Twocubdad

We start during the Webelos visits and explain to the parents exactly what we're trying to do and why. We're trying to teach the boys to be responsible and self-reliant. We do that by making them resonsible for their own participation in the troop -- like managing their own sign-up, cooking their own meals and packing their own gear -- and allowing them to live with the consequences. Most parents will respond with "Oh, Thank God!" Of course that is only until it incoveniences them. But if you've laid the foundation, you only have to remind them of the ultimate goal.

What's the purpose of producing a council calendar? To communicate important dates and activities to the members or to create a stick with which to beat people who don't attend Roundtable? A few years ago the geniusry that is our training committee decided that training card would not be issued at the end of the courses, but would be distributed at the following Roundtable. This was purely a means to boost RT attendance. Guess what? Total FUBAR. Years later there are still folks with incomplete training records because the registration was fouled up (per usual) and they never received their training cards as back up. If RT doesn't have enough intrinsic value to attract Scouters, gimmicks, guilt and bullying aren't the answer to better attendance.

Honestly, I'm not really following the debate between Brent and Stosh, but a few thoughts on the nature of Jamboree troops. First, contingent groups like this -- jamboree, Philmont, OA, etc. -- tend to be the cream of the crop. Yeah, there are exceptions, but these are generally the guys who are really into Scouting and want to be there. Hopefully, the performance of the group will reflect that. Even with an all-star group, they are still in the classic "forming" stage. Everyone is trying to be hyper-polite and not step on anyone's toes. Jamboree is different enough that folks are unsure of the rules of engagement. It's a reasonable response to wait for someone to say, "this is regular Boy Scout Troop, you guys get yourselves organized." On the other hand, since the guys really don't know each other, you don't have all the baggage, politics and cliques which adds drag to the organization of a regular troop. Because contingent troops are single-function organizations (getting the group to and from Jamboree or Philmont) I don't have a problem running things slightly different from a regular troop. Advancement generally has little place in a contingent troop, other than indirectly. Youth leadership is another. Because the boys usually don't know each other, the usual processes for voting for or selecting leaders are skewed. Sounds like you got a good group, Stosh, but it's easy to envision groups where the outcome wouldn't be as good. Depending on your part of the country, contingent troops may be assembled of Scouts from an extremely wide geographic area. Consequently, not all troops have the opportunity to meet other than for the shakedown weekend. In such cases, I don't think it is unreasonable for the adults to take a heavier hand than they may otherwise. When it comes to the jamboree itself, we need to recognize why the boys are there -- to enjoy the program. If a patrol is struggling with leadership or personalities and is having a tough time, say, finishing breakfast and cleaning up, I don't have a problem with the adults jumping in and giving them a hand. I don't see the purpose of Jamboree as perfecting your three-pot cleaning method. And you don't necessarily have time to solve all the leadership issues. That's not to say we're going to abdicate those things totally, either. But if a patrol crashes and burns and fixing the issues is going to cost the SPL and ASPL an opportunity to participate in a particular event, I would let them off the hook and handle the problem for them. Just saying..... We now return you to your previously scheduled debate.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

You deal with the boys, not the parents (but if the parents are in ear shot, it's a good thing). You have no control over what goes on at home, for example, if the parent is pushing the Scout to take the merit badge. But when the mom calls to tell you her son "wants" to take the merit badge, you explain that HE needs to register for it at the next meeting. Example: held a recent Scoutmaster conference with a boy who was using Den Chief for his POR credit. Frankly, I had my concerns about the job he had done. I asked the Scout to please contact the den leader and ask the den leader to send me a note vouching for the job the den chief had done. Letter, email, phone call, smoke signals, I didn't care, I just wanted some input from the den leader. A couple days later I got an email from the boy's dad with a string of emails between the dad and the den leader. The dad had contacted the DL, the DL responded to the dad and the dad forward the emails to me. Next troop meeting the Scout asked me if I had received the email and if I would sign off on the requirement. I reminded him I had asked HIM to contact the DL, not his father. When he did that I would be happy to approve the POR. Next day a got another string of emails initiated by the Scout. (And I sent an apology to the DL for making him do double the work, but he understood and appreciated the point I was making.) Were this a similar situation with a brand-new Scout, I would have likely been a little easier on him. You're not likely to change the parents. Shoot, I can't get my wife to quit making my 17-year-old put a coat on when he doesn't want to. But when the boy goes home and says, "but mom, it's MY JOB to .... (fill in the blank)" then you're making progress.

