acco40

You hit the nail on the head. As they say, beware of what you wish for, it may come true!

When Pope JPII visited the United States he held "Jamborees" at Dodger Stadium, TWA/Edward Jones Dome, Silver Dome, etc. Many of these facilities are government owned (albeit not federal). I have no knowledge if use fees were charged but I doubt it. I love Scouting. I love my country. I wish that the BSA would proclaim themselves a PUBLIC organization (to the dismay of a few professionals in Texas) and be done with these ridiculous controversies. President Bush is a big believer (or should I say talker) about using taxpayer money via faith based groups (i.e. Catholic Services) to administer charitable works - i.e. soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. While I agree that efficiency would abound I'm troubled by the legal and moral ramifications.(This message has been edited by acco40)

It never ceases to amaze me that the parents of Cub Scouts, who have absolutely zero experience in the Boy Scout program, seem to always question the "wisdom" of experienced Scoutmasters. Yes, I know that sounds arrogant but ... Why don't parents simply ask why the Scoutmaster, or more correctly, the BSA program, is structured in that manner.

Good advice about patrol forming BW. I'm a big believer in forming patrols of peers and not worrying about having one patrol whose average age is a few years more than another patrol. Our Jamboree contingent troop consists of Scouts from many different troops who don't know each other very well. We do not have the luxury of doing what BW suggested due to time constraints. We did the following - each Scout picked a buddy. A Scout and his buddy (his future tent mate) were guaranteed to be in the same patrol. (This was done after the senior leadership was chosen - SPL, ASPL, QM and Scribe). So we now had 16 buddy pairs. Next, each buddy pair picked another buddy pair. That yielded 8 pairs of "buddy pairs." Next, each group picked another group yielding the four patrols of eight Scouts. Now, I view a patrol as sort of like a marriage. While divorce is permitted, it should be rare and not taken lightly. I don't like rearranging patrols willy-nilly. Having one patrol of five and another of nine is no big deal. No calamity comes about if we don't force that into two patrols of seven. Let the kids pick their peer group, bond, develop cheers, flags, totems, etc. and then USE THE PATROL METHOD! For those that follow military history, the lessons of Vietnam should be taken to heart. In that conflict, soldiers were rotated in and out based on an individual time-line. No real unit bonding took place. The boys (many really were boys!) squads/platoons etc. were constantly changing. Now look at what the Army does today. Units are rotated in and out as a group, not by individuals. Teamwork is enhanced. "Patrol" pride ensues. Of course it doesn't help that the Army is now dealing with volunteers vs. conscripts but it does give another example of how the patrol method works.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Not sure what a "floating" den leader is but if it is a den leader that is willing to take on a different den each year that's good. I'd advise not being a den leader and commissioner for the same Pack but there is no rule against it (commissioner should be your primary role). Good luck!

Maybe Mr. Smith will use the same defense that Pete Townsend, lead guitarist of the Who used, he was conducting research on child pornography.

The BSA requires that two signatures be needed on any check drawn from the unit account. - BW, Would you let me know the source of that requirement? I agree that that is an excellent accounting practice but I was not aware it was a requirement. Troop Ledger is a S/W resource that can handle Scout Accounts.(This message has been edited by acco40)

My first exposure to the OA was when my oldest son was due to receive his AOL and crossover at our Packs B&G. My wife had arranged for the OA to do the AOL/Crossover ceremony. They just flat out did not show up - no notice or anything. Obviously, this did not make a great first impression. My next exposure was when the same son was called out (I was not there, something I regret immensely to this day) at summer camp and then later had his ordeal. He was only 11 but had completed a year plus four months of Scouting and was already a Star Scout. His exposure to the older Scouts was a great benefit to him. Fast forward to a year later and I became a member. My older son sealed his membership on my Ordeal Weekend. The next year, he attended my brotherhood ceremony. He has felt great pride being first and "helping" his old man learn the things necessary to become a full member. He attends most meetings, conclaves, etc. I do not (they are held concurrently with Roundtable and as a SM, my priorities are elsewhere and he needs a Scouting "unit" with no parent present). He has greatly benefitted from his membership and has participated in ceremonies, elections, etc. Other boys in the troop have not attended anything at all since their Ordeal. They don't get anything out of it (I wonder why). Like most things in life, you get out of it what you put in. Our Lodge could use better Elongomats (sp?), but all in all we have an excellent Lodge (Lodge #29, the best in all OA!). To cut to the chase, I'm not so much proud of my Arrowman status but am very proud of my son's development and involvement in the OA. This summer, my younger son is scheduled to be called out (shhh! don't tell him!). I'll be there!

