Oak Tree

Yeah, public humiliation is a great way to build resentment. Even if the leader didn't think that was what she was doing, that's how it felt to the boys. The ASM's method of correcting the behavior is not, from a practical point of view, likely to win her any respect among the boys. As you've already found, she'll come across as an over-controlling leader. Such a leader is likely to turn off older boys. I wonder, is this a punishment that the SPL would recommend? From what I read in your description, this woman is just about begging to be mocked. It doesn't surprise me at all. There was a recent thread on how to deal with language. Private correction is preferred, as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I don't think I'd even bother with corrections of the language that you list; maybe I'd give a stern look depending on the circumstances. You don't really ask a question. I agree she over-reacted. But what are you going to do about it? It's in the past, and it's not worth making an even bigger deal over (that would be you over-reacting.) Is this woman going to be the one setting rules on upcoming campouts? I'd think you might want to find someone else. What does the Scoutmaster say? I'd mention my concern to the Scoutmaster, but boys have to deal with all types of leaders. If she really is driving boys away from the program, due to this, or other behaviors, then your SM/CC will really have to look at her contribution to the program. I've worked with ASMs to get them to back off - usually through a friendly comment, but I've done it bluntly as well. But since you're not the Scoutmaster, all you can reasonably do in this situation is to mention it to the SM and let him handle it from there.

I think I'd have enjoyed walking around the festival with you. The temperature gradient was impressive yesterday. With a high of 60 degrees in Pittsburgh, PA, and upper 90s in Tennessee and North Carolina, your experience would depend a great deal on which side of the line you were on. Living on the southern side, it's hard to imagine a cool day in August.

I attended a class at Philmont this summer, where they had us do a troop assessment. So here, then, are the twenty questions that the BSA asked us in assessing our own troop operation. We answered each question on a scale of 1 to 5. The questionaire was solely for our own benefit. 1. Scouts in my troop have a lot of fun in Scouting. 2. One troop-wide activity, usually outdoors, is held every month. 3. High-adventure opportunities are offered each year. 4. Troop meetings are planned in advance, run by the senior patrol leader, and are fun and interesting to the Scouts. 5. A twelve-month program is developed by the patrol leaders council, communicated to the troop, and implemented. 6. The troop goes to summer camp each year. 7. Uniforms are expected for troop meetings and courts of honor, and Scouts wear them with pride. 8. The troop is Scout-run. The SPL runs the meetings. The Scoutmasters primary role is to develop youth leaders. 9. All adult leaders in key troop committee and troop leadership roles (Scoutmaster, assistant Scoutmasters) have completed basic training for their positions. Some have completed Wood Badge. 10. Adult leaders are given assignments that keep them active and involved. 11. Scouting is fun for the adult leaders as well as for the Scouts. 12. Communications of the troops activities to Scouts and parents is extensive and varied. 13. The troop follows the First Class in a Year guideline with new Scouts. 14. Immediate recognition is given at troop meetings when Scouts advance. 15. A troop court of honor is held at least three times a year. 16. Scouts regularly achieve the rank of Eagle Scout. Ceremonies are an inspiration to younger Scouts. 17. At least one funding event is held each year. Scouts earn money for their Scout funds, while the troop receives money for troop equipment and operations. 18. Effective recruiting provides the troop with new Scouts each year. 19. The troop has sufficient leadership depth so that no adult leader is overextended or indispensable. 20. The troop regularly earns the Quality Unit Award and meets more than the minimum number of requirements.

