Buffalo Skipper

The reason I am interested in the Webs who crossed over is that their leader is a friend of mine, and we have been discussing the matter. Our pack has never presented service stars, leaving this to the parents. We wanted to ensure that we were being correct on this when we bought them. Likewise, we have in my son's den, several boys joined in August and they have been working hard to earn the Arrow of Light before crossover. They will crossover with exactly (almost to the day) 6 months as a Cub Scout. They will wear their AoL on their boy scout uniform, but should they be "denied" the opportuntity to wear any cub scout service pin because they were in for less than one year? That doesn't seem right. I know I am nit-picking here, but I see these kinds of things in a strict-pragmatic sense (rules are rules, but what do you do when the rules don't make sense?). So, where do you draw the line?

A few years ago, a local Girl Scout leader was taking her scouts' SSN from their applications. She used them in an elaborate tax fraud scheme, netting herself some $87,000. She is now in a federal minimum security facility. I think BSA was recording youth SSNs at that time. The next year I noticed it was dropped from the youth app. I always suspected that it was because of this incident, but that is purely speculation on my part. GSA has also dropped the youth SSNs from their apps.

OK, here's the rub, and back to the original post. There were two Webelos 2 dens in our pack, both of which began as Tiger Dens (though only 2 boys from each of these dens stayed with it until 5th grade). Both dens had exceptionally strong and experienced leaders. The first den determined that all their AOL requirements were completed and chose to cross over in September (49 months after joining). Five new boys joined this year and all went into the second den who whose leader was wanted to work with them all on earning the AOL (even though the original 5 had nearly completed their requirements for AOL). This second den will be crossing over the last week of February. Should the original 2 from each den be awarded 5 year pins? The boys from the first den spent 4 years and 1 month in Cub Scouts. The two from the second den will have 4 years and 6 months in the program. If you award the latter 5 year pins, should the same be done for the other group, who chose to cross over 5 months earlier? I am not one to recognize equally, because it is fair. So where do you draw the line in a case like this?

Fair enough. ~~~_/)~~~

Thanks Guy! Sounds like we have same thing in mind--FUN!!! I was looking for some more technical aspects. Do you have a sign up list? Do you follow up with these Cub Scouts and their parents? Do you do the "hard sell" and actually ask them to join (I have done this with adults at Cub Scout open house, with good success)? If you follow up, do you have the committee, SM/ASMs, or boys actually make the calls? We invited the Dens from out Charter partner packs (our charter has 2 packs and 1 troop) to our COH last Monday. We had photos of events from the past year, and I put together a neat closing section with a slide for each scout (with a scout's photo), showing the number camping nights for the year, number of meetings attended, miles hiked, miles canoed, service hours worked and leadership positions served over the course of 2008. It closed with a total number of meetings attended, service hours worked, nights camped, etc. I was thinking we should we do something similar to this slide show for our lunch at Webelos Fun Day, with one of our recent (fromer) SPLs to narrate it. The particular boy I have in mind is in the theatre and is an excellent public speaker. Should I use my best tools in this way? Should we also pass out flyers? Are we being too overt here? The truth is, this year we are not really ready to have too many boys transer in. Even if we recruit 15 total, that will double the size of the troop, though we have taken steps to be prepared for this number. Any other thoughts?

OK, update time. We have commitments from 6 packs with a total of 12 dens which will be participating; we are expecting 60-80 Webelos (4th and 5th grade dens). But I am looking for some advice here, mainly as relates to the recruiting aspect of this. I don't want to turn this into what people perceive as a recruiting event (I would prefer to be more subtle than that). We have "commitments" from maybe 10 scouts who want to join the troop. We would like to recruit 5-8 or so more this year (2 new patrols). We want to pitch the troop at the lunch, but we don't want to make it a hard sell. We want everyone to feel welcome, and not pressured to come to our troop. So, how can we promote the troop without everyone seeing this as a recruiting event. Then how do we follow up with these scouts and their parents? I have little experience with really recruiting Webelos, and our troop has not made an agressive attempt to seek webelos in probably 15 years (and until last year, the troop has been steadily shrinking for that whole time...).

Thanks for all the good info. What I was really asking here (and I clouded it with my own fluff) is what is BSA's policy on Service Stars. I believe it is complete and whole years. If this is true, then the most would be "4" and not "5" for crossing Webelos. Right? I am only an honorary member of the uniform police, (not a registred member with full benefits...) but my son is crossing over in 2 months, and I would like to see that all the boys in his den are recognized correctly.

