Venividi

CNYScouter,

I would recommend,if you haven't already, raise your concern witht the CC and SM, and ask that it be a topic at a troop comittee meeting. To be effective, everyone involved with the program needs to be on the same page. And without communication between adults on what expectations are for the troop, it would not be unusual to end up with the situation you describe, where holding a position without fulfilling the responsibilities is acceptable. Assumptions get made that no one else supports having reasonable standards (and I am sure you will find some parents who do not), or that there is insufficient support from other adults to implement a program that does so.

In the meantime, I would recommend that you counsel your son as to YOUR expectations. As a SM, I never accepted an excuse from a scout that "I didn't know because [name] never called me." When my son didn't get a weekly call from his PL, I made him call the PL to ask what this weeks meeting plans were.

Similarly, you can advise your son that YOUR expectation is that he will not wait to be told what to do as Chaplaines Aide, but rather, that he demonstrate responsibility by being proactive in serving in his position. BSA Jr Leader Handbook has a job description that he can reference. He can write up his own goals for the POR - and you can help teach him how to do so, and then keep asking him about how he is progressing. Possible goals for him would be to ask for time on a troop meeting agenda to describe the requirements for the various religous awards; earn the award himself, and invite others of his faith to do so; provide a scouts own religous service at each weekend camp out (the troop program guide/resource guide has one or two scripts for a service, and many more can be easily found on the web). Your son can than take this to the SPL or PLC and get buy-in if need be. Sure, given his troop's culture, he may be able to be advanced without doing that, but since you know that he will benefit by doing it, you as a parent can help him by giving him this guidance.

Yes, in an ideal world, the PL would call his patrol members without being reminded weekly by an adult, and the ASPL would sit down with the Chaplaines Aide and other POR holders to teach them what they are to do, and have periodic follow ups. And each troop would have so many dedicated parents looking to help all boys grow that the position of Chaplain would not only be filled, but the holder is actively mentoring; that there is an adult willingly mentoring every POR holder. My experience as SM was that the pool of willing volunteers that will not only hold a position, but proactively mentor the scouts ebbs and flows. When the troop doesn't have a sufficient number of adults to cover everything, you, as a parent with vested interest in seeing your son get more out of the program than a medal for breathing, can help him do so.

CalicoPenn,

I do agree with much of what you post, and I understand why you think "There can be a variety of opinions on whether these were met - and that's why they should be given lesser weight than the objective requirements", but agre more with Beavah that "That's as it should be; boys should be benefitting from the experience and judgment of caring adults.... which requires the adults be allowed to exercise judgment".

Keep in mind the aims - character, citizenship, fitness; - they are not objective, they are subjective. They are more impacted by the objective requirements; scout spirit, actively completing the duties of a POR, than they are by objective measures - 21 MB's, swim 25 yards.

And certainly a topic which many are not shy about expressing their opinions (or "facts" from a certain perspective).

I listened to Mr. Hanegraaff's radio show the night of the posted reference to his web site. He had a guest, and the topic was the book of Mormon - that it included internal inconsistencies which proved it wasn't reliable (from their perspective), but that adherents were too close to it to recognize those inconsistencies.

Go figure.

> because experience taught them that most patrols never double check their boxes before menu planning to see what they already had available

That was our experience also. The scouts preferred to dump left over food into the 3 boxes of "leftovers", and then out of sight, out of mind. I had the quartermaster go through all the old food and distribute, contribute, or dump.

One of my favorite recollections was the number of containers of a certain brand of orange drink mix that accumulated in the box. The scouts wouldn't drink the stuff because it tasted bad, but yet, each month, the grubmaster from at least one patrol would would buy another container of the stuff. They stopped buying it once they had to take it home.

In the news:

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services (1/12/2006)

PROVIDENCE, RI -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island announced today that it has filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of a Christian prisoner who was barred from preaching during religious services at the state prison.

