David CO

7 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

I shake hands with every Scout when they complete a BOR, at ECOH's and other times when congratulations are in order.  Am I in trouble?  (I am mostly joking, but not 100%.)

My students and scouts don't like shaking hands. They regard it as terribly old-fashioned and hopelessly out of date. They tell me that only old people want to shake hands. 

9 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Point taken, CO's touching policies as applied to scout units are on topic.

Regarding those policies, I have found church CO's to be stricter with their scout units than the church school was with their sports team. 

I have found the most restrictive policies have been in regard to school playgrounds. Our public elementary school forbids physical contact between students on the playground. No touch games.

So far, these no touch policies haven't been applied to the scouting program. I'm not sure how long that will last.

17 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Leeway for what?  That is not a "challenge" - I just am not sure what you are saying.

The moderator's instructions to stay on topic, adult touching in scouting, was in response to a member's post about schools prohibiting physical contact.

Since a CO's policies will often apply to the unit, I think some general discussion of changing policies in churches, schools, YMCA's, and other groups that commonly charter scout units, is relevant to the issue in this thread. 

As always, I will abide by the judgement of the moderators. 

54 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Let's keep on topic, adult touching in Scouting.

Scout units are owned by Chartered Organizations, and the CO's policies on physical contact will often apply to the adult leaders in the scout unit. This is true of my unit. My CO's policies are even more restrictive than those of BSA.

Can we have a little bit of leeway here? No argument, just asking.

17 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

There is to reason to physically manhandle a kid at a Pack meeting and it's wrong. 

I am willing to listen to people who feel that we need a different policy on physical contact. I might even encourage the discussion. I like discussion.

That said, I think you are going to far when you say that it is wrong. 

There are many people who prefer that teachers, coaches, and scout leaders keep their hands off the kids. I don't think they are in the majority, but there are a significant number of them. 

I once worked in a special education program that had a strict no physical contact policy.  I thought it was odd, but I discovered that I didn't need to use physical contact in order to do my job. I could do just as well without it.

Over the past decade, my school has been incrementally heading in the direction of a no physical contact policy. We're not all the way there yet, but we're getting pretty darn close. 

I don't know if this is going to be the way of the future, or if the pendulum will eventually swing back to a more moderate position. 

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

One thing I think I have over them is experience.  

Yes, but even a 21 year old, newly appointeded scoutmaster outranks the most experienced ASM in the unit. 

13 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

This topic is extremely important to me 

It is probably important to them as well. They have kids too.

Got it. You want to convince the other adults to come over to your point of view. 

If they are coming in to the meeting with the same goal, to convince you to come over to their point of view, then you are both out of luck. 

8 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

What I have said the last 10 times this exact same subject was discussed, let's pretend I'm saying it again.

Are you an eagle bored of review?

3 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

How about those who prefer leaders keep their hands off the kids? 

That is a very good point, and I think it deserves more discussion.

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Yes,  please stick to the topic. 

Which one? You keep raising so many different issues. Would you like us to focus on just one of them?

15 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

That's answering someone who is overly sensitive and tries to find fault or argument with just about anything. 

Are these personal attacks really necessary?

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

I am not saying they are any less of a Scout. I am saying that the program is not a robust as the full Scouting program. In my opinion, the only way to get the full appreciation for the Scouting program is using the Patrol Method.

Nice backpedaling. I still don't agree with you, but I find this statement far less offensive than the first. 

31 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Arguments for the Patrol Method: 

1. It is the only way to do Scouting. Anything else is NOT Scouting.

I know a number of current and former Lone Scouts, myself included, who would be highly offended by that blanket statement.

25 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I see Eagle94's situation as the result of a SM who doesn't understand patrol method and/or doesn't know how to teach patrol method to the adults.

Really? I took it a completely different way.

I thought we were talking about an upcoming discussion that would be at the policy making level, with the unit committee and perhaps the CO involved. Maybe I misunderstood.

