SSF

@Devotedautismadhdmom  I'm sorry that you have had to endure what seems to have been a very stressful situation for you, and indirectly for your son, who I'm sure has picked up on how difficult this has been on you.

I'm really astonished by this situation...a guy with an alleged drug possession charge appoints himself Cubmaster of a Pack despite complete opposition from the COR and yourself as CC...then council supposedly approves him as a registered leader and you and the COR feel that you are completely powerless to remove him,  despite the fact that you and the COR both have all of the power and authority that you need to remove him.  

I do get the sense that you and the COR are both somewhat intimidated about confronting this new self-appointed Cubmaster and because of that you keep looking to council to remove him for you.

As others have said, it's the charter org that determines who will serve as registered leaders; council just conducts the background checks and approves or denies the application at the national level. 

I don't mean to sound harsh, but f you and the COR lack the assertiveness to make it clear to this new Cubmaster that he has no place in your unit, then perhaps you and she aren't well suited for those particular roles...

Granted, ideally in a perfect world, units would not have to deal with these types of situations, but obviously there are unpleasant issues that come up in leading a unit, and when they do, unit leader have to be ready to address them. 

Again, I'm sorry that you and your son have had to go through this. Finding a new unit may be the best option at this point, or if some other leader or parent in your unit may be willing to act on your and the COR's behalf and make it clear to the new Cubmaster that's he not wanted, then that would solve the problem.

You'd also think that with all of that time in the woods, somebody would have seen a Bigfoot by now too

1 hour ago, PARENTinSCOUT said:

I wanted the Council or District to send a statement to the offending troop and the indirectly to the community that retaliation by social pressure (true in this case) or by other means that disadvantage the participation of scouts are not to be tolerated. 

I'm so sorry to hear about this situation.  

The BSA should absolutely adopt a policy that expressly prohibits retaliation of any form against scouts, scouters or parents who do report, in good faith, any clear violations of BSA policy. That's long overdue. 

Can you be more specific about the actual retaliation that occurred? You mention "social pressure" and you mentioned bullying ad hazing in your initial post. Was that the extent of the retaliation or was there more? 

9 minutes ago, 69RoadRunner said:

My son, and other scouts, really don't like swimming in the lake at summer camp. He chose to do the Hiking merit badge for that reason. I did the hikes with him. It certainly is harder than Swimming.

Cycling might be done less often due to fewer counselors, too.

Do you feel that hiking is a more valuable life skill to have over swimming? 

On 2/12/2019 at 11:42 AM, FireStone said:

So as an adult and a dad of a scout, if my son were having these kinds of issues with troop culture dictating that he wait some additional time to get signed off on something, we'd go looking for a new troop.

Not judging, but it always seems like an automatic response on this site to say "quick, find another troop" when there are advancement issues or a rogue SM.

No one ever really talks about the impact of transferring and uprooting a scout from his current troop, and his fellow scouts and friends there, to going to a completely different troop where he knows no one...

It's not an easy transition and it's completely unfair to the scout to have to find a new troop because his scoutmaster, and leaders, are not administering the BSA program correctly

On 2/12/2019 at 11:25 AM, shingobeek said:

So here's what I don't understand, and never have. The BSA creates a series of requirements for advancement, be it merit badges, rank, religious awards, etc. Furthermore, in the Guide to Advancement it states "Policy on Unauthorized Changes to Advancement Program - No council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to add to, or subtract from, advancement requirements."

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

YOU CAN'T MAKE CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM!

I've been asking this very same question for the past ten years. I've concluded that in the BSA rules really are made to be broken...or more accurately, ignored. 

I couldn't agree with you more strongly on this though. There are a lot of good scouts who have suffered because of petty, ego driven Scoutmasters who truly feel that their way is better than the BSA's way. 

16 hours ago, David CO said:

If so, why don't we fix this problem first? Then we can let the CO improve the unit.

Yes, that's a very good point.

15 hours ago, David CO said:

You need to remember that these are their kids.  BSA didn't give birth to these kids.  BSA doesn't feed them, or clothe them, or educate them.

The kids belong to the parents, and to some extent, to the churches/schools/organizations in which the families freely choose to associate.  These are the Chartered Organizations.

This is the root of the problem. Some over-zealous BSA supporters have come to feel that the Chartered Organizations are merely sponsors, and not the true owners of the units. 

The CO owns the unit, however, they are still chartered under the BSA and are therefore obligated to run the BSA program as intended.  

