moosetracker

Oh my comment was not meant to shoot you (or at you). If you were a troop, we may have bellyached over the missed opportunities for the boys. But with cub scouts, either the adults do this work when time is at a limit, or they may let the Webelos help out, but plan on spending more time and adult leadership to allow them to get involved. It was just a comment, most Packs are looking for cheapest solutions.. Borrow, or quick and easy way to slap one together.

Yes, I have heard of it, from some on this forum. In fact their description of the district & council staff is sort of the type that don't do the 3 years turn around (or don't do any turn around at all, until those in the position die off..) People with the "holier-then-thou" attitude.. But do nothing to help the units, nor do they welcome fresh blood into the district positions. For me the 3 year plan may be perfect, because I think I am doing better in this position then the 3+ years that they had no one.. But I don't think that this position is the perfect fit for me.. But I also know it is hard to recruite new blood, so sometimes when you have someone in a position the tendency is to kling to them and not let them move on. Also, this job seems so large that I doubt I will have the learning done on my 2nd year.. But that might be because I came in from the outside to take up a very big role. Had I been on the training staff for a few years (or even in a different district position).. I may not be having such a very big learning curve, and see the 3 years as perfect for learning, doing, teaching. Right now I see it as no one ever getting very knowledgable of their position.

I have been in a district position for less then a year. I know some people have remained in the same position for years & years & years. But I have been told by the past DCC & others who have held my position of District Training Chair, that it is best to hold a 3 year plan. First year of learning from the old DTC (I have past DTC's on my staff, but no one willing to help me learn my position). The second year doing the job knowing it well (hmmm.. I will be happy to do it not totally clueless).. The third year training your replacement (Oh boy, help! But who?) Actually the three year plan sounds good to me, I want to help get my district through this manditory training nightmare.. But I am truely more behind the scenes organizational, and while I was told that was what they wanted for a training chair.. I was also told that my district had so many trainers they needed no more.. I find that it is hard for the DTC to be the behind the scenes organizer, mainly at least for my District because they were either delusional about the list of trainers they had, so I really need to talk myself into being one of the trainers. Some trainings ok.. Some that I do not have personal expierence in "no good!".. Is the 3 year plan in your opinion too much transition taking place, or the right way to get fresh blood, new ideas and avoid burn out, or someone going through the motions? Is any one else encouraged to do the 3 year turn around plan?

mn_scout - I thought the same thing.. I will give some leeway to this being Webelos scouts, but I looked at the price and thought, "A pack with no skills amounst the adults and lots of money to burn." So when did the Klondike become a cub scout event? In our Council it is a Boy Scout event. The cubscouts has something similar in the fall called a chuckwagon derby. In my opinion though those chuckwagons take more skill to make then the Klondike sled, what with the wheels & axel, and the cover wagon canopy top..

E-mtns - I agree with what others are saying. The only thing I can think of that is holding you in this troop is that your son wants to stay for friends or because he does not see the difference of an Adult run troop vs a boy run troop. All I can say is, though I admire you trying to let him make the decisions in his BS career, since you are in a troop that will not let him make decisions, your one small effort is like a small pebble on a bed of sand. The sand will just consume it. Do the same type of adult leading in getting him to see it is time to go, then allow him the choice of various troops in the area, even if a drive is involved. We drove 30 minutes to be in a good troop and looked the radious of a 45 minute drive. If it is a good troop it is worth the time. Once he has selected a new troop, then you can again sit back and let him make his own decisions. The boy does get the right to make decisions, but the troop has to meet some of the parents objectives also for why they have him in the scouting program.

SP - Here I was reading your very cordial post of Kudu's thread and thinking you were offering an olive branch (or unaware of the OP) until your last line.. I am beginning to think you are like like my cat "ducky", and swatting at my other cats for the fun of it... If you feel the spray from my virtual water bottle, will know it is from me..

