desertrat77

I have one Trained patch, earned in '85...it's a bit ragged, but with any luck at all, it will be the first and last Trained patch I'll ever need.

I'm not anti-award, but I'm not a big proponent of the adult awards either. Too much emphasis. Seen plenty of scouters--particularly district and council level--that are quite affected with their own achievements and not the scouts' advancement.

...and I considered it to be a good thing, by the way.

OGE, as a comrade BSA beret wearer back in the day, I still recall how the beret retained the smoke smell from campfire. 100 percent wool, the thing would still smell like smoke a couple weeks after getting home.

I don't think this is camping. Though camping can take on many forms, there should be an element of adventure and a connection with nature.

Eagledad, by "these awards" I mean awards in general, with the requisite formal dinner, should go primarily to people that serve at the troop, crew, pack, and ship level. Many adults serve both district and their unit faithfully over the years, but are often overlooked for DAOM, etc. The awards seem go to the newbie/1 or 2 year-experience district-only types, or they'll go to the long-term district person who is more interested in what's happening at the district, and is either indifferent or antagonistic towards unit-level stuff. Concur with your observations about nominations and the limiting factors thereof. In my day job, I'm responsible for executing my wing's recognition program, and I see similar issues: no submission for deserving folks; submissions for marginal performers that don't deserve any recognition; poorly written nominations that in no way give due credit to the contributions of the nominee; nominations that are out-and-out lies; and the list goes on. Root causes are the same: poor publicity, unclear deadline, confusing nom process, ill will from the past about perceived snubs, too much paperwork, indifference, you name it. In all cases, proactive, impartial leadership is the key to fixing it, and a sound respect for the men and women in the trenches. It is easy to get jaded regarding any kind of recognition program...emotion and ego can get the best of even the most mature person.

Acco, thanks, I agree--not enough frankness these days.

jblake congrats on your District Award of Merit! Your long wait shows a common problem, and Wakwib's observations are right on the money. The lion's share of these awards should go to scouters at the unit level. This would encourage alot of current district and council types to serve in the unit instead.

acco40, no, I don't consider my formal reports concerning the health of the troop as snitching. I give frank assessments and recommended courses of action. But I do not report every squabble, or every fumble, that's what I meant.

Jhankins, superb post. Having done the UC duty a few times I'm tracking with jhankin's template. I help the troop any way I can. I'm not a snitch. I'm YP trained and serve during troop events as I'm needed. I'll camp with the troop during camporees and a few days of summer camp, but I make it clear the SM is the adult in charge, not me--I work for him/her. I try to earn my keep--wash dishes, chop firewood, whathaveyou. Listening is indeed the most important aspect of UC duties. If there is red tape at the district or council level, I'll take that on for the troop. That said, I have many aspects of UC performance to work on. A UC doesn't have to have prior experience at the unit level, but it sure helps. My past experiences as an ASM and SM are beneficial when I encourage or make suggestions. If your troop as a wealth of knowledge in current and former adult leaders, that is wonderful. Unfortunately, it's not common, so the UC can help when leaders are new or struggling. Unfortunately, there are many vacancies in the UC ranks, around the BSA. And many UCs on the roster are in fact just names on the roster. Others act like The Sole Keepers of the Spirit of Scouting, kinda turning people off.

Basementdweller, I understand your point about participation...but not all GOBs are the same. You and your comrades represent the positive end of the spectrum...uniters, not dividers. The opposite, and with shades of gray in between, are GOB networks that make no bones their self perceived elite status. As a military guy, I get to see a new council ever couple years. To stir the pot a bit, here are some hallmarks of the negative end of the GOB system: - No WB beads? Then your opinion doesn't count (no tall tale, I've seen this) - You were not part of the council (or lodge) folklore back in the day (didn't work on staff for the beloved camp director of all time three decades ago, didn't receive 1 of the 50 first edition lodge flaps 25 yrs ago, you didn't play water polo in the old swimming pool that used to be by the Pawnee campsite, etc.) - We've always done day camp/annual registration/camporee in this manner/this location for X years, so hush up with your crazy ideas At this point in life, I chuckle inwardly when I see these things. I know eventually I'll get orders and move, so I try find my place in the council and do my part. And I'll always gravitate to the positive GOBs that fortunately exist in each council. But the tribal behavior is indeed interesting to watch. The irony is, negative GOBs can't see the damage they are causing on scouting. They may love the program more than anyone, I'll give them that. But failing to adapt to new ideas, and by not welcoming new scouters into the fold, the program does not thrive. Instead of the program being for the scouts, it's all about the GOBs. Another sad point: negative-end-of-spectrum GOBs always overestimate what they contribute.

Clarification regarding my comment about a scout owning at least 50 percent of his fate in scouting.... Whatever a scout gets out of the scouting program is determined by how much effort he puts forth. He's got to meet scouting in the middle, ie, do his part...mom/dad/SM can't do it all for him, whether it be Eagle or earning money to go to Philmont, or earn Lifesaving MB at camp. If this results in lost opportunity for the scout, well, it's a darn good lesson learned for adulthood.

Gunny, well said!

The scout owns at least 50 percent of his fate in scouting. There are times to push someone to a place called Success, and a time to say "I, as SM, have done my part to set you up for success...now you've got to do your part."

If we require training, regardless of method, it should be high quality, respect the trainees' previous experience, and their time. I think we lose many potential leaders when they realize the time needed to fulfill training requirements. They may attend a course or two and be turned off. I know the suffering I've experienced over the years at various council training events. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a trained leader. But scouting should take a serious look at the amount of time expended, and what topics actually need to be taught. Folks know when their time is being wasted. On-line stuff has its limitations, but I'd prefer to knock out some training, on-line, after work when it's quiet around the house. Especially if it means I can have a Saturday back to spend with the family, rather than spending the day at the local scout camp enduring powerpoint death marches. Some training needs to be old school/in person...if we are selective in what those courses are, it will benefit all. Cadres can focus better, and attendees can schedule their lives better.

