Twocubdad

Time out. If I'm reading correctly, Moose, your son is responsible for completing tour permits for the troop and is being asked to falsely include himself and your husband's info even if they aren't going on the trip? That's a whole different deal. Whether or not, if and how the tour permits affect insurance coverage is immaterial. Clearly, filing false permits isn't a good thing. I'd rather go to court without a tour permit that with a deceptive one. If your son is the one completing the paperwork, he needs to simply quit doing it. If someone else is doing the forms, your son and husband should politely ask them to please not include them on the permit if they aren't attending and responsible. If it continues, go to the COR, since he's such a stickler for details. If it still continues, bring it to the attentiion of the Scout Executive, who countersigns the permits (here, at least, the SE's signature is rubberstamped on the tour permits.) But all three of you already knew that.

Yeah, Roger what Beavah says about following the syllabus. And if some specifically asks the questions, answer honestly: "I've personally tried to research that question and have not been able to find a definitive answer in any of the BSA literature. But since you are going to file a tour permit for every activity, it's a moot point." As for your son trying to make the point with the troop, it doesn't really matter. If your COR has said the troop will fill permits for all activities, that the end of the story. He gets to make that call for the unit, right, wrong or indifferent.

"A tour permit that has been filed with and approved by the local Scout Council prior to the activity registers the activity as an official Scouting activity. BSA's insurance coverage only applies to official Scouting activities." Which proves BSA can write policies with great precision when it is in its interest to do so. The way this is written encourages you to add 2 + 2, but the statment never says it equals four. Read it carefully. If the assumption were true, don't you think they would conclude the statement with, "Activities not registered by an approved tour permit will not be covered." The truth is, having the tour permit is for your benefit. It is your evidence the activity is an "official scouting activity." Example: Your PLC decides to plan a father-son hunting trip. Hopefully, all the cross-checks of the permitting process will point out the policy violations in this and stop it before it happens. But let's say a tour permit is filed and approved by council. (Here, the scout shop clerk used to approve permits and NEVER read them. Once I joked that I could submit a permit listing Hell as the distination and she would rubber stamp it. She thought about it for a second and agreed.) So we have eight scouts and eight dads in the woods, wearing cammo hunting gear. Something happens and someone sues. Da Beav will explain that there are all sorts of procedural and evidential hurdles to get this through court or even to get the insurance to pay up. But by having a tour permit, the one issue you have solved is that this trip was an official troop activity, registered with council. Without the tour permit, the lawyers and claims adjusters will argue this was just a bunch of guys out hunting who all coincidentally are members of the same scout troop and are trying to reach in BSA's deep pockets to pay for their stupidity. The tour permit answers that. Because the myth connecting tour permits and insurance coverage works in BSA's favor, I think they let it roll, if not out-right encourage it. If the false threat of losing insurance coverage is what it takes to get units to file permits, then it's a good thing, right? The converse applies too. My soon-to-be-former outings chairman is somewhat of a flake and only pays attention to activities his son attends. A couple months ago we were loading up for a campout and I realized the outings guy wasn't there and we didn't have a permit for the weekend. What should I have done? Cancelled the activity and sent everyone home? Maybe I could have emailed or called the council office and left a voice mail stating for the record that we were going on a troop outing. But I really didn't worry about it because there was clear evidence that this was an official troop activity -- the troop had all sorts of planning documents, agenda, sign-up sheets, PLC minutes relating to the activity; we were all in in uniform(not a requirement, but another point in our favor); we left from and returned to our scout hut; we were going to the council scout reservation for the weekend. Clearly, this was an official scout activity, tour permit or not. Yeah, without the tour permit I'm going to pay Frank or Beavah or one of their bretheren for a few more hour to make the point, but given the remote possibilities of that outcome, it was no big deal.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Also www.santeeswapper.com This guy runs somewhat of a clearing house for Scout stuff on ebay. He has a e-letter which highlights the good stuff on eBay, and of course his own. Check his web site, but you may be able to contact him directly and he can put you in touch with someone who has the versions you're looking for.

No. One ACM is a good idea as it provides an obvious line of succession and pack meetings go much more smoothly if you have a couple people breaking things up instead of the CM doing it all. It seems to me if you have more than one ACM, the third one is probably filling what is really a committee function. But it's really just a matter of semantics. It's rational to me to have the outings or camping committee chairman named as an ACM since so much of outings is program anyway, titles don't really matter. Reel 'em in, get 'em trained and on the job. As Grandpa always said, I don't care what you call me, just call me for dinner.

