Oak Tree

I agree with Beavah''s point about negotiating. And one point that may or may not apply in your situation - be clear on what the role of the former Scoutmaster should be. If he was at all controversial, and is still hanging around, I''d ask the CC to ask him to step away from the unit. Your prior plan was a good one, although five years is more of a learning curve than most of us get. But six months is less. I would normally suggest you should see a minimum of one year - it''s good to get a feeling for all the troop''s current operation. If there are cliques, that''s not an ideal situation. Normally if I were CC, I''d want someone from the affiliated pack. You''d expect that they should have good relationships with more of the parents and kids. So there are some red flags here (well, maybe not red, perhaps just pink flags). But I agree with Beavah on this point, too...they might get someone worse. Perhaps you''ve really impressed the CC with your common sense, great attitude, and willingness to help. You could be a great SM. But it is odd that there''s no one more experienced who''s a good candidate for the job. You are really inexperienced at the troop level, although you clearly have pretty much all the training and base knowledge that you need. How big is the troop? How much time will it take? That will largely depend on you, how much you want to put into it, how much you want to delegate, and how able you are to find additional volunteers. Who to talk to? Anyone you trust. All of Lisa''s and Beavah''s suggestions are good. Heck, you could even find someone on this forum whose advice you like, and PM them.

We sent some boys on a trek there this summer for a week. We didn''t (couldn''t) provide any adult leaders, and the camp provided two. The boys had an absolutely great time. I don''t think I heard any negative comments, other than they were really tired after their hardest day of kayaking. I don''t think they encountered either of the problems that Lisa mentions, but that just may be the luck of the draw. Your comfort level on not sending any adult leaders may depend on which boys you are sending. Ours were older boys, and none of the parents mentioned any concerns before or after.

Nessmuk, I''m not sure what alternate reality you''re living in, but the idea that my DE would attend my committee meeting to lecture them about the definition of the uniform is beyond ludicrous. The great majority of the packs around here do not use the full uniform. The DE is not going to make an issue of it. At least my DE would have enough sense to know not to fight this losing battle. Hardly any official part of the BSA seems to make an issue of it. You can go to summer camp without full uniforms. You can join OA without full uniforms. You can attend camporees without the full uniform. The BSA simply does not reinforce the message that you can''t modify the uniform. Sure, they *say* it, but they don''t *do* anything about it. Can you get units to wear the full uniform? Yes, it''s possible. We''ve had the discussion here about how to go about it. Some situations are easier than others. But I''m hard pressed to imagine much good coming from a brow-beating lecture. I think the committee will laugh you off, or desert you. I''m imagining my committee just rolling their eyes at this topic. Tell them that they don''t have the authority to redefine the uniform, and they''ll just shake their heads and dig in their heels. In practice, of course they have the authority - committees do it all the time. Technically, you''re right, they don''t. So let''s just say that they''re not officially redefining the uniform, they''re just deciding that they won''t take any action against boys who show up in half uniform. MomToEli seems to be doing her best, but you need to use appropriate strategies, and starting a war over this issue isn''t the way to go. BrentAllen is right, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

"The ego and arrogance factor is at work." Yes, thanks for that kind interpretation of the motives of other Scouting volunteers. I would have said it''s more likely to be the hassle factor. Maybe the new volunteer doesn''t have a list of all the insurance levels of all of the drivers. Maybe the council fax machine is busy repeatedly, or maybe it''s a pain to drive an hour to the council office to drop it off. Now, is it a big hassle? No, of course not. But if you add up a whole bunch of small hassles, sometimes people just get frustrated. People get stressed out, end up with a bunch of things to do at the last minute, and decide to let this one go. It''s not like the council office seems to care in the least about the permits, anyway. We do file tour permits. But the hassle factor did lead us to stop caring very much whether our merit badge counselors are registered with council. All the work every year to make sure everyone is registered in all of their badges, and seemingly for no apparent purpose. We only have so much time, and we can decide how we want to devote it to the program. But I don''t think we''re making the decision out of arrogance.

John, I think you may have misread his post. I did, too, first time through. He''s the CC for the *troop*, not CC for the pack.

I''d certainly have no issues with a transgendered volunteer. All leadership positions are open to both genders anyway, so I don''t know how it would matter from a policy perspective. Now, I can imagine some controversy among the parents...

Of course you can limit your size. That''s a completely wrong answer from your SE. Our pack did define a limit to its size, although we never quite hit that limit. We did decide that a couple of our dens were full, and we would refer additional recruits to other packs. What''s the SE going to do? Close down your pack? I don''t think so.