If this is to be a discussion between the scoutmaster and his ASM's and parent volunteers, that would be an entirely different matter. Yes, the SM is in charge of training and directing his volunteers.

I just looked back at the original post, and it doesn't actually say at what level the discussion will take place. I may have jumped to a wrong conclusion.

I am tempted to respond, but I suspect that this is the point where a certain moderator would step in and tell us to stop arguing about who said what and get back to discussing the issues. 

14 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So to prepare for this discussion, I want your thoughts, times you've been in this situation, and how you countered the arguments for adult interference. I am one of those who cannot think fast on my feet, but rather need to think ahead and come up with points deliberatively. So your help is welcomed. Thanks in advance. 

I have been in this situation, but I didn't always counter the arguments. I sometimes supported them.

If you really want my thoughts on your upcoming discussion, I would start by suggesting that you not characterize their positions with inflammatory rhetoric (like "adult interference"). This will only cause them to entrench.

Try to focus as much as you can on specific issues. You may find that some of those who disagree with you on the broader issues may find common ground with you on the specifics. If you agree on something, there is no need to remind them that you disagree on other things.

This is just a skirmish. Don't try to fight the whole war in one discussion.

1 hour ago, Back Pack said:

If any CO micromanaged a unit like that they’d have no guys in the troop. If my unit elected someone and the church said sorry you’d see guys leave the troop for another one next day. That’s just stupid if they do that. 

It is not nice to say stupid. I don't think my Church is stupid.

It is not micromanagement for the CO to have the final approval or disapproval of decisions. My Church has always done it that way for all of its programs, not just the scout unit. 

Most of our boys join our unit expressly because it is a church-based unit with an active Chartered Organization. 

10 minutes ago, Back Pack said:

Are you saying a charter org can tell the boys who to elect and how to elect their leaders?

That's not exactly how I would put it. The CO has the final authority to ratify or nullify any or all unit decisions. The CO owns the unit.

The Chartered Organization owns the unit. How do you do your job (as DC) while recognizing the important role and authority of the CO.

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

It's THEIR decision! Period. 

Not entirely. All members of a unit, youth and adult, serve at the pleasure of the Chartered Organization. The CO has the final word.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Piggy backing on David CO's comment, how can we get adults to realize that there is nothing wrong with a Scout not holding XYZ position?

You can't. 

My troop knows how the CO feels about over-emphasizing the importance of ranks, patches, and POR's, but that has never stopped some people from doing it.   People will believe what they want to believe.

There have been times when I have been tempted to disqualify a boy from an unwanted advancement or a POR (just to get the parent off his back), but I really couldn't do that and still have a good scout program. It would upset the whole apple cart.

I have seen it done in sports, when a boy asks the coach to cut him from a team because he doesn't really want to play, but we couldn't do that sort of thing in scouting.

59 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

He ran for PL, AND VOTED FOR THE OTHER PERSON! (emphasis) I know this because he wrote his ballot, gave it to the SM, and had to leave due to family issues. Again HE VOTED FOR THE OTHER PERSON!  

First of all, I am surprised and disappointed to hear that the SM shared that information with you. A secret ballot is supposed to be secret.

When a boy runs for a POR he doesn't really want, it is often because the parent is pushing him. It is no disgrace for a boy to enjoy scouting without holding a top leadership position. POR's and rank advancement are voluntary, and not every boy wants to do it.

I think it is sad that a boy would put himself up for a POR to please his parents (or anyone else), and then try his best to lose the election. 

10 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Gasoline was $.19 to $.25/gallon when I was a first a PL in 1957.  That's the same nominal price as 1918 and cost the same in 1957 as 2 - 2.5 loaves of store sandwich bread  (all taken from campout budget, Eagle Patrol) .  Adjust for inflation, and gasoline today is about the same as at the high end ($.25) back when I was first a PL. 

Just so you know, the stores will slice the bread now.