gumbymaster

I too had this type of very fortunate experience. The troop of my youth had a long history. We were in the 50-80 boys range. 5 to 8 full patrols with 80%+ participation at campouts and meetings (Admittdely this was before gameboys, cable tv, and DVDs - The Atari and VHS tapes were just coming out, so there wasn't a lot else to do). The boys ran and planned the meeting, only asking for Adult assistance when they needed or wanted to learn a skill not known (I still remember rope making as an example). The SPL and the "leadership corps" were their own patrol, and set the example for the other patrols to follow. We had two ASPLs, one to organize the indoor (meeting) activities, and one to organize the outdoor activities. The Youth members chose locations and made the reservations. At camporees, we regularly had 4 of the top 5 patrols. Our patrols would even regularly meet at the library or similar place without any adults around. Each patrol had to maintain their equipment, plan and purchase their meals, organize their transportation, camp and cook as a patrol - it was hard to be a patrol leader . The adults did organize and control the money, and they ran a community service event (it had to do with running a self-powered float that required a lot of maintainence). The Adults also had their own patrol, that was also run as an example for the boys. Part of my aversion to Woodbadge, and I know it's not well founded, was that when I was about 17 - I had already been the SPL and other positions, and had effectively completed my eagle; we had 4 or 5 of our Assistant Scoutmasters take Woodbadge. When they got back, they were so gung ho to implement what they had learned, that that literally pushed aside the older boys (about 7 of us, 4 active eagles, were then organized into a new patrol of JASMs) and effectively left with no work or task to do; and they began to take a very active role in "coaching" the now 14-15 year old troop leaders. It became very disheartening. I actually still have a copy of a "farwell address" I wrote (younger me ~ 1988). I really hope that I never actually sent/delivered it - I was a self-righteous snot; but it does offer some insight into the mind of a 17/18 year old faced with a troop becoming more adult lead.

This too is the way I learned to do it, and the only way I have led such a ceremony since. (Alhough the union, while first to be removed, is the last to be burned). With the cub scouts, it's hard, they don't do well remaining respecful and quiet for the time it take, but every one of them remembers that ceremony year later. I saved a gromit from my first flag retirement, it's a part of my neckercief slide. It is a reminder to me of the power of a lasting memory. I read through the earlier links on the (generally non-binding US Flag code), it's a good read; but the key was, as many have said, a respectful ceremony.

If he actually plans to earn the AOL, the new program is his only (official) option, and can be done by following the requirements. It sounds as if, since your Scouts have already largely earned their AOLs, he would have to be doing most of his adventures / activity pins on his own anyway, so as not to repeat what you have done with the other Scouts. I never want to discourage a Scout from participating, and this year is kind of unique with the grandfathering of the old requirements for AOL, but it may be also necessary to consider how your current scouts will respond to having had to do 18 months of AOL work, and this boy can do it in six. Hopfully they will be "Scoutlike", but it may create tension. If the award itself is not the Scout's goal, and he just wants to enjoy and participate in the activities it may be less of an issue. Where if could become an issue is in Bridging, if he is not 11 and has not earned the AOL, he may have to wait before moving up to Boy Scouts.

I have always learned far more from those I have disagreements with then I ever learned from like minded individuals. It is in the attempt to understand their side of an argument, that I come to better understand my own thoughts. And in the end, sometimes, if there really is a right or wrong answer, and I wasn't the one who was right, I learn to change my position. Groupthink is a pox on growth. I would be bored to death in a room of myselves (even if I am an interesting guy ). When we lose a voice, our chorus grows quieter. In the end, we all share a similar goal of providing the best program we can for the youth under our charge - even if we disagree how that should be done.