I think you could do it. A lot of people wear two hats, having one role in the troop and another in the pack. If the troop committee is working smoothly, the CC role might not be too bad. The CM role, though, is typically a pretty big effort. If you''re going to do it, do it right. I think that if you step in, you''ll need to be prepared to do it for a year. In fact, your very presence will make it less likely that someone else will volunteer for the position. Perhaps you could work with the CC to identify an eventual replacement, and you can promise to do the job and train them for a year, and then have them take over. Or, if you''re willing to do the job for a longer term, go right ahead.

I''ve had an experience like this in my troop. Well, nothing like this in the specifics, but exactly like this in terms of having a leader who hears every "maybe" answer as "yes". You said, "Sounds like something we can work on", and he hears "Sure, go ahead." I found that I had to be very blunt if I expected my message to get across. But it took me awhile to realize this. In your case, it''s all water under the bridge. From your post, it sounds like you did just fine. For others in your situation, I''d just advise them to be very clear with people like this. Sometimes people get so eager to help out and run with a great idea that they just miss any nuances in your response.

I''m with Eamonn. We likewise file tour permits, but I can''t see any value in them for us or for the council. I think BSA requires them primarily as a way to remind new leaders what the rules are. Now, since this thread, like so many others, has turned to insurance... On several council web sites you can find reference to BSA insurance, and that it covers everything except intentional or criminal acts. Which seems reasonable - if you intentionally wreck your uninsured car, you shouldn''t expect BSA to pay for it. If you sexually molest a child, I don''t think they should cover you there, either. In fact, I think that I''ve heard it''s illegal for an insurance company to insure against certain crimes like that, because we as a society don''t want people to be able to commit those crimes without fear of a lawsuit. But one council goes further and adds this odd explanation of intentional. "Intentional and criminal acts are not covered by the General Liability Insurance. Although criminal acts are fairly obvious, and we hope not a problem, intentional acts might need some explanation. Among other things, an intentional act would include conducting activities that are not authorized by the BSA or conducting activities in a manner contrary to the safety guidelines of the BSA. In these cases, the Boy Scouts of America covers volunteers only "at will." A leader, who intentionally acts contrary to BSA policy or guidelines, may find they are not backed by the Boy Scouts of America." See http://www.bsa-mdsc.org/hslllawsuits.php My problem with that definition is that almost every act can be called "intentional". "Did you intentionally put the gasoline on the fire? Is it against BSA policy to put gasoline on a fire? So you intentionally committed an act that was against BSA policy?" Beavah, from your descriptions, I''m guessing that you would say this council web site was written by someone who was adding their own incorrect interpretation to the actual rules. Is that right? What I would really like to see is a list of all the lawsuits filed against Scouters in a given year, and which, if any, the BSA did not back. And how they came out. For everyone who thinks that the BSA will not back you if you''re violating the G2SS, can you point to any example of this?

I''ve done a number of hikes for the Hiking merit badge with two adults and two boys, and I''d never considered filing a tour permit. I''m quite comfortable with not needing one. As for two-deep, I think that would depend on a bunch of things, including how many boys, how old they are, how remote the trail is, how many other people are on the trail, how the cell phone coverage is, etc. I do think it''s a good idea to have two adults, but not required. One rule of thumb on when I''d definitely want two adults is whether the boys would fit into your car. If something happened (e.g. you have to drive a boy to the emergency room), you''d want to be able to bring the other boys with you, or leave an adult with them.

Ok, I understand you're trying to let them lead and learn. But in this case there are a whole bunch of other people who are depending on them to run a reasonable station. This is one of my pet peeves about Scouts in general, both when I was a Scout, and now as an adult. I'm not in favor of allowing failure in a way that inconveniences hundreds of people. Disorganization and chaos is something you can expect at some troop level functions as the boys learn the ropes, but it is also a hallmark of larger Scouting events in my experience, and I'm not a big fan. I think I'd insist on a trial run.

All the advice sounds right to me. So what is the nature of the disagreement? How could an advancement person keep track of it, unless it has been submitted to him by the den leader? Our pack uses Packmaster, and all the data does get entered and tracked at that level. So for belt loops, for example, the den leaders don't keep their own list of what each boy has earned. But I'm just trying to imagine what this disagreement is actually disputing. Of all the things that people can disagree on, this one seems like it should most easily be resolved. What data is under discussion? Oak Tree P.S. John-in-KC, I don't know differently for sure, but I strongly suspect my council would accept an advancement form with the signature of Scruffy the Wonder Dog. I've never seen them check.

