Lisabob

Here's (part of) what the G2SS has to say regarding Webelos den overnighters: "A Webelos Scout may participate in overnight den camping when supervised by an adult. In most cases, the Webelos Scout will be under the supervision of his parent or guardian. It is essential that each Webelos Scout be under the supervision of a parent-approved adult. Joint Webelos den-troop campouts including the parents of the Webelos Scouts are encouraged to strengthen ties between the pack and troop. Den leaders, pack leaders, and parents are expected to accompany the boys on approved trips." My understanding (from BALOO training and elsewhere) of the above is that "overnight den camping" means one night. This makes me wonder whether the CM in question has done BALOO training? If not, he needs to because that will better acquaint him with the limits on cub scout camping. Also - has he even considered whether the parents of the boys in question would be interested/able/willing to attend? I'm all for thinking big but in this case if I were on the pack committee I'd probably vote this one down. The jump from day camp to this...seems kind of extreme. Aren't there any webelos resident camp programs in your area that you could suggest instead? Even if your council doesn't have one, maybe a nearby council does? That would also take the burden off of the pack leaders to provide all the details of a summer camp program (see the other thread on an all-volunteer BSA summer camp for some idea of the level of detail involved.) Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

My son's troop decided to run their own summer camp program last summer. Many things went pretty well (everyone came back with the correct number of fingers and toes at least). This year though, they're going to a traditional BSA camp instead. It seems they decided it was a good experience but far more work than they expected. There were also some who felt it limited the opportunities for the boys to try new skills or pursue unusual mbs, because the troop leaders were teh only people on hand to teach skills and mbs. Further, many of the skills that the leadership is competent are included in the troop's regular program. In fact, very few of the boys completed any merit badges and very little rank advancement work took place ("mills certainly aren't desirable but neither was the other extreme). It isn't that the troop leaders failed to plan for it - it's more that they apparently didn't realize how complicated it is to run a week long program for boys of varying skill/ranks, ages, and interests. That and everything took longer than they expected. It's different than just weekend camping. There are lots of great camps out there. Unless you're absolutely wedded to the idea of staying put, I'd say take this opportunity to find another camp you like. Regardless, your council professionals deserve a swat upside the head for bailing out on you like that. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

I'm not too excited about this idea either. I think the BSA would be better advised to focus on ways to strengthen the existing program instead of trying to inflate recruitment numbers this way. I've gotten lots of questions at open house and round up nights from parents of kindergarten boys too. I just don't think "yes" is a good answer in this case. Around here, boys can join as Tigers immediately upon graduating kindergarten and they can attend day camp. So for the last several years we've taken boys who just finished K to camp as "cub scouts," along with the rest of the pack. There's a deep and wide chasm between the youngest and the oldest boys and it can be quite a challenge. I just can't imagine incorporating those boys into pack or district activities for cubs at the beginning of the K year! Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

How about, makes your job as a leader less stressful and more fun. Also: gives you an opportunity to drink large amounts of free, really bad coffee (well ok I'm mostly kidding but hey, there usually are treats...) Great list, Mark!

nlds, that's not what I have been told at pretty much every training I've ever been to - particularly BALOO where this was hammered upon repeatedly. Now, it wouldn't be the first time wrong info was given at training but for it to be so consistently wrong seems unlikely. Now, the G2SS does contain the following statement: "Accident and sickness insurance pays regardless of fault as long as the accident occurred during an official Scouting activity and the unit or council has purchased the coverage." When I asked how to square this statement with the emphatic claims that unit insurance may not cover you if you violate BSA policy the answer I received has been along the lines that "if you knowingly violate BSA policy, or do something that you really should have known not to do (if you'd been to training), then your activity is not an official Scouting activity because you didn't follow the official Scouting rules." It's a nasty legalistic sort of argument and maybe it wouldn't hold up in court but I'm not willing to take that risk. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

