madkins007

By the way... how many variations on the uniform do we really have? Formal ceremonial- medals, pins, sashes, beads, etc. For Eagle court of honor and similar. Almost *requires* pants. Semi-formal- omit some of the bells and whistles. Board of Review and minor ceremonies. Normal 'Light'- no neckerchief or attachments. Often used for games and outdoor activities while in uniform. May specifically state jeans or other pants OK. 'Uniform' activity- everyone wearing the same activity shirt. Often seen at camporees. Activity- Unit or BSA shirts, not all the same. Any other levels??

I have always heard that the BSA will never adopt the Class A and B bit because it smacks of military usage, and the BSA has a deep-seated fear of the 'paramilitary' label- it has been used against them in a negative way since the 20's (and with the uniform back then, it tended to stick a bit more!) Soooo... why not create our own nomenclature for it? I've always favored something like... Uniform 1- Full 'dress' uniform with all bells and whistles for ceremonial wear. Uniform 2- Typical meeting version of uniform. Uniform 3- Activity uniform as defined by unit. People tend to like shorthand, so I think if we introduced some similar terms to replace the 'Class' phrase, it'd catch on after a bit.

I am not sure which rules were being followed on a 'pick and choose' basis, but my own feeling is that the BSA has a handful of actual RULES- mostly for safety (and liability), and some for a more uniform program. Then they have a TON of policies, advice, strong suggestions, and more- many of which are often presented as some sort of rule. One example of this is the uniform- it is not required by the BSA, so ownership and wearing cannot be a rule, although if it is worn, the BSA has the right to dictate how it is worn. A lot of the policies, suggestions, etc. make perfect sense, but others do not apply to every unit or situation. As Scouters, it is our job to know which things are rules and which are suggestions- and when we do ignore a suggestion, have a reason for it as opposed to 'just because'.

John- I wasn't trying to minimize his remarks. They were dead wrong and deserved an appropriate corrective response. As the father of three girls, I an infuriated when I hear about kids doing stuff like this, but to use a term that instantly labels the Scout as a criminal, the girl as a helpless victim, and the incident as a prosecuteable crime, in my mind is moving away from a helpful direction. But- I also did not intend to start anything here, either. Sorry for that. So- I guess altogether, we have 4 cents between us ;-)

I wear and encourage the full uniform, proper insignia, etc. When parts don't fit well (ie- belt), I try to find as close a substiture as I can to maintain the look. Nonetheless, I strongly dislike the uniform as it exists physically and conceptually. a.) The idea that a uniform needs to be head to toe- Baden-Powell certainly did not think so. His uniform recommendation was a shirt and a kerchief (and a stave)- enough to identify the person as a Scout without getting legalistic about it. The US is one of the few countries to require such a detailed outfit. b.) The idea that the uniform needs to be from the official suppliers only- look alikes are not uniform (even when available). This smacks of a profit motive- even if the uniform is priced such that there is not a ton of profit in any one item (except perhaps the shirt-jacs and campaign hats). c.) Uniforms for an activity-based program that are more designed for meetings than for the outdoors- the the point that almost every unit has 'activity unforms' ASIDE from the 'real' uniform. d.) Non-participatory nature of the uniforms. Even my kid's private school uniforms offer a variety of personal or class choices. As my kids go through school, I have noticed an interesting trend. 15 years ago, there were no choices and the uniforms were pretty nerdy. My kids fought tooth and nail and the school made decent money on 'pay to dress down' days. Over the years, they added more choices, made the clothing choices more functional and comfortable, and now- my kids rarely fight over the uniforms- and often skip the dress-down days. e.) I am unhappy with fit, cut/design, durability, and cost issues- but not to the extent of making a big issue out of it. f.) I am always a bit amazed at some other uniform comparisons. I don't feel it is entirely equal. Sports uniforms are designed for some specific things in mind, and a lot of such uniforms are ugly or uncomfortable to the point that many kids won't wear them a second longer than necessary. Military, etc. uniforms are worn by people paid to wear them. g.) The BSA itself seems ambivilant about the uniforms. They do not require unforms to be a member, but require that they be worn right. They want clean looking uniforms and issue patches for everything they can think of. They claim that the uniform is a good activity uniform and sell seperate activity uniform parts, etc., etc., etc. I look forward to the very unlikely day that the BSA goes with a uniform shirt (that works for both meetings and camping in), and 'dress code' pants, hats, etc.

