Venividi

WDL Mom,

I think much of the answer is "it depends".

It depends on where your son's interest lies. It depends on how much time he has. It depends on his interests. It depends on how the sports teams are run. It depends on how his troop is run. And yes, it depends on what is important to you.

Making the most of all time available is an adult concept. Back in the dinosaur days of our youth, kids had time to go out and find things to do on their own. Spend some time doing a whole lot of nothing. Not true today. Parents expect their kids to make the most out of every moment. Sometimes there is value in laying in the backyard watching the sky. Or sitting in his room reading. Or daydreaming. Just perhaps, your son is needing the downtime when he is between sports seasons.

This is likely hearesy in this forum, but sports can teach many of the same character traits that we want to provide in scouts. There are some lessons/experiences that sports seems to impart better than can be provided in typical scout troops. Things such as teamwork. Scout troops are typically "come when you can.". Compare that type of teamwork in a patrol with "your team depends on you, it needs you, and will suffer if you don't come", that is more typical in a travelling sports league.

Depending on how the team is run, your son's sports can also teach trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc. Trustworthy - team members have to do their part and pull their weight. The impact is immediately felt by the team if a team member doesn't do his best.

Loyalty - team members have to be at games and practices. It isn't a "come if and when you feel like it" type of loyalty, but a true "your team depends on your presence so you better be there" type of loyalty. Helpful - There is motivation to be helpful to his teammates by helping to teach them some skills.

And it depends on what you like to do. If a scout's Mom or Dad is enthused about the outdoors and camping, that improves the odds that he will also. If the parents are sports fanatics, that will rub off on the son. (Same with music - most kids in the higher level music groups in our town's high school have parents that also participate in music.)

Not sure if this helps, but I hope it helps think through the benefits of various options.

Chippewa29,

I think your idea has merit, and is a topic that could/should be discussed by the PLC, the SM/ASM core, and the troop committee. Your question is one that has to be answered by your particular group based on what you (the collective you) want to accomplish, the resources available, etc. (sort of back to the "mission" thing).

One eye opening conversation I had was with a long time scouter in our district. The troop he was involved with had a policy that all families must provide an adult to serve the troop in order for their son to be a member of the troop. He told the story of a woman that brought her son to sign up for this troop. After explaining the policy, she said that she was a single mother and did not have time to assist. He gave the application back and referred her to another troop in town. She said she had already looked at other troops in town, and that the program at this troop was far better, and she wanted that for her son. The troop was firm on this policy, because that is what enabled the troop to provide the program that they did. The woman did agree to assist, they gave her a task she could do from home (transportation coordinator), and she did an excellent job.

This example is slightly different than your selective recruiting, but I think follows the same line. If your troop committee and parents want to build a better program than average, you need to do something different than the average troop does. That may be more selective recruiting, or something else. But it is certainly worth a discussion within your troop. The discussion may bring out lots of ideas on what you want to accomplish, and morph into how you position your troop's specialty, and then how to recruit those that are interested in the particular program that your troop committee is offering.

For example, if your troop's mission is to provide a high quality experience for scouts committed to the scouting program with an emphasis on field leadership experience, then some type of selective recruiting is consistent with that mission. Similarly, if part of your mission is to develop very high level back country skills, your recruiting will gravitate towards those that want to backpack. In many places, there are enough troops in the area that those that are looking for somethng different than you offering have choices, and you will be doing potential recruits a favor if you refer them to other troops that may be a better fit for them.

For what it is worth, I think it is a good thing that there are troops that have different areas of emphasis. If all troops try to be all things to all scouts, then oppotunities for scouts are decreased rather than increased.

Firecrafter,

How many of us can commiserate. You do answer your own question in your post. You get it. One issue with many volunteers is that they want to please everybody. It cant be done.

As long as those that understand the program and volunteer to do the work bow to, and continue to accomodate the demands of those that don't understand the program and take advantage of those that do the work, nothing will change. There will continue to be stress, and continued demands on your time.

I understand your need to step back after burning out. In your last few months, I encourage you to take a firm stand to make things better for those that come after you. Do not wait for a new CC who may(or may not) be stronger. Stand your ground now.