Sorry, but I do disagree. I just checked out references on the national site. There are several references to Den Leaders (plural), but only where discussing multiple dens or a collection of leaders from multiple dens. On this den page, as an example, http://scouting.org/cubscouts/activities/den.aspx, the reference is to a singular Den Leader. And look in any of the handbooks (Tiger thru Webelos). In no place does it refer to a den's leaders; always it is a Den Leader (singular). And again what is the purpose/value/function of an Assistant Den leader, if multiple den leaders are intended to be part of the program. Likewise, the den is meant to mimic the patrol, in it's size and organziation. A boy scout troop would have more than one patrol leader about as often as we elect more than one governor. It should never happen. And I see nothing in BSA literature which would suggest it is acceptable.

Actually, you need to look a little deeper to see the exact age requirement. In order to earn the Arrow of Light, one must be 10 years and 6 months. If not having earned the AOL, one must be 11 to join. So really 10.5 is the youngest one may be to join a troop.

How do your different packs handle service stars for their Cub Scouts? In the past, we have always let the parents get them if they wish. Also, may I assume that a Cub who joins as a Tiger and continues through Webelos and crosses over keeps a 4 year pin? I say this because if he crosses in February/March, this is only 4 years and 6 months as a cub scout. Right?

Sarge, Depending upon when you divide your den, change your registration and graduate your scouts to Bears will have an impact on your time in position (no double dipping for time requirement for these cub scout awards). With that in mind, let's say that you cross over (graduate) to Bears on June 1 (and your position changes to DL). Leaving 7 months of being registered before your DL time begins. If you look at the Cub Scouter Progress Award form, you will see that there are multiple ranges for the "Dates of Service." After you complete your year as a Den Leader, you will presumably begin working on the Webelos Den Leader Award, and after you complete that year, you can again apply the remaining time toward the Cub Scouter Award. Clear as mud?

"...we usually have all of our Den Leaders registered as Leaders and not assistants." I think this really defies the intent of what BSA has in mind for the cub scout program. Each den should have one den leader. Otherwise, why have and Assistant Den Leader position in BSA, if you can make them all Den Leaders. That is also why there is no such position as "Co-Den Leader." It is important to have a single leader of a den to whom the boys can look up and recognize as a leader. If no one is a clear leader, they loose the sense of the leadership organization, which carries through to Boy Scouts (and Venturing). Does a classroom have multiple primary teachers? Maybe some teacher assistants, but not several people who are singularly responsible for the same job.. Each Pack has one Cubmaster and one or more Assistant Cubmaster(s). The committee has one Chairman, and multiple Committee Members. To have several Cubmasters or Committee Chairs would be to invite chaos. Creating that situation in a den does the same thing. Let one person take the lead, other contributers need to be assistants.

Thank you, insanescouter, for your reply. I did look on your site but did not find that for which I was seeking. Prehaps I can be more specific about what I am trying to find (and why). I am looking for image files of the old position badges. We are painting and fixing up our scout hut over the holiday break, and one of the things I want to do is print out the old insignia emblems, frame them (8.5x11) and hang them on one wall. I want to subtly introduce the scouts to their meaning. There is plenty more that I want to put up, but I felt this would be a good start. At the same time, can anyone let me know what these old PORs were? Obviously APL, PL, ASPL, and SPL. What else was there? And again, can anyone provide links to where I can find these representations of these insignia (not scans) which are of a quality which can be printed and framed?

I am looking for quality images of the old style insignia for all positions, APL-SPL and adults. Can anyone suggest a website for this? I am not looking for scans of old patches but image files of these designs. Any help will do. Thanks.

BW, I get the impression that you thought I meant for the COR or the UC should be brought in to fix the situation with the EBOR. Sorry if I was misleading in that way--that was certainly not my intention. I disagree with how the EBOR allegedly handled the situation, but that is only my opinion, but really not the point I was trying to make. I suggested bringing in the UC and the COR, because I felt that a unit which was exercising an obvious lack of checks and balances is a unit which is likely to have many significant problems. If something as basic as a POR is being overlooked by the Scout, Scoutmaster and committee on multiple occasions (same scout, Life and Eagle), what else are they missing or misrepresenting? And certainly I don't mean to send in the UC to fix the unit; we (and most of the group) know that is not a UC's job. However, if the units problems are this systemic, then it is obvious that some action needs to be taken to get this unit and it's leaders back on track. Doing this through a UC and the COR seemed the most logical place to begin.

