Oak Tree

Pmarius - if you are worried about whether or not you have the authority to "kick her out", you do. You can remove her and leave her son in. The committee has great latitude in setting rules. I've been there as well, and if this happened again I would go slowly, investigate the situation, talk to her privately, and try other things behind the scenes, but eventually I would get with her and lay down the rules. And that would be - you can't be disruptive. Period. And if you can't attend events without being disruptive, then you can't attend events. Oak Tree

The article does concede that this is most useful for expeditions, not for individual backpackers. But the argument that most folks do just fine doesn't seem to hold up over the long term. There are a number of studies that show that significant percentages of people on long-term treks end up with diarrhea. In this article they mention 56%. I've seen other studies with other, somewhat lower numbers, but it's always a significant number. Some studies find no benefit for treating water, with most illnesses apparently coming from poor hygiene. This article did mention a benefit for treating water. At any rate, the percentage of people who get sick is certainly higher than I'd imagined, and it does seem like a good idea to do what we can to minimize it. There are some lightweight foldable buckets that can work well for group backpacking with Scouts. I do find it hard to imagine doing all this work for yourself. Oak Tree

We do a parents meeting for all the new parents. That gives them an intro, but it's by no means enough. Around the campfire is the only real successful way that I've found works for me. Well, around the campfire, on the trail, in the woods, anywhere on the campout. And even at troop meetings - if the meetings are running smoothly, I may have some time to chat with parents. But the adults that are most important to receive the message are those that go on the campouts, and there's a lot of on-the-job training that goes on. I try hard not to book my time 100% at teaching stations or other activities, so that I can walk around and watch how the various adults and boys are doing. And I try to have informal chats with all of my assistant leaders. Sometimes it's phone calls. Sometimes it is conversations after troop meetings. Sometimes I see them at church. And we do have a monthly SM/ASM meeting. Oak Tree

I've got to believe that many units count a week of summer camp in adirondacks as legal camping for the camping merit badge. At the very least, this isn't where I'd draw a line in the sand. Maybe the leader will say that the sentence "You may use a week of long-term camp toward this requirement" implies that any week outdoors at a BSA camp should count. Maybe they'll say that "under the sky" means being exposed to the weather, and that the Scouts in adirondacks are. It doesn't seem to me that there's much difference in the experience between tents and adirondacks at the typical summer camp. Either way, they're already set up for you. They are big - far bigger than the typical two-man tents used on the rest of the campouts. The experience is so different from regular camping that you're only allowed to use one week of it. Do the boys actually care? If you really push on this issue, I think you're just going to come across as the new anal-retentive parent. Rather than trying to point out where things are going wrong, I'd recommend just helping out to make things better where you can. Oak Tree

We've had at least three unit commissioners over the last several years. The first was completely invisible. That were during the start up phase for the unit, where it could have theoretically been helpful to have a UC. Then we were assigned a nice guy who just seemed absolutely clueless. There's no way he could have helped us out. And now we have a tremendously competent woman. But it's hard for me to see what she could actually do for us, beyond being the symbolic presence of the district. And it's probably the case that healthy, growing units with experienced leaders don't have much need for a UC. We've got a relatively deep set of adult leaders, many of whom have a lot of organizational experience and wisdom. Oak Tree

Both the COR and UC would be good people to connect with, if they are actively doing their job as described in the literature. That is very often not the case. In our unit, while I might give them cursory notice of the situation, I wouldn't actually expect them to do anything about it. I did have the CC resign while I was Cubmaster. Purely personal reasons. I looked around the set of available adults, considered the set of potential replacements, and approached one about volunteering. If you've spent time getting to know most of the other parents in the pack, you can get a pretty good idea of who might be a good candidate. Then we went back to the COR and said "Here's a new CC volunteer. Any concerns?" And of course, there weren't any and he signed the form. It helps to be clear about what you're asking the new CC to do. And you could indeed consider whether there's anything you might do differently. You'll either need to have one of the four of you step up to the job, or recruit someone else. Perhaps one of the four active adults could step up, and recruit a replacement for his or her other current position. Oak Tree

