JMBadger

Congrats from an Owl! C-14-09

6 members per patrol is so everyone is a patrol leader for a day at least once. (That's straight from the syllabus) The only thing I can find regarding 8 patrols is that that is what the syllabus says is optimal "based on experience." The game played at the end of day 2 expects 2 groups of 4 patrols each (if there are only 7 patrols, staff is supposed to make their own patrol to create an 8th). There are 8 "teamwork puzzles" in the second weekend. And there are 8 critters in the song.

Had a chat with my DE a few months back when the subject of whether or not the IH had to be youth protection trained came up. I'll say right up front that I don't know what the book was that he had with him, but it said: If the IH is not multipled in another position, he does not have to be YPT. IH is the ONLY position associated with a unit that does not require YPT. If the IH is multipled in another position, such as IH/CR or IH/CR/CC, then he must be YPT. My DE went on to say that while IH/CR is more common, the IH can multiple in any other position in the Unit he wants. Both my District Commissioner and the DC that gave me my COR Leader-specific training agreed with another point: while it is allowed, it is not advisable for these multiples to occur except in cases where a unit is just starting to get up and running. As soon as is practicable, these positions should be filled by different people. As far as the numerals go, I am COR to Pack 105, Troop 105, and Crew 105. I proudly wear 105 below my shoulder strip, above my COR patch. If my CO ever acquired a unit that did not have 105, I would remove them to avoid the appearance of favoritism, but until then, I will keep my 105.

In my limited experience, I've found any organized gathering of scouts and /or scouters either has an established dress code, or the expected attire is denoted in the announcement for the event. If the event is a service project or OA work party where we expect to get rather dirty, we are expected to show up in grungeable work clothes. When in doubt, I wear the full uniform with a scouting t-shirt underneath. If I show up and nobody else is in uniform, class-A shirt comes off and I'm suddenly class-B informal.

sbemis1, moosetracker: Congratulations on your Eagles! We have a 16-year-old about to make Eagle this spring, and I asked him if he's thought about joining the Venturing Crew. He grinned at me and said he wants to stay with the troop where he'll no longer have people (like his SM Father) expecting him to be constantly working toward advancement. Our venturing crew just formed this Fall and would really benefit from an experienced scout joining them.

Yes, it's easy to forget parents don't know the rules. I had no AWL. Since I never knew how many or which boys would show up, parents needed to remain there. If plenty of parents showed up and a couple needed to run an errand, fine, but the whole group couldn't up and go. Our meeting area was big enough the adults could remain at one end while we were at the other and not be a distraction. I don't have concerns about "easy graders" Shortridge brought that up, not me. But school employees are also trained in various YP courses (even my wife, a "cafeteria lady"), and are also trained to avoid 1 on 1 situations. Churches require the Sunday school and vacation bible school instructors to go through the same thing, and our local church requires it yearly. While occurrences are rare, every year or two you hear about a priest accused of something, or a teacher caught with a 14-year-old boy. YP concerns are something no school board should laugh at. My example is spot on with what I was saying a parent dropping off a boy and leaving him alone with a registered adult. Apples and apples all the way. My example illustrated a parent's willingness to leave a kid alone with a stranger simply because he is a member of the BSA. And drill it in all you want, the buddy system is harder to maintain with boy scouts because, as shortridge pointed out, the older the boy the more he tends to be independent. That is why it is the adults who are required to take YP every 2 years because we are the ones who have to make it happen.

I was helping to staff BALOO in the same building they were holding a MB University. I think the counselor in one room would have been thrilled if the boys could have "filled in the blanks." He was doing all the talking, and when he did ask a question, he received a room full of blank stares. He paused for a few seconds, answered his own question, then went on. I agree with mkay in that if the boy has filled in the worksheet completely, he has shown more interest and exposed himself to the information far more than a boy who sits in a seminar expecting to be spoon-fed the data.

Venividi I don't think I've changed my attitude or opinion, just become clearer and more selective in expressing my views. Yes, the vast majority of the time things will happen the way you say; boy wants badge, boy talks to SM for help setting it up, SM provides counselor info, boy earns badge. And yes, 99.99% of SMs are doing their best to provide the best program they can. And my examples of the evil SM are extreme indeed. But I have personal knowledge of troops that help a boy hustle through to Life, then actively prevent him from getting Eagle until they decide he's mature enough. I'm not joking about this, so my notions aren't all that far fetched. Shortridge More serious than you suspect. Your example of lazy teachers or professors grading easy are oranges to my apples. A scout is supposed to bring a buddy, so a counselor who has a "thing" for 12-year-old boys now has two of them in his home. Or a trusting Mom is going to be the buddy, but, gee, would you mind if I just popped over to the store while you're working with my son? I shouldn't be more than 30 minutes or so.... Think I'm stretching? I was the Webelos den leader, and had gotten to our meeting room early to get the A/C turned on. A few minutes later one of the new Webelos walked in all alone and sat down. When his Mom didn't pop in after a few seconds, I asked where she was, and he said when she saw my car was already here she just let him go in and said she'd be back in 45 minutes. Luckily he knew her cell number and I told her she absolutely had to come back RIGHT NOW. We had a long talk. Seems she felt his scout time was her "free" time. When I told her she had to remain in the room with us during the meeting, she thought I was kidding. She pulled her boy out of the pack 2 weeks later. Background checks turn up only those who've already been caught once.