Wesley Spratt had been preaching during Christian services for seven years at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) until 2003, when a new warden unilaterally stopped him from doing so based on vague and generalized "security" concerns. In its appeal, the ACLU argues that the preaching ban violates a federal law known as RLUIPA, which was designed to protect the religious freedom of institutionalized persons.

"RLUIPA is an important federal law that was designed to protect the religious freedom of people like Wesley Spratt," said ACLU cooperating attorney Carly Beauvais Iafrate. "That law is undermined if courts give uncritical deference to prison officials in denying inmates the right to practice their religion."

i know we probably should change up our method of cooking, but we're having enough problems getting simple things done (mostly b/c of leadership.), so i dont think now is the time to try to change that.

Our exerience was that when we switched from a patrol cooking summer camp to a dining hall camp, the youth leadership actually got worse. There weren't a lot of other opportunities to lead where the patrol actually experienced discomfort as a result of not working together as a patrol. When we returned to a patrol cooking camp, the patrol had to work together, and the patrol had to lead, or a patrol was very hungry by the time they got around to getting the meals ready, and they saw other patrols eating and cleaned up before they even started eating. What I am trying to say is that we saw patrol cooking fostering leadership, not leadership fostering cooking.

... it'd be the Scoutmaster, but since he continually has shown that he's too busy for getting around to things like getting a proper trailer for the Troop,...

Just another perspective, for what it is worth: I would hope that the Scoutmaster is too busy to get involved with procuring a trailer. As a former SM, I would expect such support to come from the committee or a volunteer parent. I applaud your stepping up and doing the leg work on the trailer. Again, as a former SM, I don't know if I can express in words how gratifying it is to have someone take a project like this and make it happen. I hope the advice you are getting helps out.

You may also want to look at Menards or Home Depot. I have seen enclosed trailers in their parking lots that they were selling. Our troop did get their trailer from Northern Indiana. We ordered through a local seller found in the yellow pages, and saved a hundred or so by driving to the manufacturer to pick it up.

I believe that there were local floods upon which flood stories were based, but not a literal worldwide flood as described in the bible.

Why not?

1.) Mt Everest is over 29,000 ft tall. Raining for 40 days and nights means a rate of 30 ft per hour (6" per minute). Granted, the bible indicates some of that water swelled up from below, but there is no evidence that there are places that could have provided this much water, nor any place that it could go. Even if half the water came miraculously from below, that is still 15 ft of rain per hour.

2.) The story indicates that the world was flooded for 2 years. Salt water species of marine life would not have been able to live in the fresh water (rain water) for that long. Or if by some special leaching action the rain water became salty, the fresh water marine life could not have lived.

This explanation is not meant to try and convince anyone else that they should see things as I do, but merely to show that there are logical agruments for someone not believing every bible story is literal fact. I have no doubt that someone else could see a way around these (Mt Everest was only 1000 ft tall at the time of the flood; God suspended the laws of nature and kept salt water salty and fresh water fresh for the two years that the world was under water).

I agree with Trevorum: Of course that should not stop anyone else from believing - that is why faith does not need proof.

> I'd hate for him to do something he shouldn't do...

But that is part of the learning experience. Try something, and it works, or it doesn't work, or works only with continued effort. As long as it is not illegal or immoral, provide some support for his efforts, a little direction, and let him charge forward. Let him make decisions, and if he runs into a few blind alleys, he will gain experience and perseverence. And that is a huge part of the benefit.

Falterturm,

You don't make comment on whether the scouts in the Viking patrol are being approved for rank advancement. If they are passing SM conferences and BOR's, then the standards being used for the scout spirit requirement are not in synch with what you would like to see. If they are being rewarded for their current behaviour, they have no reason to change.

If, on the other hand, they are not being approved for advancement, and they all lack motivation to do so, then you do have a problem. Perhaps a SM conference with each individually, to discuss what they want to get out of their membership, what activities they would be interested in, and that the troop really needs them to step up. If the reaction is still lack of any spirit, be blunt, and ask your question of why they even want to come to troop meetings.

Welcome!

