mk9750

Ron, The problem we struggled with the first couple of years I was in our Troop was what constituted "active". You're right, the requirement doesn't take into account a boy's other responsiblities. But it also doesn't say 100% attendence, or 80%, or 50% or 10%. It just requires being active. So how should that be defined? Under our old SM, and until we as adults tackled this question while trying to strive for being more boy led, we said that percentage should be about 75%. I'll have to admit to you, I didn't like it. My son, 13 at the time, and all his buddies were making almost every meeting, and every event. The older guys seemed to be hardly making that requirement. It just didn't seem fair to me. Once my son became 16, 17, I realized the differnece between a 13 year old and a 17 year old. There are more responsiblities. There are more interests. And if the boy is of the charecter we hope Scouts are, those other interests are not only valid, but desirable. We want to encourage him doing other things, not being the roadblock. Back to our decision making process. Once we decided to look at this issue, we thought about lowering the standard to allow older guys to comply. This hardly seemed fair, for, as I mentioned, from the younger guys' perspective, the disparity was widening. So we then thought about a two tiered requirement. While trying to have the adults establish these percentages, we figured we aught to allow the boys, to whom we wnated to push more decision making, to set the requirements. What we got was chaos. The band guys could make a differnet percentage of the meetings than the jocks. The guys who worked had a different set of problems. Some wanted to know if getting to a campout on Saturday morning after a game on Friday would be able to count for attendence. It got to the point were we realized we'd never make it fair for everyone. That's why we decided to allow the boys to negotiate this with the SM at the SM conference. He lays out his other priorities, and comes up with a framework for whatever time he anticipates his next rank to take. "Sorry Mr. M., but with football this fall, I just can't be at any campouts, and not too may meetings in Sept., Oct., and Nov." "Well, I can undstand that, Joey. Right after your football season is over, we're going to need a lot of involvement form you older guys to prepare the young guys for Klondike. Can you head up a group that organizes this? You'll probably need to be at every meeting leading up to it, and at least the one prepatory campout in January. You up to that?" " Sure Mr. M., and you can count on me to be at that service project we alwys do in December, too!" And so the discussion goes until both the Scout and the SM have a framework for the boy's expectations for the 5 months, or 1 year, or whatever, until his next SM conference. Interestingly, except for a few wide angle notes made in the Scout's handbook, these goals aren't even written down. He knows if he is meeting his commitment. If he's not, he either commits to doing better, or asks the SM to consider adjusting things, because his situation changed. Have we ever had guys who offered unacceptable goals? Oh man, you bettcha. One kid said he wanted to meet up out on campouts every time on Saturday, because his girlfriend insisted they go out on Friday night. That one didn't fly. The biggest benefit I can offer to this method is the buy - in that happens with the older Scouts. They understand the trick: Make them develop their own goal, and the excuses go away for why they don't meet it. Tell a boy he has to be at at least 80% of the meetings, and I'll bet many of them will find reasons NOT to be there. Make him understand that he set the target, he just seems to take it more seriously. Well, again, 20 minutes typing what was intended to be a 3 minute post. I sure hope I don't bore your folks to tears! Mark

I don't want to suggest that all of the principles of the war between the states were beyond reproach. But slavery was the notable issue that gets all of the attention when discussing the reasons why southern states decided to leave the Union. This was but one example of the federal governement of the time trampling states' rights to determine their own laws as provided by the Constitution. The original reasoning of those who wrote the Constitution provided that the Federal Government was to develop only the rules and laws required to provide for the common defense and inter - state trade. The states were originally provided the right and responsiblity to make all other laws. This right and responsiblity was being eroded over the 35 years leading up to the Civil War, and, because the south was generally more rural than the north, and therefore less represented in Congress, they were powerless to stop it. Many of the laws passed despite the Constitutional promise of state self governance were more harmful to the southern states than the northern states. Prohibitions on slavery was but one example. I am not suggesting that slavery is, or was every right. Those who participated in the ownership of other humans will live throughout eternity with this black mark on their souls. And it being legal at the time does not mitigate the wrong. But the south's stance before the war was in defense of the Constiution. It wasn't until they could no longer be effective protecting it that they left. I am an Ohio native. I am pretty certain I have nothing in my background that causes natural sympathies with the south. But the real reason they were willing to leave was state's rights, not slavery. True, many southerners were only compelled to fight to protect their way of life, one that included enslaving human beings. But it is unfair to paint with a broad brush the leaders of the Confederacy as less then moral people, just because they fought for a cause that unfortunately included slavery. (close your eyes and imagine me stepping off the soapbox here) Mark

