a den and track along with their sons for five years. How did that come about? Is it just the "death grip" bbender writes about? Back in the day, "Den Mother" was a two-year gig, Wolf and Bear. Webelos was a separate den run by a couple of dads. A linear process compared to today's batch process. Maybe that was just the way my pack ran. I'm guessing things changed when the program shifted from a birthday-based membership to a grade based membership. Maybe some of the historians can put this into better perspective. 2) I'll disagree sightly with Barry regarding the Webelos program -- while I think the program elements laid out for Webelos are generally appropriate, there needs to be more structure and direction between the Webelos I and Webelos II years. My observation of Webelos dens has been even with good, enthuasiatic leaders, Webelos I dens jump on the "good" activity pins -- Ourdoorsman, Readyman, Handyman, Engineer -- early because that's all the fun stuff. Fine. But Webelos II then becomes a throw-away "year" which is acutally just six months anyway. September thru November is spent finishing the dull Arrow of Light requirements which were put off last year. After a break for the holidays, the six weeks or so left before crossover looks like the last 10 days of school for a high school senior. 3) I've written about this before but it's worth repeating. The jump from Cubs to Scouts comes at exactly the wrong time. I've mentioned an old Sports Illustrated article before, but I found it recently clearing out some old files. It's in a special report on 10-year-old athletes in the October 6,2003, issue. It's along the lines of the old "Ages and Stages" session of the old New Leaders' Essentials course. It makes the point that around age 10 children develop the ability to somewhat objectively judge their own competence at various activities. The example from the article is an 8-year-old baseball player who never hits a pitch all year, but is still somehow convinced he'll play for the Yankees one day. By age 11 that kid understands he sucks at baseball, regardless how much sunshine his parents and coaches blow up his shorts. Consequently, at 10 or 11 kids begin making their own decisions about the activities in which they excel and enjoy. They begin to specialize and focus on fewer things that are important to them. Just as they're evaluating what they do and don't want to do, BSA lights up a huge EXIT sign we call crossover. They've reached the pinnacle of Cub Scouting, earned the highest award possible. You can continue on if you want, but you'll start at the bottom of the heap, have to new leaders, a greater time commitment and, if you listen to the sales pitch, you better really like camping. And we wonder why half of them quit. 4) Administratively, we make the transition as big of a pain-in-the-butt as humanly possible. If I've been a Scout for five years, why do I have to fill out a new application to join a troop? In our council recharter all falls in late winter and early spring (different months for different districts). In our district recharter comes in Feb. Boys typically cross over into troops in March. Do you recharter with the pack and transfer? Do you let your pack membership lapse and rejoin when you get to the troop? Aside from creating more work for the units, this mess makes it almost impossible for DEs and district membership chairmen to get any sort of real-time data on the boys who dropped between pack and troop. Unless something has changed in the past couple years, the only to get a true drop report for Webelos-to-Scouts was to take the drop report from the pack -- which included ALL the Webelos IIs as if they had all quit Scouting -- and manually compare that against the troop rosters to see where they went. Multiply this times all the packs and troops in the district. I'm encouraged, however, that one point in the new BSA strategic plan references "seamless registration" between packs and troops as a step in this direction. Hope that's a goal which is met. My King-for-a-Day solution is drastic. First, make Webelos two full years. Year one looks and feels a little more like Cubs and culminates at Webelos Resident camp. Year two looks a whole lot like the Boy Scout New Scout Patrol program and culminates at a week of Boy Scout camp with the troop. I would go back to the pre-1973 arrangement where Arrow of Light and Tenderfoot requirements were identical. In 1970, when I walked into my first troop meeting with my brand-new Arrow of Light patch, they put me through my paces then handed me a Tenderfoot pin. To facilitate this I would make Webelos an independent program like Varsity and Venturing, but with much stronger ties between the troop and pack than now. Sounds like a contradiction, but bare with me. To do that will require a new model for chartered organizations and units, more the way the UK runs its "Scout Groups." When a chartered organization takes on a Scout Group, it should adopt the whole program, soup to nuts; Tigers to Venturing. The goal is to build a seamless and progressive program where the boys have the opportunity to easily advance from one unit to the next. Besides the advantages of easing transitional loss, there are all sorts of advantages of whole Scout Groups sharing resources and leaders. How much easier would the Den Chief program be if there were a coordinated calendar between pack and troop? Cost savings in the pack utilizing troop camping equipment and expertise? Leaders with particular expertise and/or certification easily serving across the board? Draw backs? Sure. Obviously, there will have to be some opting in and out to accommodate the existing, stand-alone units. But we make that sort of accommodation in other areas of the program now. And how many Scoutmasters with small, stand-alone troops hasn't wished for a "feeder" (I prefer the term "brother") pack. I will admit moving large sections of the first year Boy Scout program to Webelos II will be seen as another shift down of the program. But we've been doing that for year. But you can also argue that better prepared and enthusiastic Webelos should allow troop to step up their game. So someone be sure to tell me when it's my turn to be king. (PS -- I'm just now reading Clem's post. His description of how his old Webelos den worked, with one foot in the Boy Scout troop, is a huge step toward what I would like to accomplish with all this.)

