WoodBadgeEagle

Benny- glad things worked out.

I think I'll take Dan's advice and have our SPL run this year's election, including the white board part. Just one more way I can help our Troop be more boy-run.

Dan, I hope you find your Holy Grail of a boy-run Troop. I know that if I visited 50 Troops in 3 years I would have found at least 50 ways that boys were running things instead of 50 units that weren't perfect.

As our Troop heads into yet another year of patrols, leaders and elections, I thought I'd share something that we have been doing in our Troop for 5 years now, and it helps set the boys' attitude as they vote for SPL, or even for PL (though that one usually comes down to who wants the job within the Patrols of older Scouts!).

Before we do the election, I get out my trusty whiteboard and dry-erase markers and ask the boys to list the QUALITIES that they feel a leader should have in a boy-run Troop (which we are). I never censor what they say, they do that themselves, for example if someone is being goofy and says, "whoever pays me to vote for them", others tell me to erase that one. Of course, they list the Scout Oath and Law, but I ask them to go beyond that and think a little about how the person who runs the Troop should BE. It's fun, interesting and it changes a little year to year, but I am always impressed with the list of characteristics they come up with.

Once the list is complete (when they can't come up with any more), we have the candidates come up and give a brief speech for why they think they would make a good SPL, what they have done in the past to embody the traits that are listed right next to them, and what they intend to DO as SPL. Sure, the list sets them up a little, but we usually find the candidates giving examples of how they HAVE been the kind of person and Scout that the Troop is looking for in an SPL.

After the speeches, I remind the boys that THEY chose the qualities they were looking for in an SPL, they listened to (and probably have seen in action) the candidates, and that their votes should be based on how well they feel that the candidates will be the kind of SPL they are looking for.

Then we vote, and you know the rest. This process takes time (nearly a whole meeting), but it really drives the point home, and the boys feel very involved and responsible for their choices.

Every year I ask the PLC at the annual planning conference if they want to keep this in the election process and it's always a unanimous YES.

Okay, back to my original question, which was about participation in Camporee events. The letter of the "law" states that "Webelos Scout dens should not compete against or partipate in activites designed for Boy Scouts.".

I want to have ONE set of events that all Scouts and Webelos participate in (Lord knows with all the lawyers in America, I hesitate to have any "dangerous" events), but with separate scoring for the Webelos, and separate sets of awards.

The rule does not seem to allow this.

Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation? It wouldn't be the first time.

Thanks!

I am a former Cubmaster, and am now a Scoutmaster (for the past 5 years).

Our Troop has always invited 2nd year Webelos from a couple of neighboring Packs to come to and participate in Fall Camporees and winter Klondikes with the Boy Scouts. We did not usually have them stay overnight, but they went around and did the events. Sometimes we mixed them in Patrols with older Scouts (the older Scouts really enjoyed this), and sometimes they went around as their own Patrol- it depended on how many Webelos went to the event. We have had a separate set of awards for Webelos dens who compete, but the events have been the same ones that the Boy Scouts participated in.

I just got an e-mail from someone in our Council that says we must not do this. She quoted from the "Cub Scout Outdoor Program Guidelines for 2002" as follows:

"Webelos Scout dens are encouraged to visit Boy Scout district camporees and Klondike derbies. The purpose of these visits should be for the boys to look ahead with anticipation to their future as Boy Scouts and observe troops they might join. Webelos Scout dens should not compete against or partipate in activites designed for Boy Scouts. Webelos Scout dens should not spend the night as particpants at the event if the program is Boy-Scout based."

My opinion was that asking a 10-year old to come and OBSERVE and not PLAY was about as exciting as asking them to visit an art museum (sorry to all the art museum fans out there).

I will of course follow the rules, but does anyone know where this came from, and if it is in keeping with the way things have been done or supposed to be done in the past?

I am a bit discouraged by this, and I don't see us having a separate set of events JUST for Webelos, but anything is possible.

Thoughts? Thanks!

WBE

I have encountered both situations, one very recently.

For the Scout who was nervous about participating in the flag ceremony (he mentioned it to the SPL when he was asked to do it), we had an Instructor assigned to each of the new Scouts (not just the Scout that was nervous) and the Instructors walked with and gave quiet advice to the new Scouts about what to do when. It helped the nervous Scout and set a good example for the older Scouts.

We almost got kicked out of Dorchester CA about 4-5 years ago because of noisy Scouts at night. At the time, we had a big tent that slept (er, I mean HOUSED) 12 Scouts. No matter what we did, they would not quiet down.

