NeilLup

There is, to my knowledge, no explicit BSA policy. I know of cases where adult leaders have been removed from their Scouting jobs because of extramarital relationships. For an individual unit, this can be done by the COR or by the IH. To be removed from all Scouting, the action would be taken by the local council Scout Executive. For the latter, the situation needs to be quite egregious. I also know of cases where marriages have come apart because of relationships which started through Scouting. It happens. Just because two adults put on Scout leader uniforms does not mean that they aren't human and that they don't act on their biological urges. What to do. As others have suggested, you can talk with one or more of the individuals involved. However, they may very well regard you as a busybody. You certainly can ask individuals to be more discreet. You can say, presumably with truth, that your son has asked what their relationships is and you really don't want to go there. You can talk with the the CC, the COR or IH or the Commissioner or DE. However, they may well not want to get involved or they may not find the situation as requiring of change as you do. Much depends upon how overt and how egregious the individuals involved are. You may be scandalized. The Scouts may barely notice. Impossible to say without being there. And finally, you can go to another unit.

As I see the problem, and ASM59, please correct me if I misunderstand, it is that ASM59 sees "helping the District" as different from helping youth or serving as a leader in a unit. It is an "us versus them" point of view that I certainly have seen before. The feeling that the District is "them" and not "us" and that we are not all on the same team together and that District and Council personnel and activities are somehow qualititatively different from and in some ways opposed to unit level activities. I have seen this attitude expressed elsewhere as "the only place that real Scouting takes place is in a Troop." (note, not even a Pack or a Crew) I know of some councils/districts and some situations where the attitude might, to some extent, be justified and where the training teams are rather cliquey. However, I personally find it as inappropriate to respond to a request to consider being a trainer and pay the nominal cost of learning how to be a trainer as it would be to respond to a request to help with a unit by saying "sure, I'll be happy to, but I expect my expenses to be covered." If one is a Scouting volunteer at whatever level, one pretty much is expected to cover the costs of that volunteer service. If one doesn't want to be a trainer and do what trainers do, so be it. If the Trainer Development Conference is weak, then that is another matter and it should be improved. But not wanting to pay for lunch and supplies because the conference is weak strikes me the same as not wanting to pay for camp because the food is poor or because the program could be better. Since I have seen this point of view expressed before and haven't been able satisfactorily to address it, I need some help in understanding it. Why is being a trainer at the District level any less (or more) of being a Scout leader than is being an asst. Scoutmaster or Den Leader or whatever? What am I missing? Why is "helping the District" different from "helping the Troop" or "helping youth?" One area where I totally concur with ASM59 relates to people unable to pay for the cost of such a training class. No one should be denied such an opportunity in Scouting because of funds and if the council/district have some other ideas, then some serious discussions are in order. I can concur that participation might be better if the food were provided. Maybe that reasoning should be used depending upon the financial condition of your council. But at a certain point, the argument can reasonably be, well if we don't have to pay for this, why should anyone have to pay for anything?(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

You raise a very good point, Tokala. The 8 patrols (Beaver, Bob White, Eagle, Fox, Owl, Bear, Buffalo Antelope) are US only. Each country that has Wood Badge has its own patrols, some of them are much less "picky" about patrol names than we are and some really don't use patrols that much. We had a staff member who is Norwegian and he took Wood Badge in Norway where he was a woodpecker. He would sing "I used to be a pecker." We had another man who took it on Guam and was a Goony Bird. When there was Exploring Wood Badge, the crew names were things like Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. There could well be Ravens as a prime patrol name in some other country.

"It would be helpful if the BSA guidelines werent so ambiguous" With respect, don't bemoan this ambiguousness, rather cherish it! It enables and empowers you and your unit do take actions and establish policies that are uniquely right for you and best meet the needs of your boys and leaders. There are over 50,000 Boy Scout Troops. Any effort to establish rigid rules would require so many waivers and exceptions and clarifications that it would be incredible. Rather, you and your other Troop leaders are the people on the spot and you make the decisions for your unit. Does this sometimes make for bad feelings and less than perfect decisions? Sure. But I suspect that any set of extremely rigid rules would be much worse.

