e-scouter

Scoutnut - I agree completely. I should have outlined the situation better. I was in the pack for a decade or so, through the many ups and downs and thought it was in pretty good shape when I moved to troop. Unfortunately this was immediately followed by two parents who took over CC and CM (in the proper manner - I thought they were good choices myself) who proceeded to decide everything done by everyone before them was wrong. All the experienced leaders left when I did and everyone left was either a friend of theirs or new and knew no better. The COR is there in name only, so no help there. The UC is uninvolved. Leaders had no training and no interest in getting training (while the previous group were all trained and included some Wood Badgers - and don't tell me we should have gotten them trained. That was a big issue and they used every opportunity to avoid it. We would have recruited replacements were any candidates available). In the course of two years they rode over everyone else until the active committee consisted of them alone, drove the program into the ground and have now left the pack. It was not a matter of doing things against BSA rules so much as just changing the pack in ways that made it easier for the adults but boooring for the kids. Thankfully the CM caried things along OK where she had authority, but he was permitted no say in the "big picture" way the pack was operated and was really the only useful one in the bunch. I have been asked to help put the pieces back together. Those leaders who were new two years ago have more experience now, see where it went wrong, and are interested in doing things right, getting training, and using the knowledge and experience of others. We are also carefully recruiting and slowly training the new leaders with bits of responsibility, given judiciously. The COR and UC are still uninvolved, but that is a fight for another day - I suspect that will ultimately involve a change of personnel (I'm working on it). I am confident that with the leaders they have now, all will be good. The question is how to best use this period of calm to build a system that will stand up to future changes of leadership. I'd like some way I could set it up and get them used to working that will ensure that strong personalities do not dominate the group as it did before, but it seems like they system is really set up in a way that ensures strong personalities will dominate unless there are equally strong personalities to stop it. I suppose that is what the UC should have been there to do - to bad he didn't.

Agreed that there really should be no need for a vote. If topics are planned far enough in advance there is plenty of time for a consensus. In troop it does work that way, I think because every person involved has had years of interest behind them and has faith in the methods and their fellow leaders and the familiarity needed to hash things out. In pack though there are always a few parents new to the system who think their way is the only way and an occasional vote it the only way to put it to rest. And I'm sorry to say, yes we have had to have the CC pull rank on a CM who failed to understand cub scouts were not boy scouts and tried to take the pack well off the rails into something far above the age-appropriate level. In troop it is no big deal to have SM and ASM not voting as everyone else involved is a MC who is is a pretty big crowd making decisions. In pack though, if you throw out all DL, ADL, CM and ACM you are usually left with just a few people. As well, it is often the less involved parents who sign up as MC since they don't want the burden of a week-in week-out responsibility, so often that group includes the people least qualified to make the decisions. That problem parent in the troop who was one of eight voting members is one of three in the pack (if they all show). In troop, it is clearly the committee's job to create the progeam and the SM's job to carry it out. The manuals make it very clear that the SM and ASM does not vote. I think this works well as a check to keep a strong SM from hijacking the program. In pack we treat it the same way - the committee decides what we will do and within the "big-picture", how. The CM carries out the plan and fills in the details as needed. So basically, it seemed to me that what ScoutNut indicates is right, that DL, ADL, CM, and ACM are not voting members (though that is just implied - never directly stated that I can find). That has the opposite effect though in that it allows a strong MC or CC to hijack the program because the "official" voting population is so small. The manuals imply that the CM to ADL do not vote, but never really come right out and say it. Why care? Because every two or three years some strong-willed parent who doesn't understand the program but does understand the rules joins the committee, finds the clauses to suggest only they vote, and pushes the matter as a means of increasing their power to take the pack where they want without wasting any time building consensus. It is always ultimately fixable, but in the end requires action by the COR and leaves a lot of annoyed people and bruised egos in the wake. We are fumpling about trying to find the best way to control this problem in the future. I lean toward a middle road. The CM and ACM do not vote to avoid an "imperial CM", but the DL and ADL do. This, with a wise CC, gives a big enough voting group to make sure there is a reasonable consensus. As I said though, I can't find that there is anything in print that really makes perfectly clear who votes and who doesn't, just all these open-ended implications. That just leaves us open to this occasional annoying parent who wants to interpret a rule to fit their desires.