We replaced that and the 2 other larger tents with 2-man and 3-man (but used by 2 larger people) tests. Best thing we ever did. Since then I only have to go around once and remind the few noisy Scouts that if I can hear them they are talking too loudly. As someone else said, quiet Scouts go to sleep quicker.

The "threat", if there is one, is that anyone that makes me get out of bed to tell them to quiet down risks having their parent called on the spot and having them come pick them up. The PLC decided on that as our Troop's consequence to disruptive behavior. For the past 4 years, I've had no problems with noise at night, other than adults snoring too loudly. I must admit, I'm still a little surprised at how quickly they get quiet.

As for the latrine duty, the PLC decided that, even though latrine duty is always a regular duty roster item, on-the-spot latrine cleaning was called for for any adult or Scout who swore (this consequence was reserved for swearing, and the logic was that if you had a potty mouth, you should become more familiar with the potty). Since they decided that, we have only had to dish that out a handful of times (over 3 years now).

We do NOT use the term "punishment" in our Troop Code of Conduct. Everything is a "consequence", because everything we do has consequences, anyway.

WBE

Tony-

I helped organize the 2002 Klondike for our district, and it was a big success (not much snow, but cold enough!).

I am the Jr. Leader Roundtable Commissioner, and we got the boys together in early November (at Roundtable) and asked them what they liked best in a Klondike Derby. We set some guidelines (fun, Scout skills, age-appropriate, etc.), and then did a brainstorming session. We laid out the rules for such a session (everyone's ideas are welcome, no criticizing,etc.). They started out slow, then came up with some great ideas, then drifted into strange ideas. With every idea, we did not say "good idea", or "okay", just "thank you".

Once we a list of about 30 ideas (our Klondikes tend to draw around 30 Patrols), and the boys were all out of ideas, the adults asked "what about..." with events that they had seen in previous years. It was surprising how often the boys were unanimous in their dislike of past (adult-idea) events! Sometimes, it was only part of an event that they didn't like, and offering a modification made it attractive again.

The next month, I had typed up all the ideas and we (a slightly different group of Scouts) sat down again to finalize the ideas, to "flesh them out". One was "golfing in the snow". I asked wouldn't it be hard to FIND the white balls in the snow, and they said that's the FUN part. It became the whole event- a searching game. Funny how much it resembled policing an area, something they don't usually like to do...

After the 2nd meeting, a group of 4-5 adults met at a restaurant and fine-tuned the events to make sure most contained Scout skills all were teamwork events (most didn't require much modification), then we divvied them up for materials. I made all the score sheets and punch cards. Others did sign-in and registration. Somebody did the cocoa.

We always get adults and older Scouts who want to run events before opening (we include this request in the flyers), so event staffing isn't a problem.

Hope this helped!

WBE

Rooster, I read through this entire thread before I posted this (as it is of interest to me), and I think your quip back at Bob was uncalled for. I was wondering when one of you was going to take the lead and start a new post centered around the last 10 messages.

But, then again, the title of this thread IS "A Rather Interesting Comment", and I gotta admit, all of these have been "rather interesting comments" .

Like I said, this (UW) topic is of interest to me. I was at a District Committee meeting last week and one of the commissioners brought up the following scenario:

A group of large local businesses had contacted our Council and (I am paraphrasing here) said that if the Council didn't get some diversity/sensitivity training right away, they were going to divert "their UW funds" away from BSA by pressuring the local UW chapter. When ended up happening was that the leader of the local Gay Alliance was selected to come in and do the talk (wow, talk about drowning a fire with gasoline!). And he (the commissioner) was caught off-guard and under attack by people who believe that the BSA should stand its ground on not allowing gay leaders (or members? I'm not totally clear on the wording of the BSA policy, and that's not terribly important for this post). I personally did not get anyone confronting me about it.

What I find "interesting" is that these businesses have enough clout to take their EMPLOYEES' donations and treat them as THEIRS. Matching funding aside, it is NOT all coming out of the pockets of the corporations, yet they appear to be using it as bargaining chips for their agendas!

Has anyone else heard of this happening, and what (if any) were the outcomes? I wish I had all the specifics, but the gist of this (described above) was not disputed by the 5-6 people in the room who had first-hand knowledge of it.

Just wondering.

ps- DedDad pre-dates me, and, from the sounds of things, I think I am happy with that.

Evmori-

Thanks for your comments.

