Oak Tree

We do ours pretty much the way mschwartz describes - pre-planned weeks during the troop meetings with emails from the BoR chair ahead of time to insure enough attendees. On occasion we've done them on demand for special situations. I'd see nothing wrong with doing them on outings if you have enough committee members there. I think you do need to check with your committee members and see what would work for them. They are volunteers and it will need to be some plan that works. In the Scoutmaster handbook it says that BoRs can be quarterly, but most troops do it more frequently than that for the reasons you suggest. FScouter, I'm always disappointed at the quick denigration of other volunteers. I'd prefer to assume the committee members are helpful volunteers who are doing the best they can.

"This shouldn't be presented as a written test" This made me laugh as it reminded me of a recent experience. One of the Webelos dens in our district was looking at visiting troops, so they sent out a written questionnaire to all the troops. There were about 30 questions, including most everything mentioned above. While I can appreciate their desire to know a lot of details about the troop, the whole thing just felt kind of wrong to me. It gave me the impression that if the den (or the majority of boys from the den) chose our troop, we'd end up with a bunch of parents who wanted to sit back and critique the program. Prospective members will often call up and ask many of the same questions verbally and I don't mind it at all, so it had to be the written test format that bugged me. It made me want to send back another test for them to take, instead. "Have any of you ever gotten into an argument with your leaders? Have any arguments resulted in a complaint to council? Are you willing to help out for the first year without trying to change the way we do things?" and so on. I'm with Eamonn. I think you can over-think this. Sometimes youth-led is great. Sometimes it turns into chaos and poor planning and boys get discouraged and quit. Sometimes focusing on awards leads to a classroom feel. Sometimes it really motivates boys. Sometimes high-adventure is something to look forward to. Other times it's just a pie-in-the-sky wish that has no bearing on day-to-day life. So as Beavah says, go with a troop where your son likes the feel. My own preference - I'd look for some semblance of smoothly functioning adults. I wouldn't want to join a troop in the thralls of any ongoing difficulty - with finances, leadership, or whatever. But if my son liked a troop, I could live with that, as I could always just choose not to participate.

In our case, it worked pretty much the way it's documented. In February, our UC sat down the with the CC, SM, and COR and we documented our goals for the year. Then in November we evaluated how we had done, and earned the award. So, fine. Still, the award was a gimme. You do not have to set a goal of improving. In some areas, we did not, because I didn't expect we'd improve, and I didn't want to set an unrealistic goal. We didn't need our UC's encouragement to set ridiculously low goals - we already knew enough from our experience in corporate life to do that on our own. In our district, setting an 85% retention goal for the pack would make perfect sense. They are computing retention by taking (membership at end of year) divided by (membership at end of year). So I'm not sold on the concept either. Between the poorly done roll-out, the potential for different groups to set wildly different goals, and the ability of the UCs to show discretion, the award is essentially meaningless. There are a few hard and fast rules in there, and those are fine, but I do feel the rest of the requirements don't end up meaning a lot. I'm all for the UC sitting down with the unit and setting goals, but I'm not sure that self-set goals should be the basis for a unit award.

Sure, any site could be a trick. Including this one. But that site sure looks like what it's advertised as. As with any social networking site, you have to consider what information about yourself you want to reveal, but I'm hard pressed to see how this site would be all that much different from facebook. Kind of fun to read the introductions from all the European Scouts.

Most polite unit commissioners will call before they attend. And they aren't the police arm of the BSA anyway. They are supposed to be a friend of the unit. And even then, many units don't have a UC or have one in name only. The UC, if he or she does exist, is also just a volunteer, not a paid professional. And it would be hard to spot the violations anyway, here, I think. You don't need two adult leaders for meetings, only for "trips and outings" (quoting the G2SS). And I've never had a UC come on an outing.

Our troop meets weekly as well. I've met a number of troops that meet three times a month, though, and use one week for PLC. And some, like scoutldr's, that take a week off after a campout. "Our Scouts max out at age 15" That's not all that uncommon in the U.S., either. You can see some of Eamonn's recent posts on this topic. And I think Beavah has mentioned the same thing. The great majority of most of the troops I've seen are boys 11-14. It seems to me that BSA is really targeted at the middle school years, just not officially. Our troop has a number of boys moving into the 15 year-old age range, and it can be hard to figure out how to deal with them effectively. You can use them to teach, but they don't want to teach all the time. Having a couple older boys around has been great. Having a bunch of them - not so much help as you might think :-)

As with all things BSA, there are no policemen. The council doesn't pop in to do a spot-check on your compliance with policies - be they G2SS, uniforming, or advancement. There do have to be three registered committee members. They should help verify that the proper policies are being followed. I'm not sure what benefit the BSA would get from requiring a registered mate. If someone is so bent on breaking the rules, surely just having another registered adult on the roster isn't going to fix anything. Just sign up one of the dads - "Hey Bob, I need a second name on the roster. You won't have to do anything."