I tend to agree with Clem that this is largely a matter of semantics. Particularly with the new delivery method, but even before for packs using the old program helps plans, the dens generally should be doing the same things. I'll add the tapdance is often necessary due to the politics and angst which accompanies splitting dens. I've never seen that go well. Even after crossover, we catch hell when trying to create Boy Scout patrols from Webelos dens. 83Eagle -- bottom line is that if you understand how the program should be run and why, but feel the best interest of your Scouts requires some adjustment, the do what you think is necessary.

Keep in mind it been a few years since I was Cubmaster (TwoCubSons are now OneEagleSon and AProjectAwaySon)but our pack ranged between 80 and 120 cubs, depending on the time of year. My philosophy was that recognition was the number one purpose of a Pack meeting, so we ran things pretty much as P212S outlined. We even pushed belt loops of to the den meetings. Generally we only pesented "big" awards at pack meetings -- obviously rank, religious emblems, etc. We went back and forth on Webelos activity pins and arrow points. But we made a big deal out of the presentations. Sometimes we may have had 12 or 15 boys receiving the same rank, but our goal was to single out every boy at some point and highlight what he had done. Everyone had their 15 seconds of fame. One thing we did which I think was unique to our pack was a bulletin board on an easel just inside the fellowship hall door. Across the top was a banner "Tonight's Honored Scouts" and below we had each boy's rank badge mounted above his name and den number. There was always a crowd around the board to see who was getting what that night. The original idea was that during the meeting we would move the board to the front of the hall and make the presentations off the board. That resulted in a number of lost badges, especially if a boy was absent the first month. Ultimately we got enough rank badges that we had a separate set just for the display board, separate from what was presented to the Scouts. You've probably done this already, but before you go cutting into the core purposes of a pack meeting, make sure you've stripped out all the crap. Still doing announcements? (If you must, feel free to sing to your computer, but please don't post the song.) We replaced announcements with a down-and-dirty newsletter given to everyone on the way in. At most the CM would remind folks to pick up a copy of the newsletter and may call attention to a particular item. DON'T let the CM devolve to reading the newsletter. If the popcorn kernel needs to conduct business, or the day camp coordinator needs to collect applications, they should set up a table in the back of the hall. Bottom line: don't take away from the boy's time with adult business.

I think the idea is that when you push someone into a teaching position, the fear of making a fool of themselves in front of the group forces them to learn the material in order to teach it. Given the relatively high percentage of Scout-age boys who not only enjoy making fools of themselves in front of a group, but actively seek out such opportunities, I'll agree with you this is a high-risk technique. I have noticed the kids who do put the time into learning and preparing the material are the ones you want to tap as troop guides and instructors.

Not really. I've had a Kindle for a year now and have read maybe two books on it. I don't particularly see the big deal. Gizmo dujour. Frankly I prefer an honest-to-goodness book. I have copies of the Scout books I need. Don't see a reason to pay to have them on Kindle. Of course my sons tell me I'm that close to being a Ludite, so take it for what it's worth.

