MarkS

anarchist said, "This included giving a life rank to a scout who had not participated in any outdoor program for a full year." I was willing to make the exception for a situation that is beyond the control of first year scout working Tenderfoot or Second Class in order to get him through that first year and keep him in the program. I'm not willing to do that for a second year scout who starting to advance to ranks of leadership such as First Class and above. John-in-KC asked, What about Character Development, Personal Growth, Obedience, Citizenship and Leadership Development? The boy has to be in the program to teach those, right? I want to do the right thing for the boy without having to refuse to sit in on another BOR where he has not completed his camping requirements while keeping him active in the program.

Please, let's stop implying that the purpose of the BOR was not understood. I thought I made it clear that it is well understood. However, dicsussing the pros and cons of, applauding (not existant so far) and criticizing (plenty of) the decision to make an exception for one particular boy in order to keep him active in the program is fair game. This was not a decision made in ignorance or without debate. The fact that some boy's would think it wasn't fair was the main reason I was the hesitant to agree on making an exception. As this thread indicates, I certainly don't think this is something that should be done as common practice and has a very real potential for an adverse affect on our program. We can't change the past but can do things better in the future. The extra effort to keep the boy in the program worked but wasn't perfect. He still has a couple other first class requirements that are not signed off yet. So we still have time to get him current on his camping. That will be a priority. If we can't, I still think the best path forward is to use what the boy has learned so far, to help him recognize for himself that he's not ready to advance.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

Wow, those were some brutal responses and in looking at my original post it is obvious that left out some important details. Sorry about that. First, let's be clear that the SM at the time (he's now our CC but the SM and SAs, myself included, still go to him for advice) perfectly understands the advancement requirements and how the process works. He is an Eagle Scout and 30 year scouter having held the SM and CC positions at several troops, Wood Badger including staff, Silver Beaver award recipient, a Vigil member of the O/A, and has been district training chair, district fundraising chair, NYLT program chair, et al, et al. The guy knows his stuff. I'm the new guy. The SPL signed off that the boy completed the requirement. However, it was clear to the adults that he really did not complete the requirement. Sometimes in a boy-run program, we let them suffer the consequences of their mistakes. At the time, it was a judgement call of the SM who advised the board to put the higher priority on the aims of scouting instead of the methods of scouting in an attempt to keep the boy motivated and interested in the program while we tried to convince mom that dad didn't have to go camping with little Johnny at each and every campout Johnny wanted to attend. I was on that board and was the last to be convinced that we should advance the boy. If the guy didn't have a backbone, I wouldn't have changed my mind. In the end it was decided that holding the boy back because of his mom is so protective was not representative of the ideals of scouting. We figured that if we were successful, little Johnny would have no problem catching up on his camping requirements because we camp almost every month and provide a program with about 20 nights of camping a year (including Summer Camp). Some good did come out of this so it can't be said that this didn't do anyone any good. The boy is still in the program learning valuable life lessons and skills, working on merit badges, etc. His dad has brought him to a couple campouts even though they camped overnight at just one of them. It's likely that none of this would have been accomplished if we focused on the just the advancement method instead of the big picture. At the time it was a compromise for the greater good. The boy would have really been short-changed if we allowed him to become bored from a lack of opportunities and quit. Unfortunately, mom still hasn't come around despite a visit and several ono-on-one chats. Until she does the boy will rarely camp because dad rarely does. Now he's getting close to completing First Class where his lack of participation has a greater chance of adversely affecting the boys in his patrol. I noticed after our last troop meeting that the current SPL (different that the first one) has signed off on his camping requirements for First Class which I know to not be the case. I agree the big stall is coming to an end. We've done what was best for the boy, now we need to do what's best for his patrol. My path forward will be to talk to the current SM and suggest that we use our questions at the SMC and BOR (if there is one) to have the boy recognize that he does not meet the camping requirements and have him use the ideals of scouting to admit that he has more work to do before he's ready to advance. If we can get the boy thinking the way we're thinking, he's more likely to advance in the future. If this works, all the more vindication for the original course of action. A boy following the ideals of scouting to make a choice. Again, I'm really sorry I misled you all to believing that he has never camped with the troop when I said he doesn't camp when in fact he has attended a two campouts (one last year, one this year) with one night of camping.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

