fred8033

Beavah wrote: "Almost makes me wonder if he's doin' it so that at he can stand up and say "this award is worthless, I was able to get it for doing nothing! Here, mom and dad. You wanted it, not me." Those do happen occasionally, more's the pity." That's a perverse interpretation. The more basic interpretation of the direct interpretation. It's called a disputed process because the two sides don't agree. In another words, I'd interpret it as someone who feels he's been wrong and now feels like he's standing up for himself. As for the three outing agreement, sometimes people make agreements out of pressure or the quickness of the situation without thinking thru it. I'm just saying the scout probably does not feel as bound to the agreement because he might hold the opinion that he should never have been asked to make that commitment. I tend to hold that view myself. Of course, this is all just supposition. I agree the scout is rolling the dice and taking the harder path. But sometimes the harder path is the right path. That's for the scout to decide. In any event, I'm glad this situation is being used as an opportunity for reflection. ... Did you have the troop policies written, approved and communicated in 2009 and 2010 when the clock was ticking on the scout's "active" requirement?

desertrat77 wrote: "- Past: As a scouter, scoutcraft proficiency and leadership in the outdoors were the hallmarks of success - Present: Outdoor skills are things to keep the scouts occupied...managerial science is the most important thing about being a scouter " Fully agree with this point. I've only been involved for ten to twelve years now, but I can see this point. In our city, there are many styles of troops. What I've seen often does not impress me. Good appearing troops, but very bureaucracy oriented. Teaching office management leadership instead of how to work with others and get out and do things.

Tuesday.

Beavah - "That's just da reality. There is no standard." Ya just scare me Beavah. Ya just scare me. Saying there is no standard is justifying doing what ya want. Selectively interpreting "proficiency" to establish your own higher standard and thereby ignoring so many other BSA sources. It's not that there is no standard. It's that BSA has so little to actually keep leaders in check.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

DANG ... There is so so much bad attitude in this thread that it's almost impossible to respond sussinctly. Yet another BSA program bashing thread. ... SeattlePioneer - I guess it's point of view. What some see as legalism, others see as clearly stating expectations so that scouts can control and be responsible for their own advancement. The GTA is entirely needed to protect scouts from bad leaders. --- Bad leaders that just don't get it. --- Bad leaders that sit in their starched underwear pompously stating things such as "protecting the eagle rank", "paper eagle", "unworthy scout", "eagle mill". --- Bad leaders that label "the requirements" as "the bare minimum" and then libel the scout for only hitting the "bare minimum". --- Bad leaders falsely asserting it's once-and-done versus "actually learning something". --- Bad leaders falsely asserting it's a choice between GTA requirements producing poor quality and troop empowerment needed to produce high quality. --- Bad leaders that penalize scouts for long running unit failures. --- Bad leaders that package plain old meanness as teaching a life lesson. Simply stated, BSA's advancement program has become what it is because there are many leaders with their own agenda and damaging scouts to achieve that agenda. ... Eagle732 - "There's also plenty of room for a troop to determine if a candidate is "active" and has appropriate "Scout Spirit" to become an Eagle." Yeah, but if you think BSA appeal would over-ride you, then I question if you have as much "room" as possible. ... Lisabob/rismith - IMHO, district versus unit EBOR is just a scheduling and staffing issue. The district representative on unit EBORs is just to ensure quality and that EBORs are done right as eagle ranks are very visible and well known. But this goes to my next point ... Eagle is a national awarded rank ... but all ranks are really national awarded ranks. It's just that Eagle is treated significantly more special than any other rank. IMHO, this is a key problem. Ya have all the requirements for (S),T,2,1,S,L opportunities to hold scouts accountable and BORs for T,2,1,S,L to check that things are being done right. I get extremely sensitive when I hear some scout has made it all the way thru that process to only have others judge him unworthy of Eagle after completing the eagle requirements. I think rismith's example of the scout who used mostly family MBC. Yeah, the scout was wrong. But the troop ignored the problem way too long. You don't penalize the scout down the road for something you choose to ignore in the past. You hold to high standards during the whole journey, not just at the finish line. ... I am so glad that national has setup a strong eagle appeal process that has been supportive of the scouts because, IMHO, scouts need that support. There are way too many adults with their own agendas and their own failings that get between scouts and that final rank. ... On a side note, I always find it funny that it's a discussion of Eagle. Where's all the outrage at unworthy tenderfoots, 2nd class, 1st class, star and life scouts? IMHO, there's many more things to learn and achieve going from a new scout to 1st class than going from 1st class to Eagle scout. Plus the step from Life scout to Eagle scout is really not that much. Ten MB versus the already earned eleven. But the first eleven were probably harder as MBs were a new idea back then. .... Six more months in a POR? No problem, already have done 10 months of PORs. Just six more months. ... PLUS ... If you complete six months in a POR, you are automatically "active". So the big difference is an eagle project. The big effort there is usually the self-starting effort. I'm just saying, Eagle should NOT be respected that much more then all the other ranks.

