Oak Tree

I got some orange cloth and a bunch of felt. I had the boys draw/cut out whatever they thought represented their den - trees, outdoor stuff, den number, pack number. And I had them each put their handprint on the flag, along with their name. It occupied them for most of a den meeting, and the orange flag is very distinctive. Of course, it's only good for a year and we'll have to make a new one next year when they're wolves.

It varies a little bit from year to year, depending on what activities the PLC plans and how much opportunity there is on some of the campouts to work on some of the basic Scouting skills. Last year a lot of boys got their Tenderfoot in 2-3 months. This year it's looking more like 4-5 months. We usually have a few go-getters who will earn First Class in 6-8 months, but it's a very spread out distribution from there. I'd guess the average is around 15 months. I'm sure Troopmaster could spit out a number for me on one of its thousands of report forms, but I think I'm close.

I'd say the person who gets to interpret the requirement is the one who has to sign off on it. That's all under the authority of the Scoutmaster. That said, it's always good to build a consensus for any controversial decisions. I'd take input from the boys and from the committee. The committee does have some authority here. Since they sit on the BoR and have to confirm whether all the requirements were met, it would be good to make sure everyone was on the same page. I personally really dislike this requirement, for the very reasons mentioned here. The simple, straightforward interpretation would be that the boy should increase his number of pull-ups, as measured in whole numbers. The problem with this is as Lisabob suggests - it's crazy and a sure way to lose Scouts. I have Scouts who have never been able to do 1 pull-up. Should we just tell them that they'll never advance? I don't think this is supposed to be a weed-them-out requirement. So you end up getting various ways of dealing with this. Partial pull-ups, modified pull-ups (which is what we do), timed pull-ups, etc. I'd suggest a friendly chat with the Scoutmaster. Does he really intend to hold your boy back indefinitely over 1/2 pullup?

>> I was just hoping someone might be able to shed light on some way to come across that may be get a better response from the powers that be. This is a common problem for all those who want to change the way an existing group is being run. It takes time, and allies. Groups take on their own personalities, and it's just hard to fix. To be listened to, I think you need to get into a position where you're not perceived as an outsider. Listen to the leaders - what is their view on their vision for the pack? Do they want the boys to have fun? Is it just a check-box on their social obligations? >> The most frustrating thing is that they just won't listen to input, it's their way or the highway. Is this the way most packs are run?? No. But there are probably some packs in every district that run this way. Our CA pack was not, were they the exception to the rule? A good pack is worth a lot. It's much easier to work within a pack like this. It's not the exception, but I don't know that it's the rule, either. Packs exist on a large continuum - you see all different kinds. Isn't there supposed to be voting for majority rule at committee mtgs? Not really. There's normally not much, if anything, to vote on. I don't think our committee has ever taken a vote. We work by consensus. The CC hands out work to committee members who have specific tasks - e.g. camping, and those people bring back recommendations to the committee. In practice, a CC can be pretty dictatorial and get away with it, but it doesn't seem like a good way to make friends. Our CA pack was my only frame of reference and I'm just trying to figure out what the norm is? I think the norm would be for people to choose a pack that they like. But these packs run in all sorts of ways. It's amazing to me that some of these packs don't collapse almost instantly, but some of them go on indefinitely. Would mtg with Bears but working on our own acheivments / electives have been an option, just curious? It's an option. Some packs do it by necessity. But it's not my favorite option. Hope that all helps. Oak Tree

I've seen a number of Scouters wearing jamboree patches from days gone by. The Insignia Guide says "A jamboree emblem is worn above right pocket by a Boy Scout/Venturer or Scouter who is registered to attend or attended the jamboree as a registered participant or staff member." You could also wear it on the right pocket, as ScoutNut suggests. I think you're fine either way. Makes a good conversation starter. Oak Tree

