eisely

ADD is certainly over diagnosed. The first time I heard of this was from a school psychologist about fifteen years ago. My immediate reaction was that it was just another excuse that the educational establishment had dreamed up to cover its own failures. But it is very real. I will go you one further. Ever hear of something called "non verbal learning disorder?" NLD has not quite gotten the recognition that ADD has gotten, and it shares some characteristics with ADD. This disorder was first given a name about ten years ago. I have yet to meet a shrink who can give me a sensible definition of NLD, but it sounds like it applies to many of the individual boys described in this thread. Scouting does provide for many of these kids the only activity that is willing to take them on. It can be a great burden, but that doesn't mean that we should give up. Hang in there.

It's funny the things you miss. When I put up this original post I did not pick up on the idea that anybody might be offended on the grounds given. I was more impressed by the volume of information on the issues that were available. I'm sorry if anybody was offended.

Responding further to two additional points made: The 6 months service in a leadership position need not be the most recent six months. As OGE suggests, the boy who is the subject of this thread may well have done his six months while a life scout some time ago. If the boy in question has simply been sitting on his application for two years, that does not reflect favorably on him, but by itself is not grounds for rejection. One presumes the unit adult leadership, who are much closer to the facts of this situation, know what they are doing. I am fortunate to live in an area where the number of boys completing eagle is unusually high. I have been told that our district produces more eagles than any other district in the nation, presumably on a per capita basis. This could be a local urban legend, but I do know that there are a lot eagles. I think we had seven eagles in one year in our troop. I am not aware of any district level standards here for participation or leaderhsip roles or anything else. Most troops in this district have an additional committee position called "eagle coordinator." This is an adult who takes on a long term commitment to stay in touch with all the life scouts to monitor their progress, mentor them, etc. Certainly "quality control" is a primary unit responsibility before an application for eagle is signed off. Responding to FScouter, I suspect that the idea of putting some kind of numerical standards in at the national level has been kicked around more than once at the national level. I would agree that I think that it would be a mistake for national to do this. That imposes a heavier burden on units that much unit level leadership doesn't even think about until there is a controversy. Personally I would advocate that units should set participation standards in the form of a minimal amount of "showing up." I think it was Woody Allen who said that 90% of life is just showing up. If we can't get youth leaders to even show up, then they should be removed from the position after a reasonable period of time, say three months, not get credit, and the opportunity passed to some other boy. Welcome aboard mwhittington. We look forward to hearing more from you.

There was at least one other thread in this forum recently where the question of active participation and performance of a leadership position was thrashed out at length. One of the better points made was that the rank requirement did not require a boy to be all that successful as a leader, merely to have served. I don't have a problem with that as long as the boy has tried. What I think bothers a lot of people is waving scouts through ranks who have done absolutely nothing in the position they hold. We are trying to be a little bit tougher and more consistent about this in our troop after a recent dispute of this nature, not at the eagle level. I think what it comes down to is a willingness on the part of a scoutmaster to remove a boy from a position if that boy is doing absolutely nothing. Better the position be vacant than give credit where credit is not due. The point about the lack of authority of districts and units to "add requirements" is well taken, but does that mean there should be no standard at all?

Scouter Paul Yours is an interesting and likely quite different case. Nobody is saying that a cub unit should never own tents. If the families cannot provide tentage, and the unit has a strong outdoor program, then by all means buy tents. The issue raised originally was not tents per se, but financial controls and accountability. Sounds like you have a great program. Keep it up.

It has been some time since I looked at an eagle package. There is a general rule that merit badge counselors and volunteers do not have the authority to re-write the rules or requirements, with the exception of the lower ranks where disabilities or medical or safety considerations may be involved. However, a general requirement such as "Be active in your troop and patrol for at least 6 months as a Life Scout," needs some definition. Does that mean just maintain registration? Maybe the burden is more on the unit to enforce some notion of "be active" before the scoutmaster and the chair sign off on an eagle application, and the district should do nothing about this. But somebody ought to set some standards somewhere, and new life scouts should be advised of those standards so they know what is expected.