My last post got so long (yes, I was aware of that ), and I am glad you said what you said, because I needed to add something.

I read the entire manual (at least all of the parts that were either general info or related directly to Troop Advancement). Until then, I did not feel comfortable making any statements about what I felt the Policies said or were supposed to mean.

Yes, it is open to interpretation in (in my opinion) too many areas. However, most everything that is written IS. That's the beauty and the curse of the English language. Yes, I feel I could make suggestions for clearing it up.

But I also got my answers by reading the entire thing. I came away with a much better sense of the intent of the manual, the policies and the procedures. It answered a few other little detail questions that I had not thought of asking yet. It was in relatively plain English, and that's a feat that is infrequently accomplished by procedural documents. In those respects, it fulfilled its intent.

I challenge everyone who is commenting on advancement to read the manual. At least twice. And use a highlighter. THEN let's have a dialog about WHAT it says (there will still be lots of opportunity for that). Unfortunately, a great many of the well-intended comments that have been made here have been from hearsay or tradition, not from direct knowledge.

Bob White stands as a blessing and a crutch to this Forum. He reads the rules and regs, goes to training and then people like me ask him questions. Until I read the manual, I did not feel I had learned my answer. I do now.

This is such an important topic and apparently widely misunderstood, that it behooves everyone to read this document.

I have spent the past 15 years in the computer networking world, and we have a nice little acronym for everything. My most often used is "RTFM", or "Read The Freakin' Manual".

RTFM, everyone.

WBE

I now possess (and have read all of the Boy Scout scections thoroughly) the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual.

Like any other written instrument, it is difficult to include the variety of information that this contains and put it into "the best" order so as not to be confusing. This manual covers the Procedures and Policies for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts (rank AND Merit Badges), Varsity Scouting and Venturing.

If you don't read ALL of the applicable sections (if you skip through looking for information that supports your viewpoint, for example), it can be downright misleading. I suggest that every Troop get multiple copies of this document, have everyone on the Troop Committee plus SM's and ASM's read it. Thoroughly. Then, the Advancement Committee, the CC, the SM and ASM's should sit down and discuss what this says and make sure that the Program and Advancement procedures that the Troop follows meet all of the requirements.

Examples of what I found misleading are as follows:

Page 23, Troop Advancement, Goals, opening sentence: "The Scoutmaster must be in charge of advancement in the Troop.". If that does not impart the concept of "authority", I don't know what does. You MUST read elsewhere in the manual to get clarification, and even that is vague. It NEVER states that a SM does NOT approve the advancement of a Scout, yet he is "in charge" of it.

Page 26, Boards of Review: "The members of the board of review should have the following in mind when they conduct the review. To make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to for the rank. To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit. To encourage the Scout to progress further."

Sounds good, right? Except the VERY next sentence: "The review is not an examination; the board does not retest the candidate. Rather, the board should attempt to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals."

So, I read this as saying that if a requirement has been signed off, the board does not have the right to retest (challenge) that requirement. If someone here sees that differently, let me know.

Later on, on Page 27: "The review is not an examination. The Scout has learned his skill and has been examined [WBE note: I think they meant to say 'tested', since 'examination' is not one of the Four Steps of Advancement listed on page 22]. This is a review. The Scout should be asked where he learned his skill, who taught him, and the value he gained from passing this requirement.

"The Scout reviews what he did for his rank. From this review, it can be determined whether he did what he was supposed to do."

Ahhhh... now it is becoming more clear (to me, at least). If I get the meaning here (because it is CERTAINLY not crystal clear!), then I would say the following:

A board of review must BELIEVE that the Scout indeed DID everything that he -and the signatures in his book- claims to have done to earn the rank.

Just when I thought I had it, the manual goes on a little more, Page 28: "The board should attempt to determine the Scouts ideals and goals. The board should make sure that a good standard of performance has been met. A discussion of the Scout Oath and Law is in keeping with the purpose of the review, to make sure the candidate recognizes and understands the value of Scouting in his home, unit, school and community."

That is, in my opinion doing two things-

1) Adding to the requirements for a rank. Requirement #2 says that the Scout must SHOW Scout spirit in his everyday life by living the Scout Oath and Law. It does NOT say he has to understand the value of Scouting. I am splitting hairs a little, but I think either statement taken individually means something a little different, and consistency is sorely needed in this area.