I don't know of a single COR attending our district meetings. If they are, it's because they've been recruited independently to the committe, and it's incidential to their position as a COR. Many years ago, when I first became CC of the pack, I got a letter from the district chairman reminding me that as CC I was an ex-officio member of of the district committee. Being a new, gung-ho Scouter, I showed up for the next meeting. I sat through the whole meeting until the end when the chairman ask me if there was some reason I was there. No, I said, I had received his letter that I was on the committee, so there I was. "Really?" he said looking at the DE with a puzzled expression. Apparently the letter went out from the office unknown to the chairman and was pure boilerplate. Roundtable isn't much better. In 10 years as a committee chairman, cubmaster and scoutmaster, I bet I missed 5 Roundtables and three of those absences were due to other Scouting commitments. In the past two years, I've not attended a single one. My moment of clarity came when I took my son to a Roundtable meeting to fulfill a communications merit badge requirement. When the 15-year-old describes a meeting as the most incredible waste of two hours he's ever seen, it gives one pause to think. If and when Roundtable meetings offer the supplemental training you describe, I may go back. Maybe. But as long as they can be boiled down to a medium length email with a few attachments, my time's better spent at home with my family.

If that's the potential outcome, CP, I wouldn't participate at all. Let's do a little cost-benefit analysis here: Benefits to the troop are the good will generated by going along with the council and, indirectly, the benefit of the funds being raised by the council. If I'm reading MT's post correctly, there is no profit to the troop "cost $20, retail $20" says to me all the money goes to the council. Attendance at the event isn't really a benefit as each boy still has the option of buying a $45 ticket and going. Cost to the troop includes the time and effort of conducting a fund raiser (no small thing), the loss of good will from the people you are hitting up for another fundraiser (you can only go to the well so many times), the cost to the families who buy tickets (we all know who buys the most popcorn, wreaths, wrapping paper and candy bars)the risk of loosing and having to pay for tickets, and now -- with Calico's suggestion -- potentially loosing your priviledge to go to summer camp with the troop. Tell me why you want to participate in this?

I don't think I've ever heard the others/self thing. Where did that come from, crew? I've always understood the three points of the Scout Law to be the three clauses, separated by semi-colons. 1) On my Honor I will do my best to do m duty to God and my country and to obey Scout Law; 2) To help other people at all times; 3) To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. I suppose if you wanted to distill that further, God & Country, self and others is okay.

Why does "no secrets organizations" mean that photography must be permitted? It's two separate issues. I a parent or leader wants to know what goes on during the ceremonies, they have the ability find out. If the lodge prefers the cermonies not be photographed or videotaped -- for whatever reason -- it's their decision. Frankly, there are a number of good reasons for not wanting the ceremonies photographed beside the "secrecy" or the ceremonies.

My sons' troop is working on the Emergency Prep award. Their opinion is about the same as your son's. I had a casual conversation with one of the ASMs about it and asked how it was decided the troop would earn the award. He didn't know so I assume it was decided by the steering committee. I think it would be great if the troop worked on some common project as a team-building activity. This doesn't seem like it. The only thing the troop has done together was to listen to a lecture by a firefighter on emergency planning. The rest seems to be a individual push to earn First Aid and Emergency Prep merit badges. That mostly seems to target the younger guys. My sons earned those MBs long ago. The award doesn't seem to do much to get the boys working together.

Sunny -- is you CO a church? Many individual churches are not 501c3s by themselves, but are under the umbrella of the larger church association. There's a technical designation for this, maybe some of the accountant-type can provide the proper term. We went through this a few years ago when several parents wanted to match contributions and volunteer hours through corporate foundations. The CO (a Presbyterian church) had us call the local Presbytery which forwarded us a string of documents going back to the Kennedy administration (literally!) under which the Presbyterian Church USA is a non-profit. The Presbytery, our CO and ultimately the troop are covered under the original letter. While this may have been good enough for the foundations we were working with, I don't know that it's kosher for tax issues. This does not constitute tax advice. Please consult your professional tax advisor blah, blah, blah, blah. For those who don't know, you CANNOT use the Council's 501c3 status for your unit. In our case, the council was minorly miffed with the troop because they wanted those parents to designate their corporate match to the council.

