acco40

Bottom line, and I think you and I are talking past each other - only the CO/COR can remove a Scouter for any or no reason. The CC nor the SM may not. I don't understand why you keep saying the CR and the CC choose to remove. The CR doesn't need the input of the CC anymore than he needs the input of the SM is my point. Can you tell I've never been CC? (This message has been edited by acco40)

Yikes! One correct? I think if you carefully read what I wrote that your scoring method leaves something to be desired. Your logic confuses me. The Scoutmaster, in conjunction with the CO can remove of CC. Yes, I know, the SM has not authority on his own, just like the CC has no authority on his own to remove a SM. So I really don't follow your logic.

OGE, since I, as Scoutmaster, can issue the Firem'n Chit and the Committee Chair cannot, I have more power to "fire" him that he does me! Don't confuse arguing of semantics on the position as having internal conflict within the unit. Maybe we are just frustrated lawyers.

Looks like Professor White has two papers to grade. I'm lucky, as a Scoutmaster, my Committee Chair and I get along great. We agree what our responsibilities are (duh, the BSA spells that out) and are usually on the same wavelength. We also have different/complementing personalities. Now, a new dynamic - the parent volunteer (i.e. registered yes but not a dues paying BSA member) vs. the committee member. I can see some possible issues arising out of this but overall I really appreciate the BSA putting in place in black and white that all parents should be invovled.

Bob, I can play that game. Who signs the adult leader membership applications? the Scoutmaster or the Committee Chair. Does the scoutmaster have the authority to approve ANY adult membership in the unit? No. Who is charged with securing and training the scoutmaster? The CO via the COR "secures" the Scoutmaster. The committee recommends candidates/characteristics in consultation with the UC and COR. The steering committee (selected by the COR which could include SAs and/or the current SM) generates a ranked list of candidates. The Scoutmaster is in charge of getting himself trained. Of course, the training coordinator (CM) keeps track of who is trained for what and making sure all are aware of available training. Who owns the unit and who is appoved by the Charter organization head to oversee the operation of the unit? The CO owns the unit. The CO head / IH head approves all adult leaders to carry out the "operation" of the unit via "doing their job." The Scoutmaster and Committtee Chair have different responsibilities. The "operation" of the troop does not fall under one position. The Scoutmaster may not "answer to" the CC in a military chain of command sense. But the CC has authority over the scoutmaster that the scoutmaster does not have over the CC. Now for you - What committee has as its function to support the Scoutmaster?

I agree with Bob White on the fact that there is no real chain of command but I'm guilty of telling the boys to follow the chain of command. The BSA is not the military. We don't issue orders to subordinates. However, this "boy led" concept is new to many of the Scouts and parents. For most of their young lives, the person in charge albeit a teacher, coach, father, mother, etc. has always been an adult. I know that we often joke that the phrase we Scoutmasters utter most often is "go ask your patrol leader." Some of the Scouts feel more comfortable getting leadership from an adult and not their peers. Even at work, I've seen young engineers go around their immediate supervisor, who is usually less experienced than the senior management to ask questions. However, this can be irksome. Also, every time an SA weighs in to help direct an individual Scout, it may undermine the Patrol Leader for that Scout so it should only be done judiciously. Therefore, as Scoutmaster I see my main interface to be with the SPL and the SAs on an outing and at troop meetings. Now, as Scoutmaster I really don't see myself as "reporting to" the CC and I challenge anyone to show me why they think a Scoutmaster should. The CC and SM "run" different parts of the program. Neither "reports to" each other. The committee supports the Scoutmaster, handles administration tasks and recruits the SM and SAs. Nothing states that it "oversees" the SM.(This message has been edited by acco40)

One of the reasons I implemented an adult patrol was to ameliorate the effect of hover moms/dads. If mom or dad is smothering their son with too much attention or help, I, as PL of the adult patrol, give them their own assignment. When they are filling up our water jug from a source 200 yards away, it is difficult to interfer with how their son is boiling water. The parents respond slightly better to redirecting than to outright commands to stop (much like two year olds).

