ParkMan

Sorry to be late to this. Kids with severe issues, zero control, and lack of partental discipline is not the norm at all. Yeah, as others have said - that's a more challenging age range in general. But, what you describe is unusual - at least in my area. I'd look at other packs before I gave up on Cub Scouts. I'd encourage you to ask around your sons friend circle and see if anyone is in Scouts. There's a decent chance there are some and they might be in a pack nearby. It definitely good for your son to Scout with friends. If that doesn't work, I'd call up the local District Executive (paid Scouting person who supports your community). That person will know who has the best packs in the area. I'd visit with those packs.

Hi @Scouter4Family I agree fully that you ought to watch what else is going on and talk with the Scoutmaster before acting too much here. But, your premise makes sense here. In an ideal world, a troop of 200 could be run by the SPL with guidance from the SM. ASMs would simply help with spot tasks as needed. But, I've found that very often, Scouts benefit from a bit of friendly adult guidance. So, if the Scoutmaster is more interested in working with the older Scouts, then it makes a lot of sense for someone to work with the younger Scouts. At 40 Scouts, it is not unreasonable to see some individualized activities for the different age ranges: ages 11-13 ages 13-15 ages 16+ Each of these could have an ASM who spends some time with the patrols at that age range to help nudge them towards asking the right questions. Of course, this all needs to be coordinated with the SM and SPL. Also - it sounds like your troop has gone from about 25 to 40 scouts pretty quickly. With that, it's not unusual for their to be challenges to the system. One thing I would suggest - when the SM does retire - break the practice of having a married CC & SM. While it may work for you - its not a very good idea.

Could you set it up as a trust held by a local by the leadership of a local troop?

I'd propose that Wood Badge is not a management course - it's a leadership course. To me a management course implies sessions on pack/troop operations - there is very little content to that effect. There is a lot more content in Wood Badge about how to be a leader in a Scouting context. How to develop a goal for your role in Scouting. How to turn that goal into specific steps to take. How to work with other Scouters to make that goal a reality. Surrounding the material on leadership is lots of fun, camaraderie, opportunities to network, and plenty of exposure to Scouting in a larger context. In addition, the course tries to provide an understanding of some of the Scouting fundamentals such as patrol method. But, in the case of patrol method it's a lot more about concept than implementation details. The ticket portion is the practical application of the above. What I've generally seen is that when people work through that process, they emerge as stronger, more effective leaders in their pack, troop, or crew. Is Wood Badge the only way to become a strong leader in your unit? Of course not. It would be silly for anyone to suggest that. Many of the best leaders I know never took Wood Badge. But, on balance, I find that volunteers who have completed Wood Badge have a pretty significant impact on the units I've been involved with. Fully agree - if someone wants to learn mechanics there are much better courses for this.

I would encourage you to run this by someone from the district too - probably the district executive. You're starting to get into the area of co-mixing BSA branding and Masonic branding. There are generally rules about this kind of thing. Odds are that they'll say - hey, this is great. But - I'd think it's worth confirming first.

Good point - but one I'd add a little to this. I attended once and have staffed a few times now. In anything, if you go in with really high expectations - you are bound to be disappointed. Wood Badge is leadership training course put on by volunteers. The volunteers are typically some of the more experienced trainers in the council and have a wealth of Scouting experience. In our council the volunteers work really hard to make it the absolute best course possible. But at the end of the day, it's a Scouter training course put on by volunteers. On the flip slide - if you go in with a negative mindset, you are bound to find things to criticize. i.e.- "that topic isn't that engaging", "I could learn much of this elsewhere", "The speaker was too monotone", or "The food isn't great". etc... if you go in with an open mind, I've found that you people generally have a very good experience. Is that the 100% true? Of course not. There are always people who go in with the perfect mindset for who the course just doesn't click. But again, on the whole I've found that people generally have very positive feedback and a great time.

I loved my Wood Badge experience and really took a lot away from it. I think it's fair to say that I embraced the opportunity to learn new things, meet new people, and challenge myself to grow as a Scouter. I'd encourage you to do the same. And yes - it's a metaphorical fire hose.