Not to point fingers, but the two biggest failures here are the Scoutmaster and the Scout. How can a SM sign of Life and then Eagle without a POR? Prehaps more importantly though, this is the scout's repsonsibility. Knowing that he was not filling the requirement for a POR, why would he have even asked for a SM conference? Obviously (to me) the scout must have been completely familiar with the requirements for Eagle, as he did jump through all the right hoops for his ESLP. I agree with Scoutldr on this one. BoR should say no and let if necessary, let it be apealed. There is no "appeal" before the BoR. I will add that this troop's leadership needs to really be look at itself closely; they should be paid a visit by their UC; and their COR should be brought in as well to look into issues of training and more.

I agree with BW 100%! When the math works, dens should have 6-8 boys. This is truly the optimal size. I have repeatedly seen larger dens collapse upon themselves (leaving 2 or 3) even with a qualified, talented and excited leader. More than 10 is just too many. Divide that den! Just my opinion.

Lisa and John, Thanks for the encouraging words, but my real thanks are to you and all here who gave me the perspective and advice to resolve this (and other issues). I am glad I found the group. And I certainly intend to do the best for the boys. In fact, with much soul searching, I am stepping down from most (but not all) of my other scouting positions. Scoutmaster is a job which does not allow for one's time to be divided in so many ways so easily.

Thank you, Lisabob. I don't think I ever disagreed with what you said, and in fact, whether I explained it completely or not, I agree completely. "... Sometimes, though, it puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to laugh off comments..."This is exactly what is happening here. Joseph wants to fit in, but he has been pressured to "fit in," by going along with it. It is the error of us, as leaders, to have allowed this to continue. Now, this cannot be acceptable any more. In part punishing the boys harshly for this, when we have allowed it to happen,is our failing, as leaders. I am coming down hard on this, and I believe that all involved see and accept it this way. While riding back from the hike Sunday, one boy who is eccentric (atypical autism?) blurted out a question using the n**** word (not directedat anyone). Joseph (his patrol leader) was in the front seat, and I immediately and decisively responded that using this word was not acceptable anytime. Clearly this scout had no ill intent in the use of the word (you have to understand him), and was not perceived that way by Joseph, but that was not the point. He (and everyone else in the car) needed to understand that it was not acceptable. Joseph, I do not believe, was really thinking about quitting. He said he was losing interest in coming to meetings (this was a way of reaching out and vocalizing his feelings, and yet, he still came). I really see that these scouts like each other and get along. I want that to continue. If I treat this too harshly, it will become a wedge between these scouts which will divide this troop, and someone will end up leaving or being kicked. I do not believe that either option is acceptable. Likewise, neither do I want to treat this too lightly (with the same result). In spite of the punitive nature of the response, it must be constructively delivered to build a stronger troop. I believe it has been delivered in this manner. (This message has been edited by Buffalo Skipper)