I'm with Beavah in that I don't care much for this list. Partly because it focuses so much on specific details, and partly because it seems a little bit preachy to me. It focuses too much on methods and not enough on outcomes. 1. Currently trained adults. [A reasonable suggestion, but a troop could operate fine with untrained adults.] 2. Leaders wear correct uniform. [Again, I think many troops run well with the leaders only wearing the shirt.] 3. Scoutmaster concentrates on training Junior Leaders, and knowing the needs and characteristics of each scout. [This one I do agree with the first part - the second part can be delegated in large troops.] 4. They use the Patrol Method for everything. [Throwing in the word "everything" makes this sound preachy and unrealistic.] 5. They follow the contents of the Boy Scout Handbook. [Yes, but I sense an implied criticism of any troop that does any variation on any item.] 6. The committee supports the decision of the scouts, they dont make decisions for them. [Again, this is a continuum. The more the boys can do, the better. But this phrasing also seems to criticize any committee that makes any decisions.] 7. They have at least two Assistant Scoutmasters. [A good idea.] 8. They recognize scouts three times for each advancement. [Or twice.] 9. They DONT use troop meetings as merit badge classes. [i know the other thread just beat down the idea of doing merit badges at troop meetings, but most troops do it to some extent. If the PLC plans it and wants to try it, I don't think this is harmful on occasion.] 10. They plan everything in advance and put it in writing. The difference between a wish and a plan is a plan is written down. [A good goal, if a bit pompous sounding.] 11. The only rules they have are that scouts and leaders follow the Scout Oath and Law. [Heaven forbid that troops make even one rule.] 12. They get outdoors once a month (even if just for a day event) [This is a good trait.] 13. Troop meetings are filled with hands on activities. [i like this one.] 14. New scouts make First Class, First Year. [Not a bad target, but I would think it's a bit aggressive.] 15. They keep in contact with Webelos Dens year round. [This does help. But I don't know that I'd require it to be year round.] 16. They select leaders they dont recruit them. [This is just stupid semantic word play.] 17. They participate in District and Council events. [some very successful troops choose to do their own activities.] 18. They attend Roundtable. [Again, not a bad thing, but is this really how to measure successful troops?] 19. Adults smile and play nice together. (If you are not enjoying yourself then neither are the scouts.) [Yes, I agree with this. Although I find the 'play nice' term a bit condescending in this context, but maybe that's just because I've read too many posts from Bob White.] Oak Tree

We do the merit badges and rank patches immediately at troop meetings, and give out the cards at the COH.

As far as I know, I don't know any of you in real life. Some posters are pretty anonymous, though, so it's entirely possible that I've met someone and don't know it.

Gonzo, up 'til now I'd been worried that you were going to be "that guy", in Beavah's words, who pokes around and finds lots of little things to be upset about. But with this description of how your troop is working, you've won me over. Your troop has some issues. I'm particularly suspicious of the night of non-Scouting camping. Holy smokes. Sometimes our boys will help their parents set up the parent's tent, if an inexperienced parent comes along on a trip. But the adults definitely don't help set up the boys' tents. Some things are judgement calls and can go either way. Some things are standard issues that all troops deal with. But unless you can get the SM and/or the CC on your side, I think you're going to find it hard to give this troop a personality transplant. On the other hand, if you keep working at it for several years, and build up some other adults who have the same vision, things will change.

I try to wear the complete uniform at all Scout functions - troop meetings, pack meetings, roundtables, etc. (Well, not committee meetings, or other times when no one's in uniform.) I think the only non-standard item on my uniform is our adult patrol patch. I have several different hats, but don't wear any of them too often. The time I find it hardest to wear the complete uniform is when we're expected to change from civilian clothes/Class B into Class A. Some people just throw on the shirt and they're ready in 15 seconds. Changing into full pants and socks takes longer and requires a private location. If you're in a hurry, it's a pain. Same thing applies at summer camp - wearing the uniform for breakfast and dinner (camp policy) can make for more complicated logistics. Also, I find the pants and socks really need washed long before the shirt does.

So those all sound like great ideas for groups. My question would be, what is the benefit for a group like this to be a Venture crew? Couldn't it just be the high school historical re-enactment club? Or a church youth group? Or whatever? I don't mean this as a question to put anyone on the defensive...it's an honest question on my part. What are the benefits that such a group gets out of being associated with BSA?

As far as I know, it's perfectly within policy for them to camp together on a regular basis. If a boy is dual-registered, I'd say he could go as either, and I'd normally recommend that he choose whichever unit he treats as his primary registration. Whether it's a good idea is a different question. Normally a crew would be looking for more and would not want to regularly camp with 11-13 year old boys. But if you have a set of girls who really want to go on Boy Scout campouts, sure, bring them along as part of the crew. Loophole? Or standard national policy? Forget it? Or proceed with acceptable plans? Fool people? Well, no, I agree, no one is fooled. Not sure what they were going to be fooled about, but I don't think anyone is being fooled.

