HICO_Eagle

None. I have seen too many people of all types with "awards". I respect the person, not what s/he is wearing.

Eagle92, agreed, which is why I refused OA as a Scout (wa-a-a-a-ay too many years ago) but accepted it as a Scouter (in a different council/lodge).

I'm honestly not sure what meaning it used to have. I refused to have my name on the ballot for OA elections when I was a scout because they seemed little more than a popularity contest or longevity award then. I accepted it as an adult because the lodge and council I was in then seemed to really have their act together and it really seemed like a group of honor campers. However, I never went past Ordeal -- I was too busy to go to lodge meetings and never got my membership book anyway. Perhaps it would have meant more to me if I'd been involved in it as a boy but I'm just not into doing things for show or ego.

You know, the ironic thing is Maryland's license plates claim the moniker "The Free State".

Daddy_O, you should be aware that some posters have agendas and will use any excuse to push them. Kudu is one of those posters. Kudu, please don't hijack this thread. WTH? I may be new to these fora but Kudu is one of the best posters I've seen on this. He actually knows about the values and heritage of Scouting and he provides documentation or citations. Oh yeah, he answered the OP's question, you're the one hijacking the thread by attacking him.

All those "right wing extremist" categories in Napolitano's new advisory to the police and she neglected Scouts and Scouters. I mean, aren't we as dangerous as people who collect guns, vets, etc.? Oh wait, I fall into those two categories as well ...

The best way to encourage a desire for training is to demonstrate that said training will bring value to their work with the Scouts. Mandating it will just create resistance and antibodies -- especially with the adults who view it as redundant or who know about and disagree with many of the changes in the program in recent years.

Just replace "my son" with "Scout X" and ask yourself if you would have done the same thing. IMO you were right to do what you have done. If anything, you may not be offering your son the same level of service as SM that you would another scout precisely to avoid the appearance of favoritism. I've frequently seen dads be harder on their own sons than any other Scouts and it can really make things difficult for everyone. Good luck to your son!

Daddy_O, I would say first that your boy's desire should be the primary criteria. If he feels Scouting isn't for him then he shouldn't be pressured to join or participate. Likewise, if he wants to continue in the program because he enjoys it, he should be allowed to. I can certainly understand your concerns about his health. Most troops I've been in have been outdoors troops but we have occasionally had Scouts who were not built for or not interested in a lot of outdoor activity. That's fine as long as he does what he needs to and participates fully in other portions of the program. On the other hand, perhaps I'm missing something but it seems like you want the "adult-led" troop more than your son does. In all honesty, he will probably get more out of the troop he enjoys. He will meet new boys, participate in new activities, learn new skills. He will do all of it more enthusiastically (and therefore get more out of it) if he enjoys the troop. I personally believe people learn more by doing things themselves hence the preference for a "boy-led" troop. You say he likes scouting and wants to continue. Let him. Where there's a will, there's a way. Honestly, you'll probably find other parents will be willing to give him a lift to and from meetings or activities if you're bogged down with your other child. I'm not quite getting why you're in such a hurry or say time is not on your side. He can always switch troops later if he decides this one isn't to his liking. You say he needs a path forward but it sounds like he's already on a path he likes, he just needs to watch for and accommodate physical limitations.

Thanks a lot for the references Kudu. Your website is fantastic. I guess I fall in a bit of a middle-ground here. I think pulling back on its moral core will hurt Scouting by driving away its base of people who value tradition and traditional values. BSA would likely see the kinds of fractures that are evident in the Episcopal Church today. On the other hand, I never really saw BSA as a proselytizing religious organization -- yes, some units were more religious or denominational than others but almost all units I've run into were pretty welcoming. My troop when I was a Scout interpreted the 12th Law as the Scout needing to believe in SOMETHING. It didn't matter whether you worshiped Jehovah, Yahweh, Manitou, Buddha, Zeus, Gaea or even Newton's Clockmaker as long as you believed in some kind of Higher Power to moderate your behavior. I still prefer that philosophy in Scouting; I got pretty annoyed at my first summer camp as an adult Scouter because the chaplain that led the opening service used a very denominational prayer and I had two Jewish boys in my troop. Thanks for all the discussion ...

The current Boy Scout Handbook I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this. They need to be familiar with the current (11th) edition of the Boy Scout Handbook since that's what the boys are using but they will be much better served by reading the 10th (previous) edition. In my opinion, the 11th edition is horrible, I don't understand how it has lasted as long as it has. I haven't picked up the current edition of the SM Handbook (I'm afraid to after seeing what they've done to the BSH) but the previous (8th) edition had a lot of good information in it. I like the 1972 edition of "Patrol and Troop Leadership", "Scouting for Boys", and the 6th and 9th editions of the Boy Scout Handbook. The latter two have some outdated information but a lot of very useful supplementary material that is unfortunately missing from the most current edition. The reprints of the 1st edition are interesting and have some lost elements of woodcraft but it's not entirely necessary and I'd leave that for later. The 3rd (previous) edition of the Fieldbook is also very handy with some great info on low-impact camping. Again, I haven't picked up the current edition (hmm.... do you see a pattern forming?), it seems to be physically larger and more expensive but I think the overall quality has degraded.

