Lisabob

I might have missed something but here's what I was responding to: "I apologize if you thought that Republicans were dirty awful people was a characterization that I held. I do not, I was inferring that this the thinking of Democrats " You know, we Dems believe in compromise though, so we might meet you halfway on whether or not Republicans are "dirty awful" - which half do you want to drop? (firmly tongue in cheek, relax everybody)

Hey OGE, how about you don't try to speak for groups you apparently are not part of? I am a Democrat. I don't think it is accurate to say that Democrats as a group feel the way you've inferred we do, about Republicans. If you'd like to go down that road, I'll be happy to start posting what I think Republicans think. After all, as a Democrat, I am sure I'll get it right!

You know, in theory I think this all makes plenty of sense. It would certainly be nice to have more stability in cub pack leadership, similar to what many troops experience. On the flip side though, when I was a cub leader I remember many, many frustrating conversations with troop leaders and district folks who had not one clue about cub scouting. Many had never been cub leaders (maybe they were cub parents, but a lot of these guys delegated cubbing to their wives.). Some of them had been cub leaders but had selective memories or had not kept up with the changes to program, or never got trained as cub leaders to start with. So there they'd be, spouting off and pontificating about stuff they truly knew very little about. Unfortunately, some cub leaders would take them at their word because these folks had the air of authority and experience (read: they'd been around a while). These folks really didn't appreciate being corrected, especially by a female (lots of cub leaders are women) who hadn't been "around" as long as them (lots of cub leaders are younger parents) and who wasn't as ingrained in the local scouter network (lots of cub leaders are juggling young kids and jobs and home, and don't spend as much time at scouting social events). So it kind of depends on what we're talking about. A knowledgeable person who values the cub program FOR ITS OWN SAKE (sorry about the yelling) and who is willing to stay current, could be a great resource. Somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about (but says it loudly anyway) and really doesn't see much value in Cub Scouts as a distinct program with multiple goals in addition to "steady pipeline to the troop" is going to be a problem and piss off hard-working cub leaders to no end. As with most things, it comes down to finding the right person to do the work. Troops shouldn't presume, and packs may rightly be wary, of having "Mr. Warm-body ASM" foisted on them just for the sake of doing it.

Hey GKlose, I really appreciate the openness with which you are discussing a difficult issue that your troop is facing. One of the things I like about this forum is that we learn from each other's experiences, which only happens when we share those experiences. That said, you mentioned in a post (bottom of pg. 6 I think) something about sharing more data on the scout's participation, attendance, etc, if people here ask for it. I don't think you should go much further down that road. Much as I appreciate hearing more on the story, the scout has a right to some privacy, too.

I have seriously mixed feelings on this one. On one hand, it is easy to understand that you don't wish to be taken advantage of, and it does seem sketchy that the first thing a new troop member would do is to ask for a BOR when you barely even know each other. On the other hand, regardless of how respected the other SM in question is, it is possible that the relationship between the other SM and the transferring boy is just not one that will work out. Or that the culture of the previous troop was toxic for that particular boy, maybe in ways that the other SM just does not even see or understand. Telling a boy, basically, "you have to make it work with your former SM before we'll consider you" will likely result in that boy dropping out of scouts. It may also fail to recognize the very real need some kids have to find a "safe haven" in their lives, when their former troop was anything but that, for them. Not sure how or if that helps anyone.

When my son was a little fellow, we started out in a pack that had "meetings." They were boring. He loved his den, but hated pack meetings and begged to skip them. His whole den moved to a pack that had "activities." They were fun! Nobody wanted to miss them. Do what works for your pack. Hand out awards at the activities, or in the dens, if you find it works better for you.