We alternate years. Odd years, like this, we go to a dining hall summer camp. Even years, we cook for ourselves. When at the dining hall camp, the emphisis is on advancement and Merit Badges. When we cook for ourselves, we do almost no group merit badges. We concentrate on rank advancement for the young guys, Swimming and conoeing, and general fun. We have lots of adults go, many of whom are counselors. If a boy wants to work on a merit badge there, all he has to do is ask before we leave for camp. A few people have discussed the tradeoffs of each method. I agree. It is one of the main reasons we alternate every other year. By the way, every meal at Heritage reservation except Monday diner is terrific, I think. but I also have to admit I have eaten intitutional food thoughought high school and college, and always enjoyed it then. I might be easy to please, food wise. Mark

Every other year we go to Summer Camp in the states. I don't have the sheet in front of me, but I seem to remember two full columns of merit badge offerings, which is probably 32 - 34. Of those, Camping, Env. Science, Swmming Lifesaving and Hiking, all Eagle required. are offered. My perspective as to it being a MB mill? Not really. The badges you'd expect to be easy, basketry and leatherwork, for instance, are easy. Env. Science and Lifesaving are tough. Most of our boys come away with 2 - 4 badges, depending on the mix. I wouldn't say that is mill - like. Mark

*Camp Stigawandish, Chigagami and Stambaugh (Greater Western Reserve Council), *Camp Beaumont (Greater Cleveland Council), *Camp Manatoc (Great Buckeyes Council), *Seven Ranges in Ohio (not sure of the Council), *Heritage Scout Reservation (Greater Pittsbugh Council, I think), *Haliburton Scout Reservation (Haliburton, Ontario, Canada) *Camp Agawam (sp) near Butler, PA I have also gone to Minister Creek in the Allegheny National Park in PA. Mark

Ed, I could be wrong (Lord knows I've been wrong lots before!), but sometimes I think you aurgue strictly as the devil's advocate. If so that is fine, it makes for great debate, and often is highly entertaining. But I'll bet you incorporate more of the the system above than you let one. for instance, I'll bet that if in your example, a boy said he would only be making a limited amount of meetings and activities, and gave the reason as being too busy, you'd ask him what else was keeping him busy. I don't think you would say "Whoa! That won't cut it! Every one else makes it to XX% of the meetings, you have to, too." I'd bet instead, you would listen to his explaination. And, if it went like Bob's example, you'd probably be very supportive of him. If he shrugged his shoulders and said "Idunno, just stuff", you'd hold his feet to the fire to get him to admit to himself where he really stood with Scouting. And isn't this what Bob is trying to bring out? That setting these goals is a process that involves the Scout reflecting on his lifestyle, determining what is important to him, and the order of that which is important, then making a plan to meet his goals? I've seen too many posts from you that suggest that whatever you do, whether in conflict with a policy or rule or regulation, or 100% in line, you do from your heart with the best interest of your boys at the core. I am certain that is true. And if it is, then despite your protest here, I'd bet you really follow a similiar pattern, don't you. As a follow up to my earlier post, I'd also like to add that about 2 1/2 years ago, we did away with keeping attendence. The PLC noticed it wasn't adding any value. Now, general goals like being active are noted in the Scout's handbook at the top of the page for his next rank. That way, as he works toward that rank, he sees the goal in front of him, and knows to either alter his effort, or ask to re-evaluate the goal if something has changed in his life. We also don't keep track of attendance at events for 1st and 2nd class advancement. We allow the boy to sign this requirement off himself once he's gotten the 5 or 10 events in. It's amazing, but with probably 25 - 35 rank advancements of 1st and 2nd class in the last few years, we've never had one boy cheat himself by signing this off prematurely. And you'd be amazed I think, at how boys view the world when you tell them that at least for this one requirement, we trust them to sign it off themselves. Ed, if I am wrong, and you don't help boys set their own goals in your SM conferences, I am sorry. But I'm guessing you really do more things the "right way" then you let on, don't you? Mark

