David CO

I think it's an exciting day.  Like it or not, this is a historic moment in the program.  We all have a front seat role for this.

Yes, it's like having a deck seat on the Titanic.

Yes, Boy Scouting is dead.

I'm not saying that the business of BSA will go under. I'm sure that BSA will continue to operate in some shape, manner, or form. But the Boy Scouts as I knew it is dead.

I went through the same heartbreak a few years back with the YMCA when it stopped being Young, Men, or Christian. 

This announcement has hit me hard. I feel like a real chump for having ever supported them.

Let's suppose that there is another complication to NJ's legal exam question. What if some of the parents itemized their deductions and declared the $50 as a donation to the unit. Is the unit now a part owner of the property? 

Joint ownership schemes have too many complications and causes too many problems. They should be avoided like the plague.

The troop has bought all the tents for the boys. This tent was a large 8-10 man tepee that was bought because they saw another unit using one at Trappers. This headache came about because one of the 2 remaining dads of the patrol was getting bent out of shape because dad in patrol C, whom he does not like, kid was going to get to use that tent "for free" while he (or his son) had to buy it. We had 2 unreasonable dads that do not like each other being little punks. I want to get a policy so moving forward it is spelled out what will happen with any equipment. With all the all the time and money this dad has put into scouting with his 3 boys, this was not about the $50 he spent 3-4 years ago

The policy you need is simple. No personal property may be stored with the unit's gear. Make it short and sweet.

If the boys remove the property, and the unit no longer has physical possession, then the unit leaders will have no need to get involved in the "headache" of who owns it.

If the boys should choose to leave the property in the possession of the unit, then the unit owns it.

Let the 2 dads take their argument somewhere else.

Just say no.

I disagree with Fred. I think it is a very bad idea for patrols to buy their own gear.

My main concern is that a unit could end up with one patrol, made up of wealthy kids, who can afford to buy better stuff than the rest of the unit. I wouldn't have wanted my unit to be divided up into rich patrols and poor patrols.

My second concern is that a patrol might have a boy who really can't afford to contribute to the joint purchase, but who feels compelled to do so by social pressure from the other members of the patrol. 

My third concern is that collecting money for the patrol might negatively impact the unit's fundraising efforts. Why donate to your boy's unit when you could give the funds directly to his patrol?

The idea that boys should have to pay a premium over their regular fees and dues in order to get in to an elite patrol is offensive to me.

It would be really nice if there were a well done bit of training that a UC could point the SM to that described how it should be done. That way we could avoid this discussion about over stepping boundaries. Unfortunately, such training doesn't exist. What's left is the UC trying to find the right balance. I think it's great. Rather than perfection the goal should meerly be improvement. Just a hunch but the SM, if he has a vision of what boy led means, isn't sharing it.

 

There's nothing wrong with anyone having that discussion with him. I think what people are worried about is the tone of that discussion. If it's confrontational than of course it will not work. But if it's more along the lines of I see problems and your leadership is needed and what is your vision, plan, goals so the adults can best help then it's quite possible the SM will welcome the help.

Perhaps. But I am quite certain that he will not appreciate the "help" if he hears secondhand that the UC has been speaking to the SPL and COR behind his back.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, but to "stop doing it" means to say no to the SPL who asked for help and advice. Not a good option either. I am caught is territory that I should not be in, I did direct the SPL to speak to the SM, but he also asked for help. I am just trying to figure out how to do that without upsetting the apple cart.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. Say no to the SPL who asked for your help. It is your only good option.

@@jwest09 -- yes bad choice of words. perhaps, "help the SPL to get more breathing room to run the program with less SM control" would have been a better phrasing. I know I am treading in very dangerous waters here, which is why I came here for advice on the next steps. Yes, I am planning on having the conversation with the SM about the SPL's concerns, I am just looking for the advice of how to walk into this minefield without blowing everything up.