As J-n-KC notes, it depends on the requirement, but for thinks where retention is an issue, first aid or knot tying for example, our rule of thumb is teach and test at least a day apart. Of course "a day" is measured with the same precision as a Scoutmaster's "minuted". But it all depends. If I teach a kid a knot in the morning, I see him working on it all day, and he approaches me for a sign-off in the afternoon, I'm good with that. The thing we try to train our ASMs to avoid is having a Scout ask for a sign-off, flub the test, the ASM re-teaches the skill, then immediately retests the Scout, that's a problem. No way to know if the Scout really learned the skill or is just relying on short term memory.

Thanks for the link. I'll forward it to my guy who wants to do the climbing training. Beav, I would add that complaining about council is a time-honored Scouting tradition, one I learned at the knee of my dear old Scoutmaster. But that probably won't help my case here.

Terry, I appreciate your input and feedback. By and large, I believe we are in general agreement, the rest is a lack of clarity or information. I do understand what your points, just didn't try to make my OP an omnibus discussion of high adventure activities. I do understand the G2SS requirements for these activities. I realize when a unit uses outside facilities and staff for an activity, the unit is not required to follow all BSA procedures. An example familiar to most folks is a troop or pack using a swimming pool with it's own lifeguards. Instead of running a BSA-spec waterfront, the unit follows the rules of the facility and the instructios of the lifeguards. And I do have ASMs in my troop who have tried and are trying to get the appropriate training to take the troop on these activites. Most have the basic skills to lead the activity, but have been unable to arrange for BSA training. I have a retired Marine weapons instructor who owns his own private range, but who thus far had not been able to swing the time, money or logistics for the necessary NRA training. Similarly, I have another ASM who has tried for a year to get into the rare COPE/Climbing instructor course. So far, only one was held in a neighboring council he couldn't get into. When the one-and-only course happens to fall the weekend or your wedding anniverary, well.... You're probably 8-10 hours from us, but my guy may very well be willing to drive that distance for the course. I may PM you for details. I have the bodies, but getting them through the training is an issue. And that's a facet of my original point. If the Promise of Scouting is high adventure, perhaps part of the solution is for national to do a better job of opening these certification courses to unit-serving Scouters. I teach the Cub Scout Day Camp course of National Camping School, but even being in that loop I never get any information regarding upcoming high adventure NCS courses. Heck, Basementdweller, a long-time Scouter, wasn't aware of their existence. As far as my expectation of the council volunteers goes, I don't know that it is more or less appropriate to wish council volunteers do this than it is to wish troop volunteers would do that. Besides, that's not my point. And keep in mind the original thread from which this was spun related to the new 2011-2015 Strategic Plan; specifically a goal of BSA evaluating new outdoor activities. My point is this: 1. If BSA is going to promote "adventure" there needs to be more of a mechanism for units to deliver on that. As you point out, not every unit or even every council has the resources to do this. My point is to make available to units the trained people -- paid, volunteer or both -- to deliver this promise of adventure. I'll add to that your suggestion to make it easier for units to get their own people trained and certified. 2. We need to change the fact that most councils sit with their greatest assets padlocked for eight months of the year. While our council -- and I assume most councils -- bend over backwards to make our camps availible for general camping, all the "good" facilities -- climbing towers, shooting ranges, aquatics facilities, even craft tools -- are available only during summer camp. Why? The lack of people trained to run those facilities. Sure troops can use paid guides and outfitters. But we're going to pay for their people, facilities and equipment while BSA equipment and facilities grow moss. And by no means is that a swipe at folks like you who have the training. Volunteers are volunteers and we're all doing what we can do. But within the context of a five-year strategic plan, I would like to see national include a emphasis to help councils develop this year-round capability. Part of that could include our push to get unit leaders to NCS; part of it could be to train camp rangers, campmasters or council program staff to develop programs to match troops with the people who can help them (and I'm seeing it was probably a mistake for me to originally call this a "guide service"); or -- and I'm just spit-balling here -- maybe national could develop a program to certify guides and outfitters to work with troops. Shoot, Supply Division does that for the vendors who make patches, why can't the program folks do it for outfitters?