I think eisley makes a great point. It is very possible for someone to have "the game pass him by", as they often say about older coaches in sports. But that rarely means that such a person can't be a valuable resource. We had a SM who, although not a very good SM, was the single force that kept our 45 year old Troop alive for about 4 years. His hard work and dedication are constantly appreciated, even if he had no knowledge of Scout Skills, and did a less then adequate job allowing the Troop to be boy led. Without him, there would not have been a Troop for my son to join. What he was, and is, terrific at, is communicating with new Scouts. He is fantastic at working with them on the Scout Oath and Law, and basic stuff like square knots and flag raising. And 11 year olds love him. When a new SM was identified, this gentleman willingly stepped aside. But we asked (almost insisted) that he hang around whenever he could (his son was no longer in the Troop). Now, he stops in every couple of weeks, and is there every week from April through June, to work with the brand new guys. He comes to every Court of Honor, and every Eagle Scout we have had in the last 7 years has made a huge deal out of mentioning him when the speak at their ceremony. I'd never want this guy as a Scoutmaster again. But I hope he never leaves us completely. He means far too much to our program, and our boys. The way I phrased that sounds terrible, I'd guess. But it is the truth. A terrific guy, very important to our program doing a specific task, but just not qualified to do another specific task. Luckily he recognized it all along, and stepped aside when a better SM was found. I suspect that in many cases like this, someone who no longer is as good at a job as he once was often doesn't realize it. Then it gets tough accomplishing what must be done without hurting feelings. Directly to the question - Although I was of the impression that officially, terms are designated as one year (reminds me of Tommy Lasorda's series of one year contracts while with the Dodgers), setting artificial limits on a job in Scouting is detrimental. Heck, it has taken most of the people I know at least a year to figure out what they're doing! I'd hate to ask some one to quit just when they're starting to get it right! Mark

Bob, I'm kind of suprised no one has taken your bait, but that's never atopped me from being the fish. In our Troop, both requirements (active and Leadership) are defined by the boy with the guidance of the Scoutmaster and the Board of Review. During each, the Scout is asked at what level he anticipates participating in the period he expects the next rank to take. If he says "Well, I just got a part time job that requires that I work every weekend, so I probably won't make many campouts, but you can count on me for practically all of the meetings", then that is the standard by which he will be judged at his next conference and review. If he says "I'm trying to get elected SPL next time, so I know I'm going to have to be here the vast majority of the time", then get elected, if later, he isn't there the vast majority of the time, he probably isn't going to be looked upon favorably at his conference or review. In the lower ranks, we use this same method for Scout Spirit. We always ask what point of the Scout Law the Scout feels he is very good at, and what part he thinks he needs to improve. We make a note in his handbook, and at the next rank's conference and review, he has to be able to discuss what he has done to improve. In the upper ranks, Scout Spirit to us has an entirely different meaning, and although we still use this as a discussion topic, we look at other aspects of the Scout's life to determine his spirit. So, I think the answer to your question, Bob, is that the boy determines how active he must be to meet the requirement. Sound like what you wanted to hear? Mark

I think the choices Scouts have to make regarding their level of activity in all of their interests is one of the benefits of Scouting, not a negative. If we've taught a Scout well, he knows how to make the choices he should about where he should be when. Have we helped him realize that when he makes a commitment, he should live up to it? If so, then he WILL be at baseball practice when he might rather be camping. He WILL be at band camp when he'd rather be playing baseball, and he WILL be at the campout if he has a responsiblity to be there, even if it means missing a practice. The trick for these active guys is to make sure their level of commitment equals their ability to commit. I've mentioned before that we have a number of atheletes and band members in our Troop, and many who now work. As much as possible, they plan each schedule around everything else, taking into account the level of commitment they made to each. During sports seasons, we are told that Pete and Bill won't be at many meetings and events. Scouts know not to elect them to Positions of Responsiblity during those times, and PLs know not to assign them anything on the duty roster. When the season is over, these guys are the first to volunteer for tough jobs, the first to sign up for the campout, and ready and willing to do whetever is assigned on the duty roster. Is every boy like this? No way. But the ones who are almost always seem to make it to Eagle. The ones who aren't, well, I haven't seen one stay past his 16th birthday, and I've not seen one make it to Eagle yet. I suspect these young men either haven't learned how to prioritize and work their plan, or Scouting isn't important enough to them to sacrifice their other activities. If it is the first, then both the boy and we as mentors failed. But if it is the second, the boy should be congratulated, I think, for making a choice and living with the consequences of the choice. We do this same thing in adult life. We want or need to work, we want a family, we want to have a few nice things, we want to play golf, or fish, or race cars. We prioritize all of these things, and sometimes somethings get squeezed out, or cut to a minimum. If we decide that playing golf is important enough, we may sacrifice some family time to do so. That doesn't mean we aren't committed to our family. It doesn't mean we aren't "active". It just means that for four hours a week, we aren't "perfectly" active. I don't think anyone could criticize a once a week golfer for being away from his family. I sure don't think we should criticize a Scout who has used the same thought process and allocated his time in order to take advantage of the oppurtunities he has to partake in a wide variety of interests. I'll use one more analogy. If you are responsible for hiring, would you be more apt to hire someone who seems spread too thin, because he is active in Scouting, PTA, and a professional organization, or one who seems to do nothing with his spare time? I myself would lean toward the guy who has found a way to juggle all his interests. I'd bet that he's the guy who can manage multiple projects at the same time. I think the same is true with Scouting: Show me a boy who seems too busy to be "perfectly" active, and I'll show you a Scout likely to be a "perfect" Eagle. Mark