Nope, still creepy. Honestly, the more I think about this, the less it makes much sense. You don't really know these kids because you're the UC and district membership chair - not a regular feature in their lives. Most importantly, THEY don't really know YOU. Sending them emails - even via their parents - is spammy, at best. The parents may or may not make the connection that the guy sending their kid birthday wishes is Mr. UC/ Mr. District Membership who comes to pack meetings from time to time and who collected the pack's pile of new cub applications. I can pretty much guarantee, some parents are going to have a serious problem with the notion that an adult they don't really know has somehow collected and stored their child's personal data (Birthday, email) and now is sending them stuff. Ick. Some parent is going to start wondering whether you're also sending their kid stuff directly somehow, or even how you got the parent's email in the first place. As a former pack leader myself, I can just imagine being on the receiving end of the phone call from an unhappy parent wanting to know who the heck I'm sharing their/their child's info with, and why. I can also imagine that parent becoming MUCH more reluctant to provide me with personal info about their kid in the future (email addresses they'll actually check? accurate med forms?). As a pack leader, I really don't need that hassle being created by my UC or by some district guy. Bottom line for me: I am sure your motives are good, and yes I know that info is on the membership forms (and you are the district membership chair so you have legit access to it). But the parents aren't going to know that, and the kids aren't likely going to have a clue who you are. So: creepy.

I agree w/ Basement, except that if you were the Cub Master or Den Leader, you would have ample opportunity to wish the kid happy birthday in person. Here's my standard: if you wouldn't dream of baking the kid cupcakes, DON'T send them some standard fill-in-the-blank birthday wishes. And if you WOULD dream of making them cupcakes, heck, just make them cupcakes! [Only if the parents aren't going to assume you're some creepy adult who is trying to lure the kid into their van with sweets or something, though. You have to have a real connection first.] Kids are already the targets of too much advertizing (increasingly done online) and use of their birthdays as reasons for some only semi-connected adult who the parents may barely know to contact the kid, would set off my alarm bells. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

rismith, what you posted from the GTA matches what I wrote. My point is, your claim that EBORs have to be conducted at the district or council level doesn't hold true everywhere. Some places do it that way; other places do not. There are pro's and con's to both, and we had a great discussion about that in a recent thread, which I am sure someone less lazy than me could locate and resurrect, if anybody is interested. Bigger picture: I don't agree with Seattle's suggestion that troops should be able to set their own standards, above & beyond national, for Eagle rank. I've crossed the paths of too many scouters who think they "know better" when in fact, they're pompous jerks with (often unacknowledged) biases and faulty memories of the "good old days." Sorry to be so cynical.

Hey Gunny, glad to see you back on these boards. Seems like it has been a while. But...um... you do realize that this thread is close to two years old? As Biden had not uttered his (rather idiotic) remarks about chains until earlier this month, I don't imagine Biden's exclusion from this discussion (up to this point) has anything to do with whether he was getting a free pass in this thread, or not.

rismith, it might be worth noting that the decision about whether EBORs should be conducted at the troop or district level (or council) varies from place to place. In my area, at least until recently, Eagle BORs were conducted by the troop committee just like any other BOR, except with a representative of the district invited to participate. A few months back there was a good thread on the forum about people's preferences for Troop vs. District EBORs. What I remember is that people tended to have a strong preference for "the way we do it here," which ever that might have been. An interesting thread, though. It really gave a good insight into how other places do things. If I weren't a lazy toad, I'd look it up and post the link for you. Alas...I AM lazy.

"For close to two of those years, we thought he had quit. I think the only other Scouts in the troop that dropped to that inactivity level in fact did quit. " Then you should have removed him from the roster instead of rechartering him in absentia for 2 years. That's a problem. You're trying to address it after the fact, but that's much harder to do in any kind of non-controversial way. I don't think there's an elegant solution to be had, here, because so much has changed in the intervening couple of years (troop leadership - both boy and adult, troop program, troop expectations, national standards for "active," and of course the boy himself). Still, as I've said before, you've got 5 months with this fellow before he turns 18. You can share with him how the troop has changed while he's been away, and why you think the troop is a much stronger one because of those changes. You can invite him to be part of that positive change by attending a few activities and reaching out to help out the younger guys who came after him. You can encourage him to be a man of his word and honorable reputation by living up to the side agreement he already made with the SM. But it needs to be clear WHY you want him to do this - not because you're trying to assert your authority, control his behavior, or make him jump through hoops, but for other, better, reasons. And he might still balk, which lands you right back at deciding whether he goes ahead over your objections or at least, without your signatures. Or you can try to force him to do it because you want to compel him. You might ultimately even be able to do it - though I doubt it - but it seems unlikely that he'll learn what you want him to, from that approach. And I can't see where having an older boy who is disconnected from your current troop showing up under protest for your events is going to make for a great time, for anybody. So what's it going to be: 1. Ask him to be a bigger man and be part of the solution to this problem? This means, acknowledge that part of this problem is of the troop's own making because you used to have much different/lower standards, and you never removed him from the troop roster even though he vanished on you for 2 years, and now you're trying to address the logical result of all of that by appealing to his sense of honor? 2. roll over and sign the paper? 3. dig in your heels and refuse to sign until he spends the requisite # of minutes (and not one less) in your presence? You can probably tell, I'd try #1 if at all possible. But I can see that you might end up at #3, which to me is a lose-lose proposition in the bigger picture.

