fred8033

PackMaster is a good solution, but I'd look for one that gives you an online presence too. The following are both good options. http://www.soarol.com https://trooptrack.com http://scouttrack.com(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ya know ... it took CalicoPenn's comments to trigger memories of earlier learning. I still agree that only the SM should sign off on scout spirit and best at a SMC. But, scout spirit is a poor requrirment to use as scout spirit is a requirement best evaluated by the scout himself thru discussion with the SM. Also, it is too subjective.

As much as it pains me to say it, Beavah hit it right on the head. Deal with elephant in the room. The family bucks the troops program. I agree with Beavah but I'd give them one final chance. Use Beavah's process to call them on the carpet. Explain it's clear they are unhappy, etc. (See what Beavah wrote.) But also cleanly identify what the troop expects of members and if they can work within that boundary, you'll be glad to have them in the troop. BUT, don't let it become a big discussion. If there is the smallest protest, immediately let them know it's best if they join another troop, hand them a list of local troops and a copy of their son's record to bring to the other troop. As for the legalisms of the situation ... - SMC is not a pass / fail. They immediately can go to the BOR - Scout spirit requirement is the one to use. RECOMMENDATION - Communicate to the unit leaders that only the SM signs off on scout spirit. Maybe others leaders sign off on other requirements. But reserve the scout spirit requirement for the scoutmaster ... just for situations like this. Then, it's not up the board of review. A BOR makes sure requirements are complete. They are not there to sign off on incomplete requirements. RECOMMENDATION - Insulate your scoutmaster from parent headaches as much as possible. Scoutmaster deals with scouts. As CC, I try to deal with parents. I'm not always successful, but I hope I save him some headaches.

Hot button topic. In my ten years as a pack leader, I've yet to see a commissioner show up or call. We had major problems around eight years ago and I had to beg to get someone to show up and guide us.

"The first night was spent at the male leader's home with just him as chaperone of the boys and girls." This is a huge red flag in my mind. Maybe it was innocent. Maybe it was just a bad decision. BUT ... it's not good. Here's what I'm reading into this. - "at the male leader's home" ... means it was local and close to the homes of the scouts ... if the leader had problems with having enough leaders, he could have delayed the event or called a parent to come stay too or sent the scouts home and restart the event the next day. It's a red flag because he had easy choices to fix the situation. - "with just him as chaperone" ... means he invited scouts into his house without another adult. It's a red flag because most abuse happens with someone familiar to the victim. Often at their house. Scout leaders should know this and should want to avoid misperceptions. - "leader" ... means he's familiar with the emphasis on YPT. He knows a female leader is required. He knows two-deep leadership is required, especially at his own house. He should have been trained. He should know this. Heck, can he get a tour permit without having YPT? It's a red flag because it's expected that he knows BSA requirements. Either the leader is inexperienced ... or untrained ... or making bad decisions ... or not taking program expectations seriously. I would not throw around accusations, but I would protect my son. What that means is your decision. ... Hopefully, it's not as bad as you described. Hopefully, there was a 2nd adult. Hopefully, things were covered and safe. ... We had a local SM who abused scouts over a long period of time. When I think about it, I get pissed. Of course at the SM. But I get even more pissed because multiple parents in the troop kept thinking something was weird and wrong but did not do anything over a period of years. Protect your son. Protect the other youth. Pursue it.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Glad qwazse said it. The "double dipping" is a huge debate ... that, IMHO, is just not an issue ... but ... that is best left for another thread.

I've bought way too many scout shirts over the year. My trouble is most tend to wearout over the years. For my eighteen year old son, I bought two blue cub shirts and six boy scout shirts (size changes, camp staff and jamboree requirements). My other sons have each had at least three shirts each. My seven year old scout is now on his 2nd blue cub shirt. Myself, I've now been wearing scout shirts for ten years with one size increase. Three positions. I've bought at least five shirts for myself. My wife has a scout shirt for her role too. As I have three registered positions (pack, troop, district), I use two shirs and use either my pack or troop shirt for the district. .... I'm betting I've bought at least twenty scout shirts, ten pants and twenty pairs of socks. Love the new socks.