I know this from experience. When I took over as scoutmaster, the troop committee had a culture of inactivity. The scoutmaster filed tour permits, collected permission slips, served as adult quartermaster, made campsite reservations, etc. As long as the SM continued to do this, parents continued to expect it. 6 months before turning over the reigns to a new SM, I resolved that I would not pass the problem on to him. I told the committee that I was turning it all back to them. I would be available to answer questions, but would no longer preform those other functions because the scouts were being short changed because I was using time that I should have been using to be talking with the Jr. Leaders.

The troop ended up cancelling 4 campouts in a row. We did lose some families that were looking for a program to which they did not need to contribute, but eventually others stepped up. It was "tough love". It was painful. In the short term, the boys lost some opportunities. But in the long run the troop benefitted. The committee became stronger. There were more parents willing to share the load of running a troop. And more parents that "got" the concept behind the aims and methods. It wasn't a panacea - There were still parents that didn't, and would complain when the troop didn't do things to their liking, and take that to the committee, but with more people understanding the aims, it was no longer the noisy parents against the SM, but rather the committee supporting the aims, and supporting the volunteers rather than simply appeasing those that tended to vacally "bite heads off" when they didn't get their way.

This is where the "mission thing" in another thread applies. Until most parents are brought to understand and agree on a common mission, each individual brings their own "mission".

Good Luck.

Eamonn,

You are moving off on "what if" scenarios that are far removed from patrol members holding each other accountable for their actions, and scoutmasters holding the patrol members accountable for their non-action. A stranger coming in to 7-11 bears little resemblance to 2 scouts on a troop outing. The scouts have a responsibility to each other. The consequences may or may not be the same depending on the circumstances. Raising specific "what if" examples and suggesting that by extension that the proper response should apply to all situations is not realistic.

Veni

Eamonn,

From your most recent posts in this thread and the getting admit responisbility thread make it clear that your disagreement is not that bystanders do not have a responsibility, but a disagreement with what the appropriate action/discipline should be for those bystanders that watched and did nothing. That had not been clear in your earlier posts (at least to me). Thanks for clarifying.

This is spun from the "getting a boy to admit responsibility" thread, to separate the topic from the advice requested on how to deal with that boy.

There appears to be diverging views on whether other scouts witnessing a destructive act should be held accountable for doing nothing. There is a classic quote is "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

I do think that scouts that do nothing to prevent a fellow scout from performing a destructive act need to be held accountable for doing nothing. Doing nothing is not consistent with our aim of Citizenship. I see several points of the scout law involved:

Trustworthy: trusting the scouts to be responsible for troop equipment by not letting others damaging it.

Loyal: Loyal to the troop - the troop resources were being destroyed.

Brave: It takes bravery to stand up for what a scout knows is right and against what a scout knows is wrong.

There are certainly factors that would influence HOW a scout addressed an act of destruction by another scout - talking to the offending scout and asking him to put away his knife would be a better option than attempting to wrestle the scout in an attempt to take away his knife. And reporting the problem to the PL and/or SPL would be called for. Doing nothing at all just isn't consistent with character and citizenship.

One of the objectives of boy led patrol method is for the boys become responsible for, and accountable to, and look out for each other. So yes, if other scouts watched and did nothing, then they have a lesson to learn also.

I have to factor in the "pick your battles" factor. If the scouters are generally doing a good job, and the aims are being furthered, then in my opinion, there is little to be gained and much to lose in advising an inquirer that their ___(fill in blank with SM, CC, CM... )is doing it wrong and needs to be ____(admonished, disciplined, fired, brought before the DE, drawn & quartered, etc...). Many non-conformances are just not worth getting emotional about; and each of us have our own strengths and weaknesses in ability to effectively implement each bit of program. Each of us have different resources. Each of us have different images of exactly what constitutes character, citizenship, & fitness.

By way of analogy, my neighbor allows her children to do things that I would not let mine do. But her children are still turning into good people.

