fred8033

Pretty primitive still. I wanted to update the unit calendar without sending a notice. Couldn't find out how to do that. Could not add my cell phone. Only shows the "home" phone. Hmmm.... Found it interesting that of the three roster export formats, none of them export the email address. I wanted to compare the list against my roster list. Going into each account one by one is too much work. I won't do it that way. Instead, will wait for rechartering. The site is a nice beginning, but too basic to be of any use.

I'm amazed how many new web solutions exist for scouting and how quick those tools are evolving. - troopwebhost looks promising, but sort of klunky on the interface. It feels like a web version of TroopMaster. - ScoutManager looks promising, but in it's early stages. Not necessarily fully featured. - Our troop uses SOAR (www.soarol.com) and Troopmaster. We don't renew the licence every year as it's not required. - Our pack uses SOAR and ScoutTracks. ScoutTracks has a klunky interface, but is very good at tracking details. But of course, I'm not sure unit leaders need much more then Excel for tracking cub advancement.

I'm not a lawyer, but a key difference here is that teachers and school administrators have been subject to mandatory reporting laws for a long time. I don't think scout leaders were subject to mandatory reporting laws until the 1990s, 2000s or even 2010s. I'm assuming teacher reporting laws extended to universities in addition to elementary, middle and high schools. I'm sure it varied state by state.

I fully agree that unit leaders need further training but I don't think it is formal structured training. New unit leaders need to be mentored. Existing leaders need on-going fresh set of ideas and examples. IMHO, the unit commissioner program is supposed to address this. BUT, again IMHO, the unit commissioner program is fundamentally structurally flawed. Maybe some districts have a functioning commissioner program. But I've yet to see it. Heck, we have not had a unit commissioner visit in the last twelve years in any of my three units. Again IMHO, the solution is to put a program in place where unit leaders visit another unit(s) once or twice a year to learn, to mentor and to get fresh ideas. The units should be rotating so that the same people don't visit the same unit each year. Not only is it a learning opportunity, it's also a great way to build a scouting community. Perhaps that's something that each district committee member should do also. Visit a unit at their meeting place at least once a year.

SSScout, emb21: Thanks. I think I had read it briefly a long time ago, but had never absorbed the concept of equipment patches and trunk patches. We never really used them other then as temporary patches. Your answer is consistent with what I found on BSA's site. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/06F.aspx But still ... I'd be okay if someone put them on the back of their sash. I know my son puts temporary patches on the back of his sash. If he wants to put other patches there (not rank), fine. The issue I have with rank patches is it's a been there done that thing. You've got the new better patch on your shirt. Nothing is communicated by showing the old ones on the back of the sash.

Eagle732 - Nope. Nothing automatic. I'm just saying it's one of the first things to get done. Right up there with completing scout badge requirements, teaching them how to setup a tent, choose a camp site and use the troop stoves. Heck, I'm always happy when scouts cook over the fire instead of using a stove. So we want them to have their Firem'n Chit. For the last eight years, in our troop, scouts earn their Totin' Chip and Firem'n Chit on their first camp out. Usually, they receive the cards on same day. Heck, the requirements are pretty simple and it's more of a commitment to act responsibly. I sort of see it as a quick wake up about responsibility and maturity. I see zero reason to delay or associate it with achieving a rank. The scouts need the right to use knives and fire. They are scouts, right? What is any more fundamental to being a scout then using a pocket knife and having a camp fire.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

perdidochas wrote: "To make those boys wait to get second class to carry a pocket knife again is counterproductive. " I had not connected those dots. You are so so so on target. Waiting for 2nd class??? Some kids will roll with the system. But you will lose credibility with your natural leaders. Many of them have strong personalities and can see thru the B.S. Treat them straight and they give you straight answers. Game them and they will start gaming you. Give them contradictions and they will resolve it. The contradiction I see is giving them a Scout Law that starts with "Trustworthy" and telling them that the scouts run the program and that as scouts they are responsible for so much, but then telling them they can't use a knife they have been using in Cub Scouts since the summer before 3rd grade. More simply stated, tell a kid who has a strong personality that they can't use a knife after using it for two years and you won't see them using a knife. They will use the knife. You just won't know about it. I can't really blame them either.

qwazse - Chill. I was just explaining what our troop does. So your troop, as you said, uses the card a reminder. "and let him know that, by rights, his PL should have a look at his chit." We try not to do that. That's our troop and yours is different. Fine. Also, I never said adults. I was speaking generically when I said "if you". Of course, I prefer the scouts mentor/lead/teach/correct other scouts. The main reason that we treat it more like a recognition and then move on is not because of the scouts. My experience is that the scouts handle it fine. It's the adults that make it into a power trip. Also it causes the adults to get into the face of the scouts a bit too much. We'd rather focus on making these teaching situations then making them punative situations. That's our troop. Your troop can do it as you want. BSA is pretty vague on what's expected with the chit & chip.