I do not even know if I would put them in your uniform, as it may be percieved as an "In your face" type of move by this cub master. Low key all the way, as far as he knows the parents are just taking on the role of welcoming committee. But the Boys and the parents (who count) will know they are the official representatives of the troop. That should be enough to make sure the evening does not blow up into a feud..

Here's a suggestion.. Is there any parents of these boys who are thinking of becoming an adult leader in your unit? Can they put in their application now, and they be the welcoming representative for your troop? Even without an application, just make a parent of these boys an honorary member of your troop to do the welcoming for you. That way these boys have someone on the other side of the bridge to welcome them for you. The boys are then not missing out on the crossover ceremony.. Them boycotting it sends a wrong message of both the Pack & troop that parents of future years crossovers will want to avoid. Also the boys walking into no where sends a sad picture. A parent being on the other side as your representative, is the only thing I can think of to avoid either negative image.

You being closer I will trust in your magnatude of information on this incident. I just seem to remember the Documentary stating this, and my husband & I discussing that remark of it was taken away because of the murders, or because it was earned due to meeting the SM requirements that had nothing to do with the true requirements. Since the story did not state others in the troop had the Eagle rank revoked we decided it was due to the murders. We were a little over a year out of cub scouts though and pretty green, so maybe they said "membership revoked" and we misunderstood it to be "rank revoked" or the documentary could have gotten it wrong.

Eagle92 - This is definately a story about the same incident as in the documentary.. Now I have proof my husband & I did not have some sort of mind melding dream of this.. Taking your story, I did some web surfing and found some show called "The Investigators" did a documentary on this called "The Scoutmasters' Secret".. It just hit me looking at the title of you written story that that was similar to the title of the Documentary. It only happened in 1997!! I might have watched it around 2003 - 2004 ?? There was a little time lapse but not as much as I assumed. Just because no one else went on these camping trips with the boys, which is in violation of the 2 deep leadership rule. But the family definatly was the parents and 1 sister. And there is the one scout who tried to tell the town what was happening. The written story, doesn't explain why the family was marked for death or about the camping trips in the woods where they were trained like a militia team.. But that definately is the same story. (Or at least I hope there is no two stories so similar).

Hmmm... Don't know if the OP couldn't find himself, or didn't like our answers as he opened an new post with the exact same question.

I wish I had taken down the name of the documentary, I saw the show 8 years back. It was fascinating. Obviously before the time of 2 deep leadership. May have been the start of putting 2 deep leadership in place. The ScoutMaster alway took the boys on camping trips alone, and molested them, and groomed them to become a militia that was devoted to protecting him and his secrets. They had alot of interviews from the parents and former scouts, and the scout who murder his family. But the SM (who also was in prison) did not do an interview. One kid joined the troop having moved from another town, and after figureing out what was going on tried to blow the whistle, the rest of the town did not believe him. Good thing to because if they had the SM had the other scouts lined up to kill him. One parent found out what he was doing, and was fine with keeping the secret as long as he did not molest her son.. She later found out that he had and was outraged he had violated her son. Not even a notion that her self-centered indignation was sickening. Even the family who was murdered, was told by the son he had been molested. Then a week later the SM had convinced the scout he now had to murder them to keep them silent. He finally did the deed. My question was "Why did they not say anything to authorities during that one week span?" I forget how it unravaled and got solved, but it is not because anyone in that family said a word to authorities or other friends or family in that week after they found out. All the people in that troop (adults and scouts) in my opinion had an attitude that was unbelievable! Did anyone else see this documentary? If my husband hadn't seen it with me, I would think I had dreamed the whole thing.