When I started camping with my kids in Cub Scouts, I had exactly the problem you describe. A lot of people in the pack did. I had purchased the relatively cheap department store tents. After a couple of miserable experiences, I decided I was in no way going to spend another weekend soaking wet. I upgraded to one of the $250 tents that scoutldr mentions. Since then, I have stayed bone-dry. It's been an absolutely impressive turn-around. Night and day. Or wet and dry, I guess. Oak Tree

We've got no age restrictions. But the only candidates we've ever had have all been middle-aged. I agree with your points, Beavah. I'm sure there are a number of troops that do great with a younger SM. In our troop I'd have two potential concerns with a younger SM. One would be his ability to delegate/coordinate/organize a larger group. Not that age is an absolute predictor of that, but given the size of our group it can really help to have experience managing a big group of people, keeping a lot of balls in the air at once, delegating work well, and communicating frequently. The second point deals with the drawback that you mentioned. If they just had to deal with the boys it would be easier. But we have a lot of adults around, and parents have a bunch of opinions, as do some of our ASMs. Being able to deal with concerned and/or unhappy parents requires the right touch, with a balance of confidence, flexibility, and understanding. I can picture a young ASM doing a great job leading a smaller troop where he can deal mostly with the boys. I can see other issues in our situation. And as always with generalizations, they don't apply to everyone. You'd have to take each case individually. Oak Tree

I don't remember hearing anyone from our district explain internet advancement to us. Maybe we should look into it anyway. John, I'm quite confident that our records are wrong at council, for who-knows-what reason. Could be a former advancement coordinator. Could be the council has lost paperwork that we've submitted. I've contemplated going through to check it all, but then I think - "why bother?" If it ever matters, we can just fix it at the time they end up going for Eagle. Most of the boys won't get that far anyway, so why should I spend a bunch of time reviewing council's records that seem to inevitably get into an incorrect state soon afterwards anyway? Did your boys really get hurt? Or did you just have to fix things? Oak Tree

Many COs are oblivious, as Lisabob describes. I doubt that very many of these apathetic COs would be willing to send their Scout leaders to Wood Badge. Our CO is a church and relatively more involved, but I wouldn't have even thought of asking them to send someone. Your CO may think that they're already doing you a favor by giving you a place to meet (or whatever else they do). I'd be surprised if you can switch COs and immediately get the new CO to pay for the course. Someone may chime in and say that a pack can't officially change their CO. I think that technically you start a new pack with a new CO. But in practice packs do change COs often enough that it's not all that unusual. I know a couple packs around here who have done it. So, my answers: 1) Completely inactive can be ok. 2) I wouldn't do it based on what you've written. But if you really want to, then find some organization that people in your pack are associated with (e.g. a church) and ask them if they'd be willing to do it. 3) You're not wrong to ask. But I'd say you're wrong to expect them to say yes. Oak Tree

This gets back to the question of what is the best way to fund a council. If you just made the rule the way you describe, you'd probably get units that 'participate' in council fundraisers, but not very whole-heartedly. Our troop does this with popcorn - we participate because all the council people want us to, but we really sell very little popcorn. I have no great objection to the rule, but I do think it might generate some backlash as you describe - not very many people are really excited about being told what they have to do. I think the rule would be counterproductive. I could imagine a council saying that they need a certain contribution per boy - and that it could come from fundraisers or that the troop could just pay it. This is similar to a council charging dues, though, and the BSA doesn't seem to want that for some reason. I don't know. It seems like we've gone over these options before, and no one's really all that happy with the current system, but all of the alternatives have their own problems. Oak Tree

Seems to me that this is what we do at summer camp. We pay older Boy Scouts to teach younger Boy Scouts skills. I'm not sure I see the problem. I guess it would depend on the specifics of the situation, but it's not like it's a required expense, is it? If you don't want to hire them, don't hire them. We don't normally have boys from other troops coming around and teaching skills anyway, so I'm not sure why I'd consider hiring them to do so. Oak Tree

