Beavah

Yah, it's not da PLC that does that typically, eh? It's da program adults who set the expectation of a summer shutdown. Sometimes it's because the sponsor is a school, and da school facilities aren't available in the summer, so they just don't meet. Sometimes I reckon it's adult burnout, eh? The adults just want the summer free. Sometimes I think it's because a few strong-willed folks on da unit committee don't want the scoutin' calendar interferein' with their personal family vacations. Most of the time, I think it's a carry-over from Cub Scoutin' and from "that's the way we've always done it." But then, I'm a northerner, eh? You southern folks that have to swelter in da summer may have different feelings! Beavah

Yah, I'm with BrentAllen, eh? If I'm meetin' with a committee or COR on a unit leader/assistant unit leader selection, da very first thing I tell 'em is that the current unit leaders (SM and ASMs) absolutely must agree enthusiastically on the appointment. Doin' anything else never has a good outcome. Beavah

Yah, lrsap, I think what you're seein' is true of every method, eh? If yeh look at da discussions on the uniform method here, you'll find that different units and scouter have a range of different interpretations. Everything from military-precision uniforming 100% of da time to pretty relaxed shirts-only or Class B stuff. If yeh look at da discussions on outdoor method here, you'll find units that car/trailer camp 6-8 months out of the year (shuttin' down in the summer), and troops that never car camp in favor of backpacking, canoeing, cycling and whatnot, even during meetings and more than once a month. When yeh look at da discussions of Patrol Method, you'll find same-age patrols, mixed age patrols, patrols that fairly regularly hike and camp without any adults and patrols that have permanent adult coaches assigned. Same with differences in doin' youth leadership; same with differences in how troops do Adult Association and adult trainin'. No surprise that there are differences in how Advancement Method is used across programs. Da Methods are just tools, eh? What tool yeh use and how yeh use it depends on what job your facin' with a group of boys, and on what your own skill with the tool is and what yeh can afford. Scoutmasters who are young and fit and outdoorsy are goin' to make more use of da outdoors method; Scoutreach units are goin' to struggle with it because of costs. All that variety means that if yeh live in an area with multiple troops, yeh can find one that fits your son's needs best, eh? More outdoors, more youth independence? Super. Just be ready to support that as a parent, because it can be tough! More uniformin', more advancement focus? Super. Same deal - that takes your support as a parent, too. I think da right question for a boy is where does he feel comfortable fittin' in, and seem to "click" socially? That's the biggest thing to make a new scout successful. GKlose and Eagle92 are spot on. Kids adapt to whatever advancement system is in place pretty easily. Da right question for you as parent is whether you can support that troop as an adult, eh? Da worst thing for kids and troops is when a new adult becomes one of those problem parents who wants to change everything that the older families support. That'll destroy your son's scoutin' experience as well as other boys'. So think about what you can support for your son in terms of outdoors, and uniforms, and youth leadership, and adult leaders, and patrols, and contact with older boy mentors, and patrol independence, and advancement. For advancement questions, mine would be: How much are you invested in your son's advancement progress? Do yeh expect him to move at a certain pace? Do yeh expect/demand Eagle? If you're heavily invested in your son's advancement, then you won't be happy with a troop that has less advancement focus, or sets higher expectations on learnin' for advancement. When you feel your son is getting behind your desired pace, you'll start harassing the kid and the troop, and that's not a good thing. You need to find a troop that has a lot of advancement focus, and sets da bar a bit lower to allow for rapid progress on your schedule. Alternately, if you are really focused on your son's skill development and development of responsibility, then yeh need a troop that makes advancement contingent on those things. Otherwise you will be very frustrated and unhappy when he or his peers get awards that you fell aren't yet merited by their actions. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Calico, you're goin' a bit over da top here, eh? The troop isn't runnin' in the summer. There's nothin' for the lads to be responsible for. It's not about da procedures and awards. It's about helpin' the kids to learn and grow. Learnin' and growin' takes both time and engagement. If yeh aren't helpin' the kids learn and grow for a full six months but are pretendin' that yeh are on paper, then yeh aren't followin' the program no matter how yeh cut it. If yeh are helpin' the lads learn and grow and be responsible for a full six months, however yeh split it up, then you're doin' just fine. Though I don't personally care for it, lots of troops suspend operations in da summer, and pick up with a new PLC in the fall. It works for them, and it's not at all against the rules or contrary to da program materials.* Not everything in da life of a troop has to turn around getting boys cloth patches in da minimum amount of chronological time. And I reckon that a 17.9 year old in any troop like this has known the expectations for about 7 years, eh? Beavah * I hear tell that one exception is units chartered to Catholic COs. Their national organization either recommends or requires a year-round program. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, I don't think it's about requirements. "Culture" means it's about da community's unwritten expectations, eh? Kinda along the lines of what BrentAllen describes. It's adults who say, "Hey, I wish I knew a bit more about..." and then go out and find out more. They decide to take a WFA course, and invite other adults along, and come back and talk about it and use it and let other adults see how it affects the kids so that they want to do it, too. B