I did this one myself when I was in 7th grade and do not recall it being in any way over my head. Of course, I was heavily into science (having been a subscriber to Science Digest for 3 years already, Scientific American for 1 year, and reading both cover to cover every month - well, *trying* to read Scientific American cover to cover but usually getting lost in the first page or two of each article) and had been playing with my basement chemistry set for years. I could probably blow the average high scool Sophomore out of the water on the topic. In any case... If he is a boy who is heavily interested in science and reads a lot on his own on the side, it should be no problem at all. If he is bright and interested in learning the field, it should be no problem, but he wil be slower than the older boys to learn and that must be accomodated. If chemistry just sounds cool and he has no background or already established interest, it is probably too early for the best result. My thoughts though are that the real problem with this (and the earlier Environmental Science badge) may be having him do a technical, "knowledge" badge with a group of older scouts who already have learned the material in class or al least have the background to grasp it quickly. His experience would be much better if he could do it with one or more scouts of his own level. It may have left him without sufficent learning time to grasp the matter, being inhibited by the presence of older, more intelligent scouts, and too little participation in the learning experience to feel he did anything more than listen to lectures. I would suggest he recruit another boy of his age and that in more technical parts of the badge they be delt with seperately from the older scouts so they have more time to come to an understanding of the material and feel freer to stick their necks out with questions and answers.

Actally, could someone clarify this for me. Some of the response seem to be implying that den leaders are not part of the committee. In the troop committee handbook it is pretty clear that the SM and ASM are not voting members of the troop committee. I have never been able to find any similar guidance in the pack leader handbook and so have assumed that the voting membership of the pack committee is comprised of ALL scouters registered with the pack. If anyone can point to a specific citation that indicates otherwise, I would sure appreciate it. That is the way we have always operated, but I would like to know the citations as we do occasionally have rules disputes when someone is trying to press a point.

ozemu: Thanks. It's a public post, so do with it as you wish. Eagledad: Thanks also. We all do have a surprising amount of influence over our scouts, but few scouters seem to realize that the lighter (and more invisible) our touch, the greater that influence will be. We can not force, but we can lead and even better, we can lead the leaders. Agreed - the troops with older scouts who resent being babysitters probably are being used as assistant bab

Is this hazing? Maybe. But that is probably not the important point. Will it possibly cause the scout embarressment? Will it make him enjoy scouts less? Will it make him not want to reclaim lost items? Will it make him not want to go to meetings? Might you ultimately loose a scout over this? If the answer to any of these even might be yes, then you do not want to do it no matter whether it is hazing or not. If the answer to all of these is no, then the scout apparently does not feel harassed and it is not hazing, but just another enjoyable tradition, so long as every scout in the unit feels the same way. In a small unit where you have known every scout for years, *perhaps* you could claim to know how each scout feels, but I expect that, after thinking about it carefully, you would have to admit you don't really know how the scout feels and therefore should not demand singing, no matter what. I certainly wouldn't - even from my own son who I really *think* I know. How to handle it then? Discussions about the size of the lost and found are unimportant. The right way is always harder, at least at first. My suggestion would be to fall back on the old standby - "boy led organization". Its not your job to give the goods back to the scout. It is the job of the SPL, quartermaster, or someone else that the PLC decides will be responsible. No scout cares if they have to apologize to an adult for forgetting something. No scout wants to apologize to a three year older boy for forgetting something. A few sessions with one or more older scouts who take several minutes to emphasize the importance of miding ones own belongings and request the scout do better in the future will do more than years of an adult doing the same.