I appreciate the response, but I'm not sure how it helps me to understand the position. If half the pieces of the puzzle are missing, then those are naturally filled in by the individual and/or their religeous leaders. Which, again makes it potentially subject to interpretation, and not as, pardon the analogy, set in stone. That issue aside, I also fully understand that for an individual, brought up their entire life with a strong religeous background, they will know morality, as passed down by that faith, and understand it to be a solid anchor upon which the laws of man revolve around. What this does not solve for me, is when a person is of a different faith. To use your analogy, they are working on a different puzzle, with different pieces in hand and missing. I guess my point of confusion, for the purpose of this topic, is that since they are working different puzzles, they may very well have different anchors in what is morally acceptable, and thus as a non-secular but theistic organization, how do we point to religeon's moral code as being the only acceptable one, when many of those religeons will differ in what is acceptable. Now, it is true that most religeons will have a very similar code, but not an identical one, and each will have their own list of exceptions. Again, to use an extreme example ... The commandment is thou shall not kill - most religeons have a similar interpretation, but most also have seeming expections Thou shall not kill, unless you are a heathan that does not believe in the correct god. Thou shall not kill, unless so ordered by your king. Thou shall not kill, unless doing so would prevent a greater violation of the commandments of god. Do not get my position wrong. I think that the moral code handed down by our religeons is critical to a functioning society. It creates the framework by which society can adopt the laws of man for everyone. But I do believe that if a person can morally follow those laws of man, based on the tenants of religeon(s), even if they do not share that religeous belief (or any belief), they can still be moral by following the moral standards of their community.

Having helped to escallate this thread, I guess I cannnot walk away now. I mean absolutely no disrespect to my fellows who believe that their moral code ultimately derives from a supreme being through some combination of (1) the example set by the diety or his representatives, (2) expectations of the rewards for having lived a good life, (3) fear of the consequences for not living a moral life, or (4) something I have failed to adequately address. However, in those religeons that do not believe in a diety to bestow these rewards and/or enforce the consequences ... it would seem that there would be little inherent motivation for the humans to follow God's laws/codes/etc. Even some religeons that do believe in a god being, they may not believe in a heaven or hell or similar afterlife. Other religeons may share a karma concept where how you live each life effects how you move on to the next one. (I really liked "Defending Your Life" for this concept). This does not dismiss that a person of any faith or no faith may still have a vested self interest in being moral to the communitty standards - the standards of men; because they want the benefits that come with an ordered and lawful society. Likewise there will always be outliers, those who for the short term gains (of this life) may decide that the risk of consequences (in this life, or if they believe there to be one - the next) is low compared to the benefit of taking advantage of everyone else's moral code, by living outside it. What I personally fail to grasp, and I meant that sincerely, is the position of some of our fellows that a "God given" moral code is timeless and unwavering whereas a code of man is too malable. From my philosophy courses, I recall that this revolves around the difference in morals, and moreys (I think). The harder part for me is, I guess, If one were to believe in a diety God, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, then I get that the rules that you have learned from that God's religeon are (largely) unwavering. But this argument seems to crumble if you can accept that other people's Gods may not share that same absolute code; and thus the code is no longer universal, but also malable to the different beliefs of religeous groups. As an extreme example there are sects within Islam (still an Abrahamic religeon), that truely believe that any land, once it has been ruled by the Islamic faith, may never revert back or accept the rule of another faith, and that any means used to recover that land is not only moral, but actually required by those believers. To them, murder, torture, theft, rape, etc are given an exemption from the commandments that we may have grown up with, because those commandments are only shared between those that share our beliefs. An alternative example is kosher foods. At the time these rules were committed to print, they make perfect sence because those following them would be far less suceptible to disease, illness and death. However, modern advances in medicine, agriculture, and the like have made the need for these rules less pronounced, and indeed less followed; however, there are still those whose moral code requires following these rules. I cannot disagree that a moral code of man is not timeless. It does, necessarily evolve, to meet the needs of the society. No human in the times before the common era would have envisioned having to establish a morality for genetics and genetic manipulation. I grant that a modern interpretation of the bible, and other similarly held religeous texts can be interpreted to cover such circumstances, but then here again, is the interpretation a timeless edict of God, or is it the maliable interpretation of man? Again, at least for the purpose of this post, my questions are a sincere intent to understand the idea behind a fixed moral code, not to insite argument or disrespect. Without the formality of a theological education, I have spend many years trying to understand the principles of belief structures.