Don't think it should be an issue, Frank17. Yeh essentially are removing everyone from their POR for the summer months, so the clock stops when you say it does. Now, there are quite a few troops out there that don't shut down for da summer, eh? Especially since yeh live in northern a northern clime, seems like just a cryin' shame not to be actively scouting in the summer months. Especially these days when da economic situation is such that families are less likely to be takin' big vacations and kids are more likely to be sittin' around da house playin' video games. Might be worth talkin' to your boys about whether they might want to run a summer program. Yeh might even find out that's when they have da most time to be good, responsible, active leaders and participants. Beavah

Yah, I'm with TwoCubDad and LisaBob, eh? I would add one thing to da conversation. Admit your own fault as adults. That's a good example to the boys, and sets the right tone. "Yeah, John, we let you down by not really giving you a good job description and the training to do your job well, and by not catchin' it. That's our fault. We think you've got a lot of talent and we really want you to have a chance to do really well in the job of XXX. We think the troop really needs that, and you can be our guy. So we'll do better this time, but we want you to be the lead guy in making Star/Life etc. something really outstanding." A boy scout troop isn't adult-run, eh? It's a partnership with the boys. Be honest, and be a good partner, and the lads' sense of fairness and adventure will do the rest for yeh. Unless yeh want to teach 'em that character and citizenship are to follow da "rules" to the minimum possible standard, eh? That's a lesson yeh can also choose to teach. Beavah

Hi scouter6, welcome to da forums! When someone tells me about older boys fadin' out in participation, da first thing I always think is that they need to look at how they use patrol method and youth leadership. I think it's partly a myth that older fellows need some glitzy high adventure guided tour, eh? What most teens are lookin' for is to be trusted, to be recognized as competent, and to be put in charge. They're lookin' to begin their move to adulthood, so da troops that treat 'em as real leaders - the ones that treat 'em like adults - they get their older boys as full out active participants. So I'd say first step is to take a real good look at how you're doin' youth leadership, and whether yeh have too many adults in the way. Things like what gwd describes, eh? Do your patrols hike and camp alone, without adults? Are the "Awesome" boys treated like that, and do they really run the outing for the younger fellows? Now, if part of what you're sayin' is that the troop program is a bit stale (goin' to the same place doin' the same thing every year), then I think as adults if you want to improve that you have to drop some seeds in the soil, eh? Boys are a fairly conservative lot, they usually don't have enough experience or know-how to do somethin' new from scratch without having seen it before, so they fall back on the tried-and-true as a default. There are all kinds of ways to drop seeds, eh? Bring a few proposed plans/brochures of new stuff to the next PLC or Annual Planning session. Better yet, talk up a few options with boys on da car ride to a campout, and give them da brochures so they're thinkin' about it before a PLC or annual planning meetin'. Better yet, take a small group of older "Awesome Patrol" fellows off on their own special weekend to explore a new activity or location. Once they see and do something themselves, they have a vision of it, eh? And they're no longer afraid that they might not succeed. Then they can plan the event for da rest of the troop, and get that special feelin' of being the cool-guys-in-the-know. Beavah