I'm not as negative, but I understand scouting is very personal. Our local councils merged about six years ago. There was concern about service and camp closings. But, I really can't see any bad results. Has it saved money? Not a clue. But, we now have three registrars in the new council where in the past each had two. Yes, one less, but it makes life much more managable on the registrars. We still have two council offices and I've used both. Those with prevously long drives to the offices still have long drives. That hasn't changed much. But the good part is zero camps have closed. Zero scout shops have closed. Instead, we have three more camps (from the other council) available for our use. We have more special events and they are bigger. Cub camps share training and planning. I think the big benefit is that the council can afford to fully staff roles that were not big enough for a single person before. For example, we have more IT resources and they've been able to produce much more. Perhaps in the pre-computer & pre-internet days, smaller councils were easier to manage. Now though, economics of scale are just too hard to argue against.

moosetracker wrote: "The boys wiil get one person of the board to contact and let them know when a fundraiser or work date is.. " What happens if the boy forgets to call that district contact and just works with his volunteers to get the project done? .... I guess if I'm sensitive to this it's because four years ago, our district adv committee was a direct cause of scouts not earning eagle. Project approvals that took at minimum three review cycles and at minimum two months to get approved. Individual DAC members would not make a decision but had to consult with the "committee". Review cycles that continued until the proposal was thick enough. It culminated three years ago with a specific scout who had been thru six approval cycles (one per month). I read the review findings and they were busy-work type of findings. Nothing significant. During the last review cycle the DAC lost the project proposal and asked the scout to resubmit everything. It was just a runaround and nothing useful to the scout. For the last two years, our DAC has been available to review projects within one week, max two. One review cycle assuming the previous review findings are addressed. Many times the project is immediately signed off on first inspection. The goal has been to help the scout succeed and be responsive. The DAC approval cycle should not be a cause of failure ... or have significant project schedule impact.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Yeah.... Hmmmm.... The trouble is I've just seen too many scouters willing to step in and tell scouts how things should be. Often sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. Often it's the same scouters that talk about the new Eagle process dumbing down the project or watering down the meaning of being and Eagle scout. If you want to show up and help, great. Good scout spirit. If there is a YPT or safety issue, step in immediately. But if you don't like how things are happening, tell his scoutmaster. Youre not his unit leader and barely know the scout. I've seen many bad scouting experiences start with overzealous leaders who feel responsibility to inject themselves. Maybe you can do it well and in a positive way. But just as many or more dont. The bigger concern though is that scouting units come in so many looks and flavors. And scouts come with many different personalities. Guidance and advice is best left to his unit leaders. .... The district's role is to approve project concepts and hold (or support) Eagle boards of review. There is zero district responsibility to audit projects as they occur.

"double check that tings are looking good ... easiest place to do this ... Eagle Project." - huh? The beneficiary signs off. The unit leader signs off. I'm not sure what yet another pair of eyes can do except annoy the scout and the other unit leaders. "boards to approve projects" - We just have one district advancement committee member who signs off on the projects. Having a committee do it seems to reflect either past disagreement in the district or the lack of a single district leader who wants to take responsibility. Sounds like a beaurocratic process not required anywhere in the GTA. ..... Obviously, I'm on the side of the districts not adding that much except promoting advancement consistency. KC9DDI wrote: "I just don't see the District as being the "gatekeeper" to the Eagle rank. They can provide some input and guidance for a Scout, supplementing the unit leadership. But ultimately I see the District's role as being quite limited - providing some specific approval for one requirement (the Eagle project), and assisting with setting up the Eagle BOR. I don't see how or why a district should have any more input beyond that. " Fully agree(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ya know... I can understand the world crest being required. I can also understand that as scouts we should just wear it. Heck, why not wear it? BUT ... if the key rule document available to us says "may", then it's not really required. It's up to BSA to get the documents right. I believe that inconsistent documents goes in favor of the impacted person. So I'd give the scout the benefit of the doubt and congratulate him (not the parent) on reading the rules. Then, I'd buy him a patch and offer to help him sew it on his shirt.

Here's another good one. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/03/13/youth-in-the-office-are-your-parents-meddling-in-your-career/ Are your parents meddling in your career?

Couldn't resist posting this article here. Easter is canceled in Colorado. Aggressive parents force egg hunt cancellation http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j3CX4Jgq3-Gj_qyZ02f4E5BDtGnA?docId=dcb20046c6734c4a9aa9dfe03ceffd86

The pack still has to be organized. When I was a den leader, we emailed the list of advancements to the person who purchased advancements. Now, we put it in scouttrack.com. SO your pack lets the advancement chair know what to put in PackMaster. then, that person prints a report from PackMaster. I don't see that much of a difference. The reason I was okay with the paper chart as a den leader is that cub advancements are not critical to the future advancement path. Councils don't track belt loops or any of the lower cub advancements such as world conservation, etc. They only track rank advancements. Boy SCouts is very different in that Boy Scout advancement is cumulative. Seven years later you often need to show a clean path of advancement for the next advancement.

Call your state DNR, fishing group or talk to fishing organizations. I know our pack (best at den level) has had a group come in and teach fishing to the scouts. All for free. It's part of their promotion of fishing and fishing licenses, etc.