In many ways our whole society, not just the BSA is on a precipice. While we in scouting have used Reverence as a call to respect the religeous beliefs of others, even when not in concert with our own beliefs; we seem to allow that we do not have to respect the lack of a belief. If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. By which I mean, eventually when the population of atheist beliefs outnumber the population of those with some belief, that same belief will be turned on us. "You didn't respect our lack of a belief when you were in charge, now that we are in charge, we don't have to respect that you have a belief." Heck, non-believers are not even the majority yet, and this position is already becomming culturally accepted. This is the same hand we were dealt with LGBT issues; because society did not even repect their choice for so long, now that they have an upper hand in our society, it is now no longer enough to accept their choice, you must embrace their choice and validate their choice or you are the one it is acceptable to discriminate against - and there is not enough of you left to stand up against that position. Even when I have led nondenomination services for others, they were that non denominational, not non-sectarian. Even though, by most Christian's standards, my beliefs would not be considered Christian, the services I ran were still very Christian oriented - at the time (1) I didn't really know any better, (2) the broadness of my beliefs were not offended, so I failed to consider all the way through to those that might be, and (3) in our Western society, the western (Abrahamic) religeous traditions are no ingrained, it is hard to see out of that box. Heck, even now, I love the Noah song, I like many of the hymns ... it is very difficult to be open to how different religeons can be or how to navigate their tolerance, if not acceptance, of one another - and I've acutally researched many over the years. I understand that for many of us, throwing in atheists and humanists is just too much.

Even Pope Francis has acknowledged that a person does not have to be religeous to still be a moral, upstanding citizen. Conversely, we are all also aware of specific examples where those who are or preport to be religeous and definately not moral upstanding citizens (ranging from dishonest to demonic). I do not claim to be a better representative of religeon's role in character development that BP, or even the majority of member of the forum; but I do allow for the thought that one could be an atheist and still a good moral representative of what the Scouting program aims to achieve. Many members of the humanist movement would come to mind. As for myself, I consider myself spiritual. My philosphies would pass the exerpt on the membership application. But I do not consider myself religeous (at least wise in alignment with most (western) organized religeons). I would not pass a test using a strict interpretation of the full DRP, requiring a belief in a personified (male) deity that bestows blessings upon his believers. Would you consider that inspight of my 38+ years with the program, and the numerous youth I have helped to guide that I would need to disassociate myself? That I am, by definition, incapable of being a moral ustanding citizen? An I realize you don't know me, and maybe that's all the more to the point.

I have to agree that I really liked David's answer. That said - there is probably more going on here than a simple complaint about advancment. As a leader, it would be my responsibility to meet the parent and understand the real issues. Yes, there should be a neutral(ish) third person, an ASM or CC sound ideal. As a parent, if the leader blew me off (even if I was in the wrong) that would set of my red-flag warning bells. I might wait on bringing the Scout in to the discussion, because, as many of the responses here indicate, this sounds like it is really about educating the parent on boy led scouting, and letting the scout control their own destiny - this is a discussion that in essence, could embarass the parent in front of their child. We would not have a similar discussion with a youth member that was designed to embarass them in front of others, so let's extend the same courtesy to the parent - who may also need some learning. Now, if the discussion lends itself to doing so, then maybe the Scout is nearby and can be brought in to join the dicussion, or to get their perspective on if there really is even a problem to begin with.