Can't say for sure without the original text, but I'll bet the intent is "No moms who want to baby little Johnny." Gotta have a "safe environment to fail"...my first campouts as a scout were profound, permanent lessons in how not to camp! I made every mistake in the book, and paid for it in the form of hunger, cold and poor human relations. Invaluable memories! A scout isn't going to get the full experience with mom present. Can't just pick on moms...dads do the same thing. I was UC for a scout troop that had a hyper-protective dad. At the last minute, dad couldn't go to camp with his son. I reassured dad that Johnny would do just fine. I stopped by camp the last couple days and Johnny was indeed doing well.

Upon reflection.... Camps that succeed: - Have a sense of tradition (but not exclusionary/snobby/"Oh you weren't here in the summer of 19XX when they inducted the first class of the Royal Order of the Ferocious Ferrets, so you will never really 'belong.'") - Provide quality food, whether prepared in a mess hall or ingredients given for camp cooking - Staffers are respectful to scouts and scouters alike, be they from within council or out of town - Execute programs that challenge scouts Camps that slip: - Never really have an identity...just provide a collection of things to do, and have little sense of their past (or new management scraps certain traditions) - Serve crappy food and make no apology for it - Little/no self critique...programming slips over time, infrastructure sags, but the camp fees continue to climb nonetheless - Rude to adults (years ago, when I was a SM, a youth camp staffer told me at breakfast that adults WILL serve on kp staff, and that I better get in the kitchen and get to work. I gave him some quick courtesy and salesmanship lessons...adults are asked to serve, they aren't told) - Camp staffs that are more concerned with their own enjoyment...the campers are just a pain in the neck Long story short, I think the keys to a good camp are adventure, loyalty and respect. They will positively impact all areas of camp life...human relations, programming, you name it. Folks will want to return year after year.

Eagle92, thanks for sharing your lodge's story, I think that's what the OA is all about. Sorry to say, I think your lodge's sense of service is not common elsewhere. Wish it was.

Wow, twocubdad hit the nail on the head! The only point I'll echo is cheerful service...I see very little in today's OA. Most OA activities seem to be focused inward on patch collections, fellowships, and OA internal politics/issues. The OA should be the first to step up to any tough/dirty job in the council and community...that's leadership. The ordeal isn't a one time event--it's a template of service for ones' entire lifetime.

Jeff H, I agree 100 percent...simplicity is a wonderful quality. Many lodge flaps are "kitchen sink" efforts. Checking out old lodge flaps, I am amazed at how some are so simple, yet sublime.

When I was a scout, the sole tradition our troop had for new Eagles was the presentation of a new folding Buck knife, #112, a popular model in the late '70s. It always an off-the-self item, and it wasn't engraved, and nothing particularly special about it, but it was considered a very cool incentive by the scouts in our troop. Modern day, something I saw a couple years ago, was a family member passing his Eagle medal on to the new Eagle (his nephew). Very powerful. The new Eagle also got a current Eagle kit, but he'll always wear his uncle's Eagle medal with pride, if he chooses to do so.

All great suggestions! In my experience, as a scout and a scouter, the ASPL and SPL dined with the adults. As Mike F pointed out, this allows the PLs to learn some leadership without interference. It's also a signal to the scouts that the ASPL and SPL have different levels of responsibility and authority now. As an SPL in the days of yore, I learned a great deal from the adult scouters during meal time...invaluable mentorship moments. . But each troops' organizational dynamics are different...as each family celebrates holidays differently, with no right or wrong way, so it goes with troop traditions.

More often than not, you'll find the adults to be the root cause of any troop failure. Jealousy, power struggles, financial buffoonery, poor attitude toward kids and scouting in general, laziness, no/poor training, private agendas, focus on scouter politics instead of the welfare of the troop, no camping and/or excessive tail gate camping, no/little participation in district and council events/camps/camporees, and the list goes on. While the troop should be boy led, the adult scouters set the tone, the example, and the vision. Even in the background, their values are transmitted to the scouts, for good or ill.

What's the worse possible thing that could happen? A person buys a restricted item and wears it, even though he/she did not earn it. True, it's dishonorable, and goes against everything we stand for in scouting. But what tangible benefit is an imposter going to extract from wearing ill-gotten beads or medals or whatever? They may gain respect or status they don't deserve. Or they might even be the keynote speaker at an banquet, and score a free prime rib dinner. I don't condone it, but I don't worry about it either. There are no monetary benefits, or special parking places, or anything other perk that comes with Silver Beaver, or Woodbadge, or Eagle Scout. Perhaps it might influence a future employer on a resume, or an acceptance letter on a college app...but I don't think these things are tipping points. It might help, but there must be other solid accomplishments to lend credibility...and if an imposter is going to mention an award he/she didn't earn, they'll probably add other bogus items as well. It's not the insignia that determines a persons' character...the insignia only represents accomplishments that indicate what bearers' character might be. Frauds are always unveiled eventually...they rarely compartmentalize, so their imposter status will exhibit itself eventually in other areas as well. This happens quite frequently, insignia or not. We all have met guys who bragged about being an Eagle, but when you press them with some basic questions (What year did you earn it? What council?) the stammering begins and the conversation ends. The vast majority of scouts and scouters are honorable. The frauds compose such a small percent, I'll bet, that we could just let fate/divine justice/karma find them out.

Jhankins, thanks for the eloquent post! I wish you all the best.