Oak Tree

In the parent thread, Horizon said that he didn't think he was allowed to take Cub Scouts camping without a parent. This is a common idea, but I don't think it's fully supported. We normally expect the parents to attend, but if they are unable to do so, we will allow the Cub Scout to attend a pack overnighter with another parent filling in. What the Guide to Safe Scouting says is "In most cases, each youth member will be under the supervision of a parent or guardian. In all cases, each youth participant is responsible to a specific adult." Do other packs require parents to attend in all cases?

Mark, I too am surprised that you're surprised. It looks like you posted - looking for support for your position in an upcoming BOR that the boy should not be subject to social advancement. You got that support, in spades. It looks like everyone here agrees that the BOR should not advance the boy. It seems like that you might take that strong support as a positive thing. Now, it happens that we all also think that the BOR shouldn't have advanced the boy in the first place. Yes, it's true, there can be lots of extenuating circumstances. But really, this just doesn't sound like one of those situations that cries out for overriding the rules. I've had boys stay in the troop for four years at Tenderfoot. To me it looks like your SM is making the assumption that if a boy doesn't advance, he won't stay in the program. I'm not sure I get why that would be. Do all of your Scouts earn their ranks at about the same time? Is there a reason one would feel significantly left behind if he didn't advance? So, I'll add my voice to everyone else's. Don't give the Scout another unearned rank. I wouldn't worry about what's in the past - just fix it going forward.

I guess it would depend on how much the contribution was. If it's just a token "thank-you" - then I'd probably count the service hours and keep the contribution. If it's an amount similar to what a serious fund-raiser would get, then I agree, it would be hard to justify counting the hours as service hours.

Is this his first BOR? If so, I'd go ahead and recommend that you sit on the board.

I guess we operate this way. We don't have any written expectations for attendance, and no consequences other that the natural ones (e.g. slower advancement). How do we handle the fact that the boys advance at different rates? Well, that's never been a real problem. We have boys who don't focus on advancement. As long as they are having fun doing Scouting, we don't push them. We do offer periodic opportunities for them to complete the requirements up through First Class. Do the boys who don't advance tend to drop out? I'm not sure it's causal. I'd put it the other way around. The boys who aren't all that interested and are likely to drop out also don't show much interest in advancement. How do we handle leadership positions and PLCs? We do not have any written expectations for these positions, but we certainly do have higher expectations. The boys generally live up to them. It's typical that only the more active boys want the positions in the first place. We do not lower our range of campouts for safety or skill reasons. Sometimes we'll offer two levels of activity on a campout. Sometimes the boys will self-select out of the entire weekend if they're not ready. It would be pretty rare for us to have an activity where a certain level of expertise is absolutely necessary. One thing that we've done is to increase the size of the patrols to about 10. That way if a few boys are absent, there's still a good-sized working patrol.

I don't think too many specific rules get in the way of a good program. I do generally agree with Barry that it would be nicer to have Cubs camping as dens, Scouts playing laser tag, and allowing for some amount of retesting. The place where I think that the rules interfere is where they take things that should be simple and make them hard. We get people posting on the forum in a panic that they haven't filed the right tour permit and might have to cancel a trip. We have people saying that if their BALOO leader cancels, they'll cancel the trip for everyone. "Mr. Scoutmaster, we've had a long, hot day working. Can we take a quick dip in the stream?" "Sorry, we don't have a 100-foot 3/8 inch rope to use as a lifeline. You'll have to stay out of the water." We were at a Cub camporee. A woman from district walked through and starting quizzing us - "Where's your locked, ventilated container for your fuel?" I remember Kahuna saying he stayed away from the waterfront after getting chewed out for walking in to the deserted beach to ask the director a question. I think that when people focus too much on the rules, that detracts from the program. Does it dramatically affect my ability to offer a good program? No, I don't think so. But then again, I'm the guy who has a favorite passage in the G2SS: "A responsible adult supervisor, who understands his or her responsibility and the elements of safety, can exercise discretion regarding certain procedures while maintaining safety." I think there are a lot of other things that affect the BSA's image more than the rules.

"In all my years of being involved with the BSA, I've never heard of any 'unit level key 3', either on-line or in-person." Boy, this caught me by surprise. We fairly regularly use the terms "Pack Key 3" or "Troop Key 3" or "Unit Key 3" around here. But I googled around the web, and found only very sparse references to those terms. Now, those references did exist in a few very diverse locations, so I think it's safe to say that the terms do have a standard meaning - but I hadn't realized how uncommon it would be to do so. I would have assumed that most people on the board used them they way we do, but I guess that's not a warranted assumption. Anyway, in all cases, the term does appear to mean what John says it does - SM/CC/COR (or more generically, UL/CC/COR - is UL an accepted abbreviation for Unit Leader?)