I guess it depends on how far you want to extend the model? If just Boy Scouts - it could probably be workable. From my experience, cub scouts - which is billed to some degree as a family program - would not do well. While in my pack, almost all the uniformed leaders are male, this is not the norm for cub scouts. And we have far too many roles to fill without our moms helping things go. Ventures - I thought half the point of the program was for women to have a program - the other half as a focus area (high adventure, fire, police, etc.) Addressing an earlier comment - in my exploring years (84-93), I was a member of three posts. Most of them stayed around 40% female, none were less than 25% female. So, to me, not a small proportion. Now, back to Boy Scouts .... It is really hard to roll back the clock. Regardless of if there were or weren't any benefit to the boys; I just don't see a mechanism that would ever, effectively, kick out our female leaders - we need them, they do a good job. Trying not to cross the line into politics (although I am sure this thread will move there anyway), our society has moved in the direction of what it consideres to be gender equality; the notions of the "old boys club" are stamped out by societal pressure at every step (when was the last time a country club could be all male?), I fear that the backlash to the BSA program for even suggesting the change would be fairly devistating. Donor organizations could not be caught by the public as sponsoring us, public support would instantly be more that 50% against us. And in the end, we would not be teaching our boys to survive in the world the way it is. To circle back the the original question of how it could be done. The current model is that the CORs choose the leaders. Using current guidance, if the troop were the extension of a Church's ministry - it might be possible for an orthodox sect sponsoring a unit to justify only having male leadership; beyond that I just don't know how.

I am aware of that, thus why I was careful to make sure I noted it when describing my observations. But in the end, why the difference exists, I think, is less important than the fact that it does and that it can have both positive and negative effects on ultimately achieving the goal and aims of scouting.

On the topic of the boys being "distracted" - this is true, but only to a certian extent, and can be exploited to advantage. With the explorer post I was in, because were were around each other for long periods of time (and as almost none of us attended the same school - it was a very geographically diverse explorer post), The boy-girl thing really became a non-issue quickly, even when we were similarly aged. Now, while running a summer camp, we had a program of totems used for the scouts setting their tables to select the staff members they wanted to join them for the meal. Unsurprisingly the women staffers' totems were usually the first to go. Scouts showed up early to set their tables in the hopes of getting the totem's they wanted. [(1) this was 20-30 years ago, and (2) I understand that this opens up an entirely different issue on women as objects, etc - which I hope to avoid here for now] In both programs, when the women were 3 or more years older than the majority of scouts they were interacting with (teaching or otherwise), the scouts tended to be better behaved, pay more attention, and try to impress the female leader with their knowledge of the skills in question. In those cases, anecdotally, the boys actually seemed to learn better. In a traditional troop structure, if the patrols (or other teaching opportunities) were co-ed, I actually think the younger boys would do better. All of that said, I still believe that boys deserve and need a place where they can be boys (particularly in the tween, and young teens), if not Boy Scouts, I don't know where else that could be. So really we have to ask ourselves, if we were to consider going co-ed, what is our real reason ... (1) because it would be good for the girls (who were interested)? (2) because it would have some benefit for the boys? If so, what? (3) because it would increase membership (say 15-25%, based on my explorer experiences), and that would be good for the bsa program? (4) because outside pressure will eventually try to force us to, because they don't like boys having boy only things; and it would be nice to be ahead of the political pressure for once? (5) because we think that the goals and ideals of scouting really apply to all youth, and we want to do what we can to realize it? (6) some other reason?