Sorry for the delayed response. I was just too busy yesterday to type that twice. Anyway, some things came out last night which put a slightly different spin on everything, so perhaps it was best I did not get that completely out yesterday. Regardless, the weekend went well, though there were some unexpected twists. For starters, SPL was a no show. He got into some trouble at school and was disrespectful at home on the matter, and his dad said Nix on the hike. SPLs dad was supposed to come on the hike, and still did. But Ill talk more about dad and SPL later. I had a chance to speak with our other offending scout (well call him Shorty, because he is a good shortstop) before the weekend. And a little more came out over the incident then (and later), but I will give you the readers digest version. In spite of the confrontation, he and Joseph got along well, and even joked and played as good scouts often do. With SPL out of the picture, someone else had to step up to lead the troop. Our 3 most experienced scouts present were Joseph, Shorty, or Shortys older brother, who got the job. He is known to be difficult at times, and a little hard natured. In spite of this, he stepped up to the challenge, and did the best job I have seen a troop leader do at a campout. He may be a little on the tough side, but he did well; I hope the boys appreciate that later. I did talk to SPLs dad while we were hiking. He was unhappy about the incident, but on his own suggested that he be removed from his leadership position. It was disappointing to have to tell him this, but reassuring that it would not become a second battle. I spoke to SPL when we came back from the hike. He was very sheepish about the whole thing, but accepted the seriousness of the situation. I had told both SPL and Shorty that I expected a 3 month plan of improvement on scout spirit, and that other consequences would be discussed when they met with me to review this plan. However, after I drove off, SPL suggested to his father that he really didnt say anything to Joseph, and that he did not know what was going on. I had a subsequent talk with SPL and Shorty last night, and finally, some more specifics of the incident came out. At last weeks meeting, we had a visitor. He was a black scout from another troop who was supposed to meet with the DAC about his Eagle Project (our scout hut is where the Lodge meets and other scout meetings often take place there). By chance this scout was trying to meet his party at the wrong location, but that is rather beside the point, he did not participate in our meeting, and eventually left to the correct destination. In the dark outside, Shorty came up behind him, slapped him on the back (thinking he was Joseph) and was startled when he realized he wasnt. He apologized and ran off to SPL and (out of earshot) told him what happened, in less than polite terms. Joseph heard this, and (as I see now) was upset by the remarks (not addressed directly at him). But it was the kind of thing he could not leave unchallenged. Though these remarks were not necessarily taken out of context, neither were they explained accurately in the situation from which they came were made. I have been able to verify this. I and other leaders have heard remarks from these two in the past, which were less than complimentary, and we waited to see how they were taken (it is usually best to let boys settle things between themselves). Joseph has always come back with a laughing, sharp and/or witty reply, and there was seemingly no harm done or taken. Several of the leaders observed, and even commented on this as big of the boys to not take this as offensive but instead as what it appeared to beboys playfully picking on one another. It is one thing for Joseph to joke with these boys one on one, but once these boys made the comment about another person, it was no longer acceptable. Much as the way an older brother may playfully spar with a friend, but when that friend picks on his younger brother, it becomes unacceptable. Blood is thicker than water, and that is commendable. We had a COH last night, and these boys got along well the entire night. SPL even went out of his way to invite Joseph to his table and include him (Joseph is the oldest of the "young" scouts in the troop and usually hangs out more with the older boys). Joseph joined this troop (when his Webelos buddies went to another--very good--troop which was actually much closer to his house) because he liked the boys in our troop. He was encouraged to reconsider by his den leader, his Cubmaster (me) and the scoutmaster, because we did not want him to not stay committed and wander out of Scouting. Boy, were we wrong. He has missed only one campout in two years, and is the only scout to attend every troop meeting this year. I often (behind his back) use him as an example of why Webelos should make their own decision on which troop to join. Regardless, in light of the context of these statements and that these boys continue to get along well, I have decided to lessen the consequence. I still consider this a serious issue, which must result in an attitude change, but I believe that too much here will likely have a negative effect on all 3 of these scouts. I still expect a 3 month plan of improvement, but will consider progress when the boys come to me for advancement. I expect that how they demonstrate their leadership will be a measure of how their dedication to improve. I imagine some you may agree with this, and others may not. I want to hear all you opinions on this, and always, I expect you to be brutally honest.

I made a long reply earlier which did not post. I am busy today and may not have the chance to repeat that essay. All is good, weekend went well. Details will follow.

Thank you John, and and all of you for your consistent, or is that persistent, advice. I do not believe this is coming out of the home, in either case. We have some rough middle schools here, and I believe this is a peer generated response (outside of scouts). That is also the consensus of the other troop leaders who know these scouts and their families. Finally, (and I have been reluctant to say this until now), I have an ulterior motive in not kicking these two scouts off this campout. If I remove these scouts, then I remove the SPLs father also. We can find alternate transportation, but that leaves us with only have 2 adults (including myself) on this outing. For a hike, that is an unacceptable number, as I insist on at least one extra as a backup, even for a group of only 10 scouts. Many of these first year scouts have worked hard to prepare for the hike, and I cannot purposfully punish them for someone elses transgressions. Doing so would also mean that I would have to air this before the whole troop, and that would go against the fact that Joseph asked that I deal with this quietly, meaning, ultimately that he would be "punished" for bringing this out in the first place, and I cannot do that to him. We usually have an overabundance of adults on our hikes, but two cancelled due to lingering health issues and another had a previous commitment. Otherwise, I would not have hesitated to call out these scouts yesterday. I am sorry if you see this logic as flawed, but it is the reality of the situation; even if you disagree, I hope you understand this. I will discuss this with the parents. SPLs dad will be on the hike; he is a friend, and I can discuss this with him very comfortably. The other's mother (no father) I have known since my children were in the kindergarten class across the hall from hers in elementary school. I also like what Barry said, and again, I do not think this will be an issue. OK, I am off to the scout hut. I will try to let you all know how it went Sunday evening. I am confident I am prepared for any likely outcome; in fact I am looking forward to a fun weekend of scouting. The worst I am expecting is a couple of whining 1st years who have never been on a hike. It is always fun to get them through that first hike, and it gets easier after that. I will remain on my guard.(This message has been edited by Buffalo Skipper)