If the CO doesn't want any limitations on what they can or can't do then they should establish themselves as something other than a BSA unit; i,.e. the Charter Org Youth Group or the Dads and Sons Camping Club, rather than a legitimately established BSA unit.

Also, the vast majority of CO's tend to be far removed from the operations of their units and take a very hands off approach to how those units are being run.

I realize this may not be the case for your CO and unit, but the majority of CO's don't get involved with their units, are not aware or interested in what the units are doing and I think the majority of CO's like it that way. They don't want to get involved and just think of themselves as providing a place for the unit to hold meetings and store equipment. 

1 hour ago, David CO said:

Nope. They can just ignore the district and council leaders, just like most of us are already doing. 

This is the root of the problem, in that units can choose to completely disregard BSA regulations and policies without any real repercussion. 

Obviously all units operate a bit differently and there can be some gray areas, in how programs are administered, but conversely, there are also clear, black and white, cases of ethical wrongdoing (perhaps not illegal, but unquestionably unethical) in which the BSA needs to step in, take action, enforce the GTA and GTSS and if necessary remove scout leader(s) and/or unit charters of leaders or units who prove to be detrimental or willful towards the youth that they are supposed to be serving

An effective manager, or leader, in scouting or elsewhere will strive to guide their subordinates rather than dictate to them. Hopefully the subordinate will then be able to realize the impact of their decisions while retaining their autonomy and without feeling as though they are being undermined by their manager; e.g.

Instead of a manager saying to his employee: "You're doing that wrong You need to do it this way."

The manager could say to the employee: "Why do you think that things aren't working in the way that you would ideally like them to? Are there things that could be done differently? What changes do you think might achieve different results? 

All of that said, this problem of bad scoutmasters and scout leaders is just far too epidemic, and I have personally encountered more than one scout leader who is completely driven and motivated by ego, power and maintaining control and who are completely unfazed or deterred by knowing that they are violating the GTA or GTSS. 

My older sons' scoutmaster went as far as to lie - yes, actually lie - with the malicious intent of derailing and undermining my son's advancement towards Eagle. My son was able to prove that the SM had lied and while the SM did a little back pedaling when he got caught, it really didn't change anything. This guy is still a scoutmaster today and still working with the same troop.

I also know, personally, of a number of other similar scoutmasters who have operated this way and between this board and Ask Andy, I've read far too many stories of scoutmaster or scout leaders who do what they want to do regardless of BSA policies.

The advice in these situations is always the same. "Find a new troop, vote with your feet" but that doesn't address the root of the problem. 

The BSA needs to maintain greater due diligence in ensuring that BSA programs are being administered properly.

Good scouts are suffering and bad scout leaders are continuing to be bad scout leaders.

I'm sorry that your son is in this situation.

One of the most unjust and ridiculous aspects of the BSA is the fact that Scoutmasters, and/or units, that choose to violate established BSA policies on advancement, face no real opposition from the BSA.

I don't know of a single case of a Scoutmaster ever being removed from his position for adding requirements.

While he is clearly in the wrong, this SM can decide to not grant your son his scoutmaster conference for Eagle, not sign his completed Eagle project workbook and/or not sign his completed Eagle application; any one of which would result in your son not being able to earn the rank of Eagle Scout.

If you approach the council for assistance, or report the SM for violating the GTA, then they would most likely involve the Unit Commissioner in some way to try to mend things, but even then the SM could still flatly decide that he's just not going to support your son's advancement to Eagle, in which case the only other options would be either transferring to a different troop or requesting an Eagle Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances.

My advice to you, for your son's sake, would be to tread lightly with this Scoutmaster and to encourage your son to see if the beneficiary would allow the project to be done on a different day.

There is and was no such requirement in the BSA.

It sounds like this was a 'unit requirement'' that your SM or other leaders within your troop had put in place themselves

I would have to put this into the adding requirements bucket

43 minutes ago, shortridge said:

No one’s eliminating anything. You are not being censored. I’m simply asking that the same standard be applied to discussions of the BSA program now that it is accepting girls as was applied when it was rejecting them. Comments of the sort you are making were spun off into I&P threads in years past when they were on the other side of the fence.

As to my misunderstanding of your comments - sir, two of the sentences in your original post referred to the video. The others were about how the BSA has changed. That speaks for itself.

Please let those of us who want to discuss the program as it is have these program subforums. If you want to change it or bemoan the changes, then go to I&P. That is the place for it.

Thanks! I’ll wait for the mods to make a ruling one way or the other.

Does it really matter which thread this discussion is included in? 