In my opinion, it goes back to the boy-led troop. The boys are the troop. The leaders are there to provide guidance, not force a course of action. The adult leaders make sure the boys aren't doing anything illegal, against the rules, and make sure they are aware of opportunities available to them. If the SM wants to assign a particular counselor and the boy requests counselor B instead, the SM may choose to find out why. Does the boy consider the second councilor an "easy badge," or get "doe-eyed" when referring to them? That would be bad and needs serious investigation. When talking to other scouts who have gone to counselor B, do they seem more confused on the subject than before they went? This and any other problems regarding counselors should be brought to the Council's attention. Perhaps the preference is simple familiarity. Some kids are shy. Then talking with the boy, explaining to him the need to meet different people, may be the right thing to do. Suggesting to the boy that the SM would like to get the boy's opinion of the counselor, or that the boy would be helping the new counselor to "practice" his counseling skills might be enough to get him to go. But perhaps counselor B has already been teaching the boy the subject, such as a high school coach (the boy's Swimming badge counselor) going through the Personal Fitness badge, or the World History teacher (who was his counselor for two of the Citizen Badges) preparing him for the third Citizen badge. Should the SM's desire to have the boy visit different people override the boy's choice to work with knowledgeable adults with whom he is comfortable and respects? Should the SM have the power to prevent a boy from earning his Eagle by demanding the boy visit one particular counselor the boy doesn't want to use? A Life Scout with a single required MB left stopped in his path to Eagle by a SM who demands "My way or the Highway!"? Okay, now I am stretching. I have a hard time imagining a SM actually doing that. And I agree diversity can be a good thing. But I don't think the desire for diversity alone is a sufficient reason to override the boy's choice in this matter.

OGE, I brought up contacting Council and the Scout Executive in my second and third comments in this thread. And NO, to my knowledge, my district doesn't have a pedophile on its MBC list.

"So the only basis for assigning MB Counselors is the Scout's preference (very likely uninformed) and concern over being a pedophile? So anyone who is not a pedophile is thus a fine choice for MB counselor so long as the Scout thinks so?" When someone rearranges my words to make it seem as if I said something that I didn't say, it's the same as lying. I said you should have a very good reason for not going with the boy's preference, if he has one. Pedophilia would be an extremely good reason, but not the only one. I agree finding that a counselor is pencil-whipping the cards is another good reason. Surely there are others. The SM has the task of assigning a MBC because the boy may not have the resources to find who is qualified and registered on his own. The SM becomes the knowledgeable resource. But if the boy does have the wherewithal to locate his own counselor, and if the SM doesn't have a good reason for not selecting that counselor, then the boy's choice should be the one assigned.

I'm not telling anyone to not follow BSA procedure. I'm saying if the boy would rather go to Counselor B instead of Counselor A, then the Scoutmaster should select Counselor B for the boy to see, unless the SM knows of a very good reason why scouts should avoid Counselor B. And if there is a very good reason, the issue should have already been brought up to the Scout Executive.

I think SR540Beaver got it right mentioning the MB Fair (or MB University as we call it around here). We get the application for the MBU a month or two beforehand and the boys are told to select a first, second, and third choice. They don't find out which MB they'll be working on until a week before the seminar (or worse, when they get there). Not enough time to study the pamphlet, and then the counselor wonders why the boy hasn't read it. The boy winds up getting the MB anyway. Do this a few times and now the boy thinks this is the way it is supposed to be: no need to read the pamphlet or prepare in any other way, show up, sit through a lecture, try to avoid answering questions, get the badge. And in a one-on-one session with a counselor, he expects the same treatment. Has anyone ever heard of a boy being sent out of a seminar/lecture because he wasn't prepared?

I obtained the worksheet for the cooking merit badge and handed a copy to every boy in the troop who planned to attend my MB seminar. I told them, "Now none of you has the excuse that you didn't know what the requirements were." I indicated on the worksheets which requirements I would be covering in the seminar itself, and which requirements needed to be done by the scout either before or after. The sheets provided nice little charts the boys could fill in for menus, groceries, prices, weights, etc. Made it easier for me to figure out what the boy was trying to prepare. Also made it easy for me to catch a Mom doing the boy's work. His chicken scrawl over half the page suddenly became neat script. Seems he didn't feel like carrying the clipboard around the store anymore. I handed the Mom a new sheet and told her he needed to try again. Hasn't gotten back to me yet. I'm not sure you can force a kid to use the worksheet. If the requirement says "discuss with your counselor", I think that means an actual vocal conversation, back and forth. Can a discussion be written? Yes, but I can't imagine a counselor and boy passing the sheet back and forth instead of speaking. I agree with skeptic; it's a tool. If it works for you, use it.

TwoCubDad: Unfortunately, Ms Rawpork was recently indicted on 2 counts of pedophilia.... (My apologies if there is anyone reading this actually named Ms Rawpork!) But seriously, if you've discovered a counselor is "pencil-whipping" the cards, you should bring it up to council immediately. Getting a reputation among boys as an "easy badge" could be a lure by a molester. But unless you have serious evidence against the boy's choice of counselor, you should not prevent him from going to whomever he chooses. I reviewed my district's MBC list and many counselors are listed for 15 or more merit badges. But when I reviewed the merit badge list, a lot of badges have only 3 or 4 counselors in the whole district (comprised of 4 counties). So it isn't a matter of going across town to find a new counselor, it's going 20-30 miles away. Small, somewhat isolated troops with just a few volunteers compensate by having those volunteers become MBCs for several different MBs. So he can wind up getting 5 or 6 badges from one counselor. Then you have MBUs. Do you prevent a boy from getting a merit badge there because the instructor for that badge was the boy's counselor for 3 other badges already? Of course not. Horace Greely wrote "Common sense is uncommon." Everyone thinks their way is perfectly logical and if everyone else would use a little common sense, they would agree. People don't want to change the way they do things because that would be like admitting they were wrong. That's why we have written rules, and it isn't being legalistic to expect each other to follow them as best we can. And if those written rules are changed, our behavior needs to change accordingly.