Beavah, I hear you loud and clear. In fact, I have no intention in saying anything about their POR and the next hike. Any decision regarding that will be made by myself, the CC and CoR. I do intend to address the issue and advise them that they need to come up with a plan. I will not "advertise" how this may be implemented, so it is unlikely they will make a leap connecting this with their advancement. I will be very clear with them that any escalation of this will result in immediate action on my part. For Joseph's sake, I cannot allow this weekend's activity to take place without some response. If you are saying, that I need to keep these scouts off this outing, I understand and appeciate this. However, without setting them up for failure, I have given much thought to this and I believe I can deal with this at the campout if needed. Since your post, I called and spoke to one of our most experienced adults, who has known both these scouts since they joned. He does not feel that either will react in this situation. One will have his dad there (he is always good in front of his dad). The other, is not one to act alone; at worst, he will declare he does not want to participte, which will be accepted immediately, and may yet serve other purposes. Regardless, we feel this is in hand. I have laid the groundwork for an emergency plan to get through this if things escalate on the hike (getting off the trail and sending these boys home). I don't want (or expect) to have to go to plan B, here, but it is ready if needed.

OK, here is what has been decided so far. Tonight before the weekend activity, I will have a Scoutmaster conference with each of the offending scouts, separately, of course. I will advise them that a matter like this would normally be presented before the PLC for review (aside: All discipline is usually handled through our PLC and has been for many years; sometimes the PLC has decided that this is out of their hands and they defer the adult leadership, however). As all involved (offenders and victim) are members of, and make up nearly half the PLC, this is not a practical solution, and I will begin to deal with this accordingly. First, each will need to come up with a 3 month plan on how they can show improvement in this area (and just saying I wont do it, is not sufficient). Until they have successfully followed through with this 3 month plan, I will not sign off on the Scout Spirit requirement for their next advancement. I will also make it clear that there will be additional consequences for this behavior, but that it must first be discussed and agreed upon by the other adult troop leaders. Finally, if there is any indication of continued behavior (especially this weekend), there will be an immediate and severe consequence. [aside: in response to Beavah's and Eagledad's most recent responses: Though this will certainly delay one scouts advancement (and he has pleny of time before he is 18), it is unlikely to slow up the other. Identifying this aspect of their punishment is not something I will bring up in a conference; they should be aware of their advancement requirements and needs. I expect them to show scout spirit, regardless of their earning rank. It is not my "goal" to hold up their advancement. And, in fact, they will be determining their own "punishment" through their 3 month plan.] As our CC works offshore and will not return for another 6 days, he, the CoR and I will not be able to make a final decision for another week. However, my recommendations to them will be that these two scouts be suspended from the next weekend outing (which is our 4 day hike over MLK weekendour biggest activity of the year outside of summer camp, somehow appropriate), and remove each from their leadership position (but allow each to run again at the next election in mid-March). I have suggested that we not air this before the whole committee, and that we meet to discuss this and decide at the earliest opportunity. I will be the one to act and enforce our collective decision. This way there is little room for backlash from parents, and no public debacle. It is a case of getting permission first rather than asking for a blessing afterward. If removed, I will (preferably) announce to the other scouts that these two have stepped down for personal reasons and hold a new SPL election after New Years (our next meeting), followed by PL elections for vacant spot(s). There will be additional fallout from this in our troop, but I will save that for a later conversation. I know many of you have recommended a stronger and more immediate response, and I value your advice. In fact, I considered what each of you has said very, very carefully. A combination of factors here, most of which I have discussed, temper my (perceived?) ability to react so swiftly. That I have not been installed as SM, that the outgoing SM (who counseled these boys years ago) is out due to health issues (surgery yesterday), and that I cannot consult with the CC as he is offshore for another week all played a role in this measured response. By delaying their suspended activity, they will miss a greater hike, as these scouts played a large role in planning this hike (where we have never gone before). I remember missing a long hike my troop went on 30 years ago as punishment for a transgression (family related); obviously, after so long a time, missing it had an impact on me. I feel I have created a situation in which Joseph will not feel threatened this weekend. He and I have discussed this some, though I have made it clear that the exact nature of their punishment is a matter between me and them, and I will not involve him in the final judgment. From my perspective, seeking Josephs approval in their punishment is inviting an eye for an eye scenario. If push comes to shove, I have laid the groundwork to remove these two from the activity if there is another incident (in such a way as to jeopardize neither 2 deep leadership nor troop safety). I will continue to seek advice on an acceptable 3 month plan of improvement. I will leave this up to each scout to create and present to me. I want to have an expectation of what may be appropriate for this (without adding to requirements). I think this leaves me with a lot of wiggle room, but it helps them create their own punishment.

There are times I am happy I am involved with a very old troop. That low number can be easier to deal with. Every good troop should be rewarded with a single digit.(This message has been edited by Buffalo Skipper)