Lisabob

I'm with you seed - I thought I was the only one with that particular shirt problem! And don't anybody seriously suggest we women should buy the skirts (to go w/ the yellow cub leader shirts) either. Honestly, how much rugged outdoor activity can one really do in coulotts and skirts. That said: the women's supply items might be especially bad but evidence abounds that most of the guys aren't too thrilled with "their" uniforms either. Sounds like we're all in the same boat. Lisa'bob

OGE and CNY I agree, this is not the way it is "supposed" to be done. You'll get no argument from me there. Unfortunately I've not had much luck so far in getting this arrangment changed. I'll keep advocating for troop guides instead of assigned PLs for the NSPs though. Maybe others will "see the light" after this most recent election result. Lisa'bob

The other night my son's troop had pl elections. In my son's patrol the older boys who were assigned (by the SM) as their pl and apl last year after cross over were re-elected to the same positions. From the sound of it, this is because neither of the other 2 boys who were present (both 1st year scouts - my son included) wanted the job, so the current PL and APL finally agreed to run again even though they didn't want to. (There are 2 other boys in the patrol, also 1st year scouts, who might have run for PL but they weren't present.) I'm disappointed because I've noticed that whenever something needs to be done, the younger guys just expect the older guys to take care of it. Here was a chance for the younger scouts to test the waters and take on a little responsibility and they more or less said no thanks, we'll just continue to rely on these older boys to do it for us. The fact that my own son wasn't more willing to step up is bugging me too, I'll admit. The two older scouts really weren't that interested in serving for another year as PL and APL for this patrol and only agreed because somebody had to do it. It doesn't seem fair to them either. I understand that the election "counts" and that this is just the way things are going to be for another year. But...I think this is yet another good reason why NSPs should not have PLs and APLs assigned to them. Don't get me wrong, the PL and APL are both really nice young men. But doing that set the stage for the younger guys to just sit back instead of getting into things themselves and developing their own leadership skills. Lisa'bob

Once you decide on a course of action, make sure that the boy (and his parents) who was on the receiving end of the threats and bullying knows what you are doing about it. Depending on what you decide to do, how big your troop is, and how public the incident was to start with, it might not be obvious to observers (victim included) how you are handling the situation. From experience dealing with this sort of thing in school settings, all too often the victim gets the impression that "nothing" was done because adults want to deal with the offender privately. The (often erroneous) lesson the victim learns from that is that the adults aren't going to take him seriously and actually do anything about the problem. Lisa'bob

Contact your unit commissioner and ask him or her to help you track down the unit that left the bags in your neighborhood. Around here at least, UCs have a monthly district meeting so they all know each other and it wouldn't be too hard for them to touch base on this. Lisa'bob

Kahuna, TheScout, I'll agree that governments can be terribly inefficient. But, to borrow from Winston Churchill's pronouncement about democracy: it's the worst thing there is, except for the alternatives. By the way I've lived in other countries where the government takes a far more active role in social services like health care and I've had cause to use those services. Never had anything but an excellent, quick, and efficient experience, myself. Stories of long waits for elective procedures are true in some cases but frequently they are actually urban legends. On the other hand, I've also been in need of emergency health care in the USA...at one point when I was just starting school and couldn't afford insurance...now that was a nightmare. So on the whole I'm willing to put up with "inefficient" government attempts to address social problems, if the alternative is that the problem continues unabated. Of course in these other countries we paid higher taxes too but at least people were fairly clear on what the bargain was and there was widespread consensus on the terms. You pay x amount in taxes because you get x services in return. Here in the US, people seem to have missed that connection; everyone wants something and nobody wants to pay taxes to support it. Lisa'bob

Gosh Rooster, thanks I think? Not sure whether your response was intended in a backhanded way but I must say that among my first thoughts were "gee, that would be like me saying that most conservatives are vapid, rhetoric spewing, closed minded, power grabbing, xenophobic elitists who understand far less about the world than they pretend to know." (This is not, in fact, my view: I know, like, and respect plenty of conservatives who are lovely, thoughtful people who - in my view - have none the less reached the wrong conclusions in most instances.) All sides of the political spectrum have their share of idiots...and alas the media seems to give them ample coverage. Personally I think we're better served by talking with "real" people rather than getting a skewed version of the other side via media soundbites. I hope this is just one of those times when reading intent into a post is difficult. Lisa'bob