In our case, the troop bought and reconditioned a school bus for use on troop outings. We bought it using troop funds which are kept in a separate bank account by our troop committee chair and treasurer, no involvement from our CO. We purchased insurance for the bus through the church but paid for the insurance and maintenance using troop funds; the only thing the church asked was that we get anyone driving the bus properly licensed and not park the bus in the church lot.

We are only hearing one side of the story but I see a lot of you bending over backwards to impugn Schattenmann and defend this unnamed SM. I may be new to these boards but I'm hardly new or untrained as a scouter and I have seen situations pretty similar to what Schattenmann is describing. I am well aware that removing an SM is disruptive I said so myself. It is also sometimes unfortunately necessary. A festering wound like a SM practicing nespotism can be just as disruptive and unhealthy for the troop. I've seen this situation in troops, in churches, all sorts of organizations. It would be preferable to not have to remove the SM but it must be considered if his behavior is driving boys away and he won't consider changing that behavior. I'm sorry but I still believe the loyalty is owed to the troop, not a person, and what I read in Schattenmann's postings is concern for the long-term viability of the troop. What I'm puzzled by is the CC's actions. If he has so much more experience, was one of the first to see and voice concerns about the SM's actions, why isn't he leading this in the committee? Why is he using an ASM as the front man? This is a discussion the CC could be having with the COR, UC and DE without putting you in a difficult situation -- unless he also somehow thinks he's the logical choice as successor SM and doesn't want to be seen as making some kind of powerplay?

Everyone is piling on Schattenmann, possibly in a knee jerk reaction to defend this other SM, so let me take the other perspective. From what I see on the periphery, we have an SM who is taking advantage of a lack of leadership or involvement on the part of the troop committee to set his own sons up for SPL and Eagle by voiding the election process and mandating a dynastic succession for the next year plus. That is not healthy for the troop. resqman and John-in-KC are absolutely right in that it's the CO's responsibility to hire or fire the SM. The CO will usually take the committee's feelings on the matter into account on this. CalicoPenn is right in the way other positions are selected but it is inappropriate for the SM to mandate a succession timeline for SPL for the next year or so. Having said that, I have been in committee discussions where we discussed various boys' qualifications and needs for personal growth (not necessarily rank advancement) and how we should groom various boys for SPL or PL. Of course all those plans would been thrown in disarray had troop elections gone differently but we've been pretty accurate in predicting how elections would go and then plan accordingly. That still needs to happen. I'm going to disagree with the guys who are saying you need to think about being trustworthy and loyal to the SM. You all need to be trustworthy and loyal to the TROOP. The health of the troop and the boys in it should be the primary concern of the committee, the SM and the ASMs. I'll go along with Eagle92 though -- think VERY hard about this course of action. With the timelines you've outlined, you will probably have more success and fewer negative side effects (intratroop politics has a nasty way of bringing down otherwise viable troops) by focusing on a few key points to strengthen the troop: 1. Bolster the role(s) of the troop committee. How many of them would benefit from TIS and position-specific training? Get them lined up for it so they know what they SHOULD be doing and HOW to do it. 2. Shift the dynastic succession without attacking the SM or the boys he's trying to promote. Once the committee is set up with people who know what they should be doing, you can raise the issue of needing to reinforce the election process in accordance with national guidelines. That can (and maybe should) lead into a discussion of what those boys need for their own personal growth and Eagle advancement. 3. Get the committee and the SM to agree to a plan for leadership training. Point out what PLs should be doing but aren't, the question about the Venture Scout patrol, etc. Volunteer to plan and lead the training if no one else will so it gets going and show how it will fall in line with and reinforce national guidelines. I think if you do the three things above it will strengthen your troop, negate your strongest objection to the SM's actions and help you outlast the current SM. I would only take the step of trying to formally remove the SM if you had nearly unanimous agreement from the scouts and parents as well as the committee where everyone was willing to go forward to the COR -- and even then they OUGHT to go to the SM with their objections first.

