acco40

They don't serve pop (or soda) at the mess hall because that would interfer with sales at the trading post and vending machines. However, at all the far flung stations (archery, swimming, shotgun, etc.) the vending machines are in prominent display. Water is harder to access - again, it interfers with sales. I pay for medical care for folks who smoke, drink or eat themselves to poor health. Therefore, I have no issue with "big brother" regulating school lunches, nutritional labels, smoking, etc. I have no issue with doing it by "force" either - the devil is always in the details. How much force? Would it be considered child abuse to feed a three year old nothing but happy meals (with fries, not applesauce) everyday? What about four times a week? Twice a week? Once a week? Once a month? Yes, it is a slippery slope but I'm not for "no" regulation nor total bans but something in the middle I have no problem with.

Beavah, I have no issue with your scenario but my experience has been ... 1) A Scout Learns. Billy has helped with cooking once or twice, but has missed some campouts. His PL assigns him to do food for da Klondike, but mom helps with the shopping. Even so, breakfast is just pop tarts. Still, nobody starves. 2) A Scout is Tested. Billy comes to ASM Beaver at the meeting a few weeks later askin' for a sign off on the FC cooking requirements. He tells ASM that he did da meals for the Klondike. ASM takes him at his word and signs off. 3) A Scout is Reviewed. The BOR asks da same question about planning a weekend's meals. The lad fumbles and stumbles. He doesn't offer a nutritious breakfast, he doesn't have any idea about shopping, he's not clear about food storage. BOR concludes that despite the sign off, he really hasn't learned. They ask him about his experiences, and he talks about how his patrol mates were mad at him for poptarts on da Klondike, and he wishes he would have done better. Because learning is da prime purpose of Scouting, and because they want the lad to be proficient so that his patrol will be safe on patrol outings with him as an up and coming leader, and because they want to see him be proud of his accomplishments, they congratulate him on what he's done so far and tell him that they want him to practice cooking and meal planning some more. They offer encouragement and support, and set up a time for a new BoR after a few months. 4) Billy's mother get's wind of the BoR's actions and angrily states that her Billy can "out cook and out shop" Johnny and the BoR passed Johnny. Why are they picking on my son?, she asks the Scoutmaster. She then starts spouting off about once a requirement is signed off the Board can't add additional requirements, the Board can't test, I'm going to council, yadda yadda yadda. I guess I've dealt with enough #4s to feel that sometimes it is just not worth it and think a better approach would be to pass Billy but inform the Scoutmaster & SA Beaver (it's always the Beavers isn't it? ) about possibly raising the bar on that requirement - not adding to it, but being more thorough. Also, keep an eye on Billy during all future outings and mentor him more (or better yet have his PL, Instructor, etc.) on the subject.

When our council Scout camps made corporate deals with Pepsi & Coke distributor ships to exclusively hawk their products - and then try to teach Scouts that water is best - I've kind of given up. I know that for Jambo, the Scoutmasters now have a similar requirement (height & weight proportional) that they have for high advanture. Not sure if it was an image issue or due to the "Bataan Death March" at Jambo in 2005 that led to that.

Requirement: Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used. I have done this. I have also screwed up tying a bowline. I've tied one handed (around the waist ) bowlines. I struggle with that. I'm a "rabbit & tree" guy. I can tie a bowline rather quickly but when asked to tie it around something, I struggle. So, if I were a Scout would you sign off on my requirement (1st Class, req 8) if I took a single rope, tied a bowline knot and described several ways it could be used? I would hope so. Later on, there is absolutely nothing wrong if during a BOR for 1st Class, if a Committee member threw a piece of rope to a Scout and asked him to tie a bowline right then and there. The issue is how the board would use the "result" of what the Scout could or could not do. If used as evidence on how the program is operating - no issue. If used as information to pass or not pass the Scout for advancement, that would be incorrect. Again, the actual ability to tie a knot is not the prime purpose of Scouting. We shouldn't forget that.