So much of the confusion we see in Scouting could be improved through expectation setting. "No surprises!" is a good rule for managers with their employees, and employees with their managers. It works for Scoutmasters with their Scouts, and for the Scoutmaster with all of the other adults in the unit as well. It can be hard, of course, to take the time to sit down with all of the other adults and spend the time needed to set all the expectations, especially given that we're all volunteers. But doing a little bit of that with everyone can pay good dividends, and if you can communicate a bit of the vision to them, then you can hopefully get them on your side with any of a variety of issues come up. I think it was Barry who said that 50% of his time as Scoutmaster was spent with the adults. And I agree. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but getting all of the adults onto the same page is worth a lot. A UC could be some help in giving you the rules, but it would have to be the right kind of person. They can perpetuate some of the same Scouting myths as everyone else. Most important is for your adult leaders to agree on your approach. Oak Tree

There's a thread on this topic in 2005, if you want to search the archives. ScoutNut is correct - the evidence strongly indicates that Wolf Cub Scouts are not banned by the BSA from using knives. A pack can make more restrictive safety rules, though, and our pack, for example, did not want to encourage Wolf Scouts to use knives. We always did it as part of the Bear accomplishments. I did have a parent ask once, and I explained the rationale, and she happily agreed to wait a year. Oak Tree

No surprise, my Insignia Guide says exactly the same thing that FScouter's does. So it's purely personal preference. My observation is that around here most of the people wear separate stars. That's what I do - I guess I like the idea of showing where those years were spent, and whether I was a Scout who went through the program. As a downside, it does mean that there are more things to keep track of whenever the shirt is due for a washing. Oak Tree

And just for fun, here are the ads from 1965. Dingos boots from Acme boot company (full page, inside cover) Murray bikes (half) Bell system (full) Slot cars from Hawk Model Company (half) Punt, Pass & Kick - NFL (full) AMT models (full) Official Scout Shoes, International Shoe Company (half) Bike lock, Master (1/4) Tyco trains (1/4) Crosman Arms gun trading cards (1/2) Revell home raceway (2 full pages) Wearever pen (1/4) Screamer model motor, Globe industries (1/4) WeaverScope rifle scope, Weaver Company (1/4) Wren motor bike, Bird engineering (1/4) Official Scout shoes, Goodyear (1/4) Greeting Card fundraisers, Cheerful Card Co, (full) Wilson basketball (full) Wingfoot 175 bike tire, Goodyear (full) American Youth Sales Club (2 full) Pepsi (full) Remington Nylon 66, 22 automatic (1/2) Christmas Card fundraiser, Wallace Brown (1/2) 7-UP (1/2) Tackle medicated clear gel for pimples, oily skin, and blackheads (1/2) Marlin 57 lever action rifle (1/2) Fastrak bike tire, U.S. Royal (1/2) Swingline Tot Stapler (1/4) Western Auto, bike accessories (full) Scout stores (full) Strombecker models (1/4) Johnson & Johnson first-aid kit fundraisers (1/2) Savage rifles (1/2) Assortment (1/2) - Duxbak hunting supply, Daisy B-Bs, Weejuns shoes, USPS, Himalayan backpack, blistex lip balm, mini-bikes Lindy pens (1/2) Assortment (1/2) - Lafayette radio electronics, mini-bike kit, chipmunk havahart trap, Victor trap to kill muskrat, mink, skunk, racoon, and fox, Benjamin 20 20 air gun, Fun music book Voit sneakers (1/8) Sheridan pellet gun (1/8) Assortment (1/2) - Pacifate shoe lining, Post slide rule, gun cleaner, bird mounting book, Bike athletic supporter Short Cut Hair Groom (1/4) Lindberg motorized model (1/8) Grit family newspaper sales positions (1/8) Military Academies - 30 of them (1/2) Mason Candy fundraiser (1/4) Stamp and Coin collector classifieds - 33 (1/2) Classified - rockets, canoe kits, bike decals, space catalog, dinosaur bone collection, mini-cycle plans, telescope, military insignia, Indian lore, bull whips, magic tricks, test tubes (3/4) Card fundraiser, Artistic Card Co, inside back cover (full) Schwinn bikes, back cover (full)