Yah, there's no way to really tell that, skeptic. In order to bring a suit, da person has to have standing. Sometimes, in advocacy lawyering, an advocacy firm will spend a fair bit of time and money looking for da best person(s) they can and actually solicit 'em to become the principle parties to da action. At the same time, they'll often at least take a look at a case that comes to them lookin' for help. But they'll only take da cases that they're really interested in, with plaintiffs that make their advocacy compelling to da courts and to their donors. You will also find the occasional person who is really ticked off and brings action themselves, most often because they are an attorney. Like that fellow in California who brought the case to overturn da BSA's trademarks. Yeh can recognize these cases because they're usually dumb and very poorly argued (much like that one was). The whole bit about a lawyer representing himself havin' a fool for a client. When it comes to suits against private parties, I'm really not fond of da advocacy firms. Abuse of da system, IMO. When it comes to cases against the government, da advocacy firms have a role to play, eh? They keep the government honest, and in their own way protect our liberties. Now, not all of 'em do that well or wisely. And often they try to manipulate things through da judicial system which really belong in the legislature as a lobbying issue, or in da executive as a regulatory matter. But as a group, they are important, and serve a real function. When you're gettin' hot and bothered about da ACLU, remember da NRA (and vice versa). Beavah

Yah, one of da funny things about scoutin' is that it's so very hard to imagine da different circumstances that other scouters are dealin' with. Unit leaders that run what they feel are successful units all seem to expect that they can pick their methods up and transport 'em anywhere. Just doesn't work. Doesn't work because other adults are different, and don't think of things da same way. Some don't have the right personality or experiences to do things the same way you do. Doesn't work because other kids are different. Yeh may think yeh know all about kids, but if you've been workin' in only a couple units in one or two communities you're foolin' yourself. You'd find that if you moved to a truly different community you'd have to change da way you do things or you wouldn't be successful. Doesn't work because families and COs and communities are different, and don't think of things da same way. Some provide opportunities for lads to earn money; others don't because those jobs are bein' done by adults who are tryin' to eek out a living. I'm always really glad when I hear folks who are proud of their units' success. I share in their pride, and applaud their efforts. But when they get to da whole bit about how everybody can/should do it their way because of their success, I just smile quietly. It just doesn't work that way, eh? If it was really that easy, we would have done it long ago. Mostly, I've found da fellows that are successful with units in one area fail when they try to lead units in another. Anyone who's spent any time with Scoutreach knows what I'm talkin' about. Heck, yeh can even point to da many great Cubmasters who make lousy Scoutmasters. And da few fellows who are real saints and so deeply kid-focused that they succeed in multiple places change their methods a lot. They adapt what they do to da circumstances where they're serving, rather than hold on to one approach. Different kids, different leaders, different communities are just different. In each, yeh have to make choices about how to use your limited resources - time, energy, and dollars - to do the best yeh can. And da right answer is different in different places and for different people. And for different times. Beavah