Keep in mind that the Committee can, when following the program, have absolutely zero contact with the Scouts except for a BOR. So, yes, feedback from the Scout about the troop is essential. My issue, is that as a SM, the Committee (BOR) rarely gave me any feedback, good or bad, that was gathered from a BOR except for pass/fail (or pass/delay if you prefer). For what it is worth, here is what I gave parents as part of an Advancement Expectations document when their son joined the troop. A periodic review of the progress of a Scout is vital in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Scouting program in the troop. After a Scout has completed all of the requirements for any rank from Tenderfoot through Life and has had a Scoutmaster conference for that rank, he appears before a board of review composed of three to six members of the troop committee. A Scout should initiate the board of review by asking the Advancement Chair to schedule a Board of Review. The purpose of the review is ,b>not to retest a Scout, but rather to make sure he has completed the requirements, to determine the quality of his troop experience, and to encourage him to advance toward the next rank. Each review should also include a discussion of ways in which the Scout sees himself living up to the Scout Oath and Law in his everyday life [The Scoutmaster Handbook pg. 121-122]. Neither the Scoutmaster nor the Assistant Scoutmasters should be part of the board. Parents are not allowed to be present during boards of review. Every session should be set up so that members of the board can share a meaningful discussion with the Scout about important matter including his goals, personal growth, and a Scout Spirit. The membership of the board of review for an Eagle Scout candidate is determined by local council policy [The Scoutmaster Handbook pg 122]. A Board of Review for Eagle Scout is conducted by three or four members of the troop and includes a District representative from the Council Advancement Committee. The Scoutmaster is usually present, but is not a reviewer. Scouts who have completed all requirements for a rank prior to their 18th birthday should submit their application and be reviewed and recognized within three months after that date. For Eagle Scout boards of review conducted between tree and six months after the candidates 18th birthday, a statement explaining the reason for the delay must be attached to the Eagle Scout Rank Application when it is submitted to the Eagle Scout Service. If an Eagle Scout board of review will be held after the six months following the candidates 18th birthday, the Eagle Scout must petition the National Boy Scout committee for an extension of time to hold the board of review. The petition must be processed through the local council, detailing the extenuation circumstances that prevented the board of review from being held within the six-month period following the candidates 18 birthday, and be accompanied with a copy of the Eagle Scout Rank Application [Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, pg 29]. At the end of a review, the Scout will leave the room while board members discuss his qualifications. Then they will call him back in to tell him that he is qualified for his new rank, or to outline very clearly what more he must do in order to successfully complete the requirements. The decision of all boards of review is arrived at through discussion and must be unanimous [Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, pg 29]. In addition to reviewing Scouts who have completed requirements for advancement, boards that meet regularly might also choose to meet with Scouts who are not advancing. A board can give those Scouts support and perhaps help them discover ways to overcome obstacles hindering their progress.

Some thing to keep in mind is that the moderators are just like everyone else. We were forum posters and for some reason, Terry made a judgment call and asked some of us to moderate. I think a mistake some folks make is that the moderators somehow get together and critique postings. That is very rare. I've seen posts delete, threads closed and other moderator actions taken that I don't necessarily agree with. Usually, I fully understand why they were closed but would not have taken that action myself. As moderators, we usually don't "undo" each others efforts but will send an occasional personal note if we think another moderator may have overstepped their bounds.

All of this melodrama I think goes to prove a couple of things, first and foremost a parent should NEVER be allowed to sign off their own childs boy scout requirements even if they are the SM, ASM, CC or whatever because it can lead to misunderstanding, personal prejudice or bias, ethical issues, and it can lead to a great deal of disharmony in the troop. You have other leaders in the troop that there is never a need for a parent to directly work with their own child. When I was the Scoutmaster, I had an SA do the SMC for both of my son's except for the Eagle rank (that is a slightly different type of SMC). However, when they served as SPL, I didn't delegate my Scoutmaster responsibility (maybe I should have in retrospect) but the balance is to maintain consistency (same Scoutmaster) but also not have a father/son relationship between the SM/SPL. It was difficult. For son #1, it worked out great. For son #2, it was a disaster. Now, how does one answer one's son when he feels that every Scout in the troop get the program delivered one way except for him? For Scout run BORs, they would have certain advantages but I think they have a harder time with peer pressure than the adults. I'd like to see possible BORs for T- 1st Class by the Scouts and BORs for Star - Eagle run by adults.