I would leave the "too cold" judgment up to the parent but I'd precede that with an explanation of what preparations are being or should be taken and why. Show the Scouts (and the parents) why various pieces of equipment or preparations ready them for the weather -- and to what degree. I think the coldest I've ever done in tents is -5 F and it WAS kind of miserable for many of the troop even though we'd prepared pretty well. The ground we were on was acting like some ungodly heat sink so I could feel the heat getting sucked out the soles of my feet even with thinsulated boots and double layers of woolen socks. On the other hand, we all learned a bit that weekend and no one got hurt (although one Scout really had a miserable time of it as he messed himself inside his sleeping bag when he misjudged how long he could last before having to get out of the sleeping bag). The Scouts and their families should be comfortable with the environment and their preparations to exist in it. It could end Scouting for him if you cajole him into going and it ends up being a miserable weekend. On the other hand, he's going to nag his parents about going next year if they hold him back and the rest of the troop comes back talking about how much fun they had.

I'm sorry, I think solar ovens are cool but they're hardly new -- and they won a prize over truly innovative stuff? Sounds like the anthropogenic-global-warming hysteria is at work again -- just mention "greenhouse" and "Kyoto" and win a prize!

I haven't seen a snipe hunt since my troop tried it on me when I was a New Scout. Problem for them was that I knew it was a ridiculous prank and didn't fall for it. On the other hand, we DID send a new scout out looking for the left-handed smoke shifter at my second summer camp. I think the third or fourth troop he encountered offered to trade for the bacon stretcher across camp. He came back empty-handed after an hour and a half or thereabouts. I think he visited every troop in camp and even some staff but he took it in good humor. Personally, I think it was a rite of passage that really didn't harm him (sure wasn't as bad for him as them pulling down my tent and dumping water on me in the middle of the night on MY first summer camp) but it wasn't necessary to the program. What I do is periodically tell the boys there's a difference between good-humored pranks and hazing and to think about whether their "prank" will harm anything or make someone feel bad. Learning both how to take it and when/how to conduct it so no feelings are hurt is an important element of growing up.(This message has been edited by HICO_Eagle)

I'm not sure what the "perfect example of the current philosophy that is more concerned about recordkeeping than actually doing the program." I was referencing how your response seemed to prioritize the recordkeeping as the "bigger problem" whereas I viewed the bigger problem being the mandates themselves. If the training is encouraged rather than mandated, the recordkeeping becomes nice to have rather than the huge problem it is. If adults can't find the time then maybe they aren't the adults we need in the program. Perhaps my perspective is skewed since I have dealt primarily with smaller units that desperately needed ANY adult involvement they could get but in my opinion, these training mandates will eventually lead to the spiraling deaths of smaller units. That might be okay if all the Scouts migrated to the larger units but I don't believe they will and we will miss the chance to mold young lives that would have benefited from exposure to Scouting -- even incomplete exposure. From my own experience, if these rules had been implemented 30 years ago, I can think of a dozen Scouts who probably wouldn't have made Eagle -- including myself. My troop had a GREAT ASM who molded and shaped the rest of us but the SM was frequently whatever parent could be drafted into giving up the time (or more importantly, signing the paperwork). In my experience, the official training is less important than the personal enthusiasm and desire to help out -- and if mandated training dampens that enthusiasm or desire, it becomes counterproductive. HICO, how do you propose that one deliver the promise when one hasn't bothered to learn what the promise is? But that's just my point -- we have adults who are delivering the promise. Mandated training frequently doesn't help them learn or deliver it (I taught more than learned when I took Scoutmaster Fundamentals and have yet to see a need to take Woodbadge other than documentation). I'm not saying delete the training -- I highly encourage some of it for the adults or Scouts who need it but I'd rather keep them involved in the program than turn them off with time wasted on box-checking. I was able to assist with an Eagle service project two weeks ago only because the training I signed up for that same day got postponed. I will continue to take training that helps my knowledge base or is mandated to perform my role but what Scouts won't I be able to help because of the schedule conflicts and what about the adults who WOULD have helped if it weren't for the mandates?

Mine, and all the other adult leaders and pretty much every scoout in my unit feels he is not a good scout as he is not there, he shows no leadership, no responsibility, he makes some commitments and then blows them off. To pass this kid along to eagle would be an insult to every kid who actually did the worka and EARNED IT. The rank is the highest one scouting offers and to cheapen it and give it to kids who really do not desrve it waters down it's value and cheapens the BSA. highcountry, in this case you're covered. The Scoutmaster Conference prior to him seeing a board of review requires the SM to certify the Scout demonstrated Scout spirit. You seem to indicate that he hasn't shown Scout spirit. Now, to cover yourselves and make sure he can't complain about you sandbagging him by telling him about his failure to demonstrate Scout spirit in time to correct it, you should have a Scoutmaster's Conference with him and tell him his problems so he has time to correct it. I had to do this with a Life Scout who frankly disappointed me at Philmont. We convened an emergency SM conference with him, myself, the TCC, his father and another father to discuss the issue. We told his father about the issue before the conference and then asked him to NOT get on his son's case (he was one of the classic fathers who was harder on his son than any other boy). Honestly, the boy didn't get it after 35-40 minutes. He kept saying how things were going to change when he was Eagle and I finally got blunt and told him that not only wouldn't I sign off on his application if it were in front of me that night but the troop committee would fail him on his BoR if it was held that night. He finally got the message and I'm told (I had to move shortly after we returned from Philmont) not only reformed but was a model Scout through his 18th birthday and beyond -- and yes, he made Eagle. The Scout spirit provision is one of the catch-alls available to you before advancement to ANY rank -- just make sure you cover yourself by 1) giving the boy a chance to fix the problem and 2) documenting his failure to live up to the Scout spirit.