Like others have stated previously, adults should not wear patrol patches. Fact, many do. I look at it in the same way I view new Scouts wearing a Totin' Chit pocket flap or an older boy wearing his Paul Bunyon award on his shirt. Is it correct? No. I view it more as a misdemeanor and not a felony. Just like I don't criticize the SPL who still wears the patrol patch of his former patrol. In our council, at summer camp they allow adults to earn the "scoutmaster merit badge." Of course, it really is not a merit badge at all but it does have strenuous requirements all based on getting the adult to help out and to get involved in the activities. The patch is the familiar "rocking chair" patrol patch. As a Scoutmaster, I encourage the adults to earn this and we use it as our patrol patch for our adult patrol - the rockers. Having an adult patrol does a few things for me. One, it gets the adults to act as a patrol and not hover over their son's all the time. Two, it can serve as a role model as to how a well functioning patrol should operate. As for myself, I have a shirt with the patrol patch that I wear to troop functions - outings, troop meetings, etc. However, for "formal" meetings - roundtable, COHs, council meetings, Jambo's, etc. I always wear my "proper" shirt - sans a patrol patch. So yes, your COR is correct. The next question I would ask the COR is if they would mind if you did wear a patrol patch if that is your desire. As for Wood Badge (please, not Woodbadge), we all know that the Bears are the only real patrol that counts. There are lots of trinkets and patches related to Wood Badge and the various critter patrols. When emulating a troop, the adults are scouts and scouters so the wearing of position patches PL ,SPL etc. is okay for adults as well as for patrol patches during the course.

There are many "legal" things that require someone to be at least 18 years of age (i.e. a BSA adult). Other than that, as Scouters, we should strive to havethe boys do as much as they are capable of doing. I have in our troop a myriad a very capable and very lazy Scouts. Ask a husband if he would prefer to have his wife do his laundry, cooking, cleaning, etc. or have himself do it. Ask a Scout if he would rather have a committee member plan out an activity or do it himself and guess what the answer will be? As Scoutmaster, I try to set the bar high and have the expectation that the youth will meet it. I get very little resistance to that approach from the boys but plenty from the adults. The "you have to make it fun for them" mantra gets repeated to me ad nauseum. We shouldn't make everthing a chore but we are also not chartered to turn everything into pure entertainment for the Scouts. The challenge is finding the balance between the two.

Mr. Boyce, if we went by want the boys wanted, judging by the boys in our troop we'd have death metal t-shirts and brightly covered boxer shorts prominently peaking out over baggy shorts worn way to low. The boys need a uniform, not a fashion statement and something that would be functional as well would be bonus.

Let's go through the checklist. Did brandishing a knife in a threatening manner result in physical injury? Yes - call SE. No - not required to call SE. This is a Pack & Troop problem to deal with. As Eamonn/G2SS stated, adult leaders of Scouting units are responsible for monitoring the behavior of youth members and interceding when necessary. Parents of youth members who misbehave should be informed and asked for assistance in dealing with it. If the behavior continues, the committee should get involved. Membership revocation is an option - something the unit may do. The Scout is not a member of the pack so the troop would need to act on his membership.

A friend mailed this to me today. As the father of a 13 year old daugher (going on 21) I found it very appropriate! Dad's Dating Rules for Scout Daughters 1. You may only date Boy Scouts that have achieved Eagle Scout rank. 2. You and your date must wear your scout uniforms at all times during the date. 3. If someone pulls into the the driveway and honks, it better be UPS and not your date, as he will not be picking you up if he does so. 4. All activities on a date must count towards badge work, be acceptable under the Scout Law. 5. The only food on the date will be Girl Scout Cookies or Scout Popcorn and your date must agree to purchase a minimum of one case. 6. At least 2 members of your troop/crew or your leader must accompany you on a date as a chaperon. 7. There will be no Friendship squeezes, and the only thing you will do with your hands is give the scout hand sign and handclasp. 8. The only music you will listen to will be scout campfire songs. 9. The word "s'more" will not be spoken on the date. 10. You may only swap "Something With A Pin or a Patch" 11. On your honor you will only go to a nursing home, church or homeless shelter to perform service on your date. 12. As a Scoutmaster I can tie 100 kinds of knots, build a roaring fire that can consume anything, and dig a latrine at least 6 feet deep. I can hike 20 miles in a driving rain with an 75 pound backpack. I am very familiar with knives and guns. Please be home even earlier than you promise and don't test my resolve to "Be Prepared" to protect my daughter.

