Krampus

Building a good outdoor program and moving to boy led is not that tough. A new troop would welcome your ideas.

My cousin's neighbor is on 5,000 acres. The boys could easily spend a few months clearing brush off his land.

Well if a troop committee and charter organization want him -- and want to keep him after learning more about him -- then that is up to them. We have professional scouters in our unit and district. I give them credit, you'd never know they were professional staff when they are with us. They follow the Patrol Method, defer to the SM and PLC and play the role (usually ASM or on a committee). Never seen them "out front" unless it was a health or safety reasons. Not sure there is much you can do about it unless you want the position and "run" against him.

But this assumes those close-minded adults 1) Share that same view, 2) Do not already have some prescribed method THEY want to see that demonstrates Scout spirit, and 3) That these same adults would allow any Scout to do other than how the adults prescribe things. I agree with you and Stosh 100%, but these guys sound like control-freaks that won't allow or give credit outside anything they ordain. It is all in the GTA. I won't bother to reprise it here for space considerations. The BOR role is clear. They can "fail' a Scout *IF* the troop has a pre-define definition of what it means to be "active" as long as it meets that third test and does not over rule the first two tests. For example, if they require 50% attendance across all meetings and events AND can prove the Scout did not attend 50%. If they do not have this predefined criteria then they must allow the Scout to explain his level of participation and cannot fail him based on meeting the litmus test in the GTA for being active.

So naturally, once we are done with Chalk Ball we can enjoy these things off the range?

@@Stosh, so neckers are part of your "mandatory" troop uniform. For us they are not after the boys voted them out...in a landslide. Can't say I care either way. I think the uniform, if worn properly, looks just as sharp with as without. The nice thing is that the uniform guidelines allow both looks.

So do your boys actually want the neckers? In our unit they've voted them out and, out of a large troop, we can never get more than 20 boys that want them back.

Depends if you like watching smarty-pants adults getting come-uppence.

6% membership decline is fact. Kids wanting fun is fact. Banning a perfectly good activity for no good reason is fact. Hyperbole is expecting rational people to understand an irrational decision and like it.

In a unit that adult controlled they would likely look at a patrol activity as a high risk thing that should have been approved by the board. I'd talk to district...and be looking for a new troop.

...and if BSA had it's finger properly on the pulse of the youth of today we wouldn't be hemorrhaging membership at the rate of 6% year on year. Yes, Scouting does camping fine. That's mostly local unit stuff though. Eleven months out of the year the camping program is defined by guys like me, @@Stosh, @@CalicoPenn and others working with our boys to develop a monthly program that is fun. That one month out of the year that kids go to summer camp is their "Disney Vacation". They don't want to simply "camp", they want the camping equivalent of "Space Mountain". They want the water front. Oh wait, that has one of those big, bouncy things that launches guys WAY in to the air! That's far more dangerous than Bubble Ball. BSA should be looking for ways to entice kids to join, not limit what they can do for silly reasons. Why is Bubble Ball more dangerous than anything else we do? Because when you prohibit something you should explain why...and the reason should be a good one. BSA should be supporting units, districts and councils who are trying to create that "wow factor" for kids to entice them to join Scouts AND keep them coming back. Eliminating something that is obviously fun -- and not so obviously inherently dangerous -- does not achieve that goal.

I don't disagree entirely. The "only troop projects" thing is a bit much. Of course this is all case by case anyway. Having the ultra-vigilant Scout ask to do 10 hours raking an elderly neighbor's yard might fly. Having Johnny Shirksalot ask to do the same project might not fly. It is hard for me to judge based on volume. I must get 20+ requests a month from our Scouts for various, non-troop-based projects. It's amazing to see how much these guys really do. Sometimes you need to. We have a standard service project we do and it is patrol-based. Each patrol is assigned an area and they take care of that area five times a year. With 6-10 guys in each patrol, and only 2-4 guys needed at any one event, you really only need to do this event 2 times a year depending on turn out. Before requiring guys to attend it was always the same 2-4 that would show up. By tying attendance at this project to going canoeing or something fun we got attendance to go up.... A LOT!!! Sports require you to sell stuff, attend various things not training or game related. Same with band, chorus and orchestra. Drama club, German club, NHS, debate, etc., all have activities and service project they require you to attend to go to the fun stuff. Why should Scouts be any different *if* we don't abuse it? I was required to help out once a month at our monthly paper drive as a Scout. Would I rather be out on my bike that morning? Sure! But I had fun tossing bags of newspapers around. It taught me the value of hard work. It taught me that, at times, life requires you to be somewhere when you'd rather be elsewhere. God forbid we continue to teach that lesson to today's generation. Imagine what your long-term care facility will be like with the Scout you let pick and choose everything they want to do. I don't think your bed pan will ever get cleaned.