And there are some things that I would prefer my kids not do, but allow them to do anyway, because I see it as picking appropriate battle. For instance, I allowed my son to stay out past curfew on special occasions. Certainly against a city ordinance, but he understood the rational. Perhaps some may think that this will turn him into a juvenile delinquent, but those folks don't know me, my son, nor my parenting style, and their conclusion would be incorrect.

I think (again, only my own opinion) that responses that go beyond what the BSA policy is, and advise to consider such in the context of the whole cloth, and to be worked consistent with scout oath & law are the most helpful.

Welcome, Gurnee Bruce.

I am with the folks that are of the mind that fundraising for the troop is not service. The boy scout handbook section on service, while brief, is consistent with the view that boy scout service is a benefit the community. Personally, I would place funraising to benefit the troop in the same sphere as doing chores at home. Sure, one could use a definition of service that would include setting the table for your family dinner as eligible, (or perhaps even cooking for your patrol?), but that does not seem to be consistent with what we are trying to accomplish.

I would hope that there are sufficient opportunities for service in the community, and that your scouts are sufficiently active, that there would be no need to even consider troop fundraising as "service". Heck, 15 minutes of picking up trash on every campout would allow a scout to meet the 2nd class requirement after ony 4 campouts. Considering troop fundraising as service

foto,

I am missing something - I don't see where dining halls have an exclusive on the experience of sitting around a table and be required to exhibit some manners, be a waiter, and clean up after the meal - except for being the waiter part.

When patrol cooking at summer camp, the patrol all gathers around the same table to eat. They have invited guests at dinner that include various camp staffers that patrol members have invited, plus the adult leaders. In our troop, we expected manners.

I also don't see where washing pots and pans is mutually exclusive with having fun. Certainly not anymore so than the cleanup after the meal that you mention in the dining hall.

I do agree with your decision to attend dining hall summer camp if that is the right option to meet the goals that you have for the program that you want for your troop. I just think that the reasons you gave are also present when patrol cooking.

AvidSM wrote:

What frustrates me, is that over their lifetime, these boys will get so much more out of their scouting experience than any other activity you can name. And yet, they still choose baseball and the rest.

I started out agreeing, but the more I thought about it, I see it as a matter of perspective as to which activity a particular boy will get the most out of.

Since you referenced baseball as an example - participants learn the importance of teamwork; Trustworthy: that they must be able to be trusted by their teammates; loyal: to the team by coming to practices and working to increase personal skills for the benefit of the team; helpful: the team benefits when individuals help each other ... on down the line with the possible exception of reverent. I see the potential for character, citizenship, and fitness growth in team participation. Many of the methods are reflected: adult association, leadership (through naturally emerging leaders on the team), uniform, probably some more.

So perhaps the experience that an boy gets the most out of is the one that he is most interested in to the extent that he invests himself as an active participant (as opposed to an occasional participant).

As an observation, I see signs that sports get the same type of drop off in participation as the boys enter and pass through high school as well. In our area, park district soccer and baseball are big and draw a lot of participants at the grade school level, but paricipation levels start to drop through middle school, and drops precipitously in high school. Those were most interested in improving their performance make the high school team or find a club team to join that challenges their skills. To bring this full circle, those that are most likely to make the high school or club level teams are those that participated in the most as they were building skills. And were required to attend practices, but probably didn't mind, because they wanted to be there anyway.

One more thought - there are a lot more role models in sports. Not just professional; also the high school athletes are very visible in the community, and held in high regard. They wouldn't get the same respect if they had not developed their skills through practice; i.e., if the high school team was comprised of members that skipped practices and didn't play. as a team, they would not be seen in the same light as role models.

I am trying to draw an analogy here with outdoor adventuring: high school kids that participate in rock climbing, backpacking, whitewater canoeing, etc. would be seen as roll models to a certain segment of the younger population if they had sufficient visibility. Car camping is alluring at to new scouts, but they rapidly learn those skills and cease to be challenged - and many then tend to drift away. So perhaps the real problem (or one real problem) is that we are not creating a sufficient number of scouts that develop high level adventure skills, and those that have are not getting sufficient publicity?

this was rambling, but the topic is good food for thought.