CNY, I hope you didn't take my questions in the thread to suggest that I didn't think you were sufficiently active. I just was wondering who in the troop was actually deciding to do these "projects" since it apparently is not the committee. From the description you've given so far I'd be willing to bet it wasn't the PLC either. So is it the CC? The SM? As for your CC telling to wait and learn how the troop is run, well, it sounds like you've done that, and now the CC can't feed you that excuse again when you speak up next time. A couple thoughts on how to begin rectify the situation: 1. Approach the CC well before an upcoming committee meeting and ask to speak with him/her about the service projects. Ask that service projects be a discussion item on the agenda for the next committee meeting. Outline your concerns and come armed with a couple examples of "do-able" and interesting projects that the troop could do, if they chose. Give the CC some time to consider and ask him/her who else needs to be brought in to this discussion. Be sure to couch this in terms of an offer to help rather than disillusionment with the current approach. As part of this discussion, tactfully point out that BSA units are simply not allowed to raise money for outside groups, no matter how worthwhile. So service needs to be something different from fund raising. 2.Assuming the troop leadership agrees to at least explore the idea of doing more service work, help them develop a list of service organizations and charities in your community. You could contact one or more of these organizations to inquire about what kind of service help they might like. Armed with a better knowledge of what's "out there," the troop (both adults and boys) might be more willing to try some new projects. 3. If the troop has patrols and your son is interested in doing more service, he and his patrol could do a service project together. (Someone else will need to fill in the details here about who the patrol has to clear this with but there's no basic reason they can't do a service project on their own, if they want to.) His patrol might be an example for the rest of the troop to follow. Of course - this has to be something he wants to do and not just a thinly disguised attempt on your end to "make" them do it, which could backfire on you. 4. Make sure you include outdoor projects in your definition of service. State and local parks often have community service projects (like removing invasive species or erosion control) that have the benefit of being pre-organized (you just show up at the appointed time) and simple. For a group that doesn't have much experience with service, this can be a good way to start. Stick with it CNY, it will be worth it in the longer run. Oh...and you're trained for your troop position, right? I find it is easier for existing leaders who aren't doing things they way they ought to, to "blow off" constructive criticism from people who haven't been trained. Esp. for former cub leaders - some troop leaders seem to take a "you're from Cubs, what do you know" attitude. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

Mark, If you're looking for "ammo" along these lines here's one way to frame things. Yes, all leaders are covered by pack insurance whether they are trained or not. HOWEVER, if something should go wrong and you need to make use of that pack insurance, it will only cover you if all of the various BSA policies were being followed correctly when the accident occurred. Now, where is a leader going to find out about those policies...hmmm...at training. On the other hand - if an accident happens and BSA rules/regulations were not properly followed, you (the unit, the committee members whose job it is to ensure a safe and appropriate program, the individual den leaders, the CM) may all find yourselves up the proverbial creek. So from a risk management perspective, allowing a leader to continue long term without getting trained is asking for trouble, not only for that leader, but potentially for the rest of the adult volunteers too. I don't know about you but I'm not willing to find myself in that position just because somebody else didn't see the "need" to get trained and then went out and did something s/he should not have done with the boys. I did use this on a particularly recalcitrant webelos leader when I started as pack trainer. If ever anybody needed training it was this guy but of course he was also the most resistent. When I put it this way he grudgingly accepted the "offer" to sign him up for the next training session. Hopefully you can find other ways to get people there but I, at least, had some luck with this one as a last resort. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

Beavah, you're right that financial donations are often more helpful and in fact, what many charities want. The problem from a BSA standpoint is that in general, units are not allowed to raise funds for outside entities. Here's a quote on this subject from the Sagamore Council website. (I tried to find the nat'l policy that they refer to online but no luck - then again that could be because I haven't had any coffee yet this morning.) "Scouts Cannot Raise Funds for Other Groups It is a national policy of the Boy Scouts of America that Scouts may not raise funds for other organizations. This includes any activity whose primary purpose is to raise funds. This does not preclude Scouts from doing service projects as they have done in the past. This is not a new policy, it just needs to be re-emphasized." link to the above: http://www.sagamoresignals.com/

OK I checked when I got home. Mea culpa for posting incorrect info. It must have been a troop decision to limit the younger boys because, as OGE corectly suggested, no minimum age for Boy Scouts is listed in either the g2ss or the "age appropriate guidelines." As for limits on where it can be done - I didn't realize this until today but apparently that only applies to cub scouts (who are more limited in terms of the types of guns/firearms they can use). Sorry about that.

