Twocubdad

If "freedom" is your goal just go naked.

In all honesty, the real question you're asking is "how do I be a Scout leader." At minimum, that's an 8-hour class. Everyone here can give a different version of the answer. But here's one: What the Quartermaster does depends on what you train him to do. Have you -- or preferably the previous QM or another older Scout -- taught the young man how to repair the gear? If so, he need to do it. Always let the boys do anything they are capable of doing. As to procedures, you need to let the troop QM work with the patrol QMs to come up with a method they can all agree to and live with. If you come up with some procedure which requires an MBA and a six sigma black belt to figure out and dump it on the boys, they will never use it. Let's say you are aware that due to the lack of accountability, alot of troop gear tends to disappear. The first step may be to have the QMs conduct a physical inventory and compare that against what's on the books. Then start asking questions. How many tents are we supposed to have? How many tents do we really have? Is that a problem? What could we do to make sure we no longer misplace tents? How would you implement any of those ideas? Is that a plan the rest of the troop will follow through on? Your job is to train the boys to do the job and guide them through the discovery process of coming up with a plan. Don't give them the procedures out-right. Let them think through the process. Then have the QM present their idea to the PLC for approval. The one exception to this is safety. From a safety standpoint, certain things you will probably want to keep a heavier hand in, like maintaining the trailer or repairing gas appliances. Hopefully, the Scouts will eventually step up and take charge of those items. But even then as a matter of troop policy you may want to say that gas equipment will always be double-checked by an adult after maintenance, for example. Safety is always the ultimate responsibility of the adults.

Actually, that's a good questions. NCS used to be coordinated out of the regional offices. Now, since the regions have all been moved to Texas and functionally merged, I'm not where to ask. I see that the western region has some NCS on it's calendar, but the southern region's calendar and web site ends at the end of this year -- it's like the Aztec calendar, but two years early. Talk to your council program director. He or she should have a contact who can get the dates for you.

Good luck, Mike. Keep your powder dry.

While it's a running joke, I know of only one guy who really goes "Regimental." (And don't ask me how I know that -- it's a mental image I prefer not to revisit.) Most gentlemen wear dark-colored shorts under their kilts so as to be less obvious in a breeze. Both my boys wear athletic compression short. Personally, I have a pair of Black Watch boxers I like to wear. Our clan was one of the six original regiments, so we're authorized to wear the Government Plaid. While going regimental may sound "liberating" it's not all it's cracked up to be. I had a conversation once with a Highland gentleman who attended a military school as a boy. For parade every day he had to wear a kilt in the regimental fashion. He said he spent the entire first term "bandaged up in gauze and Vasaline," if you're following the point here. Heavy-weight wool can be quite rough. Heck, to me it's uncomfortable just walking around with your sporan banging around there all day.