Yes. These positions are basically just a way to promote guys and pay them more but still retain them in the districts. It's a good thing. It keeps all the district-serving people from being raw new hires. Some of the guys who were in the business can probably give you a better job description. I know the director positions usually involve some supervisory roles and other responsibilities at the council level.

In the parent thread I suggested that councils help troops offer more high-adventure style programs by providing BSA certified instructors and/or guides at their camps on a year-round basis. Scoutrigde pointed out that problems were with cost (which I acknowledge) and the basic volunteer structure of the BSA. Maybe I'm over-emphasizing the guide service analogy, but here's my point. Ten-and-a-half months a year, BSA sits on a lot of under utilized equipment and facilities. Now, if I call our camp ranger and want to reserve the climbing wall, he's more than happy to sign me up -- the calendar is wide open. But I have to have someone from the council COPE/Climbing committee open it for me. "Okay, who?" "I forget his name, but if you call the office, they can tell you." Well, I just took a swing at a weeks-long tar baby. Several phone calls finding someone authorized to run the tower -- first guy doesn't do it anymore, second guy's certification has expired, third guy only works with his home troop, finally find a guy but it's next fall before he and the troop have a common weekend that works. Been there, done that. All I'm suggesting is that when I call to make a reservation, the ranger asks if I have someone in the troop certified to run the wall. No? Then the council has a list of folks for us: Good Ol' Bill is a volunteer and will run the program for free, but his in Florida with his kids until April, if we want to wait until then. The assistant COPE director from summer camp will do it for $100, but he's not the sharpest pencil in the box and you have to work around his college schedule. OR, for $300, we have a professional climbing instructor who brings he own gear, much better than what the camp has. He's a top-notch instructor and on Sunday takes the boys off-site to climb real rock. If I've got 20 boys for the weekend, $15pp is a great deal for a top-notch program. I'm not suggesting the council pay folks to staff camp year round. Obviously there's no money for that. But looking at a number of guide service web sites, it seems like most of these guys are getting $250 or $300 per day. Of course taking 20 boys out is different than two stock brokers, but a troop will still have its usual complement of leaders to help and besides, the whole idea is for the council to find folks willing to work with Scouts. If all this could be done with volunteers, great. But I don't have a problem spending some money to get a great program. And it doesn't even have to be that sophisticated. I think the campmaster program is not a bad model. This could be a program-side version of that. Or just a couple college kids from summer camp who will run the mountain board course if you throw them 25 bucks and feed them. But right now, if my guys want to go mountain boarding, I've got nothing for them. We always talk about the promise of Scouting and the promise of adventure. Back in the day, my buddies and I were more than happy to spend a weekend hanging around a campfire. Scouts today expect more than that. In the parent thread I mentioned my theory of the Mountain Dew Factor, by which boys expect everthing to be as exciting as a Mountain Dew ad. My troop regularly does stuff that I only experienced at Philmont or in the outdoor program at college. Many units have a hard time keeping up with that. We have a big troop and lots of adults. But even still we have a hard time finding folks with the proper certification to run shooting or climbing or with the expertise for some of these more esoteric outdoor activiites.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