This same subject has been discussed in other threads, although those discussions dealt with setting expectations for participation at the unit level for ranks below eagle. The general consensus was that a unit committee was within its rights to set standards, and indeed should set some sort of standard for participation for rank advancement. In my mind the same logic should extend to the district and how it handles eagle advancement. Whether the right number is 70% or some other number is something one can argue about, but I don't see how any eagle board can judge and pass on an eagle application without some notion of a standard. The other point that came out of the other threads was that such expectations need to be communicated to all involved early in the process. It sounds like you are doing that. I think that boards should be given some flexibility in applying standards such as a four night standard. There could be a variety of extenuating circumstances that could influence a scout's participation and boards should be able and willing to consider such facts. One district I was involved in had a numerical standard for eagle projects. The idea was that 40 hours of effort, other than the effort of the eagle applicant, was the minimum expected for a project. If one of the purposes of an eagle project is to demonstrate leadership, one measure of the effort led is the hours put in. All eagle applicants had to submit some kind of time record showing dates and names to substantiate the effort. Nobody ever had a problem with that policy. What is different about setting a standard for participation? I would be inclined to resist this directive from the DE and take it up, first in the district committee, and then at the council level.

This poem has nothing to do with scouting, at least directly. Nevertheless I thought that regular visitors to this forum might enjoy it. _____________________ TWO THOUSAND ONE, NINE ELEVEN - Author Unknown Two thousand one, nine eleven Five thousand plus arrive in heaven As they pass through the gate, Thousands more appear in wait A bearded man with stovepipe hat Steps forward saying, "Lets sit, lets chat" They settle down in seats of clouds A man named Martin shouts out proud "I have a dream!" and once he did The Newcomer said, "Your dream still lives." Groups of soldiers in blue and gray Others in khaki, and green then say "We're from Bull Run, Yorktown, the Maine" The Newcomer said, "You died not in vain." From a man on sticks one could hear "The only thing we have to fear. The Newcomer said, "We know the rest, trust us sir, we've passed that test." "Courage doesn't hide in caves You can't bury freedom, in a grave," The Newcomers had heard this voice before A distinct Yankees twang from Hyannisport shores A silence fell within the mist Somehow the Newcomer knew that this Meant time had come for her to say What was in the hearts of the five thousand plus that day "Back on Earth, we wrote reports, Watched our children play in sports Worked our gardens, sang our songs Went to church and clipped coupons We smiled, we laughed, we cried, we fought Unlike you, great we're not" The tall man in the stovepipe hat Stood and said, "don't talk like that! Look at your country, look and see You died for freedom, just like me" Then, before them all appeared a scene Of rubbled streets and twisted beams Death, destruction, smoke and dust And people working just 'cause they must Hauling ash, lifting stones, Knee deep in hell, but not alone "Look! Blackman, Whiteman, Brownman, Yellowman Side by side helping their fellow man!" So said Martin, as he watched the scene "Even from nightmares, can be born a dream." Down below three firemen raised The colors high into ashen haze The soldiers above had seen it before On Iwo Jima back in '44 The man on sticks studied everything closely Then shared his perceptions on what he saw mostly "I see pain, I see tears, I see sorrow - but I don't see fear." "You left behind husbands and wives Daughters and sons and so many lives are suffering now because of this wrong But look very closely. You're not really gone. All of those people, even those who've never met you All of their lives, they'll never forget you Don't you see what has happened? Don't you see what you've done? You've brought them together, together as one. With that the man in the stovepipe hat said "Take my hand," and from there he led five thousand plus heroes, Newcomers to heaven On this day, two thousand one, nine eleven

In using the term "appropriateness" I was less concerned about the molestation issue than qualifications tailored to the program of the units. I guess my image of scouting (excluding cub and tiger) is a vigorous outdoor program to the maximum extent possible. That means more than just car camping. If someone volunteers to lead an outing for which they are not qualified, then someone else needs to suggest something different. Many people who are not outdoors oriented, or physically capable of the more demanding activities, can still make highly valuable contributions to a unit. There are many positions that do not demand outdoors skills or interests. As an aside, the most egregious incident I know of involving discrimination against female leaders involved a small unit in Southern California in a town outside Santa Barbara several years ago. I think I mentioned this is another thread. This was a unit that had no male adult leadership at all. The local council refused to let this unit attend summer camp because of a lack of facilities for female leaders. I'm sorry, but this is a lame excuse. The unit had to litigate to get to go to camp. Granted, many older camps may not have separate bathroom and shower facilities, but this can be solved simply by posting male and female hours. There ought to be enough good will in scouting all around to solve such problems. The important thing is to deliver the program to the youth members.