We had this situation as well in our pack. Dog showed up on a campout, as did a television set. We ended up with a rule against both. We didn't make a big deal out of it - we just emphasized that we wanted the boys to focus on their outdoor experience without a lot of distractions.

I'm glad my committee doesn't try to tell me when the troop should go camping. But I will say that it's very hard to tell parents that it's none of their business what you're doing with their son. Gonzo, as you know, it's easy enough to look around a troop and identify things that you think are not being done in an ideal fashion. Your personal instincts may be better than some of those on the committee, but either way, it can take some coaching for people to realize when they just need to let other people make the decisions. The committee is responsible for coordinating transportation. They also provide advice on policies relating to the chartered organization. Now, neither of these is necessarily a direct relationship to the question, but I think you need to figure out how to diplomatically approach it. The committee could very easily think that it's within its rights. Have you become the SM? If not, what does the SM say? When you say "It seems that parents don't want junior to maybe be away from home or to be challenged or maybe use a flashlight", I think you're making the kind of off-handed comment that we often make about parents who seem a bit reluctant to let go. But I'm pretty confident that if you asked them, none of them would actually give any of the reasons that you mentioned. In fact, your next sentence gives the committee's stated reason - "The committee seems to think there would be better turnout of scouts and adults on campouts if we left on Saturday morning and returned on Sunday." Now, you may or may not agree with their analysis, but this at least seems like a potentially plausible argument. If it will help buttress your argument, I'll tell you that our troop virtually always does two-night trips, leaving on Friday night and returning on Sunday, barring some set of special circumstances. My experience is that the vast majority of non-LDS troops do this as well. Our district and council camporees are set up this way.

I just heard an interview on NPR with Dr. Leonard Sax, who has a new book out about how boys don't do as well in co-ed schools. He's a big advocate of single-sex public schools, which have been increasing by a tremendous percent recently, although still in relatively small absolute numbers. It sounded like they have some real strong success stories, for example, in Toledo. If there really does end up being a viable movement in favor of public single-sex educational institutions, it seems like that would lessen any pressure on Scouts to go co-ed.

I agree with the sentiment that the adult leaders are role models, and the boys will take some cues from them. And if adults don't like the uniform, that will certainly carry over. But I find it to be an oversimplification to suggest that all poorly uniformed troops are led by leaders who don't like wearing the uniform. I myself always wear the uniform correctly, and I'm not aware of any of my other leaders who don't like the uniform, but that doesn't stop some of the boys from not liking it. I've talked with other leaders on this topic, and I'm sure we've had posts on it here, where leaders are trying to figure out how to get their boys to wear the uniform. I assume most of these leaders are well-meaning, like the uniform themselves, and are just trying to do better. My PLC was insistent on voting out the pants, regardless of my encouragement. I'm pretty confident that the vote was not about indulging my dislike of the pants, since I've continued to wear the pants. I've found that as the boys get older, they are quicker to remove the shirt at the earliest possible moment. And they like to run around with it unbuttoned, even though I've never seen an adult leader do that. We do correct them on that, and they comply, but it's predictable that it will happen again and again.

OGE, I'm always happy when I can defuse a situation between adults in my troop, but that's hard enough, and I know those people. Here in the forum, it seems even harder. Merlyn, I don't get it. Why you respond to Ed the way you do, that is. Your position is consistent and usually well-stated. Most of us understand the position, and a number of us even agree with you. But when you get into these back-and-forth postings with Ed, it just seems like it waters down the effectiveness of your comments. Ed's responses to your postings are entirely predictable, I think we can all safely assume that he's not going to come around to your position anytime soon. So why bother rolling around in the mud with him?

Just to give an alternate option, we did build our own, and it works fine. One dad was fairly handy, but he wasn't a professional. It's not like it's an incredibly complicated piece of equipment. The lanes are pretty consistent. We do use software/hardware that lets all the cars run in all the lanes, so any lane variation would come out anyway. If you google around, you can find plans on the web (e.g. http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/derby/track/). But it is a fair amount of effort, and all of the above suggestions are good.