Hey clydesdale, have a great time with your webelos. That was my favorite part of the cub program because there are so many opportunities and the boys are old enough to handle a lot more. My son crossed over a year ago. I'm finally beginning to feel a basic comfort/competence level with the troop side of things. But...back when my husband and I were WDLs (separately)...we usually had 2 regular meetings/month plus pack meeting and some kind of outing and that was plenty to cover all the AoL requirements plus doing lots of other "fun" stuff. So sure, you can do that. Much as we tried to prep boys for transition to troop life, I know it was still a bit of a culture shock as SR540Beaver mentioned. Not only meeting every week but also how those meetings work in terms of the specific parts (pretty regimented in our troop at least: opening, patrol time, skill, game, closing - much of the time spent focusing on prepping for an upcoming campout or outing) and in terms of the boys running the whole thing with little adult intervention. It is a lot more intense and in comparison, our webelos den meetings were more free form with a wider mix of activities at the den meetings. So whatever you can do to help your guys get ready for it, that's great. I'd really strongly recommend working as closely as you can with the troop over the next 18 months as your guys work through the webelos program. Lisa'bob

Hi all, Sorry to come late to the party. I've been huddling under the covers with a box of tissues and a cup of tea for the last few days. Just beginning to feel human again. jd is certainly correct that labelling causes all sorts of problems. Still, we have to have something or other to use as an organizing schema or we risk becoming overwhelmed by all the details and small differences, and not seeing any larger patterns or truths. With that in mind, when I said most conservatives tend to see government as part of the problem and not the solution, I was thinking of the Nixon/Reagan "new federalists" and Reagan's quote (which TheScout supplied - thanks) in particular. This has become the rallying cry and touchstone for a large percentage of today's conservative movement. It is also traditionally one of the clearer dividing lines between "liberal" and "conservative." Watching the conservative movement these days I'm increasingly fascinated by the divisions within, between those who are traditionally "hands off" when it comes to defining gov't role in society, and those who see an opportunity to engage in social reorganization via gov't. The difference between the latter and many liberals these days appears to be more about the content or focus of that social engineering rather than about the desirability of using govt in such a way. Makes me wonder which branch of the movement will end up dominating the Republican party in the 2008 election cycle. So does President Bush fit the "new federalist" mold? Well he seemed to when he first campaigned and won in 2000. But since then he has overseen the largest expansion of national government power in recent memory, created a whole new cabinet department (Homeland Security), presided over the largest expansion of an entitlement program (prescrip drugs) in at least 40 years, and taken on an entire policy area that was traditionally the domain of state and local gov't (education). Before someone cries "foul" and runs up the wounded colors from 9/11 - yes, there are very good arguments in favor of some, or perhaps all, of the above. Objectively though, this does not look much like the "new federalist" doctrine of smaller government that recent conservative movement leaders have embraced. As for me personally, it is my belief that government is uniquely situated to ameliorate a lot of social problems because a) only gov't can legislate - and legislation is frequently used to force society to take a face-on look at social ills, and b)only gov't has the legitimate authority to speak on behalf of the population, by virtue of having won election, and c) gov't provides a vehicle for sifting through and aggregating 260+ million individual preferences and I can't think of any other organization that is capable of doing this on such a scale, and d) gov't has the money (thanks to our tax dollars) to tackle problems that could not be dealt with at all, or that couldn't be handled evenly all across the country, if left up to local resources, and e) gov't has the ability to take a big picture view, whereas most of us don't have the time, info, or inclination to really see what's going on and what the potential effects of local actions are, outside of our own communities. Now there are liberals who won't agree with this and conservatives who will. It seems like it depends on the specific issue too. Whereas many liberals oppose national gov't handling of education policy (lots of joking about "No Child Left Behind" actually being "Every Child Left Behind" etc.), there are also many conservatives who support extended national gov't involvement in this area. While lots of liberals see the current prescription drugs program as a botched job, many conservatives support it. While many liberals oppose a national constitutional amendment defining marriage or the beginning of life, many conservatives support these extensions of gov't power. But what a lot of liberals don't support or understand about the current Republican platform is this: Why say you're for smaller gov't and then go out and do all of the above? And if you're going to create a lot of new government programs, or create a bunch of new mandates that state & local gov't will have to deal with (like NCLB and the prescription drug issue) then pay more attention to the feedback you get from those who have to actually implement the program on the ground. In other words, many liberals, myself included, might favor gov't involvement in improving public education and providing better, more uniform access to good health care and strengthening of nat'l security. It is the way that the current admin. is goiing about it - plus repeated rhetoric about small gov't, local control, individual(or states') rights, etc. - that is hard to reconcile. Unfortunately I have to admit as well that the Democratic party has done a poor job thus far of articulating that opposition, as well as a realistic alternative agenda. Howard Dean and Teddy Kennedy seem more intent on sounding off than coming up with a serious platform for change. The guy who gave the Democratic response to the State of the Union (VA governor) sounded to me as though he couldn't find a coherent message with two hands and a flashlight. So I'm waiting for a Dem. to come along who can articulate a clear alternative. Or maybe I'm waiting for John McCain to run on the Republican side? Anyway I hope this is at least somewhat coherent too. If not I'll just blame it on the cold medicine (grin). Lisa'bob