I think Senator Craig was pretty much on the not-taken-seriously part of the reservation already. Un-resigning can only add to it, but I'm not sure how much less seriously he can be taken. To further this point in today's news, I'll suggest that if you leave voice mail for your lawyer, you should really make sure you are talking to your lawyer's answering machine. The Senate has the right to expel him if they want to. But for a misdemeanor? Talk about people living in glass houses. I guess a lot of the other unethical behavior hasn't actually turned into a guilty plea, though. I'm with Lisabob - I don't want my kid walking in on this. And if you are conspiring to commit a lewd act in a public place, I think that's pretty much enough to convince me that you shouldn't be a Senator.

Ah, Grasshopper (Trevorum), you are not yet ready to proceed to the next level of enlightenment. Come back in a year and explain why there is no 'try', and also what is the sound of one hand clapping. Wholeheartedly one must give oneself to an effort. Less than your best, 'trying' is. Preparing for failure, you are. Knowing that you may fail, a self-fulfilling prophecy you are making. Appropriate for seven-year olds, perhaps the subtlety of this message is not.

When I first took training, I wanted a clear, definitive answer to this question. Some instructors would oblige. "Any time you are away from your home site you should file a tour permit." By this, they were including Tiger Cubs going to the local fire station. Other instructors would give other definitive answers. Finally I realized there is no clear answer. Some councils do have more clear rules on their web sites. Ours does not. It's just a tool. File a permit when you think it makes sense and you'll be fine.

I agree with Beavah that troop meetings should be fun. And I agree with gwd-scouter that merit badges can be fun. I understand some of the objections to merit badge work, but it is not completely off-limits during troop meetings. Let's look at recommended troop meeting plans from Troop Program Features, Volume I. Aquatics, Skills Instruction, Troop Meeting Plan - "Experienced Scouts can work on the Lifesaving or Swimming merit badges." Athletics, Troop Meeting Plan - "Experienced Scouts can test themselves against the five groups on page 1 of the Athletics merit badge pamphlet." Athletics, Advancement Opportunities - "Older Scouts can concentrate on the Athletics merit badge this month and should be able to complete many of the requirements." Backpacking - "Older Scouts can concentrate on the Backpacking and Hiking merit badges this month;" Business, Advancement Opportunities - "Experienced Scouts may concentrate on the American Business, American Labor, Citizenship in the Community, and Citizenship in the Nation merit badges this month. They should be able to complete many of the requirements." Boating/Canoeing - "Older Scouts can concentrate on the Canoeing and Rowing merit badges this month;" Camping - "Older Scouts can concentrate on the Camping merit badge this month, completing most of the requirements." Citizenship - "Older Scouts should be able to complete some of the requirements for one or more of the Citizenship merit badges." Communications - "Older Scouts can concentrate on the Communications and Computers merit badges this month; they should be able to complete many of the requirements." Cooking - Cooking merit badge Cultural Awareness - Disabilities Awareness merit badge Emergency Prep - Emergency Prep and First Aid merit badges Engineering - Camping and Pioneering merit badges and so it goes. Now, I'll grant you that some of the requirements can be done on the outing or the Scout can do by himself, but it's just as clear that the troop meeting plans allow for some of the requirements to be done during the troop meetings. I do agree with Beavah that it's best if you can sign stuff off as a by-product of having fun. And I agree with Lisa'bob that large merit badge classes can be bad. When we do merit badge work in our troop, we let the boys choose their merit badges and break up into small groups. This seems to help quite a bit with the large group problem, and the uninterested Scout problem. Sure, it's not perfect, but they do like to do it from time to time. And it does seem consistent with the Troop Program Features. And quite honestly, it's hard to find any one activity that holds all the Scouts' interests anyway, merit badges or not. Oak Tree P.S. Aquila, the Scoutmaster is supposed to provide the name of a counselor to the Scout. The counselor is supposed to be qualified, registered, and able to work with Scouts. Beyond that, I think it's up to the Scoutmaster to decide which name to provide. I think the criteria you list are reasonable, and within the Scoutmaster's prerogative.

We are using Troopmaster.net. We use it for pretty much everything - tracking advancement, having the official calendar, listing registered merit badge counselors, tracking attendance at events. All the leadership has immediate access to the data. We've been very happy with it.

Oh, I agree with Ed. If you're about to tick off the Cubmaster, you definitely want to give your CC a heads-up (and your COR, too, if he or she is involved.) Your CC may also be willing to have a conversation with the CM.