6 year last Sept. Gosh I feel like a newlywed here. Happy Anniversary to all of you. It's me that had to drag my husband into scouting. Neither of us really planned on being leaders but I got involved with my son's pack and we really needed another den leader. I told my husband that it was either going to be him or me, and I already had too much on my plate. He grudgingly accepted the job and guess what, he's even better at it than I am! And he even got a little teary eyed at the Cross Over for "our" webelos. How could I not love that about him? Scouting has given my son and husband an opportunity to bond with each other. It has given my husband and me good excuses to slow down our busy lives and have deep conversations about values, spirituality, and our perspectives on parenting. It has given all three of us a chance to try things and go places together that we might never have thought of otherwise. It has even given me a greater appreciation for my son's (usually) good manners! Nothing like a little comparison to help you see how good you actually have it. So yeah, I guess it has been a good influence on our marriage as well as our family life. Now I'd better get out of here because if I don't get to the grocery store and go home he won't be able to cook my dinner! Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

The others are right, you'll enjoy it and find it worthwhile personally as well as from a scouting perspective. It will help you in both the pack and troop too. Go sign up! Regarding payment: If your older son's pack is willing to pay for the training (which is expensive in comparison to other cub leader trainings) then how will they feel about you moving on not too long after you finish the course? As you probably know, part of WB includes developing and delivering some projects to strengthen your unit. If one pack paid for the course but your tickets are focused on a different pack or troop, the pack footing the bill might feel abused so it would be good to discuss this up front. Assuming you focus your tickets on your older son's current pack: Most of the folks in the wb course I participated in finished their tickets in about 8-12 months after completing the instructional portion of the course. Some took the full 18 months and a couple actually needed extensions (took me about 14 months but with a little time "off" mixed in). If your younger son ends up in the church pack and it turns out that you aren't done with your tickets by the time your older son joins the troop, will you still be willing to work on projects for a pack that neither of your boys are in? I don't mean this as discouragement - I am sure you won't regret taking WB and I think more of us cub types ought to do it. Just a couple of pragmatic things to consider in terms of deciding how best to pay for it. Oh and our WB association offers limited scholarships (up to half the cost) and rumor is that they don't get nearly as many applicants as they'd be willing to fund. Might be good to check and see if that applies in your case too. And when you get there, remember that no matter what those others say, they all secretly wish they were BOBWHITES. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

Cineburk, while you're counting seat belts and scouts, make sure to consider the passenger side air bag issue and whether or not the boys are legally allowed to ride in the front seat (with or without air bags) too. jens3sons, doesn't the booster seat laws vary from state to state? Also, when reviewing tour permit apps, do you ever check the license status of the drivers? I ask because I know of one unit where a parent frequently helped drive kids to and from events, and after about a year of this, the parent let slip that their license had been revoked some time ago! Yikes! The unit leaders had no idea and were just really lucky nothing bad happened. Gosh, I don't think I've ever heard of our council failing to approve a tour permit app, as long as all the blanks are filled in. Perhaps they don't check the details as carefully as you do. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

I believe there's an age restriction on the use of certain kinds of guns in BSA. I'm not an expert on this so please look it up (and someone correct me if I'm wrong - I know you will!). But my son's troop did a shotgun and rifle camp earlier in the fall and the younger boys (under 14 I think) were only allowed to shoot one of the two. I can't remember which one though. That's not a reason to avoid doing the activity but you might want to consider how you'll divide up the cost for those who do both vs. those who are only allowed to use one. Also if this turns out to be the case make sure everyone knows going in. In my son's troop the adult leaders knew that there would be an age restriction, but many of the boys did not and some of the younger guys felt it was unfair. They probably wouldn't have, if that had been made clear when they signed up. Last thought - reaching back into my hazy memory for this one too - but I believe the Safe Shooting Guide places limits on where you can do this (ie either at a BSA range with BSA-approved instructors, or ... this is where I'm fuzzy and I'm at work right now so I can't go look it up). The idea is that not all private gun clubs or out on the "back 40 behind Uncle Jimbo's barn" will be considered appropriate. Once you get past all this stuff, boys - guns - targets: what's not to love about it? Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

TXscoutdad, That's cool. Congrats. CNYScouter - does anybody in your son's troop read Boy's Life??? Make photocopies of a couple articles about recent service projects for your troop leadershiP! Maybe they'll begin to see the light (or not but it is worth a try).