Ok, here's my contribution to Scouting trivia. September 1965. Boys' Life is 13.25" x 10.5". The cover price is $0.25. There are 76 pages, of which roughly 28 pages are ads, or 37%. January 1971. Boys' Life is 12.25" x 9.25". The cover price is $0.40. There are 78 pages of which 27.75 are ads, or 36%. September 1977. Boys' Life is 11" x 8.25". The cover price is $0.60. There are 84 pages of which 24.5 are ads, or 29%. July 2007. Boys' Life is 10.5" x 8". The cover price is $3.60. There are 56 pages, of which 7.67 are ads, or 14%. The initial premise of this thread appears to be that there are more ads today. That is clearly not the case. A more detailed analysis might calculate ads that are related to Scouting, although that's a bit subjective. One thing that does leap out at me is that the articles are longer in the older editions. There are way more words per page, and no pages of quick sound-bites with lots of graphics. It could take a long time to get through the magazines from the 1960s, particularly when compared to today's version. Oak Tree

The response time is dramatically improved. Thanks for the update. Oak Tree

There was a longer interview on NPR with him on this topic. It all sounds a bit more reasonable there. He likes the new technology, he's paying for it himself, and he can do most aspects of his job while he's waiting in line. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11612472 Oak Tree

I can think of many religious organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. There are various groups that discriminate on the basis of gender. But I can think of very few organizations other than religions that discriminate on the basis of religious belief, and only religions and the military that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Those are politically incorrect positions to take, and mainstream American values, even more so among the educated elite, are to be non-discriminatory. Because the BSA insists on discriminating on these bases, they really set themselves outside the great majority of social organizations. And the press remembers and remarks upon this fact, partly because it sits outside of their idea of what a "normal" organization would do. Oak Tree

I've never removed a boy from a POR, and would be unlikely to, preferring the approach you describe. But under certain circumstances, I can imagine doing so - primarily if a boy either 1) indicates he cannot/will not perform the requirements of the job, or 2) he is setting a sufficiently bad example as SPL/ASPL. But I wouldn't be very quick on the trigger finger. Oak Tree

All the Insignia Guide says is this: "National Camping School emblem, cloth, No. 00276, council Scouter, right pocket; staff emblem, cloth, No. 00277, Scouter, right pocket; jacket patch, No. 00278, centered on back of jacket." There are no special notes the way there are for the Trained emblem, for example. But it's hard to read too much into that. To FScouter's other question - I'll say that the Insignia Guide has a number of omissions, and does not answer all the questions I think it could. But I'm not really aware of any place where the guide is actively incorrect (shows different policy than other official documents), except for where recent changes have been made. And there is that one misleading entry. I've got a whole bunch of annotations in my copy...I'd be happy to proofread the next edition. Oak Tree

Given the information that you've given us, your approach sounds pretty reasonable. Waiting is certainly the least divisive short-term option. My sense would be that the only other option you might consider would be to get a new Scoutmaster. If the current SM is basically retired on the job, he might be willing to step aside if there was someone else who was ready to step up. For that to work, though, you'd want to talk to the SM and see if that's his opinion, and you'd need to have someone else who was willing to take on the job. Since you're the CC, it would be reasonable for you to have some conversations with the SM about how things are going. How's the troop doing? How's he doing? Is his work making it hard for him to devote the time he'd like to? Tell your ASMs how much you appreciate them and the work that they do. A system like this can actually work just fine. There are troops where the SM is something of a figurehead and the ASMs do the actual work. Really helps if the ASMs understand and are ok with the model. So, I'd say wait, but keep talking with everyone. Oak Tree

