Oak Tree

We hold elections every six months. The SPL candidates declare ahead of time, and give their speeches the week before the election. They put some thought into the speeches and take several minutes each. The SPL appoints his ASPL. The SM (me) has approval rights, but I haven't vetoed anyone. There are no rank requirements on the SPL, but I don't think anyone under First Class has ever run. The patrols split up and elect their PL and he appoints his APL. Then the SPL appoints the rest of the positions out of the Scouts who have indicted an interest in them. We use progressive elimination elections for the SPL, until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. We don't tell the patrols how to do their elections. I appoint any JASMs or den chiefs on a more independent basis. Our den chiefs have to be First Class, and they do not have a defined term of office, but more or less match the Cub Scout year. Most of them have the default plan of sticking with their den for a few years until they cross into the troop. We don't have any explicit stated methodology of removal, but if it were to need to happen, we'd deal with each situation individually. Oak Tree

Our den meetings all start at 7:00pm. You're not out of line to bring your concerns to the committee, although I agree I'd start with the den leader. You may find that other people have reasons they prefer the 7pm time, but they may be amenable to switching. Oak Tree

I agree with you that work that directly benefits the troop isn't something I'd count for service hours. For work that directly benefits your CO, I think the line is fuzzier. In my case, I normally count service to the CO as long as it has no direct benefit to the troop. The Scouts view it as service to others. The CO views it as service as well, as they often ask whether Scouts would be available for service projects. As OGE says, it's your call. And there can be more complexity depending on what your relationship is with your CO. But based on what you've posted, I'd let it count. Oak Tree

We do encourage and pay for belt loops. We'll only award each belt loop once in a boy's career. An average boy in our pack probably graduates with around 20 or so, although it varies a lot from boy to boy and den to den. Some dens get into it more than others. We've had a few really long lists show up for presentation at a given pack meeting, and sometimes we'll double-check with the parent to make sure they understand the requirements correctly, but we'll go ahead and award them. We've had a couple boys earn all 40, but most boys go through a big spurt at some point during their wolf or bear year, and then have diminished interest in the belt loops once they become Webelos. Oak Tree

The danger of generalizing about others is an easy trap for us all to fall into. It's important to judge each individual on their own, but at the same time it's a valuable skill to be able to identify patterns of behavior among groups of people. I echo Vicki's sentiments, Eamonn, it's always refreshing to see people who are willing to identify errors in their own behavior. And while you may have been over-generalizing, I think we can all identify people similar to those that you described. Thanks for continuing to post. Oak Tree

I agree with Beavah on paperwork, LFL, and training. The DRP appears to serve mostly as a lightening rod for controversy. I'd get rid of it. And I'd certainly adjust the evaluation process for DEs to something more sensible. My pet peeve on the cub level is the idea that you can earn belt loops more than once. I'd get rid of that. Some days I imagine an organization that is less chaotic at all levels - where the council office is organized, camporees are organized, advancement policies are more uniform, etc, but I have the feeling that it would require more paid staff and we'd have a smaller, tighter, and more expensive organization. And I don't know that that would be a good thing. Oak Tree

Ok, there are certainly more than three members that I appreciate having in the community, but here are three: Lisabob - I like your common sense advice, the fact that you stay calm and polite and don't take the bait, and for your detailed stories about what all's going on in your troop. Fuzzy Bear - I love the perspective, the humor, the sense that we can all take the long view and enjoy the ride. Hunt - I find your posts to be smart, practical, sometimes clever. And I'd like to thank OGE for the puns, Beavah for the here's-how-it-really-works perspective, Eamonn for the ramblings. And I'd like to thank the Academy, my producer, my director, ... [music starts playing to get me off the stage] Oak Tree

I too am hesitant to suggest a more heavy-handed moderation. The tone is definitely more civil than it's been in the past, but I still find posters are more argumentative/accusatory than they would likely be in real life. When I go to training sessions here in the physical world, we often talk about how different troops do things. Rarely do people get in arguments about whether it's all "by the book". But that happens all the time here on the forums. In some ways I think that it's almost an inevitable result of the fact that we're dealing with a very large, anonymous set of dedicated Scouters. I would just echo calls for civility, and to have posters ask themselves whether they really need to tell someone they're doing it wrong. Beavah, if you think it's bad now, you should go read the forums from a few years back. It seemed (and I'm sure I'm exaggerating here, but this was the feeling I got) like everyone who posted with some question about how to fix a problem with their unit was immediately told the problem was that they themselves were doing Scouting all wrong. It didn't seem like a great way to build a community. I used the ignore option back then, and so did quite a few others. It's definitely better now. Oak Tree