Evmori - You sound like that commercial "What's in your wallet". The questionable by-laws were of a different troop I am no longer in. The current troop my son & husband are in (and I was in until recently) I don't think has official by-laws in writing.. All I can think of that could be construed as unwritten bylaws are the following: We have known yearly things the troop pays for such as we pay for the admission price of all camporees.. Of the money in the scouts accounts they must use it for scout related events or items. (not to buy soda at the local store.) Adults need to be fully trained per National in order to take on the role of SM or ASM. Adults need to be fully trained per National for SM position to stay overnight on a troop event. Troop will pay for adult training (all but Woodbadge) provided you attend the course (we don't pay if you register for it but do not attend.) That is all I can think of as somewhat of a policy, or by-laws.. I do not think the scouts have made their own by-laws either. (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Very, very rare.. The only time I have ever heard of an Eagle rank being revoke was when a young man murdered his family by following the orders of his ScoutMaster to do so.. Putting the whole BSA program on trail with him in the murder investigation.. Others who murder, but do not drag the BSA into the mud with them, get to keep their Eagle rank.. So is your situation as dire as that?.. I doubt for something that rare and that drastic there is a typical form lying around.

So in this thread things like advancement policy can not be changed yet in the thread it is linked to they can if it gets the CO's blessing.. So which is correct? If the PLC has a vote that is against BSA policy & the CO says "go for it". Why is that ok in the linked thread, but not in this one? Personally, I would encourage the PLC to make by-laws that benefited the troop and the scouts. I would have them discuss why they think this policy would be of benefit.. If they came up with some good arguements, fine.. Then I would point out to them, how it could be used unfairly and end up hurting the troop and individuals.. Now I know that even if the CO can make bylaws like this, the PLC can not. Hopefully after the discussion the PLC would see the error of their thinking. If not, I am unsure at this point if I would just tell them that things like advancement were the BSA, policy and could not be changed by them, or if I would let it bump up to the COR and have another go round with it. I guess it would depend on the situation, and if I thought the PLC having their day in court with the COR would be beneficial to the learning experience of the boys in the PLC or not. Personally I think the CO should follow the BSA rules, unless it interfers with their religious beliefs, or organizational beliefs and this can be easily proved. If the CO is just using the name, and running something that in no way looks like a BSA program, it is a disservice to not only what BSA stands for, but to the kids in that program who think they are in a BSA program. Not using one of the methods of scouting such as Advancement though is better then using it and "knowingly" altering it to be your own idea which is clearly out of line with BSA's policy. But neither makes a well run troop.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Yeah, the troop I gave as an example of changing Advancement policy was "self-chartered".. Therefore the committee could run rampant over changing whatever they want to. But there is "enough" that you can change that the Council will come in and clean house. Until then as Jblake said "Move down the road". But if the troop is way out of line with BSA policy log a complaint with the DE. If they get enough complaints about unfair practices, they will do something about it.

Hawkrod - your comment (for example, you can't require that a boy going for Eagle be at least 17 years old and have been SPL for 2 years because those are not the BSA requirements I was in a troop that put in their bylaws that in order to acheive Eagle you had to be SPL (not for 2 years, just hold the position). When I was new I heard this and was concerned because it was a very large troop, and an elected position, and some could repeat the SPL position. Seemed like some could get all the requirements BSA stated, but never serve as SPL. The committee chair said they had a provision for that. We left that troop, but I talked with some in the troop on occasion. This great scout, with an awsome personality as a camp counsilor, just barely made eagle in this troop. He was very close to 18 but never got a chance to run for SPL, because the troop played games on who was eligable for elections so he never was eligable.. But, they were holding his eagle, due to a positions they made sure he didn't get a chance to hold. His father who had never been in scouting finally got involved, and threatened the troop leaders into reporting how they ran their troop , if they did not recind this unfair policy. They finally reluctantly let him have it. I was not surprised he had this difficulty, he was marked by the troop as one they did not want to see make eagle when he was around 14, because until that age he did not take interest in his advancement and was at like tenderfoot or first class. Then he took interest but they had already marked him as "not worthy". I sat in on his BOR and they told me they didn't like this kid, so planned to make the BOR hard before he entered the room. I was happy to meet this young man again, and see what a fine young man he had turned into, even having spent his scouting years in this type of troop. I don't know if Beavah is right about this being acceptable or not, but I would not stay in a troop that made bylaws so as to pick and choose who they wanted to make the Eagle rank.