Sometimes it can and is done backwards. Yah, more than sometimes, eh? I reckon that it gets done "backwards" most of the time. AlFansome, it seems like yeh answered your own question. Da pack seems like a good fit for your CO in terms of its mission and geographic scope. Goin' up to 3 packs, one in each of your towns, and perhaps eventually 3 troops, would make for a really nice tie in with your mission, make for da possibility of some nice connections between your members and the units in each town, and fit well with da structure of your other youth work. Some nice synergies there, eh? And even da possibility of a really fun "Kiwanis Kampout" with all your units once a year. Now, da thing to really watch out for is that you are assumin' responsibility for the actions of this group of adults that you've not really met. That's not somethin' to do lightly. And since you're an active COR, I think yeh also owe it to them to sit with 'em and express your vision and expectations. How yeh set the thing up can avoid some conflict down the road, eh? Yeh might even want to "tweak" leadership assignments in the short run. Make sure they know at the beginnin' that this is a real partnership, and that you're goin' to act like a real CO. Then I'd say go for it. And give your Club an attaboy from us for their work on behalf of Scouting and da youth of America. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I'm with BrentAllen here, eh? A whole lot of what's been written in this thread I don't even recognize as the Scouting program. It certainly seems to have very little to do with teaching boys character. Here we have a young fellow who either didn't show much responsibility for his position of responsibility, or perhaps he was in one of these "make believe" PORs where da troop program doesn't really offer the opportunity to show real responsibility because that position isn't really used. Either way, the boy didn't learn what he needed to at this stage in his scoutin' career. No problem, no stress, he just keeps workin' at it, and so does the troop. Not making rank is like not clearin' a level in a video game, eh? The fun and the game just continue. It's only adults who really don't understand scouting that get all steamed up about "passing" and "failing" and trying to turn a game into some exercise in pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo. Wens, from my perspective, your committee members on da BOR did their job, eh? They reviewed the lad in light of what they and the CO want to accomplish with Scouting, and in light of the BSA's goals and expectations, and are telling the lad "nope, not yet." At the same time, they are reviewing the program, and are telling the Scoutmaster and others "Hey, we have to work harder on this. We let this fellow down, and we should do better." Both are exactly right. If da SM gets in a twit about that, then I reckon it's time to find a new SM. Like TwoCubDad, I would accept his resignation. Scoutin' is a collaborative endeavor, and the SM ain't the king. And quite frankly, it doesn't sound like the fellow you have really has the vision and the spunk to make a scouting program hum. Bein' lax in evaluating PORs often means a program is lax in a number of other important areas. And as Eagle92 points out, da committee ain't helpin' by being lax about BOR dates either, eh? It ain't a race. There's a big difference between doing what's right for kids and giving boys awards, eh? And a big difference between feelin' boys are owed awards and feelin' boys earn awards. In good scoutin', boys really learn skills and responsibility, and after they really learn it they get tested and evaluated for real, and after they get tested and evaluated for real they get reviewed to make sure that they really have learned and grown, and only after all that does a boy get recognized with an award, eh? That's the scoutin' method. And if it's done right, everyone has already "recognized" this fellow as a Life Scout (especially his peers!) before he ever gets da patch. They see it in his skills and behavior. Sounds like your program isn't there yet. That's somethin' to be fixed. Hold the line with the boy, because you owe it to him. Yeh promised to deliver the promise of scoutin' in terms of his personal growth, and yeh haven't done that yet. And hold the line with your adults and program, and make sure yeh make the changes to give the lad the scoutin' experience he deserves. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I love it when a bunch of political hacks from one party or another try to witch-hunt up random text from a huge bill in order to get others to froth at the mouth. There's so much just-plain-crap flyin' around that da average citizen is likely just to favor their party's proclivities rather than become truly informed on da bill. I think yeh all need to take the time to read the thing. Congress too. But it's good to start with some different legislative analyses like http://opencrs.com (search for HR 3200 to find several good expositions of provisions) http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/399/hsr-hr3200-faqs.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/publications/past90days.cfm Those help get yeh the lay of the land. I'm only about a quarter of the way through the beast. My view so far is that it's not terrible. While there are some things that aren't perfect or may have potential pitfalls, I also am not an expert in this field. So far, from what I've read, I'm cautiously OK with it. Any legislation this size with this many lobbyist vultures hanging around is going to have some good, some bad, and some nutty stuff in it, eh? Just look at da nonsense that gets tacked on to war funding bills. But it ain't terrible, and the fact it's gettin' a lot of scrutiny is helpin' to keep some of the nutty stuff under control. My loose thought so far is that it doesn't do enough to relieve American businesses and manufacturing of the health care costs that are crippling our industry in da worldwide competitive marketplace. Wish da Republicans would get on about that rather than bein' the "party of No." All the "gotta keep employer coverage" folks are forgettin' about that aspect. Yeh don't get to keep your employer coverage when your employer goes under or cuts it, eh? And losin' more American businesses and jobs hurts us in da long run quite probably hurts us more than a public option for health care. Da bill in places is appropriately cautious, givin' staged implementation and the like so that things can be adjusted down the road as we gain experience with the system. So not terrible. So far. But I challenge yeh all to actually read the thing or at least hunt up the (relatively) non-partisan analysis rather than buyin' into the idiot blather that's goin' around on both sides of the issue. Beavah

