jwest09

1. recruit a staff cook team. You can have staff that supports the other staff.

Can't agree with this enough!  In every council I've ever worked with, there's been a team of, usually elder, Scouters who might not be up for the day-to-day Scouting program, but make themselves available to provide food service for camporees, OA events, NYLT, Woodbadge, etc.  In my current council, they have a reputation of being somewhat crotchety and grumpy, but also for having hearts of gold and a willingness to help out when asked.  In my experience, camporees usually don't have a lot of staff, so it might only take the efforts of 2 or 3 people and some good planning to be able to feed your staff.  If your district doesn't have "cook crew" folks on your roster, check with the OA rep, NYLT or Woodbadge advisors, or even the camp rangers.  Someone will be able to give you the name of someone who would likely be willing to help out for a weekend.

Our SM allowed us to explore as long as we had our ten essentials, stayed as a patrol, notified the SPL and SM our plans and stuck to them. We all had park maps and knew how to use them. We got to explore like this on any camp out. Swimming was not allowed but other than that we were free to explore. If we planned to be gone longer than 2 hours we had to check in.

This is generally the approach I try to take.  My theory is, I didn't drag you kids out to this camp ground / state park / forest / trail / river just for you to sit in the camp site and be baby sat.  You should be out exploring, learning and problem solving with your patrol.

We generally expect them to communicate their plan with the SPL prior to heading out - just something simple along the lines of, which area they'll be exploring, which route they'll hike, etc.  They are expected to communicate any changes back to the SPL or adults.  (We've sometimes used cheap FRS radios to let the patrols talk over a wide area.  Some of the older boys just text each other if we're in an area with cell reception.)

We do expressly prohibit some activities, depending on where we are.  Hiking beyond the boundaries of the property we're at is usually prohibited, as would be moving into areas reserved by other groups for their program.  Swimming isn't allowed without proper supervision, but I don't particularly mind if they go wading in a shallow creek or pond.

Most of our adults will hike around the area separately, and "by chance" bump into each patrol, and casually check up on them, and correct any issues that might come up.

Hasn't been a huge problem.

For youth serving as camp staff (be it summer camp, NYLT, etc) our council began requiring that they attend YPT training... probably 10 years ago, if not more.  When I conduct a YPT training for youth staff, I try to emphasize how they need to act like adults, despite being youth.  I go into some examples of how behavior which might be acceptable around their friends in their patrol is no longer acceptable when serving as a staff member - for example, we expect the youth staff to use two-deep leadership, no roughhousing, appropriate topics of conversation, etc.  To some extent, it is "30 minutes of common sense," as a few others have phrased it.  On the other hand, its a good reminder for the youth staff, and I think its a valuable part of growing into a role of having increased responsibility and accountability.

Col. Flagg - While I'm not sure that it really matters whether the young lady is a registered Venturer (since this is a troop outing and not a Venturing outing) - I do agree that she could participate in certain troop activities.  It obviously depends on the specific program the PLC has decided on.

Parallel question - what if this were a non-registered 14 year old male sibling?  Or perhaps a register scout visiting from another troop? (Perhaps a cousin or visiting friend of one of your troop's scouts?)  Would that change the situation at all?

 

 

Furthermore, according to recent BSA decisions to play the identity game, the adult need only identify as female, or the youth as male ... problem solved.

@@qwazse, I read your comment as derogatory based on your choice to refer to the situation as a "game," and the implication that one "need only identify" a certain way to get around a fairly trivial (and likely non-existent) rule about whether siblings can attend a troop campout.  While you may oppose the BSA's policy with regard to trans-gendered youth, or take issue with transgendered individuals, you don't need to treat the issue flippantly and dismissively.  Also, since there's precisely zero indication that it has anything to do with the relatively mundane situation presented in this thread, it seems as though you were simply looking for an excuse to be insulting and rude.  

In most cases, "things which are not prohibited are permitted." Since the BSA has not expressly prohibited family members from visiting camp and other events, one must conclude it is permitted.  Many troops do, in fact, organize regular family camp outs that are intended for Scout and non-Scout members of Scouting families to be able to participate in.

That said, I would find it inappropriate if the young lady wanted to participate in patrol activities on a typical patrol-oriented camp out.  I would probably consider the young lady a "visitor," and would have an expectation that she not distract or interfere with the youth program.

(And can we try to avoid making derogatory comments about trans people in any conversation pertaining to gender, especially when you have to reach so far to make a "connection?"  Its rude and immature.  I expect the youth I work with to do their best to obey the Oath and Law, and I'm not sure why adults like to exempt themselves from acting courteously in these situations.)