That is why God invented Patrol outings! When potential Troop parents visit our troop I tell them about the advantages and disadvantages of troop sizes. Some families look for small troops so that the parents can put "their stamp" on things. Others look to big troops so the parents can blend into the woodwork. Many use troop size and as an indicator of quality. We are both blessed and cursed to have a plethora of Boy Scout units in close proximity to us. What most parents don't look at is the facilities of the CO. Does the meeting place put size restrictions on troop size? A unit can always purchase more tents, bigger trailers, etc. We have unitsin our area that do limit their size. Bigger is not always better. But, when limiting size, one should limit number of boys, not allow boys but not their parents. Face it. Does a 16 or 17 year old boy want to go on the same type of camping trip or outing as an 11 year old? Maybe the same location but not do the same activities. Remember, patrols come together to make a troop. Troops don't subdivide into patrols.

First, a couple of questions. Who bought the book in the first place? What we do is the following. All books are volunarily donated to the troop (paid for by individuals). We require a $5.00 deposit to check out the book. If the book is lost, damaged, etc. - no problem. We then have enough money to buy a new one. If the book is returned undamaged, the $5.00 is returned to the Scout. This teaches responsibility for borrowers, organizational skills to the Librarian and provides a "free" service to some.

"A little while back I was shocked when I heard that one of the better troops in the District was cutting a meeting out, they went from 4 meetings a month down to 3. When I met the SM he told me that he cut a meeting out so he could spent that new time working with the Patrol Leaders and hold a PLC meeting." Yikes! That is what we do. After months of trying to hold PLC meetings and getting poor attendance I suggested the above. We meet on Mondays {as all good troops do :-) } and the Monday after an outing we have hold the PLC. Attendance has picked up. I've also brought pop (soda to some, Coke to many Georgians) and pizza on occasion. In my view the PLC members are still to passive. They are waiting to take their cue from the adults. Yes they are young (SPL - 14, ASPL - 13, 4 PLs - 14, 16, 12 and 12) but they should bring something to the table and not sit passively. It is getting better. One of the highlights of being a SM is getting to witness the personal growth of the boys. One thing I've noticed is that the parents of the boys seem to be much more interested in Johnny's advancement and not his leadership/organizational skills. For me it is just the opposite.

Any organization who professes to be "moral" and "just" a la the BSA, Catholic Church, US Senate, US President, etc. and then has a member deemed the opposite - Mr. Smith, Catholic Priests, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, etc. - will take on potshots from outsiders and many of the insiders will feel guilt. First, organizations don't have morals - people do. Second, many people make up these organizations. These individuals are not infallible. Now some of these organizations are big business, i.e. the BSA and the Catholic Church, and rely on public and private contributions for support. Stories like these, fairly or unfairly, affect these donations. That is a fact. Hopefully, this individual did nothing more than view these photos and did not contribute financially or worse, try and engage with any minors. I feel no shame in this, just sadness.

What, nothing for the Midwestern Bob White? :-)

Agreed, but to answer your question .... The SPL and ASPL don't belong to a patrol. In our troop, the adults function as a separate patrol on our outings. That serves two purposes. One, allows me to keep parents and non-trained leaders busy. As SM, I'm the PL of that patrol. If I see adults getting to involved with the boys, I re-direct them. Since we do our own cooking and clean-up, we also give, as an enticement, the SPL and ASPL the opportunity to eat with us. This is seen as a perk (we eat better) but it also gives me a chance to interact with what should be my main focal area. It also keeps the SPL and ASPL away from the PLs. As soon as an SPL or ASPL enters the domain of a youth patrol they tend to usurp the athority of the PL. Not by any overt means but think of when a General meets with a squad. Do you think the squad is going to look to the squad leader or to the General for direction! Now, lets say you only have one patrol in your troop. I would have a PL only and no SPL. Or, it the youth prefer, instead of a PL and APL, have a SPL nad ASPL (i.e. no PL). Good luck! By the way, one thing I've noticed of many shrinking troops is that they don't emphasize the patrol method.