CNY, out of curiousity, if these two "service projects" weren't even discussed, who are the "one or two people" that set them up? Also, has anyone in this group discussed participation in more legitimate service projects? Is the problem that the group doesn't know what other alternatives they could pursue (they need to be inspired with some ideas), or is it that they have identified other service projects they'd like to do, but don't have volunteers to help organize them or just haven't followed through (they need more leaders/parents to step up to the plate)? What would happen if you proposed to these groups that they go to work at the local soup kitchen? Or have you already tried that? Maybe even just your son's patrol could decide to do this on their own as a patrol activity, rather than waiting around for the troop leadership to get their act together. (sorry, I don't recall how GS troops are organized but there must be something similar to a patrol?) Nope, you're not out of bounds in terms of your perception that these so-called service projects are pretty flimsy. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

Semper writes: "My fear is that your son may decide that his youth group is way cooler than scouts and choose one over the other." Gee I hate to say it in a forum dedicated to scouting but that would be my hope! Putting the recruiting/retention game aside for a minute, if a unit isn't serving its members well and serious efforts at improvement just don't work then those kids (and parents) ought to go find something more worthwhile and fun to do with their time, effort, and money. Hopefully that will mean joining a better unit but that's not always an option and I wouldn't feel too badly about counseling a kid to focus on the youth group in that case. Lisa'bob

Wow Seattle, sounds like a great weekend. How'd you like to be a visiting member of my son's troop for a while? These are exactly the kinds of skill and skill-training that I'd love to see him have a chance to learn. In another thread a while ago we had a conversation about structuring opportunities for boys to learn and demonstrate skills and the difference between "structured opportunities" and "spoon feeding" - this is exactly what I was talking about there, you just said it much better than I did! And it sounds like you/your troop have found a good balance between leadership and skill training. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

ok while we're here in this thread let's talk about that cub uniform. Admittedly I'm not a huge fan of uniforming anywhere but I can at least understand more of the rationale behind the boy scout uniform than the cub uniform. I suspect some parts of the cub uniform were designed for "cuteness" rather than even a pretense of function. If we were to make changes and go with a more affordable uniform, there are all kinds of things we could do to change the cub uniform. I went to scoutstuff.org to figure the cost of uniforming a brand new scout with all new items. A typical Tiger cost $104.50 A typical Wolf or Bear cost $108.55. A typical Webelos in the blue uniform cost $117.60 (tan=$115.05) A typical Boy Scout cost $112.45 For Cubs this includes the short sleeve shirt, pants, socks, belt with appropriate buckle, scarf, slide, hat, a council patch and the other required insignia, and the book. For Webelos I also included the Webelos colors. For the Boy Scout I included pants, short sleeve shirt, socks, belt & buckle, scarf, slide & hat, council patch & insignia, and book. Now it is certainly true that a lot of this stuff can be found for much less money elsewhere, as long as the buyer knows exactly what to look for (a bigger problem for brand new Cub parents with no prior exposure to BSA than for most boy scout parents). That said, I still have a problem with a lot of this in the Cub ranks because: 1. Too much of the cub stuff changes from one rank to another, necessitating annual outlays for new uniform parts. If we want to be sticklers about uniforming then the boys should be wearing the proper components for their current rank, such as... The hats and scarves, which change every year (except from webelos 1-2). At $11.80 per hat that's $47.20 somebody is paying for hats during cub scouts. This is one of the few items people really might not want to buy used (ick, sweaty old hats). Scarves from Tiger-Webelos cost a total of $20.55. Slides change from Tigers to Wolf/Bear to Webelos so that's three slides for a total of $6.90 for slides (assuming nobody loses the darn things.) There are separate Tiger, Wolf/Bear, and Webelos belt buckles. If you buy a belt (with buckle) as a Tiger and only buy a new buckle as you change ranks, you pay an additional $6.55 for the Wolf/Bear and Webelos buckles. For hats, scarves, slides, and additional buckles alone, you could pay a total of $81.20 for the duration of the cub program. It would certainly be cheaper to have just one version of each for all cubs, and I don't see how it would detract from the program in any way. At least in the boy scout uniform, the parts are the parts and don't change with each rank. 2) I really hate those Cub scout pants, which I'm convinced are poorer quality, a worse fit, and a less practical color than the boy scout pants - and nearly as expensive! Personally I'd be all for adopting jeans as JM suggests. They're cheaper and they just might fit my skinny, long-legged child, while those darn cub pants never did. (or hey, maybe BSA should include suspenders in the Cub uniform - I swear about half the kids in my son's former pack could've used them to keep the Cub pants from falling off! Or perhaps Cub Scout underwear, for those unfortunate times when the pants really do slip a bit too far.) Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

