KC9DDI

Is the parent that sent the angry email the same one as who picked up their son early? It sounds like there's a lot of opportunity for improvement in the communication department. Scouts needing to leave events early need to communicate that to their PL, SPL and SM. If those Scouts hold PORs, they need to be sure that their assistants are prepared to take on the responsibility in their absence. Perhaps parents need to be reminded of the responsibilities that their sons have on troop events as well. And, yes, it does sound like the SM should have communicated the change of plans (and the reason for the change) to the youth leadership and appropriate adults ahead of time. Sounds like a good learning opportunity for all involved...

Seems like the ones who demand tolerance have the least tolerance for those that don't agree with them. Do we need to tolerate intolerance? Hmmm... very Zen. Maybe "tolerance" is the wrong word to use. I remember an SNL skit with Tina Fey impersonating Sarah Palin, saying something like "Don't think I don't tolerate gay people. I do. I tolerate them. I tolerate them with all my heart." You'd probably consider me among those who "demand tolerance." To pick an extreme example, on some level I can "tolerate" the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, and neo-Nazis. I "tolerate" them to the extent that I recognize that there's 7 billion people on this planet, and a handful of those people will have extreme ideas and engage in extreme behavior. But I don't "tolerate" them to the extent that I will support their mission, either financially or even philosophically. I'm not sure I'd "tolerate" my tax dollars supporting their activities, my church or employer providing meeting space or other resources to these groups, etc. I definitely wouldn't "tolerate" their protesting a friend's funeral, spray-painting a swastika on my home or business, or burning a cross in my yard. And, I'd probably be willing to publically denounce or disagree with the ideology or behaviors practiced by these groups. So "tolerance" is not an all-or-nothing type thing - I can tolerate that these people exist, have a right to their own ridiculous opinions, and enjoy the same human and legal rights as everyone else. But that doesn't mean that I am bound to silently, passively watch while these people do harm to myself or others. Same idea with the BSA. I can tolerate the fact that in our very large organization, there are folks who I disagree with on a variety of issues. But that doesn't mean that I can't call attention to what I perceive as unjustified, immoral behavior. How do we deal with this? Well, on the large scale, either we do or we don't. I think the key issues are clear and well known. So we can either stay the course, and continue to exclude useful and qualified people from our organization, face increased difficulties in soliciting donations from other community organizations, and face increased opposition from the public in general. If we truly perceive ourselves to be on the moral high ground, it would seem that we shouldn't be too concerned with the fallout. The other option is to evaluate whether it's time to change some of these policies. On a smaller scale, my own strategy is to say something like, "Well, I agree with you. But I feel that Scouting offers a fantastic program, and it's truly a shame that we hamstring ourselves with our policies on X, Y and Z. But I think that change needs to come from inside the organization, which I why I continue to volunteer. And, in a far as I'm a role model, I make a point not to model this bigoted behavior and ideology." I guess when an organization categorizes a group of people as immoral, and unfit to serve as volunteers in a youth group, I wouldn't be surprised for people to take offense, and to share their own opinion with me. I guess I can "tolerate" that?

On a related note, does anyone know how, or if, other countries operate Woodbadge or equivalent courses? Are other countries more true to the original Scoutcraft course content, or has the swing towards management/organizational training been worldwide?

Why do we have to change to accept everyone else's ideals/customs? What exactly are you being asked to change? One course is being run in a different language. How does this effect you, exactly?

Why would the BSA offer a WB course aimed at another country's program?? No clue. But since the original blurb mentioned that the course was to be done in conjunction with Mexico's national Scouting organization, I was just wondering if any of Mexico's Scouting program would be incorporated. It would be no different than if a course was announced that would be held in conjunction with Scouts Canada - it would make me wonder if elements of the Canadian program would be incorporated. Not saying it should or shouldn't be, just wondering...

I'm not familiar with Mexico's Scouts program. I'd be interested to learn if this will just be the BSA's typical WB program translated into Spanish, or if the content will include topics specific to the Mexican Scout program?

