FScouter

"I was defending my character." You know of course that your character speaks for itself. Character is determined by what a person does and does not do. Comments by anyone about the character of another are merely comments from the peanut gallery. They have zero affect on another's character. No defense is necessary. The obligation of a den leader is to operate a den as outlined in the Cub Scout Leader Book. That others, including the Cubmaster, the committee, the chartered org, the parents of the boys (all boys have 2 parents unless one of them is dead), and the den leader that quit are NOT doing their jobs does not reflect at all upon you, the den leader that IS doing her job. I have respect for the person that does a good job, and refuses to be intimidated by others.

"You do not fold it in triangles like the US flag." Why?

"Providing "all the best for the boys" is not our mission. It's to train leaders." Training leaders is a part of Scouting, only a part, not even the biggest part. Our mission is to prepare boys make ethical choices for the rest of their lives.

Well, you know what will happen. Every boy in the patrol will "describe" the concept drawing of a flag, they'll all be Tenderfoot rank, and the patrol will have no flag. Something's missing. But at least no one has "added" to the requirement!

"I'm flabbergasted that National thinks it's good to have boys buy $40-50 shirts ..." The price for a new uniform shirt is $24.99.

What is the objection to a Scouting member supporting Scouting?

Is it the end of the year already?

"The gist I got was they felt he needlessly put himself into dangerous situations. This wouldn't have happened had he had a buddy." Maybe a smart buddy would refuse to go. My friend was a big risk-taker to the point that I declined to hike with him and participate in his dare-devil attempts. No amount of discussion or pleading would stop him from his objective. He recently fell over a dry waterfall and killed himself.

Most or all of your contract form is found in the Patrol Leader Handbook. Why not give him that instead? Lot's more info and help therein too.

Attendance is all well and good, and surely an effective performance will involve attendance. But the measure needs to be on the level of performance acheived, NOT how many meetings he attended. Every boy in the patrol/troop can attend and warm a chair with his butt, but that has absolutely nothing to do with performance responsibilities of the position. Plus, a goodly part of the position responsibility does NOT require any attendance at all.

I'm a little surprised at the numerous calls to "tell the Scout Executive". Why? What would you expect the SE to say? The unit is operated by the chartered org. Those folks, with the input of the unit committee are the ones that must decide what will or will not be done.

Performance, yes! Attendance does not equal performance, thus the ol' percentage method means nothing.

I don't believe in camperships. If a boy seems short of cash, I hire him to come over and do some manual labor at my house. A Scout earns his own way.

The irony is great. We hear about how it's not fair to ask the poor families to contribute to FOS, yet it's not fair either to ask everyone else to pay more. And a fee-based system isn't "fair" either. So who's gonna pay for the family that "can't" or won't come up with their fair share? Hey, make it a government program! Free, no one has to pay!

I disagree. It tells troop adults that they must find some way to keep boys active OTHER THAN writing a troop rule in the troop bylaws. Boys don't respond to adult written rules in adult documents. They DO respond to an engaging program. If you rely on an advancement rule to keep them active, you're only hope is that they will somehow desire a patch. Scouting isn't really about using a stick to motivate boys to get a patch? They learn Scouting values by willingly and enthusiastically participating in the program. If they're not interested, a rule isn't likely to help.

Y'all are confused about this "active" thing being about what the Scout does or doesn't do. Rather, this is aimed at adult leaders that don't do their jobs instilling the values of the program in Scouts. "We got active because National never defined active!" No, you got it because you had 3,000 units make up 3,000 different definitions in 3,000 different sets of "bylaws" that failed to address the real problem of adults failing in their mission. We don't fulfill our mission by making up rules to filter out the "unworthy" boys.

Primary, secondary, tertiary? We tell the boys their progress is recorded in their book, and we adults are not their mommy. A primary purpose of the board of review is for the board to determine if the boy has met all the requirements. If he doesn't bring his book we tell him we like to review the sign-offs. We conduct most of the BOR, then adjourn until the next meeting. We then reconvene and finish. Doing othewise teaches the boy that others are responsible for his personal affairs.

"Jiggering" = cheating. Considering we're in the business of teaching boys how to make ethical choices, such "jiggering" runs counter to principles. Hows about jiggering the cast in stone schedule?

That explains it perfectly! Any more questions?

That puts us back at the beginning: one of the parties is incapable of understanding?

Let's keep in mind that all we have is one story, from one council office, about a possible future change in policy. The best way to keep a program element is to use it and promote it to other units. When was the last time anyone's unit had a patrol hold an activity with no adult?

The push-back comes from the parents because they don't like paying a lot for their kid's food. The solution is to have the boys earn their own way. Simply re-direct the push to the boys. If the Scoutmaster or other troop adults absorb this "push", they're merely protecting the boys, ensuring they don't learn what they could learn, given the chance. The budget idea is a way to help the boys learn, but the opportunity is better if they develop the budget themselves.

"Wow, I missed the bit about the ban on simulated weapons..." You didn't miss anything; there is no such "ban".

"Not giving someone an award IS NOT PUNISHMENT" ??? Punishment is when the boy completes all 12 requirements, yet some adult tells him that's not good enough. We made up rule #13 and you didn't come to enough boring troop meetings and do-nothing campouts. You're keep talking like "active" is the only requirement for an award, when in fact completing all the requirements proves he was active. I still think this hangup with "active" is all about adults feeling snubbed that some insolent kid dared to miss a boring meeting, and we'll show him he can't get away with that.

Re sashes: The merit badge sash is never worn on the belt. Temporary patches may be worn on the back of the MB sash. The OA sash is not worn with the MB sash. 2007 edition, page 4 "Excess Insignia", and page 53. 2002-2004 edition page 4, and page 46.