I think we need to change the way we look at this. Now that my sons are almost 16 and 18, I'm gaining a new appreciation for the maturation process boys go through and how Scouting fits into it. Take my older son, for example. From the first day of cubs he was Uber Scout. First kid in his den to earn Wolf, all 21 Webelos pins, held just about every POR in the troop, three jamboress and was SPL of his jamboree troop this summer. But he's been on one or two campouts in the past year and makes a troop meeting maybe once every 6 or 8 weeks. He in the thick of his senior exit project now. We were talking about it a few weeks ago and he says, "You know, Dad, this is just like doing my Eagle project. You do all the planning and scheduling, making budgets, recruiting help. Then when you start, all that goes out the window and you have to adjust your schedule and solve problems and work around to other people. This is a whole lot harder than my Eagle project, but it's all the same stuff I learned doing it." WOW! I doesn't get much better than that. He's taking what he learned in Scouting and applying it to his real life. Who would be better off if instead he hung out with the troop every week and cranked out another two or three Eagle palms? Boys are going to move on from Scouting at different times, just like the earn ranks at differnt rates. Would it be reasonable to say you must earn First Class on your 12th birthday? Life precisely on you 16th birthday? Why do we expect boys to all come in to a precise landing at the end of their Scouting careers on their 18th birthday? If a boy is ready to move on at 17 and take the experiences he learned in Scouting and apply them to the rest of his life a year "early", I'm perfectly fine with that. Producing Assistant Scoutmasters is NOT a goal of Scouting. So why do we want to run the program as if it were? Would we not better serve our Scouts if we helped them out of the nest when they're ready, even if that is somewhere short of age 18? And if some of them sail on to other interests at 16 or 17 is that a success or failure? Second Thought-- I can't think of another program where the expectation is for boys who join in the first grade will stay fully involved through high school. (Okay, I guess by definition we have that expectation of SCHOOL, but I'm talking about outside activities.) Take any sport. Think about the huge numbers of little boys who play tee-ball. What percentage of those boys play varsity baseball? In our area, I bet we had close to half the kindergarten and first graders playing tee-ball. Now, out of 3500 high school students there are maybe 25 boys on the baseball team? Why do we expect Scouting to be any different? Part of the process of growing up is learning what you enjoy and what you are good at. Why are we disappointed when boys discover they enjoy and excell at activities besides Scouting? Membership in any program like Scouting is going to be a very broad-based pyramid. I would expect the numbers of Tigers to 18-year-old Scouts to be similar to the tee-baller to varsity players. I also think it is a false comparison to look at Scouting vs. "sports". More accurate would be to look at Scouting vs. baseball, or vs. basketball. There's a big difference between a varsity football player vs. a kid on the tennis or golf team. Sure there are common elements, but also a lot different. Every different sport attracts different kinds of kid and have their own specialized structures and support systems. The coaches are (hopefully) experts in that one sports. There is a tremendous focus on that one sport in terms of training, equipment, attitude.... Even school teams, in addition to the tax-payer supported coaches and facilities, have huge booster clubs raising money, driving vans, handling equipment. Scouting, by contrast is the equivalent of trying to run an all-sports league. Join our troop, come to one practice every week and we'll play football a couple weekends a year, baseball in the spring, basketball in the winter and still try to work in lacross, soccer, golf, tennis, track and all the rest. For the young boys, this is great as that's exactly what they want -- a taste of everything so they can decide what they like and what they're good at. By 15, the boys have specialized and narrowed their focus to one or two activities. They're all over football and golf, but check out when we move on to soccer and swimming. A Scout may be all over our ski trip in January, but would rather have a root canal than strap on a backpack and hike 20 miles. That's the struggle we're having in our troop now. We're trying to run an "all-sports" program for the older boys by trying to put on a variety of high adventure activities. Frankly, it's a tremendous undertaking for both the youth and adult leaders. Unfortunately, we're stretched thin and we aren't doing a very good job of it. For every HA activity the PLC tries to put on, two-thirds of the boys aren't interested. We're putting forth a huge amount of effort and still getting low turn out. Of course, the problem is there is no common activity the older guys are passionate about. I know the boys well enough to know what their interests -- SCUBA, film making, one guy plays in a garage band, hunting, wake boarding, and snow boarding. How do you build a TROOP progam around that? Yes, except for hunting, there's a merit badge for everyone of those and each everyone of the Scouts has the MB for his interest. Problem is, if we try to put on a program around those activies, we would have ONE Scout show up for each one. Well, that's not true -- we'd still have the 30 11- and 12-year-olds who show up for everything. I know specialization was one of the original objective of Venturing, that crews would specialize in activities. But I've never seen a crew work that way. I think we had one snow skiing crew years and years ago, but -- surprise! -- they folded over the summer and never started up again. A tough nut to crack.

It's perfectly acceptable. I have different uniform shirts with different jambo patches, including '73 which I attended as a youth.

I will assume you meant to say that you are responsible for working with the troop and patrol quartermasters to take care of the troop gear. I don't know what kind of problems your troop has with it's equipment, but my first move would be to meet with the troop quartermaster and talk with him about what he thinks needs to be done. Do you have an accurate inventory? Do you have a procedure for checking equipment in and out? Do you need one? Are there maintenance issues which need to be addressed? New equipment which needs to be purchased? Your job is to guide the quartermaster through this process, HELP HIM understand the job, set goals and meet them. Your focus needs to be on training and coaching, not doing.

Nothing is worn under my kilt. Everything is in perfect working order.