I wanted to post an anecdotal story about patrol cooking camp. Our troop would use the sheepherder stoves provided by the camp, rather than using our propane stoves. (for those unfamiliar, sheepherder stoves are large metal boxes on legs. The box is filled with wood and ignited, and top of the box gets hot and is used as a cook top.)

This required the patrol leader to delegate the tasks of wood collecting, keeping the stove stoked, and cooking. Every one participated in clean up. The PL really did practice his leadership skills.

Typically, first year scouts at summer camp want to get 10 sticks and be done. They soon find that doesn't work, and that they have to pitch in to the common good if they want to eat. by the second year, they look forward to the challenge of cooking on the sheepherders. We even had one patrol that managed to cook all 3 meals using only one match. After cooking breakfast, they loaded the sheepherder wtih wood, and damped down the vents. At lunch time there were enough embers for them to use to start another fire. They repeated this after lunch so they would have embers for dinner. They took pride in this, and happens to be one of my son's favorite memories of summer camp.

I can see where those posting from Texas and other places south that summertime weather may not be condusive to cooking. Understandable when seeing the weather map with temps in the 100+ range.

Up here in the North, that isn't a factor. Still, there are more dining hall camps than patrol cooking camps. I had a discussion a few years ago with a leader of another troop in town that always went to a dining hall camp. Their reasoning was that summer camp was a vacation, the boys didn't want to work while on vacation, and cooking was work. And the adults also thought it was too much work to monitor and coach patrols that didn't want to cook. I countered with "sleeping in a tent in humid weather isn't as comfortable as sleeping in an air conditioned Holiday Inn, so why not do that?"

Plus they wanted their scouts to earn lots of merit badges. I am not dissing the other troop; they were fine leaders, who I respected. We simply had different goals.

I think that the scouts CAN enjoy cooking at summer camp - if it is approached correctly, and a positive attitude promoted. What is considered fun is very much dependent on the culture that develops within a troop.

I agree with eagle90 - as adult leaders, we get great enjoyment out of seeing growth in our charges. Patrol cooking gives the patrols a challenge to overcome as a group, and they grow closer and become a much more tight knit group. A similar thread in the past has been what good are knots in a duct tape world? There is so much that could be done easier than we do, but there is value. i.e., we could go to Philmont, stay in base camp, and take a bus to various locales for the day and eat a pre-prepared box lunch. But that does little to achieve the objectives that I wanted for the scouts.

To me, patrol cooking is not as much about learning to cook, or having better food as it is about having a common objective to achieve.

Mr.Mal,

Our troop has done both. Put me in the patrol cooking camp (pun intended). The benefits we found are:

Pulls the patrol together. Most time at summer camp is spent on merit badges chosen individually by scouts. Scouts spend most open program time in subgroups according to interest rather than as patrols. You can require the patrols plan some patrol activities (patrol swim, or hike or ...) but most likely there will be only a few of these scheduled, compared with 15 meals that need to be prepared.

Preparing meals has an objective that each individual scout wants to achieve (they are hungry and want to eat). A patrol swim is fun, but doesn't take much effort to work together, nor provide the same level of group achievement.

We found that certain scouts managed to "skate" on weekend campouts, avoiding a fair share of cooking tasks. I believe this is because weekend campouts never get the same members of the patrol on the outings each month, and no one remembers who did what the previous month. Such behaviour is more evident on a weeklong camp, and other patrol members put peer pressure on those that tend to shirk.

Cooking skills improve and carries over to weekend campouts. It makes sense -the scouts build good skills when preparing multiple meals in a short span of time - practice makes perfect. When we spent a few years at dining hall camps, scouts tended towards foil packs on weekend campouts. When we consistently attended patrol cooking camps, they attempted more elaborate meals.

We didn't find anything else at summer camp that built the same level of patrol esprit de corps, nor found that cooking at weekend campouts a good substitute because on any typical weekend campout, only half of each patrol attended.

I realize I am in the minority - most summer camps are dining hall based because that is what most customers (troops) want.