I guess I'd take a different tack - you only have 6-7 months left, so how bad can it be? I'd get an ally in another Webelos parent, and get the Cubmaster to shut up during den meetings. Take him aside, tell him that you've got the den meeting covered and don't need his help, and actually find his comments a bit disruptive. Then when he starts to comment, say "Mr. Smith, thanks for your comments, but I'd like to get the focus back on X. Jim, can you and Mr. Smith go have a conversation outside while we focus on the topic in here." Or heck, you can just do what you're doing. Let him do his bull-in-a-china-shop routine, and just roll your eyes and shake your head. And look forward to crossing over.

I too had very low body fat when a Scout. I was completely unable to float in any position. They were all just different ways to sit/lie on the bottom of the pool/lake. There was literally no way to actually float. Gentle sculling seems to be the order of the day around here. This seems to be one of those cases where we go with the spirit of the rule.

This situation reminds me of the way some of my ASMs react to the occassional challenging kid. Their reaction is often "Let's send him home!", or "We should require his parent to be here." I haven't had one get to the point yet of "Let's kick him out of the troop", but it wouldn't surprise me. It's often the newer leaders who have that reaction, as they aren't yet acclimated to the ways the troop can deal with some of the challenges. I tend to be a bit more patient, and we usually figure out a way to work things out. But we have not, from what I can tell, run across a situation quite as bad as what you're describing. And while the troop could certainly come up with ways to deal with it, you'd need to have some leaders who felt that was the right approach. If the Scoutmaster and Committee Chair want the boy gone, I think it's going to be an uphill battle for you (you haven't actually said how the Scoutmaster feels, I guess, as I re-read your posts.) If these guys are all talking amongst themselves and have decided how they want to handle it, it's hard to stop that momentum. The Boy Scouts aren't subject to the ADA, and anyway, your leaders are arguing that it places an undue burden on them to try to accommodate this boy. I think that all the things you list are good things to try, and I'd love to have you in my troop helping out with things like this behind the scenes, but unless some of your leadership is willing to listen to you for some reason, it's going to be difficult to get them to give it an honest try. Even if you convince them to give it one more shot, I think they'll likely just be waiting for evidence of failure, and then they'll again want to pull the trigger. I'm not sure I'd be willing to make it a personal crusade. Is there anyone else who's your ally in this situation? And it's hard to tell from afar what the right decision would be. Maybe if I were there I'd be in favor of terminating his membership as well. But I've been in similar situations, and I do know that people can be a little bit eager to go for the simple solution when they're frustrated. Oak Tree

Actually, he's a senator from Idaho. He just happened to be stopping off in Minneapolis at the time. I'm still a little unclear as to what the actual law is here. Is it illegal to indicate to someone that you'd like to have sex with them? I'm sure that I personally wouldn't have recognized the secret signals - this is just a glimpse into a whole world I'd never really thought about as existing - a gay community with secret codes for having sex in public restrooms. It probably is somehow illegal, and I guess it should be. I don't want any lewd conduct in airport restrooms when I'm around. It would be stronger evidence if they actually caught him in the act, though. I think he would have been done even if he had fought the charges and won. He still would have had to explain why he was doing what he was doing. Good luck with that. His only hope was to plead guilty and hope it stayed hidden. Bzzzzt! So much for that strategy.

Oddly enough we had just the opposite of what you describe as more typical...our pack had a small committee that planned things, and the troop had a "parents/committee meeting". When the troop was small, this did serve as a reasonable way to keep parents in the loop. But as it grew, it was unwieldy to do committee business - the "board of directors" type stuff - at a parents meeting. So much of the committee work would get done behind the scenes. We've switched to the more formal model and run it pretty much as described in the literature. The only real differences that we have are that we use ASMs for some of the committee functions that are described in the literature. I don't really care if the equipment coordinator is an ASM or a MC. Same for the activities coordinator, or the advancement coordinator. Those roles are all somewhat boy-facing. Oak Tree

Ok, you've got me. You're right, I did not like the way Bob White tried to hammer all opponents into submission. I often found his remarks to be unkind, discourteous, harsh, and condescending. I think his list has some of that attitude. I like Beavah's list a lot better. Bob White's list starts by focusing on all the little things - that while they may be nice, are not the fundamental aspects of a successful troop. For all the numbers you list, FScouter, I'll agree that it's good to do it as the list suggests. But I'm really put off by the condescending attitude that I'm reading into it. And the fact that he leaves out the important things to focus on details just reinforces my impression that he was looking to describe how troops do things wrong. I don't want to argue about the specific points on the list. My point is that a lot of those items are irrelevant. You can be successful with or without them. I think Beavah's list is more likely to correlate with success.