boleta

Hunt- as always, the VOICE of reason. But the voice of reason is lost on the unreasonable.

This thread demonstrates why many choose to read but not actively participate in the Forum.

Your son learned that there is merit in the PROCESS even when the final outcome is not perfect and not what we might desire. He stood up for the principle of earning the rank with the activities that he had completed and was told he was correct.

My son goes to a pretty good public school. At times I think he might be smarter than some of his teachers. Someday he might have a boss that he disagrees with or that he is smarter than. He will have to learn to deal with it. He might as well get used to it now.

Your son learned some pretty good lessons through this experience. I congratulate him on his perseverence. Let us know when he completes the trail.

Last year, my son successfully appealed a Gold Eagle Palm to Council and was awarded the recognition. The SM Conference which denied advancement was on February 23. The Appeal was heard on May 25. The Palm was dated February 24, and he was immediately eligible for the Silver Palm- 3 months had elapsed.

I think your son should have had his Life rank dated the day after the SM Conference- the next date that the BOR could have been held. It is too bad that the Council Advancement Committee could not see the "justice" in this. This would have also given the District Advancement Chairman a clear message that he was wrong in the course he took with your son.

Encourage strongly that all members of your committee take the Challenge together. This will build a team spirit and all will know and understand their role in your unit. Pick your officers from those who attend. JMO

Spun from another thread.

This has nothing to do with thought police.

At least Eamonn acknowledged the irrelevence of the race of these needy scouts. I believe I will continue this thought in a new thread to avoid conflict with this one.

So, you call me a racist now?

This follows a pattern in your posts from previous threads to attack.

Reread the original posts and eliminate your holier than thou reference to race and it loses nothing to support either argument. You do not know me either so get of the soap box.

The black person driving down the street in a BMW may be the Cardiac surgeon I know and not the drug dealer you know. White America will generally assume he is a drug dealer, rap artist or professional football player before he is considered to be a successful surgeon. That, my friend, is racism. There was no need for you to mention the race of the youth in your units to support your argument.

In another thread, the issue of needy scouts and their ability or inability to wear full field uniforms was supported in the discussion by two posters by stating the percentage of blacks and Hispanics that were in the units. The implication is that the minority race of the unit supported the argument that they were poor and needy and this reflected on the discussion of whether or not they could get a full uniform.

When you use the race of the youth to justify the fact that these were indeed boys in need, you are supporting a racist stereotype. Before the outrage begins, I seriously doubt that the posters who said this were either black or Hispanic. Racism is viewed as having died in the 70's to a majority of whites in the USA. It is viewed as being quite alive and well by a majority of blacks. The thought police have nothing to do with this. The sensitivity of those who do not understand or experience racism has a lot to do with it.(This message has been edited by boleta)

The race of the individuals in the posts by Eamonn and BadenP is IRRELEVANT. Yes, I am shouting. You promote unfair stereotypes by even mentioning it in this thread. The Polish neighborhood that I lived in Baltimore while in medical school was just as poor as the black neighborhood 3 blocks away. You do not support your argument by mentioning the race of the youth in need in this thread.

Some of us are very set in our Scouting ways. Maybe we "require" full uniforms of our scouts. Maybe we step in and run a meeting when it isn't going fast enough, or well enough (the adults can do it better and we'll show the scouts how to do it right). Maybe we only count scout activities for an Eagle palm when any demonstration of leadership ability will do. And maybe we make them do push-ups as punishment for misbehavior.

The interesting thing about the Forum is that when we ask for opinions and help and we don't hear what we want to hear, we resist the opinions of some very experienced advisors here.

goodmana:

Don't fight it. BSA has a program and you are not following it when you haze and embarass your Scouts. As you can see from the responses here, there are far better ways of getting where you want to go than by the road you are taking.

These are common feelings at the beginning of your Scouter career. Only the executive staff of your council is paid. Everyone else is a volunteer. BSA has a great organization but it is very dependent on TRAINED volunteers. Even those that will do the training are volunteers!!