TheScout proposed an interesting hypothetical question - what if the SCOTUS issued a ruling that was clearly incorrect? That is, what stops the court from just wildly ruling as it sees fit? Could it make absolutely any ruling it wanted to, with no fear of being overturned? Well, no. In practice, as Merlyn says, the President and Congress have to defer to court rulings on what the law means. But that will work only so long as the country in general ascribes such power to the court. The court itself is very conscious of this fact, and is careful to make rulings only in areas where it is perceived to have the authority to do so. So I don't think we're in any danger of having the court declare the first amendment to be null and void, or to declare that the Constitution grants the Supreme Court emergency martial law authority. The system is just constructed in a way that won't allow that to happen. But why not? What would happen if it did? What if five members of the court became partly senile and started issuing bizarre rulings? They would be impeached. Now, as TheScout notes, impeachment is supposed to be for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". But in practice, the Congress has sole authority in this matter, and as Gerald Ford said in 1960, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Not everyone who has been impeached has been guilty of a crime. The Supreme Court itself has ruled that impeachment cannot be appealed to the courts. Our system, in the end, provides more power to the legislative branch than to the other two branches. And that's appropriate. It is a far broader base, and its decisions cannot easily be swayed just by changing a few minds. If two-thirds of the Senate agree on something, it's a good bet that it's popular with the rest of the country. They hardly get that kind of agreement on any substantial political issue. Congress can make the laws. It can override the President's veto. It can impeach the President or the Supreme Court. The final ultimate power actually rests with the state legislatures, which have the ability to amend the Constitution. But even here, in practice, the Congress has most of the authority to do the amending. So yes, you might think that the Supreme Court has stepped slightly outside its bounds. But if it stepped way outside its bounds, it would get slapped down. Oak Tree(This message has been edited by Oak Tree)

Lisa, yes, that's right, I'm just here to stir up trouble. :-) I tried to ask the question in a neutral way so as to elicit opinions on all sides. But here's what I think. Caffeine clearly creates a physical dependence in a way that s'mores, for example, do not. But just this fact, by itself, does not make it a very severe addiction. There is a *lot* of literature on addictions, and on the addiction severity scale, caffeine generally comes out pretty low, because it does not generally interfere with other aspects of your life. I would not disqualify a Scoutmaster for smoking. In my troop, I think it's unlikely that a smoker would be actively considered, because none of the parents smoke (that I know of), and a smoker would just seem out of place. But at district/council events, I see troops where many of the leaders smoke, and I wouldn't want to suggest that they'd need to step down. I would certainly not disqualify caffeine drinkers. I myself am addicted to it. I don't really like that fact, but the negative effects aren't quite enough to spur me to quit. The negative effects being things like the money spent on it, the effort to ensure an available supply, and the headaches that come if I miss a dose. Maybe if it were easy to go cold-turkey, I'd do it, but I tried that, and I swear my head was going to implode. I'd disagree that it's hypocritical for a smoker to give anti-smoking lectures. In fact, I think it can be more powerful. I'm imagining comments like this: "I started when I was a teen-ager, and I really regret it now. It's really hard to quit. I've tried several times. I'm more likely to get cancer, emphysema, and a whole host of other physical problems. I go outside and stand in the rain at work because I need my next cigarette. If I had saved all the money that I've spent on tobacco, I could own a new Mercedes." But just to wrap up on the caffeine point - I was not seriously suggesting that we do anything about it. It's part of our environment, many adults need it, and it's not really a big deal when compared with most of the other issues we deal with. You can rest easy, Gern, I won't be trying to pry anything out of your hands, dead or alive. Still, I won't encourage my kids to drink it. We don't keep soda in the fridge, and all-in-all, I think they're better off without it or any caffeinated drink. Oak Tree

In the parent thread, DanKroh wrote "I would disqualify an SM for having a smoking addiction (or any other addiction)." Now, I think that most of us would agree that a Scoutmaster who is addicted to alcohol, gambling, illegal drugs, or sex would not be a very good role model. But there's another thread going on about coffee ("extremely controversial discussion"). It seems to me that many people have a serious caffeine addiction. By all measures, caffeine is a truly addicting substance. People build up a tolerance to it, and they can experience some pretty strong withdrawal symptoms. People will go to pretty involved measures to make sure that they have their caffeine supply with them wherever they go. So what do you think? Is it ok for a drug to have that kind of power over you? Is a caffeine addiction something you'd try to steer your kids away from? Or is it really no big deal? After all, you don't see many marriages breaking up because of the husband's constant need for a coffee fix. Oak Tree