 

Edited to add:

I have also noticed the slow ebb of boy leadership since the SM has taken over, just did not realize until the conversation with the SPL how far the pendulum had swung

Yes, you are treading in very dangerous waters here. My advice is to stop doing it. It is not just a bad choice of words. It is a bad choice of actions.

Well, ok, I'll amend that to say that if there are things to be cleaned up, someone has to do it. It might be a lot of work, or it may just be making sure that whatever trash has been produced is disposed of properly. I was reacting to Eagle's comment that kids were saying they don't want to "cook or do KP", the latter of which suggests in his troop, there are generally pots, pans, utensils, etc. to be washed.

Yes, I get that. But rather than complaining about the boys not wanting to do the work, maybe he should be reexamining his program. Maybe it is getting to be too much work.

Boys will only do as much work as they are willing to do. After that, they'll quit the program.

Including cooking. And while nobody likes washing pots and pans, the boys need to understand (and I think most of ours do) that if people are going to eat, people also need to clean up afterwards.

Not necessarily.

We all know that some menu choices require a lot of clean up. Others make clean up a snap. So long as they are making reasonably healthy choices, I don't mind if a patrol opts for the no-pots-and-pans route. I'll even teach them how to do it.

If your boys are leaving because they think your program is too much work, then maybe it is.

Not every boy who enjoys Cub Scouts will like Boy Scouting. They are two very different experiences.

I wouldn't put too much blame on the Webelos leaders. Boys know their own minds. You can't transition them into a program or activity they simply don't like.

If a boy thinks camping is too much work, move on, you've lost him.  Boy Scouting is for boys who think camping is fun.

Good. You already know the direction you want to go, and you have the authority to lead the unit. Now the question is how do you get there.

My unit had a half and half mix of parents and non-parents on our committee. This was by design, not by happenstance. We actively recruited within our CO for non-parent volunteers. 

We also wanted our unit committee to mirror the entire social economic make up of our CO. We weren't looking for just white collar professionals. We wanted blue collar workers, too.

We got the word out that we weren't just rounding up "the usual suspects" in our search for our unit leadership. We were looking well beyond that.

What kind of mix are you looking for?

Hi JoeLike,

I am assuming that there is actually a "paper" committee already in place. You cannot charter or recharter a unit with BSA unless you have committee members. The first thing you should do is to find out who is listed on your roster as the unit committee members. 

If these people are willing to serve as a committee and carry out their duties as unit committee members, your problem is solved.  

It is not your place to appoint a committee. That's the job of the COR. If you feel that your unit needs to have more "active" members on the committee, I would suggest that you contact the COR with your concerns.

I think it is reasonable for parents to expect that when they sign their boy up for an intro to backpacking course, with adult supervision, that their boy would not be taking any "non-program" hikes without adult supervision.

I am not an expert on backpacking, but I am an expert on swimming.  If a parent signed up their boy for my intro to swimming course, I wouldn't let him get anywhere near the water without an expert, adult swim instructor directly supervising him.

This is a question of expectations. The parents had a reasonable expectation that their son would be learning how to backpack under adult supervision.

Well, it is Friday afternoon at summer camp so people are tired of a week with each other. We don't know what the whole week was like or generally what the relationships are between the various characters. So maybe asking whether it's okay isn't as appropriate as asking whether it's likely and what should happen afterward. I mean, from the face of it it sounds a bit unreasonable but who's always reasonable? Maybe the best scenario is that this is an opportunity for a scout to see a bit of reality after he graduates into the real world.

Another outcome might be for the three ASM's to simply take their kids out of scouting and join the local sports programs, where their time and efforts will be better appreciated.

I would suggest that some people on this forum look inward to figure out why they feel the need to ascribe negative psychological traits to those who disagree with them. 

Is there really any difference between this sort of thing and making a direct personal insult?

Let's try to keep this discussion in "Working with Kids".

 

I find the present day conventional wisdom regarding disciplining kids in front of others somewhat odd, as this was standard procedure when I was young.  Sure you would take it personal and it would hurt, but the rest of group was reminded your transgression would not be tolerated - a lesson for all present.  It was also a double incentive not to screw-up again as you did not want the punishment and worse the group humiliation.