I am of the opinion that the committee should have a full-time standing sub-committee on recruitment, with recruiting ops all year long. Little things, like public activities (show the uniform) in good recruiting situations, neighborhood signage, school/church/neighborhood association blurbs, personal recruiter recognitions, etc. I also feel that our one of our best recruiting opportunities was a few weeks ago when school was winding down and people were thinking about summer activities, but not so close to the end of the school year that most of that is already set. I LOVE giving out summer activity calendars/recruitment flyers to everyone and their sons! As you plan your campaign, one big question I challenged our folks with is WHERE are the new Scouts going to come from? Our pack was surrounded by bigger elem. school-based packs and in the middle of a fairly childless neighborhood, sponsored by a private church/school that was having its own problems with recruitment.

Letter vs. face to face... Letter lets us stay impersonal, calm, professional. A dozen people can review it, but it speaks one-to-one. It happens in the reader's home territory and allows them to contemplate their response before delivering it. Face to face can get ugly quick- and not always started by the 'other person'. Most such meetings would be set up on the unit's home turf, with multiple members of the unit attending- 'ganging up' on the other person and putting them in a very defensive position. Face to face almost demands immediate resolution with no cooling off opportunities or second thoughts period. I think there is a time and a place for both methods- but if dealing with someone I am worried about retribution from- I want to keep things at arm's length if at all possible.

Heck- the uniform is just one of many tools at our disposal. Why not work it too? I generally keep one shirt 'naked'- bare minimum display with the exception of my Eagle. Not even the Quality Unit award (which I dislike anyway- resewing that dang thing every year drives me batty!) This is my normal working shirt. In my mind, this helps take the focus off me a bit and put it on the Scouts, program, and other leaders. My 'full' shirt has most of the bells and whistles- but even then not all of them- only 3 rows of knots, for example. I wear this shirt for recruitment, training, ceremonies,... and whenever I am around big groups of other Scouters and feel a need to 'establish' myself quickly. When I have a wearable third shirt, it is a compromise- a few knots, a few more patches, but not most of the pin-on stuff (except a nice name tag- I always wear a name tag, and with my memory, I wish everyone else did as well!) When I'm in a situation that has it's own recognition system (Roundtable beads or OA devices, for example) I am sure to wear that as well to show my support for and participation in the program.

"The Scoutmaster's Other Handbook" by Mark Ray suggests several things that make a lot of sense to me. Most are pretty common-sense and have been mentioned, but one especially seems worth sharing. -Rethink patrol size. Try 10-12 so the patrol is not crippled when several members cannot attend a meeting or event. To me, this makes sense. The 6-8 number sounds good on paper, and works if you have great attendance, but not for patrols that routinely only have 3-4 kids showing up. My own thoughts are: I am NOT a big fan of the newer concept of 'new Scout patrols' and the spin-off of patrols of similar age/rank. I like patrols that can practice more of an internal buddy or mentor system and where there are some kids I can trust to keep an eye on things (but not be spies). In the 60's/70's one patrol formation exercise was to ask each Scout to list the three guys he'd most like to have as a patrol leader, the three he'd most like to bunk with, etc. While the boys put their names on the forms, the results were kept secret. The info was used to see if there were natural relationships in the unit that could be used to establish at least somewhat cohesive patrols. One part of this plan was that once a strong core was built, new boys could be added over time more effectively. (I believe the original program also asked for listing the Scouts you would most prefer not to associate with- I am not sure I would go there today.)

re: the 'sexual harassment' bit. "Sexual harassment is one of many forms of illegal sexual discrimination. It arises out of an unfair use of influence, power, or authority by one person over another, or a lack of respect for another person." (a representative example from the University of Mass.) A 14 year-old boy uttering a single stupid and vulgar sentence to a complete stranger in a relatively public setting with no follow-up events is certainly un-Scoutlike, anti-social, potentially indicitive of other problems, and so on... but I still have a hard time with the idea that it qualifies as sexual harassment except in a very esoteric way.

Umph- Omaha ain't a big city, but *I* sure can't stretch it! (groan)

(evmori) "but I would bet they all believe in God" James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Matt 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." We both know that 'believing' in God means many things. Do they, as the Amplified Bible puts it, 'rely on, cling to, trust in' God... in any form?

We did not certify the letter, but figured that if she claimed ignorance of it or it was misdelivered, we would deal with that when it happened. We aimed for a low-key, 'saddened but firm' tone. We felt that certified or other choices would have felt more aggressive- but that was just our thinking.

