KC9DDI

The CO can set their own standards and restrictions as to who is permitted to attend their unit's events. These standards may be more restrictive than those set by the BSA. However, if the CO is only trying to comply with the BSA's guidelines, but you feel that they misunderstand the BSA's guidelines, it would not be inappropriate to ask the council to clarify this with the CO. However, the BSA cannot force the CO to admit you to any event or activity.

Not a bad idea to have one. We have a few that are battery-operated, waterproof, and handheld sized. The alert feature is nice, but you must know the right frequency and SAME code for the county you'll be in. I'd say it's a good idea for "base camp" type scenarios, and also if you're running a day or resident camp program. Not sure I'd could justify the extra weight for backpacking, though.

I'm not sure what to think of Scouting's advanced adult leader training program, if having "some experience" with Scouting is listed only as an afterthought for staff qualifications...

Well, the beauty of a hypothetical situation is that the facts can be invented to support any pre-existing conclusion you want. In my hypothetical world, there's no reason to remove these hypothetical Scouters, even with giving the hypothetical Scouts the benefit of the hypothetical doubt. Unfortunately real situations are a bit more complex. And seeing as there doesn't seem to be much of a connection between this "hypothetical" situation, and anything in the real world, it doesn't seem worth continuing this hypothetical conversation.

I'm not at all opposed to staff recognition, but most pomp and circumstance and gift giving should occur at staff-only events, in my opinion.

Hmmm... just a few thoughts: Apparently, you overhead second-hand information that a scout was "instructing other scouts on how to circumvent online security to surf hardcore porn". First of all, I'm a bit hesitant to take drastic action based on information gleaned second- or third-hand. I'm not saying that you should ignore the allegation, but definitely keep in mind the relative credibility and accuracy of the information you know. Secondly, there doesn't seem to be any allegation that any porn (hardcore or otherwise) was present at a troop event, was in the possession of this Scout, or was shared or distributed at all. Keep that in mind as well. Third, what exactly does "circumvent online security" mean? Is this a program installed at school to limit internet access? Or by parents at home? Realistically, most of these programs are embarrassingly trivial to "circumvent," and it's not uncommon for kids to do so. It's also pretty common for kids to exaggerate their accomplishments. So, sure, the kid might have said "Ha, I got around that silly security program. I could look at hard core porn if I wanted!" when in reality, he was only updating his Facebook page. So it generally sounds like you need some more solid facts to go on before you engage in any confrontations. I think you should also weigh the actual "offense" (whatever that ends up being) with the home situation. If the offense turns out to be minor, I'm not sure you'd be doing any good by calling his parents. Just a thought. Not trying to ignore bad behavior, but just pointing out it's important to get a look at the whole picture before you engage a 13 year old in a conversation on porn...

"laregest indoor camping program in the countrty" Throw in a "leadership development expert" and watch Kudu's head explode :-)

There's not a lot of specific details here, but what you have posted certainly sounds problematic. At the very least, the boy's parents need to be informed, immediately. Keeping the committee in the loop is never a bad idea, but in this case you need to talk directly to the parents. Hopefully that will solve the issue, but if not... Set clear boundaries regarding communication between youth and adults. It sounds like you've already told this Scout that his texts are inappropriate, but maybe you need to go a bit further. Something like, "I don't feel comfortable discussing these topics by text. You are always welcome to talk to me at any troop meeting, and you can feel free to call me at home at appropriate times. But from now on, I won't be checking text messages anymore." And then follow through - don't respond to, or even acknowledge, any further text messages from this Scout. The "veiled threats" part is concerning, but pretty vague. What is your feel for the seriousness of this situation? Is this just a case of needing to learn to communicate appropriately? Or is there some more serious background going on - trouble at home, danger to himself or others?

BD - Which council and camp is that?? In my council, tent camping is $0.50 per person per night, which for a normal sized unit works out to roughly what you'd pay at a state park or forest preserve. Improved facilities do run a bit more expensive, obviously. I think heated cabins can be had for $50-$100 per weekend, depending on size and facilities. The most expensive facility runs at $200/weekend, and that's a combination dining hall/full kitchen/bunk area/etc.

