acco40

As a Scoutmaster, I was dismayed that our troop refused to have committee meetings not coincide with troop meetings. Scoutmasters are not committee members, do not "vote" on committee matters (another subject about voting in general is needed) but should attend committee meetings. The troop committee challenge is clear on this subject.

I guess that's where we differ. It doesn't matter if you feel it is "small" or if I feel it is "large" or anything in between. For non-EBORs, one must be a Committee Member to be a BOR member. That is the program. We should deliver the program as defined by the BSA or do something else.

Not to open (again) a new can of worms but there are some interesting threads in the archives about the issue of "voting" at Pack and Troop committee meetings. Pack committee meetings are open to all parents - registered and non-registered. Now, being "open" doesn't mean any parent should feel they can attend and influence the meeting.

As a Scoutmaster, when I had SMCs, I kept most of what was said by the Scout private. Now, I think many errors were made. The staff, having just been through YP training a few weeks before, reported it up the chain, with the Camp Director reporting it to Council. No reporting "up the chain" - report directly to DFC and/or DE. ... spoke with my CC and the COR (who confirmed that he had received the letter), and we agreed to keep Council's action quiet ... This information should not have been shared/confirmed by your CC or COR. It is a private matter. Through back channels, I learned later about the incident that triggered the scout's confession. Confession? I don't understand. I did not see any confession in your writing. Did he confess that he was lying about the physical abuse? Again, I don't understand. Do I have a SM conference with the scout and, depending upon what he tells me directly, tell him that I can't recommend him for an EBOR? Or tell him that it is likely to come up at his EBOR, and let him know that it might cost him Eagle? If he requests a SMC, give it. What are you inferring that he would tell you that would make you not recommend him for his EBOR? Nowhere do you state that the Scout stated that he falsely accused his mother. Do I have a word with the COR and suggest that the incident is fair game, as it affects character? According to Mom and step-Dad, this was a case of false accusation. No. If I did not recommend any Scout who ever lied, our troop would not have had any Eagle Scouts for the past 7 years. If it comes up, the "keep it quiet" effort will have been for naught, as the rest of the EBOR will then know about it. Comes up where? This is not a matter for an EBOR. Do I pass him along for his EBOR and say nothing? Don't know. Has he met the requirements for an EBOR? If so, yes. If not, no. Is your real question, did he meet requirement 2 (Demonstrate that you live by the principles of the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your daily life) - he should have letters from both of his parents that should help with this. This is a no brainer for me. If the requirements are met, as SM, sign the Eagle application. The parents do get to weigh in at the EBOR via their written feedback if they wish.

We've done pool parties at a pool with their own lifeguards on duty. According to our District Executive, it was not necessary to apply SSD requirements on top of that. AnaMaria - I think there may be some miscommunication between you and the DE. Safe Swim Defense standards apply at backyard, hotel, apartment, and public pools; at established waterfront swim areas such as beaches at state parks and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lakes; and at all temporary swimming areas such as a lake, river, or ocean. Now, one of the things needed is for response personnell/lifeguards and the pools that supply their own lifeguards may be fine for this role. Now to the original question - As a Scoutmaster I had the committee plan a laser tag event. I let my boys play laser tag. However, I stated that as parents, if they wanted to organize a get together of their sons to go play laser tag - go for it. Just don't call it a troop or patrol outing and I would not go as a Scoutmaster but possibly as a Dad.

The key is to choose an approach that gets yeh the outcomes you want in a reasonable way, and then not get caught up in da notion that your approach is the only way to do a good job for kids. Is that just Beavah vernacular for "the end justifies the means?" There are many approaches, both inside and outside of the BSA "way" that will get the same response. As parents, we can use any damn approach we want, but as Scouters, we should only use those that are inside the BSA "way." Go ahead and make snide comments about "rules" and such, but we should stick to what we promised to deliver - the Scouting program, not "Acco40's vision of how he feels the Scouting program should be" so to speak.

For those who are debating on whether one needs to DEMONSTRATE for requirement 4c, what on Earth do you think the "D" stands for in EDGE? The Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program in the troop. If he or his designate, wants to be able to witness the Scout using the EDGE method to fulfill the requirement, so be it.

One of my beefs with our troop committee is that I, as the Scoutmaster, never got any feedback, good or bad, from the Board after a BOR. Like you stated, I wasn't interested in getting to know exactly what "Johnny said" but some feedback on how they perceived how the program was being run should have occured at some point. It did not. It was requested.