If there was no issue when all of the comments towards the video were positive, then there's no issue when some of the comments are critical or negative. It's not reasonable in my opinion to begin moving posts around just because someone offers an opposing view to the original poster.

What I'm taken aback by in the video is the rather arrogant smirk that the one girl displays after shooting a bullseye on the target. She is not smiling, she is clearly smirking.

I think the director intended for that target to represent the traditional Boy Scouts of America; i.e. 'Scouts BSA' is taking aim at the traditional, and now former, Boy Scouts of America...that's my take on the video.

2 hours ago, shortridge said:

@The Latin Scot, I disagree with you 1,000 percent. However, all that aside, this isn’t I&P, and this thread isn’t for debating the merits of girls in Scouts BSA. I&P is the appropriate forum for sharing your feelings about masculinity. This is the open program forum.

Do you have specific thoughts on the marketing video separate from your overall opinions about the new Scouts BSA?

Thanks!

This is ultimately an open forum...or at least it's supposed to be.

3 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

I am not talking about masculinity. You missed the point of my earlier comment, so I will make it clear for you.

I am talking about Scouting, and what this video is trying to communicate about it. This video wants people to believe that the program of Scouting, as it currently exists, will have just the same effect on girls as it does on boys. I think that is absolutely false. I think the video is an attempt to convince parents that the traditional Scouting program can be made to fit girls just as well as it fits boys. But I believe girls and boys are inherently different, and a program that has been developed over a hundred years to match the nature of how boys learn and develop will not yield the same benefits for young women as it does for young men. So I am saddened by a video that uses values that are desirable for both - curiosity, exploration, boldness, et cetera - to suggest that the PROGRAM by which these values are taught will work just as well for one as it does for the other. I don't believe that.

I find the video manipulative, and I don't agree with its agenda. I think it is perpetuating the lie that boys and girls are the same, or worse, interchangeable. A pretty, colorful video with trite music and a few sunny faces is a poor mask for the ulterior motives which I believe underlie its creation. But it is very craftily made - sincere young ladies having a wonderful adventure, 'fun,' kitschy music, adventure, beautiful vistas - this film was very carefully crafted to elicit a response. As a marketing tool, it is extremely effective and well-thought-out. And that's just what I find so frustrating about it. I am sure it will be effective in drawing in many families who subscribe to the ideology behind it, a line of thinking I cannot endorse because I love Scouting too much to accept it. It's hard to watch an organization you love go off the rails, but that's just what I am grieving when I see this kind of marketing ploy.

I apologize if some find this offensive. But I can't apologize for what I feel is right. And again, this is not off-topic. This thread is about the video, and that is exactly what I am discussing here. 

We may disagree on things related to Star Wars, but I couldn't agree with you more strongly on this. Very well said.

It's my understanding that the BSA has for many, many years embraced the belief that the best way to get rid of criticism (at least from within the BSA) has been to simply get rid of the critic.

There is strength in numbers though, so if you can rally and gain the support of others who are willing to stand up to this SE, then that will speak volumes. He will not be able to dismiss that many voices against him. 

It's clear that you're very passionate about this, so I'm sorry to be a naysayer, but I have to agree with your son's advisor. I don't think this is a worthwhile project at all.

My advice to your son would be to take a step back from this and consider if he is willing to invest the time and effort into writing up a formal proposal for this, when there is a high degree of rejection.

Perhaps talk with the school about some other ideas that might make for a good project.

Naturally, it's up to your son as to how he wants to proceed, but there is a high degree that this project will either not be approved or will require so much modification that it's no longer the project that he envisioned.

1 hour ago, TEP said:

My son was not able to complete his Swimming Merit Badge at summer camp.

Are there any recommendations on how to get Swimming merit badge outside of a summer camp?

 

How old is your son and what prevented him from completing the merit badge at summer camp? 

In my experience, most scouts, and even their parents, have little concern for whether or not they can actually swim well...they just want the merit badge. 

I'm a Swimming MB counselor and a dad from my son's troop recently asked me if I would sign off on Swimming MB for his son, who's 12 or 13. 

I had a few issues with:

1) The fact that the dad and not the scout was approaching me about this

2) That this particular dad seemed to have the expectation that I would automatically sign off on the merit badge for his son, just because I happened to be with the troop (doesn't work that way)

3) Most importantly, I had seen this scout swim during the swim test before summer camp and there was no way I could reasonably sign off on the badge for his son with his strokes looking as bad as they did. It was clear he had never been taught properly.

When it comes to BSA swimming, I hardly expect any scout to be the next Michael Phelps, but there has to be at least some semblance (or at least effort) to show proper form and this particular scout needed a lot of work. His conditioning was also terrible. 