 

Times change.

Yep, times change.

If we were scolded at school or scouts, we hoped that our parents wouldn't find out about it. 

There is an old axiom that says that silence implies consent.

If a transgression is committed publicly, and the entire unit is already aware of it, I see very little purpose in keeping the chastisement private. Likewise, if the transgression is done privately, and the unit is not already aware of it, I see little purpose in making the chastisement public. 

It is the transgressor who chooses to make his actions public. He has only himself to blame if his chastisement is made equally public. 

My main concern is that remaining silent in front of the other boys might lead some of them to believe that the transgressor has our ambivalence, if not our actual consent, for his transgression. 

Even so, I think the public remarks should always remain focused on the transgression, not on the boy. 

I am not an expert on comparative religion. I only study my own.

I do believe that there are differences in the ways that different religions practice chastisement and repentance. I am told that some religions have public confessions. I don't know if their members feel degraded and humiliated by the experience, or if they feel uplifted and renewed. I don't know. I really don't know.

Either way, I am not going to criticize them.

My religion doesn't tell parents how to discipline their children. It neither requires or forbids spanking, for example. So, I don't think of this debate regarding the public chastisement of children as being a religion issue.

I do understand that this may not be the same for people of other religions. One religion might require something, while another religion might forbid it. Others might say nothing at all.

I think it is wrong to assume that all religious people must share the same viewpoint on public chastisement, so I am going to leave religion out of it. 

You have issues. Sorry that your faith and experience in Scouting tells you yelling at someone in front of others is okay. Not sure what church or faith you are but I am pretty sure they don't teach that. I've been nice but I'm done responding to you. Go put your hate and issues on someone else.

This is the second time you have brought religion into this conversation.  I didn't speculate on or criticize your religion, so I ask that you don't criticize mine. No, that is not being nice. It is very definitely not being nice.

Wow and I thought my generation was needlessly snarky. Look it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know you don't scream at or demean anyone in front of others. Especially other kids. Would you like to get yelled at in front of 30-40 people? I was a Boy Scout so I know the Oath and Law. I go to church so I have been taught to treat others with kindness. I have good parents and family who have taught me to be nice to people. I hope when I am a parent I will treat others with respect. I can't believe that you don't think the average parent in scouting doesn't know that you don't yell at kids in front of other kids. I'm glad the adults in my life knew better.

Apparently you haven't been watching the television set. Half the country supported a president who is rough in the way he talks.  He sounds a lot like us. I actually like that. A lot of people do.

I don't know what the average parent thinks, but I do know that a lot of them would disagree with you. Most of the people in my circle of family, friends, and acquaintances would disagree with you. 

I know that you feel superior to me. I know that you feel that your parents are superior to my parents. I know that you feel that your background is superior to my background.

The thing that galls me is not that you think the adults in your life knew better. You think that you and the adults in your life are better.

Ok how about good parenting skills? You just don't call out a kid in front of other kids. I learned that in NYLT. Are you telling me adults don't know that?

Please, do tell all of us parents and grandparents about good parenting. After all, you attended NYLT.  I would absolutely love to hear all about it.

A lot of folks get their first "counseling skills" at wood badge. Even then, the rough edges (i.e., their degree from the counseling "School of Hard Knocks") might take some time to wear off.

 

Sometimes you can find the tool made right for the nut, other times you have to fit the nut to the tool you can find.

I don't want it to wear off. I am proud of my working class background. I like my rough edges.

A lot of my scouts liked it, too. They got enough of that phony-baloney soft-voiced counseling at school and church.  They wanted their scoutmaster to be real, and talk like a real guy to them.

I didn't counsel scouts, I just talked to them.

I doubt many people would dress down a scout in front of the troop especially their own son. Those who wild should consider learning effective counseling skills. I'm only 19 and I know that's wrong.

Effective counseling skills?   Ha, ha, ha.  Does this take place (in your unit) before yoga class or after group therapy?