I'd contact your district executive. He/she can walk you through the process of creating a new Venture crew.' But, the best thing I can suggest is to learn about venturing and see if the program is something that would be appealing to your youth. Both Scouts BSA & Venturing offer programs for youth at the high school level. They each have different programs that will resonate with different youth. I'd encourage you to learn more about Venturing and see if it sounds like a good fit. A nice place to start is to go through the BSA online training for venturing leaders.

You're question makes me want to ask another: Is it better for the youth of America to have Philmont going in this direction? On the one hand, it seems a good thing to increase access to the facilities at Philmont. More families being inspired by the location seems a good thing. That inspiration for kids can then lead to a greater involvement for them in the future. I liken it to the National Parks. My family goes to lots of national parks. Those locations have I'm sure inspired my kids which I hope will lead to a life long love of these places. On the other hand, when Philmont was a pinnacle location - the trip there made it sacred, special. If increased access detracts from that, is that increased access work the price? While I've not been to Philmont - my 100+ trips to the national parks makes me think that it is worth it. But, I'm not quite sure

I'm sorry you feel this way. I've been fortunate to have served in a bunch of unit and district leadership roles in my time in Scouting. There's a huge need for experienced, knowledgeable Scouters to provide leadership. In fact, most problems I see in Scouting today are due to that lack of such leadership. I'd LOVE to have more experienced Scouters involved in our troop and district taking on roles where their leadership can really make an impact. Honestly, if I see problems in my little corner of Scouting it's often because there are not enough experienced Scouters engaged. (I know this is off topic. Sorry in advance)

I gotta admit. If I were going to PTC for a course, staying in the deluxe tents doesn't sound so bad. Nicer beds, better sheets - sounds good to me.

I've always felt that this is where experienced leadership shines. Those folks don't look at the latest marketing from national to guide their program. They look at the source materials, understand how it works, and then implement a solid program. When new folks show up, those experienced hands are there to provide some guidance. Ideas like Family Scouting provide some new ideas sure - but in those units will never harm the program because those experienced leaders know what needs to get done. I've read enough topics on this forum where packs or troops are facing problems. Many of those problems seem to come result from a lack of leadership from experienced Scouters. It's really a shame too - that's the true value-add of the chartered organization model in the BSA.

I'm not here to defend the BSA. Both my son & I have had plenty of uniforms over the years. Only real problem I've had is the letters did peel off if I ironed them. They went back to embroidered letters and so that doesn't seem to be a problem. Clearly we all want to spend less, get more quality, and have them fit great. That's a no brainier and you'll get no argument from me there. For a $37 shirt and a $40 pair of pants, they seemed to work fine for us.

As does my wife. We're not made of money and most certainly don't want to spend more than we have to. Not in any way to challenge your perspective here. It just feels like I see these uniform threads and everyone says - uniforms are way too expensive. .Yet, when I look at the prices, they are no more expensive than a lot of mid-tier clothing. If the shirt or pants was $60, then yes - I'd say they are expensive. Sure, I'd love to pay $20 for a pair of pants - but since the BSA doesn't have Walmart volume I fear what would happen to the quantity. For something that lasts we a few years and I wear weekly for Scouting (if not more), I don't think I'd want to see the reduced quality from shaving $30 or $40 off the price of the uniform. If the uniform lasts me 3 years, that would net me about a $1 a month in returned savings. I'm fine paying a $1 a month if the uniform lasts me a little longer.

According to Scout math, I think you can argue: (0-0)/0 is the same as: 0/0 Since you can now factor out the common 0's, it's really: 1*(0/0) Since the 0's cancel each other this is really: 1 which is 1. So, according to my Scout math, you get full credit

Uniforms are not really that expensive. Shirt - $37 Pants - $40 Belt - $13 Socks - $8 Patches - about $10 A pair of Levi's Jeans are about $40. A shirt is generally at least $30 these days. I just bought some clothes at Duluth Trading Co. and paid $50 each for pants and a shirt. Sure, these are not Walmart or Target prices - but they are not really all that expensive when you look around at clothes these days.