Trust but verify. EDGE-- "So who did you teach?" "What skill did you teach?" "What does EDGE stand for?" "What does it mean to 'enable'?" "Give me the nickel version of how you taught the skill." Earn/Save money "How much money did you earn?" "How much did yo save?" "What did you do to earn the money?" "What do you plan to do with the money you saved?" "What did you do with the rest?" It really isn't a big deal nor does it need to be. If you can't figure out within a few simple, friendly questions whether or not the Scout actually completed the requirement, you're in the wrong job.

How do you really do that? One of the parents was already bounced from the committee once, then spent meeting time snarking around the parking lot talking smack. Kudu's on target with the scorpion story. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Everyone else has asked some good questions which need to be answered, but on the surface, my inclination would be not to accept the scout. You spent 40-50 hours dealing with the problems created by this family? (And I don't doubt it -- I've spent twice that much time with problem individuals.) While that may be part of the job, do you really want to buy in to a problem like that again? I bet if you thought about it, you could come up with a more productive use of 50 hours. This family has maxed-out their account with the troop. Sounds to me like you gave them every opportunity the first time around. There is a good chance the boy has matured and won't be the problem he was before. I doubt seriously the parents have changed much. And how do you really divorce the Scout from his parents? I think you're buying trouble.

Stosh, I think you over state the case a bit. I wouldn't put wearing a McLauren tartan in the same category as the Medal of Honor. I think you're maybe trying to apply the standards of historical reinacting (to which I'll defer to your expertise), but I don't think that applies here. Most clan associations are pretty open about both membership and the use of both tartans and clan crests. Clan members are those who share the surname of the clan, a sept (related family), or anyone who pledge allegiance to the clan. Now days, of the clan bylaws or membership applications I've read include language like "and all others who share the goals and objectives of the clan." And that's for official membership. If you want to consider yourself a McLauren because you're a Wood Badger, or a McDonald because you like the hamburgers, no one is going to care (although technically, you can only be a member of one clan). And if you want to pony up 30 bucks for a membership, they're more than glad to have you, cousin! If you want to wear a McLauren kilt and be 100% accurate about it, join the clan. As has been noted elsewhere in this thread (sometime in the past decade), Clan McLauren has a special class of membership for Wood Badgers. The use of tartans and clan badges is authorized for any clan member. Clan badges usually include the clan crest (not the Coat of Arms) and the clan motto, surrounded by a belt and buckle. The belt and buckle denotes your allegiance to the clan chief. Coats of Arms, however, are a different matter. They are the property of the person to whom they are granted. In fact the Court of Lyon is very serious about enforcing it's grants. Unauthorized use of Coats of Arms may be prosecuted by the Court at the expense of the Crown.

No, they are two different positions. This is from the Cub Scout Day Camp Standard, simply because I have a copy and am familiar with them, but I believe this language is common to all levels: M38A. A physician, licensed in the state in which the day camp is located, is responsible for medical care and health supervision of the camp. The name of the physician and the procedure for issuance of medications and standard operating procedures are in writing and comply with state regulations. M38B. The on-site camp health officer is a responsible adult holding current certification or a valid license as required for the position. The on-site camp health officer must also have current certification in CPR by a recognized community agency. In most councils most folks will never know or see the council physician. He or she is just a local doc who signed off on the procedures. In our council, he was so far in the background, I never felt that we really met the standard. When ever it was brought up the DE threw out the guys name and said everything had been handled at the council level. I wrote the procedures for our camp and never had any indication that they were every reviewed by anyone, much less an MD. To your OP, Bart, no, the initial screening at check-in will not serve as the Scout's physical. The physical, required on Part B of the Annual BSA Health and Medical Record must be conducted by an MD, OD, nurse practioner or physician's assistant. As per the cite in your post, the screening can be done by anyone approved by the camp physician. I've seen the camp business office folks help with the screenings. Basically it's just reviewing the form for completeness and asking the Scout how he's feeling that day.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the LDS church, but who cares? I'm about centennialed out. There's another thread open from a reporter doing a story on the centennial of Boys' Life. I know the OA has plans for it's centennial. Are we going to spend the next hundred years celebrating everything that happend the past hundred years? I can't really say any of this centennial celebration has had much impact at the unit level. Several of my Scouts have earned the historic merit badges and I have a couple guys clammoring to earn ranks in order to get the centennial badges, but that's about it. A big PR opportunity for national, but I've not seen a lot of impact on the ground.