Hey kwc57, you stole my joke! (lol) Mark

Open ended questions that have no right or wrong answer are certainly the most valuable in any BOR. One question that our District Advancement Chairman always asks is "Is it more imortant to meet your goals or maintain your integrity?" During the wrap up, he always explains that this was the one question that for him DOES have a right and a wrong answer. I am pleased to say all of the Scouts in our Troop get it right. When I have served, I have always concentrated on Troop leadership and what the Scout has given to the younger guys coming up in the Troop. I also tend to ask alot of questions about Citizenship. OGE mentioned a great question I think I am going to start using in all the BORs I do: "Do your friends know you are a Scout?" What a great question! Again, no right or wrong answer, but it certainly gives a terrific indication about the boy, one way or the other. It has always amazed me how often my son has come home from this or that saying "You know what I just found out? Jim Smith just made Eagle. I didn't even know he was a Scout!" (Jim Smith is a fictitious name, BTW). It seems that most of our guys make it pretty well know they are Scouting. And noe of them, as far as I can tell, are "nerd" types. Mark

DSteele, No, no, no no, NO! Wasn't trying to imply anything about you. I was talking about me and my flaws. Sorry if it came off poorly. Eagle69, I understand where you're coming from, I think. But your position would be the rough equivelent of me saying "we take the winters off, because it's too cold to camp in Ohio". We would rather think that this is an important time too, in that we have a responsiblity to teach winter survival skills in case one of our guys were ever out in the winter. I've never been in the south in the summer, so I am just guessing, but I would think that the conditions in each are as severe, although opposite. If so, is there not a reason to expose your guys to extreme camping? We do an event up in the north called Klondike. Could you guys not do an event called Tropics? No intention to offend, but I really feel the boys are cheated if not given a full 12 months. I like saltheart's idea. My hope would be that the boys made the decision to add the extra get -togethers, but other than that, however you get to the end result, congratualtions on having a full program. Mark

Ron, Sorry I can't help with the training issue, I'm not involved with our Troop JLT. but I did want to comment about the issue you raised with the older guys not particpating. You'll never be able to do it overnight, but somehow your unit has to make a big effort to change that. It is easy to say that a program that is designed to be interesting to all age tiers is vital. And that is true. If all you do is concentrate on training the young guys to be skillfull older guys who become inactive, you're asking for inactive older guys. The older guys need to be stimulated. And basic camping and the same old meetings alone won't do it. they have to have something more. For our Troop it was rapelling and kayaking and shooting and hiking the AT. It might be different for your guys. Ask them. But you have to provide them a reason to want to be there. But even that isn't enough, I don' think. A part of how our Troop defines Scout Spirit is the notion that each Scout OWES to the Troop, and each of the younger guys, the same oppurtunities he got. This weekend, we have our new Scout campout, where older Scouts will teach tent set up, packing, cooking, woods tools, etc. Without older guys, this effort will fall upon adults. We think this is a huge mistake. We have instilled in our older Scouts the beliefe that they are responsible for the sucess of the guys that come after them. Will all of them be there this weekend? No. Prom is this weekend, and other conflicts do exist. But we will have our SPL there, both Troop Guides, and at least one older Scout for each of the stations the new guys will rotate through. and I think there will be a couple other guys there just to pitch in as required. I've got to admit that most of these guys moaned when reminded about this weekend's campout, but not one who could go said no. And if one had, I can assure you the SPL would have changed his mind! I think you would do yourself and your Troop a great service if you were to develop a plan to implement a program that makes older guys want to be there, and work to instill a sense of duty to the Troop among these older Scouts. Good luck to you! Mark