They're selling DIRT and you guys wonder if it's a rip off?

It's possible to recharter provisionally with less than five Scouts with the permission of the Scout Executive. Let your DE know what's up. I guarantee the council will do whatever they can to keep the charter from lapsing. Don't let that preclude you from doing what you think is right.

Forget the money, it's the least of your problems. If the price of solving all the other problems is $100, I'd pay it myself. As to the rest, what is your direction from your COR? Are you being hired to clean up the mess or just put up with it? I wouldn't take the job with out a clear direction -- I'd even commit it to writing -- from the COR, the SM and remaining committee members. Forget the probation nonsense. The CO can decline to recharter anyone for good cause, bad cause or no cause. And you can expect them to raise holy hell, pull their boys from the troop, bad-mouth you all over the council, etc., etc. But here's the deal: you know this going in. Don't take the job if you're not ready for a fire fight.

With the proper number of boys, 8, it's not too much of a burden to meet at the DL's home, or possibly rotating among the home's of willing parents. My old den always met in my den mother's unfinished basement.

TN makes a pretty good point: there's no pass/fail test at the end of the course. Sounds like they're trying to hold the test out folks to a much higher standard than those who take the course. Don't let the council folks derail you by raising the expectations beyond what is reasonable. The Patrol Method issue is a red herring. Sitting in the woods with six strangers for one weekend doesn't teach the patrol method. In that time you can teach folks some specifics -- like the 300' rule, the PLs job and how adults should and shouldn't interact with patrols -- all of which can be tested. But hanging out for one weekend doesn't add much to that process. I think the challenge is in developing a reasonable scoring system for the test which allows participants to demonstrate reasonable skill proficiency and factors that different folks will have different levels of expertise in different areas. Honestly, I think the test and scoring should be developed nationally, the same way the course syllibi are.

I don't know anyone else can answer that for your unit. I think the question is more philosophical than financial. It's sort of like defining tailgating. It depends on how fast you want to go, how good your reflexes are and what level of risk you're willing to accept. When I was Cubmaster we averaged about 100 boys, had a huge budget and sold $25-30,000 in popcorn every year. I always worried we were one disorganized Popcorn Colonel away from being broke. Consequently, I felt like an ongoing balance of $3-5,000 was a good cushion and would give the pack time to figure things out if we had a weak popcorn season. On the other hand, a lot of packs feel the money earned by this year's Scouts should be spent on this years Scouts and will spend the budget down to zero every year. I don't have the nerves or financial acumen for that. That approach requires folks who really stay on top of the finances and can very quickly slam on the brakes when necessary. You need figure our were you are on that scale.

Every Tuesday night. As soon as any award is earned it is recognized, usually the same night. With ranks, they are annnounced and recognized immediately then again when the paperwork is done and the actual badge received. All as it should be. Personally, I think that's where the Courts of Honor should be, but I know that's not what you're asking. We also have formal Courts of Honor usually in late August and mid December. August is usually a picnic and December the holiday banquet. With immediate recognition, I feel traditional Courts of Honor have lost their reason to be. Read off a list of badges you earned three months ago. Woopie. Last August, at least, we had two slide shows, one from summer camp and another from Jamboree. They were fun, especially the jamboree stuff, since most guys didn't go. Coincidentally, at last night's PLC the program for the Dec. CoH was on the agenda. The boys have total responsibility for the program. Interestingly, the conversation turned to "why are we doing this?" The party is fine, but reading list of past awards is boring to the Scouts.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait..... Do I understand this correctly that the parents are signing off particular requirements on blue cards, then the boys are taking these blue cards to the local merit badge factory -- um, college and the counselors there are signing the MBs as complete? Are you kidding me? And the concern is that the troop is holding up these boys from advancing? Can you say FRAUD? Yeah, I'd love to have a sit-down with the district/council advancement folks over this one. Bring the paperwork for an appeal, I'll help fill it out. Look, I don't like the idea that the SM's inaccessibility is holding up boy's advancement. Perhaps the SM is trying to get a handle on these boys' out of control advancement, although I disagree with his methods, if that's the case. If he's battling this bunch of Advancement Guide-thumping parents, maybe he knows what he's doing. Was it Justice Jackson who said the consitution is not a suicide pact. Neither is the Advancement Guide. I would not stand by and let these folks quote advancement policy in order to defraud the advancement program.