I was very lucky to have a patrol mate who was a fantastic wood worker. As our patrol totem, we designed (and he made) a totem with our course name, a Bear paw print in the middle with the initials of three patrol members to the right and three to the left of the paw print. On top, in the place of honor, were the initials of our troop guide. Of course, we made a token for him too. He was a unique individual. He was asked to become a SM soon after he reached Eagle! Not too many Scoutmasters in their early twenties! By the time he was our WB TG, he had been an adult Scouter for close to 50 years. P.S. Another gift you can give him is to complete your ticket.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Proud Eagle, your statement, "The instructions for the elections specificially mention there is to be no discussion about the Scouts being considered for election." piqued my interest. Could you let us know where you obtained this information? It is my understanding that Scoutmasters have the authority to approve/disapprove who may be on the ballot for OA. That is, a Scout who met the 1st Class and camping (total and long term) requirements can still be "vetoed" by the SM (prevented from being on the ballot). As SM, I like to rely upon the judgement of the youth and have not given any vetoes. However, I was dismayed at our troops past few election choices. This year, as I announced to the troop who met the rank and camping requirements I also gave a generic speech on the goals of the OA and what it was about (with the OA election reps permission). I then handed out the participation/attendance records of the boys under consideration. Did I overstep my bounds?

As SM, I sign-off on requirements on outings. No book, no sign-off. That pretty much reinforces the "suggestion" that the boys bring their BS Handbook. And yes, I bought my own but alas with no signatures! What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Okay, let me give you a real life Unit Commisssioner example. Garnered from my visits to a Pack (Pack meetings, committee meetings, etc.) I notice that one den has decided that it wants to meet once a month for four hours instead of weekly for one hour. The den is for Wolves (2rd graders). I casually mention that for this age group, mostly 7 yr olds, their attention span may make it difficult to hold four hours of productive meetings. After hearing about time factors, etc. and that everyone like it the way it is I don't push the issue any further but do report it up the chain of command (ADC => DC). A year later, the den has shrunk by 30%. Same goes for the next year. Bottom line, a problem was reported but reporting a problem was only half (or less) of the problem. It boils down to what Eamonn, Bob White, myself and others have said - What does one do with leaders who know the "rules" but choose not to follow them?

Kentucky Eagle got it right. A Scout becomes eligible for election (1st Class rank or higher, met camping requirement), if elected is considered an Ordeal Candidate (and usually publicly only after the call-out), if the Scout completes his Ordeal he becomes an Ordeal Member of the OA (first real membership in the OA which will continue as long as he pays his dues), may seal his membership if he fulfills certain requirements and therefore becomes a brotherhood member and then, if elected, may become a Vigil member.

BW, I must admit that the "geography" point was overlooked by me. I am fortunate that I live in a "Scouting dense" environment. Within a five mile radius of my house there are at least eight healthy Boy Scout troops. There are a few unhealthy ones too. The competition does make the troops "try harder" so to speak. Another problem that I see in Scouting is the great diversity of the Scouters. Don't get me wrong, diversity is not in and of itself a bad thing but when you get Scouters, some without a high school education, some with graduate degrees, some with no training, some with years of training, some with hardly any Scouting experience, some with over 20 years of experience - it makes it difficult to create a one size fits all roundtable. Just like in a troop meeting where we breakout into patrol corners and the "regular" patrols do different things than the NSPs, maybe roundtable should be similar. Personally, I go to roundtable more for networking with my fellow Scouters (and to drive my son to the OA meeting) than anything else. Now, I agree with something I think you (BW) said in a post long ago - Roundtable staff should fall under training and not under the commissioner umbrella. I think we should do more formal training at Roundtable. I would also like to see Cub Packs interact more with other Cub Packs and the same for Troops. To many units act as their own independent fiefdoms. As for the CO/CORs - our Troop's COR is a name only. He is employed by the CO but lives close to 30 miles away so he never gets a chance to interact with the unit. We've invited him to COHs, meetings, etc. but he does not attend. The IH works six days a week and low and behold his only day off is our troop meeting night so we don't see much of him either. I try to stay in touch but I still would like to seea better bond between the unit and the CO. As for my own UC work, I currently have three Cub Scout packs that I serve. Two I work with quite closely, one only superficially. I don't impose myself on units that don't really want my help (or more specifically, my observation). I do try to track their health from behind the scenes. One thing I would like the National Council to put more emphasis on is to explain to units what the function of a UC is. Too many view us a district or council spies and not as helpful friends of the unit.