What Beavah said. Seriously, while I can give you the "official" answer, and I can tell you what our troop does, you should feel free to do what will work for your troop. Here's what the Scoutmaster Handbook says. The troop guide is both a leader and a "mentor" to the members of a new-Scout patrol. He is an older Scout, at least First Class in rank, who helps the patrol leader of a new-Scout patrol in much the same way that a Scoutmaster works with a senior patrol leader - providing direction, coaching, and support as determined by the skill level and morale of the new-Scout patrol. The troop guide is usually not a member of another patrol, but may participate in the high-adventure activities of a Venture patrol. In our troop, he is not officially a member of the new-Scout patrol (or any patrol), but he is effectively a member of his new-Scout patrol. Ours eats with the new-Scout patrol. I'm not actually sure who they've buddied up to sleep with - we sometimes segment the sleeping areas by patrols, but not always, so our buddies aren't always strictly done by patrol. But even when we do segment the areas, we leave the buddying up to the boys and haven't had a problem yet, so while I'm surprised I don't remember, I'm not concerned.

Balding Eagle, You've received several good suggestions on what you might do to meet the requirement. On your original question, "Would this qualify for AOL?", the practical answer to your question is that it's up to the den leader as to what he'll sign off on. Den leaders get to use their judgement on questions like this. I (and others on the forum) can give advice on what we'd do, but in the end this will not have a clear definitive answer and judgement will have to come into play. I'd encourage additional activities anyway, but if this turns out to be the only activity that some boy participates in, I'd probably count it. It sounds like they did in fact participate in an outdoor activity with the troop. The spirit of the rule would suggest that the idea is to go see some fun outdoor activity, but it also has the idea of meeting the troop members and demystifying some of Boy Scouts. I think your activity goes partway towards the overall goal.

Hmmm, good question. Not sure what we would do. We've been low on drivers a couple times, but our activities chair will call around to the parents, asking each individually if they'd be willing to drive. If it really appears that the trip would be in jeopardy, we've always had someone step up. Sometimes it's just to be a driver and not stay for the trip. All of the potential suggestions above are interesting, and they all represent a negative consequence that should encourage better participation in the future. But I'm with Eamonn on this one. Building up your adult support - via communication, planning, shared vision, and even making sure that the adults are having fun - makes it less likely that these issues will arise. In our case, I would certainly ask the second leader to drive. Most of our volunteers have been more than happy to do so, even the ones with no kids in the program. But you know her better, and may have more insight into whether she'd want to do so.

Fred, At initial read, I think your position may be technically correct. If the Scoutmaster is available at other times, but refuses to do a conference because it's not on an outing, he might find himself being counseled by council. But on further reflection, I think I fall into acco's camp. If the boy asks for a conference, and the Scoutmaster gives him various availability dates, what's to appeal? The Scoutmaster hasn't denied the conference...he's just offered a date to schedule it. I don't think there is any policy on how often a Scoutmaster must offer conferences. Like acco, I find that outings are a great time to do conferences. There's lots of time, and we're there anyway. And is this really something you want to make a big deal over? I hate to see the adults set up warring camps on issues like this. Is there some particular reason this is a problem for one of the boys? Has he talked to the Scoutmaster about it? If this is a big problem for a boy, and the Scoutmaster won't make an exception, then I might have an issue, but for ordinary run-of-the-mill situations, I think I'd go with the flow on this one. Heck, my Troop Committee Guidebook says that the advancement coordinator is supposed to "Arrange quarterly troop boards of review". If the BSA is willing to let BoRs be done quarterly, then I don't think there could be too much objection to doing Scoutmaster conferences monthly. In our troop, I do offer Scoutmaster conferences during troop meetings (the SPL is running the meeting, so I don't have too much to do a lot of the time, and I have other adults helping supervise as well). And I'll arrange them at other times as well. But how far does that obligation extend?