Gold Winger raises a great point. When I arrange for scholarships, typically, I recommend a partial scholarship with the person kicking in some funds of their own for just that reason. One of our communities has a fund from the days when they were a council. It supports, among other things, Wood Badge and gives full scholarships. However, the deal is that the participant pays the full cost of the training, then is fully reimbursed when they get their beads I totally concur that if something is free, its value is often perceived as equal to that which is paid for it.

It used to be in some parts of the country when a course got particularly large there would be a 9th patrol which would be Ravens. I particularly know this happened in Southern California. It used to be that there was not an ironclad limit on the upper size of a Troop. So when some courses got up around 50 participants, the course director would target 9 patrols of 6 participants (54 participants) and add a Raven patrol. If the course got still larger, there would sometimes be a Wolf patrol added as a 10th patrol. The other alternative was to make the patrols larger. I was on a course in 2003 where the Course Director had been a Raven. With the current guidelines, it is exceedingly strict that there will be a maximum of 8 patrols of 6 participants and there will be no 9 patrol Troops.(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

"Many seem to miss my point in my original post. I am not talking about position specific training. I am talking about training that directly benefits the District & Council. The District & Council should pay. The view that not paying the fee means someone doesnt have enough commitment, just goes to prove my point that even though the fee is called a donation, it is really expected. It also means that most other people would never say that they could not afford it or that they dont agree with paying the fee. If this is the prevailing view, that I dont have enough commitment to hold the position just because I prefer not to pay the fee, then the decision is that I will simply stay out of District level or Council level positions. " Hello ASM59, It's great that you and your daughter have been invited to take the conference to become trainers. It means that the District and Council have confidence in your skill and capability and knowledge of Scouting and want to pass it on to others. The training in this case does not benefit the District and Council. It benefits YOUTH!!! Everything that the District and Council does benefits youth directly or indirectly. If an activity does not, in some way, benefit youth, why are we doing it? Your being a trainer helps youth and helps the adults who are serving youth. As far as a fee, donation, whatever it is. The fact is that there is some cost for meals, supplies, etc. Somebody has to pay it. It's not a big cost, but it is a cost. Perhaps in an ideal world, somebody else would raise the money to pay for these. I know that in my council, I: 1) participate in courses like this conference, often staffing or even directing them 2) participate in deciding if there will be a fee and what it will be 3) pay the fee myself 4) help raise money for scholarships and for paying the fees for others 5) sometimes pay the fee myself for people who truly cannot afford it I might ask. When you are a leader in your unit: 1) Do you pay for food, etc. for campouts or does the unit pay for those? 2) Do you pay for your uniforms, etc. or does the unit buy those for you? 3) If you go to an event or activity with a charge for participation, do you pay those charges or does the unit pay for it for you? 4) Do you pay for your registration for the year or does the unit pay for that for you? 5) When you buy equipment for camping, do you pay for it or does the unit buy or supply them for you? Most units that I know have the leaders pay some of not all of these expenses. If you have been willing to pay these expenses for your unit, why is it OK with you to pay these expenses for a unit but not for a District or Council? If you look at the budget, the District and Council are really no better off than many units. I know of some rather small units in my council that have "war chests" of $10,000 or more which they never touch. I certainly have heard the attitude "I am giving my time, why should I give my money too?" That has always troubled me as it suggests that money collected for the District and Council is somehow going to Osama bin Laden or some other evil purpose. It suggests that units are good and the District and Council are suspect or bad. Rather, every dollar that is paid for fees like this frees up those dollars for other good purposes in Scouting. If you will give me the address of your council and the names to which the payment should be credited, I'll be happy to mail a check for $10 to your council to pay for the conference for you and your daughter. It's that important to me that Scouting have all the trainers that it needs. Money should never keep people from doing good Scouting and if this fee is that important to you, let's eliminate the problem.