What Venividi described is a good leader, not necessarily a natural leader. Is that person that people look to for guidance a good leader because he or she was born with some natural aptitude for leadership? Or because he or she spent several years practicing leadership, making mistakes, learning about leadership, or *gasp* developing leadership skills? Within or outside of Scouting?

JM - Then what distinguishes a "natural leader" from a plain old "leader"? (Or an "unnatural" leader)?

John - I think discussion of the CO model in a separate issue. I know it's been discussed before, but a spun thread couldn't hurt. But, pertaining to this thread, it just seems odd to me that the BSA and local councils affording "voting rights" only to a group of people who generally show little to no interest in exercising that privilege, while denying the privilege to "direct contact" dues paying volunteers. As a result, the professional staff is not being held accountable to the dues paying members in the organization.

How exactly would you define a "natural leader?"

John - Maybe. But, then again, why are those that actually do have direct contact with youth - who are directly carrying out the organizations mission - excluded from having a say at the council or national level?

I think the root cause of these types of issues goes back to "accountability." Who are the professional staff accountable to? As I understand it, only Chartered Organizations have "voting power" at a council level - thus only they have the ability to collectively set goals, guidelines, and provide oversight of the professional staff. Seeing as most COs aren't interested into getting too involved at a council level, the professional staff has very limited accountability to individual units in the council. This, in my opinion, is just one of several deficiencies of the "chartered partner" model, but I don't see how problems like the ones BD frequently brings up can change unless the standards of accountability also change.

Again I've had several first responders say they do not want an MD around unless they have an emergency background. They are too set in their ways and cannot adapt. Well, that's not entirely fair, and also not the whole truth. There's really two concerns when a "bystander physician" tries to aid first responders. The first concern isn't at all specific to the doctor-EMS relationship. For example, a neurologist would likely feel a bit out of place if he were suddenly asked to perform cosmetic surgery. Likewise when many doctors suddenly find themselves needing to provide emergency care, they're often just outside their comfort zone. And, worse case scenario, the stress and adrenaline of some emergency scenes, combined with a real or perceived duty to act, can cause some friction between professional emergency responders and physicians. The second big concern legal related. EMTs and Paramedics operate under the direction of a specific physician. EMS actually operates under an extension of that physician's medical license, which means that the physician is legally responsible for the care rendered by the EMTs and Paramedics under his or her medical control. Thus, the physician develops an extensive set of written protocols that EMS operates under. When EMS treats a patient, they open themselves up to legal liability if they exceed, or fall short of, those written protocols. So, in the event that a "bystander physician" is on an emergency scene, and attempts to give orders or direction to the EMS crew, there is a possibility that the orders given by the bystander physician will be inconsistent with the written protocols that EMS is legally bound to follow. The problem is that many physicians may not be aware of this procedure, which understandably can cause conflict. This isn't some kind of irrational fear of imaginary litigation, it's a very real concern that literally all EMS agencies have formal plans and procedures for, and is covered in all EMS education programs. Every agency I've ever worked for actually has printed documents that we are to present to any bystander physician who wishes to direct or participate in patient care, so as to limit the legal liability to the EMS crew, the medical director, and the bystander physician. So it's not really a matter of "not wanting MDs around."

My knee-jerk response is to just not do them at all. It's not that there's a few "abuses of the MBU concept" - it's that the "MBU concept" is almost completely opposed to the intent, purpose and goals of the Merit Badge program. There are a handful times when I think that "Merit Badge classes" are acceptable, mainly out of respect for the time and generosity of a volunteer counselor. For example, a counselor for a "rare" merit badge in your geographic area volunteers to host a class on a certain date, and offers considerable generosity in terms of preparation, supplies, etc. In a case like that, I have no problem with bending the rules a little bit, in order to make a "rare" opportunity available to a large number of Scouts, and also to be respectful of the generosity of the counselor. Same idea with summer camp - sometime practicality means that we should offer certain badges "en masse," rather than in the traditional 1-on-1 or small group setting. In terms of reasonable standards, I think we mainly just need to enforce some standards that we already have - namely not signing off on a requirement unless it has actually been completed. Another idea that might have some drawbacks is to ask each counselor to provide each Scout with his or her contact information (phone and/or email). It's incredibly unlikely that any Scout will get a badge completed in the 1-5 hours allotted in a typical MBU or summer camp, so being able to communicate with the counselor from home will almost always be necessary in order to complete the badge. That additional communication, responsibility and follow up will strike a better balance between the "economies of scale" that sometimes justify MB Classes, and the need for more personal guidance and mentoring between the counselor and the Scout.