Taser - It's sometimes frustrating to learn that the district and council professionals and volunteers don't really have any investigation or "enforcement" power over individual units or volunteer Scouters. There's a few exceptions - events occurring on council property, events involving camp staff - but other than that, most issues are left up to unit committees and COs for investigation and enforcement. Bullying and emotional abuse? Between youth, or involving adults? If it's a case where an SM didn't adequately handle discipline - well, that's probably not a very good SM, but also something that the professional staff will just kick back to the unit committee and CO to resolve. 1 on 1 contact? Sure, a YP violation, but not illegal. Unless there was some serious allegation beyond that, it's something that will probably be kicked back to the unit level. An SE really has no authority to investigate or interview anyone. So it may not be a "cover up" - just the CEO of a local small business recognizing that he or she has no authority or obligation to "investigate" further. Just a suggestion - maybe provide the facts as you know them, rather than some very vague "hypotheticals" strung out over a series of short posts. You'd probably get many more useful responses that way.

Beav - Well, I re-read the thread, and while we did start talking about the PLC's goals, it's true that the original poster didn't specifically mention that. Of course, without any reason to believe otherwise, I'd assume that the troop was functioning correctly, in that the PLC is involved in setting goals and guidelines with the guidance of the SM. But maybe that's not an accurate assumption in this case. But maybe we're not reading the same thread. I'm not sure why you think I'd encourage anyone to take any course of action that would be considered rude or confrontational. All that I've ever advocated is a friendly, quiet conversation between the two adults to make sure everyone is on the same page. Perhaps the end result is that everyone will need to learn a lesson about accommodating others, etc - but I still think it's important to have that conversation first. Desert - I agree completely, and I wasn't trying to suggest that the adults are "subordinate" to the Scouts. However, I would say that when the youth leadership sets appropriate goals and reasonable guidelines, the polite thing to do is for the adults to set the example and go along with them. Of course there are exceptions, boundaries, etc.

I'm hearing a hypothetical axe being ground in the background... If you don't have any first hand hypothetical knowledge of the situation, my advice would be to leave it alone. If you want to reach out to the Scouts who apparently lost friends and offer them a place in your unit, that would be a nice gesture - but there's really no reason to get involved in other people problems, especially these types of problems. If you do have first hand hypothetical knowledge of the situation, and know that it was handled in a way that a crime was committed without being reported to the authorities, or in a way that continues to place youth at risk of harm, you need to be talking to legal authorities, not anonymous folks on a forum. If it's just a case of not liking how a hypothetical situation was handled by the council... Nothing wrong with putting your concerns in writing and forwarding them to the SE. But carefully consider if the amount of knowledge you have on the situation gives you any credibility to comment. Taser - Unfortunately, some very bad people do occasionally use perceived "YPT Violations" solely as a way of stirring the pot, or in a personal vendetta against another leader. Yes, safety is the #1 priority, but the #2 priority needs to be treating our adult leaders fairly if any allegations are brought up. The only facts we know are that 1) Allegations were made; 2) Nothing happened. "Nothing" might be the right thing to do in this case. Hard to tell without knowing more.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