Hang in there, Calico. As for spinach and pizza, somewhere in my 30s I discovered (to my utter surprise) that asparagus is yummy. But I hold out no hope for spinach, and I still love a good pizza.

This is a tangent to a current thread by GKlose about a 17 year old who appears to be lawyering his way toward Eagle, rather than just doing what's expected of him to earn the rank without contention. As lots of you know (because I have probably mentioned it oh, 100 times), I have an 18 year old in the house. He's a great kid. And yet, sometimes I feel like being a parent of a teen has been an up-close anthropological study of an alien culture. In the last year or two there's been a lot of talk in the house and from his social circle of other nearly-adults about "when I'm an adult I'll ..." (certain projected actions, behaviors, freedoms, attitudes toward the world then follow). Kind of funny, really, but I think my son & his friends & many kids see "adulthood" as something that happens with a flip of the switch. Along with that, they seem to believe that behavioral patterns and reputation are things that magically change when one crosses the invisible line into adulthood. Kind of like I used to think "oh, I can start worrying about whether I eat a healthy diet when I turn 40." As if, at 40, I would suddenly enjoy eating spinach instead of pizza! Ha! So anyway - maybe this is a long-winded way to say, one of the things I think scouting is about is trying to instill in our kids patterns of behavior that allow them to start becoming the adults they want to be, **right now**. You don't just wake up one day and become trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent - in other words, a decent and respectable human being - with the flip of a switch, but it is never too soon to start becoming that person. Now, how to convince the kids of that?

Chris mentions: "This scout has wasted 15 months. If he put in even half the energy that he has spent looking up reasons why he should be signed off, actually being a scout" Since this young man is about to turn 18 in January, is a senior in high school and applying to colleges (of the type where he seems to think having Eagle on his apps will matter - so probably fairly selective & competitive) - put it on the table and tell him exactly this. Share your thoughts about how adults view each other when they make agreements and then one side tries to weasel out. Yeah, it happens more often than we might like, but it takes a real toll on people's relationships and reputations. I don't think anybody should shield this almost-adult who aspires to positions of leadership, privilege, and respect (admission to Great Reputation University or whatever) from the fact that people will judge him by his actions and attitudes, not just the short-term results of those actions. What sort of man does he want to be? And when does he think he's going to start being that man, if not now? However: The "3 outings" thing might have seemed logical 15 months ago, but at this particular point and from an outside perspective, right now it sounds more like a pissing contest. Good luck with this one. And thanks for the hard work you're doing.

First, let me say I like NJCubScouter's approach to this. The young man still has 5 months before he turns 18. That's a long time. Try to give him - and you, and the troop - a way to end this well. A power play over whether he actually needs to attend a certain number of additional outings isn't going to get you there. Maybe instead of focusing on the "3 outing requirement" for the sake of the three outings (wow, what fun is that - "You must attend 3 times or else!"), you or the SM or somebody can sit with him and ask him to see things from your side. Explain to him what you perceive to have been a problem with the troop in the past (lax leadership, weak PORs, no accountability, resulting in missed opportunities for boys to grow and learn in a fun program). Help him see where the program is heading now, and why you think that's good. Then ask him: How does he think he might contribute to that? Can he see his way to being part of that? Could he recognize that what you're really after with the "three outings" thing isn't to get your pound of flesh out of him, but to ask him to help set an example for younger guys and teach them some of what he knows? Without knowing the kid or his parents, it is hard to say if this might work. But ya know, treat him like the adult he almost is, instead of a sulky 14 year old that he may have been at his Life board in 2009, and he might just surprise you with what he's willing to do. Or not. Like I said, hard to know from a distance. But whatever else, since his Life board was more than 3 years ago, I really think you all need to let go of whether he "came across as bored" in April of 2009. Maybe he *was* bored with the troop back then - possibly because the troop, as you describe, didn't have a very good program up to that point. But whatever the reason for his attitude in April 2009, that was a REALLY long time ago in his life. Thank goodness boys grow up and mature a lot between the ages of 14 and 17!