"A trained leader needs Fast Start, New Leader Essentials, position specific. Add youth protection, maybe safe swim defense and safety afloat. Maybe add BALOO for cub leaders. That all adds up to about 15 hours max. What other trainings are you thinking of that add up to 90 hours??" (FScouter) The continuing ed topics in the Cub Leaders Book (my edition, at least)~6 to 24 hrs, Pow-Wow/University of Scouting 16 hrs, Roundtable (even though it is a Commish function, it is still primarily a training program in our district) ~24 hrs. Add in additional training since most leaders serve two roles over two years and we are in the 50-70 hour range over two years... ...and for the life of me, I cannot remember what else was on that sheet! Some trainers and I were sitting around a few years back talking about this issue and listed the time committment of the average Cub leader in our neck of the woods. Now that I am being challenged on it, I have to admit that I seem to be mis-remembering the totals or something, but I woulda swore the ratios were about right. I apologize and modify the phrase to 'about 40-50 hours of training over two years, not all of it required'. OK?

Does Omaha NE count as a Yank?

FScouter has the best overall info for you in this: 1.) Keep things in persepctive 2.) Report to the appropriate people 3.) Ask for support As for removing the family, we did it before with a simple letter. The letter laid out the situation as we saw it, was non-accusatory, and offered a full reimbursement of unused dues, etc. It also stated that the decision was final and if she had any questions, she could talk to the COR or DE (both of whom had already been brought up to speed and had agreed to this). We feared retaliation as well, but they just faded into the sunset.(This message has been edited by madkins007)

Before we discriminate, we need to carefully ask ourselves WHY we are discriminating. The BSA used to discriminate against blacks because we thought they were lesser beings, or would contaminate us in some way. We used to discriminate against women Scout leaders because we thought that only men could lead boys. WHY discriminate against atheists? We really do not push spirituality. We ALL KNOW that MANY Scouts and leaders are religiously neutral- saying the right things with absolutely no real belief in any god behind it... and we are perfectly OK with that. The BSA pays does really think that religious beliefs are important... but does not require them in any way UNLESS you use the 'A' word. We all know Socut leaders who drink, swear, and generally act contrary to their professed beliefs, yet for some reason, the BSA prefers them to straightforward atheists? I cannot for the life of me understand why. Why discriminate against gays? The biggest reason is plain fear- fear of pediophiles, fear of the change in support from the biggest church supporters, fear of people different from you. Yet, we supposedly have this Youth Protection Program in place... so what is the problem? Why can't we just judge people based on their behaviors and actions? Quite honestly- I don't want my Scouts knowing the sexual preferences of ANY of my adults! I am not a big supporter of Public Displays of Affection in front of the Scouts, even from married couples. If we have solid youth protection in place, and I cannot tell in any way that you are gay, what is the problem? We discriminate against girls because we feel that the GS-USA offers a solid program and that boys need a space of their own. The people we are 'discriminating' against here are still being given equal opportunities to do most of what the Boy Scouts do. By discriminating against atheists and gays, we are keeping youth who may just be temporarily confused out of a program that offers them a lot of unique opportunities, and leaders who can offer us OTHER skills and strengths we can use to the benefit of all.

I've always wanted to add something like 'Spirit Beads' (or points, woggles, etc.) Spirit beads would be earned for doing stuff above and beyond the usual program. Some would be earned by individuals, others by den/patrol. They can come up with the idea (and get it approved) or use one from a list of possibilities. Each rank would require 'X' number of Spirit Beads.

I feel for you! I think that some of this is a bit blown out of proportion and may be snowballing a bit. If the kid is having problems and feels dumped on because a stupid (but typical for the age) comment, he pretty much has a right to feel angry about it. I sense (rather than know) that this kid needs support more than punishment, or at least more natural consequences for his actions. I really think the initial punishment should have been just to apologize to the girl, younger Scouts in earshot, and ASM privately- period. Follow up might have been a call to mom... maybe. The rest of the stuff seems to be making it unnecessarily public and harsh. I am NOT condoning his actions, but I can easily see the punishments inflicted making him more bitter than interested in improving himself. His past history is a part of it, but he should be treated fairly nonetheless. As for sexual harrassment... no touching? No follow up? No obscene gestures? I think that is going WAY to far. Stupid and vulgar, yes. A criminal act? I don't think so. personally, I think the committee involved blew it up too far. Easy to do in the heat of the moment, but not helpful to the unit or the Scout.