bigbeard, An interesting turn of events. You know your own boys best, but I would not necessarily infer that they are all lying. Eyewitness testimony is normally contradictory, confused, and inconsistent. You, and any other adult present, were not paying enough attention, but this is not reason for you to fall on your sword. If we all threw in the towel every time we made a mistake, there would be only a large pile of towels left in the room and no people. As far as the offenders are concerned, they did apologize. I don't know what else you would get out of them after this.

I have never observed a situation where a parent's presence on an outing resulted in the parent being over protective or otherwise interfering in normal activities. That does not mean that it could not happen. I would never discourage a parent from participating. Our problem is usually not having enough adult support. In a situation where an outing is limited in head count because of restrictions imposed by those responsible for the trails and camp sites, it may become necessary to restrict adult participation if there are boys who want to go and slots are taken up by adults. We have yet to encounter this, but this is a conceivable scenario, and leaders need to consider how they would deal with it. Siblings are another matter. The basic scout policy is that scouting events are limited to registered adult and youth members. A youth considering joining is permitted. Yet the safety guidelines also refer to "family camping" without providing a lot of guidance, other than saying that parents are responsible for their own non scout children. In units I have belonged to, there have been some very successful family camping outings. In future I would probably draw up, or have drawn up, a special release and agreement for parents to sign where they specifically agree they are responsible for their own children. A couple of scary stories involving young (very young) girls on scout outings. One very active dad brought his daughter on a rock climbing expedition which was also a designated family camping outing. Over the years many spouses and siblings had attended. No rules had ever been established for the climbing part of the outing however. This dad put his daughter into a harness and she climbed up one of the lanes. When she got to the top, the experts in charge, who did not know who was climbing, determined that the harness was too big. She could have slipped out and been seriously hurt or killed. On another canoe expedition several years ago, there were only two adults going. One experienced adult, and a dad who had never done anything but agreed to go on this outing so it could take place. On the morning of departure this dad showed up with his daughter, less than 10 years old, and her friend. No releases. No medical forms. No nothing. If I had been in charge I would have called off the outing then and there. But the experienced leader did not want to disappoint the scouts so they went on. They hit a lot of wind and had a tough time. The girls did not have fun and could not handle the canoes. My son who went complained about it afterward. Fortunately everyone survived without injury. The lesson is, a unit that allows siblings to go on outings needs to think through the nature of the activity, develop sensible policies, communicate those policies, and enforce them. I like little kids and they are a joy, but scouting is not kid stuff. I would not recommend a blanket policy that allows siblings to simply go on any outing or event. A sibling policy should restrict sibling participation to designated events that the unit leadership deems appropriate.

The particular event that triggered the action mentioned in my previous post surprised everybody. The injury occurred at scout camp and did not involve a boy from our own troop. I was not at the camp and so have to rely on second and third hand information. I think the camp director may even have requested our troop to send the boy home at that time, and the troop action followed. I did not hear about this until well after the scoutmaster had acted. Take note: the scoutmaster acted on his own volition and did not seek permission of the committee. The committee chair concurred, and the incident was discussed at the next regular committee meeting, but nobody had any trouble with what the scoutmaster had done. It did cause anguish with the boy's parents, but the decision was the right one.

Sounds like BSA and GSA have the same playbook.

Terminating a youth's participation in scouting should be a rare event and undertaken only after all other approaches have failed. Grounds for termination in my mind would be misconduct that creates dangerous conditions, or persistent misconduct that makes it impossible to have a positive program for the majority of well behaved boys. A year ago our troop expelled a boy after numerous warnings and counseling sessions, and only after he had seriously injured another boy. At such a point the adult leadership is taking on a serious personal legal liability in keeping such a youth around. From everything that BigBeard has told us about the incident and the boys involved, this does not sound like that kind of situation. I still feel some kind of hearing is over the top and fraught with difficulties of its own. BigBeard is the scoutmaster and vested by the committee to act within his own discretion. He has gathered a great deal of information and sought the counsel of others, and going into a more involved procedure would be redundant, distracting, and possibly destructive. Hopefully his committee will back him up on his decisions.