Hmmm... One last post to try to clarify and defend my position. I think there's an underlying issue here beyond uniforming. Like I said before, we encourage and empower our youth leaders to make decisions, set goals, and develop standards and guidelines for their troop. We also (should) set some standards of accountability and responsibility for the youth when it comes to carrying out the concrete plans to achieve these goals. We all know that many adults don't fully buy in to the "boy led" approach. (In fact, that may be the understatement of the month.) I feel that part of the responsibility of a good SM is to help ensure that ASMs and other adults not only "obey" the rules set by the PLC, but also to UNDERSTAND why it's important to do so. It's difficult for the PLC to be motivated to follow through with their goals if the adult leadership, their role models, indicate that they don't care. Sure, it's easy to write it off with "the boys don't actually care about that, they just want program..." Well, maybe that's true. But regardless of what the boys WANT, we give them the RESPONSIBILITY of leading the troop. Therefore, adult leaders have an obligation to support them. And who are we to say what is or isn't important to the boys? If the boys themselves set a goal for uniforming, clearly that IS important to them, and should be supported. Look at this independently of ex-Marines and uniforms. Say the PLC implements a plan for checking troop gear in and out on camping trips. Clear guidelines are developed, Scouts are held accountable for keeping to the guidelines, and the PLC is held accountable for following through with their plan. Everything is going reasonably well, except for one adult who ignores the system and helps himself to whatever gear he wants. Wouldn't you, as an SM, have a quiet, friendly chat with this adult? In my opinion, not doing so would tell the PLC that their plans and goals are unimportant. You'd have a difficult time motivating the PLC to be accountable for their plan, or to take their responsibilities seriously in the future. So now back to uniforming. The PLC has correctly developed a goal for the troop's use of the uniform method. The SM is obligated to either support the PLC in reaching this goal, or to work with the PLC to revise their goal if it is unreasonable. That probably involves having a friendly, non-confrontational conversation with this ASM, and at least presenting the position of the youth on their behalf. It's all true that the adults and youth have different standards, and that might be part of the lesson for the PLC in this particular case. But it's also true that the SM has an obligation to advocate for the PLC to the other adult leadership.

My council has three camps: 1) The full-service summer camp. The property is located well outside the council boundaries, probably a three or four hour drive for most people. So it's generally not heavily used by our council's units during the Spring and Fall. (It may be used by Scout groups in other councils closer to it geographically, I'm not sure.) However, it's located a short drive from several skiing and snowboarding facilities, so it's heavily used again in the winter time as a base for troops looking to hit the slopes. 2) Smaller 60-acre camp located in a suburban/semi-rural within the council boundaries, not more than 45-60 minutes drive from the furthest point in the council. The facility has a couple of buildings with kitchen facilities and indoor plumbing, as well as other shelters, BB gun and archery ranges. Due to it's location and facilities, it's used heavily for district and council events like camporees, training, Cub day camps, etc. Also used extensively for unit camping. It's pretty much booked solid year round 12-18 months in advance. 3) Larger 500-acre property located in a very rural area outside the council boundaries, probably a 1-2 hour drive for most. Facilities are fairly primitive - a large 3-walled barn used for shelter and equipment storage, 2 heated cabins with no indoor plumbing, a few pavilion shelters, a few pit toilets, and only recently a shower house with flush toilets. It's size makes it ideal for large camporees, trainings like NYLT and Wood Badge, and some Cub Day Camps. Also heavily used by units for weekend camping year-round. It's size is great for units who like to spread their patrols out, also plenty of opportunity for low impact camping, backpacking, etc. There's at least one unit on the property pretty much every weekend year round, but the shear size of the camp means it can accommodate many more. I'm not sure how we compare to other councils, but it seems like our properties are pretty heavily used year round. I'm sure that a few more units could be squeezed in here or there, but overall it seems like we do OK. Also, after a span of a few years where camp maintenance and improvements were neglected, it seems like we're turning a corner with more funds being devoted to these areas. So we're starting to see some nice repairs made to existing facilities, and work is beginning on building some new facilities.

Right Beav, I'm not mistaking a 12 year old Boy Scout for an active duty Marine. What I am saying is that problems can develop when a 12 year old Boy Scout observes an admired, respected role model such as a Marine ignoring a rule that he is being asked to follow. Shortridge explains it well. True, uniforming is a tool and a method, but not a goal in and of itself. However, this troop has set a goal pertaining to their use of the uniforming method. We encourage the youth leadership to set appropriate goals, correct? And we encourage and empower them to meet those goals, correct? So, if there's a single adult who isn't buying into this goal, it's only reasonable to find out why. I'm not saying that the ASM in question is in the wrong at all - but it's important to have an open and honest (and private) conversation between the SM and this ASM. It may turn out that the ASM will see the benefit of complying with the troop's uniform standard. Or maybe his position will cause the troop to re-evaluate the uniform standard they aim for. Or maybe nothing will change. But, at the very least, there's nothing wrong with having that conversation.