(sorry... been traveling...) Good discussion. One minor point. Very minor. And it's probably resolved by coordination between a SM and his troop's committee memebers. Perhaps, some troops coordinate such that they use the SM signature as proof that requirements are all complete. But, that's not an automatic. The key point is that a checked off scoutmaster conference is not a guarantee that all the requirements are done. A good SM will discuss previous rank requirements as part of having a conversation with the scout. But, it's the explicit responsibility of the BOR to check requirements, not the SMC. Plus, the SMC is not a pass/fail or even a "completed" thing. It's just a "did you sit with the SM and conference?" If yes, then SMC is done. Purpose of scoutmaster conference - Review the Scout's growth in his understanding of Scouting's ideals - Review how the Scout applies these ideals in his daily life and in the troop - Review the requirements of the Scout's next rank so that he can be properly encouraged Purpose of board of review - confirm the scout has done what the scout was supposed to do - evaluate scout's acceptance of the scouting ideals - evaulate troop's effectiveness in presenting the scouting program - encourage further advancement *************** Of course BSA published training is behind (i.e. inconsistent) with the current rules. The newly issued GTA says in section "4.2.3.5 Unit Leader (Scoutmaster) Conference" ... "While it makes sense to hold one after other requirements for a rank are met, it is not required that it be the last step before the board of review." **************** Just saying confirming requirements are done is the BOR responsibility. Don't automatically trust a completed SMC to indicate all requirements are done.

The original poster asked if we have meetings every month. I'm not sure 100% what is meant, but if you use the traditional concept of meetings ... no. We use the traditional meeting structure in Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Apr & May. BUT ... we have at least one "pack" event every month. Feb is our B&G. Similar to a pack meeting but much bigger. March is pinewood derby (another big event). The key though is that every month we have something at the "pack level" available. I think we target two things a month at the pack level. Often a combination of meetings, service, camp or some type of special event. Looking over the last year... We had six service events. Seven traditional meetings. Two or three "parties" (halloween, B&G, etc). Two pack family camps. Two council run camps. Several pack level "go see it" type of events. Not everyone will do everything. Leaders don't have to be at everything. But an active calendar drives an successful pack.

Okay. Not to speak heresy as Im often pushing the technology envelope BUT as a den leader I really like the simple $1.99 2x3 paper advancement charts sold by the scout stores. Cub scout advancement is very different than boy scout advancement. Pack Master isnt really needed. Tracking all the ugly little details wasnt really needed. And it was nice to just have it up and visible during den meetings. It helped the parents see where their sons were with advancement. Then, I just emailed our advancement chair what was needed for the next pack meeting. Boy Scouts is a very different situation though.

Been there. Really cool experience. Nothing like tent sleeping where at 2am it's 90 degrees with a 85 degree dew poitn.

Interesting discussion. Only a few comments... #1 SMC - It's not the scoutmaster's job at the SMC to make sure every requirement is done. Scoutmaster can do that if he wants, but it's still the BOR's job. Just saying it because as a BOR I would not use a completed SMC as an indication the requirements are complete. #2 BOR has several key focuses. One is that the BOR is the checkpoint to verify that requirements are completed. IMHO, that means also to verify that paperwork is clean and ready to go. But IMHO I view that as a cooperative co-responsibility of the scout and the troop leaders and not an obstacle for the scout to overcome. Help the scout recreate his records and help the scout find evidence that he completed the requirements. Support the scout. #3 In our troop, we've had few handbooks lost over the years ... very few. I've only known one scoutbook that had to be completely re-created and that was because it was destroyed at school through vandalism. A good velcro cover is important.

"2 signatures won't stop everything, but its still a good procedure." Agreed. For our unit though, it's a moot procedure as multiple leaders see images of the checks thru emailing the PDF bank statements and those statements have images of each check. IMHO, the solution is transparancy.

IMHO, two signatures on every check is never really that great of protection. In our units, the protections are #1 someone other than the treasurer gets the bank statements; #2 we email a PDF of the bank statements to four or more different families and #3 the PDF bank statements include an image over every check written. PDF bank statements with check images is a service by our bank. We love it. Strongly recommend it. I hope everyone reads it. but even if they don't, at least there is transparancy if someone starts questionioning what's going on.

No chit. Have adults guide and coach the youth leaders and the youth. For electronics, teach youth leaders common techniques for dealing with electronics such as waiting until it's put away to continue or asking the person to step away or other. It's our job as leaders to guide the youth and to teach youth how to leader other youth. I've never cared for the "If I see it, you lose it" approach. I wouldn't respect a boss who did it to me and I suspect scouts roll their eyes at such threats. A phone is a tool just like an ax, knife, stove, tent or rain coat. We warn parents that scouts lose and break stuff. Happens all the time. It's their risk, not ours. As a side note, we often say equipment is built for commercial use (flimsy), heavy duty, industrial or scout use. Things just don't take a worse beating. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

basementdweller wrote: "wingnut you have never been a victim of roundtable or camp adult snobbery." LOL. Been there ... way too many times.