We use the Totin' Chip and Firem'n Chit as probably one or the first recognitions in our troop. Nothing more. We're going to get it covered on the 1st camp out or one of the first troop meetings. Our attitude as for "license" is that you're a Boy Scout and that's your license. After that, it's continual observing and teaching both by scouts and unit leaders. Our goal is to get these fundamentals taught immediately and to fix problems immediately. The tearing of corners just seems so petty. My question is if you tear off a corner do you immediately re-teach the correct behavior / methods, using the EDGE method or another method? What further will you teach after all the corners are torn off that you wouldn't teach when corners one, two and three are torn off? Do you ask to see the cards or do the leaders just know who has lost all their corners? ... I must admit I always thought the cards are "unofficial", but I've been seeing more BSA materials that refer to them as similar to a license. It's a confusing part of the program. ... The rank requirements refer to the skills but never mention earning the chit/chip.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

We don't compensate for gas unless it's an extraordinary distance, over an hour drive each way. And it's planned on an event by event basis. For us, it takes a committee decision on a case by case basis to decide what's "fair". - Do do you make it by who drove or who committed to drive? - Do you compensate by actual number scouts driven or the number of seats committed for scouts? - How do you adjust for changing plans? - Do you control who rides in what car? - Do you control the list of cars and tell them you don't need them to drive? Examples - If a father drives his son, then we just compensate them with their share. But what if we arranged drivers and received his commitment late. Now someone who stepped forward will be compensated less because someone who did not volunteer decided to just drive his own son. It's happened. No one says anything, but you could tell people were not happy about it. - When doing it by number of scouts driven, we often have extra space created by people not going, arriving late or leaving early. So it's easy to get someone who volunteered to drive to have zero or two scouts in the car and the guy with the suburban to have seven scouts in the car. Happens all the time. So what's fair. - Another problem is controlling how many drivers you have. Often you don't need a driver but they want to bring their car anyway. Sometimes they show reluctance at having more then one or two others in the car ... OR ... show reluctance to load their car with scout gear. Do you create a list where only the first X drivers are compensated? What if a key volunteer is past the cut-off for needed drivers, do you not compensate the key volunteer for his driving? - What about the scout who leaves early? Do you compensat his father for driving him home before the end of camp?

Judging always depends on context. For BSA, that context is the policies and guidelines. Though expressing it thru a friendly conversation is best, but ya better know the context. Otherwise those confronting a wrong often end up looking foolish.

WasE61 wrote: "Same is true in the youth baseball league I work with...and the volunteer has to pay the costs." Not where I'm at. Some youth leagues require background checks. Others don't. Depends on if they are an "independent" association or tied to a school or the city. Very inconsistent. The other thing I've seen is that there are no "policies" for youth protection. Just because someone has a clear background check, doesn't mean they are safe. So schools now do background checks. How about training? Expectations?

Get a copy of your local ballot for this November and have a practice election. See who the scouts would elect.

BadepP wrote: "The saddest scenario for me about this whole mess is I had some friends over for dinner the other night and in my den they saw some of the scouting awards I have received over the years, and a couple mentioned to me, "Why are you even involved with an organization that does nothing to protect their youth, I am very glad we never allowed our sons to join boy scouts." Some of the others chimed in agreeing, none cared about YPT saying it was way too little and way too late. My two sons were there, both Eagle scouts, tried to defend the BSA but the others told them "You two were just lucky I guess." If this is or is becoming the publics image of the BSA this may be one battle the BSA is gonna lose bigtime and seriously jeopardizes its future. " It's time to confront such statements. Don't let them stand. I'd respond that you'd better keep your kids home 24 hours a day and protect them from your own relatives too. I'm not apologetic about BSA's files. They could have done better but society as a whole could have done better. BSA had a national database trying to keep abusers out before anyone else. YMCA? Schools? Sports? In the caes, police were often notified or the 1st source of the info. Parents often didn't want police notified as it was before society wised up to the "He said. She said." issues. It was before the national awareness on the issues too.

Eagle92 - It's not a matter of splitting by levels as one unit running two parralle programs. So one committee. One COR. One unit. BUT, make pack meetings are smaller because only the lions, tigers and wolves meet together. Then the Bears and Webelos meet in a different room, different time or different place. I think splitting into two separate units that recruit from the same source begs for big future problems. I think having separate pack meetings helps solve an issue of the age differential between K and 5th grade being too great.

#1 We will NOT transfer funds if the scout switches units. It's a situation we have not faced yet, but we documented the policy in advance. We believe that the troop program supported the scout raising the funds to participate in the troop's program. If he wants to participate in a different program, that's between him and his new troop. The existing funds were to support his participating in our troop. ... #2 On the flip side, we may let a scout cash out a scout account IF it can be considered a "reimbursement" of personal payments. The family MUST have personally paid in more then being asked to cash out. Specifically, we did not want to penalize a few parents who wrote $500 checks at the start of the year for deposit into the scout's account. We view all money coming in as a deposit into the scout's account. We view all camp fees, dues, etc. as withdrawls from the same account. So we let scouts cash out to the extent that the family personally deposited. Otherwise, we'd be penalizing scouts and families who in good faith paid early and later earned funds to pay for their event. We be benefiting families who did not pay on time or fell into the red and later earned fundraiser dollars to make it up. ... #3 We don't do mandatory or "group" fundraisers. Scouts only earn into their scout accounts based on sales they personally did. We don't want to be apportioning funds to individuals. We want to avoid anything close to the following. You worked 3 hours and there was a total of 100 scout hours worked. So you earn 3% of the funds raised. ... #4 SeattlePioneer wrote: ... Great suggestion. I could see this addressing many concerns. It would be a pain, but worth it. "I'm thinking about inviting those transferring to a troop to continue to submit receipts to the pack for Scout Account expenses and having the pack pay them. Any funds left after a year would be retained by the pack." (This message has been edited by fred8033)