BSA rules?  No.  COs and thus troops may set their own rules, as may individual camp groups / events.

T2Eagle - is it really any different from how recipes on food packaging will tell you to use a specific brand of pasta, soup, salad dressing, etc?  Yes, its obviously an advertising thing, but anyone with common sense knows you can use whatever brand you want of 99% of these items, and you'll be just fine.

I mean, I agree with you, its obvious what the BSA is doing, and money is changing hands.  But it seems like such a trivial thing that's easily dealt with, assuming even a little common sense.

Well, it forces us to find middle ground, unless you are on the left. Then you just play the (insert liberal issue) card, scream, whine, protest and make stuff up and say that the other person is oppressing you.

My friend - none of that is at all unique to liberals (as is self-evident just in your one post).  Its more a trait of people unwilling or unable to debate an argument on its fact and merits, and instead turn to emotionally-charged rhetoric.  Probably because its easier and more fun to sling mud, trade insults, and "debate" in terms of memes and one-liners, than to actually dig into the meat of any given issue.

Would they learn something?  Yes, certainly.  Would affect change in the program?  Maybe, maybe not.  The phrase, "confirmation bias" comes to mind.

On my part, I don't really buy the argument that unit-level challenges have a significant cause in national-level executive decision.  Blaming "National" or "Council" or whomever for failures in unit-level programming seems like a scapegoat, more often than not.

2 issues here with the materials....

 

1) natural fiber rope/twine is commercially made.  The fibers are grown and harvested, but during the growing process they are treated with insecticides and herbicides to insure a good crop, and then it is treated with chemicals to retard rot.  All those chemicals are in the smoke given off when it burns.  I know it's not a lot of material to burn, but I don't use this material for fire starters for this reason.

 

2) the man made fibers of dryer lint is also toxic.  One must be assured there is none present in the lint.  In order to insure one has 100% cotton, get an old t-shirt and scrape lint off it with the edge of a knife.  It's a little more work, but as we all know, the boys are WEARING all the "dryer lint" needed to start a fire.

 

Assuming a reasonable size of material (a golf ball size is plenty), and assuming you're not standing over the material and huffing the smoke, and assuming you're not starting hundreds of such fires a day every day for several months straight... there's pretty much no chance of any ill effects from the minuscule amount of toxins present in lint.

No, I am not forgetting that girls are appealing to boys. And we all know that boys have no other place they can meet girls. Not in school, not in church, not at the ballpark, nope...no place at all to meet girls in this culture.

 

The old, "well, everyone else is doing it", excuse. No dispute that every other scouting program is doing it in the world. (Not precisely accurate, but close enough.) (1) we shouldn't be interested in being like everyone else, (2) we shouldn't care what everyone else is doing--we should care what works for our children, (3) it may work, but would it work better otherwise?

 

What do you think my mind is made up about?

 

There is nothing abstract or fictional about the political left. Or did you think Hillary Clinton ran as a Republican? I agree with the rest of that paragraph.

 

"All politics is local." First, that cuts directly against your point that "the model has worked in pretty much every other country with a Scouting organization.". Please be consistent.  But I don't blame any particular ideology for Scouting's success or failure. I "blame" BSA's response to that ideology's attacks on the program BSA provides. The rest of that I mostly agree with, except to the extent that what program I deliver is controlled and determined by BSA, unless I choose to deliver only a BSA-based program. So the "local" sentiment is nice and all, but misplaced.

Wow, quite a bit going on here...

Your argument is that, a hypothetical co-ed program will be less appealing to boys, and thus cause a further decline in membership. I'm suggesting that that isn't inherently true.  Other countries have had great success with co-ed scouting programs.  Its entirely possible to run a co-ed program that is appealing to boys, and maybe even moreso as they can include more of their friends and peers in the program.  Your sarcastic remarks about "no place at all to meet girls in this culture." are neither relevant nor appreciated.

"The old, "well, everyone else is doing it", excuse."  Wrong again, sir.  My reference to other successful programs was in no way suggested as any kind of "excuse."  Rather, it is simply a demonstration of successful Scouting programs which are different from the BSA.  You may find some of the differences to be unacceptable, and I expect that you do.  But you cannot deny that there are examples of co-ed programs which are succesful.

"There is nothing abstract or fictional about the political left. Or did you think Hillary Clinton ran as a Republican?"  I'm suggesting that the impact of the political left on the BSA membership is largely fictional - not that the political left does not exist.