Are we talking strictly about Boy Scout Resident camps? A pet peeve of mine, at any Boy Scout camp, is when the existing facilities simply are not maintained. I don't care if it's a three-walled storage shed with a dirt floor, or a multi-million dollar modern dining hall. If you're not going to commit to maintaining the structure, don't build it in the first place! For example, a few years ago a camp in my council received a donation of one of those big "office trailer" things that you see used at construction sites. It made for a nice camp office, with room for a private first aid area, dry food storage, and a large office area. It was in use for several years, until someone forgot to close the door before leaving, and the door stayed open all winter. Needless to say several feet of snow accumulating and melting inside the trailer didn't help its structural integrity, and it had to be scrapped. All because no body CLOSED THE DOOR! Different camp renovated a building to include a nice kitchen, built using a combination of material donations and FOS contributions. It was great for large district and council events, day camps, resident camps, etc. Except there was no money put into maintaining it. First the dishwasher broke, and was never repaired. Then one of the large freezers went. Then parts of the stove. Now, after just a few years, it's barely half functional.

I might go a little against the conventional wisdom here. The way I see it, your troop is perfectly justified in setting a standard for uniforming. And if an ASM is undermining that standard, you at the very least can and should have a conversation with him on the topic. No need to be confrontational, but just explain your position - and, most importantly, listen to his! The fact that this ASM is former military shouldn't really have any impact. If anything, the fact that he's former military may make him MORE of an example for your Scouts. "Why do I need to wear my uniform is Mr. Jones doesn't wear his?? He was a MARINE!" This doesn't sound like an issue that you would want anyone leaving the troop over - but at the very least I think you're owed more of an explanation.

What's his angle? Can he legitimately not afford them? Or does he just not buy in to the uniform method?

I have come to the conclusion that those who have the mountaintop experience are very shallow people who have never experienced adversity or difficulty Aside from the unnecessarily degrading choice of words, there may in fact be some truth to this sentiment. Like most here, I have known several Scouters who have attended and staffed Wood Badge. Most of these Scouters have a positive impression of the program, and generally consider it to have been a worthwhile use of their time. But very very few of these Scouters have described it as any kind of "mountaintop experience." And of the vocal minority that has... Well, I do have to question their background a little bit if the material presented at WB is viewed as a mind-blowing, life-changing revelation. And, having the benefit of knowing a bit of these Scouters' background... there may be some connection between this attitude and a background that doesn't include significant difficulty or adversity. Just my observation.

Who exactly is "adapting everything" to whom? The BSA (a private organization), in cooperation with another country's Scouting program, is offering a single, optional, one-time training course in a language other than English. Yes our country did wrong things but its still the best place on earth. Once an Englishman told me the exact same thing, except about England. So is the U S of A the "best place on earth," or is the United Kingdom? Or is it a tie?

Moose - I agree that staffing training course, and other events, offers a lot of benefit to the staff members. I'm wondering, though, if that's enough of a reason to ask that staff members pay for the privilege of staffing? I've known several youth who have worked at a council summer camp, and a few that have worked at HA bases. All now count camp staff as a valuable, educational, gratifying experience. Clearly they got some benefit from serving on staff - but they also got paid! Should they not be getting paid - or, should they being paying - when serving on camp staff? Like I said before, I can see arguments for both sides of the issue. And, while I generally try to work things out so that event staff don't have to pay, I think it really depends on the particular event in question. What's acceptable for a one-day Cub Scout event might not be acceptable for Wood Badge. But... It seems like its OK in some cases for camp staff to be paid (summer camp staff). It seems like its OK for event staff to have to pay to staff (Wood Badge, others). But what is so special about the case where event staff neither pay not get paid to staff an event?