I've camped in 0 - 10F degree weather, 10 - 20F degree weather and in heat indexes of 115F and above. The coldest I've been was on a camping trip where we left on a Friday in April, first 70F day of the year and that evening it got down to 35F, the next day the high was 44F and the night time temps dropped to 19F. I was unprepared (my fault) and my legs cramped up from the cold. I did not bring my cold weather gear. The hardest part for me wrt cold weather camping is that my water supply freezes and and I have no good way to heat up a plastic jug containing a block of ice.

Regardless of requirement "toughness" - the best way to keep 16 & 17 yr olds in the program is to keep out 10 - 12 year olds. Boy Scouts has kept lowering the age level at the bottom end but not the top. I don't care what they are doing, but being 17 and in a program that contains 10, 11 and 12 year olds can be frustrating.

I can't stand these frequent "let's bend the rules for the good of the Scout" rationalizations. As Scouters, we signed up to deliver the Scouting program as defined by the BSA, not us. We jeopardize a Scout's advancement if we don't have the proper composition of a BOR. For non-EBORs, one must be a Committee Member to be a BOR member. Yes, an SPL or SM may introduce the Scout but should not be present during the review. Being a "registered" committee member is redundant. There is no such thing as "unregistered" Committee Members, Scoutmasters, etc. 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 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. This has been mistakenly misinterpreted that one can't ask a Scout to tie a knot or demonstrate how to administer first aid at a BOR. That is false. One way to evaluate the quality of the program is to see what the Scouts have learned. If they have not learned anything, that is valuable information about how the SM and SAs are carrying out the program. 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]. For Eagle Scout boards of review conducted between three 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 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. Purpose of a Board of Review The members of a Board of Review should have the following objectives in mind: To make sure the Scout has completed the requirements for the rank To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit To encourage the Scout to progress further Additionally, the Board of Review provides "quality control" on advancement within the unit. It provides an opportunity for the Scout to develop and practice those skills needed in an interview situation, and it is an opportunity for the Scout to review his accomplishments. The Board of Review is not a retest; the Scout has already been tested on the skills and activities required for the rank. However, the chairman of the Board of Review should ensure that all the requirements have been "signed off" in the Scout's handbook. Additionally, the chairman should ensure that leadership and merit badge records are consistent with the requirements for the rank. The Board of Review is an opportunity to review of the Scout's attitudes, accomplishments and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals. Composition of a Board of Review For all ranks (except Eagle) and Eagle palms, the Board of Review consists of three to six members of the Troop Committee. The Troop Advancement Chairperson typically acts as the chairperson of the Board of Review. Relatives or guardians may not serve as members of a Scout's Board of Review. Unit leaders (Scoutmaster, Assistant Scoutmasters, Venture leader, Post Advisor, etc.) should not participate in a Board of Review. For the rank of Eagle, the Board of Review consists of three to six members drawn from Scouting and the community. At least one member of the District Advancement Committee must be a member of the Board of Review for Eagle, and may serve as chairperson of the Board of Review. Unit leaders from the Scout's unit, relatives, or guardians may not serve as members of a Scout's Board of Review for Eagle. A Board of Review for Eagle may contain members of the community who are not registered Scouters; however, they should be knowledgeable of the principles of Scouting. For example, a representative from a chartering organization, an adult Eagle Scout (even if not currently registered), or a religious leader are frequently asked to assist with an Eagle Board of Review. The Scout may request an individual to be a member of his Board of Review, such as the Scouts Eagle counselor.(This message has been edited by acco40)

One of the beauties of Boys Scouts is that every boy should have some responsibility be it SPL, PL APL, Quartermaster, Patrol Scribe, Patrol Cheermaster, etc. What happens if attendance is simply a "happy go lucky" event is that the Scouts don't feel they have real responsibility. I'm not for mandatory attendance but I'm also in favor of boys dropping out if they can't make at least 50% of the meetings, outings, etc. When I was the Scoutmaster, I didn't have an attendance requirement either - and got paid the same as the Scouts. However, I volunteered for that role (or at least accepted it) and felt I should meet my commitment. The Scouts and their parents should also feel the same way.

Agree withthe folks that state that winter tents are "winterized" for loading - not warmth or insulation. Proper ventilation is key or you'll wake up very wet. Warmth is provided by your clothes, pad, sleeping bag, hat, etc. not the tent insulation.