See my post above. I suspect your district executive would be very interested in the role your troop committee is playing because they cannot deny a BOR. Moreover, they do not sign off on Scout spirit...that is done by the SM before the BOR is granted. Lastly, they MUST define what active participation means BEFORE the BOR, and they need to give the Scout time to meet it. They cannot say "We expect 60% attendance" at the BOR, they need to make sure all Scouts know this expectation WELL in advance. I would contact your district executive and chat them them. This committee is acting as gate keeper to rank advancement. As @@CalicoPenn said, you might want to "run" to another troop. This is NOT what Scouting is supposed to be. These adults have it all wrong and your son is taking the brunt of this.

Some troops have them BUT it is usually in conjunction with an adult; simply from the perspective that you don't want a youth 100% responsible for your unit's "brand" online. We have a youth webmaster but he has junior admin rights. Anything he changes goes in to a queue for review before published online. On our FB page he has a generic account that is not tied to him, but to the unit. We get his parent's approval before he can take the role. Anything he posts must also be approved by the FB admin. Took two years to get to this point but worth it when you get there.

How is having kids clean up a meeting place in your CO hazing? They acted un-Scoutlike and there's a consequence. We didn't single out little Timmy to do it on his own. He's been asked to help out (a Scout is helpful). We are not giving him a wedgy, nor asking him to recite the Scout Oath to a burning match, nor walk across firey coals; we are simply asking him to help out. Period. Let's not become so sensitive to holding our kids to consequences that the simple act of helping out is seen as hazing because Timmy cannot show respect during a troop meeting. Timmy is not going to get praise for interrupting a meeting or high fives for being a disruption during the meeting. He WILL get praise and high fives for helping the service patrol clean up after the meeting. He's not been singled out or humiliated.

It would be easier to recruit kids to Scouting if we didn't have to take the squirt guns out of their hands, forbid them from playing bubble ball or measure their water balloons before they throw them. Just sayin'.

Speaking of consequences....reminds me when we were at CDB several years ago they have a local farmer/rancher who does the horsemanship and animal husbandry MBs. For the latter, he took a group of Scouts out in to the field and they were going to castrate a steer. A Scouter Helicopter mom went with the group (as did I and a few others who were helping the farmer). This guy had a rather direct approach with the Scouts, no bull (pardon the pun) just very direct. When the mom realized what was going to happen, she started to (aggressively) question whether or not this was an appropriate activity for the 10 boys (all 16 or older, btw). The farmer just looked at her, looked up to the sky (as if to ask God for strength) and he said, "Ma'am, if you'd like to take your boy and not witness this well then you are welcome to. He will miss out as a consequence and will not pass my class." The mom left, dragging the son (who later came back after a very loud argument with mom in the parking lot). Sadly, the steer is now a bull despite mom's objections. The irony is that I'll bet here husband has more in common with the bull than with the steer.

According to this analysis Snowboarding must be next on the list. If National did have such data it would be nice if they shared it in their decision, wouldn't it? But that would mean actually doing the research and not relying on some actuary to tell them how to mitigate risk. I assume they have the same data on why water balloons and squirt guns are banned too? Are their facts that show that throwing water balloon larger than ping pong ball are less injurious than ones the size of an apple? C'mon, let's not assume BSA has a good reason beyond either a threatened law suit or some perceived threat with no data to back it up. This is the same organization that cannot create a training program with actual training in it. I wouldn't expect them to have any significant study that suggests Bubble Ball is more dangerous than allowing kids to use bows, hatchets or walk around summer camp with a buck knife.

That's because BSA has over-blinged stuff these days. Back in the day there were no or few knots, no mentor pins, no adult patrol patches, no JTE patches, no world crest rings, no jambo patches from 1960 worn 20 years after the fact; only service stars, temp patches (worn very sparingly) and flaps. Flaps were ONLY OA. So when you saw an adult you saw a plain uniform, a service star and either flap or no flap. When you saw a flap it was like seeing jump wings; instant respect. If you de-blinged the adult uniform (good luck with that) you'd see the kids perk up when they saw a flap. The don't see it these days because they are blinded by the 357 other patches or pins the adult is wearing. Some adults look like those pin collectors you see at Disney World. Find the OA flap in that photo.