A parent may be a MBC for their son, may give them a Scoutmaster Conference and may sign off their Boy Scout Handbook - if they are an approved MBC, Scoutmaster or approved leader. Now, a wise Scoutmaster, the gatekeeper to assigning Scouts to MBCs, should take into account the parent factors, MBCs within the troop factors, MBCs outside the troop factors, etc. and make the assingment as they see fit.

Yes, that would be the easiest, but incorrect. Knots should be centered. EMBROIDERED SQUARE KNOTS AND PIN DEVICES Embroidered 'Square Knots' are representative of pin-on medals or ribbon suspended medals and are designed for the convenience of the wearer. In the case of the Award of Merit and the Professional Training Award, however, the knot is the only wearable insignia. Square Knots are always oriented with the loop of the embroidered knot that comes in front of the standing part (known as the 'loop' or 'bight') to the wearer's right. Another clue to correct orientation is that knots are worn with the distinguishing color (not white) towards the wearer's right. If you are still unsure about correct orientation, check out the knot image links below. After trial and tribulation, I think we've got them all rotated correctly. Square knots are worn centered above the left uniform pocket, in rows of three. There is no particular order in which they should be worn, but it is suggested that the knot deemed most important by the wearer be worn on his or her own right. The above was on the www so it must be correct! (The Virtual Cub Scout Leader's Handbook)

If I interpret the post from MarkS correctly, the Socutmaster in question essentially decided to "waive" a requirement. That is wrong. As Scouter's we do not have the authority to add to or remove from a requirement. However, in special cases a Scout who is unable to complete any or all of the requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, or First Class rank because he is physically or mentally disabled may complete alternative requirements. But, a strict set of criteria must be met to formulate the alternative requirements. This would involve the district/council advancement committee, physicians, parents/leaders, etc. This can't be done by the Scoutmaster alone. However, the Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program for their unit. That doesn't mean he has carte blanche to disregard the policies of the BSA. But, let's say a Scout went camping with his troop, arrived Friday night, got in the tent around 10:30 PM, stared at the tent roof for two hours, freaked out, got out of the tent and went crying to the Scoutmaster (who then called his parents to come and pick him up at 12:30 AM) - may get "credit" for one night of camping, or may not get "credit" - it is the Scoutmaster's call. It is not the call of the advancement chair. It is not the call of the Committee Chair.

goodscout - the first word in your reply was "No" and I assume that was in response to my post (not Barry's). Don't confuse asking a Scout to tie a knot (allowable) with the purpose of a BOR is not to retest a Scout. A Board of Review should provide "quality control" on advancement within the unit. The Board of Review should NOT be a retest; the Scout has already been tested on the skills and activities required for the rank. I don't interpret the above to mean the board may not ask a scout to demonstrate a Scout skill. They just may not use the result of that request as a "test" for the scout. They may use it as a quality control data point. For example a Scout going in for his 1st Class BOR may have no idea how to orient a map, tie a bowline or demonstrate the Heimlich but could easily pass his BOR.(This message has been edited by acco40)

It is perfectly permissable to give the Scout a rope and ask him to tie a bowline. It is perfectly permissible to ask the Scout to demonstrate first aid for a choking victum. It is perfectly permissible to ask a Scout demonstrate how a compass works and to orient a map. However the intent of these questions should be to evaluate the quality Scouting program being delivered to the Scout and should not be used as a pass fail criteria for the Scout's BOR. For example, it the Scout completely fumbles through in tieing a bowline but explains that he used to know how and the requirement is signed off in his handbook, he has passed that requirement. The BOR can then communicate to the Scoutmaster, Committee Chair or whomever the difficulty the Scout had at the BOR. If the board finds that repeatedly, Scouts appear before the board with very little knot tieing skills, well maybe it is time to re-evaluate the adult leaders.