Regarding youth being thrifty and working to pay for their own uniform parts: That can be a good plan IF the unit is willing to be flexible while the kids are accruing the various parts. One troop around here tells the kids that they are expected to have the full uniform by the end of their first year, and to start with the shirt. In that unit, I can see this approach working just fine. Another troop is a real stickler for uniforming for all members including those who just joined, and the kids really ride anybody who shows up without a piece. This troop also has special hats and scarves that can only be purchased through the troop, are considered part of class A, and are fairly expensive. A boy who is earning his way to buy the uniform might be uncomfortable here until he had all the parts. (and let's face it, most of the parents just buy everything anyway so the child who is earning his own way will be a distinct minority.) Maybe this would inspire him to work harder and get that uniform faster. On the other hand, maybe he would just stop attending. Lisa'bob

Baden, Semper, and everybody else, thanks again for sharing your experience. I had already advised the pack in question that they should really seek legal help if they wanted to set up their own organization to channel donations but this discussion definitely will cause me to re-iterate that piece of advice to them, just to make sure they "get it." It is kind of sad though, that here we have a group of dedicated volunteers who got into this to work with the boys, who happen to qualify for some small donations as a result of their volunteer efforts, and now they need to find a lawyer to figure out how to receive the money. Sigh. Can we add this to the list of reasons in the thread about why adults quit??? Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

This is a very interesting discussion about ethics but I see a big difference between the "Anne Frank is in the attic and the Gestapo is at the door" situation (or the Rwandan genocide or other examples of brutal, violent, repressive military dictatorships relying on force and terror to achieve compliance) on one hand, and the current situation regarding certain BSA policies on the other hand. In the former case, you know your actions could have potentially lethal consequences both for you and for another innocent person. The gun is pointing at your head so there's no way around the situation that is guaranteed to prevent violence. None of the options are likely to be good ones, and bald faced lies may be the best (and bravest) of the bunch. In the case of the BSA, there are other options. You are not forced to join, neither are you forced to remain a member. There's no gun pointing to your head here. If it comes to a point where you are expected to either a) enforce a policy you cannot support or b) lie about failing to do so, there's always the third option of c) resigning your membership. Those folks with Anne in the attic and the Nazis at the door didn't have that option. To put lying to the BSA about enforcement of policies you dislike on the same moral footing as lying to a brutal dictatorship in order to save innocent lives is to gloss over some pretty important moral differences. Just my 2 cents. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