I'm wondering why this type of interview would be required at all? Is there a cross section of non-candidate ASMs, committee members and parents that are fairly heavily involved in the program, and can provide feedback on each candidate? Actions speak louder than words, and I would hope you would already have a good idea of each candidates' strengths and weaknesses without needing to ask specific "interview" questions. If you absolutely feel the need to do an interview, I'd say follow two general guidelines: 1) Don't bother asking questions you already know the answer to. Don't ask "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" -- Surely your committee already has a good idea of the candidate's strengths and weaknesses after working with them in the troop for several years. Same thing with boy-led and the patrol method - that's something better evaluated by direct observation, not contrived interview questions. 2) Don't bother with questions whose answers you can't or won't use. In other words, skip the trick questions, the abstract ideological questions, the philosophical questions, the hypothetical situations, etc. Stick to real concrete concerns and issues that actually affect your unit. In my own opinion, examples of good questions would be: 1) Can you REALLY make this time commitment? (And be sure to provide examples of typical "Scouting weeks" from the current SM) 2) In the event of unavoidable conflicts, how will you ensure that the troop program continues in your absence. 3) Which adults do you see as being your "primary backups?" Are they prepared to take on an increase in responsibility (if applicable)? While I like the idea of talking about Vision Statements, I'd caution that it's very easy to write a very cerebral-sounding statement that's "all fluff," devoid of any actual substantial content, and generic enough to mean pretty much anything. If you do go this route, be sure to keep the discussion focused on real, concrete goals and plans with measurable results. I know I may catch some flack for this position, but I'd actually discourage you from approaching the PLC or any Scouts for that matter when making this decision. There's a couple of reasons: for starters, the SM is not elected, he or she is appointed in accordance with the CO's vision for the unit. Sometimes the CO's vision is different from the boys' vision and desires - and that's not necessarily a bad thing. A Scout's reason for liking or disliking a certain candidate may not be a valid reason. You also run the risk of a situation like "We all voted for Mr. A, but Mr. B got the job! Outrage! Conspiracy! etc. etc." Again, hopefully you know by direct observation how each of the candidates works with the youth, how they're respected by the youth, etc. So it seems like there's very limited value in interviewing the youth, and the potential for misunderstanding and unhappiness if you do.

When you agreed to volunteer in BSA, you also agreed to participate in BSA programs (maybe not explicitly but by association) Participation in JTE is not a condition of membership, neither explicitly nor by association. Just like participation in Woodbadge, OA, NYLT, Jamboree, Cub Scout Day Camp, etc are all optional. Maybe recommended, maybe a good idea, maybe strongly encouraged... but definitely not required. Asking people to leave Scouting based on lack of participation in an optional program is a bit extreme, don't you think? (And do you think that the numbers-focused professionals would really want anyone to leave the BSA over some silly paperwork "program" like JTE?) But I completely agree with you regarding DE's deserving to be rewarded by bonuses for quality work. And regarding the need for there to be some kind of metrics that gauge the quality of individual units and districts. However, the concern is that JTE is not an effective way to measure the health of a unit, or of a district. In my opinion, it really only serves to identify the "bottom 1%" of disfunctional, unhealthy, about-to-die units. It doesn't really have very much to offer strong units, or even to mildly troubled units looking to get back on track. And I think that's the significant problem with JTE, and with the Quality Unit program that preceded it - a strong unit looks at it and says "Well, this doesn't help us at all, so why bother?" And they're absolutely right - the BSA releases all kinds of aids and adjuncts for developing a quality program, but if a unit's program is going strong on it's own, why should the unit expend it's resources on something that they don't need? So while it may be useless to certain units, it has become very important to certain DEs. So the end result is a DE hounding a unit to pour time into something that has no benefit for the unit, which I agree is a cause for concern and skepticism. Now it seems to be that is all parties involved act Scoutlike (DE remembers that A Scout is Courteous, and the units remember that A Scout is Helpful) then it's really not a huge problem. But, in general, it seems like JTE needs another revamping...