I would grade him maybe a solid D or a D-. He's a A+ student in school. Yah, I'm a funny fellow, eh? I think it's OK to expect people to live up to their God-given gifts and talents. I am happy to celebrate da character and spirit of a lad who struggles with a disability and works his tail off to eek out an Eagle award at the bare minimums. He's achieved our goal of character. I won't celebrate a fellow like Stosh describes who is given an Eagle award by virtue of checking off boxes. That boy hasn't yet learned real character. He's a sign that Scouting has failed. So if yeh don't want scouting to be a failure, yeh have to say "no" and keep workin' with the lad. Because our goal is not to make Eagles. Our goal is to make men of character. Stosh, da Scoutmaster's signature on the application and da Scoutmaster's recommendation are part of requirement two, eh? For an Eagle Scout, scouting has been a very big, important part of the boy's "everyday life", and the Scoutmaster more than most adults knows what living the Oath and Law should look like. The decision is ultimately the EBOR's if the lad chooses to appeal. It's still your role and your job to recommend (or not) the boy based on his Scout Spirit/character as you have seen and assessed it. That is how the system is supposed to work. Because you're da fellow we entrusted to teach him character, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, we Americans are funny fellows sometimes, eh? By and large, informal uniform wear is the way of the world in Scouting. Most scout associations in most countries have a much less formal uniform than us (often only a shirt), and generally one better suited for the field. In fact, in many cases the only uniform in practice for many scouts worldwide is wearin' the (properly sized, not U.S.-style) necker. It's funny that that's a uniform part we made optional. Of course you'll see decent uniforms on da few scouts selected to participate in some international event or show or such (except in Germany, where da notion of kids in brown shirts is still mostly taboo ). Just like we dress boys up for Jambo or COHs and such. The exception, of course, is scouts from nations that are dictatorships or movements that are militaristic (like Hamas scouts in Lebanon). Those are da kinds of scouting programs that emphasize strict uniformin' military-style. I think the American trend reflects that international truism, eh? Our boys and families consciously or subconsciously choose da sort of uniformin' that corresponds to the scoutin' they want to be associated with. OGE's right, da world is just less formal than it was. It's really only in troops associated with da military or ex-military leaders that yeh tend to see really strict uniformin' in da U.S. Sometimes that really works well, and there's real esprit de corps and some fun with it, eh? But I gotta be honest, sometimes it's just fellows that make better drill sergeants than youth leaders. As a commish, I've seen my share of lousy, full-uniformed units where the other methods were misunderstood or neglected in da quest for spit-and-polish. Too much adult ego gets wrapped up in da uniform sometimes. So I tend to take 'em as they come. I'm just happy if the lads feel a strong enough identity with Scouting to be willin' to wear scouting paraphernalia of any sort (dare I say "tags"?) in public, which is the sort of esprit de corps the uniform method envisions. Lots of "full uniform" troops don't ever get there, but some "Class B" troops do. Do I wish it were better? Yah. But that's probably a sign that I'm just an old fellow who might have appeared in one of da movies OGE mentioned. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, da previous thread got to comparin' the Eagle Rank to a High School Diploma. A boy gets his handbook, then sets about fillin' da requirements. So long as he gets da requirements filled at the bare minimum (often by findin' the easiest way to get the credits, like summer school or summer/badge camp instead of the "regular" process) or at least gets the signature of a teacher/scouter who doesn't care very much, he gets to graduate. High school graduates get to wear uniforms and stand in a procession with 500 other boys and girls to get their name mentioned briefly. Another way of thinkin' about Eagle is that it's more like earning an award or getting inducted into the National Honor Society. To do those things, there are guidelines, but also some subjective evaluation. Yeh have to do significantly more than the minimum, do service in and outside the school, get strong recommendations from a number of trusted people. We celebrate graduation awards and NHS by makin' a bigger fuss and ceremony, and talk about how only a small percentage of kids get so recognized and how great an example they are. So which one is Eagle? Our Court of Honor ceremonies say "someone special, well above the minimums". Da way some folks view the requirements, though, it's more like doin' the minimum to graduate by reluctantly draggin' your tail across da finish line to make your mom stop nagging. What says the group? Is Eagle a Diploma/Certificate of Completion or an Award? Beavah

Yah, I think da YP issue is like arguin' about angels dancing on pinheads, eh? In da real world, those 18-21 year olds are adults. There just is no youth protection issue. Da hairsplitting over the Venturing stuff is objectively ridiculous from a risk management and youth protection point of view. I'm more amused by da other stuff. Combinin' the diversity bit makes sense, but the whole generational thing I've always considered mostly myth and completely unhelpful when it comes to workin' with individuals. Can't wait to see what da BSA generates about modern communications and social networking, though Beavah

Even as you read this, some where the surgeon who just did enough to graduate from his Surgery Residency is scheduled to do surgery Yah, I'm not really sure how medicine works, eh? But I can speak to some other professions, and generally speakin' graduatin' at the minimums leaves you unemployed. Yeh need the strong recommendations of those who were supervisin' you in order to land any position. If yeh don't have that, yeh have to look for lower-grade internships, post-docs, or temp positions until yeh build up your skills and commitment and get those stronger recommendations. I do agree with da sentiment, though. We should be settin' the bar high enough in scouting that an Eagle who meets our bare minimums is a lad to be proud of who will inspire our other youth and be a strong representative of da program. If we haven't set da bar that high, then it's our fault, and we need to address that. Good luck with it jblake. You know the lad and all the players. Do what you think is right for the boy and your program. Beavah