Hello Ed, "How is requiring a Scout to bring his handbook to a BOR improving citizenship, character & fitness?" Scout Motto - Be Prepared Scout Oath - mentally awake Scout Law - Trustworthy It falls under fitness. It the Scout clearly knows that it is an expectation (which this Scout apparently did) and doesn't meet the expectation, then in this case, his mental fitness was less than it might have been. So he gets the opportunity to correct the situation and learn from it. Personally, I believe that if I had been on the board, I would have given him a "conditional pass." We would say that he is passed contingent upon showing his notebook to the board/leaders at the next opportunity and when he does, he is passed with date of rank of the original board. But I don't have a huge problem with giving him a deferral and requiring him to return for a full board. I wasn't there. Perhaps they felt that the Scout's growth was best served by having him come back for a full board.

Good comments by many other posters. It is standard procedure now to charge for training events. Some councils are endowed sufficiently well that they don't need to charge for training. Most are not. There's another factor. When making fund raising presentations to United Way, foundations, etc. One of the questions they ask is how much the users and participants are paying to support the organization. This is a BIG factor in their decisions and one in which Scouts can suffer relative to other organizations since money raised and spent by units doesn't cross the books of the council. The recent Wood Badge staff I was on had a staff fee of about half the participant fee. One important consideration is that no one should ever be denied training or staff service because of cost. There should always be funds in the budget to cover scholarships of "stafferships" when necessary. But for most people, there really isn't a need.

Fast Forward about 5 years Scenario 1 Proctor: Welcome to the SAT tests. Please give me your admission ticket. Your son: Gosh, I forgot it. Can I take the test anyway. Proctor: I'm sorry but without the ticket you can't. Your son: But that's unfair. My Star Scout Board of Review passed me even though I forgot my notebook. Proctor: I am sorry, but you can't take the SAT without your ticket. Your son: AAAGGGGGH!!! Scenario 2: Proctor: Welcome to the SAT tests. Please give me your admission ticket. Your son:: I have it right here. Ever since I got failed on my Star Board of Review for not bringing my notebook, I make sure that I always have the things with me that I really need. Proctor: Great. Good luck on the SATs. Or let's up the ante a bit: Scenario 3 Random person: The dinosaurs are coming. They're going to eat us all. Your son: No problem. We can get away in my car. WHERE'S MY CAR KEYS?? They're not in my pocket. We can't get away!! Dinosaurs: Chomp, chomp. Very tasty. or Scenario 4 Random person: The dinosaurs are coming. They're going to eat us all. Your son. No problem. We can get away in my car. My car keys are right here. Ever since I got failed by my Star Scout Board of Review for not having my notebook, I take responsibility for having with me the things that I will need. Hop in. Car: Vroom, vroom. Dinosaurs: Curses, foiled again! I'm afraid we'll go extinct. We're not in this Scouting business to give out badges or to produce Eagle Scouts. We're in it to improve citizenship, character and fitness. I would respectfully suggest that, handled right, you son has just had a life lesson. Possibly an important one that he will never forget and the penalty is something that, in the overall scheme of things, is really quite inconsequential. One of the criticisms of the raising of today's youth is that everything is too positive and kids get huge trophies just for participation. Kids are shielded from negative experiences and having to deal with unpleasantness. Youth are denied, if you will, from the emotional vaccination of small unpleasant experiences which will prepare them for big unpleasantness when they get older. Those small unpleasantnesses are something that Scouting can deliver and can the Scouts to grow. Not to play "poor me" (which is something that my wife says I do entirely too much) but some of the unpleasantnesses that I remember from my Scouting days were: 1) I had been a Scout for about 8 months and was 11. I showed up a couple of minutes late for a Troop meeting and learned that there had been a reorganization of patrols. I went over to my regular patrol in the patrol corner and they told me they had taken in a couple of new members, they were full and I was not welcome. I should just go away. I had essentially been voted off the island. 2) I was going for First Class Scout. I was trying for First Class cooking. The food I cooked was less than great. I was laughed at by my patrol members and failed for First Class cooking. 3) I was a Star Scout and the only Star Scout in the troop. I really wanted to be SPL. The Scoutmaster appointed another boy who was a Second Class Scout as SPL. 4) Being an OA member was a really big thing. I failed election the first year. So I tried much harder to be a good Scout the next year. I failed election again the second year. I was the only "senior" Scout in our Troop who was not an OA member and was ragged on rather mercilessly about it. 5) I was trying to earn Scout Lifeguard and one requirement for that was Rowing merit badge. On Thursday at camp, because many boys had been secreting candy, gum, etc. in their tents, all the candy had been confiscated by the adults, placed in the center of the dining tables and we were served, honest to God, bread and water for lunch. We were tested for Rowing merit badge that afternoon and I bonked during the test and was failed. Scouting is a way for bad little things to happen in a non-threatening and non-permanent way. I also disagree substantially with many of the posters about the other boy who was passed without his notebook. There is a BIG difference between going for Tenderfoot and going for Star Scout. Your son has already had 3 successful Boards of Review. He knows the ropes and knows what is expected. He could well be the Patrol Leader for this other boy and, as such, would be expected to make sure that the other boy was ready including having his notebook. As a Scout advances, the standard of what is expected increases. For example, as a potential Star Scout, if asked the Scout Law, your son would be expected to rattle off "Trustworthy, Loyal, etc." However, if someone is going for Tenderfoot, he might stumble a bit, maybe need a little help. Would it be appropriate for your son to say "He didn't need to know the Oath perfectly, why do I have to? " Same thing here. He is a higher rank and a higher level of performance is expected. I believe that the Board of Review acted properly in showing mercy to the other boy so as not to discourage him and turn him off. Perhaps if the other boy had gone first and your son second, your son would have been passed too. I'm sure that for exactly that reason, the Board had a really difficult time. It sounds as if your son is pretty resilient and you can be proud. I don't believe that anything terribly untoward happened. It is never bad to get training but I'm not sure that more training would have or should have changed the outcome. There are some excellent suggestions by other posters but I wouldn't get too worked up. I certainly would not come in as COR with flags flying and guns blazing telling the Board that they had messed up. I'll bet this. It will be a LONG time before your son forgets something important.