We have parents turn in receipts after the trip (start full, fill up upon return) and bill each Scout his per capita portion. We've thought about estimating up front, but haven't actually made any steps towards making that adjustment. We've also contemplated planning shorter, cheaper trips, but the cost factor only seems to be an inhibitor for a few families, and it's hard to figure out how to balance that (and to get the PLC to balance it). Lisa, at first I was admiring your troop for going halfway across the country to summer camp, and at $3 per Scout. Then I realized I must be misinterpreting something somewhere in there. Oak Tree

You're right, Lisa, I don't normally see much of an influx from the requirement. I've contemplated using that fact as a possible way of dealing with the problem - just not announcing a cap and hoping that we don't get much of an increase until next crossover. But I've already had three boys join in the past two weeks, so I'm getting nervous. I don't think the boys who are inviting their friends along are doing it because of the requirement - I agree with your assessment on that. I'm just trying to prepare myself for the inevitable question that would come if we were to announce a cap. I was discussing it with my COR and CC today, and we're leaning toward some version of generalization on FC requirement 11, as Beavah describes. We have no cap yet, but it's always good to be prepared. Thanks for the discussion, and I'll continue to take suggestions. Oak Tree

It depends on whether you want the official answer, or the practical one. Officially, the CO's job is to provide leaders, and they do have to approve them. According to the Scoutmaster Handbook, "It is the troop committee's responsibility to select and recruit assistant Scoutmasters." In practice, the Scoutmaster normally chooses his assistants. At least, that's the case in our troop, and I suspect in most others. A Scoutmaster's working relationship with his assistants is important, and it seems only natural that he'd have a lot of input, if not the final say. I select ASMs by looking over the potential field, and looking at what jobs need to be done, and then approaching the candidates and asking them. How do you ask an SA to leave the troop? Well, it could certainly be an awkward conversation. I'd first look at whether there was some other assignment I could give to him that would move him into the background. But if that didn't work, I'd get agreement from the CC and COR about what we wanted to do, and possibly from the IH too, if it was controversial enough. Then I'd sit down with the SA, possibly with the CC along, and lay out a brief version of the facts. E.g. - "We've received complaints about the way you interact with the boys. I've personally seen you say/do the following inappropriate things to the boys: xxx, yyy. If your goal is to make a positive difference in these boys' lives, that doesn't appear to be happening, at least for some part of the troop." The best result would be for the SA to realize that he isn't enjoying the job, and some of the rest of the troop isn't enjoying him, and so he would agree to leave. You could possibly do additional things to make this clear to him - "Because of the allegations of poor behavior on your part [and by this, I mean to refer to whatever it is that is causing you to want to get rid of him], we'll need to (conduct an investigation, monitor you more closely, hold you to a set of milestones) [pick one]." If he wants to try to improve, you could decide how long you want to give him. Or, if you've decided up front that he gets no more chances, then it's "Bob, we've decided that there simply isn't a good match any longer between you and the troop. We're asking you to resign from your position." And, depending on his reaction, "It's not an optional situation. It's time for you to move on." I hope the whole thing is never necessary in my troop. Oak Tree

Yes, Beavah, you've articulated my feelings fairly well. I think that I could in fact expand beyond fifty without getting ragged, but that would involve some changes to the program, and everyone seems quite happy with our current size. Some of our 14 year old Scouts have said they don't think anyone would want to be a member of a huge troop. It reminds me of Yogi Berra's statement that "No one goes there any more. It's too crowded." Clearly the huge troops are doing something right. But we don't really want to be one. Our recruiting classes are fairly consistent at this point, because we have a feeder pack. We've actually done no other recruiting beyond trying to ensure a smooth transition from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts. But we have a good program, and other boys are showing up anyway. Around 10 of our 50 boys have come from somewhere other than our feeder pack. My most immediate problem is actually how to deal with the First Class requirement that the boys go out and invite someone in. If we cap our membership, at least temporarily, what could we tell the boys to do about that requirement? John-in-KC and kb6jra, thanks for the responses. You accurately describe my feelings as well. Oak Tree