As a District Committee Chairman, I must say that only 3 or 4 out of 20 CORs attend our monthly meeting. All others- the Training Chairman, the Advancements Chair, the Finance Chair, the Membership Chair... are Scouters who want to be involved at the District level. The CORs have all the potential power in voting on what the District will do, but they don't participate as they should.

Multiple attempts to get CORs to attend have failed. Asking units to appoint an assistant COR who is a scouter who is interested int the District Committee hasn't worked. Announcing at Roundtable that we haven't seen your COR hasn't worked. Asking people to step up to the District Committee hasn't worked.

And yet we have a great District. We have made Quality District for the past 4 years. We make our membership, finance and unit targets because of the very hard work of those that do participate.

Congratulations on being a new Cubmaster. You will do a great job because you are interested and want to do it right. Do what I did as Cubmaster 7 years ago- attend Roundtable, get trained, attend your District Committee meeting as an observer (it is an open meeting), get more training and have fun with your program (not in any order). Get one or two of your fellow Scouters in your Pack to do the same.(This message has been edited by boleta)

The Troop my son joined in 2000 was a "full uniform" Troop. Full field uniforms were required at Troop meetings and while travelling on events. The problem was that there was NO effort to enforce this "rule" which was spelled out in the Troop bylaws. Several ASMs, including me, decided a rule was meaningless and gave confusing messages to teenage boys if not enforced. A Scout was allowed 3 meetings without a full uniform. With a 4th "violation", he was sent home to get the uniform. I saw nothing wrong with this until this year when this was discussed on the Forum in a previous thread.

WOW! was I educated. BSA does not require a uniform to participate. There are MANY ways to encourage wearing a uniform without demanding it, requiring it, or punishing a boy in the process of getting to a full uniformed troop. Requiring a boy to wear a uniform for a Board of Review or SM conference is adding to the requirements and is not allowed. And so on. Take the recommendations in this thread to heart. They help you get there in a positive way.

As Eamonn says, Train them, trust them, let them lead. When properly trained, the boys will lead the way to a full uniformed troop.

The older OA manuals also have the correct spelling in the language of the Leni Lenape.

Here is another very interesting thread concerning this subject.

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=65717#id_66948

I learned a lot while participating in this thread.

The original proposition was to not let the Cub attend AND not refund the money- on the principle that they were told it was non-refundable. I stick by my post to let him go. But if you decide to consider him out of the Pack because he already "quit", then find someone else to take the spot and refund the money. However, it sounds like he does not consider himself having quit since he is planning on attending this event.

Has he attended any meetings at all since your Pack started meeting again after summer activities?

Look at the phenomenon of Hitler and Nazi Germany. A predominantly Christian country was led down a path of total destruction by the most charismatic man of his time. Women swooned when he spoke and he was truly loved by the people of Germany. The result was 6 million Jews dead, 22 million Russians dead, countless others dead and the near destruction of Germany.

In my college dorm, a fight occurred between some blue and green residents when the blues told the greens to turn the "noise" down at 2 AM on a Monday morning when the exams started at 9 AM. Needless to say, the greens were insulted by the description of their wonderful music as noise, and the fight was on.

The issue of disturbed sleep and loud music at 2 AM was overwhelmed by the cultural issue of calling it noise. A majority of whites in this country think racism is predominantly dead. A majority of blacks see racism every day. It is hard to put yourself in another's shoes.

ps I think you are handling it correctly. You might want to expand the communication by discussing the issue directly with the parents before there are problems with them.

I really don't see the dilemma here. If he is registered up to December, then he is a member of the Pack until then. If you require dues and he is up to date, then he is in good standing. If he is not up to date, make him pay his dues before he is allowed to go. If he is not showing up for den meetings, he is the only one that is missing out. He has paid for the trip and wants to go.

Not allowing a Cub Scout to go on a trip he has paid for seems small and mean-spirited. If that is your rule, I think it is wrong. Accent the positive and use the opportunity to keep him in Scouts just as Unc and Eamonn have suggested. Let him go on the trip and make it clear that all rules will be followed by ALL scouts. If anyone violates the rules, send them home but apply this rule the same way to all scouts.

Many Troops have a shed or Dutch barn for equipment and the trailor is kept empty. This avoids the theft of trailor and all equipment problem. It also avoids the problem of propane tanks left in the trailor.