Heh. Nope, delegation doesn't come naturally, but knowing that, I do try harder. Probably still fail more than not, though. Honestly I suspect that they asked me (the 2nd time) to be district membership chair because they wanted a warm body and figured I at least had that quality. Anyway that wasn't my point. I just used that for an example. I guess I could have said it more succinctly, but what I really meant was: Eamonn's right.

You know, I was a district membership chair on two different occasions. The first time, nobody told me - my name was on a piece of paper, but it was news to me. (At the time, I thought this was a rare occurrence - now I know better.) The second time, I actually agreed to do it & kept the position for a couple of years. I backed out when it became a 40+ hour a week job. Just couldn't do that, and got very little help from anybody, but took all the blame if we didn't hit membership targets that were set by somebody way above me without ever having consulted me. To be honest, there were many things I could see needed doing that were pretty simple. Many of these were system-wide, by which I mean that with one plan, we could have a positive impact for many units, rather than doing triage for individual units. I would have been happy to do some of them, even if it meant doing them by myself. Things like: doing a round-up kick off and training night for district cub packs; developing a district webelos-scout transition guide and program; developing a standard letter for contacting dropped scout families with info about other units in their area and encouraging them to rejoin; establishing a recruiting presence at community events; developing a district plan for starting up venturing crews, etc. So we did all of those. I even got a little bit of help on some of them. Some of them even worked pretty well, although others (district plan for venturing crews) flopped. But when "membership" also morphed into "unofficial UC" for the entire district because if we lost a unit or a bunch of people dropped from a dysfunctional unit, I had to make up those #s, it got to be a bit much. When "membership" suddenly meant "you need to attend all the district RTs, district membership mtgs, council membership mtgs, district committee mtgs, go on calls to businesses who might support the cost of starting up new units, meet with the district field director routinely, have the district exec. on speed dial, be in the roughly 50 elementary schools in the district to hand out fliers at lunch time; and also actively find and develop new leads for new packs in towns of 30,000 that already have 10 cub packs," I couldn't do all of that. When I started getting harassing calls from a certain field director (who wasn't even in my district) at home at night, asking whether I'd called so-and-so from such-and-such or why I hadn't blanket-signed-up every head start kid in the county for a Tiger den without ever having met them or their parents, and *telling* (sigh) me that I would use evenings in the week around Christmas to drive to leaders' houses unannounced to inquire if they had any stray completed (or even mostly blank) registration forms under the couch cushions, well, I admit some of my responses weren't entirely polite. Then I thought: "These people are crazy." And "When do they think I should do my paying job?" And "I've forgotten what my family looks like." And "Now I see why they have such a hard time keeping a district membership chair." So anyway, I finally stopped doing it - any of it. It didn't seem possible to just help out with something specific, without people trying to dump the whole thing back on me. The point, I guess, is this: Eamonn is right, we don't use our volunteers very efficiently. We don't give them clearly defined tasks, or the tools with which to do their jobs, and we don't resist the urge to pile onto them. And so we turn off people who would have been happy to do something, but who don't want to get suckered. If we ran our packs/troops/crews/ships/whatevers this way, they'd fall apart (and we all have seen this). So why do we allow for our districts and councils to be this way, at least on the volunteer side? And why do many of us perpetuate the myth that, really, everything is totally functional?

