acco40

In an (misguided?) attempt to maintain membership, the BSA has been sliding the age requirements for almost everything downward for the last few decades. This includes the addition of Tiger Cubs, later the full integration of Tiger Cubs into the Cub Scout program, the lowering of the age requirements for Boy Scouts, etc. What has not changed is the "age out" of Boy Scouts. So, we get our Eagles earlier (Eagle has no requirement for maturity). My oldest son earned his Life rank at just over 12. If I really pushed, he could have earned Eagle at 13 or 14 but why? He earned it at 17 because he wanted to get at least four Eagle palms. I've seen some earn the rank of Eagle and drop out at 15, 16, etc. and others stay in and focus on OA, high adventure, etc. Depends on the Scout and the troops focus. If the troop focus is on advancement, why stay?

If the BSA exclude on the basis of greed, our numbers would shrink tremendously.

Ranks in Scouting are like grades in school. Does anyone really care about ranks in Cub Scouts when interviewing a prospective job candidate? Do they care about grades in middle school or elementary school? Do prospective employers or universities care about high school grades? Depends. Grades? Depends again. If someone was a straight "C" student and had out of this world SAT/ACT scores - that would open many doors to many colleges and scholarships. Do some student try harder because of grades? Yes, but not all. Do some Scouts "try harder" because of the Eagle rank? Yes, but not all. Rank, like grades, motivate some but not all and just like a grade is not necessary and sufficient for learning, the Eagle rank is not necessary and sufficient for character, civics, and fitness.

I agree that I'm no expert in this matter but I'd be more inclined to change my mind on this matter is you showed me the BSA policy instead of just stating that it violates policy. Essentially, what I believe is that the CO has the right to be restrictive on who they want in their unit - that's all. Why they want this restriction (input from the PLC, vision from God, core belief, etc.) is irrelevant. But again, I'm no expert in this area.

I disagree - it the PLC wants, and the CO agrees, they can have a no Jews, no Caucasions, no Methodists, etc. troop if they wish. That is the beauty (or curse depending on your view point) of a private organization.

Scouting and Scouters, like politicians, can become too insular if they don't "get out" and meet the folks they should serve. However, some have "jobs" that have lots of interface with the Scouts and some don't. As for the DAOM - there is a misunderstanding by some that the awardee should have a district position. That is false. REQUIREMENTS 1. A nominee must be a registered Scouter. 2. A nominee must have rendered noteworthy service to youth in Scouting, outside Scouting, or both. Note: The nature and value of noteworthy service to youth may consist of a single plan or decisions that contributed vitally to the lives of large numbers of youth or it may have been given to a small group over an extended period of time. 3. Consideration must be given to the nominees Scouting position and the corresponding opportunity to render outstanding service beyond the expectations of that Scouting position. 4. The nominees attitude toward and cooperation with the district and/or council is to be taken into consideration. 5. Nominations cannot be considered for posthumous awards.

A couple of observations: 1 Siblings, whether boy or girl, should not be on any scouting trip (unless specifically designed to be a family event). So I guess, when my Eagle Scout son #1 went on the outing his Life Scout brother should not? Be careful what you post. 2 Registered adult leaders in the troop should all be allowed to come along. Doesn't matter if they're male or female, rich or poor, snoring or non-snoring, black or white, or thin or (for the time being anyway) fat. A "registered" committee member has no more business (nor less business) going on a camping trip than an unregistered guardian. The only registered leaders who should have "preference" are Scoutmasters and their assistants. 3 The Boy Scouts of America does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its program. All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders. Agree with Beavah on this one. This does not imply that all may observe all. It implies that parents should know about the program - no secret parts. So, if a parent wants to know what an Ordeal Ceremony is all about in the OA they have a right to know, but not a right to attend or observe. 4 If the PLC wants a "no women" rule and that is okay with the CO - so it goes. 5 One of our trips (Gettysburg) was open to family. I chose not to go - it would have been my second trip there with the troop and my work load was horrible that weekend. My two sons (14 & 15) attended with their sister (12.5 years old) and mother (age not to be revealed ). Well they all had a fantastic time except Dad was not too happy when he found out that his daughter was being trailed by most of the 13 & 14 year old Scouts all weekend. Needless to say, she did not go on any more Scout outings.

