Venividi

evmori, I agree that methods are not requirements; they are methods to achieve the aims. The methods are supposed to be used together to achieve the aims. The requirement that applies here is scout spirit. I believe that a unit can use a scout's attitudes on uniform, and refusal to wear it, as a factor to consider when evaluating scout spirit, and whether an individual has met the standards the unit has for that requirement. Hence, my disagreement with the statement that a unit can't hold a scout back for a refusal to wear the uniform because they feel embarrassed to wear it. I think

"I am tired of having to do everything". I had a similar experience. I did things that I saw weren't getting done because they were things that needed to be done. I continued to ask the committee chair to get folks to do these other tasks (part of his/her job). Asked individuals, and got responses from "no", to "I will think about it." It wasn't until I stopped doing them that others started to pick them up. And it took a number of months of failed and poorly run events until they did. Taking everything on myself actually made things worse. The longer you continue to do everyt

> it's also clear that once that boy is accepted by a unit, knowing his feeling on uniforms, the unit can't hold him back because of it. I don't think that is clear at all. One, there is no indication that the issue raised in the initial post was from a new scout joining, but rather it appears it is from an existing scout. Two, to draw an analogy, choose another method, such as outdoors or lerdership, or patrol. If a scout had "bad feelings" about any of these, and therefore refused to go outside, hold a leadership position, or belong to a patrol, should a SM hold him back (I am

My advise for when you are debating with yourself as to whether you are "pushing" or "encouraging" is to take a deep breath and think for a while about the aims. You need to self assess if your interest is one of seeing the scout earn a patch or a pin that he can wear, and that he (and perhaps secretly you) can show others as a visible sign of his (and therefore your) success? Or is it one of seeing him develop the character and citizenship, whether or not he is given a patch or pin? If you are unsure if you are pushing or encouraging, then I suspect it likely that the line is being ne

Fscouter, I have to respectfully disagree; I think attendance at patrol/troop meetings and campouts is a component of scout spirit. Not the only component, but part of the whole. A scout's participation with his patrol/troop is a visible indicator of Loyalty to his patrol/troop members. A scout isn't being helpful to scouts in his troop if he is not participating. I once had the mother of a scout argue with me that her son was demonstrating trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc. at the theater group he was involved with, and that should be sufficient to be approved for advancement

Just had this recently - was approached by a scout telling me that he had lost his for First Aid. I had a chat with him and told him that i believe a scout is trustworthy, and I believed him. I explained to him that I was also expected to be trustworthy, and when I put my signature on a new card, I was being trusted to have verified that the requirements were complete. I then did as NWScouter suggested, and gave him the chance to demonstrate first, and then I would teach and help him with those skills which he may have forgotten.

What I interprete Seattle Pioneer as saying is: don't discount the possibility that a particular Life scout may not have developed good relationships with other scouts in the troop, and therefore, the other scouts in the are not motivated to go out of their way to help him. i.e. that he was not helpful to the scouts that he now wants to help him. While it may be a case of an individual scout whose chickens have come home to roost, or as others have suggested, an attitude of unhelpfulness that pervades the culture of a particular troop; SeattlePioneer is suggesting that the task of getting

The following was said I have no doubt, tongue in cheek: Football players learn how to carry a little funny-shaped ball something less than 300 feet on a grassy field. Baseball players, well, play catch and hit balls with a stick - and spit. Yes, it can be fun to watch, but are these real life-long lessons? I will use this as a springboard to say that I don't think that we should discount the values that participation in sports bring to our children; values that somewhat overlap with scouting's values in providing growth in character, citizenship, and fitness. From my view, sports can

Something that hasn't been touched on is that scouts want to know what the expectations are, and that they want expectations to be fair. The scouts themselves know when one of their peers is approved for advancement by the SM & BOR for merely being rostered for the appropriate length of time and for getting the right number of merit badges. They are used to adults making the rules everywhere else in their life, and will likely not say anything to us adults when they see a scout that hasn't been at more than a handful meetings and campouts since their last advancement still get advan

Old Grey Eagle, What do you tell a scout in Troop 1, that he cant be an Eagle because he didnt meet the attendance policies of the troop, but had he been in Troop 2 or 3 that wouldnt be a problem? While I agree in principle that an absolute number/percentage on attendance may not be the best method for measuring activity level, I disagree with your argument. The same question could be posed about any other requirement where there is differences between troops; i.e., if one troop has high standards for scout spirit, and a neighboring troop signs off on scout spirit as a "gimme". And

> Boy Scout Advancment Policy states that as long as a boy holds the position (the title is given to him and isn't withdrawn) it counts. I have read BSA's Advancement Policy & Procedure manual #33088B and do not recall seeing such a statement. I would appreciate it if someone could point to the publication number and page number where this is stated.

CubsRgr8, After re-reading my reply, it could be interpreted as implying you should work directly with the scouts. I meant to propose this with the SM.