People can tell me if it is out there, but I have tried looking for it. PDF formats for the Training Syllabus. I am told we can legally reproduce them for BSA purposes. Therefore I copied the pages and made my own PDF, but since they are only scanned images, the text is not searchable.

You have been reading in this forum, before your boys got into scouting, and we did not scare you away?.. From your enthusiasm I would say not long before you are not only the parent of a scout, but part of the adult leadership.. So does insanity run in your whole family?

Yes the third post on this thread, I stated what I thought of the video.

That's OK PChadbo. You don't have to take your foot out of your mouth. I agree with you..

Officially No.. You are the program, not the committee. That said. Some units allow SM & ASM in any way, but it is up to them. Even without a vote, SM & ASM opinion should hold ALOT of wait as how a committee will vote. They are the program, therefore their view of how things work will give the committee ideas on when a policy is not working to change it. Plus the SM can take alot of those policies away from the committee, by making sure their PLC is doing alot of the policy rules.. OK, they still don't get to vote with the PLC.. But, they can at guide at least to the point of "What can we do to make sure what happened on the last camping trip does not happen again." If PLC is making policy on the program, committee then only focuses policy on financial, paperwork, adult relations and things of that nature.

Hmmm.. pchadbo.. I am a NH transplant.. But in a round about way. Grew up in upper-state NY. Went to college in Illinois and stayed for a few years after, moved to MA (and hated it, due to it being way too busy, the drivers being very discourtious to the point of maniac, and the people seemed to judge you for how much you made.. Then there was too many people..) Now that was close to the Boston area.. I thing western MA is laid back. Anyway, I pushed & shoved my husband a native MA person out of MA as far as I could push him.. So that's how I ended up in NH. After 20 years, I am fine with taking my garbage to the town dump, no sidewalks, no sewer etc. I absolutely love my well water (except miss the water pressure) The town police keep harping to up their numbers we vote no (how many speed traps can you set up on the dirt roads anyway?) But, I will admit to one thing.. With the gas crunch, I sure wish there was a grocery store closer the 45 minutes away, other then the Ma & Pa little shops.. But, I am a transplant in a round-about way.. I will support pchadbo with most of what he says, the transplants do come up here, to get away from the taxes, and to be able to buy a house at a reasonable price (as reasonable as todays market is).. But, then they are the ones driving up the cost of housing by increasing the population and the cost & Demand of housing, and the taxes by asking for the ammenities they had in MA.. So maybe I need to drive me out... ME.. Be Gone!(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

drmbear, Absolutely, the last IOLS I did (it was my first organizing it).. There were definately participants there that added value to the passing of information. Then.. again.. there were a few that "thought" they knew it all.. The type who probably didn't learn anything because they were too full of it, to listen to anyone, but whatever they said was not very accurate, or was a little off topic. those might be the ones National is trying to get to the "know-it-alls" that are passing on wrong info (or outdated info).. But, again, they are the type not benefiting from it.. If you don't have a "holier-than-thou" district trainer.. Let them know your experience, if they need extra trainers, they might use you.. If I can't get those in my district an easier way to get through this IOLS, I will definately ask for their help during the trainings. I will need to put on alot more full blown 2+ days training if everyone in not trained in my district has to get through it that way. I am counting 97 SM & ASM's needing it. Not counting webeloes leaders and Venturing Crews with an outdoor program.. Alot of us district trainers are just sandwiched in the middle trying to get thought this mandate in a way that is easiest on you as well as on us.

Warning about the video, I had the Boy scout video & the cub scout video at one time, the boy scout one we saw first and it was fine. I was in shock when after that I watched the cub scout one and found it was much more frightening.. I don't know if the reasoning is they have to describe it in more detail with the younger ones to get them to understand, where as the older ones they already know so you are just reminding them to be on the look out for things that seem to be out of sorts, and pay attention to them.