2) Creates wiggle-room. I believe (know!) that the Scout who was the focus of my original post UNDERSTOOD and even RECOGNIZED the value of Scouting and the Scout Oath and Law- my SMC proved that. The problem is that he did not convince me that he was DOING anything with this knowledge, especially in the areas of Trustworthy, Obedient or Courteous.

So, let's take my very real example instead of a ficticious one- his dad (an ASM) signs off on Requirement #2, ostensibly because he knows his son better than I do (true, but he, like every parent, has blinders on). I cannot challenge this (he has been "tested"), the board does not retest this requirement, but determines that the Scout RECOGNIZES and UNDERSTANDS the value of Scouting and the Scout Oath and Law.

POOF. He advances to Life, ill-prepared for the final 12 steps from Life to Eagle. We have done him a disservice.

Having said all that, I do feel that the appropriate advancement procedure is to have the board do the advancement (or not). I like the shared leadership and responsibility that this process provides me and the rest of the adult leaders in the Troop.

I just think that this confusion over who is supposed to take what steps when to ensure that the advancement process supports the Aims of Scouting is aggravated by (what I view) as a confusing document that is supposed to be the Gospel.

Comments? (like I needed to ask!).

WBE

Bob-

I didn't feel "jumped on" at all- I simply suggested that I'd rather keep things in the forum in case someone (like you) saw something I posted as not in keeping with the Scouting program, then they could "jump in".

It was a real eye-opener for me about the way we do MB's in our Troop not following the methods and purpose of the program.

We have been doing MB work at Troop meetings since WAY before I became SM. We were also a completely adult-run operation. We changed to a Scout-run program over the past 4 years, but we kept (in fact, refined) the doing MB's at Troop meetings, largely because I was not aware that this was not the way things should be done.

The hardest thing for us when (note- not IF) we change this starting in the fall will be the fact that it works so well. MB work is only a part of the Troop meeting time, and the Scouts who choose to work on a badge (we do two required MB's at a time for a total of 4 throughout the year) get the MB books from the ligrary, request additional resouces from the MB counselors, recruit guest speakers and parents to come in or help organize an outing (town hall meeting, etc.) and then work together on a requirement or two each week at Troop meetings.

I can (and have) seen the downside of this (some Scouts who have little interest in the badge just tag along and don't make it a decision to do the work). But, it's not really a cookie-cutter thing, either. Nobody tells any Scout to work on a MB, and even if they choose to work on the ones at Troop meetings, not everyone finishes the badge with the group (about 50% do finish it).

I have looked through what used to be called Woods Wisdom (I forget the new name of the 3-volume set) and I always wanted to try it "by the book", but we focused on changing other things to get our program to more closely match what the BSA says (we were a long ways off at the start).

We'll discuss how to go about this at our Annual Planning PLC later next month, and next year will be another new beginning for us.

For me, it is sometimes difficult to be certain what information I possess comes from my association with existing Troop operations and what came specifically from training. That's why I continue to read and ask questions, and attend as much training as I can.

And that is the shortest post I have made in this Forum (sorry for the other long ones!).

Well, the discourse on this post has certainly taught me one thing- this is a VERY misunderstood Policy.

At first, that made me feel better (ignorance, like misery, loves company). But now, I am concerned about

1) The amount of training adult leaders NEED to go through and

2) The content of the training being clear enough on this Policy

Like my original post said, I have been through a good deal of training, and I took that training very seriously. I believe in doing things by the book, but I am also human and slip into the "here's how we do it" mode from time to time. Always with good intentions, but straying from the way the program was designed, at least somewhat.

Our adult leaders have been discussing this all week, and we believe we have discovered where all of the error came from. I am certain that other Troops have had the same path followed. We simply adopted the same erroneous activities from SM to SM:

1) The SM was assumed to have had the authority to advance (or not) a Scout. Obviously incorrect.

2) We used the SMC as a means to assess and discuss that advancement, especially on Requirement #2, living the Scout Oath and Law. Somewhat incorrect, as the SMC is a good time to discuss these things, but placing the SMC as an advancement step that immediately preceeds the BoR is incorrect.

What is most troubling about this whole thing is that NONE of the training I went through definitively DISPELLED these two incorrect assumptions. I think that these two errors are widespread among Troops, especially ones like ours where the past leadership was highly UNTRAINED. Doing things the way they have been done must be carefully watched.

I am actively involved in adult leader training, right now as a Troop Guide on Outdoor Fundamentals (if that's what it is still called), and doing Pack Committee training in Cub Leader Specific training. I am pleased to have been invited to help staff a Wood Badge course for 2003, and I am really looking forward to that, as I learn far more as an instructor than as a student, and I learned a LOT from my Wood Badge course.

