EagleInKY

I echo what Foto had to say. From my own experience, Tigers was a shaky program. This was back in the days of iron-on paws, for those that remember them. We started with 10, rechartered 4 months later with 6 or 7 of them. I think 4 or 5 came back for Wolves. After that, we probably lost about one of them per year through Cubs. We added 4 new Cubs at the start of Wolves, and we saw a much higher retention rate with that group. It's now 7 years later, 2 of those original 10 are still active Scouts, while all 4 of the ones added as Wolves are still Scouts (although 2 have recently left to join another unit, they are still in Scouting). My point is this, starting as Tigers is not a requirement for success in Scouts. I continue to see lots of turnover in the Tiger ranks. (I realize my view is very limited to my little corner of the earth.) Don't get down on the den falling apart. Do the things suggested here and hopefully they'll make it through the year. Recruit strong next year, and continue to build for the future.

Regarding SC, I have little to offer. I was assuming along the lines of the other posters, that it was decided a year in advance. When does the PLC do the annual plan? If they want to do something different, can they put that into their annual plan? Or, make a statement that "year after next, we want to consider attending a different summer camp". Regarding the BOR... you do have an opportunity with a new CC coming up. We have a new CC that took over about six months ago. Recently, I faced a few problems with our TC as well. Nothing major, but it all revolved around them not understanding their role. After a string of e-mails and folks not understanding what was happening, I told the CC that this was why we needed to get the TC trained. He agreed. We did it last week. The CC, 4 of 8 committee members and one ASM attended. It was very enlightening to all of us. There were several "I'm supposed to do that?" moments. I believe it's going to pay positive dividends for our troop. So, what I am suggesting is get your new CC on board and get the TC trained. There's lots of talk about the things you mentioned. If they see it in the BSA literature, they'll start asking questions like "why do we have boys on the BOR when it's our job?". Hopefully, you're problems will take care of themselves after that.

The CM and the CC are seperate people, but it helps if they can work together as a team. Our monthly leaders meetings are for committee members and den leaders. While I am the CC, the CM practically runs the meeting. Why is that? Because he's the one closest to the program. It's my job to step in as CC on items regarding policy, direction or administrative "stuff". It works pretty effectively. We're working to recruit a stronger committee and hopefully a "full-time" Committee Chair (I'm also SM of our troop, so it's difficult to find the time to dedicate to the CC job). If there is an issue that the Den Leader has with the CM, they should take it to the CC privately. The CC will hopefully have the relationship with the CM to patch things up. Or, he may have to explain to the DL why the CM is correct. Or, he may need to pull together the committee members to have more discussion about the issue. Hope this helps. Best of luck!

Welcome! Hey, you "behind the scenese" people are critical to the program. If it weren't for you, we'd constantly be covered up with paperwork, budgets and all sorts of stuff that gets in the way of delivering the program. Thanks a bunch!

ProudEagle - For those with disabilities, there are alternatives to the traditional Eagle-required Merit Badges. However, there are no alternatives to the Leadership Project. To the best of my knowledge, they are expected to lead in a project that is appropriate for their ability. In reality, I think this is the case for ALL Eagle candidates. The Leadership project should be something that is a challenge for the boy. You said "demonstrating leadership is an absolute requirement". I agree. For some boys, certain skills just come easier to them. Also, as you indicated, age and physical size have an impact on how much the boy can do. Therefore, I believe the difficulty of the leadership project will vary from boy-to-boy. But, in the ideal world, it would be equally challenging to each boy.

I've seen it done. Good luck!

Thanks Old Grey One. I've found a Scoutmaster's minute for an upcoming meeting.

Sheath knives are not prohibited. However, the Guide to Safe Scouting does recommend against them. It states: "Avoid large sheath knives." However, to your immediate issue. Cubs are not to carry knives until they earn their Whittling Chip as a Bear. You need to tell the dad that his son can't carry his knife until then. At that time you can address the issues of safety and why sheath knives are discouraged.

Good post Scoutnut. Thinking more about this, I am aware of a few packs that require the leaders to be members of the CO. One that I'm aware of require the CC, CM and Committee Members to be members of the church. Another one used to require that Den Leaders also be members. That one changed it's rule a few years ago when they were caught in a situation where the only qualified, interested leaders were not members. Perhaps you can approach the school with that idea. Requiring only key people - like the CM and CC - to have children at the school. That would give you time to build trust, and would not prohibit interested kids from joining.

Ours varies each year, based upon the budget. I think last year is was around $40. We charge for individual events. We try to pay for major equipment through fund-raisers.

Like we all have a tendancy to do, I believe we jumped to a conclusion based upon the OP. From feathers's description, I am assuming that someone - say the CO for example - is coming to the troop, saying - we want a sidewalk built - here, our architect has already made plans - here is a list of materials needed - we've priced the materials at Sidewalks "R" us - here's your budget - let us know when you're done... see you in two weeks. Now, compare that to how my Eagle project went. We (SM, i.e. dad, and I) went to the CO's elders. I told them that I wanted to do an Eagle project for them, if there was anything major they wanted done. They had a couple of ideas. Top on their list was a barbeque pit at their picnic shelter. They mentioned that Mr. McKee (who happened to be on the Pack Committee) was in the masonry business, and would be an advisor to me. I met with him, we designed the chimney. I priced the materials. I estimated the time it would take. I then brought back a proposal to the elders. They approved it, and I went forward with the project. The difference between the two is huge. Now, if the advisor had already designed the chimney they wanted, would it have been a valid project? Probably. If he had priced the materials? Maybe. When more of the work is done by someone other than the Eagle Candidate it takes away from the legitimacy of the project and the award.