Anyone know Italian? caporegimes (or "capos") To effect guitar tuning, one uses a capo. Does anyone know the word origins for that?

I do a SMC anytime a scout needs one, Same here when I initiate the SMC. But for advancement purposes, the Scout only "needs" one when they initate it. Also, they need to learn that it will be administered when it is convenient for the Scoutmaster. Not to be an ass, but the Scouts need to learn that they don't "demand" the timing, it needs to be mutually agreed to. and the Committee conducts a BOR when there are enough Committee Members when the Scout is ready. The BOR should only be held if the Scout requests it (for advancement purposes), not just if there happens to be a quorum. It can be the same day, but not always. While I do not necessarily require a full Class A uniform for an SMC, the Committee always does for a BOR. Sounds like an excellent way to go for both yourself and the Committee.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Adults are not perfect. My take, 1. He was turned down for not taking responsibility for his actions as a Junior Leader in the Troop and also for not showing respect to others, specifically the BOR members. The BOR should not be making the decision about his performance as a Junior Leader - that falls into the Scoutmaster's domain. If there is a "respect" issue to BOR members but the SM has signed off on Scout Spirit - there needs to be a sit down with the Advancement Coordinator or whomever normally chairs BORs and the Scoutmaster. Obviously, they don't see eye to eye on this issue. 2. He was called back into the room and was given the reasons for being turned down at this time, but was very upset and left without saying much. A BOR should be able to give feedback without upsetting the Scout. Not sure if the Scout has an emotional issue or just an insensitive and/or unskilled BOR. 3. I spoke to his dad, one of our ASM's, and he stated that his son didn't understand why he was turned down. This is understandable given how upset he was. Thus the need to convey the reasons in writing - immediately. 4. I asked the BOR to put their findings in writing to make sure it was clear exactly why he was turned down at this time and what he needed to do in order to appear back before the BOR. I'm not trying to act like an HR dept, as someone mentioned, but rather want to make sure the message he gets is consistent. After some resistance, I did receive the letter, which is very well written and should make it clear to the scout. Correct approach, sort of, but bad timing. The letter should go directly to the Scout, not his father, not the Scoutmaster. 5. His father & I are going to sit down with him and review this to get him back on track. He's a great kid and a future Eagle in my mind, he just hit a bump in the road he needs to overcome. I'd have the meeting with the Scout alone (in view of others) and then convey the same with his father immediately afterward. The Scout probably needs more experience working with other adults without a parent present (just a guess on my part).

The only time a Scoutmaster conference may not beheld for a Scout is during a board of review. However, the Scoutmaster, who is in charge of the advancement program of a troop, may have preferences that they like to adhere to. Some of my pet peeves 1) Holding Scoutmaster conferences during troop meetings 2) Having pre-arranged boards of review 3) Having parents challenge the Scoutmaster in a confrontational manner on how they run the advancement program. When I was a Scoutmaster, I learned that it was best that I did not give SMCs during a troop meeting. Meet with me before or after I told the Scout. My primary job during a meeting was to observe the SPL, ASPL and PLs so that I could help them by understanding how they conducted the meeting. Not "help" them conduct the meeting real time necessarily, but I need to take in how they conduct the meeting so that in the future, I could provide specific guidance to each Scout. So, if a parent came up to me in a confrontation manner demanding where in the rules it stated that one could not hold SMCs during troop meetings it didn't help manners. If found that many parents interpreted my preferences on how I wanted to run the program as "rules."(This message has been edited by acco40)

I think a simple solution would be to give a raise to the moderators that the forum users like best!

As a Scoutmaster, I've had this happen to me; a Scout comes up and tells me he has completed a merit badge and shows me the completed "blue card" signed by everyone - but me! What are my actions now? I had the assigning of MBCs become a control issue with parents. I may be sterotyping but I've had a group of mothers teach a group of scouts - all in the same troop - merit badges. Yes, they were registered MBCs but as part of the "quality control group" (as a SM) I don't think they do a good job? Do I owe an explanation to the Scout? No. When I was a Scoutmaster, I would give a Scout two names and let him pick from them. I was aware of the "good" MBCs, "so-so" MBCs and "bad" MBCs. My job was to provide quality control for the boys in our troop, not necessarily provide feedback to council.