Beavah - The "advancement" race is not measured by time. Otherwise, the smartest eagle scouts are the ones that close-out eagle by age 13/14. Advancement is measured by completing requirements and those completed requirements don't expire because too much time has passed. As you well know, the 2009/2010 effective BSA ACPP (advancement committee policies and procedures) had three criteria for (1-registered, 2-not dismissed from troop and 3-engaged by his troop leadership). Unfortunately, it's not Beavah's active definition as the whim of the scoutmaster. So, here's a scout that waited until 17. He completed the active requirement Dec 2009. It's too late now to use BSA requirements to justify asking for more. The situation is a remnant of lower expectations from years ago. But that's water over the dam. That requirement is complete and advancement is measured by completing the requirements. ... JoeBob - Keep your high expectation for the unit program and it's leaders. Don't penalize the scout at the end-game for past failures of the program and it's leaders.

JoeBob - I'm sure your a good unit leader and a good person. But I must admit your reply reflects the exact attitude that I hope I can shield from my sons and the scouts in my troop and pack. Beavah - Connect back with reality and the case-in-point. Real expectations occur during the scouting experience. It's been two and a half years where this scout has been registered and in the troop. You've got a scout here who has (or is about to) meet all the explicit eagle requirements. Ya want real expectations, make it part of the program. Don't blame the scout after the fact and then pompously strut a meaingless diatribe not supported by BSA. ... rismith - Not sure about 20 years later. I know a guy who at the next roundtable bragged to me (friendly discussion) about how he refused to sign a scout's eagle paperwork because he just didn't have the right attitude and behavior to be an eagle scout. He knew he'd be over-ridden, but he wanted to make a point. I asked him what happened to create the bad attitude. The SM said the scout always had a bad attitude. I asked him why he signed off on Tenderfoot, 2nd class, 1st class, star and life. He said he shouldn't have but he always hoped things would improve. .... Well, the scout is an eagle scout now and the guy lost alot of my respect. High expectations occur during the whole journey, not just at the finishing line. ... The simple facts.... It's not our job to spend time ... thinking about "Not the type of 'Eagle' you want to fly." It's not our job to spend time ... protecting eagle from being worthless. Our job is to support every scout and execute the BSA documented program.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

JMHawkins - I only applaud Guy & Chris in that they are trying to figure out what the right thing is. In scouts, it's sometimes difficult to navigate the path of BSA versus Scouts versus parents versus other leaders. Doing the right thing is not always easy and very often not clear. "Head that arguement off at the passs" - huh? Ya know ... there are some agreements that you can't ask people to enter into. There are definitely some things we should not ask of our scouts. Is this one? I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure it does NOT reflect anything related to being active. I certainly hope it does not reflect quid-pro-quo (i.e. do this and then we'll support your eagle). Scout leaders are to support all scouts in their troop. The big challenge is that the scout met the BE ACTIVE requirement in December of 2009. Well before the "reasonble" expectations were added to the GTA. Even with the new GTA, it sounds like the scout could strongly arguement for active via involvement with other activities (band, school, etc). Could you use the negotiated agreement to measure POR completion? If anything, that's the place where you could hold expectations and then it would be hard for council or national to over ride you. *** BUT *** if the scout completes six months in the POR and can argue he did anything, I don't think national or council would support you. The only sure way would be to remove him from the POR before six months is up. And that assumes he did not have any partial time in a POR from just after May 2009. I think key here is the scout should not have been re-registered in the troop. Though it is difficult (not impossible) to defend participation standards for advancement, you can have standards for troop membership. But to keep him on the roster and the later expect more when he wants to advance is not really kosher. ... Guy & Chris - Good luck. Your trying to resolve a less then idea situation. Strictly speaking, if the scout meets the Eagle requirements, he deserves the Eagle. It's that simple. ... I also agree with Lisabob in that don't shield the scout from the debate. Bring him into it so that he knows what's going on and why it's so difficult for people. When we talk life lessons, I think this is key. I think there is a poor life lesson if this scout has to challenge it at council or national to receive his eagle. I think there is a worse lesson if he does not get his eagle. You might be creating a future family that avoids scouting or yet another family that has bad taste for scouting. The life lesson to talk with the scout about is by not shielding the scout from the debate and then by the leaders in his troop doing right by him even though there is such a strong debate. If the scout can participate in a process that was fair and true to expectations, that's a HUGE HUGE lesson. Participating in a lesson where his own scout leaders are over-ridden later (or could be), that's a lesson about not trusting others and that some people who are there to "support you" are not always acting in your "best interest".