A few years ago, our DE started suggesting we think about splitting because of our pack's size. It never went anywhere, but I was thinking that if we did continue to grow (not an issue this year) we would not arbitrarily split as much as split by rank as to have manageable pack meetings and events. Right now, I'd be tempted to split it by Cubs versus Webelos. Keep one committee and one COR and one unit. But run two parrallel programs. Just a thought.

Roundtable training and breakouts are way too hit and miss. IMHO, that's why roundtable attendance is so bad. People get burned a few times and stop coming. They only keep coming if they make personal connections. That's why I prefer the online training. Consistency, high quality and available when I'm ready to take it. I only go to round table for the in-person discussions and learning thru conversation.

BadedP wrote: "... then they were violating the law ..." You don't know that. It's just a reactionary statement to an ugly situation. From what I understand, mandatory reporting laws did not start applying to scouts leaders until recently, if even now, and the current laws vary state to state. In most cases I've read, parents knew the details. Did the parents violate the law? Did the police violate the law when they did not prosecute?

I've been reading the files from my state. I'm fine with how BSA handled that set of cases (10 so far) ... that I've read so far. I haven't seen any burying their head or hiding cases or protecting the bad guy. If anything, I've seen an effort to get complete information, record what happened and a strong effort to keep the person out of scouting. ... By today's standards, everycase would have been handled very different. But by the standards of 1960 to 1985, I'm fine with how BSA handled the cases. If anything, I'd say they showed professionalism. Several of the documents included statements that the parents did not want to get their sons involved to shield their sons from possible police cases. I must admit that if I was an SE back then and the parents said they didn't want to take it to the police, I'd be hard pressed to decide differently. The one thing I wish I could find is a dependable source of the laws back then. Could the person(s) have been prosecuted? Would the victims have been protected?

Beavah wrote: "Perhaps we should put together a little group to do an investigation of da full release, and give a comprehensive picture instead of cherry-pickin' da worst incidents." Good suggestion. I'd be interested in the statistics trended over time. Essentially, 1965 versus 1985. I say that because the 1st national legislation on child abuse was in the 1970s, but that was focused on the battered child syndrome. Awareness on predatory abuse didn't start until the mid 1980s. As awareness and society changed, I'd like to see how that affected the organizational behavior. But you'd need the 1990 and 2000 files for that.

Great thread and good discussion. Glad to see everything worked out. I try to remember that as a registered leader YP doesn't end when the meeting is done. I'm still a registered leader outside of the activities and the YP rules still apply for my interactions with the scouting youth.

It really depends on your scouts. There have been times when our SM could not attend and I (CC) was the lead adult along with an ASM. I have no problem if two adults take 20 or more Boy Scouts on a camp out. Heck, the boys are to run it and have their program. BUT ... we currently have several special needs scouts, both autistic and emotional disorders. As such, we staff to deal with it. But if we did not have those scouts with us, I'd be perfectly fine with two-deep leadership. ... The year before I joined the troop, the SM only had one other adult at summer camp for the week. Worked fine. Just had to recruit drivers for the rides home. Camp staff was there to supplement if there was a real emergency. Scouts pretty much run the troop and wake up the scoutmaster for morning flags. ... I'll take two-deep leadership anyday over what I've seen lately. Our city has several troops with way too many adult leaders. It's like every parent is an ASM or MC. On any given day, they have 15 to 25 adults at summer camp. IMHO, that takes away from the scout experience.

Twocubdad - "never seen a cub earn rank?" - Not sure where you are coming from. The only cub rank requirement for the cub promise and law are in bobcat. Those requirements are "learn and say" for promise and just "say" for law. We use that as a time of dicussion about the parts of the promise and what it means to be a scout. I've never seen that requirement interpretted as memorize. The only memorize requirement is for AOL where it says "repeat from memory". If "learn and say" was to mean memorize, then AOL requirement would not say "repeat from memory". So when I say I've never met a den leader or cubmaster that knew them by heart, I'm serious. On the flip side, I've met many adults that knew scout oath and law instantly and without hesitation. I've got a great story about this actually. Our school has a set of somewhat gruff janitors that have been very helpful to our pack for years. Love working with them. I was passing time with them after an event and asked if they had been scouts. One of the janitors responded by reciting the scout oath instantly, perfectly and without hesitation. I'll never forget. It was a great moment. They had both been boy scouts.

Great change. In twelve years of cub scouting, I've yet to meet a den leader or cubmaster that knew the promise or law of pack by heart. Cubs were worse. Every former Boy Scout knows scout law and oath.