I'm struck by how different our communities are. Our district doesn't do any recruiting activities at all for troops, so far as I know. And to be honest, I don't think they'd have any success if they tried. Many of our troops are growing and do their own recruiting. Even at that, my own troop doesn't do any particular recruiting activities, other than working closely with the rising Webelos. But we do let boys invite their friends along any time, and that's produced a small but relatively consistent influx of boys. I'm not a big fan of district events. They tend to be chaotic, as they're usually run by volunteers who don't have a lot of experience with large groups. I'd be much more likely to attend smaller recruiting events. Your situation might be entirely different, though, and maybe you'd have some success. For me, though, I'd stay away from having 'recruiting events' as a specific activity. I'd try to come up with other activities that would stand on their own as great Scouting activities, and just happen to allow others to be invited along as well. The shooting day might be just such an activity. But I'd set it up in such a way that it could be called a success whether or not any new boys showed up. Now, granted, I'm not on the district membership committee, so I don't have any skin in the game. :-)

This topic comes up regularly on the forum. Your situation isn't uncommon. Does it matter? Only when it matters. You might happily go on for years with no issues. Or something might come up that causes problems and it would be good to be tied in. Notwithstanding wingnut's cautionary tale, I'd still give the same advice Beavah did - it could help to reach out and get to know them.

GKarns, It depends on what type of problems you're trying to prevent. Personally, I find it very helpful logistically to have guidelines that talk about how you locally implement some of the national policies. Both our pack and troop have a parents handbook that answers some of these topics for parents. Some of it does regurgitate various national documents, but we don't expect parents to necessarily read all of those items, so we've highlighted a few relevant topics from those documents. And there may very well be local policies that you've implemented. You can find some examples on the web. I'd advise you to stick to the basics until you have a little more experience. Some basics might be things like: date and time of pack meetings and den meetings; who reports awards like belt loops and to whom do they get reported; what type of camping you do; what are the current volunteer positions. I think a document like this can help provide a common vision for the leadership of the pack or troop, but you really need to think about what you're trying to accomplish with said document. Keep it upbeat and fun.

I found the list of churches here: http://www.religiousscience.org/ You could send a mass email to all of the contacts for the churches listed there and ask them if they happen to sponsor a unit. I'm surprised that HQ didn't offer more help - but I guess it can be difficult to know which national organizations are associated with the local chartering organizations. Still, you'd think they could offer a little more help - it seems like they could at least search their list of chartering organizations for "religious science" - at least after they were convinced you were serious about it. Do you have a mandate from your national organization? And while you could wear the knot without authorization, it does seem like an odd place to be cutting corners. Much nicer for the boys if the award is listed along with all the other awards that the BSA recognizes. It also ensures that you've developed some significant materials that make it seem much more official. Do you think it's likely that there are 25 churches that charter units? A quick google search didn't reveal any.

According to your national web site, there are none of your churches in our council. So I can't help you there. But I'd think this is a pretty hit-and-miss way of identifying units. Can the relationship division of the BSA help out here? I'd start by asking people at the council office how to go about this.

"But potential scout leaders must affirm that they are not gay." Anyone remember doing this? I don't.

kenk, We also do pretty much exactly what you describe. Except I don't think we make the copies. It does seem odd that the form implies that the same members participated in all of the boards of review on the same date. We've ignored that the same way you have, and it's been fine.

eagle97_78, you're free to start your own thread. I think that discussions on how to reach more Scouts are great. You can see a lot of those discussions already on the forum. On the other hand, it's interesting to throw in some other items of interest from time to time. My suburban district is fairly small. I'm guessing maybe 30 square miles. There are much larger districts in our council, with the largest being about 1700 square miles. The council I grew up in had just one district of about 900 square miles. I'm sure the geographic area is going to vary directly with the population density (or lack thereof). I'll bet Alaska has some districts that are bigger than Maine.

Gold Winger points out the following quote on a council web site. This is about the most non-sensical thing I've read recently. I know what Beavah is talking about when he says that councils sometimes make a hash of things. Is this really the national position? Serving in a position of leadership means that if they are elected or appointed to a position, such as Patrol Leader, and serve in that position for the required time, they have satisfactorily completed that requirement. The conclusion is that time in position fulfills the requirement. The decision also said, The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank. Therefore, a boy who was in the position of Scribe for six months from Life to Eagle had fulfilled that requirement. That does not necessarily mean that he will pass his board of review, because if his service was not satisfactory, he could be turned down at the board of review. So a boy can satisfactorily complete the requirement with unsatisfactory service? Any lawyers want to parse this one?

Should they leave it to the boys? Well, if it's been going on as long as you suggest (about a year and a half?), then clearly that hasn't worked. As for what they could do...I think I'll take the easy way out and suggest that it does indeed depend on the specifics. The question about patrols is a good one. One solution would be to have the boys in mixed patrols and have lots of patrol competitions. I think I'd probably step into a bang-up argument and calm things down, but that's just a short-term solution. Is there a ring-leader on either side? Could the SM (or ASM) talk with them about how to fix the problem? What type of solution would the boys suggest? Do they even see it as a problem? Just some brainstorming...