Wow, a LOT of discussion on this. I wouldn't go with an arbitrary attendance percentage threshold. Heck, even when I was Scoutmaster I missed a large number of meetings when work had me traveling. I think the key is whether or not the Scout is filling his leadership position. If he is, he's active even if he has to do it all outside meetings or activities -- for instance, meetings could conflict with athletic team practice, activities could conflict with varsity games but he could be filling his responsibilities as Instructor by meeting with Scouts privately to help them advance. If he just flat doesn't show up or do anything, he's inactive. If he's borderline, the SM and committee should be meeting with him to see what's up. We sometimes have a tendency to make things more complicated than they need to be.

Wow, I missed the bit about the ban on simulated weapons, guess I should be checking G2SS more regularly but I really wish National would put these things out for discussion before issuing their edicts. Irving seems to be emulating the nonsense out of DC more and more every year.

My current unit is chartered by the UMC but they are largely uninvolved with the unit. Our finances are completely separate except for the short period many many years ago when we had a troop vehicle that was getting insured through the church.

I used to keep 2 short sleeve shirts, one pair of shorts and one pair of pants plus 2 different leather belts and 3-4 neckerchiefs. I got the second short sleeve shirt so I could stay well-groomed through a week-long summer camp. For a while, I was splitting time between troops in two different states so I transitioned to using beige Velcro to mount my council strip, troop number, position patch and lodge flap. This had the added benefit of letting me swap patches between uniform shirts and remove the patches before putting the shirts in the laundry (I find they do much better when handwashed as needed). I just ordered 2 more short sleeve shirts and a long-sleeve as well as 2 more pairs of pants and a pair of shorts because ScoutStuff.org had them on sale and I wanted more in my closet for posterity in the event National actually makes the Centennial uniform permanent. I wish I had my old ODs like some of the scoutmasters at camp when I first became an ASM but lacking that, I will proudly wear the heritage of the OdlR uniforms.

""Training should be mandatory! " Of course it should. It's the best way to provide the proper program." I'm sorry, I don't believe that. Adults and Scouts should be encouraged to get training where they are deficient but I would rather have an involved adult who lacks formal training than have adults (or Scouts) pull back and not get involved because they "don't have the training" and don't have the right timing to get that training. One of the biggest problems I see right now is this management philosophy that places such a huge value on documented training instead of looking at the program itself and seeing if it's healthy. In fact, I'll argue whether the training itself even leads to a proper program given the most recent changes in how patrol method is taught or the new editions of handbooks that have lots of great graphics at the expense of the material they used to contain. "As a UC, I get questions all the time from my units where the answer is in the training." Which is a great example of when to encourage use of the formal training system. There are lots of adults who have no background in Scouting and can benefit from some of the training -- and lots of adults for whom the current training programs are redundant and superfluous. I think we'd get far better response to the training programs overall by looking at how a unit is functioning and then pointing out to the committee and SM/ASM how certain courses would help them. If the course isn't needed except to check some block then don't waste their time with it. "But the bigger problem of requiring a trained leader in order to recharter is the record keeping. How does that get resolved once and for all when a very trained cubmaster can't get his ScoutNet record to reflect he is trained after 5 years." Perfect example of the current philosophy that is more concerned about recordkeeping than actually doing the program. I wish I could read through some transcripts of the discussions that have led to some of the changes in the past 5-10 years because I'd really like to understand what they were thinking. I am not at all convinced that many of the changes instituted in the last 5-10 years have been productive or helpful for the program.

Wow, this just adds to my frustration with National. I realize the lawyers are just trying to help preserve the program by avoiding lawsuits that could cripple or shut it down nationally (and I realize there are groups out there that would just love any pretext to do so). On the other hand, this is just more evidence that our society has lost its strength and stamina. Just 100 years ago, the age when Scouting started, boys the age of our Scouts were frequently men of their house, earning (or supplementing) their families' keep. We had plenty of unsupervised or relatively unsupervised outings (even at official functions like Camporees) and they helped us to grow -- at one point, an Eagle Scout matriculation rate of nearly 50% in a troop with barely a dozen scouts and sparse adult leadership. How do we bring these things forward to the CSE and company in Irving?