I think this is one of the better points that we probably have no realistic way to evaluate. I've said before, I do not think that at the cub-scout level that it could not be co-ed; however, that age group of 11-15 or so, I can see a lot of reasons to allow the boys their own program. That said, it has nothing to do with the inability of the girls to do the program, or for the girls to do that program with the boys (from their perspective). I am a big fan of all the scouting movements for what they represent - which to me is exposuer to interests and hobbies that might otherwise elude our youth as they sit at home a play video games all day. The Outdoors is a strong component of that, but not the goal in of itself to me. It is for this reason that I like my daughter's girl scout program. The Girl scout program (as a program) does not emphacise the outdoors the way boy scouts do, but it does expose the girls to interests and activities. It also provides a strong "girl power" component, helping the girls understand that they can do anything they are interested in. This aspect would not be lost for them if they were allowed in the boy scout programs - if anything it would strenghten the notion that I can do what anyone else can do. I don't know the right solution for those middle ages. Maybe a "choice" system where some troops are single sex and others are co-ed; maybe even at the troop level having boy patrols, girl patrols, and mixed patrols - allowing for mixed leadership. Let the parents and scouts themselves decide their comfort level. For me personally, I was a White Stag participant and staff member (please leave White Stag opinions out of this topic), and from that experience, I know that for both scout skiils and leadership, the women/girls can truly do anything the boys can do - many of the woment conselors were far more competent that many eagle scouts I've known. From that, I also know that in a patrol and troop setting, the boys and girls can work together without too many issues (adult supervision ratios and attentiveness may need to be increased). Even when there were the usual boy-girl issues, the mission focus (providing a scout/leadership program) did not suffer.

Since the Webelos, at that time, is NOT yet a member of the Troop, he is still technically a member of the Den. So he can participate as a member of the Den (i.e. One registered Den leader, and another Adult over 18), or can participate as a single if accompanied by the parent. I'd have to check with the District Membership chair to find a citable source. I'll grant that I may be misinterpreting or reading too much into how the supervision works; but I did not think that a Webelos could be dropped off at a Boy Scout activity; even for recruiting; that it needed to be a parent accompanying, or as a formal Den event. Now, if the Den leaders bridged to that Troop as well, since they are still technically Den Leaders, that would probably cover it, even if they were ALSO Troop leaders. Now stepping on my own toes, I do recall that one of the Troops in this area does to a lock-in style camp out with the Webelos as guests. I'm not sure what, if any, Den leadership needed to remain for this - so maybe it is not an actual requirement.

I'll described what has been one of our moust successful recruiting tool so far .. First, let me preface that my pack does meet in a School, and the School does allow fliers. However, because the school only allows a group 4 fliers per year, I was discouraged by the district from putting out our own. So for our may pack meeting, our unit got bumped from our meeting space for a PTA event. We decided to still meet at the school that night and have an outdoor event (in front of the school), organized as fun for the scouts and as a recruiting opportunity. It was sports and team type activities (tug of war, relay races, beach-ball vollyball, etc.) We encouraged our scouts to wear their field uniforms or activity uniforms to school that day, and to pass out peer-to-peer cards. We got about 5-7 boys not in the pack to attend. I did not hard sell joining that night (especially since the free Tiger book for registering in June had not kicked in). The families were all invited to our pack end of year event which would follow about 2 weeks later. At that even I got 3 signed up oficially, and another 2 since then - not everyone was at the earlier events, but It had some visibility and word of mouth. We also encouraged our parents to encourage the parents of their Boys' playmates. This is the first year, that even before fall recruiting I have an up and running Tiger den. All-in-all have have about 6 or 7 new scouts already joined, and at least 5 more likely perspectives - again all before our normal fall recruiting (which last year was a dismal 4 scouts joining). While these are a lot of effort for what sounds like only a few bodies, our pack is 45-55 typically, and can maintain that if we at least replace the bridging Scouts (we had 9 this year), moving Scouts (2), and other Scouts that drop out (which for us is prettty low, 2-3 a year at most).

I'm not in favor of backdating awards. Nor am I in favor of blatently ignoring the rules. However, everyone from the Scout through National wants this boy to become a Boy Scout. If he "bridges" with his fellows without the AOL, buy the rules, he still has to wait for June or a birthday to Join the Boy Scouts. If the troop is willing, as a Webelos he can be a recruiting guest, even if that means being a guest for many meetings and camping trips, before he can join. The only real requirement for this method is the Parent (or two of the Webelos Den leaders) would need to participate in these meetings/camps with him until he can join. The only real consequence is, while he could participate in activities (and maybe even use them and the extra time to complete AOL - he's got until June), he could not begin to work on the Boy Scout advancement until he joined; however it also sounds like that's not really a big issue for him. Making him wait, without some form of Scouting to fill the gap, is likely to lead to a loss of interest and eventually not Joining the Scout troop when it is time.