I'm going to talk with the Course Director and let him know that I am concerned that this material may need to be better covered in the syllabus, and see what he says. Bob (a different Bob) has been an excellent resource for me, and I know he'll look into this.

Thanks again for all the dialog.

Bob White-

Looks like we are online at the same times.

Funny, your mannerisms and phraseology remind me of my favorite mentor in Otetiana Council, also named Bob (though I think he is a Beaver).

Massawepie is still as great as ever- it's where our 40 boys are going this summer. Camp Cutler (I think you are referring to it) has become a premiere summer camp for Cubs, plus a great all-year camping facility. We do a lot of leader training there.

Check out www.otetiana.org. I'm on the web committee, soon we'll have Camping info up there (that's my current assignment).

WBE

Chippewa29-

If it's OK with you, I'd rather have those discussions in this Forum. I got some feedback from Bob White about what I posted here, but in another Forum where I had posted a request for help.

It seems that the way we do Merit Badges and elect positions of responsibility are not permissable. I need to get more info on this, because these two program components have yielded excellent results (Scouts come to meetings, take responsibility, actually LEARN something from doing MB's, but most of all they LIKE this structure. They also feel that the elections of positions is far more fair). I need to do more research before I simply tell the PLC that we must change. Maybe I didn't explain everything well enough, but I can look into it more.

For those reasons, I'd rather field questions about our Troop in the Forum, where I can't give incorrect advice without someone who knows ALL of the rules around to jump in as needed.

I'd be happy to answer any questions about our Troop in this Forum.

WBE

LongHaul-

I'll field both of these (I think I have learned enough at this point to give it a whirl- Bob, please jump in if need be).

1) "Failing" an SMC is not technically a correct phrase. If I have an SMC with a Scout, and we accomplish what they are intended to provide (a discussion of the Scout's advancement, helping them set goals, making suggestions for improvements, listening to their feedback about Troop goings-on, etc.). It's hard for me to imagine a Scout failing at that, unless he never shows up. It's not a pass-fail thing, it's an event, an occurrence.

2) I always thought that the SMC was to help prepare them for the BoR, too, and I guess it still is my job to help them understand what they'll need to do to accomplish advancement through their BoR. It isn't the immediately preceeding step in advancement, however. I really like that change in my understanding of the SMC, because now I get to have SMC's whenever they (or I) want to have them, not all bunched up just prior to their BoR's, which are all bunched up just prior to a Court or Honor. I always felt that there was something wrong with that pressure.

As far as the "invented" comment was concerned, it was probably a poor choice of words.

These Scouts came to me (or rather, their parents did, but I asked the parents to have the Scouts approach me instead, which started an attitude with this particular Scout's mother, something I did not catch on to until last night). Anyway, they came to me and said that all of the positions of responsibility were taken, and what could they do to "carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the Troop", thereby fulfilling that requirement for Star.

We talked about what this requirement meant, and I asked them to talk among themselves and come up with a suggestion or two. I'd rather involve them in coming up with ideas than spoon-feed them (their parents have already been doing enough of that).

They came up with putting together a Troop Information Book that could be borrowed by new Scouts and their parents to help them understand how Boy Scouts and our Troop functioned. Through more discussions, we expanded it to include the use of this information in a presentation to be given at our Pack's Cross-Over ceremony.

I made it clear that, since this was an individual rank advancement, this "group" project must be divided up into distinct areas of responsibility that could be individually measured to assess their completion of this advancement requirement.

They met every requirement, though this particular Scout did the least of them all (by far). He also understood the principle of the leadership project the least. Like I said, he does the minimum, but enough to prevent me from saying he didn't do it. Overall, it was a fairly impressive booklet and presentation, though I am certain that their parents helped out more than any of them will admit.

I appreciate your comments. I hope this shed some additional light on the subject so you understand why I felt that the advancement requirement was fulfilled.

Bob-

Thank you, I think I finally get it. But just in case, let me try to summarize (and let me know where I am wrong).

For SM Conferences, I am there to have a discussion with the Scout about their Scouting "career". To make recommendations, to draw out their input, to help them set goals and to make sure they understand the process. I can do this at any time.

I don't advance anyone.

When a Scout is ready to advance (their decision), they set up a Board of Review appointment. I should speak to the Board before the BoR about the Scout and provide them my input about how they are doing and any issues that may exist.