What I meant about the statement that the BSA is "not a camping club" is that we all don't just get together with other boys and adults to camp like we do as families. There is a method to the madness with which the BSA would like for us to camp - utilize patrols for instance. As Kudu states, there is a definitive purpose - self preparedness, patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues - which the BSA articulates as the aims - character and moral growth, citizenship and personal fitness (physical, mental and emotional). The vehicle to which this is accomplished are the methods - which include patrols and the outdoors. Many parents (and it seems some Scouters) simply don't get this. Fake Leadership always defines the Patrol Leader and his Patrol within the context of the whole Troop: Sitting in a PLC meeting or cooking and cleaning under adult EDGE supervision, rather than organizing their own Patrol Adventures. No training that I've had or administers advocates the above so I have no idea where you feel that "Fake Leadership" is being advocated. Yes, troop Organization is a topic that is taught but patrols come together to form a troop. Troops are not subdivided into patrols - that is what the BSA teaches. EDGE (Explaining, Demonstrating, Guiding and Enabling) is a teaching method, not a leadership method. It is not only taught to adults but to the Scouts as well via NYLT and other training sources. It doesn't advocate "adult supervision" any more or any less than anything else. Kudu, I just don't get why you feel trying to expose boys to basic leadership styles is the antithesis of the outdoor method. They are not mutually exclusive activities.

First, rules are different for Scouters than for Scouts - I'm addressing the Scouts here. The easily defined rules should not be bent - days/nights camping. The subjective "rules" should be left to those who are entrusted to make them. The boys election makes some questionable selections, just like adults do in our political elections, but once elected - they are now candidates. I think we should "sell" the OA more as a service organization than an honorary organization. It is both - but for many, service comes a distant second.

From the Troop level perspective ... 1. At what point does the level of knowledge required of an SM, as a practical matter, cross the line from what we can expect reasonably of a volunteer (whom we must presume, for the purposes of any training, comes to us totally unskilled) to what is basically a professional position? It is right in the training: What a Scoutmaster Must Know 1) Boys are the leaders 2) The Patrol Method 3) The skills to deliver the Scouting promise 4) The resources: training, literature, etc. The skills are really minimal. For God's sake, the BSA would like a 10 - 11 year old to earn 1st Class in the first year so what we are asking from a "scout skills" perspective is only what we are asking of a 12 year old boy. I think that's not too high of a bar for most adults. Yes, EDGE "took the place" in the presentation material of some of the Patrol Method charts but the PLC is still presented as is the resources - like The Scoutmaster Handbook - which give good descriptions of the patrol method. 2. Training: If it is to be recalled, it needs to be practiced. Training should, if you don't do "drills" like the ARC does, be recurring - meaning your "camping cert", for example, would only last 1 or 2 years before you train again. I think folks put way too much emphasis on some of the training. Most of the training is really just an introductory sort of first aid, cooking, camping, etc. What is really beneficial, IMHO, is that the SM and SAs know the BSA program. It's not a camping club.

Cabinism - I like this term. Must be some sort of hybrid of cannibalism and cannibis. :0

My oldest was in the HS Marching Band (two years) and earned Eagle. His take - in Scouts you got to stay up late outside, with your peers. In band he had to get up at 4:30 AM to make a 6:00 AM practice in Michigan in the fall. Teenagers, having a skewed internal clock (i.e. most are night owls) like the staying up late part better. However, yes the band has girls and cheering crowds!

My favorite requirement is to sleep "under the stars" - please tell me how on Earth I could not meet that requirement.

Facts 1) The Scoutmaster is in charge of the troop advancement program. 2) IOLS training is not required for adults to take Scouts camping. 3) Merit badge counselors determine if merit badge requirements are met. 4) For the Order of the Arrow - the Scoutmaster determines "nights/days" camping. 5) The committee's purpose is to support the program. Opinion 1) Troop Committees are famous for sticking their noses where they don't belong. When I attended Philmont - PTC, it was for the "Scoutmaster's Only" training. One evening they showed the Disney "Follow Me Boys" movie. The movie got the biggest cheer when Fred McMurray's wife suggest that the Troop Committee handle something and Fred, the Scoutmaster, responded by saying that the Troop Committee can't handle anything or just screws things up (something along those lines).