There are 100 ways to justify it, but parents do a great disservice to their sons by lumping them together. The boys miss out on one of the great parts of the program -- making new friends, hanging with new and old friends and developing the camraderie within the group. If you're always someone's else's brother, or if you always have your kid brother tagging along, it's not the same, especially for the younger brother. My sons are two years apart. My older son was always the uber-Scout in the pack. I've put a great deal of effort into making sure my younger son's Scouting experience isn't lived in the shadow of his big brother. Attending two different den meetings isn't asking too much. The man has TWO sons. From conception on there should have been a pretty clear understanding he was signing up for twice the work! I understand for many den leaders dealing with a younger child while volunteering for Scous is an issue. It's hard to pay a babysitter to go work for free. But there are ways around that. Many packs have all dens meet at the same time and location. Maybe another parent in the den with a younger child could take both? Ask. From the pack's standpoint, this is a really slippery slope. What do you do with the non-den leader who wants both boys in one den? Are you willing to dump a possibly unruly, immature boy on a den leader? What do you do when the next pair of brothers are two years apart? Three? How about when the little brother is a little sister? Over the years I've seen a number of tag-along siblings, although I've never had anyone ask to officially register the younger brother in the older den. These things never work out. Usually you just burn out the younger boy on Scouting. At worst you have a den leader who is trying to run a den meeting while babysitting the younger son. The good news is that unlike many problems, the solution to this one is fairly easy: FOLLOW THE DANG RULES! Your Cubmaster or Committee Chair needs to spine-up and explain to the den leader why the pack needs to follow the registration requirements and help him find a better solution for his younger son.

No, it doesn't. I've seen almost as many pompus jerks in smuggly prestine uniforms as I have with 20+ knots. I'm not suggesting you are a pompus jerk or even smug, Gern, just that folks who are don't all wear the same uniforms. jblake is on the right track. It's not the awards, it's the process. Does the awards committee truely go out and search for deserving leaders, or do they automatically nominate their pals. I was on the district nominating committee for a couple years. The process was totally rigged in favor of the insiders. They pretend to make it as fair as possible to everyone by only considering the information on the nomination forms -- personal knowledge of a nominee doesn't matter. But that was the key to the gate. The good ol' boys all knew how to fill out a nomination form. We would get nominations for some poor Cubmaster submitted by a clueless pack parent, which only listed the the guy was a "really great Cubmaster." The Insider nominations listed every district event, roundtable, campout and FOS contribution their guys had ever made. Guess who won? And yes, every year I pushed to change the system. I tried to make the district key three ex-officio members of the awards committee on the theory they know who the deserving volunteers are throughout the district. I suggested the committee start going out, finding and nominating folks instead of just waiting for nominations to come in. I suggested that when a nomination is made, a member of the committee be assigned to make phone calls and make sure the nominations are as complete as possible. Not a chance. I've since quit going to award committee meetings although having been annointed I will always be a "member". In fact, I've not attended a district or council banquet in a couple years. I choose to no longer play the game.

Um, Zippy, your prejudice is showing, or maybe it's just snobbery. Where exactly is "around here"? Is it a particular part of the country or is it just the sand pile you have your head buried in?

There are certain issues for which the beliefs of the families trump the boy led, let the boys decide philosophy of Scouting. Would the advice be to "let the boy decide" if the family were Jewish and learned after joining the CO enforces it's perogative to operate the unit as a Baptist troop?

For Cub Scout Day Camp, National Camp Standards M41 and M42, which Eagle92 posted, control. An 18-year-old-plus Range Safety Officer is all that is needed. The full standards are on the Southern Region's site at http://srbsa.org/public/services/program/camping/2010/standards/2010-csdc-standards-430-109.pdf

COBBLER!