I'm not 100% sure which side I'm on with this one. But as to his last Eagle rank requirements.... Eagle Project --- Clear cut. Either gets them done or not. 5 MBs --- Clear cut. Either gets them done or not. scout spirt --- see below Be Active --- see below POR --- see below The two interesting ones are the POR and "Be active". If his life BOR was May 2009, Scout spirit - that's about how the scout leads his life. It is not about a certain number of meetings or how involved the scout is with the program. It's mainly something the scout himself answers. BE ACTIVE - This scout is not subject to the new GTA "reasonable expectations." His active tenure was completed six months after his Life BOR. So if the life BOR was May 2009, he completed the BE ACTIVE requirement in December 2009. Under the advancement guide in effect at that time which measured his advancement, he was active per BSA published "active" requirements. You can ask him to do now more (certain number of camp outs, activities, etc) to demonstrate his desire to be an eagle scout and dedication to scouting and your troop. Fine. That's your personal choice. But it's not something that he is strictly accountable too. I don't think national or district would support you. I don't think you can create an arguement to stand that he did not already fulfill the active requirement in December 2009. POR - I do not fully follow the POR issues written earlier. But ... if he currently has a POR and he's doing the minimum expected (i.e. you have not removed him from the POR), he gets time served credit. When six months pass, he's completed the requirement. You can remove him from the POR if you don't think he's meeting minimum POR expectations. ... Your really only option is to just not sign his Eagle application because you don't think he deserves Eagle. Some would see that as petty even though you might feel your justified.

I replied earlier in the other thread about measuring it straight by if the scout met the eagle requirements. If he did, sign off. I also have another perspective. If the scout is turning 18 in a few months, he's been in the program for 7+ years. Probably cub scouts before it. Scouting represents probably over half his life. BUT ... most of his friends have probably moved on. A few might be left. The majority of his scouting experience was from when he was 10/11 years old thru probably 14/15 years old. It's a pretty common pattern. Scouts begin to discover girls, start working at scout camps or "real" jobs and just exploring other aspects of life. Though we want the scout as involved currently as we are involved currently, take another perspective. This kid is still coming back. He still values scouting. Even with everything else in life, this kid still values something about scouting. I think that's great. If the scout completed the Eagle requirements, I'd be proud to sign his eagle application. The simple fact is that a 10/11 year old boy is going to be wide eye open, nervous but also excited about scouting. A 17 year old boy has been-there, done-that. He's looking at many other things happening or about to happen in his life. Don't penalize him for it. Celebrate that he keeps coming back and give him a positive experience to end his short-term scouting career. Heck, this kid will probably re-engage scouting with his kids later in life.

Eagledad wrote: "Do you have any mentally retarded scouts in your troop that want to earn BSA Life Guard before earning the swimming MB?" Actually, we have three such scouts out of our troop of 35 to 40 scouts. One of them earned his swimming merit badge this summer. I am so impressed with that young man. As far as Swimming or Lifesaving MB first? It's the same decision as for any scout. It's a non-issue. BSA did not make swimming MB a pre-requisite or a requirement for the Lifesaving MB. In fact, I've yet to see a true "pre-requisite" and the SM does not enforce individual MB requirements. The closest I've seen is the Emergency Preparedness requirement #1 "Earn the first class MB". But if the scout wants to do Emergency Preparedness, fine. I'd let him know about the requirement, but I'd still sign the card. He just can't finish it until he finishes First Aid.