With respect to acceptance of signed off requirements on "partials", I think much depends on the paricular MB. For a MB like basketry or riflery, I see little value in requiring the scout to make another basket, or to shoot another round, if those requirements have been initialled by another counsellor. I counsel the first aid MB. I do not believe it is in a scout's best interest to accept signoff on First Aid individual requirements if it is apparent that the scout does not know the skills. Sure, he may have been able to apply a splint to a particular injury or to identify the signs of a heart attack 9 months ago as part of a large group at summer camp going through the requirements en masse. But he may have not learned the skill, and I as a counsellor have done him no favors if I don't make sure that he knows those skills.

Last year I did work with a scout that had worked on First Aid MB at summer camp. For some reason that I don't know; the boy's blue card was missing. He asked me if I would sign a blue card for him. The tact I took was in the initial meeting, I explained that I believed that scouts were trustworthy, and if he said that he had completed the requirements at camp, I believed him. I went on to explain that I as a MB counsellor was also expected to be trustworthy, and when I put my signature on the card, BSA is trusting me to have verified that everything was completed. We worked out an agreement where the scout could have the opportunity to demonstrate the requirements to me without going through lessons, and then I would help him learn those skills that he could not perform. He agreed. Unfortunately, he knew very few of the skills that had been taught at his classes at summer camp. Fortunately, this was an opportunity for the scout to really learn important skills.

Campcrafter,

wrt patrol size, 10 is large, 5 is small, so it is a judgement call. Personally, I would opt for starting with all of them in one patrol because despite best efforts, a couple will probably drop, because camping will turn out to be neither a passion nor an interest to them.

I have no good answer for number of patrol outings to ask the scouts to schedule. It would depend a lot on whether these youth treat scouts as a primary activity or as a fill-in activity between sports and other activities. So the non-answer is as many as they are willing to do, and that you and another adult are willing to support. One a month sounds like a good place to start, and make adjustments from there.

Do take extra care that you and the scouts do not fall into Webelos pattern. Changing existing relationship expectations will take some effort - the youth that were in your Webelos group may be conditioned to having all planning done by you, and be reluctant to take over the reigns themselves. But you can teach, teach, teach, leadership and responsibility by following the patrol leaders handbook, and guiding the patrol leader through all the planning steps in the book. The scouts will want to take shortcuts - keep reminding the patrol leader of the steps involved.

Best of Luck

Allegiance to the unit that is sponsored by your church is fine and good, but should not dictate where you stay if your son is not getting the benefit out of it that he wants, and that you want for him.

Don't get hung up on the webelos group that came over together getting split up, or even kids in the same church or school not being in the same troop. Kids are pretty resilient, and have many, many, circles of friends. My son had his scout friends, band friends, cross country friends, lunch time friends, etc. All different groups of kids with very little overlap. And within the goups, they seek out the kids that they get along with and have fun with. I would anticipate no problem with moving to a unit sponsored by a different CO. I would advise being tactful over reason for moving - keep it to "a better fit", "more camping opportunities", etc. Movement between troops in our town (4 troops) is more common than I would have expected, with scouts moving for a lot of different reasons - to be with a friend, to move to a less rough & tumble troop, to move to a more boy run troop, to move to a more adult run troop, etc.

However, if you do decide to stay, volunteer to be ASM for this patrol of scouts. And then guide them in planning a lot of patrol activities. It is all too common for patrols to not do anything other than troop events, but the core of scouting is the patrol. Coach the patrol leader to have additional patrol meetings (at your house, perhaps) to plan some patrol only outings - weekend camping trips in months when the troop doesn't camp; hiking trips; bike trips; explore the forest preserve trips; all of which gives them the opportunity to experience and learn the scout skills that go with those things. Use this as an opportunity to strengthen the patrol method for the patrol you mentor, rather than an exercize in changing troop culture.

Venividi

Keep in mind that the aims are character, citizenship, and fitness. Advancement is a method. It sounds like your troop gets this. When It is certainly wise to consult with ASM's as sounding boards, because as SM it is easier to sign and give a social promotion. Knowing that others (ASM's, etc.) are of like mind that a particular scout hasn't yet earned the rank is certainly helpful.