Just to reiterate what others have said, Webelos are organized into dens and may wear a patrol patch on their Webelos uniform. In Cub Scouts, it is actually called a den emblem, worn in "position 2" right below the USA flag emblem (we don't wear flags on our uniform ). Webelos Scouts may choose to wear either the blue Webelos uniform based on the Cub Scout uniform or the tan/olive uniform similar to the one that Boy Scouts wear. The patrol patch/den emblem cosmetically goes better with the tan/olive uniform but may be worn on either.

We are on the same page. I wasn't trying to be critical but in this day and age when telling the truth to the police is considered 'snitching' by many, I had my concerns.

I was an enthused "newbie" at one time. I was a Tiger Partner (pre-den leaders for Tigers), Wolf, Bear and Webelos Den Leader and a part time SA for a year and when my second son joined the troop I was soon a "trained" SA, WB beads, MB counselor, etc. I was not pushy (who ever thinks they are?) but was seen as a threat I believe to the established Scoutmaster and his close SA (we had about 5 SAs but the SM alomost exclusively utilized only one). I went on outings and gladly performed the duties assigned by the SM. Some things just take time. Next thing I knew, a year later I was the SM and perceived as part of the GOB network. Fast forward to the present. I've been the course director for many training course (primarily for Boy Scouts). On the last day right before "graduation" we congratulate the trained and ask them to go forth and utilize their training for the good of the program and for the boys (standard boiler plate platitudes, etc.) but also caution them not to g oback to their unit and immediately tell the current "regime" how they learned in training that they are doing something wrong. While possibly technically correct, it may not really improve things in the best manner. It is really common sense, just like joining a new firm and trying to immediately impress the boss may tick off existing workers. So, to sum up my ramblings, I have seen GOBN that are both "good" and "bad" and new eager volunteers that are both "good" and "bad." My advice for parents of Webelos is to take a step back, observe as much as you can, get as much training as possible but don't necessarily start as a CM or SA until you've observed and understood the program for at least six months.

I help the troop any way I can. I'm not a snitch. What is your definition of a snitch? One of the functions of a Unit Commissioner is to report to his district commissioner on the health of the units they serve - accurately. Do you consider this "snitching?"

There's fudging and there's fudging. On an Eagle application, the natinal council can't really test the Scouts apptitude in First Aid but they can check dates and if the proper unit of time has not elapsed for that Scout between advancement - the Eagle application is rejected.

1) The committee should have nothing to do with merit badge counseling. 2) Patrols may camp without adult supervision. Now, I do agree that a committee has a useful function. That function is not to cherry pick the program side but to ask how they may support the program side.

Scouts should initiate a BOR and the Board should comply in a timely fashion. That is the program. A committee that has 'standing' BOR dates - quarterly, monthly, weekly or daily, is not the program. It is for the convenience of the adults. The advancement program is run by the Scoutmaster. The Advancement Chair, who should be appointed by the Committee Chair, should ensure that BORs are held and help in arranging them. It is customary, but not mandatory, that the Advancement Chair or their designate "chairs" the BORs. The Advancement Chair is also responsible for the advancement records working with troop scribe - a youth, and the troop secretary - an adult. For emphasis - Again, a BOR should be held when a Scout requests one. I don't care if all, one or no requirements for rank have been met. Passing the BOR is another matter. Now, BORs may be held for things other than rank advancement but those are usually not initiated by the Scout.(This message has been edited by acco40)

People become very sensitive when peers (other parents, not professionals) discuss their sons. But - a family is having financial trouble. Should the troop extend help in the form of reduced or waived fees? Should this discussion be open to all? Johnny hit Billy on the last campout (so says Billy's mother). The SM was there, the CC was there but no other committee members. Should this be taken care of by the SM & CC or should an "open door" meeting be held to all? A SAs son had a disipline issue. SAs are not part of the troop committee. Should he be able to attend a meeting which discusses possible discipline actions? I think the best way to handle such issues is to involve the full committee when "generic" issues arise - like how does the troop want to handle behaviour x & y. When it acutally involves individuals, no need for the whole issue to be out in open and not requirement by the BSA either. For example, a 17 year old Scout happens to get his girl friend pregnant. Is this a topic for the full committee to discuss ad naseum?