I was trying to find clarification in Scouting Magazine. Often they clarify big issues like this. Well, I found something else REALLY INTERESTING. It's from an Ask Andy column. http://netcommissioner.com/askandy/2012/08/issue-323-august-1-2012/ The BSA Blue Card is going thru revisement. The scoutmaster signature line is changing. Current proposal is "I have discussed this merit badge with this Scout and recommended at least one merit badge counselor. I look forward to that change but I hope they update the GTA to clean up the wording.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagledad - Beavah's points are well argued and he does use "parts" of the GTA, but it ignores the other parts of the GTA and the BSA published clarifications both in the Advancement News newsletters, the BSA video from the BSA annual conference and many other sources. - 7.0.0.2 quote ignores "any scout can work on any badge at any time" ... scouting choosing a MBC -> "That is acceptable" The wording on approving the scout's MBC choice is more about making sure the MBc is a real MBC. Less about controlling the scout's MB experience. - 7.0.2.2 is about privacy. We are not to broadcast all the BSA volunteers. But scouts can also find MBCs by word of mouth, MB fairs and event fliers. - 7.0.3.3 quote is about mis-treatment. It does not address if the scout loses the MB counselor because of the end of the event, time or other reasons. In my experience, if the scout finds another MBC, fine. Or he can ask the SM for another recommendation. It's about supporting the scout in his effort to complete the badge. ... The key BSA clarification is in the BSA March Advancement News newsletter. That newsletter and the video indicate that GTA is being fixed and cleaned up because of this very issue. BSA says in "The words approved and approval in BSA literature thus have a limited interpretation, based only on administrative qualifications and those related to being capable and able. As we move forward with literature revisions, we will look at different wording that is clearer." The SM signature is very very much more a chance to share personal time with the scout. It is really not an approve / disapprove situation. I'm sure there are cases that could be argued to disaprove allowing the scout to do the badge, though for the life of me I really can't identify one. Perhaps, a SM should deny a swimming merit badge to a scout who can't swim yet. I'm not sure I would do that though. The MBC has a requirement to see the scout passes the requirements and the swim test is one of those requirements. I guess if you can wait until December/January, you will then see what BSA has written in the supplemental notes and made available on the video will be merged into the revised GTA.

I'd measure eagle by the requiremens printed in the book. If the scout met them, I'd sign off on his eagle paperwork. As most of the scout's time was under the previous advancement guide (ACPP versus GTA), the "active" to be used for this scout did not include the reasonable expectations. The GTA came out in October 2011. Until then, it was just a registered and not dismissed from troop as the standard for "active". I'd also just look at it as the Eagle requirements define the level expected to earn Eagle. If you want more out of the scout, that's between you, the troop program and the scout. ... The big problem I have with the POR system is it's very difficult to manage to a strict sense. Suppose it's May and the scout gets "Historian" or another position. If the troop is mostly quiet during the summer except for a few events, then there are not many measurement points for the POR. For adult leaders to hold the scout accountable, you need to interact EARLY and if doesn't change, REMOVE THE SCOUT from the POR. But say it's May and the scout only needs four months of POR. Well, June, July, August & Sept. You probably only have three troop meetings to evaluate his POR. After that, he's earned it. Even during the normal part of the year, you really really need to stay on top of PORs otherwise the time goes very quick. The general rule is scouts credit for time served and if they were not doing their job, you should have corrected them, trained them or removed them.