Okay, I'll blame "the system" & the lawyers. If you watch much television, you've probably heard of a product called Mike's Hard Lemonade. And if you ask Christopher Ratte and his wife how they lost custody of their 7-year-old son, the short version is that nobody in the Ratte family watches much television. The way police and child protection workers figure it, Ratte should have known that what a Comerica Park (Detroit Tiger's baseball stadium) vendor handed over when Ratte ordered a lemonade for his boy three Saturdays ago contained alcohol, and Ratte's ignorance justified placing young Leo in foster care until his dad got up to speed on the commercial beverage industry. Even if, in hindsight, that decision seems a bit, um, idiotic. Ratte is a tenured professor of classical archaeology at the University of Michigan, which means that, on a given day, he's more likely to be excavating ancient burial sites in Turkey than watching "Dancing with the Stars" -- or even the History Channel, for that matter. The 47-year-old academic says he wasn't even aware alcoholic lemonade existed when he and Leo stopped at a concession stand on the way to their seats in Section 114. "I'd never drunk it, never purchased it, never heard of it," Ratte of Ann Arbor told me sheepishly last week. "And it's certainly not what I expected when I ordered a lemonade for my 7-year-old." But it wasn't until the top of the ninth inning that a Comerica Park security guard noticed the bottle in young Leo's hand. "You know this is an alcoholic beverage?" the guard asked the professor. "You've got to be kidding," Ratte replied. He asked for the bottle, but the security guard snatched it before Ratte could examine the label. Mistake or child neglect? An hour later, Ratte was being interviewed by a Detroit police officer at Children's Hospital, where a physician at the Comerica Park clinic had dispatched Leo -- by ambulance! -- after a cursory exam. Leo betrayed no symptoms of inebriation. But the physician and a police officer from the Comerica substation suggested the ER visit after the boy admitted he was feeling a little nauseated. The Comerica cop estimated that Leo had drunk about 12 ounces of the hard lemonade, which is 5% alcohol. But an ER resident who drew Leo's blood less than 90 minutes after he and his father were escorted from their seats detected no trace of alcohol. "Completely normal appearing," the resident wrote in his report, "... he is cleared to go home." But it would be two days before the state of Michigan allowed Ratte's wife, U-M architecture professor Claire Zimmerman, to take their son home, and nearly a week before Ratte was permitted to move back into his own house. And if you think nothing so ludicrous could happen to your family, maybe you should pay a little less attention to who's getting booted from "Dancing with the Stars" and a little more to how the state agency responsible for protecting Michigan's children is going about its work. Doing their duty Almost everyone Chris Ratte met the night they took Leo away conceded the state was probably overreacting. The sympathetic cop who interviewed Ratte and his son at the hospital said she was convinced what happened had been an accident, but that her supervisor was insisting the matter be referred to Child Protective Services. And Ratte thought the two child protection workers who came to take Leo away seemed more annoyed with the police than with him. "This is so unnecessary," one told Ratte before driving away with his son. But there was really nothing any of them could do, they all said. They were just adhering to protocol, following orders. And so what had begun as an outing to the ballpark ended with Leo crying himself to sleep in front of a television inside the Child Protective Services building, and Ratte and his wife standing on the sidewalk outside, wondering when they'd see their little boy again. A vain rescue mission Child Protective Services is the unit of the Michigan Department of Human Services responsible for intervening when someone suspects a child is being abused, neglected or endangered. Its powers include the authority to remove children from their homes and transfer them to foster parents who answer only to the state. By law, CPS officials are forbidden to discuss the particulars of any investigation. But Mike Patterson, Child and Family Services director for the Wayne County district that includes Comerica Park, said that in general his agency's discretion is limited once police obtain a court order to remove a child from the parental home -- usually authorized, as in Leo's case, by a juvenile court referee responding to a police officer's recommendation. "Once the court has authorized a child's removal," Patterson told me, "we cannot return the child to the parental custody" until the court has OK'd it. But that doesn't explain why CPS refused to release Leo to the custody of two aunts -- one a social worker and licensed foster parent -- who drove all night from New England to take custody of their nephew. Chris Ratte's sisters, Catherine Miller and Felicity Ratte, left Massachusetts at 10:30 the night of the fateful lemonade purchase after the police officer who'd reluctantly requested a removal order told Ratte the state would likely jump at the chance to place Leo with responsible relatives. But when the two women arrived at the CPS office early Sunday, a caseworker explained they would not be allowed to see Leo until they had secured a hotel room. The sisters quickly complied. But by the time they returned to CPS around 10:30 a.m., their nephew had been taken to an undisclosed foster home, where he would remain until a preliminary court hearing the following afternoon. By that Monday, April 7, when Ratte and his wife returned for a meeting with Latricia Jones, the CPS caseworker assigned to their case, no one in the family had been able to talk to Leo for a day and a half. More investigation needed At a hearing later that day, Jones recommended that Leo remain in foster care until she had completed her investigation, a process she estimated would take several days. It was only after the assistant attorney general who represented CPS admitted that the state was not interested in pursuing the case aggressively that juvenile referee Leslie Graves agreed to release Leo to his mother -- on the condition that Ratte himself relocate to a hotel. Finally, at a second hearing three days later, Graves dismissed the complaint and permitted Ratte to move home. Don Duquette, a U-M law professor who directs the university's Child Advocacy Law Clinic, represented Ratte and his wife. He notes sardonically that the most remarkable thing about the couple's case may be the relative speed with which they were reunited with Leo. Duquette says the emergency removal powers of CPS, though "well-intentioned" are "out of control and partly responsible for the large numbers of kids in the foster care system," which is almost universally acknowledged to be badly overburdened. Ratte and his wife have filed a formal complaint with the CPS ombudsman's office. "I have apologized to Leo from the bottom of my heart for the silly mistake that got him into this mess," Ratte wrote in the complaint. "But I have also told him that what happened afterward was an even bigger error, and I would like to be able to say to him that institutions, like people, can learn from their mistakes." BRIAN DICKERSON Detroit Free Press