"First, that cuts directly against your point that "the model has worked in pretty much every other country with a Scouting organization.". Please be consistent"  Sigh.  No, it does not.  Those organizations all have their own local politics.  They just seem better, overall, at prioritizing the creation and delivery of unit-level programs unburdened by divisive political issues.

Col. Flagg - I obviously didn't mean that a co-ed program alone will solve the membership issue.  Venturing is co-ed - but their success is based on the program they offer.  Successful crews offer fun and interesting programs.  Unsuccessful crews don't.  Whether its co-ed is a secondary concern to the quality of the program.  My point here is - co-ed doesn't hurt a unit, if they offer a compelling program.  Note that's not the same as saying that a co-ed unit will make up for failing to offer a quality program.

And I don't consider COs the "members" of the BSA.  We are the members of the BSA.  We can and do change COs all the time, with minimal impact to the program we deliver to the youth we serve.  COs aren't the ones spending money on camps, uniforms, program materials, etc.  We, the scouts and scouters, are.

Along those lines, I think this situation illustrates the folly in trying to treat the COs as the "customer," rather than treating the membership base as the "customer."  Just based on reading this forum - the vast majority of the time, we hear that the CO is "uninvolved," "doesn't care," "we don't even know who they are."  Its hard to argue that the COs are, or even should be, considered the "key members" or "customers" of the BSA, when this is the practical situation for the majority of our units.

And that will be the death knell of BSA. Because once girls become a part of the demographic and they start running the numbers, they will begin changing the program to appeal more to girls. Which will make it less appealing to boys. 

You're perhaps forgetting that girls are appealing to boys ;-)  And that the model has worked in pretty much every other country with a Scouting organization.

Especially once the leftists get a hold of it  and push the feminist agenda on it.

Well, sounds like your mind is already made up.

It's so easy to blame abstract (and usually fictional) ideology when the truth is rather hard to digest.  Youth who are active in Scouting of their own free will are in Scouting because the like the program, they like participating in the program with their friends, they like the challenge and opportunity the program offers.  And, most importantly, they have units in their area which deliver this high quality program. Youth who take a pass on scouting do so because either they aren't interested in the program, or they don't have local access to a unit that delivers the kind of program they are interested in.  The "3Gs" really don't come up when you ask the youth what about Scouting they do or do not like.  It's all about program.

Tip O'Neill is credited with saying, "all politics is local" - and I think that's a good metaphor for what we're seeing in Scouting.  Its easy for us, as adults, to blame (or credit, depending on your position) big-picture ideology for Scoutings' success or failures.  But, in reality, when it comes to actually serving youth, the biggest impact is you as a unit-level leader, what you bring to the table, and what program you deliver.

This is asinine thinking on bsa's part. You don't alienate your key membership in the HOPE of opening up a new membership category. It's ten times more expensive to attain new customers than it is to retain existing ones. That's Business 101 that any MBA student would learn. Heck, any BA Business student would learn that. If bsa is thinking like this their thinking is fundamentally flawed.

I'd challenge the suggestion that the LDS represents "key members."  At least around here, the LDS represents numbers on paper, and probably some revenue.  But these kids aren't the ones participating in the program, patronizing council properties and events, purchasing uniforms and such...

If I told every committee chairman in my council that our Varsity Teams were shutting down, 99% of them would say, "huh? Who cares?"  Now I get that this is a much bigger deal deeper in the heart of LDS territory... but I still think we're not really talking about the core target market here.

And if the local councils in the affected areas were smart, they'd be bending over backwards to identify new COs (or even supporting the starting of "Friends Of..." organizations) to charter replacement units to provide a seamless transition for those affected LDS scouts who do wish to participate in the Scouting program.

But my strong suspicion here is, these events just bring the BSA's membership numbers more in line with the numbers of "real" scouts and "real" units who actively participate in Scouting programs.  Its true, its a "loss," but I think more accurately its a "correction."

Based on how I'm reading the original question, "other adults" are showing up, just not unit committee members.  I don't see that as a problem.

But seriously, while I recognize that my neighborhood isn't necessarily an accurate microcosm of the BSA as a whole, I'm pretty confident that loosing our LDS Venturing and Varsity units will have close to zero impact on the day-to-day of my unit and my district.  I'm genuinely curious what the practical impact is that you expect to see on the scouts you directly serve.

Great.  Council will probably want to put a scout camp there.

Is it also near train tracks??

Why would a committee member need to be present during the project work?

Honest question: how many of these "lost" youth are actively involved in the Scouting program as us non-LDS folk understand it, and how many of them will not have any other opportunities to stay active in Scouting due to this policy?