Yah, CNYScouter, I reckon all and sundry can debate the particulars of various national guidebooks vs. individual council practice all day, eh? I'd offer two thoughts. 1. This is your son's problem, not yours. If you take da problem away from him or tell him how to solve it, I hope yeh have room on your jacket for an Eagle Scout medal, because you should be the one wearin' it, eh? Either he'll earn Eagle or he won't; either way you should be proud and supportive. 2. Most of da letters I've seen over the years were written and delivered in less than two weeks, so I honestly don't think there's any problem here at all if your son communicates well. School officials tend to be da slowest, but if he asks a teacher or counselor who's already written a college rec for him it should be quick, eh? I now return yeh to the regular banter of book quoting and folks who will call your local youth volunteers jerks. Beavah

Yah, sometimes I wish that da chapter on adult leaders in the Troop Committee Guidebook began with a big "If you appoint someone to an ASM / senior committee position in their first year in the program you are a complete idiot." Takes time to deprogram 'em from Cub Scouting at least. And some of 'em never get it. Causes troops no end of grief. I think what yeh have, dewASM, is a fellow who probably isn't ready for da ASM job. To be honest, takin' the lad away from the buddy system is a bigger issue in my book, because that's somethin' we're trying to teach the boys. He should have been with a youth buddy. In the big world of youth protection violations, this is a small one, and fairly innocent. I'd typically mention it offhandedly in a "What would you do if the lad made an accusation?" sort of way to get the point across. Of course if they were gone for hours and no one could find 'em, that's a different matter, which merits a stronger response. But your real issue is that yeh have a fellow in an ASM position who isn't ready for it, eh? That's a situation that has to be addressed, but handled with a lot of courtesy and finesse. Often it works best to promote 'em out of the way. "Joe, we appreciate your work as ASM, but we really need someone to take over as Advancement Chair". Unless of course he's a fellow who just doesn't work and play well with others, in which case yeh need a task he can really do on his own. Hope that helps a bit, anyways. If yeh share more info, maybe we can give more targeted advice. Beavah

By NOT letting them go you are violating YP, plus everyone has the right to see and witness the program. Yah, I reckon this would be a misunderstanding of YP. Certainly not "everyone" has a "right" to see and witness da program. We're a private organization, eh? And as we all know from Citizenship in da Nation, a "right" is a constitutional limit on the authority and power of government, not on private entities. We can and indeed must restrict parent access in all kinds of ways. We do not allow non-swimmer parents to participate in water activities. This year, we will not be letting obese parents participate in remote adventures. Plenty of units everywhere end up restricting parent access because of (poor) parent behavior. Sometimes Youth Protection means protectin' kids from other boys parents. Lots of units find it prudent to require background checks on parents who are out campin' with them. Some religious units don't allow women/moms to participate in their young mens' programs, and that's OK with us, too. If the parents aren't willing to accept da restrictions, they can always keep the boy home, eh? But if they want other people to provide program for their kid for the weekend, then they have to live with da rules set up by those other people. Same as school or anything else in life. Now, within' scoutin' we can always discuss with each other whether certain restrictions are justified or prudent, eh? Beavah