Wow. My heart stopped for a bit. Beavah quoted the GTA. Wow! A first. Of course the section quoted is one of the worst written sections anywhere. BSA has made a mess of the documentation / processes / intent. BSA's intent and intended processes is debatable because of that messed up documentation. BSA does intend some level of "approval" but it's the most minimal level ever implied by BSA. So minimal you can essentially view it as not an approval, but more documentation of a conversation between the scout and the SM. Here's other parts of GTA section 7.0.0.2 that you quoted. " ... any registered Scout may work on any of them at any time, as long as he has the approval of his unit leader." ... "A unit leader should consider making more of the process than just providing an OK. The opportunity exists, then and there, to share in a young mans life. Preliminary merit badge discussions can lead to conversations about talents and interests, goal setting, and the concept of challenge by choice. The benefits can be much like those of a well-done Scoutmaster conference." (BSA "challenge by choice" encourages each person to participate fully while maintaining the right to 'opt-out' of any individual part of the program.) It's also interesting that nothing ever discusses what approval it means. The blue card signature line itself NEVER says approve or approval. It says " (scout name, address, city) is a registered (scout type, unit, district, counciL) and is qualified to begin working for merit badge noted on the reverse side." so the key "qualified" recommendation is mentioned already as it discusses "registered". There really isn't any other "qualifications." It is interesting that the BSA Advancement news further says the following on page 4 of the March newsletter. "The words approved and approval in BSA literature thus have a limited interpretation, based only on administrative qualifications and those related to being capable and able. As we move forward with literature revisions, we will look at different wording that is clearer." "Capable" and "able" is vague as I can't find any MB pre-requisites that are not really just MB requirements that the scout can work to resolve while working on the MB with the MBC. So in my mind, it's sort of a non-issue. What I find most interesting is that the current advancement news video says a 2013 GTA update is coming to fix wording such as this and can be expected with the start of 2013. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Advancement_News.aspx At 22 minutes into this video, the video discusses the intent of the signature. It's interesting that the quote is "don't read too much into the signature". It's a conversation with the SM and a discussion of the MB process and the MBC process. THAT'S IT!(This message has been edited by fred8033)

raisinemright - Homeschoolers - We have many local homeschoolers. I know many that use the MB book as part of their homeschooling. The key is when they are NOT scouts. If they are NOT scouts, they should not have a signed bluecard. We've had it where homeschool buddies want to go to merit badge fairs. Sometimes it's okay. Sometimes it's not. But you can't earn a MB because your not a scout. Also some MB fairs or counselors also only want to counsel scouts. ... Eagledad - I'm pretty sure that is national's intention. The SM signature is to provide the opportunity to chat with the scout about advancement. Nothing more or less. The SM providing a name of a counselor is so that scouts are not left stranded wanting to do a badge but not having a resource. The recommended MBC is provided to support the scout, not to dictate who the MBC is. Watch this video: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Advancement_News.aspx ... I think key is to remember that the MB program is a council administered program. Using the MB program is an individual scout driven activity. The MB program is NOT at the heart of the troop program. Sometimes the troop might coordinate with it as the MB program can supplement and enhances the troop program. But MB program is not a central part of the troop program.

youngmaster - Thank you for sharing. I hope we don't resurrect this thread. Perhaps, it's just best left that not everyone agrees with you. I hope if you were a leader in my troop, I'd be confident enough to intervene. But, that's my troop. I'm sure your a good leader. We just prefer two very different styles. And what's acceptable in your troop is not acceptable in our troop. In actuality, I have stepped in with outside scout leaders. I've seen some adults that threaten physical punishments with our scouts. It seemed more like asserting power then addressing any real issue. I just immediately tell our scout that we'll talk about it later and immediately say that we don't accept such punishments in our troop. I'd be very proud if one of my scouts stood up to such a leader and said NO. Same as telling any bully no. But that's our troop. I think leaders often confuse the Scout Oath "obedient" with submissive. Obedient means following the rules. In our troop, such punishments are taught as wrong and I'd be very proud if one of our scouts stood up to such a situation. ... I also think that Sentinel947 7/19/2012 point is important. If you have a scout that has an attitude problem or issue, push-ups is just going to drive a further wedge between you and the scout. Builds resentment. In the end, some leaders and units may use push-ups productively. I don't think that's what BSA teaches or allows, but that is my opinion and the opinion of our troop. I think it's also clear that is what BSA G2SS says. But there are obviously other adult leaders that disagree. ... tgrimstead - Love your story. Now everyone doing push-ups. Cool. I'm fine with that. I'm a big guy, but can still do 35+ pushups.

prof - You posted before I could. Recommend versus assign. Exactly. The requirement is that the scoutmaster recommend a MBC. From what I understand, this is part of the SM supporting the scout. In another words, if the scout wants to do a MBC, the SM supports the scout by helping identify a counselor. But if the scout already has one in mind, that's fine. He can use his own or the recommended. The key is that MBC are "approved" at the council level (or delegated to district level). MBCs are not unit approved. If a SM does not think a MBC is doing a good job, the SM should notify the council or district to get things change. The unit alone can't change the MBC list. ... This is consistent with the SM signature. The SM signing the blue card is to reflect a conversation happened with the scout. And that the scout is "qualified". But "qualified" pretty much means the scout is a registered Boy Scout in the troop. The scout is NOT a Webelos Scout. The boy is NOT a home schooler doing a home school assignment. As for MB requirements, leave those to the MBC. Perhaps the SM conversation might mention to the scout that a specific MB requires another MB or a rank or a specific skill as the 1st requirement. Fine, but that's no reason to not sign the card. Strictly speaking, the scoutmaster is not "approving" the scouting doing the MB. The scoutmaster is just documenting a conversation happened and the scout is a Boy Scout in their troop.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Nice work ... only comment is don't use the BOR to evaluate the POR. BORs should not be a surprise. If the scout is not performing, remove them from the position. Otherwise, it's pretty much credit for time served. I know others will argue. I can only reflect what BSA wrote. BSA also addresses this specific case in an video posted by their national advancement team. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Advancement_News.aspx