I think that we as people are taking enormous quantities of carbon from underground and putting it into the air. We mine coal, oil, and gas in vast amounts. We burn them. The carbon dioxide goes into the air. There is no cyclical method for the earth to remove the CO2 from the air and put it back underground - at least not anything short of geologic time. I haven't looked into this too much before, just because my experience with peer-reviewed science leads me to believe that the scientists are working pretty hard to get things right, and by and large are pretty smart people. But for kicks I did a quick google search on volcanoes and found this - "Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions." from the Seattle Times website quoting a U.S. Geological Survey scientist(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html) I follow Leave No Trace principles. I do what I can to make things better. But as a whole, even the environmentalists don't have any real solution here that has any chance of being adopted. Slightly reducing our carbon output isn't going to change the big picture. People will continue to extract large quantities of carbon from the ground - the only question is just precisely how large. What I predict will happen is that everyone and everything will adapt as best they can. Some will do better than others. Most will be just fine. It'll be interesting to watch. Oak Tree

In the parent thread, Trevorum mentioned limiting a troop size to around 50. Well, we're there. We just had an influx of 16 new Scouts in two patrols, taking us to around 50. It's a lot of growth to absorb, and no one really wants to grow any bigger. Fourteen months ago, before crossover, we were at 22 Scouts. The PLC has specifically discussed that they want to cap the troop. All the adult leaders are happy to cap the troop. We might look at spinning off a new unit eventually - could be another troop, or more likely a Varsity Team or Venture Crew. But for now we just want to put a limit in place and take a breather while we catch up. I've already asked the DE to refer any random inquiries to other local troops. My questions for the forum: Have any of you limited your troop size? Any issues or problems? The last thing we need is for all of our new boys to go out and recruit new Scouts. But that's unfortunately precisely a written requirement. "Invite a new boy to a troop outing, service project, or meeting." How could we handle having a cap in place but still allow boys to meet that requirement? Thanks, Oak Tree

I think pretty much everyone here will tell you that the books should be open. The Scouting literature says that a monthly report should be made at the committee meeting. The problems that you're seeing are not uncommon among small volunteer groups. Sometimes even well-meaning people doing their best can make a real mess of things. The council has no magic power to clean up the books. The chartered organization would be the place to go, but they may not have a simple solution, either. You would talk to the treasurer, the committee chair, the chartered organization representative, and the head of the chartered organization. If you think they've really done something illegal, I'm sure there are more options. We do use Scout accounts successfully, and we have our solutions to all of the issues CalicoPenn mentions. The BSA does recommend some method like this - "By depositing money weekly or monthly toward the camp fee, the majority of the fee will be paid by camp time." But it can get complicated when you start rationing out pro-rated fund-raising hours. Oak Tree

Lisa, As with so many issues in a troop (or elsewhere), having clear communication and providing more definitive job descriptions can go a long way. The balancing act of empowering the SPL while ensuring reasonable Scoutmaster guidance is a dynamic one, always subject to lots of local issues, personalities, and logistics. In your question of how to do this generally, it's ideal for the Scoutmaster and SPL to talk often, and for the SPL to run any potentially disruptive decisions by the Scoutmaster for guidance. Then the SPL can make and implement the decision, knowing that the Scoutmaster backs him. If the SPL makes a rash decision, the Scoutmaster can talk with him about it and they can decide what to do. I haven't yet had an SPL who resisted good policy advice from the Scoutmaster. The committee is clearly far from their responsibilities here. The Scoutmaster Handbook isn't exactly clear on what method to use in forming patrols, but it doesn't involve the committee. "With the Scoutmaster's direction, the boys are formed into patrols, ..." Our committee wouldn't think of overruling the SPL - in the worst case, they'd come complain to me. Setting that expectation is an ongoing thing, where the Scoutmaster kindly reminds people of the troop runs. One of the best things a Scoutmaster can do, in my ever so humble opinion, is to make sure that people know who is responsible for what. When people don't know who should make the decisions, they'll often jump in and make them. A Scoutmaster who doesn't set a clear vision can often end up with this type of frustrated decision-making process. Oak Tree P.S. MarkS, two deep leadership, while always a good idea, is not required at a PLC or any other meeting, only on trips and outings.