ManyHats, When I was CM, we had a deadline for turning in awards. For anything turned in after the deadline, we would say "Sorry, we've already finalized the awards list for this month. We'll present Timmy's at the pack meeting next month." Originally I tried to accommodate late requests, but it became too hard to insure that everything was included correctly. There were boys who got missed. And there were too many last minute requests. Once we set a deadline and held to it, people adapted. And it made our lives much easier.

Lisabob, I can tell you what I believe to be the case, and how we have handled it. The sample form on the OA site says simply that the unit committee may recommend the adults. The signatures at the bottom are from the SM and CC. I would argue that the committee is free to use any method it wishes in order to decide on the recommendations. In our troop it was just based on a conversation between the SM and CC. This is not really an issue that we wanted to bring to the entire committee, as it can almost seem like a personnel discussion, and with the bonus of a relatively large number of participants. Most of our committee isn't all that interested in this question anyway, I don't expect. So you could do it by secret ballot, or by consensus discussion - but I like the simple version of a decision by the CC. However you do it, the unit committee can use whatever criteria they like - although they are supposed to do it based on the potential for future service, and not as a reward or honor. We tend to focus on their current level of cheerful service. We also take into account whether their son is running for, and elected into, the OA - it seems more likely that a dad will participate if his son is also in. And we look at whether there are any other issues surrounding the Scouter - would anyone view it as an inappropriate honor for this person?

I would typically ask in a friendly way to see some evidence. If you know that one hasn't been completed (e.g. show your den), that could be a starting point. "Hey, Mary, I see that you're claiming a bunch of belt loops. This is more than most of the other boys get, so they'll be talking about it. I just wanted to run down the requirements and make sure he's actually done the requirements as written. For example, this belt loop says to present a poster to your den. Did he really do that?" I've had parents say, "Oh, I just thought he'd done everything. I guess not." And other parents have said "Yep, we did them all. Feel free to ask Timmy about them."

At the moment I do what Beavah talks about - keep my antennae up. Talk with people, watch for issues. Work with new adults individually. As Barry suggests, I find that 50% of my job as SM is talking with the other adults and ensuring a common vision. I'm sure we have some slight variations in interpretations, but it doesn't usually rise to a problematic level, and if it does, then I can deal with it. That said, I do like LongHaul's method. Because we do undoubtedly have some different interpretations, and especially as new people come into the troop, it would be good to let them all have something to read to get them on the same page. I would guess that Stosh's ASM training program would also be good for this type of thing. We in our troop used to get into regular discussions about the Tenderfoot fitness requirement until we settled into a pattern that worked for everyone. Sometimes if we're doing a station on a campout, I'll talk with the Scout and/or ASM who is running the station, to validate the rigidity of the requirement. One trend I've observed is that the older Scouts will often enforce a higher standard than the adults would choose.

We just rechartered and received our membership cards from council. There was no card for the IH, even though he was on the charter paperwork. So, while that's not a definitive way to prove a negative, I'm saying the absence of the card that says "John Adams, Instituational Head, is a member of the BSA" is fairly good evidence that IH is not a registered leader. Now, if he's filled out a leadership application as an IH, then I guess he would be. But I don't think he has to be. Does the BSA require that the head pastor of all these churches that sponsor units fills out an application form?

Hey Beavah, yep, more evidence that pretty much *any* discussion can turn to insurance. Glad you thought of me right away. :-) I've got Bob White squelched - ever since he insulted me in a private message, I've found my life on the board is more pleasant without reading his input - but I took a look at this one. I'm certainly no expert on liability law. But I just find it hard to imagine the BSA arguing in court that a Scout working on his Eagle project was not participating in an "official Scouting activity." He's doing the activity to earn a Scouting rank. The project has been approved by his unit and by his district. At the end of the time, the district will decide whether he has completed it satisfactorily. He is often (typically) accompanied by other Scouts. The other Scouts are often earning service hours as well. I don't know that I've seen a definition of what constitutes an "official Scouting activity." I guess we're all expected to know one when we see one. To my naive legal mind, an Eagle Scout service project would sure look like one. And, on topic for the thread, our Scouts usually do not wear their uniform while working on the project. The work typically involves some of the following: paint, sawdust, stain, dirt, sweat, cement, and some other messy items. Just hasn't seemed like the best place for the uniform.

Same thing. When you read the words, you have to decide what they mean. Different people might interpret the same words differently. My position is that the person who signs off gets to have the controlling interpretation.

SctDad - there's another thread running about how forum members should just answer questions people ask, as a way of being courteous, and not try to catch the poster in some violation. I guess that tells you how common of a problem it is on the forum. Every forum develops its own patterns, and quoting the G2SS is just part of the deal here. I don't like it either. To keep this post on topic, our pack hasn't done cabin camping, although we've 'camped' in an aircraft carrier and an aquarium. Those worked out fine. I really don't foresee any reason why cabin camping would be a problem - I'm with Lisabob - if the cabins make sense and are cheap enough, go for it.