I bet no one will like my solutions, but... I think part of the problem is that the programs are so fragmented there are few common threads between them. You see it in some of the oddest ways- Boy Scout leaders vaguely look down on the more 'frivolous' Cub leaders. Troops seem to think that packs 'owe' them new blood. The programs do not share hardly any commonality in the boy's level- no common promise, motto, slogan, sign, shake, salute, etc. You functionally quit Scouts as a Cub to rejoin (maybe) as a Scout- and the tricky stuff in the crossover packet really does not camoflague this well. We ask Scouts to be happy with crafts and activities for a few years, then suddenly expect them to want to go hiking and camping- when some of them were perfectly HAPPY doing the Cub Scout stuff and don't particularly LIKE camping, etc. (my own son HATES swimming, and that stopped him cold in Scouting.) So, I would... 1.) Make us all one big happy family with the same Promise/Oath (streamlined for younger Scouts), Sign, Salute, Shake, Motto, etc. Uniforms would become similar using the shoulder tabs and belts to distinguish programs. 2.) Unite the pack, troop, crew, and post under one Chartering Org.'s name as one big family- all using the same neckerchief (assigned by the CO because it has meaning to it). Encourage inter-unit programs, like Scouting Birthday/Blue and Gold, service projects, recruiting efforts, camping/day outing, etc. (Note- this does not mean to share EVERYTHING- each unit needs an identity of its own) 3.) Modify training to shorten it and get it to volunteers faster. I favor a 'study at home, mail in quiz' sort of program provided right away combined with a sort of 'new leader's tea/training' at Roundtable. Did you know that if you do it the BSA way, you need something like 90 hours of training for your first couple years? That works out to about an hour of training for every 3-4 hours of actual unit meetings. 4.) Modify the paperwork so you join the BSA once, period. A simple piece of paperwork for info changes, and a simple sheet for interunit transfers, and that should be about it. 5.) Turn down the financial load on members- Scouts, families, and Scouters. Unforms, books, dues, fees... `even with fundraising, it all adds up quick. Books are a good example. Even though they are quite well done and very reasonably priced, why can't the average Scout make it with just a pocket-sized booklet to outline the requirments and record the achievements? Why can't the uniforms be diesigned for camping so we don't need 'class B's' or 'activity' uniforms? (I always thought that was really weird- this is supposed to be an activity based program, yet the MAIN uniform is designed for meetings!) 6.) Re-emphasise First Class. Years ago- it was a GREAT acheivement to make First Class- you were quite proud of all the stuff you had to do for it- some of which was tough for the average kid (signalling was my weakness!) Now- you can hit First Class after a couple campouts. Whoopee. Focus on making Eagle too easy and you cheapen it. Make an intermediate rank a bigger prize, then use the others for incentive for the really dedicated. I think the BSA blew it with the 'First Class in the first year' emphasis. By claiming that kids who hit first class early stayed in longer, I think they missed the REAL connection that units with strong programs keep Scouts longer. 7.) Eliminate Webelos. We have NEVER made it work well and consistantly. Reintroduce Lion (Panther?) and keep the kids solidly in the Cubs... but make the requirements more Pre-Scout. I think the 'half way orphan' feel of the program is a big problem. Older Cubs need to strut a bit and show off their rank, but not by half-way quitting the pack. I'd also make Lion/Panther a more Scout-like badge to earn. Earn it individually, no arrow points, etc. I'm going to quite here. I can go on with ideas for overhauling Cub advancement (skill awards and merit badges- I think they'd work to replace arrow points, etc.) and so on, but this should be a start!

Well... 1.) Was this a new Scout patrol? If so, older Scouts or leaders need to have a chat with them about the right way to do things. 2.) If a more established patrol, your son needs to learn to talk to the SPL/PL when he has a concern. We all understand his desire to not make waves, especially as a new guy, but he also needs to learn to speak up a bit when something is legitimately wrong. 3.) This may also be a sign that the SPL/PL needs to be a bit more attentive of his guys, especially the new Scouts. Dad may want to talk to the SM about the PL getting a bit more training. AND/OR about having a well-stocked patrol box for just such events! 4.) I think it is wrong for all parents to eat apart from the Scouts. I strongly feel that each patrol should invite one leader/non-related adult to each meal. The food costs should be spread over the patrol, and it should become a normal tradition- A Scout is Courteous. This teaches respect and manners to the Scouts, and gives the adult a chance to look over how things are going in the patrol. Of course, any feedback should go through 'channels'. 5.) Call me cynical, but something sounds a bit fishy. Was your son there when breakfast was being served, or out doing stuff and missed the call? Did he just pass up on the meal being offered and wanted something else? I have a hard time with the image of a kid in line watching the kid before him getting the last of the food and everybody being rather 'ok' with that- especially a new kid. 6.) Above and beyond all else, this is a chance for a learning experience. You as a group just need to figure out what lesson is needed. Buying enough food/meal planning? Patrol eating policies? PL/SPL training? Scouts being at meals on time? So many possibilities!