As is often the case with questions like this, I suspect there is more to the story than just the questions you've asked here. But here are some simple answers - all terms of office are essentially one-year terms, since they must be renewed at recharter time each year. The Charter Organization pretty much has complete control over the pack, and can normally keep a CC on, or let him/her go, any time they want. And no, ASMs can't be on the committee. But the committee doesn't normally vote on things...consensus works much better. Your questions make it sound like you want the committee to try to oust the CC. That can be a complicated situation, but you really need the CO to make that decision. Oak Tree

This looks like another example of the council thinking that the volunteers work for them. I'd be really furious with them. This is a very penny-wise and pound-foolish decision on their part. It's true that the DE dropped the ball, but council should find a compromise. Path of least resistance - drop the concessions. Path of righteous indignation - do the concessions anyway. As nldscout says, what will council really do? Path of making council feel the pain - drop the entire event. Tell them that if they're going to micromanage things this badly, they can run the event themselves. Path of finding a loophole - get some auxiliary group to do the concessions; maybe your CO. They can always donate the money to the pack later. Sometimes it seems like the concepts of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" are a foreign language. Oak Tree

My experience is that the boys retain only very general things about the scoutcraft that they have signed off. I'll occasionally spot-check them, and unless they've had reason to use the skill in question repeatedly, it's a good chance that they will not remember. We do use the FCFY program, and they do learn the skills once, but the boys retaining the skills just doesn't happen much. Oak Tree

Good news indeed. It is a scary thing to lose a boy, and I know it could happen. No matter how much you enforce the buddy system, if a boy wants to go somewhere without his buddy, he can. Especially if he just wanders away from camp. I have boys like this in my troop. It was great to read the parents' comments about how they still trust the leaders and will send their son camping again. It's common to evaluate any situation like this and try to identify what went wrong, but I don't want to sit here and blame the troop - I'm just happy the boy was found. As far as we can tell, the YPT violation had nothing to do with the boy getting lost. And as for Akerman, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I certainly prefer this response to "yep, those troop leaders really screwed up." In general I've found that the professionals tend to have a much more pragmatic and flexible approach to the rules, and I can see some wisdom in that. Oak Tree

Eamonn, I'm sure you haven't gone wrong at all. And we'll have to wait and see if OJ returns to the outdoors more. I certainly did after I had kids. I do think that unstructured (or semi-structured) play is a great thing. I haven't read the book on Nature Deficit Disorder, although I've heard the author be interviewed. I know he's on to something, and is describing a real phenomenon. But yet, among my Scouts, when I ask them what they like most about Scouting, they almost all say that they like to camp. When I talk to the rising Cub Scouts about what they hope to do in Boy Scouts, they say they want to camp. So, I'm not so quick to say that kids today are that much different. Some like the outdoors more than others, but in general it seems like a pretty easy sell for most of them. Oak Tree

Lisabob, it's definitely true that Troopmaster eases advancement reports and rechartering. To do either of those, though, you don't need to record any intermediate accomplishments. I think the big poster can be a great motivator. In our case, we don't really have a good way to display it. The other problem with the poster is that it can get real messy over the years as boys drop out. There are other benefits to doing it in Troopmaster, too - for example, it's easy to get a report by patrol, whereas the poster can't be regrouped so easily. There are lots of other ways to look at the data, too. I've got a ton of computer professionals in my troop, so the idea of using such a convenient, easy aid just seems natural. As for leaving it all up to the boys, I guess that's just a balancing act. Sometimes we do give the reports to the patrol leaders or to PLC as they plan. Sometimes the PLC plans "advancement time", and one of the ASMs will provide a few opportunities in addition to whatever else the boys want to do. As adults, we just have to use our judgement on how much nudging, planning, disorganization, or whatever else is appropriate. Some troops are boy-led to the point of total chaos, and some are adult-led to the point of replicating school classrooms. Each troop will just have to find the point along that continuum that works for them. Ours seems to be working well for us. Oak Tree

The big benefit to having things recorded in Troopmaster is to allow us to see what advancement opportunities we want to offer. Do a bunch of boys still need a flag-raising demonstration? An orienteering course? A five-mile hike? That sort of thing. Oak Tree