Like Gonzo, I once brought my six-year-old on a trip (my son, in my case). Our troop has a policy that specifically allows it, given that the parent takes full responsibility for the sibling. This one trip is the only time it's ever been done. The Scouts all loved him - they offered him food, gave him little tasks to complete, and generally treated him like the troop mascot. At the end of the weekend, when we handed out an honor camper award, the Scouts also made up a special "Rookie of the Year" award for him. We do have a ski trip where some families come, but they typically ski on their own, while the boys are all part of the troop structure. I agree with the rest - make it clear what the rules are for any given trip. If it's a family thing and boys are responsible to their families, that could be a good once-a-year activity. The rest of the time, any adults are part of the troop leadership and are expected to act in that role and not the role of parent. Often this will require taking the parents aside and explaining your expectations, and then reinforcing them through the way you interact with the troop. Oak Tree

Merlyn, As I read SSScout, I thought he was agreeing with you, that the BSA would be better off letting everyone join, as long as they knew what they were getting. For the rest of the forum, I agree with Hunt...I don't see any point in arguing with Merlyn on a point that he's right about. Schools can't sponsor BSA units, since BSA is a self-professed religious organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. The BSA even agrees with this point. I think the horse is dead. No need to keep beating it. My question on SSScout's hypothetical open membership policy: would that be sufficient? Anyone could be a member, but it's still a religious organization. Would that meet the non-discrimination requirements of govenment organizations? How would advancement work? That is, how would it work especially in Cubs where you have to explicitly complete a religious requirement, or alternatively, in Boy Scouts, if your leader asks you about duty to God and you deny you have one. Troops could go with a don't ask, don't tell policy, I guess. Oak Tree

Most rules are made by people in order to achieve certain ends. That is, the rules are not made up just to have rules. As long as the rules are helpful in achieving those ends, it makes sense to follow them. But it's the ends that are important, not the rules themselves. You need to take into account all of the consequences of your actions, but if, as a whole, the rules do not help you guide your actions to achieve the goals, then change your actions. For every rule, it's the case that someone else came up with the rule, but I'm a thinking, reasoning human being, and I can evaluate whether that rule is actually the best course of action in my situation. The problem with examples is that it can be hard to take into account all of the circumstances. So while Beavah sets up a plausible scenario, Lisa'bob can postulate additional assumptions that might affect the best course of action. How about this? A Scout is homesick and goes into his tent crying and eating M&Ms, and asks to be left alone for a little while. Is the right thing to do to march into the tent and take away the food? In all of these situations, each side can add information to the scenario that affects the best outcome. So my goal isn't to argue about the specific situation; it's just to say that I'd at least evaluate the conditions and decide how to proceed. Oak Tree