Not trying to pick a fight at all, Fred, but maybe I'm just not understanding where you're coming from. Cause and effect? The BSA does not allow homosexuals and atheists to serve as adult leaders. Thus, I'm not surprised to learn that an atheist who is unhappy about the BSA's discriminatory policies is not a Scouter. The insinuation seems to be that because he is not a Scouter, he should not be permitted to voice his opinion regarding Scouting-related topics. Even when one of those topics is the very reason that he is not permitted to be a Scouter. You can't just respond to ideas and positions you don't agree with by telling people to shut up and go away. "Are you so naive to think they are not identified and known?" Are they? Do we know that Scouting is a stronger program, or a weaker program, due to discrimination? Nope. Various people may believe that it is stronger, or weaker, or assume one way or the other, or hope one way or the other. But we certainly don't know for sure - we can only speculate on the net effect it has on membership, finances and morality and character building. But we can get a little bit closer to knowing, or at least have more informed opinions, by continuing to research and discuss the issue. Scouting doesn't "teach" sexuality or religion? Learning occurs through more than merit badge classes and training courses. Do you think the youth aren't learning something based on who is and isn't allowed to be a leader in the BSA? If the "faith components" were optional, then those who profess no faith in a higher power wouldn't be excluded from serving in the organization. There's a difference between not wanting to listen to an opinion you disagree with, versus not wanting people to be allowed to express opinions you disagree with. The impression I was getting from your previous post, Fred, was that you fell into the later category. I apologize if I misinterpreted your position.

All over, really. Dublin, Waterford and Galway areas for sure, as well as Belfast and Derry in Northern Ireland. But I'd be willing to take a detour if there's somewhere else worth visiting for Scouting-related reasons :-).

He's a member on scoutingforall.org and an atheist social networking site And, he's not even a scouter I wonder if there's a cause-and-effect relationship buried in there somewhere? He's just hear [sic] to tell us what BSA is doing wrong How else can the BSA (or US Scouting in general) improve, unless it's weaknesses are identified? Now many of us wish BSA would get out of these political firestorms as it's not really an internal issue in scouting. It's not an "internal issue" because of the established discriminatory policies which keep certain people external to Scouting. Just don't be a one act play that's repeated over and over and over again. In other words, you want diversity in forum posts, but not in membership?

I think it may be worthwhile to separate the perceived "problems" and consider them one-by-one. Based on what you posted, it looks like you're dealing with (in no particular order): 1) Some naughty words on Facebook 2) Some difficulty in working with adults respectfully 3) Doing a not-so-great job in a position of responsibility that he doesn't even have (Chaplain's Aide) Taken individually, I don't think any of these "problems" are particularly problematic. Just the typical stuff you would expect to see in a 16 year old. It seems like problem #1 and #2 can easily be solved with a SM Conference. Just guide the discussion towards the way the troop (both youth and adults) are coming to perceive him, and ask him if that's the impression he wants to be making on people. Then work on guiding him towards adjusting his behavior appropriately. #3 should be even easier to fix - work with him on identifying an "official," full-time Chaplain's Aid. Kill two birds with one stone - another Scout gets to take on a leadership role, and your SPL can focus on just one area of responsibility. Honestly, I think that many adults tend to overreact on Facebook-related issues, and vulgarity-related issues. Regarding vulgarity... there's another thread going on about removing hats indoors, and the consensus seems to be that it's a silly, arbitrary, useless "rule" that people worry far too much about. I see some parallels with the language issue. Why are "darn," "fudge" or "shoot" acceptable words, but modifying one or two letters in any of those words to express the exact same idea is suddenly unacceptable? Seems awfully arbitrary and stupid to me :-) Personally, I'm pretty tolerant of vulgarity on the part of the youth. But, as was pointed out in the "hats" thread, part of "A Scout is Courteous" sometimes means complying with other people's arbitrary and pointless expectations of behavior. And that's the message I'd try to convey to the SPL - if you're speaking to an audience that expects a certain behavioral standard, the courteous thing to do is to behave as expected. Regarding Facebook... Yes, it's important to remember, and for youth to realize, that what gets put on Facebook might reach a wider audience than they expect. But it's also important for adults to remember that they're not required to act, or overreact, to every last little thing that a kid posts on Facebook. There's really no need to take a silly computer program that seriously. Put this in a little perspective: you have a 16 year old who used some dirty language to talk about a potentially sensitive subject. What would you do if you overheard this straight from the kid's mouth at a troop meeting, or on a camping trip? You'd probably pull him aside, have a 5 minute chat with him on appropriate language and behavior, and then send him back to his patrol. But when those same words appear on a silly computer program, suddenly we're talking about ex-parte meetings with SMs and committee members, SM conferences, phone calls to parents, removing the kid from leadership positions, and other people leaving the troop. Seriously? Overreact much? The boy has been an exemplary scout and has never been out of line as far as it comes to cussing or acting out. Any advice. Yes. Calmly point out to him some that some of his recent behavior aren't consistent with his "exemplary" track record, and act as a guide, mentor and role model in bringing his behavior back to the "exemplary" level. No public apologies, no meetings with parents, no removal from leadership, no court ordered community service. Just be a good Scoutmaster.