There's going to be a big difference between two programs, when one is for 1st through 5th grades, and one is for 6th through 12th grades. Cub Scouts have leaders doing all the planning, they do family camping, they have monthly pack meetings, they work on belt loops, and so on. Webelos are still in that environment, up until they cross over. There isn't an intermediate state. They go from a pack meeting one month straight into Boy Scout campouts the next. Given that's the way things are organized, I think it's true that the 'schism' occurred in 1930. That said, I don't really see a schism in our units. All of our dens have den chiefs. A number of the Boy Scouts have younger brothers still in Cub Scouts, and the Boy Scouts are in evidence at pack campouts. The Webelos do get to camp with the troop before they cross over. They know the older boys, and they know, at least in an academic sense, what to expect (e.g. they'll be doing their own cooking, cleaning, etc). Our dropout rates are comparatively low, and the troop has lower dropout rates for boys in their first year in the troop than most of our Cub Scout dens see in any given year. It really helps to have a number of families that span the two units. Oak Tree

Ok, I'll take a slightly contrarian view on OGE's question. I'm not big on questions like this that have an implied right answer - "Yes, I'll put my Eagle award on the page." Boys have many options for self-identification, and saying that they should choose to use Boy Scouts as part of their public persona isn't something that I'd want to push. I know, I know, it's an open-ended question without a right answer. But I'm putting myself in the place of the Scout, and I wouldn't really like the question. I don't mind the "what would I see there?" part, but I'd just listen to their answer. There are lots of good questions you can ask. Anything that will get them talking. Good luck. Oak Tree

Yes, there are parts of the program that are chaotic. Things aren't done by the book in our council either, as far as MBCs go. We decided to try to get ours all registered officially, but after awhile you realize that council doesn't make the process easy, and can't really help you very much (e.g. they can't tell us which counselors are currently registered), and they don't really seem to care. So, we don't care either. That's not to say we don't care about the program. We do. We just don't care if all the paperwork is perfect. We find good qualified instructors and let them do the MBC role. And we don't get discouraged about the rest of the program. BSA has been this way ever since I've been around. Just focus on what you can do as a unit. That's where all the good stuff happens anyway. Oak Tree

I'd look at it this way - what activities are you doing most frequently that are not core to your job, and that could be delegated? In addition to the ones that Lisabob mentions, there are two that I'd look for: an equipment coordinator, and an activities coordinator. Exactly which jobs you pick probably isn't the biggest part of the effort. Just getting some people on board to fill any role that's useful to you is 90% of the battle. Keep plugging away at it. Oak Tree

I've always known that council people have to focus on fund-raising, but it's still a bit disturbing to hear about it first-hand in such a stark light. de4bsa, there are just so many things that strike me as unfortunate about your last post. - First, that the United Way would take money away from the council because people designated a unit. Why? Those are two separate entities, as the BSA keeps pointing out. Contributions to one shouldn't affect the other. I know you have no control over her actions, but that doesn't make sense. - Next, that the United Way was going to keep the total Boy Scout contribution at $3000, even though people designated $1500 for it. So that means that if I designate my money to some charity, the United Way doesn't actual increase their allocation to that charity. So what's the point of allowing designations, other than making people feel good about it? - That ties in with my last complaint about the UW, where you say that they hate donor designations. Yes, God forbid that people actually get a say in where their donations go. For all of these reasons, I've stopped giving to United Way and just give my money directly to the charities I support. Your post makes it sound like the UW thinks its their money to allocate as they see fit, and darn those donors who actually interfere with that. - You say the "SM pulled his stunt." He told people they could designate donations to go to his Scout troop. To some of us on the volunteer side of the equation, that doesn't sound like a real problem. People often donate to United Way because their company encourages them to do so; this provided a way, they thought, to get more of those donations to go to causes they were directly interested in. I'm sure they didn't think that doing this would cause less United Way money to go to the council. - And lastly, you still haven't convinced me that the troop isn't a 501c3. Your note specifically says that it takes its tax status from its CO. I'm sure there's a fine line between accepting donations and soliciting donations. I don't believe it's against BSA policy to accept donations. Many of our parents make donations to our troop. If they asked me if they could do through United Way, how could it be against policy for me to say that they could? Especially if it were true? I was listening to a discussion of "reactant" personalities today on the radio. That's how people rebel against having their options limited. You just told this unit's donors that they couldn't donate to the unit, and the money had to go to council. I think the reaction that nldscout had would be common...council would not get any more money from this troop. Especially given the way you describe giving the message, I think you'd see units skipping FOS, stopping popcorn, and basically telling the council to go pound sand. I know that your job forces you to focus on the finances. And that's too bad. I'll commiserate with you over that. But the units do not have the same focus on making sure council raises enough money. We're focused on delivering a quality program for the boys, and telling us we can't use donations to do that isn't likely to make a lot of friends on the unit side. It's frustrating to see the professionals spend so much time on whether they can raise enough money to cover their own salaries, especially when SE salaries are so high. I'm sure there are many professionals who work to deliver good service to the units, and more power to them, but those aren't really the ones we're talking about. Oak Tree