OXCOPS, Welcome to the fray! I gave up working on my first million. Been working on my second million for quite some time. If I don't get there soon, I'm going to give up on that and start plans for my third million! You've found a terrific place to ask your questions. You'll get a few well intentioned answers from people like me, and a couple of people who will give you the right answer. Once in a while, those will be the same. But pay particular attention to Bob White, DSteele,, Korea Scouter, and EagleDad. Everyone on this forum has valuable things to share, and I've appreciated them all. But these four really make this forum terrific. DSteele asked about lawyers. Our SM and 2 ASMs are attorneys. they bring an intersting perspective to much of the program. Mark

Bob, We also increase our activities. Now that the weather has turned, May and June have some activity every weekend (not everyone will attend all, and some are Patrol events). July has one week empty right now, but I suspect our Scribe hasn't been reminded of the service project we do for our CO, that will be in the weekend he shows open. August right now only has 2 weekends filled, but I suspect most every boy will be to both (summer camp and a rifle / shotgun campout, which are always highly attended). The boys plan the calender, and verify before it is scheduled that resources, like adults, will be available. I count us as extremely lucky that the burden of all of these events gets spread among a dozen or so adults. Otherwise, our mulch might never get spread and our bushes might never get trimmed (actually, one of our Troop fund raisers is a yard clean up where we hire ourselves out in crews to do stuff just like that. Most often, it is the parents of the Scouts, and particularly the active Scouters, who hire us the most). Mark

Since I posted, I've been thinking. We have 42 active boys right now. I am pretty certain that if I took a snapshot of attendence any week of the summer, excluding Council JLT (we usually have 2 - 3 guys on staff and at least 4 or 5 guys in attendance), I'd bet we would have 31 - 34 guys there. During the winter, it's probably a little less, which might seem suprising, but High School Band rehersals are on the same night as our meetings, and the rehersals are mandatory for grade. We do also take the week off after summer camp, but most of the time, the QM has recruited 8 - 12 guys to help collect gear and store it that night anyway. I strongly suspect that most every Troop will be most comfortable doing what they have always done - If you're used to cutting back, trying to add meetings would create controversy. If you meet every week, trying to cut back would cause complaints. DS, I know it is one of my personality flaws (of which I have MANY!), but if I were to slack off from meetings like you describe, I don't think I could count on myself to go back. It's like calling in sick when I'm not really. The first time i do it (haven't yet), I really am afraid it might be easier next time. If I could do it, I probably would follow your example. but I don't think I can. Mark

Man, you guys are really suprising me! At least where we live, summer is THE time for Scouting! No interference from School, plays, band, School sports, etc. Baseball and softball are the only common summer sports, so it's hit and miss if they will interfere with meetings. We can get outdoors a lot easier, and do more things. We can spread out, and not be cramped by small meeting quarters. We can do all sorts of contests, and have all kinds of fun, that are at least more difficult, and sometimes impossible to do during the winter. If we were going to cut back our schedule, we'd cut out some of the winter meetings. Those are the ones that tend to get boring for the guys, because when they plan to work on a skill, it often becomes strictly a presentation, because the Scout who is responsible for teaching it thinks it's too tough to practice it because we'd have to go outdoors in the cold and snow. There is NO WAY we would ever cut back activity in the summer; meeting or event. I've said in other threads that this is the biggest obstacle we have to overcome with new Scouts and their parents: The attitude that they've crossed, we'll see you in the fall. I know that's the way a lot of Cub Packs and Dens do it, but if they didn't participate in their first summer's program in our Troop, they'd be lost come the fall. Heck, I can't imagine a boy getting only half of the program being prepared for summer camp, and we go late in the summer! So far, I see I am in the vast minority, but I just don't think that whoever is making this decision (hopefully it is the boys, not the adults) is being fair to the Troop. Heck, when I was a Den leader, we even did a summer program in Cub Scouts. Mark