> I just am amazed that this is more difficult than I had anticipated...

And you will be even more amazed at the growth in a young man that pushes and stretches himself to overcome the difficulties. You have gotten some great ideas. My son's experience with the big box stores was that the local store had minimal latitude to donate material. The big box home building store sent his eagle project request to the home office. Later, they donated wood and hardware for a patrol trebuchet project. It won't hurt your son to ask; I think he will benefit if he hears some "no's" along the way. That is real world. So let him ask at a few places where you as an adult think would not be productive.

Best of Luck to your son.

I don't interpret using a rule of thumb for evaluation purposes to be equivelant to adding a standard that, if not met, means automatic turn down. Rather, I think it is a tool or benchmark from which one can start to ask "why" questions; such as Why has 80 percent of the work been done by the scout and his Father? How did you show leadership when only 20% of the work was done by others? There are likely some scenarios where the scout may have shown sufficient leadership given these statistics; there are also likely scenarios where the scout's focus was on getting a project done, but the scout was uncomfortable with leading so did work himself, that could (and should) have been done by people he led.

By way of analogy is a rule of thumb for size of a project. There is no defined number of hours required, but rather, it is to be at least large enough to for the scout to show leadership. Each of us has some internal view as to how large that should be. For instance, a scout doing a project taking 1 hour, with two friends,for a total of 20 minutes each, could be considered as acceptable, since there is no minimum size required for a project. But whether the scout exhibited sufficient leadership with such a project is (and should be) open to question.

I see the same with this this. The poster didn't indicate that this was cause for automatic denial, only that there is concern that the scout may not have sufficiently demonstrated leadership.

>As far as showing leadership. Did he work the group benifiting from the project and work out the plans for the project? Did he have to get donations of materials or have to earn money to pay for material? Did he arrange for others to help him on the project? Did he oversee the work on the project through it completion? If the answer to these questions is YES then he showed leadership.

I am not so sure. Jollymon is correct to have reservations, and to investigate further. There can be a potential for some good discussions at the BOR to explore further. There may be good reason why planning and personal preparation by the scout took half the project, but that won't be known unless questioned at the BOR. Or perhaps the scout spent the bulk of his hours not on planning and preparation, but on the implementation phase of the project, doing the work himself. Again, that won't be known without asking.

It is fair to not make a decision (about whether leadership was demonstrated during the project) until the end of the BOR. It is not fair to sweep the atypical data under the rug without questioning it.

Each troop has its own standards. My experience is that when you hold high standards, the scouts will meet your expectations. When you have minimal standards, the scouts will meet your expectations.

Venividi

This discussion has taken an interesting turn that brought back an old memory. I was raised Lutheran. Back in the early 1970's our high school youth group had raised some money and was looking for a worthy cause to help needy children to which we could donate that money. We chose Catholic Charities (or something like that). Our elderly pastor did not allow it. He went off on a rant on Catholics and how their beliefs were wrong and they would end up in that other place. I found out that was a common view between Lutherans and Catholics back when he had been young.

Times change, and peoples beliefs change along with them. I personally am not aware of anyone that takes such a view today (between Lutherans & Catholics), but a few probably still exist. I suspect that now that there are so many non-christian faiths in the US, the differences between christian denominations seems minor by comparison. Nothing stops family members from bickering among themselves as quickly as having a common cause to fight. I think "war on Chrismas" has been positioned as that cause.

Am wrapping up my first hunting season ever - at 49. Had some friends looking for a place to hunt geese. I have access to my father's farm. So I went with them. It was a chance to reconnect with the beauty of the land - which is vanishing quickly - two adjacent farms are owned by developers, a third purchased by the city of Elgin, IL for a park.

I did not get one bird. Didn't care. Saw lots of Canada geese, ducks, doves, pigeons, blue jays, sandhill cranes, etc. Saw some snow geese for the first time. I would not have been spending the amount of time there had I not had an objective. Photography - I great reason to get outside. So is hunting. Around here, geese are a problem because of the ideal environment that the encroaching urban areas provide for them to live. Canada geese were rare around here 30 years ago.