I have the opportunity to visit Ireland next week, and I'm wondering if any Irish Scouters can recommend any Scouting-related places worth visiting while I'm there?

Nope, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. We sometimes joke about our Scouts being pyromaniacs, but pyromania can be a legitimate psychiatric problem that needs to be diagnosed and managed just like other mental illnesses. If this young man's condition is as serious as its made out to be here, maybe it needs to be treated medically/psychologically. Or maybe mom just needs to relax - hard to tell without knowing more about the situation. Probably has nothing to do with Scouting, IMHO.

BD - I think you miss my point. I'm certainly not trying to defend anyone's bad behavior, and I'm definitely not defending your specific district. All that I'm saying is that 1) Often (but not always), accusations of not "being in it for the boys" are both inaccurate, and somewhat arrogant. 2) None of us are in Scouting only for the boys - and that's OK.

And people that forget that the ONLY reason we are here is THE BOYS. Period. Dot dash. This quote got me thinking. It seems popular for us to dismiss people or ideas we don't agree with by claiming that they're "not in it for the boys." The helicopter parent who goes overboard worrying about THE BOYS' safety? Not in it for the boys. The adult leader who chooses to serve at a district or council level, to help plan programs to reach THE BOYS in multiple units? Not in it for the boys. The DE doing his job to raise funds to support camp facilities used by THE BOYS, or ScoutReach units to reach a bunch of BOYS who might not otherwise be involved in Scouting? Not in it for the boys. The SM, CC or ASM who disagrees with you on the best way to direct your unit's program for THE BOYS? Not in it for the boys. I guess my point here is two-fold: The first is that it really doesn't seem appropriate to criticize someone's motivation, when what you really disagree with are that person's methods. Even that helicopter parent or psycho CC/SM probably believes that they are acting in the best interest of the youth - even if the way they go about it is problematic. I believe that in order to solve a problem, it's important to have an accurate understanding of the problem. And, in most cases, it seems like the problem isn't in the motivation - it's in the methods. My second point has to do with reflecting on why I remain involved in Scouting as an adult. Yes, working with a serving the youth are absolutely a huge part of the reason. But I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have any more selfish reasons for staying involved in Scouting. Honestly, I enjoy camping, and spending time with other Scouters. I enjoy trying new camp cooking recipes and techniques. I enjoy the challenge and the gratification of planning and executing large district- and council-level events. In other words, I have fun doing Scouting things - which I why I choose to serve youth in Scouting, rather than through church groups, youth sports, etc. And, to be honest, if Scouting stops being fun for me, I will find some other channel for my volunteer time. I bet that if all of the other committed adults are honest with themselves, they'd admit something similar.

So I linked to the wrong part of the US Code - the correct link is http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_36.shtml But there still doesn't seem to be a Chapter 10?