I don't think ever in my life would I have expected to see a discussion of a flag ceremony and RHPS equated. Fun analogy.

This topic seems to have a lot of really good points on both sides. It seems reasonable to ask WHY they don't want you around. It could be that they want to avoid conflicts in the future that may arise if they fear you, with your experience, might not want to do things their way. It may also be, that they too, are looking out for your Sons' interests. It is not uncommon for a Troop to invite a bridging parent to take a year or two off, before becoming an active leader in the unit. They don't know you, but maybe expereince has taught them that giving this separation helps the troop remain boy led rather than an extension of adult led cub scouts. Thus, the issue may not be you at all. If the Troop is running a safe, quality program and the boys are enjoying it, learning from it, and leading it, it might be best for you to swallow your plans, and let it develop. I had a similar decision to make when my Son bridged. While I am now active in the Troop committee, I generally don't camp with them, and I am not a uniformed leader at their meetings. For my continued Scouting experience, I became an MBC, decided to get involved a little more at the district level - working as an assistant roundtable commissioner, and for this year, at least, I decided to stay with the Pack. My parents were not involved in my Scouting other than as parents who did their share of transportation, and who enabled me to have the expierence I wanted. I grew a lot in my independence this way, and I hope my son can have a similar expierence. At this time, I only plan to step into a significant leadership role with the Troop if that is the only option that will keep the unit operating. I miss the extra bonding time with my son, but overall I think he will benefit more from this experience.

While my family qualifies from two separate paths for DAR, and even with the HQ only a few miles away, I actually know very little about representing that link. As for the Tartans, my problem (ok, my Son's, my side didn't qualify), is that the Tartan he's linked to is just so ugly.

We don't do them in the Pack - the rank level is usually enough to distinguish scouting experience. My Son's troop does not appear to use them. Again this generally makes sense to me, but maybe in a unit that is successful in recruiting older new scouts, maybe it might help couch expectations - although a rank should be more effective for that purpose. For myself, I proudly wear all six of mine. 3 cub, 7 scout, 2, 3, and 5 explorers, and now 8 (agrigate) adult - I took too many years off and in retrospect regret it. (And yes you really do/can wear multiple pins for multiple units, even if simultaneous registrations). I don't wear them camping, they are too fragile, but at meetings and roundtables, like the knots, they are an icebreaker, something to get you talking with other parents; and for them, it is a comfort level (again like the knots) that the leader(s) of their Son's unit has experience in Scouting.

Make sure to inquire about what an expected participation cost is, that may significanly effect which families can do what; and along those lines, what kind of fund raising the unit does and generally how it is spent. Also, if the majority of the Adult leadership has Boys in the Troop, ask about their succession plan. While I undertand the logistics of a whole den just dropping in unannounced; once my Son was pretty sure which unit he wanted to go to, we did visit unannounced so he could see what a regular meeting was like. We visited three troops directly and were exposed to several more through a webelos midway and a camporee event. Of the three, one was a large, 80+ boys, 6+ patrols, well age distributed) that had a very active advancement and activity program - surprisingly this was also one of the most Boy led units as well. The second was 25-30 boys, mostly 12-15, starting to rebuild a boy led program, and again with a very active activity program, less emphasis on Troop provided advancement opportunities. The third was much smaller with 12-16 active boys, about half 14-16 years old (maybe 24 total on the roster at the time),Other than Summer Camp they tended to take the summer off. Personally I was concerned about their ability to maintain a critical mass. The first unit was most like my own Scout experience. In the end, my Son chose the last unit, because when they did a webelos skills teaching event, firebuilding in this case, the older scouts were VERY patient with my son and anonther Scout that just weren't getting in, never made them feel ashamed or embarassed by needing more time. My son was afraid that he would be lost and unnoticed in the larger unit. I can't fault him for his choice, he had a very valid reason for making it. In the end, 3 boys of his den when to his unit, 6 went to the middle unit (mostly due to that's where most of our Cub pack goes, and where many of our Cub leaders have graduated to). The larger unit was further away - but I did take satisfaction in knowing that the SPLs of all three units, in January at least, came from my pack. Every boy and every family have different needs. Each Troop has a different personality. This is why visiting multiple units is important for the Webelos.