Barry, I'm confused. You state that with age based patrols you experienced a "third year PLC" syndrome. With age based patrols, isn't a troop guaranteed a mixture of ages on the PLC due to the fact that each patrol is represented on the PLC? What am I missing? Jo, assume you are female (I'm taking great risk here), you may not be as "into" the psyche of males and adolescent boys in particular. I find what you stated as much more "good" than "bad." Now, if the name calling is more in the line of patrol cheers, bravado, tongue in cheek, etc. and not over the line (cursing, hatefulness, etc.) I actually would view patrol pride a good thing. Think of the Army-Navy game - do you feel the interaction of cadets and midshipmen good thing that breeds pride or a juvenile, derogatory exhibition? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Beavah, I agree with FScouter. Look at what you posted, The guideline is perfectly sensible, and should be followed in its intent. It's da senseless application that can do damage. So, imagine me talking to a police officer - yeah, that 40 mph speed limit is a nice guideline but because I have a sports car with great handling, the weather conditions were dry, daylight, unlimited visibility, other traffic was non-existent and the fact that I have great driving skills, I used "common sense" and drove at 55 mph, i.e. I didn't want a senseless application applied to my circumstance! (In my best Bob White impersonation) As Scouters, we've signed up to deliver the BSA program which has guidelines and rules. We should not become cafeteria Scouters and choose to follow only the one we find sensible. Our troop had an outing this weekend. No meds were given to me or the other two Scouters by the youth or their parents. When bedtime came, two of the Scouts told me they had to take their meds. Well, I stated that they would have to give them to me. Both were proprerly and clearly marked and with very little resistance the Scouts gave them to me. However, each had stated that their mothers wanted them to hang on to the meds (I know their mothers and firmly believe the Scouts) but that no, I couldn't let that occur. I believe that these Scouts and their tentmates are mature enough that they could have handled dispersing their meds without adult supervision but so what, my promise was to deliver the Scouting program in accordance with the rules and not my personal whims. My oldest son, a youth in the eyes of the BSA takes meds on his own 95% of the time. The only time he does not is during a Scout outing. He doesn't complain, I don't complain and IMO, others should not either.

First of all, Packs/Dens can always make more restrictive "rules" if they wish. However, they may not relax BSA "rules." Each Cub Scout needs to have an adult that they are assigned. This assignment is done by the Cub Scouts parents/legal guardian and not a den leader. One stipulation is that the den leader may only be assigned one Cub Scout. As a Webelos den leader, I took the den to the Council sponsored "Webelos Woodlands" event (four days, three nights of camping) many years ago. Attending were five Webelos Scouts, four parents and two den chiefs. One of the parents had a signed permission slip from the parents of the Scout who did not have a parent in attendance, that they had permission to act on their behalf (and it wasn't me, the den leader). That was (and I believe still is) permissible. The den chiefs were Boy Scouts and therefore were under different rules. One on one contact does refer to legal guardian. No instances of "touched by an uncle" should occur. As for driving, it is splitting hairs but when does a Scout outing start? At the end of some of our troop meetings all will depart and I'll get a lone Scout who has not been picked up yet. Many times my wife will drive along with me so she will leave, taking our tow Scouts with her and many a time I've had to ask our committee chair or one of my SAs to hang back so I would not be alone with the Scout - just protecting myself.