Ultimately my advice to the dad was that his son, and not himself, should be doing the outreach to counselors and to stop rushing this merit badge.

Sign his son up for swimming lessons so he can practice and work diligently on his swimming over the next full year so that he would then be fully ready and conditioned to complete the badge at summer camp next year with no problem.

3 hours ago, Ranman328 said:

SFF, I would appreciate it if you would not take my comment out of context.  I never said "ALL" boys would do this.  You are going from one end of the spectrum to the other.  The fact is that this was not just one Scout.  Several other Scouts sat by watched and did nothing!  These other scouts are apparently in the PLC.  Please retract your statement.  Thank you!

Correct, you didn't say "all" boys, but you did imply very clearly that you feel that boys in general, are certainly likely to doing something against girls. That's an unfair generalization to make. 

3 hours ago, Ranman328 said:

No it is not a damning statement to make against boys.  Maybe you have not read about all the issues that transpired at the Scout Jamboree over the summer.  Dozens of reports of Scouts inappropriate behavior toward females at the event.  The fact that they will be handing out condoms at the World Jamboree is very disturbing to me as well.  You go ahead and look at this from your point of view and I hope it never hits close to your back yard.  Thank you for your opinion and I will move on.

You said, "If boys will do this to another boy, they will certainly try it with girls."

The key word you used was "certainly" i.e. you're saying that it's not only possible, but according to you, a matter of certainty, that this will happen to girls because of the incident shared in this post  You re-emphasize and try to support your broad generalization and aspersion against boys by referencing inappropriate behavior from boys at the jamboree.

The implication of your statement was very clear. 

@BsideI'm very sorry that this happened to your son and the horrible position that this horrendous incident has put you, your son and your family in.

3 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Let's talk about this particular boy.  The fact that he forced another boy to sit still while he rubbed his barely-clothed genitals on the other boy's head does raise the prospect that he may do so again, to somebody else, of whatever gender.  It also raises the distinct possibility that he may do something worse to someone else, of whatever gender.  It also raises the question of whether this is the first time he has done that to someone.

I'm addressing the implication made that 'if one boy does this, all boys are likely to do this.' I'm not defending this particular SPL by any means. What he did was horrendous, but all boys should not be labeled as a threat to girls because this kid can't control himself.

1 hour ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Where my mind goes is -- how will this boy treat his homecoming date if they are alone, etc?  What if he has a babysitting job or other unsupervised exposure to children?  Unfortunately, behavior like this, especially if undisciplined, can become a pattern.  So the kid needs to be taught the hard lesson now and hopefully it sticks. 

A lot of speculation in this post. 

This discussion seems to be veering from addressing this particular incident to 'boys in the boy scouts are now a threat to the girls in the boy scouts'

14 hours ago, Ranman328 said:

If boys will do this to another boy, they will certainly try it with girls.

That's a pretty damning statement to make against boys. 

So, because of this incident, involving this particular SPL, you feel with great certainty that boys will no doubt do something similar to girls?

17 hours ago, DadandGareth said:

For my scout, I decided that a one mile freestyle-only swim in a lap pool with no gliding after flip turns (so swimming the entire distance) and no stopping is a high achievement for a 12 year old, worthy of the mile swim badge.

I'm not sure how you can tell a scout not to glide after doing a flip turn...? Every recognized swimming stroke involves gliding, some strokes more than others, but every single stoke has a very pronounced glide element to it. You would essentially be telling the scout to swim in an inefficient manner as opposed to swimming in an efficient manner.

I see what the objective is though. It might be more practical to have the scout swim the perimeter of the pool and just not allow him to push off the wall, or the bottom course. 

Of the six summer camps I've been to, four had pools and that's how they conducted the mile; i.e. the swimmers were not permitted to use the walls to push off and had to swim in a large oval around the perimeter. The camps that did not have pools obviously held their mile swim in the open water of the lake. 

The BSA should definitely add "continuous" to the requirement. I think that's a loophole they did not consider. The idea of a kid swimming 100 yards every Saturday over a 17 week period, and then claiming that he completed the mile swim at the end of that 17 week period is absurd.

Also, not to nitpick, but while freestyle is generally regarded as the front crawl stroke, there is no such thing as the 'freestyle stroke'. Freestyle is an event in competitive swimming in which the swimmer can swim in any manner that they choose...hence 'free' style.

Since front crawl is swam fairly universally in the freestyle event though, 'freestyle' has become synonymous with the front crawl. Just sharing as a fun fact.