Okay, and now a point of view from the crumudgeons in the audience: All patrols can, should and do accommodate the dietary requirements or their patrol members. Everything from allergies, to medical restrictions, to cultural customs to just plain ol' "I don't like peanut butter" preferences. That's part of the joy of being part of a group and working together. However, when a scout has such a severe allergy the he may very well die because his patrol mate stirred the soup with a spoon that was used two months ago to serve a dish that was made in a pan stored with another pot that had peanut oil, that's a game changer. As a practical matter and at minimum, the family of the allergic Scout needs to assume the responsibility for making sure the boy is in a clean environment. The unit also needs to be given very broad lattitude to decline to take on a Scout with such severe, life-threatening restrictions.

Just focusing on the Troop requirements, it seems reasonable. Without hard numbers on advancement and retention, I'm guessing we're somewhere in the 2000 point range. I like the PLC meetings being in the mix. I would prefer it be a little heavier on similar program metrics and allow credit for other program elements, like OA participation, high adventure, etc. There is a lot of diversity in how troops are run and this really doesn't reflect that. We're a real bottom-heavy troop, age-wise, so we have very high advancement rate and summer camp attendance percentage. We're also in a heavy growth mode, gaining a net of 15 Webelos for the next few year. So the numbers work for us. On the other hand, if all those things were reversed, it would be difficult for us to meet many of the gold standards. I recall several years ago, when I was Cubmaster, our DE decided that every pack in the district needed to grow it's membership by 10%. At the time we had over 100 Cubs in the pack. Myself and the CMs from the two other 100+ packs sat on the back row at Roundtable, blew raspberries and threw stuff during the meetings. Fixed goals for stuff like that just don't work. I also see some of the items as meddlesome. We only do two courts of honor a year, which works for us. The service requirement sounds like a way to resurrect the Service for America PR campaign by requiring every unit to register. And why does anyone care when our fiscal year ends?

Not making that assumption at all. If anything, I would assume your son is probably having the time of his life. And he may continue with this level of participation and enthuasiasm through age 18. But my experience suggests otherwise. The trick is to guide him to use all this air speed to find a good crusing altitude -- if he keeps going straight up, he's going to stall. Our troop is moving away from the First Year-First Class concept because we're finding that one year isn't long enough to really learn and master all the basic scoutcraft skills. More than that, it makes the calendar the primary metric for determining success. The new Scouts and both the youth and adult leaders are all focused on cramming the program into one year. Were we started to see the cracks in this was in cooking. With 8 boys in a patrol, boy needed to serve as patrol cook as early as their second or third campout, in order for everyone in the patrol to complete the First Class cooking requirement within a year. Consequently we had boys looking to sign on on the requirement the one and only time they had been patrol cook. Where is the time for trial and error? When does the learning take place, when do they have a chance to stretch and grow, and try something new. All the focus was on the requirement and the calendar. Our new mantra is that completing First Class cooking shouldn't be the first time you're patrol cook, it should be the BEST time you were patrol cook. We're trying to apply that philosophy to the entire T-2-1 program. We're telling boys they should shoot for First class sometime during their second year in the troop, at least after their second summer as Scout camp. A side benefit is that it is pushing much of the First Class advancement out of the New Scout Patrol and into the regular patrols. The regular Patrol Leaders now have more responsibility for helping the boys in their patrol advance. That's really boosted the patrol method by giving the patrols a whole new set of activities and reasons to meet. Little of which directly has anything to do with your son. But I hope you will see that there is a bigger picture for both your boy and the troop program as a whole. As to your suggestion that it's time for you to start just dropping you son off at meetings: Frankly, if you're a black or white, all-in or nothing kind of guy, then yes, that is probably a good idea. A better solution would be to find a role in the troop where you can contribute away from your own Scout.