Thanks for all the conversation today! FWIW - I always welcome the same questions over and over again from parents. I know that seems counterproductive - but every conversation with a parent is yet another opportunity to build a relationship with a family. In my book, talking with parents about what we do and why we do it is a good thing. But - again - I'd go back to my earlier point about cruise directors and communication. If you've got families confused about what is going on, then that says the adults on your team could be communicating more effectively. The answer in my mind isn't point them to a book and saying "read this". Instead, it's one on one conversations with parents to bring them into the pack/troop community. It leaders who get questions and learn what kinds of info is useful to families. That builds relationships. Those relationships turn into friendships and community. This is why at our troop meetings it is very common to have 10-15 parents sitting around having side conversations while the Scouts are off being Scouts. Those parents then turn into Committee members, merit badge counselors, and sometimes ASMs. Those parents then enable the Scoutmaster to better serve the Scouts. In my mind, that's my job as Committee Chair.

Sounds great. BTW - didn't mean to suggest you were not doing these things. It's just that these are things I found helpful. In fact that you're doing them may be why your the CC FWIW - I'm not a big fan of Facebook for Scouting communications. Since Facebook is essentially an "opt in" system, people have to go check it. I find that email in this era to be more like a commercial. People get them on their phones now, see the emails come and and then register they saw something on that topic. One of thing about email that a Troop Committee Member taught me was - one email per subject. If you have 6 things to announce, send 6 emails. People tend to scan email subjects and so are more likely to respond to: "Campout signup deadline tomorrow - Wednesday August 21" than "Pack updates for the week of 8/20" We did look at Scoutbook for emails - but decided to build our own Google group for emails. Google works really well for us. The pack sees about 10-15 emails a month on the Google group. Our troop is at 50-75 a month. While that seems like a lot, we almost never have parents complain about the volume. To go back to the original topic though - I think this is why we don't need things like bylaws. We push out information at a level where parents really understand what is going on and how things work.

Good luck! As a former Pack CC here are some of the things that I think helped us to have a good relationship with parents. 1. think of the CC as the Pack's cruise director. I always felt part of my role was to help parents navigate the process. Never assume parents already know something. Always be ready to explain things. 2. the value of communication. We had a very active pack email list for parents. Something would go out to every family two or three times a week. Announcements about sign ups, service projects, pack meetings, etc... Parents are busy, so I always remembered to send information 3 times. Once well ahead of time. Once when we were ready for parents to start taking action. Once near the event or signup deadline. 3. at pack meetings the CC has one job - to talk with parents. Meet them, get to know them, answer questions.

Why not just have your treasurer publish an update periodically on how your pack does things? Our approach is basically - if you don't cost us money, we don't charge you. If you sign up and then don't show they we'll charge you. If you cancel with plenty of notice so that we can adjust we'll do that. When a new family joins, our treasurer take 2 minutes to give them an overview. What I mildly dislike about bylaws is that they hide the fact that Scouting is an activity run by volunteers. When I was Cubmaster & then Pack CC, I would get questions like "what is the pack policy on buying gear" or "what is that pack policy on cancellation deadlines?" In all of these instances, I'd take a step back and explain that "our" pack is a group of families that have come together for the purposes of providing a Cub Scout program to all of our kids. The cancellation policy is what I wrote above. If you don't cost the pack money, we won't charge you money. The signup deadline for an event is whatever the leader for that event set and communicated. And so on. Every so often someone would complain about now knowing something and we'd deal with it. What it usually meant is that our leaders got better about communicating things. i.e., Families, please remember to sign up for our Camping trip at the Zoo by Sept. 1 so we can submit the payment. If you need to cancel, please do so before that date as once we pay, we won't be able to handle refunds. We could have captured much of the above in a set of pack bylaws. Instead is seemed to work better to simply communicate it like I just did.