Normally I'd say this is a simple call. No pop-up campers on Boy Scout trips. We've never allowed them, and wouldn't think of doing so. But it's your Scoutmaster who wants to bring it. Implementing the program is supposed to be his perogative. It's his vision for the troop that should take the lead. It could be tough for you to get in a situation where you are trying to overrule him on a regular basis (e.g. campers, departure times). He wants to bring along his wife, with her bad back, on troop campouts? That's just odd. All of the Scouting literature clearly aims at tent camping. The Scoutmaster's Handbook talks about pitching tents. It says "Whenever possible, plan to hike at least part of the way to a campsite." Tents are listed as part of the troop gear. Now, there's no rule against pop-up campers. The Guide to Safe Scouting even mentions them - "Use caution in towing trailers or campers." But as a way to run the program...just not what I'd want to see. Still - I think you really need to ask yourself - either 1) do you want this guy to be Scoutmaster and have people go with his vision? 2) Do you want him as Scoutmaster with you trying to overrule his vision? 3) Or do you want to find another Scoutmaster? I don't think option 2 is a very good option. But option 1 isn't that great either, and you may not have a good option 3. I'd probably go with option 1 for the time being, based on the relatively small amount of information I have. Oak Tree

We usually leave earlier than you do, around 4:00pm or 4:30pm. But in the winter, that still often leaves us driving in the dark and setting up camp in the dark. I've got to believe that many troops do weekend camping trips and frequently drive in the dark on Friday evening to get to camp. It seems fairly impractical to do otherwise - you'd either need to leave earlier (getting people out of work or school) and/or camp closer to home (limiting the options), or you'd have to wait until Saturday morning to leave. Given that most adults regularly drive after dark, those options seem like excessive responses. This rule is one that really strikes me as a CYA rule from National. Do they really expect troops, especially in the north, to follow this? At any rate, I'd say that you shouldn't plan a 500 mile trip that starts at midnight so that the kids will all sleep through the long trip. But if you're getting in to camp, for example, by 9:00pm after leaving at 6:00pm, I wouldn't sweat it. Oak Tree

The Insignia Guide doesn't do anything to resolve this issue. It merely states that both awards are worn on the right pocket flap. My interpretation would be the same as yours - you can pin the summertime award on top of the outdoor activity award.

I had to laugh at Beavah's description of the typical council office. It certainly rings true for our council. There's a group of nice ladies in an air-conditioned office. Now, I do know that at least one of them has done some camping, but some of the rest don't really seem like the camping type. The tour permit doesn't really have that much info on there for them to recognize an unsafe plan, anyway. At any rate, we've never had a plan questioned. In fact, we are all strongly suspicious that no one even performs a cursory check on the permits. I don't think we've ever had even one question asked. So there's not a lot of incentive from the council to file these forms. But we do it anyway, mostly just to remind ourselves to review the rules. Oak Tree P.S. FScouter, I don't think Beavah compared the ladies to cow pies. That looks like your creation.

Yeah, I see the definition on the national site. It seems to me that they are redefining the word 'active'. I like the definition from the Webelos book better - "Active means having good attendance, paying den dues, working on den projects." If the Boy Scout Handbook just means 'registered', then it should just say 'registered'. But the only time that really matters is for rank advancement, and thus far I've never had an inactive boy try to advance. But for the rest, it doesn't really matter what the definition is. You can decide who can go to summer camp. The SPL appoints the leaders with the Scoutmaster's advice. You don't have to let the boy go to camp, participate in any given activity, or hold any position. You don't have to be yelled at by the father. You don't have to recharter him. You're in charge. Build a consensus among your other trusted leaders, and confidently act like you're in charge. You don't have to let this father run roughshod over anyone. Oak Tree

John-in-KC, What do you think is going to happen as a result of not filing a national tour permit? I'm trying to imagine the scenario. You say that the BSA and local council will pay out the nose. For what? I mean, if someone gets injured and the adults are liable, the BSA will pay regardless of whether or not a tour permit was filed. How will it cost BSA more? Sincerely curious, Oak Tree