I understand that a BoR could happen whenever, not just for advancement, but I am speaking about the advancement process at this point.

The Board interviews the Scout and makes a decision to advance him or not. This advancement is entirely in their hands. If they decide not to, it must be unanimous, and they must provide specifics on what is required of the Scout to be advanced, as well as help the Scout setup a timeline goal for doing what is needed.

Again, I am not approving or declining the advancement. I am providing input to the Board on this matter, but it is solely their decision.

What I did wrong was deny the Scout an opportunity for a BoR. I did it out of ignorance, not out of spite, but it was still not my place to do so.

Finally, on the issue of "signing off" advancement requirements - I must not sign anything unless I am satisfied that the Scout has met the requirement (exactly like an MB requirement). Everyone who has the authority to sign off must use the same guidelines. The authority to sign off advancement requirements comes from the policy adopted by the PLC and approved by the Committee. I don't have to wait until everything is signed off to hold a SMC with a Scout.

If this is correct, I feel a LOT better, though I am embarrassed to have had it wrong all these years. From the other posts on this thread, it looks like I am not alone. I'll have to look into advancement training to make sure it is covered well enough (I don't recall ever being taught this, but the mind is the first thing to go...).

Please let me know if I have it right. We need to move forward with this young man as correctly and as quickly as possible.

Thanks.

So, if my research and understanding of what has been posted here is correct, I believe my fundamental mistake was to advance him to Star given that I had a problem feeling he had not fulfilled requirement #2, and that sets the stage for the complaint of, if I approved him then, why not now?

Aside from the fact that I have program-related improvements to make, I'll chalk that up to a learning experience.

It also will not end my life, as I do understand that there is only so much I can to to help boys take advantage of what Scouting has to offer. Our Troop is doing great, and I am happy with that.

Thanks everyone!

Bob White-

Thanks for your response (and everyone else's). I was in the middle of composing my last post when your post came in, so I'll address yours in this one.

I'd like to have the discussions about running MB's in the Troop meetings and electing the leadership positions in the Open Discussion - Program Forum, as I feel your advice and instruction will better serve that Forum. I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'd just like to keep this thread focused.

I am confused about your comment, "By not not allowing the Board of Review to; specify to the scout why he was not advancing, what requirements specifically were not met, and what needed to be done to meet the requirements, you did not follow correct advancement procedures."

Aren't I supposed to specify to the Scout why I am not approving his advancement? Or am I supposed to have the SMC and then let the Scout go to his Board and let them decide whether to advance him or not? It was Requirement #2, Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life, that I did not feel he had completed, and I explained this to him in detail.

I do discuss each Scout's SMC with the Board before their Board of Review.

I do need to read the Advancement Policies manual you mentioned. I'll pick one up at lunch.

Also, I have indeed been affected a little by parental pressure with these 5 Scouts, particularly at their Star SMC's. It's hard not to, and I resist it, but I also do not consider myself all-knowing and flawless, so I listen to everyone's input to temper my own opinion for improved fairness. Although I had some problems advancing this young man to Star, I felt I had made my point about his behavior and that with some time and effort, I would see some improvement. I have not.

OGE is right, it's tough to advance him this far and then try to change him. I thought I had provided an improvement and learning opportunity at his Star SMC and Board. Like I said, he did meet the requirements (the leadership project they did for Star was self-selected and I acted as a counselor, and it was beneficial to the Troop, I just felt that there was too much parental involvement after it was done). Hindsight.

Thanks again.

I can't remember who said what, but here's some more info-

My earlier post may have been misleading- I have 9 Patrols, there are 5 Scouts in this Patrol. No, I do not think breaking up a Patrol is the answer, I do not interfere with Patrol membership unless there is a big age difference.

Yes, I did pass him and the others in his Patrol for Star - just barely for him and one other Scout, the other 3 were in much better shape (though needed some improvement) and still are.

As Historian, he got trained by the ASPL and SPL in the fall, and set a goal for his position (to put together the many pictures we have from last year's activities and make up a display that we could use at Courts of Honor). He did the display (at the last minute), but has done nothing else since (like I said, he seems to do the absolute minimum, but enough where I can't say he didn't fulfill the requirements).

Yes, I do know what a Dutch Uncle is (my boss, a former police captain, taught me what that meant). Yes, I did cover ALL of the issues with him at his 1st Class and Star SMC's, the behavior, the lack of taking on leadership, the not participating, everything. I also told his folks that these were issues I needed to see improvement in.