Some thoughts on the uniform method and its relationship to aims:

The church that sponsors our troup has a youth group. That group does have some similar aims with respect to the development of character. Their program is run without the use of a uniform.

There is a Catholic military academy for high school boys about 2 miles from my house. They also have a similar aim with respect to development of character. They do use a uniform - in fact, several uniforms; the daily school attire in addition to a dress uniform, which looks very similar to a military dress uniform. And parents pay a lot of money for tuition, the uniform, fundraisers, etc. that makes scouting costs pale in comparison. Wearing of the uniform is not optional, nor is wearing part of the uniform. I know a number of lads that have attended, including my nephew, and it appears to me to have been beneficial to them.

Is the wearing of the uniform "obedience"? I see where Kudu is coming from, and that may be part of it; or be dependent on point of view and/or how it is positioned, how it is implemented in a unit, and on the market being served. One could also position the uniform method as form of "discipline" as opposed to "obedience"; i.e., the self discipline to identify as a part of the group, which implies the tempering or modifying the wants and desires of the individual.

Being pragmatic, I do like the BDU's Kudu shows on his web site (if my memory serves me correctly).

There are those of us that implement a program using/expecting a full uniform, and combined with the other methods, have a positive impact and influence on the boys involved. There are also those of us that use/expect a partial uniform, and have a positive influence on the boys involved in their program. Scouts coming out of each unit will have had different experiences, due in part to the experience they had with the uniform. Different results will occur as part of the entire mix; uniform, the kids involved, the community they are in, the adults involved with the troop, the other adults in their life, etc.

Which is better, which is most effective? It is a bit like asking whether the church youth group or the military academy is better. They are different; but both are good.

Its a hobby - a reason to get outdoors, just like your photography hobby. A feeling of connecting with the primal urge to be a provider, at least for a weekend.

I am not familiar with hunting on the National Elk Reserve, so can't comment if that is an accurate representation of hunting there, but I don't think it is representative of hunting everywhere.

Note that the same arguement could be made questioning why someone would want to spend a weekend (or week) sleeping on the ground, in freezing rain, cooking over a fire, getting dirty, etc. when they could be snug in a nice warm house complete with flush toilets and air freshener just in case there is a little odor.

cheers!

Got to thinking more on this from Eamonn's orignal post:

Parents and some leaders seem to view how many merit badges were earned at summer camp as the yard stick that measures the success of the camp.

I think the sports analogy to this is the parent that wants their child to be the leading scorer on their soccer or basketball team. Perhaps it is a bit more intuitive that these are team sports, and parents need a bit more time and instruction to recognize that scouting can be just as much a team activity.

Gotta agree with all these posts.

Our troop returned to our council's patrol cooking camp after 3 years at a neighboring council's dining hall summer camp. Our observations were that teamwork within the patrols suffered during those three years. They didn't get enough cooking on weekend campouts throughout the year, and combined with each weekend trip being composed of a subset of the patrol membership, the scouts became more a collection of individuals at the same place.

we noticed that the patrol goal of preparing meals (reinforced 3 times per day) was replaced by individual goals of completing merit badge work.

Patrol cooking isn't for everybody, and seems to be for less and less. Our council's camp is touting their plans for a dining hall, necessary because more and more of their customers are going elsewhere. In a discussion with a friend at another troop, he said their troop liked the dining hall camps because it was less work, and summer camp was viewed as a vacation, and no one was interested in spending their vacation cooking. It was interesting to see the difference in perspectives.

Eamonn wrote: Parents and some leaders seem to view how many merit badges were earned at summer camp as the yard stick that measures the success of the camp.

It always bothered me when leaders at our summer COH's would praise the number of merit badges earned, and the scouts that had 7 got much more recognition that the scout that got 3, but showed better scout spirit by helping new scouts, or convincing a group of his buddies to take time out from pursuit of merit badges to go down to the lake during "free swim" time. I'ld much rather see a scout spirit award given by the troop to those scouts that most exhibited scout spirit.