I generally try to approach a problem like this sideways. Obviosuly I don't know the specifics, but based on what has been described here, if his own confidence is in question, try to find a way to build it back up. When he was active was there one or more skills he was good at? If so, could you invite him back to help you solve "your" problem of teaching this skill to the current scouts. If he's says he's a little rusty or uncomfortable about his current skill level, remind him that Scouts are boy led, and that you would really like one of the Scouts to teach it to the others, but that you would be more than happy to work with him to refresh his skills so he could pass them on. Once you have reengaged him in the unit, and more particularly he feels like he is being useful and helpful to you, it will be easier to progress to achieving your other goals to help this Scout. Alternativly, you may inquire with the Mother to see if she will let you talk to his professional help - not to learn more about his condition, but to get the Counselor/Psychologist/whatever's guidance on what they think the Scout needs and how you could help to provide it within the Scout program.

While not an immediate solution for a cash strapped unit or their families, but in our case the pack buys and presents the correct rank neckerchiefs at our June function (when the Scouts rank level is "promoted"). At the May meeting we collect all of them back at the end of the meeting so we can launder and iron them to be ready for presenting to the next group at the June function. New joining Scouts get theirs when then officially join. Families/Scouts that lose one become responsible for replacement. The pack swallows the loss if the family leaves the program without turning one in. Overall, this is a very cost effective solution. As for Slides, save the money, skip the official ones (this IS officially allowed for Cubs BTW), and make some at the first den or pack meeting.

In my world, we call this the propogation of error. If the first group is 95% right, and teach the second group which is 95% right to what the first group taught and so on, it still doen't take long (~14 times for the oversimplified formula) for the group to be less than half right. They become wrong even faster if there is no accounting for official changes in how things should be done. The BSA puts out the Guide to Advancement on a regular basis, and that document, while not perfect, does clearly indicate duties and responsibilities for the BOR. We may not all agree with them, we may not agree with all the parts of them; but that is the way it should be done - until the next update comes out. Anything less, and are we doing any better a job of teaching our Youth about adhering to the Scout Oath and Law than the Scout we are reviewing?

I encouraged my son to do Scouting because I knew that it would 1. Provide him with opportunities and access to explore interests that we would not do as a family. 2. If would encourage the family to turn off the TV and get out of the house as we helped run and/or participated in the activities (cub Scouts). 3. When I was asked to be Cubmaster, I had a sit down with my Son... up until that time, Scouting had been entirely his choice. I let him know, that If I agreed to be Cub Master, each year that I did so, he did not have the choice to outright quit at least until the end of the year when the next leadership turnover happened. Did he still want me to take on the job ... yes. While there were some close calls at times, he earned his AOL. As a Webelos, he visited with several troops. As it came time for a decision, I reminded him of how much our whole family had changed as a result of his being in Cub Scouts. I reminded him that his selection of a Troop would likely have a similar effect on the whole family going forward; but that it was his choice to make (which one, if any). Honestly, I would not have chosen the one he did - my Scouting experience was different - but it is the Scouting experience that does seem to best fit his needs. Scouting will not be the best fit for every child; even looking at different Troops, that child may not find a fit to their needs; but Scouting is an underutilized resource to expose Boys (and Girls) to activities and interests they may have otherwise missed. Even if Scouting only lasted until those other interests were discovered, I would consider it a success.