The other part is a take-off on my post above. Committee members who suddenly discover the wonders of Woodbadge after many years in scouting, then arrange or "abbreviated" specially arranged training classes to qualify for Woodbadge ("Damn the torpedoes . . .", let's jump straight to the top-tier leadership stuff). Youth protection? Essentials? Position-specific? Not until "getting the card" became critical for something else. And it's not just our unit. But that's fodder for another thread. Well OK Eagle, let's start this thread then. I'm curious about the above statement. Do you mean to suggest that if a long-time committee member who has steadfastly (ignored/dodged/weasled out of) training suddenly sees the light, goes to training and successfully completes woodbadge, that their WB beads are somehow less worthy than those of the volunteer who gets trained early on for their position and continues steadily on through woodbadge? Can't people in both situations, and the unit they serve, still get an awful lot out of their wb experience? In your view, should there be a mandatory waiting period between basic training and wb, or something like that? I'm not trying to be flip (well ok, not too flip - grin), I'm just not sure what you are getting at with the view you expressed above. Is this any different from the people who grumble that WB should be reserved for longtime leaders because those "newbie" leaders don't know enough about BSA/haven't paid their dues yet and don't "deserve" wb so early on? Of course everyone really should get trained for their position as soon as possible. But then, we all know plenty of scouters who don't. If the desire to take WB is what motivates them to get off their duffs and get the basic training, hey, at least now they're trained. It would be hard to do the wb course, finish the tickets, and not become a more dynamic and effective volunteer in the process. Isn't that the main point? I see wb more as a means than an end. Consequently I can imagine all kinds of reasons for different people from different units to choose WB early or late in their scouter career, after extensive training or just the basics, depending on what they and their units actually need at any given time. PS - Cub leaders aren't required to do OLS as a pre-req. either, though some do anyway. Does that make their beads "worth" less than the troop leaders' beads? Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

Thanks all, for your advise and perspectives. Orennoah, I have been told before that a separate organization can be created such as you suggest. I wonder whether this would replace/compete with the existing CO? (I suspect many COs would take a dim view of this, but maybe not, I don't know.) This may be something the pack should look into for the future. At the moment though there's a time problem, as in both cases the paperwork for the donations must be completed by Dec. 31st to qualify. Baden, your explanation that a pack itself cannot file for 501c3 status because the pack is already owned by the CO is in keeping with what I've been told and read while trying to research this. While the pack in question has relied on the CO's FEIN in the past to secure small donations of supplies from local stores, in this particular case, both the CO and the companies offering to donate the money are unwilling to use the CO FEIN for this purpose. I'm not quite sure I understand why the CO FEIN has been considered ok for donations of craft supplies, etc. from the local store, but not for cash donations from the companies involved here, but that does seem to be the situation. Semper and others - after digging around a bit I also found examples of lots of PTOs that seem to have 501c3 status so you're right, apparently it can be done. In this case, the PTO tells the pack that they do not have this status though and don't want to apply for it either (I don't know why). Thus the pack's hands appear to be tied here since the PTO is the CO. All of you attorneys and accountants, could you verify for me: the FEIN that the PTO has is not the same as 501c3 status, right? (sorry if this is a dumb question but I want to make sure I explain things correctly to the pack leaders) Ed - you bring up an interesting perspective in terms of the larger issues surrounding donations and funding, but it is one I'd like to ask that we debate elsewhere as it is not central to the pack's quetsion at the moment. One last question, aside from the fact that the council probably doesn't want to become a clearing house for unit-level donations (and the various record keeping that would require), does anybody see another good legal reason for council to refuse to help in this particular situation? The pack leadership is frustrated by council's chilly response here and is beginning to question why the pack should support council's efforts (like FOS) if the council won't support the pack's. I think this is a step or two too far on the pack leadership's part (yes I've explained what FOS is used for and how it benefits the pack), but I'd like to be able to give them a "good legal reason" why council doesn't want to help them with this matter. Thanks - I appreciate the wealth of experience you all have! Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

From a purely pragmatic standpoint: It isn't your DE that has to do the job, it is you. So if you are uncomfortable about your ability to do both jobs well, then you absolutely should ask to be re-assigned. Don't forget you're a volunteer and that gives you a right to say "no" in situations like this one. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!

mbscoutmom, When we've met in public schools for den meetings they have generally not been excited about us using individual classrooms. We've usually requested/been assigned the gym, cafeteria, auditorium, etc.. Lisa'bob A good old bobwhite too!