FScouter

"... if you are a registered leader, the BSA cannot choose to not cover you." I suppose that if BSA is self-insured, it would be up to BSA to decide whether or not to stand by a leader that did not follow the rules and policies of BSA and a loss occured as a result. No?

Things might go easier for you if you could share your planning more ahead of time with the Scoutmaster. There isn't much time between April 21 and May 6. He may just feel that the troop has been operating a bit loosely and wants to tighten things up a bit. Remember that he is the Scoutmaster and is ultimately responsible for all the activities within the troop. He is indeed fortunate to have someone like yourself to take charge of planning a patrol event. Try to spend a bit more time with him reviewing your plans in advance and I'd bet he will be much more receptive.

One of the things I've learned is that councils are run by volunteers and they are not always correct. The most authoritative sources are the written BSA publications and the national BSA website. By the way, what is a "uniform cop" and how would that term come up at a BSA training? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Pink pedal pushers would look nice. Does Sam Houston allow that?

"... so we had to get approval. i went, and being the only boy there, i felt extremely out of place." I wonder if this Scout properly approached the bench with his cap in hand and head respectfully lowered. The committee is not the gatekeeper. They are not there to "approve" or "disapprove" activities the boys are planning. The committee is there to facilitate the activities, to grease the skids, and to help make it happen. The committee is NOT a hurdle the boys must overcome.

Maybe you could have a bridging ceremony for Webelos crossing over. The entire evening's program devoted to them. That might make it even more special, rather than tacking it onto the Blue & Gold celebration.

"Often, they are not aware of the reasons that a SM may deny an SM conference, ...". I can think of only one (very obvious) reason why a Scoutmaster would deny a Scoutmaster conference. Are there other reasons?

He said in the first line of his first post that he was an assistant Scoutmaster and a unit commissioner. Later he added committee member. Solely for the benefit of new adult leaders and vistors to these forums it seems appropriate to point out that any one individual may have only one position in a unit, with the exception of the chartered organization rep, and even that exception is not recommended. If a unit finds that some functions are not being covered, the solution is not to hold multiple postions. Units run much smoother when any one adult performs in only one position. The better solution is to select additional adult leaders. Unit commissioners are there to guide, advise and be a resource. It makes no sense to be a commissioner for one's own unit. How can you guide, advise, and be a resource for yourself?

Committee member, assistant Scoutmaster, and unit commissioner are mutually exclusive positions.

What the last 2 posts said.

"Our new Dist Chair opened the meeting by saying, 'I don't know anything about Scouting, but I can chair a meeting, and leave the details up to you, the experts.'" That sounds absolutely perfect! His job is to plan clear goals and objectives and see to it that good people are in place to handle the functions of membership, program, and finance to achieve those goals. Now, when he's chaired a meeting or two he can write the meeting agenda to, with input from the DE.

"The tone of this and other discussions in this forum have really taken a nose dive." We sometimes do that in these forums. The strong positions we take and the frustration we experience when others don't see it our way sometimes leads to high blood pressure, red faces, bulging arteries, and flared nostrils. For my part, I have changed my views on a number of issues over the years, due to the exchange of ideas found in these forums. Other views have solidified. Either way, I know I am a better Scouter from the ideas posted here from everyone that participates in these forums. Things do at times get hot under the collar, and I'm certainly guilty of spouting views that could be worded better to not add gasoline to the fire. To everyone, including regular participants, lurkers, and Ed too, please accept my apologies. Looking forward to more constructive discussions.

I think they can be valuable. Work through the Scoutmaster to select one. My experience has been that if the den chief has a younger brother in the den, or if his parent is den leader, the value is considerably less.

Has anyone ever heard the story about the "Little, Little Manny and the Big, Big, Coo"?

The Guide to Safe Scouting is not designed to provide legal protection as much as it's designed to prevent accidents and incidents from happening in the first place.

Ed, You're right. No one is going to get arrested for ignoring BSA publications and training. You don't have to do anything BSA says. You can do whatever you want. You can pick and choose whatever you like. Nothing is "required". I suppose by your way of thinking, the Boy Scout Handbook and the Scout Law are not required either. Your only "point" seems to be smugly declaring yourself to be a contrarian. Happy "scouting".

"So the real question is how does this work in practice?" Does it really matter? Certainly a Scouter that gets trained, follows the Guide to Safe Scouting, and uses common sense will be in a better position that an un-trained adult violating G2SS provisions and not using his head. Not sure what you mean about a "web of rules". Everything thats going to expose you to legal liability in in the G2SS. It's all there in one place. Just follow it and be safe. Simple.

If the SPL has conflicts with the SM over activities or where to camp, I'm not sure the best way to resolve that would be to bypass the SM and make his case directly to the committee. Nor for the committee to bypass the SM and go straight to the SPL. If the SM is controlling and opposed to the concept of boy-led, is involving the SPL in the committee the best way to fix that? Instead of one bad practice, now there are two?

"We do use the methods in my Troop. My point is/was they aren't required!" I guess what you're not making clear then, if you use the Methods and believe that they work, is WHY you keep insisting the Methods are not required? What is your purpose in continuing repeat that statement? If Scouters come to these forums for information and guidance, would it not be a good thing to guide them to the proven Methods? Are you suggesting that other methods (or ways) are better? What methods are better? What is the real message you're trying to communicate by saying "not required" ??

"That is absurd. There is no way I am going to advise my Varsity scouts to wear BSA shorts and socks while swimming or playing basketball." That does sound silly. I'd guess the writers thought it would be obvious that the uniform would not be worn while playing basketball or swimming, so they didn't spell that out. A custom tee shirt can be worn anytime, but it would not be an "activity uniform" unless worn with the shorts and socks.

There's lots of good reasons why the SPL should not attend. The troop committee meeting is not designed for boy leaders. There is no purpose in the SPL attending an adult meeting. The Scoutmaster is there to report and to present the troop needs to the committee. The SPL has enough to do without another meeting. He meets with the Scoutmaster. Take a look at the SPL Handbook, the SM Handbook, and the Troop Committee Guidebook for guidance. More important than what other troops do is what does BSA say is the best way?

"The methods are ways of doing things but are not requirements." So, Ed, what is your objection to the Methods? They don't work for you, or you have better methods (or ways), or what? Why do you feel the Methods should be optional? Why would someone go to training an NOT use what was learned? Give us some insight.

"... the methods of scouting are not requirements however if you do not incorporate them in your program you can't really have a true scouting program." I'd say rather, that the trouble starts with the very idea that "methods are not required", as if the methods are some kind of option, or a helpful suggestion from BSA. What does it take for some to understand that Methods are not optional? Must BSA write a legal document that must be signed by the adult leader and notorized? "THE METHODS ARE REQUIRED - SIGN HERE". The Methods are discussed at length in the New Leader Essentials training. Scenarios are presented and participants show how the Scout activities utiilize the methods. The specific trainings cover methods. Methods are in the adult leader books. How could anyone possibly think the Methods are not required??? Did any of you in the "not required" camp ever take New Leader Essentials training? How could you miss learning this most basic part of being a Scout leader?

"... for a female leader or parent to attend overnight camping, there must be no less than two attending females." BSA has no such rule. This is a good example of a unit making up its own rules. What's worse is stating "BSA policy" to support it. Not true. "I interpret that to mean that only ONE leader/parent at a trip or outing needs to be 21 years of age or older." That's what the G2SS says.

"I've only been to Philmont for training and haven't been able to get my committee to even put a trek on our wish list." Do the boys want to go? If the PLC puts this on the calendar at your annual planning conference, the committee shouldn't have much objection. They are there to support the PLC, not act as an impediment.