Short answer is that to be sure I would call the council registrar and ask. They have a really thick manual with all this stuff, but I suspect the real answer is what the computer rejects when they type in dates. Longer answer is I would make it the boy's problem to solve. He needs to arrange Scoutmaster Conferences and Boards of Review to meet the requirements. If a kid is that tight, there are all sorts of other problems, like is he expecting the Scoutmaster to come back from vacation to get his SMC on time, or is he asking the Board of Review to meet Christmas morning to make the schedule. If the boy had legitimate issues for shaving this close, apply for an extension. If not, it's time for a lesson in living with the consequences of one's choices. I will say we had one Scout several years ago who was on this sort of schedule. He had dropped out of another troop at Tenderfoot and joined our troop several years later at age 15 1/2. He had assumed he didn't have time to make Eagle, but an ASM figured he had only a few weeks to spare. The kid really busted his hump, stuck with it and made all the deadlines. Along the way he was one of the best SPLs we've had. It was a pleasure to work with the boy to make the schedule work.

Apples and oranges, Brent. The Unit Leader Award of Merit is for Cubmasters, Scoutmasters, Varsity Coaches and Crew Advisors. It is not a "unit level" award per se. It is not awarded to either District Advancement Chairmen or Unit Committee Chairmen. Stosh is right, there is enough wiggle room in the description of the awards for a district or council to recognize the service of just about anyone they wish. My point, again, is how the criteria are intrepreted and who is recognized is telling of who and what a district or council values. The awards can perpetuate the same predictable cliques every year or the awards committees can quit gazing at their collective navels and recognize volunteers based on service to youth.

And pretty much the same rules apply for Silver Beaver. A really good clue that a district or council is too insular is how they intrepret the phrase "at the district level." It is incredible that some folks make the argument that service "at the district level" or "at the council level" is exclusive of service at the unit level. A year or two as day camp director or a couple years as district commissioner is a lock on the DAM. Three to five years politically savvy service on select council committees is good for a Silver Beaver. But for the politically disfavored unit leaders, who week in and week out deliver solid Scouting programs to the boys in their units, 12 to 15+ years doesn't merit either district or council recognition. That speaks volumes about what is valued by the council - or maybe just what is valued by the Good Ol' Boys on the awards committee.

Of all the things going on in this situation I'm not thrilled over, fudging one day on the boy's time in position is by far the least objectionable.

"I shouldn't even try" isn't the attitude I would want to have as a Scoutmaster, but I do believe there is a point at which you have to back off and let the boy make up his own mind. If he wants it, he has to come get it. I wouldn't write a kid off -- I'll always leave the Scout House door open -- but that doesn't mean I need to chase them down and drag them through the door either. Unfortunately, while you may take that approach, you frequently will have parents who are still pushing from that end. That's where you get boy showing up again, three months from their 18th birthday looking to finish Eagle. But that's another thread. Right now I have a 15-year-old in the troop I've been with since Tigers. Currently, he is subject to disciplinary sanctions from the troop for repeated doing really stupid and remarkably unsafe things. For the past two years he has made it clear by his actions that he has very little interest in Scouting. As a classic Baden-Powell "hooligan leaders" he enjoys the relative freedom Scouting allows and having a built-in audience for his shennagans. But he is openly contemptious of Scouting, including the leaders, both youth and adult. He takes no initiative to either as a leader or toward advancement. But his dad is an active ASM and really wants his boy to be an Eagle Scout. Now, with the disciplinary stuff going on, the dad thinks I should be meeting with the boy regularly to encourage him and make sure he stays in Scouting. No. The boy is now 15. I've been having those conversations with him for years. He needs to make a choice for himself. But to answer your basic question, I think you watch what the boy does, not what he (or his dad) says. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Nah, this is about excessive rule making and holier-than-thou enforcement. If this were about teaching good judgement and using the right tool for the job, the rule would be "Scouts are encouraged to wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes while at camp unless activities dictate otherwise." Our usual summer camp site is about 75 yards from the bath house and maybe 200 yards from the waterfront, connected to both by nicely-graveled roads. I've had camp staffers and leaders from other units chastize my Scout for wearing flip-flops on the way to or from the shower. These are kids wearing a towel around their waist with wet hair and smelling noticably better than everyone else. The Camp Rule is you may wear flip-flops IN the shower, but you must wear closed-toe shoes to and from. By the way, our camp includes Crocs in the ban, although that is less well known and much more losely enforced. But when discussed during SM/SPL meetings, it was explained that Crocs slip off too easily and the rule includes "open heeled" shoes, too. That's fairly typical of bureaucratic, incremental rule making. The other Big Rule is NO HATS IN THE DINING HALL. I agree as a general point of courtesy one should remove his hat when inside or while eating. I'm cool with that. But the way this rule is enforced is by the Dining Hall Steward coming up behind a boy, snatching the hat off his head and confiscating it until the next meal. So to teach courtesy and manners to our Scouts we will commit assault and larceny against them. Hmmm. Reasonable people follow reasonable laws, even 12 year olds. But does anyone remember the 55 mph speed limits? Prohibition?