So, it sounds like the BOR denied him his "Scout Spirit" requirement? If that's true I have one question: How is that possible? Also, was the SM part of the BOR? If so, there's another issue. The SM or youth leaders (however your unit does it) signs off on ALL requirements BEFORE the BOR. That's how BSA wants it. This is not optional and the BOR has literally no authority to deviate from this. So if the Scoutmaster signed off on his "Scout Spirit" requirement then he's earned that requirement. If a youth leader signed off on his Scout Spirit and the SM had the SMC and signed his handbook -- which denotes the SM's acceptance of the Scout as ready for his BOR -- then all his requirements are done and he gets his BOR. Section 8 of the GTA dictates when and how BORs are conducted. If your unit is not following these guidelines then you have some issues to address. Regarding what "Active Scout" means, the GTA also is clear on that. In section 4.2.3.1 the BSA lays out three requirements to be considered active: Must be registered. If he's registered with the unit this is done. Must be in good standing. If he's not on an official probationary status then he's considered in good standing. The Scout must meet the "reasonable expectations" that define being active. HOWEVER, the GTA notes that "If, for the time period required, a Scout or qualifying Venturer or Sea Scout meets those aspects of his unit’s pre-established expectations that refer to a level of activity, then he is considered active and the requirement is met." I added the emphasis here because the unit MUST pre-establish what they consider to be active. In other words, they need to have an official policy that says to be considered active you need to attend 50% of all camp outs in a calendar year, or x% of the meetings, etc. If they DO NOT have such a policy then they MUST allow BSA calls the "alternative to the third test" to explain activity. From what you posted, I highly suspect the unit expects your Scout to attend x% of things but they may not have it documented anywhere. If that's the case they simply cannot classify him as being "Not Active". Even if they do have such a policy, if you can meet the "alternative to the third test" then there's an argument that he could still be considered active. As for denying the Scout Spirit, the BOR has no authority to do so UNLESS the Scout was on probation or not in good standing with the troop and, therefore, the requirement was signed erroneously.

But if the kid in question is trying rake the neighbor's leaves to get out of doing a troop service project because, well, going next door and raking their leaves is easier, then that too does not meet the litmus test of the "spirit of the requirement". The SM needs to use his head. If a kid you volunteers all the time wants to rake the neighbor's yard for credit, why not. If the kid is doing it because it is easy or he simply cannot be bothered to come to a troop function, well, then maybe not. Is the kid honest? Will he really spend 2 hours working or will Helicopter Mom or Dad come and help? I see nothing wrong with compelling less-than-active Scouts to get their hours doing unit-based projects. For NH/NJHS or any other youth group you need to get your hours approved AND they usually have to done with that group...why should Scouting be any different?

ROFL...we mostly agree. I'm going to be the School of Hard Knocks guy and go with a few consequences just as long as we are not bullying anyone. I remember getting singled out for talking in a school assembly in 3rd grade...right in front of everyone! I can tell you I NEVER spoke during an assembly until I was maybe in high school. Learned my lesson and never say a shrink once.

A few great points. I can tell you what we did when we struggled with the same issues: Website & Logins: We put EVERYTHING on the website. The calendar can sync with phones, tablets, etc. Files, forms, rank status, registrations, etc., are all online. Most of our parents have the latest and greatest smart phone, so we tell them that they (and their Scouts) need to check the website for all information. It took a year and you cannot hand hold. A few folks resisted but when Timmy missed a camp out because mom refused to log in and check the website, mom eventually learned. Permission Slips: We do one for each event. Scribes collect them from their patrol and turn them in to the event coordinator on the TC...NOT the treasurer. The treasurer sits next to the events person and accepted the checks or confirms if the Scout paid online (we use MyTroop and accept online payments). If there are any issues the Scribe is sent to get the boys who need to clear up stuff (e.g., Timmy turned in a permission slip but no payment). You process of putting this on the Scout is correct. Just like in school, the teacher assigns the homework to the student, sends reports or notes home to the parents through the student. Since first grade these kids have been given stuff to discuss with mom and dad by adults, why should Scouts be any different? Good luck. It is a long process but once you change it the boys pick it up REAL fast. It is the parents that take longer to train.

@@scoutldr is correct. Also, if he's in OA (Order of the Arrow) he wears only the OA sash or the MB sash, never both and never with one hanging from his belt. Also, OA sashes are only worn when the Scout is an at OA function or at a COH (or elsewhere) acting in the role of the OA (i.e., representing the OA at a COH). I love the "Bryan on Scouting" blog because he usually dispels (or sometimes confirms) the urban legends around what some people (mostly adults) say can or can't be done. Here's a great one on the MB sash. You should have the Scout email the link to the committee member.

It depends on what they are doing and what your troop's position is on neckerchiefs. Most units allow Eagles to wear their blue neckers, while the other Scouts wear the troop neckers. Some troops want all Scouts to wear their troop necker when they are doing something as a troop, such as an event or going to camporee, high adventure or travelling elsewhere. I'd have your Scout check with his Patrol Leader or SPL. They can advise him best on what your troop does.