Welcome, PP85! I hope you will have a lot of fun as a volunteer with your pack. From personal experience: In the units where I have served, the secretary generally did not create the meeting agenda (committee chair usually does this) and did not keep an eye on the financial records (treasurer usually does this). The exact definitions of people's jobs can be flexible in order to reflect individuals' particular skills and interests. And our treasurers have always been happy to show the books to any and all who ask. However, it would not normally be considered the secretary's job to oversee all of this in the units I have served. Depending on what other committee positions you have filled, the secretary *might* be asked to keep records of adult leader training and/or rechartering paperwork, unless you have other people who are already taking care of those items. I absolutely agree with those who suggest you and the rest of the adult leadership get to training as quickly as possible. That will head off the vast majority of problems and you'll be able to focus on the fun/important stuff like having a great pack program for the boys. If you have a bunch of new adult leaders and there isn't a training coming up soon, contact your district officials and ask them about setting one up ASAP for your unit (and maybe offer to help recruit new leaders from other nearby units to participate too). Finally - it is rather unlikely that council will ever want to check your pack's records. In the vast majority of cases, council has a pretty hands off approach to individual unit finances and goings on. However, the organization that charters your pack (like a PTO or service club, or church, etc.) may ask to see your records, and parents in the pack certainly have a legitimate interest in knowing how the money gets spent, which leaders have been trained, etc.. Lisa'bob

I heard an interview the other day with the man who did the scoring for the opening ceremonies (including all that bad 80s pop rock). He's a Canadian who came to fame as a techno/rave dj in Detroit and Windsor. In the interview he mentioned something about trying to choose music that the whole world could relate to, along with some "different" music that people were less familiar with (ie, his own techno stuff). So I rather expect that some people could be reading a little too much into some of the musical selections? Lisa'bob

Scoutingagain keep in mind that just because the grandparents appear to have money doesn't mean they are (or necessarily should) going to foot the bill for this boy to go to camp. You can't know what the arrangement between "mom" and the grandparents is, regarding financial assistance. It might be that they provide a place to live and that's all they're willing or able to do. It might be that they don't want to pay for scouts, or for camp. It might be that they're already stretched beyond their expectations and financial planning by the sudden need to support their daughter and grandson at this stage in their lives. If I were the mom in this case I think it would be difficult enough to have a situation where I had to move back in with my parents. If I then needed to justify not only my finances but also my parents' finances to the committee, I'd be really embarrassed and probably wouldn't pursue it. That might lead to the boy dropping scouting too, rather than mom going through all that embarrassment. The fact that she has come to the committee with a request for help is all you should require of her. Lisa'bob

Hey Beavah, last I checked I didn't have a "liberal card" to carry - though I do have my scout card, a couple library cards, my ID card for work...a voter registration card & SSN card...(rummaging around in my wallet to see what else)...nope, no "liberal" card. Are the conservatives issuing cards to themselves these days? Let me know so I can start asking for them. (kidding, tongue in cheek, don't anyone fly off the handle here). Seriously, I'd like to answer your post in a thoughtful way but my kid brought home the flu and I've got it now too. So I'll come back when I have more than three working brain cells to rub together. In the meantime - jd - huh? It might be that I'm a little off kilter 'cause of that flu bug but I did not read into Beavah's post what you did. Lisa'bob