I've spun this off from the BOR rant thread because I have a potentail BOR controversy brewing... There's a boy getting close to making First Class. First Class is the rank our unit has chosen as a prerequisite for PLs in regular patrols. The boy doesn't camp because his mother is overprotective and won't allow him to go camping unless his dad goes too. Unfortunately, his dad is not really interested in camping. The boy never met the overnight camping requirements for Tenderfoot or Second Class. Our Scoutmaster was of the opinion, it was more important to allow the boy to advance and keep him interested in the program while working with his mother to allow him more freedom in camping. Why punish the boy because of the parent... However, I feel that a boy must participate in troop activities in order to be an effective PL and that it would be unfair to his patrol to allow him to potentailly be elected PL by advancing him to First Class until he has more experience. Why punish the patrol because of the boy's parent... The needs of the many, outweight the needs of the few or the one... I suppose this my concern for the patrol can be mitigated if they don't elect him as PL. They've already elected one boy who missed every outing/activity and half the troop meetings during his tenure because of Soccer season. Maybe they learned their lesson.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

Its Me asked, "So what are they to ask? Life questions or scouting details?" Both. When I sit in on a BOR, I think my objectives are pretty much by-the-book. I ask if he's having fun and why, make sure the boys understands and applies scouting ideals in his daily life, make sure he's completed the requirements for his rank advancement (not a retest--some of this might have been answered by the fun question but I usually ask what requirements he liked and didn't like doing and why), ask how he thinks his leadership is doing and to provide examples (trying to find out if the youth leadership needs some advise/help), the classic what should we start/stop/continue doing, and talk about his plan for his next rank advancement. I don't use a cheat sheet for questions. I wing it.

What national policy says taht Webelos are not allowed to participate against other Webelos at a Boy Scout camporee? Maybe my district has run amok but that is how we include Webelos in camporees. Games and activities are specifically arranged for Webelos dens to participate in.

I think it is poor etiquette to correct someone's spelling. ;-) If you can figure it out, why bother? Grammar is more important than spelling in a forum. Its especially important to get across what you really mean because it could be a long time before you check for your responses and by then several people may have responded to what you said instead of what you meant. It's really hard to salvage a thread with a serious grammar error on page 1. People will continue to respond to that post even if it is corrected on page 2. Which brings us to another good forum practice. Be sure to read the entire thread before responding. Someone may have already provided your answer.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

How to Win Friends & Influence People, Dale Carnegie. Buy a copy.

scoutldr said, "I am amazed at the number of scouts who pass their Ordeal and are never seen again." We call that sash and dash in our lodge. John-in-KC, "Authentic costume research..." There are some in our lodge that would give you a hard time for saying "custume." ;-)(This message has been edited by MarkS)

I believe the Scout Executive must approve any adult nominated by the units in a council and that he can also waive the long-term camp camping requirement if the adult is unable to attend due to reasons of job security or health (must still have 15 days and nights of camping but can all be short-term/weekend camping).(This message has been edited by MarkS)

I'm wondering why someone on this forum would ask why someone would want to provide leadership for their son's old unit? Why do we make 1000s of posts on this forum?

Keeping score is not a prerequisite for a great camporee. In my district the O/A chapter organizes and executes our camporees. Not a single unit. I don't recall ever seeing a "troop" win a top score at one of our camporees. The boys supervising each game station present an award to the "patrol" that performed best at their station. For example, the patrol that had the fastest time at the one-handed knot tying station would win a scrap piece of rope with a square knot in it. The team that had the most bullseyes at the sling shot station got to take home the left over bag of lima bean ammunition. Each patrol would also win ribbons based on their overall performance such as Chief, Medicine Man, and Brave.

Ed and scoutldr have nailed it. Have her register as a committee member or assistant cubmaster. However, you might consider asking her to take your council's BALOO training. A pack is required to have at least one leader with this training present at its overnighters. More is better. Just a thought in case you think you might need to justify her participation in your pack's outdoor activities.

emb021 said, "I bet they can't. Sorry, but too often the people working the scout shop are very ignorant about the insignia and where they are worn." My comment was based on my experiences with the staff at the scout shops in my council. They are knowledgeable on uniform insignia and if they're not sure on something, they have access to the uniform inspection sheets that show where insignia are worn.

Can a camporee also be a resident overnight camping program operating under BSA National Camping School-trained leadership and managed by the council or not? What a tangled web the BSA has weaved with their G2SS. It says Webelos can participate in a resident overnight camping program operating under BSA National Camping School-trained leadership and managed by the council, it encourages Webelos den-troop activities, and it says Webelos can only visit camporees. It seems to me that a "camporee" put together by a district or council where there are separate activities for the Boy Scout Patrols and the Webelos Dens follows all three of these policies (yeah, I know the G2SS is a guide but these passages are in bold). I'm going to have to ask the guy who ran our last camporee this question. Mark P.S. Let's strive to take the word "observe" out of all our activities. Observation kills the program.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

Some folks have said it depends on the boy. Some folks have said it depends on the position. I say it depends on both. Some boys can be the SPL their troop, Den Chief for their feeder pack, Second Vice Chief of their Lodge, Ceremonial Team Chair for their chapter, Campmaster for the next District Camporee, president of their High School NHS, captain of the Football team, treasurer of the FCA, and a member of the chess and drama clubs (but enough about my son ;-) Some boys would struggle if they were elected to the position of troop fire poker. Perusing my copy of the SM handbook, I can't find anything that recommends that a scout should hold only one leadership position. I think I'll ignore that recommendation if a boy wants the challenge and I think he is capable.