"t's true, that most parents and many Scouters do not understand the relationship that is supposed to exist from the IH down to the SM." And as serious a problem, if not more so, is that there can be a huge difference between what things are "supposed to be" and what they actually are. Most chartered organizations I know are minimally involved and CORs are minimally involved. Expecting them, in many cases, to resolve difficult disputes is not what they expected to do, want to do or will do. Those of us who work at the district and council level have to try to help work resolutions to these problems that are within the correct organizational structure of Scouting but which also are realistic in terms of what really will happen.

" No reason given for stay around. Some think it is because she wants her son to make Eagle, although I'm sure he has the same thing in mind. Some think for her to act as a insider for several people who left the troop, so they can keep track of whats going on." If one of these is the reason, all the more reason to get the DE involved and soon. There are ways to accomplish this woman's objectives and get the unit back active again.

(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

Eamonn has come up with some great suggestions. I might only add that you suggest that he update his knowledge and also share his knowledge with others by staffing a Tiger Cub training.

Eamonn has come up with some great suggestions. I might only add that you suggest that he update his knowledge and also share his knowledge with others by staffing a Tiger Cub training.

Eamonn has come up with some great suggestions. I might only add that you suggest that he update his knowledge and also share his knowledge with others by staffing a Tiger Cub training.

Some of the questions I would ask are: 1) What do you consider to be a "good" Troop? What are the characteristics of a good troop? 2) How will you judge if you are doing a good job as Scoutmaster? How should the Committee judge if you are doing a good job as Scoutmaster? Can we lay out a list of checkpoints so we can measure progress? 3) What will your priorities be in taking over as Scoutmaster? What activities will you do first? 4) Do you enjoy camping? Do you go camping on your own? Where? What kind of camping do you enjoy? 5) Are you comfortable training 11,12 and 13 year old boys to be leaders and then truly letting them plan and lead. Are you comfortable if they lead into a less than great situation and then your having to take the responsibility/heat from parents and others because adults could have done better? Are you willing to let boys "fail" and watch them fail? 6) Do you enjoy working with boys? Which age range do you like better, 11-12 or 16-17? 7) Do you enjoy selling the Troop and recruiting boys and parents? How would you convince a boy to join and his parents to let him join? Do you prefer a smaller Troop of 5-10 boys, a medium Troop of 20-30 or a large Troop of 50+? 8 Is your spouse completely on board with your becoming Scoutmaster? How 'bout your employer and employment? 9) No one is perfect, but is there anything about your personal history that might reflect negatively upon you and the Troop if they were known?