I would go with packsaddle's advice. If the district chooses to advance the scout without SM signature, they may have that right. But on a local level, it is certainly permissable for the SM to choose not to sign, based on his assessment of the scout and whether he fulfilled the requirements or not.

The SM has to interact with and teach leadership and responsibility to the rest of the scouts in the troop, and his/her job will become more difficult if they see the SM recommending advancement of a scout that has not taken opportunity of the chances provided to change behavior and attitude.

I agree with some of Gags advice, but not all of it. A SM conference with each scout to provide honest feedback and set some goals for how they can demonstrate scout spirit is appropriate, and I think what is called for. I would discourge, however, passing the responsibility to the BOR to let them be the "bad guys". I see a few of problems with this:

1) it sends the message to the scouts that the SM thinks the behaviour was appropriate (or that he/she has low expectations).

2) an honest, open, caring relationship cannot develop between the SM and the scout if honest, caring expectations are not communicated. Such a relationship tends to foster more desire in scouts to want to meet the SM expectations.

3) if those serving on the BOR don't want to be seen as "bad guys", they may approve the advancement - afer all, the SM signed off on scout spirit, so it is OK with him/her.

I would doubt that he will end up behind bars. I expect that he will, however, be in for a rude awakening when he has an employer that has higher standards than the revised BOR did.

venividi

Been there. Scout takes a MB pamphlet from the library, tells the librarian. Librarian does not write it down. Scout forgets that he has the book, (or perhaps can't find it, and it is easier to say that he never had it). Once SM hears of it, SM tells the SPL that there is a problem with MB books not being returned. SPL talks to the scout. SM tells SPL that is something he should delegate to his assistant, since the librarian reports to the ASPL. Asks the SPL to have ASPL follow up with the librarian. SPL looks at SM like he just came from Mars. SM sits down with SPL, ASPL & librarian to re-review the librarian's duties and the reporting structure. Mid-week, SM reminds SPL to be sure to follow up with ASPL for librarian to give a report on overdue MB books; SPL says he will. At next PLC, SM asks about overdue MB books. SPL and ASPL look at SM like he just landed from Mars.

In short, Mr. Mal, our troop lost a lot of MB books, because of scouts forgetting, librarian not performing his duties, ASPL not performing his duties, etc. even with position training and frequent reminders. If the book is an isolated instance for this scout,is slightly overdue, then giving additional reminders to your SPL/ASPL/PLC would be appropriate.

If the book is grossly overdue despite repeated reminders, that is one demonstration of poor scout spirit on the part of the scout. The SM may or may not choose to not sign off on the scout spirit requirement depending on context; i.e., on whether the scout exhibits the troop's expected level of scout spirit in general, if he is reliable/unreliable in other areas, etc. The overdue book is just one factor in an overall assessment for the scout spirit requirement for rank advancement.

Meameng, appreciate the scouts that you have if you have a librarian is on top of his job sufficiently to immediately address overdue material. I did not experience that. My experience was with 13yo librarians, and none had yet developed that much maturity.

Mr.Mal,

It would not be inconsistent with the scout law to ask a careless scout to replace a book that he lost or damaged. Nor would it be inappropriate for the troop to expect some loss through accidents, and replace such at troop expense. This would be a good problem to give to the PLC, and let them discuss and decide on when to charge scouts for lost or damaged materials.

Venividi

jr56,

Passing the issue to the Eagle BOR and/or National is one course of action - but I am not sure that it is necessarily the best one. In my view, problems are best handled closest to the problem. dhendron sounds like he is doing a heck of a job in supporting this young man. He describes how he has laid out to the young man the challenge that he faces. Ultimately, he will be the one to sign off on the scout spirit requirement based on his assessment on the scout's demonstration of scout spirit based on how the lad rises to the challenge.

Longhaul,

It took a while to reflect on your post before I responded. Initially, I was upset that you would question the appropriateness of someone being involved in scouting if based on the viewpoint I expressed here. After reflection, I thought it more likely that I had done a poor job of explaining myself, and had not gone down to the next layer of meaning in my response.