Yeah I don't really buy in to the "too busy" thing either, as long as council is being flexible in terms of when and where they offer training, and as long as we're talking about the basic training and not a million add ons (as useful as those might be, the more "mandatory" stuff the harder it is to implement). I've noticed that getting a whole group of enthusiastic, new (younger?) leaders to training sometimes rubs off on those stick in the mud types who went to training umpteen years ago - if at all - and never thought about it again. Guess if I were working with your council that's where I'd place my emphasis at first. Get all, or nearly all, of this year's new leaders trained first and then let them go back and be catalysts for change in their own units. PLus this allows you to take a positive tack - look what great stuff we're doing with these new leaders, rather than a grumpy, negative one (why won't these darned "experienced" leaders get trained, grumble grumble). Positive seems to work better and is certainly more fun. Lisa'bob

CNY makes an interesting comment: that the kids are too busy to work on scout stuff outside of troop meeting times. Here's my take: if they were really interested in working on a particular mb, they'd find the time. On the other hand, it might be that their *parents* don't have the time to drive them hither and yon to meet up with the mb counselor outside of troop meetings. That's a whole other problem. CNY it doesn't sound like this is something that's going to change anytime real soon for your son's troop so what about suggesting some marginal changes, like asking the scouts to pick a mb instead of having the adults choose it? Seems like a step in the right direction at least? Lisa'bob

Jerry I agree that this sort of misbehavior witnessed at the hockey game is unacceptable. But more BSA rules, regulations, training, etc. probably are not going to fix this. These scouts - and worse, their leaders - are already in violation of existing rules or guidelines or whatever one may wish to call them and whether they're trained or not, any adult with a modicum of common sense should have been able to figure out that such behavior is intolerable. This was simply a failure of adult leadership. One approach to this kind of behavior might be for people who were present and offended to find out what unit they're from and make darn sure that the CC and CM of the unit hear about it (assuming they weren't present) - maybe the DE and the chartering org too. One can also point out to one's own scouts how poorly such behavior reflects on ALL scouts, and why it is doubly important for them to set a good example. You know it might have a bigger impression on those scouts than you'd expect. One time we did a webelos campout in order to work on LNT. Initially our boys didn't seem all that interested. But there was a troop camping in the next site over that broke just about every LNT principle in the course of the evening - including chopping live trees "for fun" in the middle of the night. It was actually shocking - even more because the adults present had no interest in stopping the boys from misbehaving. By the morning our boys knew, understood, and had internalized the fundamental meaning of LNT. They still talk about it, 2 years later. I know our guys will never behave that way. Lisa'bob

SoDak to clarify: people who are opposed to repeated showings of the 9/11 footage generally do not argue that it will upset those who attacked us that day. They generally argue that a) it will upset those who lived through it, or had family and friends who did not survive the attacks, and/or b) it has become a publicity stunt or manipulative tool to play on people's emotions for calculated reasons (like ratings), and/or c) that endlessly repeated images of extreme violence are bad for all of us in a psychological sense. I've never heard anyone else argue that showing that footage would upset the terrorists - in fact, just the opposite, I've heard some suggest that it will embolden terrorist groups to attempt similarly grandiose attacks. To suggest that people who somehow suffered or were upset by what happened on 9/11 (wouldn't that be all of us?) and don't want to see repeated footage are "gutless wonders" is a little harsh, don't you think? Are fortitude and patriotism going to be measured by how many times one has watched the replays of the towers falling? I sure hope not. Lisa'bob