Sorry that you feel you must resign. One factor I haven't seen in the posts relates to the rank that the boy is going for. I would suggest that for Tenderfoot, Second Class and maybe First Class, the Board of Review should occur just as soon as the boy completes the requirement. You want to motivate him and not discourage him. Get him started and recognized quickly. On the other hand, Star can be a bit more structured and Life and Eagle can be a lot more structured. Those kids know the ropes, are a bit older and should be able to be a bit more patient. But I would say that every three months is MUCH too infrequent for the lower ranks. Let me speculate a bit also. Although it is permitted to have Boards of Review for more than one of the lower ranks simultaneously, I speculate that your committee doesn't like doing that either. In other words, if a Scout has completed the requirements for Second Class but still has one Tenderfoot requirement and then completes the Tenderfoot Requirement, he can have one Board of Review for both ranks or I have seen a situation where he passes the TF Board of Review, steps out to have his Scoutmaster Conference and then goes in for the Second Class Board of Review. The boy also could complete all the Tenderfoot Requirements and then complete his Second Class Requirements while waiting out the three months before the Board of Review. But I am speculating that your committee would, as a minimum, want the boy to wait that three months for another Board of Review. Am I right?

" Well, I will be a life scout for the rest of my life." If you are still reading the forum. There are worse thing in the world. As I have posted previously, at one time a few years ago, I was having dinner with 3 eminent Scouters. I was far and away the least significant. One man is a member of the National Advisory Council, Silver Buffalo Holder and immediate past chairman of the National Court of Honor Another man is a member of the National Executive Board, Silver Antelope Holder, distinguished consultant and in charge of Learning for Life The third is now a retired 3 star Navy Admiral, Silver Antelope Holder, member of the Northeast Regional Board and formerly chairman of Boy Scout Training. All were "Life for Life." You have a long life ahead of you. Scouting is a journey, not an end point.

"If the SM wants to veto an elected scout he does not fill out the citation for that scout - the SM does not get to substitute the next highest vote getter. " Hello belayer, This is another interesting sentence and suggests that St. Louis is REALLY working with old procedures. For the last 10-15 years, the procedure has been that there is no "next highest vote getter." Each Scout competes against himself. If he gets 50+ of votes or more, he is elected. If not, he is not elected. It is possible to have all of the eligible Scouts in a Troop elected, or none, or anything in between. So if one Scout is not certified for election, it does not open up a "slot" for another Scout. Prior to that, there were a certain number of "slots" for which Scouts competed. If, for example, there were 6 Scouts eligible, a maximum of 3 could be elected. But Nationally, that procedure was eliminated about 10-15 years ago. Is this currently the procedure in St. Louis?

belayer, As with many things in Scouting, ultimately the National Council and the National OA committee have only the authority that the Council and District have with an errant unit. They can refuse to recharter them. But short of that, they have only "jawbone" authority. And for a big, powerful, strong council like St. Louis, there's no way that the National OA committee would dream of denying a recharter. Now I do have another thought which a cowardly SM might exercise. Could a SM tell a lodge election team, properly in advance, "I refuse to certify Scout X as eligible for election. He may not be elected to the OA. However, his parents are very powerful in this community and in this Troop. So I want his name left on the ballot so that the Scouts will think that they are are voting for him. But when the time comes to turn in the results, you are not to certify him as elected."