Oooh, oooh, oooh, can I play? I know I've heard this discussion somewhere before... Now where was it? Let's see if I can recap: Beavah (parent thread): J15 Eamonn: R8, R3 Beavah: J16, J1, J2, J15, J15b, J8 FScouter: R9 Beavah: J1-13,15b (rules are imperfect) FScouter: R2 Beavah: J15 Based on the discussion, I've updated my list of canonical arguments for following the rules or using your judgement. Reasons to follow the rules: R1. Obeying rules set by legitimate authorities is a moral imperative in itself. R2. Rules are set by persons with greater knowledge and experience and thus should be followed. R3. It's important to show respect for rules in order to set a good example for others. R4. Breaking small rules will lead to less respect for more important rules. R5. If you agreed to follow the rules, you are obligated to follow them. R6. If everybody picked and chose what rules to follow, there would be chaos, and dumb people would ignore the wrong rules. R7. If you violate the rule, you may be punished. R8. If its ok to break a rule, its ok to break all rules. You either obey rules, or you dont. R9. If it's ok to break a rule, people will break rules just to do what's best for them. Reasons to use your judgement: J1. The rule is unjust. (Favorite example - failing to turn over Jews to the Nazis and lying about it). J2. The purpose for the rule clearly does not apply to the particular situation. (This may be the case with Kahuna's visit to the waterfront. Another simple one might be the requirement to "take a number" when there is nobody else waiting.) J3. The rule is routinely violated and rarely enforced. (This is probably the true reason most people speed a few mph over the limit.) J4. The rule is silly. (Perhaps the fact that although it is shaped like a pocket flap, a Tot'n Chip is not supposed to be worn on the pocket flap of the uniform.) J5. The rule is inconsequential, and the consequences of violating it are too small to matter. (This is in the eye of the beholder, of course--perhaps wearing green socks that are identical to Scout socks, but without the red stripe, under long pants.) J6. The rule is inconvenient. (Ignoring two-deep leadership because a second adult wasn't available would be an example.) J7. You just think you know better than the people who make the rules. (Taking scouts to play laser tag or paintball, maybe.) J7a. The person really does know better than the rulemaker, because of unique personal expertise, or insufficient time/attention paid by the rulemaker. J8. Following the rule will cause one person to be singled out/embarrassed. J9. Other substantial negative consequences to following the rule (maybe, in Cub Scouts, one family's tent collapses during a rainstorm in the middle of the night, and they move in with another family who has a large tent.) J10. It's the spirit of the rule that matters, not the letter of the rule (maybe allowing a couple who has been together for 15 years, but isn't technically married, to share the same tent) J11. There is an overriding reason of a health or safety emergency (often comes up in these discussions, but is non-controversial in reality, as everyone tends to agree it's ok to break a rule to save a life) J12. The rules suck all the fun out of the activity. (maybe the rule is you have to listen to a one-hour safety lecture before firing a bb-gun. Or, at a local camp-o-ree, here are the local rules, which were thought up by someone who seemed to have no experience with actual Scouts) J13. The rules, as written, appear to be bizarrely complex. J14. The rulemaker exceeded his authority in making the rule. J15. The rules are in service to a greater principle, and the greater principle is what matters (e.g. service to the kids) J15b. The rule is very general and does not (and can not) take into account all of the specific situations it may apply to. The situation may allow the rules intent to be achieved through alternate means. J16. People in authority indicate the rules are flexible. I thank Hunt for compiling the original list. My own tendency is to try to figure out what's best in a given situation. Usually, and by default, that's to follow the rule. But I really want to do what's best for the boy. Following greater principles and using judgement are both good things in my book. Oak Tree

Wow, so many people to agree with. Lisa'bob's argument that this is not a good solution is one I find accurate. It's hard to see how registering boys as Boy Scouts will help strengthen the Webelos program. I'd put a bit of a different spin on why this is the case. Because Boy Scouts is a natural continuation of Webelos, I find boys quickly lose interest in the "old" Webelos activities, and focus on the "new" Boy Scout activities. If the programs were completely different, like say, swim club and horseback riding, then boys could easily want to do both. But because they are so much the same, it's hard to see how this would help. Venturing and Boy Scouting are more different, so dual registration makes more sense there. I also agree with DenZero, who says that this only makes sense where a boy is trying to finish up Arrow of Light. That, in fact, is pretty much the only thing that would keep a boy interested in the Webelos program after they join a troop. I once had a boy who only had one requirement left for AoL, and that was the time requirement. The rest of his den crossed over. As far as I'm concerned, this would be a perfect case where dual registration would make sense. In any case where there are just a few requirements left to finish, I can see a boy wanting to be registered in both places. And ultimately, I agree with Beavah. I like to see people trying things to improve the program. I like discussion on the forum about what works best for people. I don't think this change would help much, and it probably is 'half-cocked', but I'll presume that people are doing their best. Oak Tree