Ditto to what Barry said. I would absolutely consider it an obligation to let the new SM know what had transpired. Wether or not it is malicious or gossipy has to do with what's in your heart and how you convey the information.

Here's my story-- Within six months of joining the pack with my older son, I was both Wolf Den Leader and committee chairman. The next, fall, when my younger son was ready to join Tigers, I felt the same way as you -- that to be fair to my younger son I needed to be his den leader, too. So I was Bear DL, Tiger DL, committee chairman and getting involved at the district level. Amazingly, I kept it together pretty well for most of the year. By spring, I'll admit that planning for den meetings got a bit ragged. But there were some really good dads in the Tiger den who eagerly took over the den. Yes, my younger son complained that I was DL for his brother and not him. But I never missed a den meeting and was, of course, heavily involved in everything the dens and pack did. Younger son still likes to tease that I "abandoned" his den, but he knows it was just a title. I spent just as much time with him as CC (and later Cubmaster and now Scoutmaster) as I would have as a den leader. In fact, my bigger issue has been trying to find opportunities for the boys to to stuff WITHOUT me. So don't get hung up on your promise to be DL for each boy. Nothing says you can't be highly involved with the dens, even if someone else is running the show. And if the pack folds .... Look -- anyone who can survive camp school and run a day camp can do anything. With your enthuasism for the program, I'm sure you'll provide a great program for all the boys, including your younger sons.

Sounds to me that you have some very good ASMs in your troop and should be thankful that they have your son's long-term interest at heart. Focus on the first part of what the ASM said -- advising your son to take it easy -- not the second half about the details of meeting requirement 3. I think that's just boiler plate. Sure, First Class in six months is doable. But it would be a red flag for me, too. My big concern would be, "what's next." Pound out Star in four months? Eagle a year later? Inside two years in Scouting and your son is "done" with the program? And that's the danger. If your son's focus is on advancement, what's left after Eagle? Your ASM is likely on the right track. The real art in all this is guiding the boys to other activities in Scouting beyond advancement without putting out the flame. That's particularly difficult with a very young Scout as a lot of the options aren't open to him -- Order of the Arrow, High Adventure, Jamboree. There are a number of troops in our area who create "local" age requirements for ranks, or require specific leadership positions for ranks -- all of which is clearly against BSA policy. Policy or not, I think it's a bad idea. Rather than throwing up road blocks, I try to distract boys with activities other than advancement. On another track, you're way too involved with this. You don't want to become one of THOSE parents. Relax and let the troop leaders do their jobs. Maybe this particular ASM didn't express himself very well, but he sounds like a pretty good guy to me.

My understanding is the knot was there to REMIND us to do a good turn, like tying a string around your finger to remind you of something. I suppose now it needs to be a calendar icon from your iPhone or Blackberry.

Our council used to use DE's to run the camp programs. It was a disaster. In the first place, the selection was always the "short straw" method. As soon as a new guy came marginally suitable for the job, he was the new CD. Most of these guys had families and kids and had no interest living a camp for six weeks. Secondly, through the spring, when a CD should really be earning his keep planning for the upcoming season, DEs were hot and heavy into FOS season. FOS goals are critical career path items. Summer camp isn't . Guess how that worked out? Last, while about half these guys "got it" the other half had the doe-in-headlights look when it came to working with Scouts. The whole idea of getting down on one knee and interacting with a 10-year-old was a foreign concept.

Are the new requirements posted anywhere, E92? I spent about 30 minutes searching the national web sites for them. Next time I feel the urge to find something on a BSA web site, I'll go over to the bloody spot on the wall and bang my head against it again.

Except, Beav, your classroom example completely misrepresents the method. Sure, you can overdo explain and turn the lesson into a lecture. Or you can overdo enable and turn it into sink or swim. The key to the method is knowing when to switch gears. You have it right, however, when you note that most people learn by watching and doing. While the student is watching and doing, the teacher is demonstrating and guiding. That's exactly the purpose. Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable are the TEACHING tactics. From the students' perspective they are listening, watching, doing and mastering. It's just a variant on the old watch one, do one, teach one that's been around forever, with the addition of a catchy mnemonic.