Kudu,

I like it - seems pretty desciptive to me. Sometimes I think there is so much argument over the methods and how best to use them than on actually spending time with the kids. Seeing the changes BSA itself makes over time makes it obvious to me that there are many ways to implement, not just one best way.

(tongue in cheek: Often the arguments seem to be about how best ALL YOU OTHER PEOPLE should use the methods.)

> A uniform doesn't build character either, I've seen scouts in

> uniform that are significantly lacking in that area.

I have to disagree with this statement. The BSA position is that all 8 methods (including uniform) are there to help achieve the aims. I think it unlikely that they specified a method that has no bearing on the aims. I have no doubt that you have seen uniformed scouts behaving badly, but that does not mean that wearing the uniform doesn't help build character. An analogy - I am aware of church youth group members having shoplifted. That doesn't imply that church membership isn't valuable in developing character.

If you don't want to use the uniform method in your program, I have no beef with that. Similarly, I hope you don't have a problem with units that do choose to use the uniforming method and have found it to be an effective part of their overall program. Scouting is a big tent - lets count on each other to do the best to help develop character, citizenship, and fitness in our charges, even if each of us does so with differing points of emphasis.

Venividi

> And, you can't use Scout Spirit to keep him back (the most

> abused and misquoted requirement I know). It's "living the scout > oath and scout law IN YOUR EVERYDAY LIFE" - OUTSIDE of troop

> activities - so, the uniform can't be an issue.

We may be looking at different parts of the same elephant and drawing different conclusions here, but try as hard as I can, I cannot read into "IN YOUR EVERYDAY LIFE" that this means excluding troop activities. I once had a scouts Mom use that argument to try and make a case that her son should be advanced to Life - his behavior was awful at troop meetings, but, according to his Mom, he was very helpful in the theater group that he was part of, so his bad behaviour at troop meetings shouldn't be something that needed modification in order to be a Life scout.

So sorry, but I cannot buy your argument as stated.

Venividi

I just read the list that Kudu posted, and I think we're all better off for that guy's leaving the program.

I also read the list, and saw the classic signs of burnout - sounds like he was venting. Appears to me that he was handling things himself that the committee should have been doing (tour permits, paperwork, training for parents), dealing with parents that didn't support him (the how come Johnny has to ... type reasons. ) All these things get old and frustrating after a while. I think it possible that the troop would have been better off if the committee had taken steps before the volunteer reached the point of frustration. And perhaps tapped his knowledge as a "SM emeritus" afterwards.

Perhaps rather than a specific Eagle requirement since it is not something that any of us can add, use the concept as a mental exercize when reviewing scouts for advancement. Consider if you would trust the scout to lead such an outing, and if not, why not?

It would give some visibility/clarity on areas to cover in a SM conference; i.e., why don't I trust him, and are those areas that need further development by the scout before he is ready.

I think that the service project is where the scout is supposed to demonstrate the leadership skills, initiative, trust, etc. that are tested in OGE's suggestion. The difference I think is the scout doing it on his own, where with Eagle projects there can be a tendency for adult intervention with "coaches", adult labor, and other "assistance".

I think a unit can be internally consistent and see the wearing of the uniform as one factor in demonstrating "loyalty" to his troop/patrol. There is also scout spirit involved in how a scout goes about completing the duties of one leadership position, one of which is to properly wear the scout uniform (paraphrased), the last time I looked, anyway.

I personally don't have a problem if a particular unit discounts the wearing of the uniform. For a unit that doesn't see a tie in between wearing the uniform and demonstrating scout spirit, it shouldn't be a factor when signing off on scout spirit for a scout in that unit.

Similarly, a unit that does see a tie-in, and does have expectations on the uniform as a factor to consider when evaluating satisfactorily meeting the scout spirit requirement, the unit can do so, and (in my opinion) is acting within the guidelines of BSA in doing so.