I'm aware of the "rules." Just because s requirement is signed off doesn't mean that it was met. Are you stating this from a "legal" sense or a litteral sense? Because, yes, if a requirement is signed off - that requirement has been met in the eyes of the BSA. Another common problem is that people think that the SM's word is law. Again, the Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program so yes, the SM's word is law! (Can you tell I'm a Scoutmaster. What the Committee / BOR members should do if they feel a Scoutmaster has signed off a requirement that a Scout has not met is talk to the Scoutmaster, as suggested by many, and if push comes to shove, take it up with the COR. I think I'm stating the same thing as Jonh-in-KC (tell your son I'm a '79 Tiger grad). Goldwinger - think of it this way. If a jury of my peers convicts me on a charge - I'm guilty in the eyes of the law regardless of the fact I did what I was actually accused of. Same thing with Scouts, a signed off requirement is "proof" that a requirement has been met. If the BOR or others have reason to doubt the system, go ahead and try to remedy the process, not take away from the Scout.

Okay, the Board asks the Scout for documentation and he pulls out his trusty Boy Scout Handbook and shows that the requirement had been signed off. Is that documentation enough? If not, what is and who is responsible for that documentation? What if simply asked, the Scout replies that yes, he met those requirements? I'm aware of all of the trials and tribulations and therefore, as Scoutmaster, try to keep meticulous records while combating all the parents that tell me that I can't use attendance percentages as a litmus test for requirements so why do I bother? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Eamonn, your post reminds me an All in the Family episode. Carroll O'Connor (Archie) happens to see Rob Reiner (Meathead - his son-in-law) getting dressed. He first puts on one sock, one shoe and then another sock, another shoe. That drives Archie nuts. Then they start to argue about the merits what is best when putting on one's socks and shoes. It was hilarious! The key to your analogy is in determining when things "matter" and when they do not. Some may see the difference in holding quarterly Courts of Honor vs. one big grand annual Court of Honor as just a style difference and others as a major breech of what the BSA is "supposed" to do. Yes, we all need to have an open mind, but The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." ~Terry Pratchett, The Bromeliad

Can a Den Chief Cord be worn with a Den Chief Patch? - Yes. May a Den Chief Cord be worn with a Den Chief Patch? - Yes. I'm editing this because I confused the Den Chief Cord with the Den Chief Service Award. The Den Chief POR patch should only be worn while serving in that position of responsibility - much like my Scoutmaster patch. The Den Chief cord is not redundant because the POR patch does not indicate if the Boy Scout is serving a Tiger, Wolf, Bear or Webelos Den. The Den Chief cord indicates that the Scout is serving a Tiger, Wolf or Bear Den and thus adds meaning. The Den Chief Service Award (cord) should only be worn after earning that award, - much like my Scoutmaster Award of Merit patch. If still active as a den chief and after earning the award, a Scout may wear both - much like I still wear my Scoutmaster badge and my Scoutmaster Award of Merit. Den Chief Service Award requirements 1. Serve the pack faithfully for 1 full year. 2. Attend a den chief training (if available within year of service) OR be trained by the assistant Cubmaster and den leader. 3. Know the purposes of Cub Scouting. 4. Help Cub Scouts achieve the purposes of Cub Scouting. 5. Be the activities assistant in den meetings. 6. Set a good example by attitude and uniforming. 7. Be a friend to the boys in the den. 8. Take part in weekly meetings. 9. Assist the den at the monthly pack program. 10. Know the importance of the monthly theme. 11. Meet as needed with the adult members of the den, pack or troop. 12. Complete FOUR of these projects: a. Serve as a staff member of a Cub Scout special event, such as a Scouting show, bicycle rodeo, etc. b. Serve as a staff member of a Cub Scout Day camp or resident camp. c. Advance one Boy Scout rank. d. Assist in recruiting three new Cub Scouts. e. Assist three Webelos Scouts to join a troop. f. Help to plan and carry out a joint pack-troop activity. g. Recommend to your Scoutmaster another Boy Scout to be a den chief. h. Assist three Cub Scouts to become Webelos Scouts. (This message has been edited by acco40)