Why do you suppose it is that doctors don't make house calls any longer? It's because they can do more good for the patient if the patient comes to where the doctor and the doctor's resources are. First, I don't buy that at all. The reasons doctors don't make house calls is for convenience and dollars - for themselves. Go to any poor area of the country and you'll find doctors that make house calls. Second, making roundtable a requirement sounds like the disgruntled unit leaders that want to make attendance mandatory for their scouts. I could pull a "Bob White" and proclaim that run roundtables correctly and leaders will attend. I'm a unit leader. I'm a Unit Commissioner. Is that kosher? No. Is it desired? Depends. If I step down as a commissioner - who will take my place? Anyone? For heaven's sake, our district commissioner is a unit leader himself. I think he does a fine job at both. One of the problems I see is BSA leaders, professionals and volunteers who should know better, capitulating to other Scouters about the program. I attended MB counselor training (for the fourth time)last night. One of the trainees asked if it was okay for a Scoutmaster to disallow parents, who were certified MB counselors, from instructing their sons. Instead of saying no, the trainer mentioned that it was not supposed to be that way but he didn't want to step on any toes and tell a Scoutmaster how to run his troop. That is a pandemic problem in Scouting today. For fear of losing boys or volunteers, we tolerate bad leadership. It is not just a matter of training. I've had well trained leaders just flat out refuse to follow the program because they don't agree with it. We tolerate that!! We shouldn't.

Our council has an annual spring Mix 'n Fix. The purpose is to prepare the council owned camps for the upcoming "busy" season. They ask for volunteers to provide labor, some skilled, and to donate materials. Such projects as: replacement of a section of roof and walls with water damage, painting, electrical, wood trim, and plumbing, caulking, masonry, soffit and fascia work, cleaning, brush removal, etc. are included. We volunteer our services as a troop - we are not charged a camping fee (normally about $2.00/head/night) and volunteers are provided lunch. The question is do we provide service for the lunch and the "free" camping? No. We don't partake in the lunch but we do take advantage of the camping. I count the hours the boys work (usually clearing brush and general clean-up and maybe some painting for the older boys) as service. Just like my Scouting service that I provide - I count that as service even though the IRS grants me some deductions. I didn't volunteer to be a Scouter for the IRS deductions. Now I agree, some may go overboard and it may be more of a case of bartering instead of providing a service. Letting the SM make the call is an easy solution. (This message has been edited by acco40)

Go in with an open mind, friendly disposition, well rested and don't expect miracles. If you've ever taken any corporate level team-building siminars or courses don't give away any of the surprises. Have fun and keep in touch with your patrol mates. Oh, and one last thing pray you are not a Beaver and feel blessed is you are a Bear.

When filling out the activities section in TroopMaster, there is a box that can be checked on whether or not to include the camping (toward advancement?). The 2nd Class requirements is self explanatory. For the OA, which just has a "number of nights for camping" including short term and long term, the answer is a little more vague. Our previous Scoutmaster did not count any cabin camping for "credit" toward the OA requirement. The current SM (me) has. Both of us are correct. To count or not to count for the purpose of the OA lies with the discretion of the Scoutmaster.

When most speak of discrimination they really mean prejudice. They are in error because the terms have vastly different meanings. When someone states that they don't discriminate - ask them how they chose their date partners! I have a radical notion in that I think the BSA should judge others based on their actions, not thoughts.