If there are only a couple guys in this situation- JASM's are a great way to go! They help the unit, are on a solid path towards Assist SM's when they are of age, and so on. If your unit has a larger bunch of older guys, consider a Venture Crew or Senior Patrol type program that lets them do some of their own stuff together. We had let our senior Scouts do things like pizza runs on camp outs, camp apart from the other Scouts, skip SOME meetings for things like bowling together, etc.Work out a deal that if they help the unit with such and such, they get more freedom and flexibility at other times.

I agree that the SM and ASM should not really be a part of the 'Adult Patrol', but in our old unit, we had TONS of other adults along, and formed such a patrol for two purposes- the public purpose was lead by example. The unwritten purpose was to give them something to do apart from their own kids. I prefer that the SM and at least the senior ASMs 'float'. One unit had a policy I would have loved to impliment- adults are invited to patrols for meals as guests. It is budgeted for and pre-scheduled by the PLC- remember, sorta like we did in Wood Badge. This puts an adult up close and personal- meals better be OK, and someone is there to watch the Patrol Method in action. The guest reports back to the SM to help the leaders plan ways to improve training overall, NOT to nitpick patrols. By the way, I agree with one patrol for the Scouts. I liked the advice in "The Socutmaster's Other Handbook" for patrols of 10-12 to allow for kids who cannot attend activities- the bigger patrols would 'absorb' the lack easer than smaller patrols.

1. "God"- 'softening' of this position to a more inclusisive stance without abandoning the core values (something along the lines of we feel that a belief in God helps a person be the best they can be but that we recognize not everyone shares such beliefs... yada yada yada.) 2. "Gays"- Strengthened Youth Protection Program and policies in place that we will judge leaders based on their actions and behaviors rather than sexual preference. Did I mention the strenghtened Youth Protection Program? 3. "Girls"- I can actually envision some form of allowing girls, at least in Cubs. Possibly a seperate program that occurs in parallel to Boy Scouting.. 4. Some de-emphasis on camping, some re-emphasis on other possible program tracks. For example- units with science focus, or with sports focus. Perhaps even different 'advancement tracks' for Scouts/patrols/units. 5. Uniform- I would -like- to see a shift here, from the rather anal official uniform to a more relaxed 'dress code', keeping the offical uniform for inter-council level activies. One problem I have with the uniforms as they exist (cut, quality, cost aside) is that they are non-participatroy. They Scouts themselves have virtually zero input on them. Historically, the pendulum has swung from many unit options to few options and back. In general, I like more options! 5. Tigers- I bet they are totally integrated- uniform and all- in very few years with a modified paretnal involvement. (I also think they'll go co-ed next). 6. General overhaul of the program. The Cub, Webelos and Boy Scout programs have been patched and bandaged over and over and over. I think it is about time for a general overhaul, similar to but hopefully better planned than that in the mid-70's. Easier paperwork, streamlined training, more adult leader-friendly environment, better pack-troop integration, etc.

Well... I hate to say this but it looks like you may need a bit of unit-wide rethinking. I would suggest something like this: 1.) Rebuild the unit committee(*). Aim for a blend of old and new, but most importantly, try to recruit those parents you think can add something. 2.) Over the summer, rethink the unit. Adopt a position that parental involvement is not 'mandatory', but is just the regular way things are done(**). 3.) When the unit spins up to speed again in the early fall(***), start it off with the new expectations. *- recruitment of new blood is one of the toughest jobs of the unit leaders. There are several ways to make this more effective. Try finding someone in the Chartering Organization who is good at this and asking them for help. Try the techniques in the book "The Scoutmasters Other Handbook' by Mark A. Ray (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965120732/qid=1116779271/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-9630907-0732006) Consider asking other Scouters to help (someone from your unit DOES go to the local roundtables or whatever they are called in your area, right?) **- our unit came up with a sheet of expectations- what the parents could expect from us (safe haven, well trained, good communications, etc.) and what we expected from them (attendance at pack meetings, helping out in various ways, etc.) We stated up front that we sign up families, not just Scouts, and if that was not acceptable, please try a different unit or program. It was said in a light, positive way with the underlyaing assumption that EVERYONE was involved, and EVERYONE (even siblings) were going to have fun! ***- Yeah, I know you'll stay active over the summer, but the fall recruitment push is a GREAT time to introduce changes.