I've got a novel idea - why doesn't a troop committee ask the Scoutmaster in what way could they best support the program! That is their function after all. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

One easy way to transition the boys and the parents is to state that any Scout is free to ask any adult for help - except for his parents. Vice versa, any parent is free to help any Scouts, except for their son.

Set high goals - the Scouts will surprise us.

There are no requirements that state committee meetings shall be open. There are good reasons and perils both to having closed and/or open committee meetings.

if the purpose of an SPL to attend a committee meeting is to deliver a report that is just not the way the program works. An SPL should hold PLC meetings. A committee chair should hold committee meetings. The Scoutmaster should attend both of these meetings (i.e. they should never be held simultaneously and even better, committee meetngs and troop meetings should not coincide). The committee should have a secretary. The troop should have a scibe. They should be working closely together and share meeting reports and helping to set agendas if needed. The PLC report - written by the Scibe and approved by the PLC should be the communication vehicle. On rare occasions, the SPL may invite certain committee members as a guest to the PLC. Vice versa, the committee chair may invite selected youth leaders to attend a committee meeting. But it is my belief that other than the Scoutmaster, neither the PLC should expect regular participation by any participation or conversely, the committee for any youth.(This message has been edited by acco40)

They all have on Scout pants. They are not poking, prodding or hitting each other. All four are standing still simultaneously. All have on their neckerchief. All have on Scout socks. I could go on and on but obviously, these things never happen in real life.

When my oldest son was shopping for a troop to join, we camped with one troop and I had an informative discussion with the SM. He stated that he didn't allow females on outings because that is what the boys wanted. Now, I know that parents may "observe" etc. but that is the way that troop operated (it was fairly small). Sometimes, boys going through puberty, etc. don't want a bunch of adult females around. We decided not to join that troop - not for that issue alone but because of the prevaltent attitude that was anti-council/district, "my troop" attitude by the SM, etc. A few years later when I was the Scoutmaster of the troop my son did decide to join I had a slightly different perspective now that the shoe was on the other foot. I didn't want to ban females but I had issues with parents, mostwhich were not Scouters but some were, who just didn't "get" the program. No, we don't set up the boys tents. No we don't cook for them. Yes, I can expect the Scouts to do (fill in the blank), etc. I wanted to

I'm talking normal troop outings here - not NOAC, Jambo, Philmont, Sea Base, etc. We didn't get a lot of folks backing out, we got a lot of "I don't knows" who would not commit either way so it was very frustrating trying to plan. Lots of "are you going?", "I'll go if so and so goes", etc. My solution - which was summarily shot down by the committee, have the Scouts pay $250 to $400 (depending on the annual planning) up front at the beginning of the year and all outings are "free." So if you go, not up front money. Those on a tight budget could earn their fee - popcorn, or other fundraiser. Those tight on time could simply open their wallets. It is tremendously difficult to plan for an outing without a good estimate of the head count.

The SPL does not report to the committee from a chain of command perspective. The SPL may occasionally report to the committee on various topics. When I was the Scoutmaster, I encouraged the SPL to report the results of our annual planning meeting to the committee. Also, if he had requests for committee support - fundraising ideas, troop equipment to buy requrests, etc. I would sometimes, depending on the Scout, suggest that he make the presentation to the committee. I did not encourage the SPL to have prearranged attendance for any of the committee meetings. Yes, expecting something of an individual that you don't expect of yourself (i.e. wearing one's uniform to a BOR?) is very hypocritical in my eyes. I also noticed that some committee members, who didn't like what they heard from the Scoutmaster would sometimes try to "go around" and ask the SPL. That is a whole different topic.

It is my understanding that Councils don't just take anybody that wants to join. Units (Packs, Troops, etc.) are supposed to only accept members from the geographic boundaries of their council. I know not all adhere to this. Therefore, one should only have a choice in which council if one is willing to move. We can debate if this is a good or bad policy but it is the policy.