I know Beavah asked about starting a new troop, but Lisabob broadened it to other units as well. I was not one of the people who chartered our pack, but I became a den leader the first year. I can relate our experience, but every situation is unique. We had no unit commissioner, and we had no help from our DE. Nor did we really need them, as far as I can tell. The books are pretty self-explanatory, and its not rocket science. The one key thing that we did have was a dedicated, enthusiastic leader who knew what he was doing. He was able to get others involved and share the vision. I think that more than anything, this one key leader who is able to recruit other leaders is the fundamental element for a successful pack startup. We did have a good relationship with our CO. The Cubmaster was a member of the church and a reasonable percentage of the initial Scouts were also from the church. This was helpful to us, but its clearly not essential as our CO appears to be well above average based on anecdotal evidence. We did lay out a calendar of events so people knew what to expect and had some excitement to look forward to. Pack meetings, Blue and Gold Banquet, Pinewood Derby, campouts, the whole deal. Get some other volunteers in place den leaders, committee chair, treasurer they dont need to know a lot about Scouts, but getting a set of people with the right attitude is very helpful. You need to get a set of people who all believe they are working together to build the pack for their sons. I know its heretical on the forum, but Im not as focused on the importance of training. I dont object to it, I do encourage it, but I dont know that its all that important. Our troop was starting at the same time, but I do not have direct observational data on that. I do know that the Scoutmaster did have a long-term vision for the troop and was dedicated, and recruited some ASMs who helped out a lot. These people carried the troop along for a number of years. I do not believe they were as successful as they could have been, primarily due to the organizational chaos that surrounded the troop. Someone a bit more organized probably would have experienced better growth. And Barry's estimate of 10 hours/week sounds reasonable to me. -- Now, on another note, how much doubt is there that jambo is juris? Heres how jambo signed his recent post: Here is to Scouting, jambo-www and juris used to sign his Yours in Scouting, juris, www And jambos philosophy on committee membership Keep your committee membership to a minimum. Choose such members who will not have a personality conflict WITH THE NEW SM, but they will be willing to support the Scoutmaster/PLC program decisions. DO NOT SEND YOUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS , TO DISTRICTS TRAINING COURSES. This will only confuse them, and they will develop an ego, that they are in charge, and can fire the SM at will. This most likely demoralizes a new leader..Many times the new leader leaves and the troop committee ends up choosing an other one. Compared to juriss comments 2...Choose your commitee and not your commitee choosing you. Three member commitee all you need to be legal. I cant decide if I really care. But juris was suspended back in July 2005 (http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=102783&p=1) Maybe this is a trial run at reenlistment under better behavior. And I actually do agree with the sentiment that you want committee members who support you. I just probably wouldn't phrase it the way jambo did.

Jambo reminds you of Brianbuf? To me, it was much more reminiscent of Juris. Wacky posts, seemingly contrived grammar, an almost hard to believe set of Scouting experiences, an interesting way of addressing other posters ("Lisa & Bob"??), and an attitude - well, you can categorize that yourself. Now, it's clearly not enough data to draw any conclusions, and jambo, assuming you're listening, if everything you say is truly authentic, then there's no problem. But man, these posts take me back...

We also had boys at Pamlico Sea Base this summer, and they enjoyed it. We've found that they will do what they can to tailor the experience for you. Quite honestly, I'm not sure whether you'd want to do surfing all week long, and a camp like this can offer a whole variety of activities. But as Lisabob says, I'm not aware that they offer surfing. I searched their site and didn't see anything. Still, I'll second her recommendation that you can give them a call.

Gunny, We had this debate in our troop. When the requirement says "Show improvement in the activities listed in requirement 10a...", does it mean in EACH of the activities listed, or in some overall holistic sense? There were some who thought that improvement in four of the five activities met the standard, but there were others who argued that the common-sense interpretation of the requirement is to show improvement in all of the activities. I think when it says "the activities listed", it means all of the activities on the list. As an aside, this was actually a board of review issue in our troop. The BoR said that improving in four of the five activities meant that the requirement was not complete. Oak Tree

Our trading post sells knives by the bucketful. Some days it seems like every Scout in camp has bought one. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't believe they require the Totin' Chip - I think they'll just sell them to anyone who has the money. They're pretty cheap. Way under $30. Not that they're good ones. Can I imagine 300 Scouts running around with knives? Well, yes, that's pretty much how it works. Scouts with knives? Seems like an ordinary course of events to me.