Everyones views and opinions are colored by the experiences that they have had. A little background on my experience may illuminate. The troop my son joined in 1998 did not have a functional committee. Aside from a good advancement chair and fundraising chair, most everything else fell on the SMs shoulders. As a new ASM, I stepped up to a lot to take some of the strain off of the SM. 18 months later, I was SM. I had one new ASM, who was also highly involved in other volunteer activities. The troop had 4 patrols so plenty of parents - many attended troop committee meetings, providing opinions on what the troop ought to be doing. But requests for parents to take care of the outings reservations, tour permits, equipment, chaplain, etc. were met with silence. Even asking individual parents to handle a reservations for an individual campout were resisted. So I attempted to do it all for the boys, because otherwise, they wouldnt go camping every month and have the experiences that help them grow. The time to do all these other roles had to come from somewhere I dropped other volunteer activities which I enjoyed. Missed more of my daughters activities than I would have liked. Aside from my weekly call with the SPL, I didnt have time to do the things I thought I should be doing - adequately advise the other positions ASPL, PLs, quartermaster, chaplains aide, etc. So they didnt get as much out of their positions as I would have liked them to. And after about 2 years, I was burnt out. By now my son was a freshman in high school and was active in band, cross country, and track. I could see that I either need to recruit a replacement SM, or would be missing my childrens activities while I went on campouts without my son. I resolved that I do my best to get the committee to step up to its responsibilities to make it easier for the next SM. At a committee meeting I laid it out that despite repeated requests for assistance, I as SM was still performing most of their functions and I wasnt going to do it anymore. The troop subsequently missed a couple of campouts because no one would step up to making reservations and other logistics(I did offer to advise so no one would be picking up cold). Equipment fell in dissarry, because there was no adult willing to advise the quartermaster. I could have continued to step in to do it for the boys, but I think that the troop committee became stronger because I finally had the courage not to - and with a stronger committee, the troop became stronger.

I was being taken advantage of (and I allowed it) when I was doing the jobs that others should have been doing. Based on this experience, I see a parallel in the situation in this topic being asked to do something that is properly the responsibility of others. Each of us has a limited amount of time that can be devoted to scouting. Each of us has to come to grips with where that boundary is. Like the story about the starfish on the beach, we can make a difference to some of them. If we attempt to save ALL of them, our contact with each individual may become so small that it can become ineffectual. And by doing it for the other troop (rather than counter offering to participate but not run the activity), may help in the short run, but based on my experience may be counter productive in the long run because those from the other troop can sit in the background without stepping up to the tasks.

Your past experiences may be different, and result in different conclusions. Thank you for challenging me to explain. I think I have provided a much better response this time.

though we may still disagree I dont mind.

Venividi

Perhaps its old age, but I found it difficult to remember every requirement for each scout for which I signed off. Some were memorable, but say, a new scout campout 12 months ago and watching multiple scouts do multiple requirements - I would be lucky to recall all the scouts that attended, let alone what they did.

If I remembered, I would sign, otherwise I would have a talk about trustworthyness, if the scout felt he was trustworthy, and why I should sign based on his word. Then I would probably sign.

One of the things that I had to help a few of my scouts understand(including my son), was that if they allowed others to take advantage of them, they would continue to get treated that way (i.e. as a doormat). What you've described meets that description. You indicate that troop B has already done stuff to "knock their socks off", and they want more from you, while letting you know up front that no matter how much more you do, they are going elsewhere.

Beavah gives appropriate advice. I agree with you to visit with the parents - be sure to let them know that you are glad to see the webelos continuing in scouting, where ever they end up. And that if sometime in the future their son finds that the other troop isn't a good fit for him, they may want to try Troop B on for size. I would caution you not to discount the possibility that Troop A might be a good fit for some of the scouts. Since you indicate that your troop has already had the opportunity to "knock their socks off", they have had the opportunity for a taste of Troop B. Beyond letting them know about your program, continuing to pursue the scouts beyond that may just foster additional bad blood.

And if you agree to provide transportation with your troop bus, don't be surprised to receive continued requests to use it once they are in Troop A.