What can easily be done by the Scoutmaster of the troop that the Scout in question left is to inform the other Scoutmaster that he has the advancement records of the Scout in question, Scout account money (if any) and if he would like to discuss anything about the Scout in question that he is available - and leave it at that. If the other SM inquires about the Scout I would keep everything very factual and professional.

Moosetracker - during the SMC, the Scout kept wanting to show me his hard copy printouts from the district advancement chair. I said I wasn't interested in reviewing them with him. It ended up that he had not spent enough time in his previous rank (six months) so he was not eligible for advancement. I also had somewhat of a serious talk with him about my expectations for a POR. I also had a discussion with the Committee Chair on what he thought was the best way to handle this situation - he was a fan of no confrontation. Fast forward about four month later. This Scout's father was invited to attend an EBOR for another Scout - something we do as a troop - invite parents of Life Scouts to sit on an EBOR. Well after the BOR (I actually was now a Committee Member after stepping down as SM and was fairly active during the EBOR) he came up to me and essentially said he totally underestimated the BSA program, what was expected of the boys, etc. He was still in Cub Scout mode where awards are handed out like candy almost. He then told me he didn't think his son was anywhere near ready to attempt an Eagle project and backed off on his pressure for his son to earn the rank so soon. Gary Miller - Some of the boys are really savvy about finding the path of least resistance to advancement. Yes, as a Scoutmaster, I wanted the boys to be successful and did what I could to make them successful. But success is not to measured by advancement rate alone. I ask the boys to fill out a leadership application stating what position they were seeking (1st , 2nd and 3rd choice) and what their attendance record was, why they wanted the position and I had them and their parent(s) sign the agreement. I'll be blunt - I don't disagree with those who hold the blind "school comes first" mentality. If a Scout signs up to be the troop SPL, he should take that position seriously. We all know that boys at this age tend to procrastinate. So, lets say he has a test on Monday - and knows about it three weeks in advance. Does that mean he can't go camping - i.e. fulfill his duties as SPL the weekend before the test? No, it does not. It means that if he needs to study, he needs to do it well enough in advance so he can be successful in his position as SPL and as a student. So while I don't keel haul anyone, yes I express my disappointment to a Scout who shirks his responsibility because of the school "excuse." As the Scoutmaster, I didn't pull the "my job" excuse out of my hat. If there was a true problem, I took care of it in advance - either rescheduling work travel or making sure another capable individual was able to go in my place. Do I owe the boys a POR? No. Do I work with them to find a solution? Yes. I had another Scout who was very quiet, and introvert. He was stuck on 1st Class or Star for quite some time. He ran for PL and was not elected. After the boys made their selections for PLs, SPL I took those boys in a back room (shades of Chicago politics) and laid out the boys who asked to be selected (not elected mind you) for ASPL, Scribe, Quartermaster, Historian, Librarian, etc. I "guided" them to do some swapping of roles so all could end up with a POR. A few went from their 1st choice to 2nd choice so this particular scout had an opportunity. I've also given "Scoutmaster assigned leadership project" to boys who have asked. But when a Scout doesn't want to be SPL or QM or Scribe because that's too much work and then just takes it upon himself to "stealthily" be the historian or such - no I don't feel I owe him a POR. In my previous position of WL, I found that using my own boy as the DC was much more effective than not having one at all .. Effective for whom? I admit it, I don't like the practice of having DC den chief for his younger brothers den especially when the parent of the DC is the DL. Why not have your son serve as den chief for another den?

I have this problem with the 20 and 30 somethings at work. Emailing someone does not meet the "tell" someone requirement (my opinion, obviously, not the BSAs). I don't know how many times I've asked a subordinate to discuss such and such with their colleague and all that happens is email traffic. Am I an old fogy or what?(This message has been edited by acco40)

Welcome aboard! When I first joined this forum I had moderate Scouting experience but no internet forum experience. I soon realized I needed more of both. We have a wonderful cast of characters who you will find have easily recognized pet peeves, styles and other traits.

For those who don't think psychologists or therapy are not useful - my God, what do you think is part of the BSA? We have adult association, Scoutmaster conferences, group/patrol interactions, retreats (we call it camping), etc. Yes, there are bad priests, firemen, policemen, teachers, forum posters, Scoutmasters and psychologists. I'm an engineer by education and vocation. One of the funniest statements I ever heard was by my father who had a BS, MS and PhD in psychology. He saw no humor in his statement, "I don't like the economists, their field is not an exact science like psychology." Please no comments by scientists about us "inexact" engineers.