@Grubdad, we're all tryin' to figure out what's goin' on in your program from afar, eh? As you keep sharin' information, we keep updatin' our own thoughts and offerin' new suggestions. Yeh get to take 'em or leave 'em or stew on 'em.
Yeh seem like a fellow who has some vision and leadership ability, who might make a fine Scoutmaster in a few years. With that in mind, let me illustrate how I read your last post (droppin' all the I'm mad at Beavah parts). Feedback can be a gift, eh?
Last fall our Cubs camped with this troop as visitors. Troublemaker #1 and his toadie went next door to a private campground
I've never in my life seen an adult who was good at workin' with youth call a boy a "toadie", eh? That's just not what good scouters do, no matter what a boy has done. So when yeh did this, the message I took from it was that you aren't really used to workin' with a range of youth of this age yet.
in broad daylight and urinated in the middle of it to annoy the families there, which they did. He then lay down on the center line of the adjoining highway to show off.
What I notice is that you are inserting motives - "to annoy the families there", "to show off". I reckon if we're honest, we really don't know the lad's motives, eh? The actual actions were that boys peed in a field and a boy laid down on a road. Given your first bit, I'm not sure how much is the boys' behavior and how much is your view of their behavior because they're Troublemaker #1 and Toadie in your mind, eh? It's missing context, and the context matters. After all, I've laid down on roads and peed in fields.
So my question is whether the lads' Patrol Leader knew, and what he thought about it? The SPL? Other adult leaders who weren't visitors?
At some level, these are actions which could merit relatively strong response, so I'm wonderin' why the SM and other troop leaders chose somethin' less. Was it that they had more information or were less concerned? Or was it that they're conflict adverse when it comes to addressin' youth behavior of this sort?
He mouthed back to several adults including myself, and terrorized many of the kids in our den and the rest of the troop.
Yah, you were a visitor, eh? It wasn't really your role to be talkin' to the lad, and he didn't really know you from Adam. Now, boys shouldn't mouth off to visitin' adults either, though occasionally I've had Patrol Leaders ask an adult politely to mind his own beeswax so that he could handle it as a PL . At the same time, if you copped some attitude with the boy, then yeh invited him to do the same.
How do you think your lad was "terrorized?" Lads who are truly terrorized almost never return, eh?
Then, a month ago he was at an activity with another troop and he and the same accomplice did something so egregious that our SM was contacted about it by their SM, resulting in a reprimand for those two and a lecture to the rest of the troop. I don't know the offense, but it was certainly unacceptable. So I have pretty current experience.
Nah, this isn't "experience", eh? This is hearsay. You weren't on the outing, and you don't know the offense. In the grand scheme of things, it's really very unusual for a new parent in a troop to be bringin' up stuff about a boy that is second hand that way.
Now, it does concern me that someone was lecturin' the whole troop about the behavior of two boys (unless da rest of the troop was in on it, too?).
So you're sendin' up some red flags, eh?
I'm just askin' yeh to take a deep breath and reflect for a bit.
Overall, it sounds like the Scoutmaster might be a bit conflict-adverse, and not quite up to doin' what he should in terms of respondin' to the boys' behaviors. Scoutmasters who are good at addressin' boys' behaviors tend to Praise in Public and Reprimand in Private, eh? Not lecture da whole group. Keep in mind that there's not much yeh can do about that as a new fellow, eh? Folks don't really change their personalities or approaches just because a new guy talks to 'em. So yeh can give polite feedback and let him know he has your support in shiftin' more to quiet consequences and less to riot acts.
It also seems you've got expectations that might not quite fit what troops are about, and that yeh might have it in for this one lad. That can cause as much or more grief for a troop as a boy who behaves poorly. So if on reflection yeh think that you've got it in for this boy a bit because of past history, then I think yeh have to step back. Let one of the other parents who has less history with the boy meet with the Scoutmaster. Spend your time helpin' your lad practice his knots or get his pack together for da next campout, eh? It's much more rewardin'.
Or yeh can just ignore cute old furry critters, eh? Da choice is always yours.