Reason I ask - I'm located far from Utah, but in a large enough city that we have a pretty sizable LDS population in our council.  The LDS units are nearly 100% what we'd call "paper-only units."  They exist, technically.  But they don't participate in the Scouting program in the same sense as a traditional unit.  They don't buy uniforms, rank advancement, you'll never see them at a district event or round table.  Phone calls to their leaders go unanswered.  A handful (maybe 3 or 4) will do a week at summer camp.  But that's about it.

My understanding is Varsity was created mainly for LDS, and if you poll a room of 100 experienced scouters, I'd bet not more than 1 or 2 could really describe the Varsity in any great detail.

I've worked with more than a few LDS scouts who dual-register in a traditional unit, because they want to go camping and swimming and boating and hiking - you know, Scout stuff - and their LDS units just don't do those things.

Now, I completely understand the big picture here, that seeing the raw numbers go down this drastically isn't something to brush off.  I'm just questioning what the actual impact is going to be on delivering the Scouting program to youth and families who want to do scouting, and not just whatever their church's youth group program happens to be.  I suspect the overall impact on the day-to-day operation of most units and districts is going to be quite small.

(And, UncleP and desertrat77 - I couldn't have said it better myself.  My own belief is that if we're focusing on delivering a spectacular outdoor adventure, that doesn't leave much time to worry about and fight over politics!)

Paramedic here, so I can offer a bit of insight.

"Why is there a checkbox for genitalia on the Medical Part C exam?"

Genitalia represent one of the major organ systems, examination is a component of a comprehensive physical.  

"what does it have to do with participating in summer camp"

The physical serves two purposes from the BSA's standpoint: the first being assuring that each participant has a clean bill of health before participating in somewhat strenuous activity.  The second being to provide a baseline assessment which a provider can refer to in the unlikely event that a scout is hospitalized, and access to his medical history can not be obtained.  In the first case, hernia is a common concern to check for.  In the second, various endocrine issues, for example, can be detected via a genital exam.

"in reality what are the expectations of the typical practitioner in filling out these forms"

Short answer: the form should be filled out completely.  Longer answer: Providers are rightfully reluctant to document something which they did not assess.  A provider familiar with a patient, who knows that the patient does not have any significant findings in a particular area, may defer the assessment - but then they won't document that they performed it.  Likewise, if a patient or family members requests that they defer a particular assessment, the provider may do so, but also not document it as completed.  I can understand a doctor, who is not the primary care provider for these kids, operating not in a doctors office, not wanting to perform genital exams on these children.  As a paramedic who is often on the receiving ends of these forms (as in, serving as medical staff at BSA events), I'm usually content as long as an appropriate provider has signed off on the form.

I believe very strongly that these physicals should be completed by the scout's primary care doctor.  Its very beneficial for children to be seen by the same doctor, or at least the same practice, from year to year.  That allows the doctor to focus his assessment based on that particular child's needs.  It also a more appropriate setting for assessing and discussing more sensitive areas, such as what we're talking about here.  I really, really dislike the idea of bringing in a specialist (cardiologist?) who has no doctor-patient relationship with these children, and asking him, a complete stranger, to provide a comprehensive physical.  For starters, a cardiologist specializes in cardiology, while a pediatrician specializes in pediatrics.  A pediatrician is far more qualified to be providing physicals to scouts.  Not to mention, it's far more appropriate for a patient's primary care provider to discuss and assess sensitive topics in his or her office - not at the troop's meeting place.  Now I understand that its not always possible or feasible to ask scouts to get the physical from their primary care doc, for financial or other reasons.  But I'd still say that should be the goal whenever possible.

I also agree - and have run into that problem on a few occasions.  People who stick around long after their children have moved on, bring a wealth of experience, put in countless hours and generally do a good job... But are so toxic to work with, they drive away anyone new from contributing in that same area.  Its easy for them to develop a martyr complex, too: "I've been doing this for 30 years, because no one else is willing to!"  Well, yeah, but that's only because no one's willing to do the job with you stepping on their toes and jumping down their throat every time they handle something differently than you personally would!  Its a tricky situation, needing to potentially tell someone doing the work of three people that they need to take a step back, especially when the results of their work are effective.  But when you counter that with the knowledge that they've driven away 5 additional people interested in helping in that same area... it's a tough problem to solve.

On the other hand, some of my personal heroes are those who, over the course of nearly half a century involved in Scouting, have learned how to be effective in their position, offering the right amount of support, feedback, insight, but also knowing when to step back and let a situation run its course.

So, a little longer reply here.  Background: In my personal and professional life, I've had more than a few encounters with drug use.  In my Scouting life, I've had more than a few encounters with drug use.