This whole topic seems inane, somehow :-) But in general, I would say that exercising once every 30 days is not regular and does not meet the requirement, and I don't believe that it's the best a Scout could do. I've known of troops that handed out a 30 day exercise sheet, and said that you had to exercise every day for 30 consecutive days. If you missed a day, you had to start over. That's one extreme, and that's too extreme for my taste. At the other end is the 'exercise once every 30 days', also too extreme. I believe that the person signing off on the requirement gets to interpret what it means. Not 'add to' it, nor 'remove from' it, but give a reasonable interpretation of it. Once every 30 days is not reasonable, and I would indeed say, "inane".

fgoodwin asks "you would give a Scout advancement credit for his POR, regardless of how well (or how poorly) he did it?" My answer - yes, I would, because that is the BSA position on the matter as well. I want to teach them, encourage them, support them - not punish them. I view it like wages for a job - you either fire the guy, or you pay him. But you don't get to the end of the month, tell him he didn't do as well as you wanted and so you're not going to pay him. FScouter says "I'd go back to the SM Handbook and read up on double positions". I hunted through and couldn't find anything. Do you have a specific reference? I can't see making a big deal over this. I would not normally give a boy two positions, except for den chief, and I'd certainly not have any problem with doing it then. I'd also do it if someone wanted to be the bugler, and no one else did, even if the first boy already had a position. I want my Scouts to succeed. I assume that they want to do a position or they wouldn't take it. On the Theory X / Theory Y continuum, I'm on the Y side (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X). If a Scout says he won't do a job, then fine, he can be removed. But if he's giving it a shot, I'm not going to go looking for reasons to shoot him down. I'm with Stosh on this one.

Bars in doorways are cheap and effective. But not everyone wants to get one. Another thing you can do is to use a mop handle, or dowel of some sort, and put it between two tables. Lie on your back and pull yourself up. It's not exactly the same muscles as a pull-up, but it's pretty close. Ed's interpretation of showing improvement is one way that leaders interpret the requirement. You can find past threads on this topic if you're interested in searching them out. I don't really like that interpretation - my common sense way of reading the requirement is to say that you should do more pull-ups the second time than the first - but I do agree with Ed that the requirement is not meant to be a big obstacle, and that therefore you may want to look at how rigidly you interpret it. That holds true for what it means to practice for 30 days, as well.

I can find nothing that either encourages or discourages the holding of multiple positions in the BSA literature. It does seem that they assume a boy will hold only one position, but I don't ever see it explicitly stated. So when FScouter says that it's not encouraged, I agree. When he says it's not approved, I think I'd disagree. Oh, I guess it's technically true that they haven't pro-actively approved it, but the phrase "not approved" generally means that it is officially not allowed, and I don't see any evidence to that effect. I can't imagine the BSA not approving a Scout acting as a den chief, even though he's also the scribe.

I just received the same error message once in the last couple of days. I suppose it's theoretically possible that Beavah and I somehow have picked up the same malware from somewhere else, but that doesn't seem like it would be my first guess.

Oh, and one more thing. The Insignia Guide is (mostly) on line now. You can see it at http://www.scouting.org/Media/InsigniaGuide.aspx

And following on to what Lisabob said, yes, the dens can wear their den emblem of a wolverine or tiger or whatever. They would take the den number off and put the den emblem in its place. They can even theoretically make up custom patches if they want, but that's expensive and a bit of a hassle. I'd show them the list of patrol patches and let them vote. The Webelos colors, if worn, go below the den number, or on top of the den emblem.

I personally don't think I've ever had boots that felt as comfortable as shoes. The more experience I get at hiking, the more I tend toward preferring shoes. It's going to be personal preference, but I'd go with lighter weight footwear. If you've backpacked many time in shoes and liked it, I'd stick with that for Philmont.

Our district interprets it as one copy per household - and they take our word on whether we are meeting that goal or not. We actually do one copy per boy. In my household, every boy wants his own copy anyway.

Here's a quote from the Den Chief Handbook (geez, how many Scout books do I have lying around the house anyway?) "Wear your badge of office proudly. You will receive the den chief badge, which you'll wear on the left sleeve of your uniform. You will also wear the den chief cord on your left shoulder." I think that's pretty definitive. You can argue about whether they have the same meaning or not - but it doesn't really matter. I never liked that guidance in the Insignia Guide anyway - I mean, who is going to take the square knots off in order to wear their medals? The cord does provide more information than the badge - so it's really the badge that's redundant. But the books clearly say to wear them both. As for the den chief service award, the Den Chief Handbook says that Scouts who earn the award "may continue to wear it as long as they are Scouts or Venturers, even if no longer a den chief." So yes, they can wear it with the patch and with the den chief cords.