First I must admit my bias against this sort of crap. This is why I don't work for a big company. It reads like a corporate horoscope -- no matter what happens they can claim it was in the strategic plan. I get the feeling this was written like the federal budget, instead of a real over-riding direction, just a hodge-podge of special interests patched together. I tried to focus on the program goals. Maybe I just don't understand corpbabble, but it doesn't seem like much new there. Maybe that means they're going to leave it alone? (From my fingertips to God's eyes!) I thought I understood this section to say they would be looking at new out-of-the-box outdoor programs (which to my mind would be stuff like the ATC and PWC pilot programs), but everytime I re-read the section, it seems more and more watered down. Here's what it says: Strategies to Achieve the Objective: Look both inside and outside Scouting to determine what programs we should offer and how we should offer them. Ensure that all programs are culturally relevant. Stay market-focused and youth-oriented in our thinking and approach when making program decisions. Specific Goals: 1. We have changed our programs to reflect the findings of a thorough program review and assessment that clearly identifies those elements that are appealing, exciting, and culturally relevant to todays youth and families. [December 2012] In my opinion, if they're serious about increasing the interest and coolness of Scouting, they need to be looking a more interesting and new outdoor activities -- again, the ATVs and PWC are great examples. But what's the next mountain board? BSA needs to be out front of all the X-Game type sports. The neighborhood Scout troop needs to be the first place boys can go to try new outdoor sports, not 20 behind the curve, worrying about all the insurance and liability issues. How many decades did it take to get a Scuba merit badge? Maybe what I'm looking for is written between the lines of this, but who can say? I also kept seeing the phrase "culturally relelvant" everywhere, especially in the program section. What the hell does that mean? Can someone with their corpbabble Interpreter's Strip explain? I agree that there does seem to be an emphasis on chasing the latest teenage tecnofad. We're going to get all ramped up on Facebook then chase whatever the next cool gizmo is. Why can't they fix ScoutNet so I can interface my unit's Troopmaster records without the help of three NASA programmers? Why can't they get the guys at Google to fix the web site so when I type "medical forms" into the search box it sends me to a dadgummed copy of the medical forms? Before they start chasing all the latest gizmos, how about bring the existing stuff up to the level of, say, Windows 3? I'd like to see a study on how Scout-aged boys really use technology. Except for the oldest guys, high school juniors and seniors, I don't see the kids really into the stuff BSA seems to think they are. At 11 and 12, there are still an awful lot of parents who don't allow their boys to have access to all this stuff. Sure, everyone has some hunk of silicon and lithium in their pocket, but besides listening to music, texting or playing a game, I don't really see a lot of use for information/resource apps and such. The only people I know who have stuff like the handbook downloaded or use the skychart app are adults. Did anyone else catch the line that we're going to increase membership by a half-million, from 2.8 to 3.3 million? Don't look now but someone's been in the Christmas brandy a little early! I think that's what you corporate types call a stretch-goal. ---------- Edited part, tying in to what some of you have posted while I've been reading and writing -- I think expectations for the outdoor program have changed over the years. It's what I call the Mountain Dew factor. When I was a kid, we were happy as clams to stop at the corner grocery and grab some stuff, then hike off the end of my street which dead-ended into hundreds of acres of woods. Now, kids think outdoor adventure is what they see in the Mountain Dew ads -- mountain boarding off the side of El Capitan, BASE jumping off the New River Bridge. The boys in my troop routinely do stuff I ONLY got to do at Philmont. First and second year Scouts in my troop do stuff I only did as a very senior Scout or even as part of a college outdoor group. Troops have a hard time delivering this. We're a good-sized troop and we just don't have people trained to lead these high-end activities. Everytime we want to go shooting, arranging for a BSA/NRA approved instructor is a pain and/or expensive. Ditto climbing and rappelling. My priority would be for councils -- and really regions -- to start looking at their council facilities beyond summer camp. Our camps have great facilities which generally go unused 45 or more weekends a year. My king-for-a-day decree would be for councils to staff their camp facilities on weekends year-round. And look for ways to run through the winter. Why doesn't BSA have a "summer" camp with a ski slope? Obviously, money is a big factor. I'm not that stupid. But why doesn't BSA look at it's camp facilities the way an outfitter would. REI will sell me a kayak AND hook me up with an instructor/guide who will teach me to use it and take me on a whitewater trip. I can go in the ORVIS shop down the street, buy all the fly fishing gear I want and hire guide service for this weekend. Why can't a council camp offer BSA-trained instructors -- for a fee -- along with their facilities?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

As Scoutmaster, one of my major goals every year is to stay out of rechartering, but what you describe is the way it's been here for years. I seem to recall a yellow sheet in the recharter packet with big type reminding everyone to add $1 per Scout to the total.