Hello liperazs, You haven't said why you want to be an Eagle Scout. That can be important to understand particularly for you yourself. If you believe that you can hide your situation from the Eagle Board of Review, very likely you are sadly mistaken. The odds are extremely high that they will find out just as some of the forum members found out. If so, my friend, you very likely are toast. If I were on that Board, I would do everything that I could to make the rejection permanent. If you tell them of the situation, you may be failed by the BOR but they will respect you for your honesty. It is conceivable that they will lay out a course of action which would prove worthiness. But let's say that you do manage to sneak past the Board. Your situation WILL become known sooner or later. At that point, it will be an embarrassment for you, for your Troop and for the Boy Scouts. Your "Eagle" will be fatally tarnished and you will have set a bad example for other youth. The other alternative, as others have suggested, is voluntarily to step off the Eagle trail and decide that you will do your best to be a good Scout but not an Eagle Scout. In doing this, there is nothing to keep you from being involved and even serving as a leader at some point in the future. With the respect you say that you have for Scouting, which I greatly appreciate, it would seem that you have two legitimate choices: 1) Be totally honest with the Eagle Board and see where things end up 2) Step off the Eagle trail The "hide it from the board" approach would appear to be lose/lose. Even if your records are "sealed" what you did is known by your peers, by their parents and by the community. This isn't like a jury being denied information in a court case. As an Eagle Scout, you are a marked and highlighted man in the community. In being an accused felon, you are also a marked and highlighted man in the community. Assuming that those two highlights won't intersect to your strong disadvantage is, I believe, fooling yourself.(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

"In many respects, the hierarchical structure of girls leading other girls may not be the best (at least at the 8-9 year old level) since the girls really seem to want everything to be at a level playing field at this age." There really is no hierarchical structure of boys leading other boys in Boy Scouting at 8-9 year old level either. Those are Wolf and Bear Cub Scouts and real boy leadership doesn't start until Boy Scouting when the Boy Scout is 10 or 11. So I would suggest it is apples and oranges to compare what boys are doing at 10,11,12, etc. with girls at 8 or 9. Our daughter was in Girl Scouts through Juniors which ended, if my memory is correct, at age 12. There was no Cadette Troop in our neighborhood and she didn't want to continue enough to travel a significant distance to be with girls she didn't particularly know. My wife was a Troop leader and simply used Boy Scout books. They did a lot of camping and had a great time. At the risk of incurring fire and brimstone, my memory also is that there is a massive drop in participation in going from the age 12 Girl Scout organization to age 13. So essentially, Girl Scouting should be compared and contrasted with Cub Scouting. Except for very unusual Troops, substantial Girl Scout participation at Boy Scout age and level is not seen much.

For heaven's sake, people, let's wake up, smell the coffee and lose the conspiracy theories I believe that we all believe that having a competent leader in Scouting who knows his or her job is a good idea. OK so far? I believe that almost all of us -- some exceptions -- believe that training helps the leader to learn their job and understand better what and how to do that good job. Still OK? I believe that almost all of us believe that our child in Scouting should have a good leader who is competent and knows how to do a good job and is trained. Still OK? I believe that most of us know people who are willing to become Scout leaders but are "too busy" to become trained and learn how to do the job well and right. Agree with me there? So these "mandatory training" provisions simply state that if someone is going to be a direct contact leader in Scouting dealing with youth, they should have the minimal training necessary to know what that job is and to have the basic information of how to do it. This is not a provision to decertify leaders or not reregister units. The mandatory training provisions are being proposed for one reason. We believe that Scouts have better Scouting and units are better units if the leaders are trained and "voluntary" training isn't getting enough people to become trained. Personally, I am very comfortable saying to someone who says that they don't have the time to become trained "I understand that you are very busy. Regrettably, what you are saying is that you are too busy now to be a Scout leader. We appreciate that and when you believe that you have the time to learn how to do the job, you will again consider being a Scout leader." But at the same time, I have been very reluctant to support mandatory training in our council until our Council Training Committee and other committees have been totally committed to providing training when and as leaders need it. It can no longer be a matter of holding Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills once a year with 5 people present and saying that the job is being done. Mandatory training places as much or more obligation on the training committee as it does on the direct contact leaders. With on-line training and other training methods, there really is no reason that someone who cares about Scouting cannot get the minimum training for their position quite quickly. I completely concur about training records. Accurate records needs to be an essential part of "mandatory training" as do reasonable waiver provisions for people like 18 year old ASMs who are at college and only come home for the summer months. But that can be handled. The thing to get bothered about is not the exception. Rather, it is the large number of parents or other adults who say "I don't have the time to get trained"and the Training Committees who say "We held the training course (once a year at a time of our convenience). It's not our problem if nobody came." If we are going to provide quality Scouting, those has to be unacceptable.(This message has been edited by NeilLup)