At the end of the campout or event, all Scouts are expected to stay to help put equipment away. Some Scouts and parents may want to skip out on the end of the event.

I feel strongly that the DAC Chair should be the only one to give final approval of Eagle projects and then should absolutely be involved in the Eagle Board of Review. The only signatures on the completed Eagle Project are those of the Institutional Representative and the Scoutmaster. Without the DAC Chair present to evaluate the write up of the project, when the Eagle candidate presents himself to the Board no one will know if what was proposed is what was done! Although the SM is allowed to be present at the Board of Review, he is not allowed to participate.

Recruiting into Boy Scouts is extremely difficult. The main source of Boy Scouts is Cub Scouts and their friends. Recruit Cubs and 4 years later they grow into Boy Scouts. Retention may be difficult but that is a different issue.

But, anyone going to a Middle School or Junior High to recruit for a Troop will tell you how few kids ever show up. Concentrate on the Cubs!!

I think my reasoning for not allowing the use of the scout account is sound. I was also the one who said, "if I were the District Advancement Chair... I would not allow...". The beauty of the Forum is that through discussion of the issues we see what others do and why they do so.

There are no constraints regarding obtaining funds and therefore these other methods ARE acceptable. I do agree with the opinions of scoutldr and FScouter concerning judging the project. If there is any question concerning the level of leadership in the performance of a project, then certainly a high degree of leadership in obtaining the funds for the project would count greatly in the scouts favor.

I have found that there is greatest conflict when expectations are not clear and then are not followed. I assume your SPL will be actively involved in these decisions.

I would make it very clear to the entire Jamboree Troop that there is an expectation that the Scout Oath and Law will be followed. Violations of the Scout Oath and Law would then be handled in an evenhanded and uniform manner, whatever you and your SPL decide that is. If certain Scouts have a history of violating the S O and L, they should be watched closely but handled the same as any other youth.

If they are found misbehaving and they have been told in advance that such misbehavior will result in immediate discharge from the Jamboree, then you must treat all of the Troop the same way and send anyone home for the same level of offense. If you give one Scout a second chance, then all should be given a second chance for that behavior. But don't tell them they will be sent home for misbehavior and then give them a second chance.

Just my opinion.

I appreciate the opinions of the esteemed participants of this thread. I mean that sincerely and with no sarcasm. I am only telling you what we do in our district.

Fundraising for a project is considered integral to the leadership demonstrated. How the Scout obtains his construction materials and supplies(tools, food, etc.) is part of the project. All Scouts should be on a level playing field. Therefore, scout accounts and personal funds are NOT allowed in our district. Contributions by family members or relatives are not allowed. Further, the Scout must state in the Project Work Book how the funds, tools, materials, food will be obtained. Since no work can be done on the project (including the funding of the project) until it is approved at all levels- Institution, SM, Committee and District, no funds obtained prior to approval can be used.

You can see why it is done this way. It puts all Scouts at the same level at the start of the project. We want to see Leadership in executing the project which includes obtaining the materials, supplies, and funds.

Having said this, the paradigm shifts. I have researched the Project through various sources including the Workbook, SM handbook, and online. I have found an "Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Workbook Guidelines" from the Atlanta Area Council.

http://www.troop350.org/scoutskills/leadersh.doc

I have seen other forms of this document and our district uses one. It is not an official document but has a clear explanation of each part of the project.

As far as I know, our District's guidelines for funding the project have always been as described above. Having heard from BobWhite, Eamonn and OGE (with a respected 10,000 posts to the Forum from the 3 of them), I must say that our District seems to be adding to the requirements as there is nothing that restricts the source of the funding that I can find in any official document.

Is it reasonable to ask all Scouts to start from the same point? Yes.

Should a rich kid have an advantage of funding over a poor one? No.

Should funds obtained prior to approval of the projects be allowed? No.

Are any of these requirements? NO!

(This message has been edited by boleta)

Bob, does this mean that the Scout who is independently wealthy can simply stroke a check for his supplies and materials?

If I were the District Advancement Chairman who approves these projects in our district, I would not allow such funds to be used.