CubsRgr8, There are really two issues in your post. Working on the second one will likely help, but not eliminate your problem with invisible scouts. For the Patrol Leader elections, you wouldn't be out of line to guide the scouts to use the method described in the BSA program, where the patrol leader for each patrol is elected by the scouts in that patrol. Consistent with patrols being "natural gangs of boys", the patrols would be established before the patrol leader is selected.

>She had taken it upon herself to reject some of the merit bage work that the boys put into the yearly planner to help out the new scouts because 'half of the boys already have that badge (first aid). Ask her why she does not think first aid is worth being reviewed each year by all scouts. I am a MB counsellor for first aid, and personally, I would not be enthused about needing to receive first aid from a scout that had not had a refresher within the past year.

I think much is a matter of priorities and personal choices. Parents can lay down their expectations with their kids. All the junk food advertizing in the world doesn't matter if parents teach their kids that when they say NO, don't eat those Dorito's, that is what they mean. Even if there is an open bag in the cupboard. Same with school cafeteria food. If parents suspect their kid is buying pizza and soda despite instructions not to, parents can send a sack lunch, and not let them take money to buy lunches. If this starts in grade school healthy habits are ingrained by the time they ar

Grab a copy of the Patrol Leaders Handbook. Use Page 8 as your lesson plan, and cover what each of those PL responsibilities entail; i.e., what would comleting the responsibility look like. Most likely there is more than 40 minutes of lesson right there.

I see two sub-currents in the post: >The boy has admitted it and has now found a counselor who will sign >the badge off for him. What is not clear is did he find a counselor that will sign because he/she sees evidence that the requirements were met, or did he find a counselor that was willing to pencil whip the requirements?. I raise this since it was phrased as finding a counselor to "sign off" rather than as a counselor to "work with". As much as we would like all MB counselors to hold fast to requirements, we all know that there are those that pencil whip the requirements.

I read into this that it isn't just an occasional oversight, but a conscous decision to pass out awards for showing up. Have you tried having a discussion with her about how praise and rewards for achievements not being met may boost self esteem in the short term, but long term is detrimental? Perhaps she doesn't see past the short term.

EagleinKY wrote: Every scout that I have seen run for SPL has run on a promise to "make meetings more fun". Most of the SPLs I have seen elected go to their first PLC and asks "OK, what do you guys want to do?", and do not offer any suggestions of their own. I asked about this at the PL training this past week, and the responses boiled down to the effect that there is a fear that their idea will be seen by the other scouts as lame, and they don't want to risk proposing something that they are not certain will be accepted. It lead to a good discussion on how the "brave" point of the s

Majbob, I would add to Fscouter's suggestion - purchase a copy of the SPL handbook for the SM, and PL handbook for the SM and ASM's. Those books present very clearly what the jr leaders are supposed to be doing, and the scouters can then teach, guide, (and push?) the scouts based on the discrete leader fuctions in the books. As an aside, I just spent an evening reviewing PL responsibilities with newly elected PL's (at the request of the SM). I used the PL handbook as my guide. I found they did understand what they were supposed to do, and why. One scout did ask about what the m

"but because of other competing activities, only a relatively small number of boys go on any particular camping trip" This is a common problem. Some PLC's have set minimum participation requirements (emphasis on PLC decision, not adult decision). Some require that patrols stay with their patrol on campouts, even if only 2 scouts from the patrol attend. Frequently, it is as you state: virtual patrols, which makes it difficult for patrol leaders to lead, because it is never the same set of scouts, and the boys don't really see themselves as real patrols. "Adults were heavily involv

I agree with Fscouter. Being Courteous and Kind come to mind. I am sure that no malice was intended when the comment was made. But when pointed out by someone the insensitivity of it, it is worth considering the other person's perspective. As Fscouter says, the person deserves respect.

Eamonn, Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't getting my point across. I didn't realize that I hadn't explained it well enough. I will try to do better. You say in your last post "Clearly the SM was not in the right." The point I was trying to make was that to me it is not clear, because I have heard only one side of what may be a more complicated story. I have seen and experienced too many examples of parents viewing the SM as wrong because they were not seeing the whole picture. It wasn't my intent to get into the merits of theparticular thread you are refering

Why are you asking? This isn't your job. Leave it to the nominating committee, that's what they are there for. Agree - its not the SM's job. Speaking for myself, I have to say that I was a slow learner. I think it is the "helpful" trait expanded to the extent that it overflows into picking up any job that needs to be done. Call it a character flaw. I raised the topic after I saw the post about another SM making reservations and collecting fees as I used to do; so I see that it wasn't just me that has/had this problem of taking on tasks that I shouldn't, so thought it worth

Fscouter wrote: We post reactions based on the one-sided scenario that is presented. If the facts presented point to the adult leader being a twit, I don't see anything wrong with saying so. Which, in my opinion, is doing a disservice. We don't want our scouts to "react" to a conflict situation, we want them to work it out. If a scout came up to me and told me that another scout hit him for no reason, I wouldn't assume this was factual and then suspend the second scout. I would want to ask a few questions first (or ask the SPL to do so). Because it just may come to light that only