Its easy to let your mind spiral out of control, and worry about a bunch of hypothetical long-term ancillary problems and solutions.

I'd start by thinking only about this one kid.  Is he invested in your troop and your program?  Does he attend and participate in meetings and outings?  Does he hold leadership positions, and execute them well?  Ignore the drug issue for a second - just what's your gut feel about this kid?  Is he a good kid with his heart in the right place who needs a swift kick in the pants?  Is he apathetic to scouting and your program, and just doing the bare minimum to get by?  Does he actively cause problems and lead others down a dangerous path?  

Step two: talk to the kid as a mentor.  Not as a friend, not as a fact finder, not as a judge. Just talk to the kid, and address the elephant in the room.  Hear him out, ask clarifying questions.  Explain that you can't understand how a Scout would want to earn the Eagle award, but repeatedly make such poor decisions.  Leave it open ended, and see what he says.

In my experience, at this point, the problem solves itself in a majority of cases.  If he can't answer, or reveals that he's not really motivated to earn Eagle, then that answers your question.  Those of us with our hearts and souls in the program rightly treat Eagle as a holy grail - but we can forget that not all scouts feel the same way.  If its just not important to him, then it seems like an easy decision for you to make.  As you may have surmised, I can be a bit of a bleeding heart, and am maybe too generous with second chances.  But I'm at least a little practical, and recognize that scouting isn't always what is needed is some of these cases.  I don't treat marijuana possession as an unforgivable sin, but if you want my help, we at least need some common ground to work off of.  If that common ground is the value of Scouting and the importance of the Eagle rank, I can work with that.  But if we don't share those values, I'm not going to force them on you.  And I won't feel the least bit bad when we mutually agree that continuation in Scouting, or in rank advancement, is off the table for you.

(The other side of the coin here is, if the scout doesn't value Scouting or Eagle, then don't expect withholding those things to be effective in teaching a lesson.  Losing something you don't value isn't much of an inconvenience.  And may in fact be desirable for him, if his parents are all that are driving his reluctant participation in Scouting anyway.)

Now if the scout offers some compelling explanation at this point, it makes your job harder.  It may give you the opportunity to make a very real, very big difference in someone's life.  But its not going to be easy for you.

Be careful around pseudo-legal hand waving and such.  FWIW, in my experience, the story still doesn't quite make a ton of sense...  Round here anyway, a 17 year old caught twice with a small amount of pot wouldn't be making waves like this.  Jail time wouldn't be likely.  (Note that the "juvenile system" refers to the court system and processes surrounding it, it doesn't necessarily mean juvenile detention, aka jail).  So either the rumor spill has bent the truth a bit, or there's more going on here than just a bit of pot.

And on the topic of the rumor mill, as well as your duty to the other families in the troop.  Rumors are dangerous.  We teach our scouts to act with integrity, think critically, separate fact from conjecture, and be empathetic.  Participating in, or making decisions based on a rumor mill isn't compatible with that good behavior.  Now, I understand that its a real thing, with real implications, and you need to deal with it.

What do we train our scouts to do?  Do the right thing, even if the right thing is not the easy thing, or the popular thing.  The young man in question obviously failed at this.  He failed himself, his troop, and in a way, he failed you personally.  Be careful not to give in to peer pressure yourself, and let rumors and threats guide you down the wrong path.

Its a crappy situation, and I don't envy you.  But I've been there before, and I'll be there again.  Long story short, I'd encourage you to approach this first from the perspective of how you can effectively mentor this scout, and then balance that with the needs/opinions of the rest of the troop - not the other way around.  I'll leave it at that, and wish you the best of luck.

What's his level of motivation in attempting to earn Eagle?

I agree completely that his behavior is not compatible with becoming an Eagle Scout.  I wonder if he actually cares?

I see.  Obviously splitting hairs over semantics isn't helpful here, but you're describing what I mean by an "unforgivable sin," in a colloquial sense.  If you can't forgive the child, if there's literally nothing the young man can do to earn back your trust, if you choose to label him as a "druggie," and under no circumstances allow him to participate in the growth of the advancement method under your guidance and mentorship, that's quite serious.

Its your business and your right to treat people that way, I just find it surprising. And, in my own opinion, its not necessary or helpful.

David CO - I agree that it may not be a small transgression (but we still don't know the specifics surrounding this incident).  The question I have is, what would the scout need to do to deserve forgiveness, to earn back your trust, and to qualify himself for rank advancement?  And how can he do those things once you've expelled him from the troop?