FireStone

It's true, but still better to at least try to get the correct message out there and then maybe you'll have some help in relaying the corrected message if/when things do get garbled. Some scout, parent, or other leader will know what's accurate and maybe help pass along better info to the lesser informed parents and thus avoid the issue becoming a topic of discussion on an Internet forum. 😉 Parents are just as bad. I do recruitment for my Pack and I have a rule about recruiting events: No chairs. Despite the many opinions I hear otherwise, it is my belief that the worst thing I can do at a recruiting event is sit people down in chairs and drone on about all of the things everyone thinks new parents should know. (They do need to know a lot, but not all in the first night). It makes no sense to me that I'd put out a bunch of flyers and promotional materials around town selling the idea of "adventure" and then welcome them into that adventure in seated position with a boring speech. Likewise, I would not expect parents to remember anything from such a speech. Other leaders in my Pack (and some district folks I've talked to about this) think I should be filling parents with info about the uniform, camping, meeting schedules, Bobcat requirements, etc. I could, but I'd rather let Den Leaders handle much of that. And I won't, because it's boring and they'll forget 80% of the info before they get up out of those chairs.

Just reading up on the OA election guidelines/procedures, and found this interesting as it relates to this discussion: So technically, the SM in this discussion is not wrong to impose a rule against first-year scouts. "Participation" is a pretty broad term and could be made to mean having participated in the troop for a period of no less than 1 full year.

At some point it got back to parents that there was a rule, no first-year scouts allowed on the ballot. I have to imagine that just as easily it could get back to parents that SM recommendation is one of the several requirements (alongside rank and nights camping). This still feels like just a case of the wrong info being put out there. If it becomes known in the troop that the SM has to recommend a scout to get on the ballot, that's what will circulate among scouts and parents. The problem seems to be coming from the seemingly broad rule that scouts and parents think this SM created about first-years. It doesn't have to be that way, just make it known that there are 3 requirements to get on the ballot, and SM recommendation is one of them, equal to the other two. If there is sufficient time at a meeting when OA shows up to discuss the other 2 requirements, surely there is time to mention the 3rd one.

I think that's fine as long as that is communicated. Maybe this whole thing is just a failure of communication at some level. Re-reading the OP, it sounds like parents were under the assumption that to get on the ballot, a scout simply had to meet the qualifications, those qualifications seemingly being the more quantifiable stuff, rank and nights camping. If SM recommendation isn't viewed (or communicated) as a "requirement" to get on the ballot, it could just be a matter of making that clear. Again, if this is presented as "no first-year scouts allowed", that doesn't speak to the SM recommendation part of the process. That just makes it sound like the troop is adding a rule of their own, which hardly ever sits well with parents and leads to discussions/debates exactly like this one. Ultimately I think this whole thing could be put to rest with a clearer explanation of the ballot process. Don't say "no first-years", instead just say "SM recommendation required". The SM can then do whatever they want really in regards to their personal criteria for ballot selection.

There's no room for folks to step into new roles in the Troop after Pack life? I'd like to be involved in the troop after my son crosses over. I hope it's not a case of "Thanks, we got it from here."

It's not just from "some hiking show." Demographic data on Appalachian Trail thru-hikers is freely available, and fairly strong. And I mentioned my source for the camping demographic data. The Outdoor Industry Association is pretty reputable.

Yes, it's as easy as that, but it should still be merit-based, not just a blanket "no first-years allowed" rule. The SM should decide on an individual basis, not a group basis. Personally, I don't think most 12-year-olds are ready for OA. But there's always an exception. I'm just not a fan of these age-based rules that units create around advancement, OA, etc., stuff like "no Eagles under 16".

I agree on the SM using discretion. But in this particular case, it is, in fact, an arbitrary rule, no first-year scouts allowed on the ballot. That's often where the frustration comes in, I think. What the SM sees as "discretion" becomes a rule instead, even if unintentionally.