I agree that getting the Scout perspective of the troop and program needs to be an element of a BOR. I try to make it an element of all my Scoutmaster conferences. We need to listen to what the boys are telling us. Why it seems to get so much emphasis? I think it's a bit of hyperbole trying to check the flood pass/fail, retest oriented boards. I've used it myself trying to re-educate some of the inquisition-minded board members we've had. The pendulum swings back and forth.

John, dude, it's okay, really. I feel your pain. But here. Sit down, drink this. You'll feel a lot better in a minute. You have one to, Beav. On the house. Yeah, you guys are on track with the problem. But here's my frustration. It tends to be THE SCOUTS who drive this. I think there's two things at work. One, yes it turns merit badges into another homework assignment, but that puts it squarely in the middle of the boys' comfort zones. Just add camping merit badge to the stack and I'll do it right after I finish the essay on the Peloponnesian Wars. Many boys, particularly by high school age, can knock stuff like this out in no time. Secondly, when you plug that into the equation, sitting down with an unfamiliar adult becomes the greater burden and outside the Scout's comfort zone. They would rather sit silently while you "grade" their paper than engage in a conversation. Unfortunately, a number of counselors look at all the paper work and take the attitude that writing out all the "explain" and "discuss" requirements is a lot more work, so they accept it -- in any other situation that's not an unreasonable assumption. But I cringe when I walk past the conference room and see a Scout staring at his shoes on one side of the table while the counselor reads the paperwork. I think I'll have one of those drinks too.

Face it, she's just not that into you. Seriously, it would be great if you or a combination of den parents could make it happen for this kid, but ultimately you can't set other peoples' priorities. Sounds to me that your doing about all you can for the boy.

No more calls please, we have a winner.

A couple thoughts: First, as everyone has said, there is no rule or policy related to BoR/SMC scheduling one way or the other. But there may be practical implications. In the troop I serve, following a SMC, Scouts are required to contact the troop advancement chairman and request a BoR. Officially we hold boards every two weeks, but more practically they are scheduled for the troop meeting after a Scout requests one. We believe this is another learning opportunity for a Scout. Making a phone call or email (or usually just approaching the lady at the end of the meeting), scheduling and keeping an appointment, and for some kids simply approaching an adult and making a request is a stretch for them. Separating the SMC and BoR also gives the BoR more of an air of formality, which we believe is also good. The Scouts need to prepare for the board and review any material I've suggested at the SMC. They need to be in full dress uniform. Just as you will prepare differently for a meeting with the CEO and Board of Directors than you would a daily meeting with your direct supervisor, we want to the boys to experience a more dynamic program. Scouting should have formal occasions and informal, fun times and hard work, serious stuff and frivolous stuff -- you know, like the rest of life. Boards of Review are usually the only formal occasion individual Scouts experience. On the other hand, we don't have a hard-and-fast rule about it. (Frankly, we don't have hard-and-fast rules about much of anything. We intentionally leave the folks on the ground a lot of lattitude to do what they feel is best.) If there is a compelling reason, like during summer camp, we'll convene a Board of Review immediately following a SMC if we have the adults and it's convenient for everyone. Generally we've only done this for the early ranks. Usually, behind the scenes, the adults will have an idea of who will be eligible for advancement and give a heads-up to the advancement folks before camp. That's more of a courtesy to the advancement committee than anything which involves the Scout. The second point I would make is that since your Scoutmaster is the chief program officer and the person ultimately responsible for the advancement program, I'd give him a little lattitude on this. If there is a concern, ask. He may have a very good reason for running the program the way he does. Going into the situation in full Scout Lawyer mode and demanding he provide written authority will likely be unproductive. But even if the Scoutmaster doesn't have a good reason for the delay, what's the rush? Who's arm will it break if a Scout completes an advancement 24 hours later? I'd be curious to know why and by whom this is being questioned. I smell a pushy parent in the bushes.