Interesting thread. Eamonn I agree that $239/boy needs to be justified - though I'm not sure I followed the calculations correctly. Again I can't speak to other councils, and I don't have all the details regarding my own council's budget. But I can say: We have some excellent DEs who work hard and are at the beck and call of unit leaders. I don't begrudge them their paychecks. We have three wonderful camp properties, all of which are well maintained and well utilized. We have good district and council level programs, at least for cubs (I'm less familiar with programs at the troop and crew level). Our FOS campaigns, which have been hurt in recent years due to local United Way embezzlement scandals that seem to have "spilled over" in terms of perceptions plus a terrible economy in this area, are still well supported by the community. But charging higher dues to cover the cost? Wouldn't float around here, at least not for cubs. A lot of parents rebelled when one pack charged $50/year. They'd probably vanish entirely if anybody raised dues to $125+/year. I agree it is illogical - some of these same parents do pay much more than that for "junior" to participate in sports leagues - but that's my gut feeling anyway. I have much less experience with troops but my impression so far (after a year) is that, if anything, our council and district do more for cubs than for troops, and that boy scouting is more costly to parents/families but less costly to the district/council than cubs is. We pay annual troop dues plus camping/activity fees every month. There don't seem to be a whole lot of troop programs offered by district or council other than fall and spring camporees (they run cub day and resident camps at the camp properties in the summer but not boyscout camps). So if anything I'd say it is even harder to justify $239/boy at this level than at the cub level. But maybe I'm missing things here. Lisa'bob

Sorry but I grew up in Buffalo - can't root for Pittsburgh. Seattle by a field goal. Lisa'bob

Eagle76, that's great; I hope you enjoy it and let us know how things are progressing from time to time. About that choice you mentioned between your wb ticket and your troop - this shouldn't be an either/or kind of deal. WB tickets are supposed to support you and your unit, not detract from your efforts. I wouldn't worry too much about this; your wb staff can help you make sure that you draft your ticket in a way that compliments your personal and unit goals. Lisa'bob

Hey OneHour - not to get too far off topic but I just about snarfed my coffee there when I read your post! 132 boys! Egads! How ever did you keep it from becoming total bedlam? We've got some elementary schools around here with fewer boys than that. Lisa'bob

Gosh Jerry, I'm afraid I'm with Beavah on this one. Just because things work one way in your unit does not mean things will work exactly the same way elsewhere. Yes, there's training and everyone should go, learn, and apply. But it is also necessary to work together with a group of people and to draw on everyone's strengths. Sometimes what works on paper doesn't work in real life for some legitimate reasons. Also, I've staffed cub leader training courses as well as sitting through a fair few and I do not recall anyone saying precisely who is in charge of planning the B&G... There are seven packs in my town and I know leaders in most of them - they all handle this differently. In one, the CM does nearly all of this. In others, the CM and CC take a tag team approach. In at least one, they have a separate B&G chairperson who is part of the committee. The balance shifts as personnel shift too. In the pack I was affiliated with, it was tradition for the webelos den leaders and advancement chair to plan the entire B&G. In some cases, we had a very active CM who was also excited about being heavily involved in the planning and he was welcomed. In others, our CM was great with the kids but planning wasn't exactly his strength - as long as we told him what we needed though, he was happy to carry it out. In that case more of the planning fell to other leaders. For our last B&G that I was part of: I was advancement chair and my husband was one of the WDLs. The CM, who had served the pack extremely well for 3 years, was stepping down and he had recently changed jobs so he was hardly ever in town anyway. By mutual agreement the webelos den leaders and I did most of the planning without the CM's extensive involvement. However, he did a lot of behind the scenes work including hand carving special awards for all 14 of our Webelos II boys. A lecture at some training session from someone who wasn't familiar in the least bit with our pack would've been unwelcome at best. In fact I'd have been offended - though I'm sure that wasn't your intent. And had you and I had this conversation, I would have advised you to get to know some other units in your area before making these kinds of judgments. Lisa'bob

Eagle309, that's a tough one. Although my son has not taken the fast track toward rank advancement in scouting, he too tests as gifted and I've seen him fit that "gifted super-achiever" profile in other areas of his life. (Of course he alternates between that and the "gifted slacker" profile - I would love for him to find the middle ground here!) What typically happens for him in these other areas is that if he gets going much too fast, he burns out within about a year, and/or he ends up in situations where he's by far the youngest in the group and his struggle to navigate the social aspect of that situation causes him to lose interest in whatever he was pursuing at breakneck speed. Sometimes he returns to those interests later on but generally he doesn't. Now that might not describe your child. But if it does, then as a parent (not as the SM) yes, I think it would be appropriate to extoll the virtues of a slower approach. By the way - the leadership requirements of Star/Life/Eagle ranks might slow your son down a bit too. I know with my guy when he gets into turbo mode he just flies through specific requirements or directions. But when he reaches more open ended tasks where he has to define the parameters himself he tends to get a little stuck. I think this is another one of those places where intellectual development and social/emotional maturity occasionally collide. I'll be interested to hear what others have to say on this one! Lisa'bob