These days, I wouldn't be so sure about that. I've been watching a lot of hiking videos/documentaries lately and did some research into demographics of hikers, in particular thru-hikers on the Appalachian Trail, and the demographics are something around 1/3 of those who complete the 2,000+ mile trek are women. That's up significantly since the early 2000s when that number was closer to 20%. Backpacking seems like a pretty scout-oriented activity, and 1/3 certainly isn't a small group. Recent reports from the Outdoor Industry Association suggest that 47% of Americans who went camping in recent years were female. I wonder if the idea that girls/women don't want to do scout-like things is at all related to simply the visibility of females in these sorts of activities in past decades. Today's demographics would certainly seem to suggest that woman have a significant interest in doing outdoorsy things like camping and backpacking. So where else could this notion of females being "the exception" be coming from if the data just doesn't support that?

I would always rather risk upsetting one parent than making the rest of the parents feel like we have no control over kids who are acting badly. And I've seen it happen that way, parents start voicing concerns about the ability of leaders when no one steps in to stop bad behavior. I think we often are tempted to worry about upsetting one parent and maybe even possibly losing one scout as a member of the den/pack, but we have to think about the broader group, and the potential to lose a lot more parents and scouts if they start to see us as ineffective when it comes to crowd control and discipline.

It's really interesting how even within a single unit there is so much variation in how neckerchiefs are worn. Just watch any video on YouTube of a scout troop and see how many scouts within one unit wear them entirely differently. Over collar, under, rolled, loose, high/tight slide, low/loose slide, tied in a knot, no neckerchief, bolo...

Oh come on. By that logic, I could go complain to my local supermarket that I tried to buy a gallon of water and got a gallon of milk accidentally because the containers looked the same. Even if, hypothetically, it were true that a parent unwittingly ended up at a BSA recruiting event instead of the intended GSUSA event, we're not really in the business of forcibly signing up families just because they walked in the door. Or holding them hostage once signed up, even if they made a mistake in joining the wrong organization. 😂

Totally agree. But I would also hope that the scouts would be able to decide that, and I'd trust them to make those choices in their votes. If it works the way it's supposed to, they should be voting for scouts who have been around long enough to prove that they deserve the vote.

What happened to the Patrol Method and "boy-led"? Seems like this is the perfect opportunity to put that into practice. Let all eligible scouts appear on the ballot and let the scouts decide by vote. Isn't that the point of these elections? I find myself increasingly frustrated by the adult interference in the BSA lately. I see it locally, a lot. A SM at a recent district event made the comment in front of a crowd that he actively enforces age rules for advancement, especially higher ranks. He admitted in front of a crowd that he blocks advancement unless a scout is at an age that he deems appropriate to allow advancement to that particular rank. To which of course a district rep had to jump in and say, "Well, we cant really do that, that's not what the guide to advancement allows..." But that's the culture with a lot of troops. Arbitrary rules.

I'm in-between these two looks. Tightly rolled, but loosely fit with the slide. I wear my slide about even with where my square knots are. I guess it's personal preference. In the UK style, slides (or tied friendship knots) are really low on the necker. And I've seen a little of that look coming over to the US. As far as I know, it's not any sort of uniform violation to not roll it. In fact in some old texts you'll see neckerchiefs worn like the scout on the right, not rolled at all. Personally I think the scout on the left has the slide too tight. I'm not a fan of the slide pulled all the way up to the collar. But again, personal preference.

One of the hardest things for me to get used to was reprimanding other people's kids in front of those parents. Especially other leaders' kids. Like @Treflienne mentioned, maybe someone needs to step in and do what everyone has been hoping the mom would do. In fact, maybe the mom is hoping for exactly that. We have a sort of un-written rule in our Pack: Whenever possible, another leader intervenes in a situation with a scout who has a parent leader in the Pack. So in my Den, if my ADL's kid is acting up, I step in before the dad/ADL does, whenever possible. It helps reinforce the roles of leaders, I find my own son is more likely to behave because he's learned that being the son of a leader gets him no benefit in terms of getting away with anything. He sees that another leader is always nearby, and dad can't save him from trouble. Treat this scout like any other, including a scout who doesn't have a parent present.

Would be interesting to know if any adults still have them after all these years. Are any of the Pack parents former cubs from the Pack?