Gold Winger - unfortunately National has explicitly publicized the opposite position. Many on the forum agree with you and wish for a different decision from National. Beavah, I guess there are two directions I could go with your question. First - how did they slip through our filter? The only explicit filter for this is the Scout spirit requirement. A Scoutmaster could indeed refuse to sign this. I've seen it done, and it typically isn't pretty. So I agree that a Scoutmaster normally finds it easiest just to sign off. But for certain situations, it may be the best thing to do. It can really set up an adversarial relationship, though. An implicit filter we have is in the way we hold the boys to certain standards throughout. By making it clear that we expect certain behaviors, we can essentially make it no fun for boys who insist on misbehaving. They'll eventually leave. The second question might be - how could we be teaching the boys better? I think it's difficult to get Scouts to change their overall behavior pattern, especially given the amount of time we have with them. We do have some power, and there are certainly boys who do better because they know someone believes in them and believes that they are better than they're sometimes showing. But it's not easy. So a Scoutmaster has three inter-related knobs - 1. Scout spirit requirement 2. Ongoing behavior correction 3. All other instruction and examples I think you can use all three. In my experience with just one troop, I see knob number two as the most effective. The goof-offs, the disruptors, the egomaniacs, they all get tired of not being allowed to have free rein.

Our experience with visiting a military base was that it was an immense hassle. Every time we called up, we'd talk to someone different, who would say we'd need to talk to so-and-so in such-and-such department, and we'd call them, and they wouldn't be there, so we'd wait for a call back, which wouldn't come. Each different person gave us different details on how the process would work, and which facilities we'd have access to. When we were on base, not having people be able to buy stuff at the PX was a pain. In the end it worked ok, but I don't think we'd ever try again to use a military base as a camping site. Maybe in some special situation...

To the question as phrased, I think I'd say no. Now, if you're talking with the parents already on at least a semi-occasional basis, you could certainly mention the situation with their son. But if they just hear from you out of the blue with some complaints about their son, I'm not sure it would be all that productive. I do think that it would be useful for the parents to be given a heads-up on the situation, but I think it would be better coming from some official representative of the troop - be it SM, ASM, or some committee member, with the knowlege of the other leaders. If the situation is likely to escalate, it's good for the parents to have some advance warning (e.g. if the SM might delay signing the Scout spirit requirement, or the Scout might be removed from a POR, or whatever). You like to keep expectations set appropriately, and you'd like to keep the parents on your side if possible.

The word 'oxymoron' was coined for just such a thing as 'required volunteerism'. But requiring service time seems ok to me, and doesn't defeat the purpose of the requirement. Just don't call it volunteering.

Yeah, as Scoutmaster this is one of the more interesting aspects of the job. I'll go on a campout with twenty-five boys, we'll have a great time all weekend (or so it seems), and then after the boys get home and tell their parents what they experienced, I'll get the feedback. I joke about this with my ASMs and this is one reason why none of them really want my job. And often times, it is something like this - where one isolated comment from a Scout can have a big impact on another Scout. And I certainly want to know if any of the Scouts are having this type of experience. No parent wants their son to have this type of problem, and no Scoutmaster should want this type of thing to happen. Are you over-reacting by wanting to help your son avoid this type of experience? No. But I think you may have started off with too many people on the email. By copying the dad and the SM and the CC, it seems like you're likely to set up a "us vs. them" situation. I would have recommended just going to the SM first and discussing it. Unless I knew the other dad really well, I wouldn't have demanded things from him. Even if you get an apology under these circumstances, I don't think it will really make things better. It's hard to know the context around the remark. Certainly our boys call each other all types of things in a joking manner, and the older Scout may not even recall the remark. Or he may have done it in a typical-for-him hurtful manner. I agree with allangr1024 and Lisabob in this respect. I'm personally not a big fan of the "I expect more from an Eagle Scout" approach. I've seen people beat up Eagle Scouts with that line. I would expect none of my Scouts to say hurtful things to other Scouts, and I'd leave the rank out of it.

I think of LNT as the next step beyond "Leave only footprints." LNT asks you not to leave footprints, either. Footprints are a trace. Don't cut switchbacks, for example. LNT is a philosophy. I think of it as meaning "Leave as little trace as reasonable." The only way to leave absolutely no trace is to not go in the first place. So with kids, we just focus on the big items. Counterexamples are helpful - "look at the trash" or whatever. I like to integrate it in with some other activity, like your hike. Just sitting and teaching it can be boring. Have them brainstorm about what types of traces they might leave, and how they can eliminate them. They can come up with some good ideas among some ridiculous ones. KISMIF.

I think I'll wait. Too many patches to put on the new shirt, with not enough payback.

"Paying for the privilege of volunteering" pretty much sounds like a description of everything I do as a Scouter. :-)