Size is the obvious difference but I don't think the significant difference. Biggest difference I've noticed is variety. Most Cub Scout dens do outings, attend pack meetings and cub camp. Though quality varies greatly, activities are very similar. BUT ... Girl Scout troops vary greatly driven, I think, by the troop leader. Some might camp. Some might be more craft oriented. Some might be school work like. Others might be yet different again. Each troop is different.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle92 wrote: "With the exception of 2 public schools way out in the county and one private school, because of the busing situation the "neighborhood school" is no more. So it is not uincommon to have 2 or 3 packs at one school." For our whole council, it's almost exactly the opposite. I'd bet there is less then five or ten elementary schools that have multiple packs and our council has 550+ packs. That's got to be an interesting challenge. How do you choose which pack to join? I'd bet a good number of packs fold as one or the other packs gets favored. Only to be recreated later as the other pack grows too big.

dkurtenbach wrote: "For the relationship to continue to work, (nearly) everyone has to be on board, most especially the Webelos Den Leader and the parents of the Webelos Scouts -- every year. If any significant percentage of the 5th grade Webelos in any year go to a different troop, you've got trouble. Not just from the breaking of the "social contract" between pack and troop, but from the new relationships being formed between pack families and the other troop. If the boys who went to the other troop have brothers in the pack, the "partner" troop can really be screwed, and they have to start looking to partner with other packs in order to sustain their membership. Chartered Organization be damned. That's exactly what I'm seeing. And I see a push to do more with the other troop and less with ours. Now we need to invest for years to come to re-build the social contract. Luckily, our COR is willing to help and attend pack and troop committee meetings. The trouble is that both troops are good. Different styles, but good. But the other troop invests significantly more in recruitment. But we have the COR and can justifiably attend the pack meetings and influence the pack calendar. But we need to do it in a nice friendly way. It's just frustrating. We're all volunteers. We all work very hard. But hard feelings are being developed between groups. I must admit that even though I like everyone involved, I get frustrated with the individuals because of the situation.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