My question is, if I do not recommend this scout at the present time, will he be able to reapply again when he gets his act together? Or do I sit on the recommendation because he can apply only once? Yah, he can apply more than once. How yeh proceed just depends on how yeh feel this lad and the other boys in the troop will learn the most, eh? Yeh can sit on it, and tell him why. That can be a nice informal way to go. If yeh want to be more formal, you can say "no", and tell him what the appeal process is. If yeh want to be still more firm and formal, yeh can suspend him or give him the boot. I'm sorta with TwoCubDad, eh? I'm not quite sure the lad needs to be nailed to the wall on this. Perhaps tacked to the wall. From afar, it sort of feels like this boy has been gettin' under your skin for a while. This particular incident seems like it was more like da stone that caused the avalanche in your mind. Problem is, when stones (even big ones!) cause avalanches it's usually because we've allowed big rock piles to build up that we shouldn't have. Regardless of how yeh proceed with this lad, I think yeh need to readjust your notion of "just enough to get by". Just enough to get by should still be something that you and your program are proud of, not somethin' that you're disappointed with. Yeh have to do what you think is right, but I'd begin by takin' responsibility for your part of the rock pile. That stone that started da avalanche needs to be dealt with, too, of course. But in the end it's only one stone. I'd think to myself "how much can I reasonably expect this lad to grow in the time left?" Do what it takes to get to that standard of reasonable character growth for the boy, even if it isn't the final outcome you'd hope for him. Then readjust your program so that yeh get to that final outcome yeh want for boys like him in da future. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, I wouldn't like to see us create a 10-14 program LDS-style on a national basis. I generally think da whole age-stratified thing is wrongheaded, but that would be the worst. Havin' watched for a lot of years, I think it's safe to say that most adults just aren't very good at workin' with large groups of middle school boys. Good middle school teachers are a rare breed, and scouters who are good at that age range without da additional influence of older, high-school fellows are as rare. When they exist it's great, but that can't be relied on. I reckon there is a big switch that turns on in boys' brains around adolescence, which for most boys happens durin' 6th grade. Younger than that their aspirations are big, but they aren't always ready for disappointment. Yeh get homesickness and tears and such. They still need babysitting. Goin' younger with crossover may seem like an easy, cheap way of retaining those boys, but at best what it will do is cost yeh older boys as you have to change programs to accommodate the needs of the younger fellows. I've seen plenty of troops that succeed at keepin' da interest of the 12-17+ year olds, but by and large they do it the way Eagledad sometimes describes - by makin' the leadership roles and advancement challenges truly worthy of high school fellows, and placin' a high value on service. The age-stratified patrols and the advancement-mill programs don't pull that off as well. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... I usually don't get surprised by stuff, but this one surprised me. Do yeh know which subcommittee this originated in emb? It'd be nice to know who da folks were and what they were thinkin'. Founder help me! I'm startin' to agree more and more with Kudu. The notion of generic trainin' just rubs me the wrong way. Cub Scoutin' is fundamentally different than Boy Scouting, and both are fundamentally different from Venturing and Sea Scouting. Heck, I don't even care for mixin' up Varsity Scouting with Boy Scouting. Da notion that yeh can do one training which covers the lot of 'em is just drunken cow-tipping, whether we're talkin' WB21C or NYLT. It's like GM decidin' it only needs to build one car to meet the needs of all da families in the U.S. Nouveau "automobile management theory". That little area in Texas keeps driftin' farther and farther from reality no matter what we seem to do sometimes. Beavah

I resigned as SM this past February. I didn't want to deal with the parents anymore. When their boys mess up big time, their parents backed them up, and not our/their program. I couldn't believe it, and how ungrateful the parents and Scouts had become. Done with it. Yah, I was sorry to read sst3rd's quote here in da previous thread. I think sometimes a SM's increasing lack of patience with this sort of thing is a sign that it's time to take a break from the position for a while. Switchin' back to ASM and refreshin' your mind and heart by workin' with the kids and not da parents can be a good thing, and I hope sst3rd does just that. But I am an old fellow, and I have to say that I think he's got a point, eh? Over da decades, there really does seem to be a gradual erosion of courtesy on the part of parents. Had one SM of a local 60-boy troop (who is gettin' to sst3rd's point) tell me recently that he has one family in the whole lot that ever bothers to say "Thank You." Just one, despite takin' off work (sometimes without pay) to provide at least one 2-week high adventure per year, 1-2 weeks of summer camp, and a full program. Plus I know the fellow well enough to know his under-da-table monetary donation to his program goes well into the four figures each year, and he really ain't well off. Just seems like I remember more folks sayin' thank you in decades past. Helped another SM this spring with a local businessman parent who was demanding this, that, and the other special treatment for his son, and blowin' a gasket over da troop's response to the lad's petty theft from the car of another adult in da troop. Yah, we had little league parents and such way back when, but it just seems like da notion of respectin' the coach/teacher/SM/referee who has to make a hard call ain't what it once was. I know if I had ever been suspected of petty theft my dear old dad wouldn't have been takin' my side against the world, eh? He'd have been representing The People in da case of The People v. Little Beavah, and da Geneva Conventions would not apply. Am I just gettin' old and muddled, rememberin' da halcyon days of yore through rose-colored spectacles? Or has there really been a shift in da behavior and attitudes of parents which is burnin' out lots of good youth volunteers before their time? Beavah