What Ed said.... and, talk to your DAC and make sure they are not approving Eagle projects that don't meet the requirements.

If that is the case, I don't see why you would want a "closed" pack. Why wouldn't you want to share those values to a broader group? Curious - is their a pack at the public school down the road? If not, I think it would be a real shame to not have an open pack.

Bill had a good interview. I hope the debate continues. Unfortunately, most of the "mainstream" media won't cover it. Interestingly, on last night's show, Bill had a few e-mails relating to the issue. Nearly always, when he reads e-mails, he bounces back and forth between negative and positive letters. (I commend him for including the voices of those who differ from his views.) However, on the scout issue, there were no opposition e-mails read. I wonder if it was that one-sided? I bet it was.

Go to the search page and do a search on gettysburg. There was a recent thread that included lots of good advice for units travelling there.

Most "closed" units I've heard of are tightly coupled with a particular religious group. I think the general feeling of scouters in the area is that they are truly a part of the church, and outsiders simply aren't "welcome". In general, outside of the church example, I think it sends a negative message. For example, what if a home-schooled boy hears you're forming a pack and would like to be a part of it. You tell him he can't because he doesn't attend that school? Very unscoutlike, in my opinion. The other thing I've noticed about "closed" units is that they tend to be in areas where there are several options. IF that's the case, it doesn't seem as "bad".

You don't have to account for the sins of the past. If previous SMs did not hold him to a standard, then that's not your fault. It's theirs. You have every right to hold him back. You should be very clear regarding your expectations. You'll probably need to include the parents. Although, at almost 18, he's pretty much an adult and will do what he wants to do. I would give him every chance to turn things around. But I would not approve him based upon the description you gave today. You do run the risk that they might try to go over your head. That's something you'll have to be willing to defend. And, yes, I've held boys back due to the Scout Spirit requirement. Do a search in this and you'll get a lot of good threads. However, I've never dealt with it at the age you're talking about and the Eagle deadline approaching.

Yep, we've done something similar. We outgrew the church that sponosored us. They had no ties to the pack (smaller, older congregation like yours). When recharter time arrived, they did not recharter. We chartered a "new pack" at the new CO, using the same # and everything. There was not a hitch.

Welcome to the Forum Mr. "Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun".

Keep the faith, Newbie! I would first concentrate on your den. Make sure your guys are having a great time and following the program. Build your strength from within your group. Second, get everyone trained. Drag as many of your fellow den leaders to it, kicking and screaming if you have to. Same goes for your council Pow Wow or University of Scouting. These are usually held during the next few months. They are a great place to learn more about the program from your peers. I came into a pack that sounded even worse than the situation you were in. I led a Tiger den and tried not to interfere too much with the pack organization (or is that dis-organization). My second year, I was asked to take over the CM job. The pack made a great turnaround - not just because of me - but because of a group of leaders that had seen what I did with my den and decided to trust and follow along to make the whole unit better. I'm now gone on to Boy Scouts, but that Pack remains one of the strongest in the Council.

So, the point I was getting at... Is every scout a leader? No. That is not a requirement. Is every Eagle Scout a leader? Yes. They should be.

Awesome. It's great when you realize that what you are teaching begins to sink in. And, this is much more effective than having you the Scoutmaster dictate it through a bogus advancement policy.

I hate the "give everyone a trophy" syndrome as well. However, for events like Pinewood Derby, I do like seeimg some kind of recongition for participation. Think about it, we've been giving "participation awards" for decades, it's not a result of soccer. For example, a Boy Scout troop goes to summer camp or a camporee, each boy gets a patch. Our pack gives a variety of "fun awards" instead of a participation ribbon. They range from "best paint job" to "best use of a block of wood". These are meant to be fun and to give every boy something. You should see how excited the younger ones get over something so simple! On the flip side, I have had some older scouts be upset over some of these. But they just need to get over it. So, I'm not for these participation awards for every occasion. However, I do support the idea of doing it at a big event such as the PW Derby.

not every Scout is (or should be) a leader. True, at least in the "Green Bar" sense. However, I believe each scout is to lead in his own way. By example, as an active participant, as a cooperating member of his patrol, etc. I agree wholeheartedly with both of you regarding the concept of growing leaders. There are "natural born leaders", but even they have to learn how to harness that power and put it to work. Others have no desire to "lead" in the traditional sense, but learn how to through their scouting experiences. It's been mentioned before that the advancement requirements refer to "responsibility" not "leadership". I believe this is important to remember. Scouting is teaching the boys to be functioning parts of society, not all to be the leader. However, there is a point where a Scout must be a leader. The Eagle Rank requires a "Leadership project". I believe this is a very intentional wording. While a boy may not have been required to serve in a "green bar" leadership role throughout his scouting career, he is still expected - if he is to earn our highest award - to exhibit a level of leadership capable of leading a significant service project. I believe this challenge is daunting for those who are not natural leaders, and especially those who have not served in true leadership positions. But they can still do it, and learn from it, and be better off for doing so. Perhaps this is why the Eagle rank is so highly regarded in our society.

My son asked me the exact same thing last week (weird, huh?). I told him that I did not know an "official" answer, but my feeling was 'what would it hurt?'. I don't see anything wrong with it. It is a form of an oath, and it is a part of scouting.