Nuts

Actually, that's exactly what the policy says. While Scoutfish linked the health forms, the G2SS says the same thing. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf See page 48. It's only as vague as you want it to be. I do understand the difference between bold-letter policy and the material offered as guidelines in the G2SS. But the G2SS is the document most unit-serving Scouters have access to and are charged to read and follow. If you are aware of an actual policy statement in this regard, I encourage you to post it. Otherwise we need to follow the G2SS recommendations. The long and short of the G2SS recommendation is the Scout and his family is responsible for his medications. A Scout leader may choose to take part of that responsibility, and yes, it can become confusing and complicated, especially if there are complicated medical requirements or if, as nldscout notes, state law complicates the matter. BUT, all those complications arise from an individual leader's decision to become involved with a Scout's medication. Our troop does very well by requiring Scouts to be responsible for their own medications. And yes, we have Scouts with critical medical needs. Frankly, those young men are far better equipped to handle their own medications than any adult in the troop, with the exception of the MD and RN on the troop committee.

Unlike a lot of national policy, this one is remarkly clear and unambiguous. It says what it says. dScouter15, if your unit wants to take responsibility for medications, the policy allows that. But to create a roundabout construct to say that general health and safety requires units to supervise medication contradicts the plain language of the policy.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

But I thought the Big Idea for having our own site is the facilities would be shared by the high adventure base, training center and other on-going operations, thus saving the expense of building and trashing jamboree facilities every four years. Obviously jamboree is going to need facilities the other operations won't need, and I'm not suggesting jamboree site has to be 100% on day one, but compare the marginal cost of a couple dozen permanent shower houses to the black plastic mazes built at AP Hill, which all ended up in a dumpster. If you start with the assumption good sanitation requires water, sewer, a concrete pad and floor drains, adding block walls building and truss/metal roof and plumbing fixtures isn't a big deal. There is a fine line between building as cheaply and quickly as possible and building cheaper and quicker than possible. Of course this is based on a lot of assumptions. I assume for $170 million worth of site work you get utilities. I also assume the final product is fairly utilitarian and comparable with the nicer/newer stuff you see at a Scout camp. But those assumptions are based on an absolute lack of sound data about what the actual plans are. Of course, National may have this All Figured Out. But their Mr. Rogers PR machine sure doesn't instill much confidence. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Actually, we're not getting much of a picture of anything. Has anyone found any real details? Other than a conceptual site plan, I can't find any real information on the project. Everything at the BSA sites is the same PR we've seen for a year. One page was a list of the generic site selection criteria; then another page listed pretty much the same attributes as the benefits of the WVa site. Other pages tout the economic benefits to the area of the project. Beyond about four pages on the BSA web site, they refer you to a Facebook page for The Summit. But that's mostly discussions One of the most informative pages I found was from the local economic development corporation which had some info on the planning and development contracts. Otherwise, it's hard to say much about the cost. I assume the $170m includes more than just the cost of the 800 acre jamboree site. Land acquistion, planning, site development and infrastructure cost are normally front-loaded into the first phase of a project, which is the jamboree site. I did read somewhere that there would be "no vertical construction" prior to 2013, in other words, no buildings only site development. I don't really understand that. For example, it wouldn't seem to be a big deal to build permanent shower and toilet facilities if the utilities are in, particularly given the cost of building temporary facilities. Like I always say, you can have it good, quick or cheap -- pick two. Anyone wanting to guess which two we're going to get?

One troop in our district got the 1,000 night award a year or two ago, so I looked into it. Their SM said it took them about about 7 years to rack up that time. Our TroopMaster records go back about that far, but we weren't close to 1000 nights. Doing the math, even with a high adventure trip and summer camp, a troop would have to camp every-other weekend consistently to get those nights. What I discovered was that they were counting any and every overnight activity a troop member participated in whether it was a troop activity or not -- OA, national jamborees, adult training. And if there were more that one activity on the same weekend, (OA ordeal the same weekend as a troop campout) the weekend counted twice. A Scout serving on summer camp staff counted 35 or 40 nights toward the troop total. I decided if the award is just an exercise in accounting, it really wasn't worth persuing. By the way, adding three days and two nights for a total of five for a weekend trip, I would be considered an accounting trick. I'm with Stosh that I would count Friday night to Sunday afternoon as two night.