With my 20 plus years of experience in Scouting and on these forums I've learned that there are two camps of folks. Camp one - lets follow the BSA program the best we can. Camp two - the BSA program is just a suggestion and I'll do what I think is best (not use immediate recognition beads, put parents on BORs, inject maturity requirements, etc.). Camp #2 seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. I tend to fall into Camp #1 which is why my participation in Scouting is diminishing.

Check out the one on blue crab declines. It contains this gem: In addition, educational, outreach activities, in collaboration with high school teachers, will engage students that are excelling (boy scouts) and at-risk (low grades/attendance) in hands-on field science and potential career opportunities through: 1) field classes, 2) research and 3) a marine symposium (e.g., as previously at UF 2008).

Mary Jane may contain more tar than commercialized tobacco cigarettes but because of the way it is "processed" marijuana is more organic so I would argue (unscientifically) that marijuana usage is more harmful to the user but less harmful to the "second hand" smoker as compared to cigarettes. Neither is "healthy" and at least one is illegal.

Venividi, agree almost completely - but I'll be a killjoy and point out that Scout is not technically a rank. One of my best SPLs was not that interested in earning rank and "retired" from Boy Scouts as a Tenderfoot. I think he it at an Ivy League school right now. Rank is important to about 65% of the boys and 90% of the parents.

I don't know how many times I've had the following conversation with Scouts during a Scoutmaster Conference. SM Why did you join Boy Scouts? Scout To get Eagle. (Rarely heard to earn the Eagle rank.) SM Why is earning the Eagle rank important to you? Scout It will help me get into college or find a job. Yes, that is sad. Rarely did I hear to have fun or to learn Scout skills. Sometimes I got a few I like to camp. responses which I'll lump into the "have fun" camp. Of course, got a lot of I dunno responses too. The best Scouts that I've seen enjoyed earning Eagle but that wasn't the initial purpose of joining a troop. (This message has been edited by acco40)

The news has become simply entertainment so consumers can select the news they want to hear. So I get my news from - Weather Channel, South Park, ESPN, and Comedy Central. Sometimes ABC and NBC. CBS seems to have given up on providing any semblance of news.

The President has failed to wear a mouth guard, something I try to teach my daughter with no success, while playing basketball. He's paid for his mistake so I guess there is justice. Also, he still can't find that foreign born, Muslim birth certificate but I'm sure he is still lookig.

There are advancement rules and there are traditions. Let's look at the first rank advancement - Tenderfoot (no, Scout is not a rank). Requirement 14 is Participate in a Scoutmaster Conference. What if a Scout decided that the day after he fulfilled the joining requirements he reviewed the Tenderfoot reqs and said, whoa, #14 sure looks easy and asked for a SMC? Nothing states that the requirements need to be done in order. So ... Most troop have a tradition that the 'Scout Spirit' reqs are either signed off by the SM or their designate and usually after all other reqs have been completed except for the SMC. Then, the Scoutmaster (or their designate) hold the SMC - part social, part learning, part seeing if the boy has passed the reqs. If they feel the boys really has not passed a requirement (I've had demonstrate how to display, raise, lower and fold the American flag signed off by one of my SAs because the Scout told him how he would do it by reading from his handbook!). Well, I didn't "remove" his sign-off but I delayed his BOR until he demonstrated the task. So tradition has it that the SMC req is the last one before proceding to the BOR. I've had Scouts, who owned a full uniform, show up for a BOR and the board requested that he return in uniform before they procede. A legitimate request. Now, if board does not pass a Scout (or delays advancement if you prefer that vernacular), they should be informed and told what he has not done satisfactorily and specify what must be done to rework the Scout's weakness and schedule another BOR for him. A follow-up letter must be sent to the Scout who is turned down for rank advancement , confirming what was discussed. A Scout may appeal the decision of the board. After the BOR, the Scoutmaster is informed of the decisions made. Those are rules. Just like BOR membership rules - Scouters only for example, many don't follow them but that does not make them any less of a rule. Some who really don't know the program or purpose of a BOR may ask, "If all the requirements are signed off, how can a Scout not pass? They can't test the Scout at a BOR!" Well, junior lawyers, one of the purposes is to make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to do for the rand requirements. So what if a Scoutmaster signed the wrong book? What if someone signed off on a requirement that was delegated that responsibility by the Scoutmaster? I've had parents (usually former den leaders) sign-of fon there childs handbook. What if, during a discussion of Scout spirit the Scout maintains that he follows the Oath and Law during troop meetings and outings but loves to rape, pillage and plunder during non-Scout time and flatly states that this should be okay? Also, another purpose of a BOR is to assess the program the boys are receiving so it is perfectly legit to ask a Scout to tie a bowline. If 10 out of 10 Scouts can't, well maybe that is a good indication about the program that is being delivered. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