Yeah I'll bite too. Here are a couple of examples of differences I've noticed among three troops in my area. I know and respect leaders from all of these troops. (Current SMs of 2 were even fellow Birds - though not bobwhites, sadly for them - in the wb course I was part of. Now that speaks volumes about them - we birds flock together.) Religious practice: Troop A, chartered by a local church, includes a large dose of religious practice in their troop meetings and campouts. They do scout's own services, Scout Sundays, etc. on campouts. They actively encourage the boys to complete the religious programs for their faith. Many of the boys in the troop belong to the church that sponsors this unit, but non-members are also welcomed. Troop B, chartered by another local church, does almost nothing religious. They take the view that this is a private matter for a scout and his family. Troop C, chartered by a service club, closes every meeting and campout with prayer requests, a group prayer (non-denominational), and the scout sign of benediction. However, few boys earn the religious awards. Regarding advancement: Troop A provides a lot of opportunities but does not push advancement. They seem to have a lot of older scouts who love the troop and scouting in general but aren't that motivated to earn Eagle. SM told me once that he views pushing/cajoling these guys into rank advancement beyond 1st Class - particulary Eagle - as missing the point. Still, their older scouts have the best "scout skills" I've seen from any of these three troops. Troop B has a pretty structured 1st year/1st class program and almost all of their new scouts make that goal. They are by no means a "mill" but there's a lot more emphasis on advancement in this group. It isn't uncommon for boys to earn Eagle around the age of 14 in this troop. Troop C takes a very hands off approach to advancement, with the result that advancement happens slowly, particularly among new scouts. Most of the boys who earn Eagle in this troop do so at age 16 or above. Regarding size: Troop A is small - usually under 20 scouts. Many of the scouts in this unit have developmental or physical disabilities, or just seem to be "quirky" in some way and not fit the mainstream. The small size allows the leaders to do a lot of one-on-one with the boys. They're a very close knit group. Troops B and C are much bigger (between 40-50 boys). While there are a lot of adults involved in both troops, the boy:leader ratio is greater than in troop A. Leaders in both groups have agreed that this makes it a little more likely that a boy who isn't quite "typical" may slip through the cracks. Given the more hands off style of troop C, this seems especially true there. Excitement Factor/Recruiting Style Troop A doesn't do a lot of recruitment beyond their "feeder" pack, also sponsored by their church. They have always been more than happy to lend a hand to cub packs when asked, but they don't actively pursue cubs from packs outside their own church. They figure that boys/families who would fit well with their troop's style will seek them out. Troop B probably gets the majority of webelos who cross over around here. They're known for having a very active recruiting program and they use their strong first year program as a hook. They regularly reach out to packs to invite webelos to attend campouts and meetings with the troop. Troop C has a few set recruitment events each fall/early winter, which are typically well-attended. They emphasize the fact that they camp almost every month and take big trips out of state every other year as the main way to showcase their troop's strengths. Camping: Troop A tends to camp about 6 times a year. Due to smaller size, patrols for campouts tend to be mixed age/rank. Troop B camps every month, more if you include patrol campouts. Most of their campouts are local, though they include a fair number of backpacking type campouts (not just car camping). They regularly attend district events. Troop C camps about 10 months out of the year. Most of their campouts are car camping, though they have a strong venture patrol that goes further afield and does more backpacking. They don't usually attend district events. Each of these troops has its strengths and weaknesses, differences, and particular character or style. Some boys will flourish in one troop and maybe not in another. I'd be hard pressed to say that these sorts of differences are "bad" though. Lisa'bob

I love OGE's one-night new scout patrol campout. What a great way to introduce these guys to the troop, teach some new skills right away, and have a little fun. Wish our troop had done something like this last year when my guy crossed over- and I'll be suggesting it for this year! Lisa'bob