I want so much to agree with Bob, because on an intellectual level, he is absolutely right. And there are plenty of examples of the scenerio he describes working beautifully, like dancinfox. But I think in reality, many times if we approach someone to do an on-going job that takes as much commitment as Scoutmaster, a well meaning person may say yes when they really don't want the job, and end up doing a poor job after an initial great effort. What Bob describes, I have seen work famously for Popcorn Kernel and Fundraiser coordinator. But before I would approach someone for the kind of commitment SM is, I'd want to know he wanted the job first. Mark

One thing I forgot, that I think is kind of funny: Our Patrol yell. With as many adults who are close by, forming up to stand in a line when a Scout asks an adult a question like "What time is diner?", we all turn around away from the Scout and say calmly, " I don't know. Ask your Patrol Leader." Mark

SagerScout, I had the same question in my mind the first time I saw Bob say this. Then later, he went on to explain that a group of 5 - 10 buddies could get together and go for a bike ride on their own, or go over one of their houses and hang out together without adults, so they aught to be able to do so in Scouts. He was very clear (and Bob, I apoligize if I put incorrect words in your mouth) that this can be done with the approval of the SM, who, presumably would use proper care in deciding if a Patrol is capable of handling whatever it is they want to do on their own. My son was a Patrol Leader at the time, so I put the bug in his ear to test what would happen. He planned a mini campout at a local park. The ASM said he wouldn't be able to be there, so they'd have to cancel or move the date. My son told him it wasn't a big deal, they were going to do this one without adults. He called me to see what was up, I explained to him the idea, and he was so enthusiatic, he almost wet himself (well, OK, that's an exageration). It was just like things had been when he was a Boy Scout. Once he was on board, all but one parent agreed. they hiked to the park on Friday after School, set up camp, threw a ball around, eat Pop Tarts and Skittles, and stayed up late, got up in the morning, struck camp, hiked to McDonald's for breakfast, then came home. They all say it was the best fun they ever had! What's so big a deal about sleeping in a tent one night and going to McDonald's for breakfast? It's what THEY wanted to do, and someone trusted them to do it. All of these guys were either First Class or Star, and all were 13 - 15. It was a little easier for the parents knowing that everyone had the skills to make this happen, they all had 1st aid kits and could actually use them in an minor emergency, they were exactly 3/4 mile away from the closest parent, and there was a cell phone in one of the boys packs (the little concessions that we have to make for the different world in which we live compared to 25 years ago). But the change in attitude among these guys has been tremendous. They were a pretty good Patrol before. Now they are fantastic! I recomend doing this heartily. Let your guys give it a try. I'll bet they don't let you down. Mark

We're the Geezers, and just like Bob says, we try to do everything we do as an example. Want to eat like the geezer's do? Plan a better menu. Want to have more time to have fun or just sit and relax? if there are 10 people in the patrol, and all 10 do 15% of the work each, it's amazing how mush time is left for fun. We go so far as to bring issues up at the PLC (very rarely, but occasionally). We don't normally attend, but if we have someting to bring up (as in the hypothetical instance I described in another thread about adults bring pop), we woulld ask for a few minutes of the meeting. We also hold our "Patrol" meetings in front of the Troop every once in a while. go through all the motions of having a disagreement, and showing how the acting PL resolved it, and how he makes the point when someone failed to take care of his responsiblity (once we intentionally left our campsite un-policed so we could use it as an example of how the PL can handle it at a Patrol meeting). We have never even considered competing with the real Patrols. In most cases, we would embarass ourselves. Mark

jyoklavich, If you or your son are concerned about how he will fair at the SM Conference, you might want to put the following in your back pocket if you need it. I believe the requirement is to participate in a Scoutmaster Conference, not to pass a SM Conference. Therefore, even if the SM says your son is the least deserving Scout he has ever seen come before him, he has met the requirement. In our Troop, and from what I gather from this forum, it happens in many Troops, the SM Conference is where a Scout is signed off for Scout Spirit. But a Scout can have Scout Spirit and not know any of the rank requirements. So if your son can get the SM to sign off on Scout Spirit during the SM Conference, he should have no problem getting or sitting in front of a B of R. I think SMs try to make things look like they have the power to deny a rank at the SM Conference, and I kind of like the fact that boys buy into this. But if push came to shove, I don't think it really is true. I just think that the Scout has to have a conference, not "pass" it. Mark