I even told him (at his Star SMC) I would not advance him to Life unless he corrected the attitude and behavior and started really living the Scout Oath and Law in his Scout life as well as his every day life.

At his Star Board of Review last year, the Board came back and questioned me why he was advanced given his poor showing at his Board. I told them that he was marginal, that I had had some serious discussions with him about what needed to be done, and that his parents were also informed.

Thanks for everyone's responses.

Man, if it's anything I enjoy, it's seeing all of the different experiences and the different learning results.

I just thought I'd toss this in-

We are a 40-year old Troop with about 60 Scouts. Until I became SM 4 years ago, it was completely adult-run, including putting boys into Patrols, selecting PL's, the SPL and the rest of the positions. The adults even chose the meals, did the cooking, built the fires, EVERYTHING.

Right after I got selected SM, my ASM and I went to Wood Badge (paid for it ourselves, as the Committee refused to believe it had any value!), and we then began the long process of converting to a boy-run (though I prefer 'youth-led') Troop.

Here's where we are today, and the Scouts don't want us to change ANYTHING:

1) Not only are the SPL and PL's elected by the Scouts every year, so are the rest of the leadership positions. We start with SPL, and the nominees prepare a brief speech telling the Troop what they would do as SPL and what would make them a good SPL. We do the same with the other positions (except ASPL and APL's, which are chosen by the SPL and PL's, respectively). This was done to overcome a gripe that the Scouts had about the SPL being a popularity contest, and if he selected the rest of the leadership positions, too, then it went too far. So, the PLC adopted a policy of electing every position. Works GREAT, and every SPL since has agreed with this method.

2) The ONLY position that I get involved with is Jr. ASM, and I usually tell the Troop that I am looking for more experienced and mature assistants who really want to help at that level. Then they nominate candidates who get voted on (and almost always, I get the kind of help I need).

3) We do 4 required MB's a year, and we do them 2 at a time. The PLC makes these MB selections on the basis of the greatest number of 1st-Class or higher Scouts that need them. We have MB work time set aside at every weekly Troop meeting, along with Patrol Meeting time.

4) The SCOUTS teach the MB's. We have registered MB Counselors who stop by and check progress, help organize outings (like town hall meetings, etc.), provide materials (maps, reference materials, etc.) and then meet with each Scout to sign off on the requirements that they have completed, plus the Blue Card at the end. But they are NOT the teachers.

5) Every month at the PLC, PL's 'sign-up' their Patrol to be responsible for running the upcoming MB work. That Patrol (a Patrol member or the PL) then uses the MB handbook and other materials and leads the discussion or activity for the next requirement. Honestly, I almost never stop by to check on this activity, it works THAT WELL. Since I am also the MB counselor for a number of required MB's, I can vouch that these boys are really learning the material without a classroom-style approach that nobody likes.

6) While most Scouts are working on MB's, the Scouts who are 1st Class or higher and don't need the MB's we are working on, lead the work on pre-selected Advancement Requirements for the Scouts who need Tenderfoot, 2nd or 1st Class requirements. Again, the Patrols sign up for this responsibility at the PLC's (we usually plan the weekly work a month in advance). I have 2 ASM's that help guide the selection of requirements and provide the materials like rope, etc.

7) Every week, we have an Inter-Patrol Competition (IPC, or 'game'). Again, the responsibility for selecting the game belongs to the Patrol who signed up to do it at the PLC. The only restriction I place on this activity is that it must be competed in by Patrols -not two large groups against each other- (and it must be safe). They come up with some wierd games involving potatoes...

8) I don't even run the Courts of Honor anymore. The SPL and ASPL do, and the Advancement Coordinator calls the Scouts up to receive their advancement or MB, but it's the SPL and ASPL that perform the advancement ceremony and presents the advancement or MB to the parent/Scout. I stand by and congratulate the Scouts once they get their award. Pretty much all I get to do anymore is announcements (it was a little tough to get used to, but the boys do a GREAT job at this).

9) Food- The Scouts do their meal plans in Patrols before every campout, and I critique them (primarily because they feed the adults, and I hate hot dogs), but they do the shopping, cooking and clean-up. The Troop Guides and Instructors help the younger Scouts with their meal plans, or one of the adult leaders lends a hand.

So, I guess we are 'extremists' at the boy-run 'thing'. I agree with Bob White, that you simply must read the SM handbook and work your Wood Badge ticket, then just train them, trust them, let them lead.