The rules to which I was alluding are found in the Guide to Safe Scouting. This can be found on line on the BSA national official website. The appropriateness for a unit to accept an unattached female adult volunteer of any age depends in part on the mission and programs of the unit itself. One would hope that the sex of the volunteer would not get in the way of carving out a role for any volunteer. The same might be said of girl scouts, although I personally have no experience there. One would hope that the other adult volunteers would set the best possible example in their behavior and speech towards and about the new volunteer. One must still look at the specific skills being offered and how those might fit in. Someone who is afraid of heights, for example, might not be too effective in a unit that does a lot of rock climbing.

I don't know the history, but the current policy is that women are unequivocally eligible for any position. There are even women professional scouters. I think two things have driven this. One is when scouting went officially coed at the explorer level some time in the 80's. The second thing is the lack of adequate male volunteers. If there aren't enough guys around to do the job, then women become an untapped resource. I regret to say that I have encountered hostility towards women scouters on the part of some older males. It is disingenuous to say that coed camping doesn't raise its own problems. In fact BSA has rules about this that you should know about. Hope this helps.

You have a lot of latitude in defining committee positions to suit your local needs and capabilities. Common positions for a pack committee might include treasurer, recording secretary, advancement chair, and training chair.

I too was struck by the purchase of tents for a cub pack, although I didn't go into it. It strikes me as a very odd purchase for a cub unit. Tents are controversial. There is an entire thread under "camping tips" on tents, and that did not involve cub scouts. Surely there are higher priorities for a cub scout pack. That is why there needs to be an active committee making these decisions, not just one individual, no matter how well intentioned.

sctmom is right about the need for sleep. All the more reason for enforcing lights out. Few people will wake up without the assistance of an outside agent. Scouters and youth leadership have to assume the responsbility for waking people. How you enforce getting them up is yet another matter.

We make clear when a boy joins our troop that parents do not sign off their own kids. Logically, siblings should not sign off either.

Another higher, better, and ultimate use for excess patches is a display board presented to the scout at his eagle court. Our troop makes this part of our tradition and it makes a really nice memento for the young person to carry into adulthood. Of course this does not solve the short term problem, but these displays are really nice.

For those concerned about the gay rights controversy and scouting, I would suggest visiting the web site noted below. It is loaded with a lot of information, not just inflammatory statements. The web site is: cprmd.org If my memory serves me correctly (senior member and all that), cprmd stands for Citizens for Parental Rights in Maryland.

bigbeard, How did the committee meeting come out? Please keep us informed.

The very first adult volunteer position I filled over ten years ago was as cub scout pack treasurer. We had a bank account and also had dual signature control over the bank account. Dual signatures are often viewed as a hassle, but I personally think it is worth the trouble. If a dual signature account is opened, you need at least three signatories on the signature cards which would logically include the cubmaster, the chair, and the treasurer. One of the first things I did as treasurer was to buy myself a large receipt book that automatically made copies. At every meeting I was taking in odd amounts of cash and had no way to keep track of it. I remember one of the parents objecting to being given a receipt, "That's not necessary." I responded that it was for my protection, not his. Treasurers should be prepared to render regular reports at committee meetings. It becomes more serious beyond cub scouts because typically a lot more money is being handled, including funds held on deposit for major outings. One of the problems with non profit organizations, particularly volunteer run organizations where nobody has enough time, is that temptation does arise. Few people, even the IRS, pay serious attention to the funds in non-profits. I recall an incident in Southern California about the time that I became pack treasurer, where the volunteer in charge of funds for a High School Band Booster Club embezzled tens of thousands of dollars over several years. She did some hard time for that. Simple checks and balances remove inefficiencies, temptations, and suspicions.

I was composing my second post in this thread at the same time that Rooster7 was writing his. Rooster7 makes some very good points. You probably need more information.