Glad it seems to have worked out for the pack so far, and hopefully the new CM will grow into the role. Now, this is an aside. There are a lot of "I" and "we" and "our" words in your post. Please keep in mind that as UC, you are not a member of the pack. Consequently, the test of whether you were too bold is not the short term success of your efforts; it is more a matter of whether this pack can be self-sufficient and address their own leadership (and other) issues 2 or 3 years down the road, or whether they just start expecting you to intervene and "fix" them time and again.

Yes Frankscout, it is the BSA's fault because it is the BSA's policy (and recent re-affirmation of that policy) that causes all of this upset. If the BSA didn't have this myopic policy, then we wouldn't be twisting ourselves into knots discussing the policy. We'd just be scouting. BSA has total control over this. They can choose to continue spitting into the wind, and accept the logical outcome. Or they can change their policy, reduce the drama, and trust COs to decide for themselves whether a person like the guy in this article are appropriate leaders for a particular unit.

What are you missing? The last bit: Sadly, BSA loses another dedicated and highly regarded volunteer, because of its myopic and self-defeating policies, which the BSA just re-committed itself to within the last month. (that's what makes it a news story)

Ah, sorry for any misunderstanding about the suggested 2-3 yr rotation. So what I'm getting now is that: 1. The SM has been in position for a while, shows no sign of stepping down, but some parents think he's not sufficiently focused on the troop level because of his district work. 2. The COR thinks the SM is just fine and is backing him, but the COR might not be seeing the full story. 3. Some folks are frustrated about not being able to post stuff about the troop/pack in the church that sponsors them (and other signs of lack of interest in the program). 4. There aren't any church families involved with the troop. 5. The COR has become somewhat active as per your request, but isn't taking direction from you as well as you might have hoped. So ok, what to do? 1. I can get that people might be ready for a change, but if the SM has the COR's backing, then you don't have anywhere to go with this unless the COR has a change of heart. Make your peace with it (possibly it is a good time for you to gracefully step back?), or find a more suitable troop. 2. Trying to force the COR to have a change of heart will be messy. You've said the unit is losing members; a bitter leadership struggle will cause mass exodus, I guarantee it (been there, seen that, have the patch). And you need a more compelling explanation for why it should happen in the first place, other than that the SM seems too focused on district stuff. I realize it is probably more complicated than that, but you know, there are worse things than a SM who knows how to get things done at district and council levels. Maybe what you really need are a few trusty ASMs who can work with the SM to fill in his gaps. 3. Yup this is a bit irritating - but could probably be dealt with better, if you were to approach the COR to understand why. By the way my son's troop doesn't post anything in the church where they meet, either. Minor irritation, not a huge deal. 4. Why not? Are there no young boys in the church population? Does the church run its own youth program that competes with scouting? Do they just not know you exist? This seems like another good topic of conversation with the COR, to get his perspective on whether he thinks this is an issue (and if so, what he would like to work with you to do about it). 5. Give your active COR some helpful places to channel his energy! Recruiting youth into the pack or troop from the congregation would be a great place for him to help. So would getting you a bulletin board for display. Or inviting your boys to participate in a Scout Sunday service at the church (to raise visibility).

skeptic, are you familiar with Dale (I am certain you must be)? That's the "whatever reason" you seem to be searching for. The policy that BSA has asserted, vigorously, since about 2000 is the issue. The BSA's stance in Dale is the issue. You're pretty much correct that we used to have a "local option." That was, until Dale, when the BSA chose to elucidate a different position. Don't blame "gay rights groups" for a decision made and sustained by the BSA. A Scout is Obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them. Sounds pretty much exactly like what this fellow did!

Um Barry, BSA already sells property to "save the program." Are you certain you aren't confusing correlation with causation? Even if you aren't, since this horse has already left the barn, what the heck, we might as well open the doors.

Correction, OGE. No states put limits on members of Congress, as it would be unconstitutional to do so (you'd need to amend the federal constitution). Some states do term-limit their state legislatures, though. I happen to live in one of those and I think I've said before that it seems to produce terrible "leadership" in state government. Everybody's jockeying for whatever they can get "right now" since there are no long-term consequences for them - or anyway, they'll be gone by the time those consequences play out. But scouting is a little different than politics. I hope.