We have 40 Scouts and 8 adults going to summer camp this year (a Troop record). Without the Patrol Method and a boy-run Troop, it would be total chaos. We do a full duty roster at camp, with daily Patrol assignments and nightly PLC's to rate the success of each assignment. I never attend those PLC's, I just remind them to do them for the first few days.

The best thing about our Troop is the pride that these young men exude when they compare our Troop to others at summer camp or at camporees, and how well we are run, how much we get done, how much the Scouts are in charge, and how BIG we have grown. It's a pleasure that is beyond description to watch them do this stuff.

sniff.

I am in my 4th year as SM for a very active and growing Troop (nearly 60 active Scouts). I have attended all of the training I could, including the BEST Wood Badge course (my opinion, of course!). I am a little stumped right now, and could use some input from someone who truly knows the rules about rank advancement and SM approvals.

I have a Patrol (one of 9) of boys who stick together like glue, even to the point where they disrupt meetings and don't work with the others who are working on the same MB (we have MB work time set aside during every weekly meeting). All of the boys are either 13.5 or just turned 14. All have achieved the rank of Star, though just barely (they did not try to get a Leadership position until they discovered they needed it for advancement, so together we 'invented' a leadership project that, unfortunately, their parents did most of the work on it).

Their behavior is my primary concern, though a quick second is their lack of leadership experience or even desire to be involved in leadership. They are on the 'cookie-cutter' path to Eagle - just do what's in the book, go to camp and do 6 MB's each, get signed off and move on. Getting even ONE of them to attend the monthly PLC's is like pulling teeth.

It's now that their lack of maturity is becoming a real problem. I expect a Scout who is 13 or 14 to be a kid at heart and need some help understanding how Scouting can help them develop their leadership and responsibility skills, but their parents have (for the most part) refused to back off and let their boys be responsible for their own actions, and the boys are riding that horse to the hilt.

2 weeks ago, one of them asked for a SMC for advancement to Life. This kid is the biggest problem in their Patrol- he does not respect authority (particularly the SPL's), and gives me lip service on everything, including what I and the ASPL expect of him as Historian (typical response: 'whatever'). He has for the past 3 years been constantly disruptive during meetings (talking during announcements, refusing to put up the sign unless I look directly at him, playing cards during MB work time, etc.). He does not go on any campouts that involve tents (without platforms). He has never been to a District Roundtable (our Troop sends Jr. Leaders to every one). In short, he has done the absolute minimum as a Scout. His father is an Assistant SM, but has made it clear to me that he is here for his son and will only do 'Troop' stuff if it fits his schedule. A real one-hour-a-week Scouter (I never knew it was really possible).

This Scout had all of the requirements for Life signed off in his book except Living the Scout Oath and Law in Everyday Life and the SMC. I view Life as not only a rank achieved by fulfilling requirements in a book, but becoming involved in the leadership of the Troop and truly embracing Scouting's principles. I view any Scout who reaches Life as someone who is ready to take on the leadership responsibilities of an Eagle Project.

So I did not advance him. I told him that it was not something he was failing at, necessarily, but that his maturity needed some time to catch up with his MB work, and that I wanted him to slow down on the MB mill and focus on leadership, to consider JLTC, to go after a more challenging leadership position like Den Chief or Scribe. I also asked him to talk this over with his folks and then all 4 of us could meet and discuss this further and set some goals and timelines to help min accomplish what I needed him to in order for me to approve the advancement. Man, he couldn't even come up with a SINGLE reason why he was qualified to be a Life Scout (other than having the MB and leadership position requirements done).

His folks are ticked off (to put it mildly). His mom told me that I shoudn't use her son (only child, btw) as my personal secretary, and if I wanted to meet with her, I should contact her directly, not ask her son to setup a meeting. His father went directly to the Council, where someone there told him that I could not withold an advancement (I was not permitted to do so), and that the course of events was that the boy simply wouldn't be able to complete Eagle without the leadership skills, so my job was really just to sign papers and push it along.

Who here knows for sure whether I did the right (read: allowable) thing? I know I did the right thing for the boy, and I know I am fair in my dealings with this Scout (I have checked myself time and time again with District and Council about what to do with his behavior).

I'd like someone with the facts to help me out, maybe even let me know where to look for the facts. I am calling Council tomorrow to ask, but I'm trying all avenues.

Thanks in advance, sorry so long a post (I felt that the background was necessary to avoid discourse on whether or not this kid really WAS a problem). If you feel strongly that I did something ethically wrong, I'd be happy to read your opinion, though.

Thanks!