Actually, I don't want to disclose too much as my sons are writing a book to be titled, "Dadisms." I come up with some folksy turn of a phrase and the two them turn and look and each other and in unison say, "book." A couple Scout oriented ones: "What goes in the fire stays in the fire" That one is delivered in a low monotone, almost like a Gregorian chant. One of my personal favorites because it came from my old Scoutmaster and I can still hear him every time I say it. "Light the Fire" which means your mama ain't here, get up off your butt and do it yourself. Came from a true story one cold, rainy Sunday morning. I walked past one cold, wet miserable kid who was staring blankly into a cold, dead fire pit. "What's the problem, Matthew?" "I'm cold." "Anything you could do to change that?" "No." "Have you considered....." Another one "And how is that working for you?" or "And what is the definition of insanity?" Of course, that applies to doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Of course the best of one of them all, "Ask your Patrol Leader." And I get goose bumps every time I hear the SPL say that. My current version is, "Today's not my day to be in charge. Tomorrow ain't looking good either."

Kudu writes: Can we "mentor" a boy who is afraid of the water into becoming a BSA Lifeguard? I guess, but absent the hard-core adult supervision that we find in the Troop Method, I think the Scouts are better off under the most competent Natural Swimmers with position-specific Lifeguard training. If that statement is true, it is the best arguement I've heard against hard-core patrol method scouting and for the current program. I absolutely want to give every cupcake, mama's boy in the troop an opportunity to be a leader. Hell, I especially want to give every cupcake in the troop an opportunity to be a leader. The second best argument against your method, Kudu, is you list of qualities of a good patrol leader. Three of your five qualities are inborn. Why not add the ability to run a 4.5 40 and you can eliminate the fat kids too? We're not going to teach 6'-2" or raise IQ levels. There's not much we can do with verbal skill. I can however, teach every cupcake how to be organized, how to plan an activity, how to delegate. You can sneer that those are corporate management tricks, not "true leadership" but so what? We're not here to train these kids to be smoke jumpers or army rangers. But we do want to train them to be solid, productive fathers, husbands and community members. If that means I have to dumb down the program from some lofty ideal of adventure, I'm there. Editorial note -- for the sake of simplicity and clarity, I'm continuing to use words and phrases like "cupcake" and "true leader." But don't think I'm buying into that line of thinking. One of the things which bothers me about these forum are the judgmental, perjoritive names folks come up with to deride other folks and the way they run their programs. Eagle mills, plop camping, parlour scouts, cupcakes -- some of you guys should get a job writing for Glen Beck or Keith Oberman. Sorry, but I'll not be able to continue this discussion for a couple days. I'm going plop camping with the cupcakes this weekend.

Yeah, Roger that. And maybe I can meet you the other half of the way, Stosh, and note that it's not about the bling. When our old SM of thirty something years retired, we gave him a plaque, but it was a permanent plaque to stay in the hut, not to go in the box at his house. To say I also have a stack of plaques would suggest that I care enough about them to keep them in a stack. I don't. Plaques are about the dumbest thing you can give someone. I think the real purpose of a plaque is to give the person making the presentation something to do with his hands while he's standing there. If you don't know how to offer a thoughtful work of thanks and express your appreciation to someone, give them a plaque instead. But still, my larger point is that everyone in the program -- Scouts, adult leaders, committee, parents -- need to regularly and sincerely thank the folks who make the program possible. And a cheesy plaque isn't a substitute for a real thank you.

Question for you, Gary. Let's say a boy simply does not want to participate in Scouting. Totally wigged out at the idea of spending the night in the woods, doesn't like bugs, uniforms, whatever. But is otherwise active in the other half of the YM program and very faithful to his other obligations to the church. How does that affect is membership, his status in the priesthood, future leadership within the church, etc.?

I don't understand where we are in disagreement, Stosh. I think your example supports my point. It is wholly acceptable for an Eagle Scout to take a few minutes from his Court of Honor to present a Mentor pin and express his appreciation to someone who has supported him. It is no less appropriate for the troop as a whole to do the same. As with anything, that should be youth-driven. But if not we're there to train and coach the boys toward doing the right thing. Look, I, too, have sat through these stupid plaque trading sessions. I can think of no greater waste of time than the annual district banquet. But there is a difference between a bunch of adults keeping the local awards shop in business and teaching the Scouts to be aware of the people who have helped them get where they are and taking the time to acknowledge their efforts. It's the fifth point of the Scout Law. How is this not a good thing?

That you are into Scouting only for the boys makes no difference. The troop showing its appreciation and offering a word of thanks isn't about you. It's about being appreciative and courteous. If that is a sentiment which come organically from the boys, great. If not, it is another life skill they need to be taught and an example we need to set for them.