Hi @greenreddew, If you were to do a survey of packs around the country, you'll find wide differences in whether packs have handbooks or not. Our pack had one, but only as a getting started tool for new parents. It covered basic questions like what kind of uniform to buy, where's the Scout shop, when are our meetings. It's really for those parents who like to know how things work prior to going to the first meeting. Most of what is covered there a parent would learn in the first meeting or two anyways. Our doesn't have pack bylaws. We're a large pack (70 scouts) with a leadership team of 15-20 people. There are clear delineations of who is responsible for what. When folks are in doubt, they defer up. i.e., if a den leader isn't aware if they should make a decision, they'll ask the Cubmaster. Further, our rules are the rules of the BSA - we really don't add or subtract. For events, we'll usually set clear expectations. i.e., check-in rules for the Pinewood derby. But, those are done as an email sent out at the planning stage of the event. In our world, I cannot fathom how bylaws would help us. So (and I know this isn't the answer you're looking for) I'd first start with a discussion among your leaders about what you are looking to accomplish with bylaws.

Point well made. I wasn't initially a fan of this Eagle project as there is clearly a political motivation here. The minute a Scout gets involved in a process that provides benefit to some and results in expense to others where the choice is made by a political body, the project is by nature political. While this cause seems pretty noble - so to are many others which can be seen as more controversial. Scouting has been through enough turmoil lately that we don't need even more political affiliation. Yet, I agree think Eagle projects could have even more relevance in the community if Scouts were encouraged to raise the bar like this. So, for that matter, I think this is a good example of innovation in an Eagle project.

I read the topic a few times. At that point, I don't see a reason to let tell this person to leave the pack. What I see going on here is a fellow who feels empowered to do what he wants to. In this case, I would encourage you to assert yourself more forcefully. If he starts to counteract what we're saying as CM, simply let the guy talk, thank him for his comment, and then do what you were going to do anyways. Thanks Bob for your comment. Yes, as I was saying the Scouts need to wear their uniform to the flag ceremony. I don't think you have to take the nuclear option here.

I'd think that like anything you have to define the roles for these ASMs. As I see it, an ASM is generally there to provide guidance to the Scouts when needed. They are augmenting the SM's ability/desire to do that him/herself. If you're troop is at a stage where you feel patrols need some support, then naming an ASM to provide that support can work. You just need to be really clear on what patrol method is and how an ASM fits into that. However, what happens way too often is that we give an adult some role without setting expectations for that role. Then, since the adult wants to be helpful, they get too involved. That's the danger here Again, just be really clear on how patrols should work, the role of the PL, and the role of the patrol advisor ASM. In practice though, experience tells me that if done correctly, the patrol adviser ASM won't be terribly busy and he/she will get bored. To use a Cub Scout analogy. I like to think of a patrol leader as the leadership equivalent of a den leader. The ASM is the leadership equivalent of an Assistant Cubmaster (ACM). No pack would ever have an ACM per den - there would simply not be enough to do. If I were in your position, I'd think about tasking the ASMs in a different way. Perhaps one ASM for new scouts, one for ages 12-14, and one for 15-17. That way you've got an ASM thinking about how the troop works for these distinct age ranges. Are the new scouts getting going? Are the younger scouts having fun and learning? Is the troop program staying challenging, fun, and relevant for the older Scouts?

It's an interesting form. For a small project and for an adult, the form seems like overkill. A five page form for 6 scouts to get together and spend a few hours on a service project strikes me as a lot of unnecessary effort. Any reasonably competent adult is going to know how to monitor a bunch of scouts using some light hand tools. These are generally the kinds of questions that adults ask themselves in getting ready. We don't write them down like this, but just about every one of these is something we do ask ourselves. Of course 90% of these questions an adult would generally find not relevant for a small project. But a big project, yeah - we'd think plan for these. However, for a Scout, this form seems like a reasonable workbook. You don't have to do everything, but thinking through just about all of these questions feels like a good exercise for a Scout learning to show leadership on a project like this. Are there site hazards? What's the weather forecast? What tools will you need? Do you need to monitor usage of the tools? Are you providing snacks? Have you planned for breaks? An answer of "not relevant" is a fine answer. The only one I cringed at was the stuff about health forms and permission slips. Unless you're doing something really unusual, permission slips and health forms for helping at an Eagle project are overkill. Isn't the Scout's parent dropping them off enough permission? Isn't the Scout & parent deciding the Scout can dig holes for a few hours a sufficient health check? Are we going to start having health form checks & permission slips for troop meetings too?