That's great and please do let us know if you think it works better.

Maybe crossram is differentiating Cub Scouts from Webelos because National encourages Webelos den-troop campouts. I'm not aware of a one night rule. I'd like to know where that is being cited from as well. I suppose "pack overnighter" can be taken literally as one night. Stosh,... that's how our council does it. Works great, doesn't it? The way our unit handles the Webelos meals is they eat with the adults so the patrols can still do their thing. We usually have something the Webelos can make like foil packs.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

Sorry to be a critic but looking at that message from the perspective of a parent that might not have attended the meeting and did not hear the announcement, I don't see the boys leading with the adults providing guidance in that message. It sounds like the Scoutmaster has decided how best to run the unit and has decided to reorganize to implement his vision. Maybe "we" includes the SPL and PLC but it's not obvious to me.

Margaret said, "I foolishly thought I could get a simple answer to a simple question. I won't be so foolish again." Sorry that happened. All Internet forums suffer from "too many chefs" syndrome" from time to time. At risk of adding too much salt to the recipe, there's a way to wear a temporary patch under the right pocket but I'm not sure if it's "officially" meant to be used for a position patch. I've mostly seen it used for activity patches like a camporee or training event patcth. I bet the scout shop where you buy your uniforms can help. Personally though, I'm with Ed... use velcro and switch patches. Have him wear the Den Chief patch when he's serving the pack and the PL patch when he's with his troop. It'll save a lot of sewing in the long run and nothing hangs from the right pocket.

It's been mentioned that camporees are sponsored by the council, by districts, planned and run by an adult council or district committee, run by an O/A chapter. Other threads have mentioned a troop rotation. Some camporees appear to dumb down the boy scout program to include Webelos. Some camporees give Webelos a taste of boy scouting and provide units an opportunity to promote troop/pack relationships withtout dumbing down anything. More than one way to conduct a camporee I suppose. Certainly not a one answer fits all stituation.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

I thought the ultimate question was, "What is the answer to life the universe and everything?"

I guess I'll be the first to quote the G2SS regarding Webelos camping, "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." Talk about a bunch of poorly worded gobbligoop. You just can't tell if they really mean that there must be one adult per boy. I guess I've been writing too many engineering specs but "in most cases" implies exceptions and expected doesn't mean required. I just don't see a 1:1 ratio requirement in any of that. It even seems to open the door for camping staff to set some guidelines for their event. They might even set these guidelines based on the location of the event and the activities planned. Our district camporees that are planned and executed by boys in our O/A chapter with the help and supervision of their advisors, include overnight camping, an opportunity to conduct joint Webelos den-troop campouts, and provide separate (age appropriate) activites for Boy Scouts and Webelos. My unit recommends that the Webelos dens from our feeder pack provide an adult for each boy when they camp with us. However, if they have three adults and six boys, two and eight, or three and four, it's okay. Heck, it's even okay if only the den leader can come, we'll help provide two-deep leadership when they need it. Our goal is for the boys to have fun and stay in the program and to get an early start on recruiting their parents as adult leaders. If they want to, they can camp with us both Friday and Saturday nights but we recommend they come Saturday morning. The Webelos don't really know how to set up camp and that way they don't have to stand around observing us and getting bored. We set up their tents for them the night before they arrive. Nothing but first class service when they camp with us. Our district provides spring and fall camporees with opportunities for joint Webelos den-troop campouts, a Klondike for the Boy Scouts, and a Webelos Winter Woundup. Not to mention 3- and 5-day Webelos summer camps run by our council. So you can't say they're taking the easy path. BTW... they must be Webelos to participate in these activites. There are other opportunities provided for Cub Scouts (including Bears).(This message has been edited by MarkS)

At the camporee we attended and unveiled our new homemade patrol flies, as far as I saw, we were the only unit where the patrols had their own flies. Our two patrols weren't 300 feet apart though. Is being 300 feet apart as important as having the patrols function separate from one another? All I know is that having separate resources sure made a difference.

Seems to me that a program can suffer because of the size of the unit--either too large or too small. Wouldn't be kind of tough to have a safe rappelling outing with 50 or 60 boys running amok?