Most COs are 501©3s. Whenever people want to donate to our units, we just have them donate to the CO and the CO directs the money to us. There are some companies that won't donate to a church, and for those we have them donate to council and then council directs the money to us. Even though we do that process to avoid any questions, I think I'd agree with scoutldr that a donation to the troop is really a donation to the CO. Oak Tree

My first opinion would be that if a pack has an enthusiastic Cubmaster who's doing a great job and wants to continue on, they shouldn't force him out due to arbitrary limits. But my immediate thought for you is to try doing the position for three years and then see if you're still so eager to continue on. You may find that you become repetitive, or perhaps not as energetic as you once were. Maybe some pack politics will develop and you'll want a break from that. Or maybe you'll still love it and want to keep going. But I wouldn't plan that far ahead just yet. Still, I think it's an admirable thought and I wouldn't worry about those counter-arguments that you list. But I wouldn't go around telling people that I'd plan to be the Cubmaster for the next 10 years. Just do it for the first year, and let them decide if they want you to stay on. Oak Tree

It is also sold by the BSA at Northern Tier. I agree that it is an official jac-shirt. And I love the way the slash pockets look. That's my biggest complaint about the more common version. Oak Tree

I will say that we've used the New Scout Patrols with great success. I agree with Eagledad that the main concern is whether the boys feel safe in the patrol and troop, and being in a New Scout Patrol has visibly had that effect on our boys. When my son started in the troop, there were a bunch of boys who were 14 or 15, and not many 12 year-olds. The older boys were not the best role models, and didn't really come across as very friendly to the new Scouts. Our boys didn't like several of them very much. I think it was a very good thing they weren't mixed initially, or we may have lost a bunch of them. At the six month point when the patrols were remixed, we considered whether we should mix the new boys in with the older ones, and a number of parents who had been active with the troop were strongly opposed to it, for understandable reasons. After a year, this issue was no longer a problem, and the younger boys had grown comfortable with the older ones. I understand the argument for vertical patrols, and I have no objection to using it if it fits your situation. But for us, the New Scout Patrol has worked pretty much exactly as designed. (And we do let them camp as a patrol if they want.) We do have a strong transition program, and a good relationship with our feeder pack. Our retention rate has been high, and in fact, we've more than made up for any dropouts with new recruits. Oak Tree

Reading about other people's experiences is the main benefit I get from this forum. That type of interaction is also the most valuable thing I get from BSA training. I am just baffled by any suggestion that asking for people's experience is somehow an inappropriate topic, and I'm disappointed at the unfriendly tone that greets such a request. Per the original question: Our troop uses New Scout Patrols that last for a year. We ask for volunteers for Troop Guides, and we assign one guide to each patrol. Each new patrol also elects its own patrol leader. For all patrols, there is an assigned patrol advisor, an ASM, and those for the NSPs are much more active. The troop has varied quite a bit over the last few years. When my son started, the troop pretty much did troop cooking. Now it's entirely patrol cooking. The troop used to remix patrols every six months. Recently we've been doing the remixing once a year. At one point the troop rarely had patrol corners. Then there came a time where the SPL decided the entire troop meeting would be patrol corners. For some of this time, the patrol would choose a merit badge to work on. This was an improvement on the troop-wide merit badge work that they had sometimes done, but it still was not great because a number of the boys weren't interested in the badge that the patrol chose. Recently the patrol corners have mostly been focused on preparations for the monthly events. On the camping trips is where the patrol method is most obvious and most effective. Each patrol has their own patrol box of equipment, which they are responsible for. They are quite effective at doing their own meal planning, cooking, and cleaning. (Well, relatively effective considering their level of expertise. There are certainly some lessons being learned.) Oak Tree