A Scoutmaster is trained when ... Yes, but he needs not have that training to take his troop on an outing!

A man who looses his testicles changes his sexuality. Is that why married men seem to have their sexuality changed so dramatically? Or is it because of those singing minstrels?

If you follow the BSA literature ... NSP should be used. Each Scout should get a chance to be patrol leader for 30 days (not elected but rotated). Therefore, if an NSP has 8 boys, that's 8 months. Afterwards, the boys gravitate to Regular patrols. Many ways and preferences on how to do this. Numbers play a role - you don't want patrols less than 4 Scouts or much more than 9 Scouts. Eight is the ideal. Peers - I can't emphasize enough that a patrol should be of peers - of the Scouts choosing, not the Scouters, not the PLC, not the SPL, etc. The other balance, you don't really want super dynamic patrols that constantly churn or change so traditions can be established. That's why I think some totally underestimate the importance of being active. When a Scout is not active, he really hurts his patrol and hinders its functionality. I like many of Barry's ideas although I tend to be less positive about having older Scouts mixed with younger ones. I guess it depends on the details. If a 12 year old is in a patrol with an active 14 year old and they stay together until the older one ages out, will the younger scout ever get a chance to truly lead the patrol?(This message has been edited by acco40)

Sad. For a lot of boys this age, they encounter a lot of "firsts" - nothing unusual with that. I liked the fact that for the first time this year, the BSA had a "weight proportioal to height" type of requirement for Jambo Scoutmasters. For Double H, Philmont and other activities, the BSA has strict wieght vs. height requirements as well as blood pressure. I know that that isn't the ultimate fitness test but it is better than nothing. The group should not have allowed separation. When we've gone out into the wild, I was almost always last to safeguard any stargglers and depending on what we were doing and the adult ratio, we tried to have an adult near the lead too. I've had boys show up for winter outings in tennis shoes and tube socks, had a boy who was fearless on the ski slopes who had no idea how to stop (just point downhill, go fast and crash was his method - yes I was worried he would hurtle across a mountain ridge in to the abyss), one case of hypothermia (summer camp!), burns (minor - trying ot pick up a burning log), cuts (one severe - by the SA), wasp stings (mulitple), illness (virus attacks not due to food preparation thank goodness) and heat stroke (again, one severe case that needed hospitalization but that again was for an adult). I am thankful I've always come home with the same number of Scouts I've left with. I was at Jambo where there were multiple deaths (electrocution), huge amount of heat related illness (I blame the BSA for multiple bad judgments) but other than that, no big catastrophies. My biggest worry was always a falling tree branch when hiking/camping in the woods. The Times identified 32 Scouts and Scout leaders who have died in the last five years in various outdoor activities. Investigations by rangers and sheriffs have documented deaths resulting from heatstroke, falls, lightning, drowning, electrocution and burns, among other causes. In many cases, adult leaders appear to have miscalculated the abilities of individual boys to handle the risks and difficulties of outdoor activities, and failed to follow Scout rules and recommendations on adult supervision, safety equipment and trip planning. Andrea Lankford, who was a district ranger in Yosemite in the mid-1990s and has worked at national parks across the country, said many adult Scout leaders "are not that physically fit themselves. They are not that knowledgeable. They are complacent. They are naive about the hazards. They bite off more than they can chew. As rangers, we would be extremely concerned. I have seen it time and time again with a gamut of consequences." As a Scoutmaster, I knew my strengths and weaknesses and never tried to bite off more than I could chew. We owe it to the boys to police ourselves more diligently IMO.