ScoutNut - You are correct. I'm talking about the pack, not individual scouts. How exactly does your Pack "support", and/or "promote", Troops OTHER than their CO's Troop? By the pack (not dens) scheduling multiple events with other troops. By accepting den chiefs from the another troop without any inquiries into whether we had any interested den chiefs. The other troop pushes den chiefs strongly as part of their recruitment plan. We've lost den chief opportunities because of that. Generally, I'll support any scout independent of the troop. It just gets frustrating when it's more about recruitment then the POR or the scout. Eagle92 - why? Out of loyalty to the charter org that has been providing you space, facilities and support for years. Parents and individual scouts are welcome to go anywhere. But the pack has a structural tie to the troop thru the charter agreement, thru the charter org and thru the charter org rep. The single COR is the top officer of both the pack and troop. If the relationship is not good, help fix it. If the troop is not good, bring it up with the COR. Promote change. Communicate. For your individual scout, go to the best opportunity. But the pack is married to the troop. Eagle92 wrote: "Why would Cub leaders promote a troop that doesn't want anything to do with them, have leaders who are condescending to them, and are not supportive of Cub Scout program, when the neighboring troop welcomes them, helps them whenever asked, and are supprotive of the cub scout program? " ... If the troop doesn't care, then take it up with the COR or charter org. If they don't care, then send your scouts to other troops. Benefit from them. But you still need to communicate with your own troop even if it's a one way communication. ********************************************************************* dkurtenbach wrote: Bottom line, I think it is a lot easier, cleaner, and safer for the pack to strongly encourage Webelos Scouts and families to do their research, shop around, and cross over to troops that appeal to them Fine. I don't know about "strongly", but encourage fine. ---------------- "I've heard lots of Scout leaders tout the "shop around" method, but have never seen it in BSA literature. It's essentially the Webelos requirement to have multiple troop visits interpretted as multiple troops. ---------------- "I think that also has the salutary effect of requiring a troop to improve or die, rather than a poor or average troop being artificially propped up by a regular infusion of new Scouts from a partner pack" I have trouble with this statement. It's a true statement but inconsistent with other things. If anything, there's always more stability and quality issues with dens and packs then troops. But you never see multiple packs actively recruiting the same school. So elementary schools are rutinely propping up poor packs. Many kids miss the opportunity to be scouts because of a poor pack. So why don't we have multiple packs recruiting from the same school as the norm. I can imagine the conversation ... "Hey, we only get eight Tigers scouts each year. Let's start recruiting from XXXX elementary too." ... "But pack 123 recruits from that school." ... "We have a right to put fliers in that school. There's no law. They'll just need to gear up their recruitment if they want the scouts." I guarantee that people will be alientated from each other if you had multiple packs recruiting from the same school ... ESPECIALLY if you put blame that they should have geared up their recruitment better. But it's okay for multiple troops from one pack. Hmmm.... The biggest protest I see is that troops don't do enough for recruitment and they don't have a right to a special relationship. It's the pot calling the kettle black. In the ten years I've seen recruitment, I've seen way way more invested for recruiting by troops than by packs. Packs ... They print fliers and have a join scouting night. That's about it for recruitment. Planning starts maybe a month in advance by printing fliers and getting them sent out. Maybe at best a 2nd flier inviting kids to the next pack meeting. Troops ... Most have multiple special events scheduled six months to a year in advance. They open up multiple meetings with special events for pack visitors. Most troops have special camp-outs just for Webelos and/or invite them to camp with them during a district camporee. Troops commonly jumped hoops to recruit Webelos. Only later to hear that they don't do enough for recruitment. The reality is it was more either a personality preference or a should-have-done-yet-more issue. But what if you did let the troop die? Often, the troop re-starts sooner then later. Does the pack now support that restarted troop or continue with a special relationships with another troop? Wouldn't you support your charter org by supporting it's troop? ... Ya know, there is no perfect troop. And I don't think parents and Webelos don't really know enough until after they've been in a troop for six months. Perhaps that's why I'm fond of the one-unit concept. Let people switch if they are not happy. Otherwise, promote a single scouting experience that does not include such large transitions as shopping for troops and crews.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Our city has more troops then packs. In addition, several troops have had their packs fail. So recruitment has really geared up. I've seen "smoozing" at roundtable that gets just creepy. There are two troops that have extremely geared up their recruiting to the point that I swear they teach their boys a script to say. I've heard it from multiple scouts at different ocasions. The part that get me is that they refer to our aligned pack as their feeder pack. Usually there's alternating recruitment from the pack. One year they go to us. Other to them. Back and forth. Mainly driven by who's brother is in which troop. Well, there's many brothers to the other troop right now in the pack. And I'm noticing some alignment with the other pack. The key I'm sort of concerned iwth is that the leaders now have kids in the other troop too. I'm of the belief that even though they have boys in the other troop they still need to promote the COR's troop. Individuals can go to the other troop ... fine ... their right. But the pack works with the aligned troop.

pchadbo - I acknowledge the BSA shopping model for webelos. I take zero offense if a scout chooses another troop. I might be sad, but not offended. That though is the Webelos scout and/or den. They are working on what's best for the individual Webelos. What's best for the pack and COR and troop is very different. I assert it's always better for the pack to promote their sister troop. The pack (larger group) has no "shopping" model or instruction from BSA. Their sister troop is "ANNOINTED" as partner through the charter organization. As such, the pack should treat their sister troop special ... even if the troop ignores them or if the troop is going thru hard times. The COR is the marriage between the pack and the troop. If my wife is upset with me for a few months, I don't head to the local pub to shop around. Ya work on fixing the relationship. Same with pack & troop. To be blunt, if a pack wants to promote another troop (not talking about webelos shopping) then that pack should join the other troops pack or start a second pack under the other troop's COR. Otherwise the larger group should support the aligned troop and help fix the problems. "Individual scouts" have an absolute right to shop around and that's what BSA promotes. But the "pack" does not shop around.(This message has been edited by fred8033)