What does the Bear den leader say? If the boy participated with the Bear den, massaged some of their activities into Wolf requirements, then completed the balance at home with his parents, it is possible he earned the badge. Not terribly likely, but possible. But here's the bigger issue, and my apologies if you're not going to like hearing this: the problem is, this is the second year they've done this. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, as Gomer says. Are you going to let this go another year? Next year you'll have some real age-appropriateness issues between Bears and Webelos. Sooner or later this catches up. I had this exact problem at crossover last year. The den leader had winked and nodded a little brother along all the way through Arrow of Light. But the boy was only nine years and three or four months old. No way, no how can he join the troop. Of course we registered older brother as a Boy Scout and the pack made arrangements for the younger boy to drop back and work through Webelos II a second time. But the parents balked at having the boys in two separate units. (Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but all of us with two boys managed it somehow.) Ultimately, both boys dropped out. There is a program in place we as leaders are obligated to follow. Are you going to follow the program or appease the forceful, pushy dad?

Short answer: don't sweat it, it doesn't really matter. Long answer: Cub Scout packs tend to operate along with the school year. Rechartering, however, can occur at anytime during the calendar year. In our council, each district recharters in a different month, just to spread out the work load for the council registrar. Both of which are separate from the council's fiscal year, with matches the calendar year. A new Scout joining your pack in September would pay a pro-rated membership fee of $8.75 to cover the seven months Sept-March. That March, he would pay the full $15 registration fee and be registered for the next full year. (The cost of Boys' Life works the same way.) But let's say that the next September he decides not to continue for a second year. Yes, his registration in the BSA would still be in force through the next March. And no, you're not going to get any money back. Of course, most packs charge additional pack dues on top of what goes to national. Whether or not the pack wants to refund any of the pack dues is up to the pack committee. The easiest way to make sense of this all is to charge pack dues along with the program year, Sept. to Sept. In Sept. you collect both pack and national dues, but the pack simply holds the national dues until recharter time in March. Except for the pack treasurer, as far as anyone knows, the pack's year coincides with the school year. Now if you are a Boy Scout troop, it's easier to align the troop fiscal year to match up with when you recharter, which is what our troop does. Because Boy Scout troops meet all year and the beginning and end of the troop fiscal year doesn't matter. We recharter in February. We tell everyone troop and national dues are payable Jan.1 (just to give us time to get everything in). We collect dues in December (and usually into January) then Feb. 1 write a check to the council for recharter. As I said, unless you're the treasurer or committee chairman, just pretent everything runs September to September and forget about it.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I don't think there is anything wrong with rules the troop developed, although I would make an exception for parents/counselors and their sons when the parent is the only counselor for a particular badge. I don't have my copy handy, but I don't think the ACPG specifically prohibits the restrictions the troop is imposing. I'm okay with the limit on the number of MBs one person can counsel. When we joined the troop there was one lady who counseled every MB except Camping. There were a couple Eagles who never earned a merit badge form anyone but this lady and at summer camp. That defeats one of the main purposes of the MB program: getting boys out of their comfort zone by calling an adult, making and keeping appointments and assignments. I would ask myself if the real problems is a papa bear response to your boy being singled out. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I've been know to get down right grizzly from time to time myself. But it is necessary for the leaders to discuss specific situations -- and individual scouts -- from time to time in order to improve the troop program. If the committee had concerns about the direction of the MB program and your son's situation provided a good example, there is nothing wrong with having that conversation. Mean or malicious is another thing, but do you have any knowledge that was the case, or was this just a frank discussion?