Dan, A few rambling thoughts: 12 boys and 2 adults sound like a perfect group size for a campout - a Patrol campout. With a group your size, Patrol campouts should be the norm, not the exception. Three year term for Scoutmaster? I've only been involved with one Scoutmaster, who has been with the Troop for 11 years, and looks to be here at least another 11. It sure works for us, but I guess that might depend on having the right guy. But I sure wouldn't want my sons adjusting to a new guy every few years. The soda pop issue is interesting. I see both sides. In our Troop, if this ever was an issue, the PLC would decide. A representive of our Geezer Patrol would make a case for why there is value in allowing it (volunteers giving up a weekend for the boys benefit would be one legitimate reason), and anyone opposed would speak to why it wasn't a good idea (bad example, not fair, etc.), an the PLC would vote on it. We would abide by the decision. An this is a great reinforcemet for boy run - They decide, adults live by the decision. And it's reletively easy. Even I could go a weekend, or a full week, without a Pepsi. Your interview process doesn't sound too obtrusive to me. The Scoutmaster has a vital role in a Troop - Teach young men to not only be leaders, but to be leaders of leaders. Somehow, the people making the decision have to know that they have chosen someone who can do this, and not run the Troop. With as many options as you have, with your size, the posibility of choosing the wrong one increases. The effort your committee is willing to take has to, by nature, decrease the risk of a bad "hire". Good luck to you and your boys! Mark

Scoutmaster conferences in our Troop progress from generic questions about how a Scout is doing, and whether he is enjoying himself (Tenderfoot), to a pretty tough review of basic skills (2nd and 1st class), to discussions about Troop leadership (1st Class and Star), to discussions about citizenship and community leadership and setting the example, not following it (Star and Life). Except for the couple of times the SM might require a Scout to review a skill or two that he know a boy might be weak on, we do little retesting. Each SM conference is more serious than the last, but mostly because the topics are more serious. By the time a Scout is at the threshold of Eagle, it's a pretty safe bet that he has earned it, at least in our Troop. A Scout in our Troop has generally spent 5 - 7 years proving himself. He has been reviewed numerous times, and our SM and ASMs have spent many hundreds of hours with him, working together leading the Troop, working on Merit Badges and special skills, helping with Eagle projects, etc. Our SM conference for Eagle includes a review of all the candidate's paperwork, and a very in depth discussion of the responsibilities that come with being an Eagle Scout. It is a very friendly chat. But by the time this occurs, there is practically no way a Scout would have a problem. One point I'd like to make about a small comment made here: At least in our District, it is VERY frowned upon for anyone to prepare a Scout for a Board of Review. The District Advancement Chair, who does all of the reviews (at least he's been to 100% of those from our Troop), hates to see a Scout prepared with answers to specific questions. And I agree with him. It is very difficult to get to the essence of a Scout, to see if he truly is of Eagle Scout charecter, if he has thought about the answers that might be expected before the questions are asked. I am hoping, as others guessed, that the SM and ASMs were just "funnin'" with your son. By the way, if there has been an ASM that has been very involved in a Scouts career, I think it is a great value to have him there too. Please let us know how it really goes, and congratulations to your son, and you! Good luck! Mark

OneHour is right. the Cubmaster works for the committee chair! Same as in boy Scouts, the Scoutmaster works for (read ... is hired by) the Committee Chair. the Charter Organization (represented by the Charter Organization Rep) approves all leaders. If this guy is the dud it seems, the committee chair, the comittee, and the COR ought to be made aware of this and take action. Once in the position, the Cubmaster should have pretty much free reign to MC the Pack meetings, make up skits and ceremonies, etc. But that's where his job ends and someone else's begins. No way should he be making policy, no way he should be handling the check book, no way should he be running the Pack! I implore you, as she who sounds like the one reasonable voice, not to quit. Take this to the proper channels: CC, then COR, then maybe District Executive. If you are right about him, someone will see that he must be corrected or replaced. In reading your post, I had to look to see where you are from, as what you described was amazingly similiar to an experience I just barely left behind. The man who replaced me as CM was just like your guy sounds. Because I had moved on the Boy Scouts, I figured the probelm was not mine anymore, so I did nothing about it. There wasn't anyone left who was strong enough, or had the intestinal fortitude, to work to correct the problem. the end result? I left a Pack of 71 boys 3 years ago. He has been All Everything there for those three years. The Pack now has 23 boys in it I hear. Please make the stand. If not you, then who? Good Luck! Mark