Moose - I agree that staffing training course, and other events, offers a lot of benefit to the staff members. I'm wondering, though, if that's enough of a reason to ask that staff members pay for the privilege of staffing? I've known several youth who have worked at a council summer camp, and a few that have worked at HA bases. All now count camp staff as a valuable, educational, gratifying experience. Clearly they got some benefit from serving on staff - but they also got paid! Should they not be getting paid - or, should they being paying - when serving on camp staff? Like I said before, I can see arguments for both sides of the issue. And, while I generally try to work things out so that event staff don't have to pay, I think it really depends on the particular event in question. What's acceptable for a one-day Cub Scout event might not be acceptable for Wood Badge. But... It seems like its OK in some cases for camp staff to be paid (summer camp staff). It seems like its OK for event staff to have to pay to staff (Wood Badge, others). But what is so special about the case where event staff neither pay not get paid to staff an event?

Abel - Depends on the circumstances and the event - how is that interesting? My point is that usually it just doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things.

Or do you generally allow them a free meal that has been paid for by everybody else including the instructors? With a few exceptions, most of the meals served on these type of events are pretty cheap and simple. Cold cuts, dutch oven stews, french toast and sausage, etc. Usually runs $2-$3 a person, at most, and usually much less for large events where food is purchased in bulk. As far as I'm concerned, the friendly, courteous and kind thing to do is to offer food and drink to visitors, be they the professional staff, parents, members of the hosting organization, other community members, etc. So, at NYLT for example, we absolutely do offer any visiting professionals to join us for a meal while they're onsite, and I've never felt it necessary to ask them to cover the $2 worth of food that they're eating. (Realistically, if we did charge them, they could just count it as a job related expense and get reimbursed by the council, so it's not like it really matters anyway.) I honestly have bigger fish to fry than worry about whether or not a DE eats a bologna sandwich while visiting a training or camporee...

I think there's valid arguments to be made for both sides of the issue. From the perspective of a "customer", on the receiving end of a training program, I don't really care where the program fee goes. I look at the content and expected benefit of the program, and look at the fee for the program, and then decide if that's a good value for me. If it's a good value, I'll pay for it and attend. If not, I won't. Where the money goes isn't really a consideration for me. Just like purchasing any other product or service - If I don't see it as a good value, I just don't pay for it. I don't expect to dictate to my local grocery store, clothing store or restaurant what they may or may not do with the money the charge me, and I don't see why people feel it's acceptable to expect otherwise of Scouting. But when I'm on the other side of the table, planning a district- or council-level program that needs staff, it's an issue that I think about a little more closely. Generally, I tend to err on the side of not asking staff to pay, but it depends heavily on the type of event. For example, we did a one-day cub scout winter program last weekend. I believe we charged $5 per cub scout, and no charge for parents/leaders. It was a full 8 hour day of program, including lunch. We did not ask staff to pay, and I'm OK with that for the following reasons: 1) We didn't ask adult leaders from the cub packs to pay either. 2) In the months leading up to the event, I'm sure all of our staff spent more than $5 of their own money just in gas to drive to the planning meetings, not to mention any supplies that we all purchased and did not submit for reimbursement. 3) $5/person seems like a reasonable fee, and covered the cost of the program adequately. Any additional payment from staff would have been 100% profit for the council - and the council did not ask us to pay. For a one-day adult training session though, where really the only expense is food, we charge about $2/person just to cover the food. In that case we generally will ask staff to chip in as well. NYLT is a little bit different, in my opinion, as the majority of the staff are youth. We currently don't ask the staff (youth or adult) to pay, and I'm not sure how I would feel about asking the staff to pay, especially the youth staff. I look at the enormous expectations and responsibilities that we place on the youth staff, and the fantastic job that they do in carrying out those responsibilities - and I would have a very difficult time justifying asking them to pay to take on that enormous workload. Adult staff is a bit different. Even though we're not formally charged a fee, we do typically purchase our own food out of our own pockets, and also donate some of the supplies and equipment purchases for the event, by not submitting receipts for reimbursement. Can't comment on Woodbadge or any of the more intense adult leader trainings. But my perspective is to generally subsidize the staff's cost, so that we can continue to recruit and retain the best quality staff.