My favorite items collected throughout my youth Scouting career are badges. I have plaques, certificates, various miscellaneous items, but the things that mean the most to me are the badges; rank, event patches, awards, mile swim, etc. Even the cub stuff, there isn't as much in that part of my collection, but the badges still mean the most. This sounds terrible, but the plaques are almost an annoyance. I appreciate being given them, where they came from, that people took the time to purchase or make them, etc. But they're these bulky items, and as big as some of them are, the little badges still hold the most meaning for me. My point is that I think the AoL badge will likely always mean the most to a scout. That's not to say "don't do a gift", just that the emphasis on a gift to mark the occasion might be overlooking the fact that the badge itself can (and should) be the most significant marker of that accomplishment and occasion for the scout receiving it.

I struggle to see how an ambassador to Scouting should be a perfect human being who makes zero mistakes, while we also use the Patrol Method and encourage kids to learn by making mistakes.

Why would there be a rule that disallowed family members from helping? The whole intent of the derby is that it is a collaborative project, it's not supposed to be done entirely by just a scout, nor is it supposed to be done by just a parent/guardian. I would think that a car build should have as many people involved as the scout wants. I'm struggling to figure out what reason someone would have for opposing a scout getting help from wherever they can. I've had scouts whose parents are just not handy, or in their first year just don't have the understanding of the event to confidently attempt to even build the car. So I help if I can. I had a scout and his mom come over my house, work in the wood shop, and build a car in about an hour that actually did pretty well. Mom was more hands-on with the build than I was, sometimes people just need some guidance. Is that cheating? Heck no. So what reason would someone have for being opposed to me helping that scout? Using that particular scout as an example, he ended up winning the bronze medal in our den, so I have to wonder if someone would be opposed to him getting help since without the help he wouldn't have even entered a car in the race and the 4th place scout would have been standing on the podium instead. But that's not what this is about, and I really hope that it isn't a bit of parents thinking, "The fewer cars on the track, the better chance my kid will win." But it could be.

Not even close to the same thing. And I can fairly confidently say that Bear would not destroy rock formations like that. There's no fair comparison between eating a frog and the recklessness showed in that goblin rock-toppling video.

I feel like there's an awesome solution in these two posts combined. A custom patch that says 2019-2021 on it so it's clear that it needs to be renewed.

So my pack charges $35 per adult, $20 per youth. It adds up quickly. For me, my wife, son, and daughter, it was $110. Not surprisingly, many families only went with the scout and one parent. It's a nice event at a catering hall, but it just seems excessive. And if the cost really is keeping some families away, it just shouldn't be like that. This might have to to go on my "we need to rethink this for next year" list. That list is growing quickly.

I know a Scoutmaster who loves the phrase "teaching success through failure." It's his view of what Scouting is, or at least should be, letting scouts learn to succeed by first failing, sometimes often, and then learning how to overcome that failure. Probably a long way of getting around to calling things "teachable moments", but it works for that SM and I see nothing in that philosophy that is in opposition to the methods of Scouting. Probably sums it all up nicely, really. I'm also just coming out of a family faith meeting in which a guest speaker (priest from a nearby town) talked about how he's a below-average priest, probably has some sins in his past that would shock the audience, and even today he sometimes fails in his calling, misses a cue to do the right thing. Kind of seems fitting given the topic at hand here. We're not all perfect, not even the people who we sometimes want to appear to be perfect and never make a mistake in what they do. It's kind of unrealistic, really, to expect that we'll always have flawless representatives of our beliefs for our kids to emulate. The point of what this priest was discussing was about vocations, and specifically how you don't need to be a perfect person to take on a vocation in the church. If we want a perfect person to represent Scouting, then we'll be without a representative. I can't think of a better example than Bear of what I expect from my Scouts. When we go out in the woods, we know these kids are going to make mistakes. I'd prefer to have an imperfect representative of Scouting and be able to point to him and say, "Bear made a mistake here, but lets talk about what he should have done, and what he could do now to fix it."

What's a common/reasonable fee to charge parents, scouts, and siblings to attend the Blue & Gold dinner? I think my Pack is on the expensive end, but before I mention what we're charging I want to get some unbiased opinions. Let me know what your Pack charges/charged and what you think is reasonable.