Beavah

Graduated driving privileges save a significant number of young lives by reducing teen crash fatalities--ranging from 11 to 32 percent for novice drivers in states implementing them according to insurance industry studies. We're not talking about a single life nor are we talking about liberties here at all. Nah, let's get back to the point, eh? Restricting male drivers of all ages would save a significant number of lives. Many, many! According to all kinds of professional studies. Restricting driving to only those adults with a college degree, or limiting the driving privileges of those adults who don't have a college degree would save a significant number of lives. Many, many. According to all kinds of insurance industry and professional studies. You're outlinin' only one half of the argument - benefits. Almost every dumb idea on the planet has some benefits. But in order to make a case, yeh also have to look at costs. Economic costs, costs to families who aren't well-off suburbanites, costs to liberty and whether we want to set precedents of restricting individuals because the demographic group they are a part of shows a moderately higher risk in some area. That's a scary precedent, eh? Cause I guarantee you that each of us is part of a demographic group that has higher risks than others in some area. Beavah

If a scout in not advancing then he is not accomplishing the goals of scouting. Nah, that's backwards too, eh? If a scout is not accomplishing the goals of scouting he should not be advancing is the way to think about it, not vice versa. Advancement is just a tool we use to achieve the goals. It ain't the goals. Otherwise just by handin' out patches we can pretend we're achieving the goals. There's lots of ways to achieve the goals of Scouting... at least seven more that are listed, eh? . A lad can get to character, fitness, and citizenship by seeking recognition and challenge through the advancement program. A lad can get to character, fitness, and citizenship through proper use of the outdoor program, a lad can get to character, fitness, and citizenship through adult association and youth leadership and especially patrol method. And all kinds of combinations of the above. Even uniformin' can contribute . Any of us who have been doin' this Scoutin' stuff for a while have known plenty of kids who didn't really care about advancement, but were great examples of kids for whom Scouting achieved its Aims. In fact, there's so many of 'em that there's a whole BSA program where advancement ain't a method at all. Advancement is one tool we have to achieve the aims. It should never be the sole assessment of whether "a boy is accomplishing the goals of scouting." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

We've got all these old threads poppin' up like Lazarus around here! Shouldn't the unit have a program plan to support the Scout Handbook? Nah, that's exactly backwards, eh? The Scout Handbook is a resource to support the unit program, not vice versa. I think Bob's got the right of it, in spirit. The key is caring about the kids, and giving them a lot. Certainly movin' fairly quickly to give 'em the skills they need to do well outdoors, and then start 'em on the skills they need to start givin' back and supporting each other. I think what we're frequently faced with is the law of unintended consequences. When yeh have an image of gettin' kids what they need to have fun and be successful and then codify it, all sorts of odd stuff starts to happen. Some folks say every boy must make FCFY, that's what defines a good troop. So they become a class-lecture-and-badge-mill. Some folks say we have to offer boys the opportunity to meet all the T21 requirements, then use that to trump youth leadership, and patrol method, and outdoors method, and the principle of boys workin' at their own pace and the most important one of all... FUN. Some parents start pushin' their kid with threats of grounding and whatnot to make FCFY, because that's what's expected, even if Joey were better off just havin' a good time fishing and hiking with his friends without the pressure, until he matured a bit and made advancement his thing. and on and on... For that reason, it's probably better to talk about the actual goals (kid learning and fun and kids sticking around), rather than the made-up ones (FCFY). Beavah

Yah, Catmechanic, welcome to da forums! And a Scout Salute to yeh for takin' on the hard work of starting a new troop. I think you need to approach this with a long-term view. Five years from now, what do you want to see? How big a troop, what kind of structure, what kind of youth leadership? Now take 1/5 of that, eh? That's all the farther to aim in your first year. When yeh first start something as a brand-new novice, do yeh expect to be thrust into a leadership position? Probably not. You do expect to learn what your job is, to be taught skills you will use every day, to have fun, to contribute to the group, to work hard and master some things, and get some recognition for it. I think in your first year, if kids master some skills, develop a few beginnings of "tradition", and most importantly develop a friendly, supportive, "go for it" culture, you're doin' great. Year two, you'll be getting some more new fellows in. Now, if you've done your job in year one, those old guys will be knowledgeable and "cool". You'll have made 'em natural leaders and teachers. That means a lot of hard work in year one... learning, practicing, facing challenges, having fun, being trusted with cooking and some navigating and keepin' track of their buddy and thinkin' about safety. But it's really neat when kids who have learned that stuff now have younger ones watching 'em. Year three, another new bunch of young guys for the 2nd year guys to help, while your experienced 3rd year scouts are startin' to come up with ideas of their own and to step forward into more responsible leadership positions. Fumblin' and bumblin' a bit. Great ideas, but not great planning or follow-through just yet. But you're movin' toward a real PLC, just with a bit more adult background support. Year four, another bunch of new guys. Now the experienced guys have some 3rd year veterans to help take some of the load. Some of the leadership and planning becomes real. They start bringin' real plans of their own in, plus experiences from OA and NYLT and maybe a council Philmont trip. Some kids find strengths in themselves and take responsibility for different things. By year five, you've got a real PLC and a regular, full-out, patrol-method, youth-run program. Now you're lookin' to keep getting better, to add high adventure and more service and such. You're lookin' at your first set of Eagle Scouts comin' down the pike. Lots of work and lots of fun ahead for yeh, mate! There'll be times you want to quit. Write your resignation letter, stick in the drawer for at least a month or two. You'll find you just keep goin'. There's always a new challenge, and a new bunch of kids. Look at these forums, and the Scouts-L archives, and other on-line places where real, honest-to-goodness successful scouters share their insights. Steal any idea that makes sense, let the others stew in the back of your mind... you'll find some that only start to click down the road. Make friends in your district, and find a couple of successful troops to buddy up with for when you need help. Take training, but more importantly learn everything yeh can. Welcome to a great adventure! Beavah

Yah, MarkS, yeh miss the point, eh? Yeh can always find some reason to restrict the liberty of "those people." There's always gonna be some study in support of it. Real data even. Males are more likely to be involved in car crashes than females. Are we ready to prohibit men from driving, or put extra restrictions on men? People with higher levels of education are substantially less likely to be in accidents. Are we ready to deny driving licenses to anyone who doesn't have a college degree? Dare I mention the differences in driving accident rates on a per-mile basis by race? Are we ready to deny individuals liberty based on a higher statistical risk for groups? Driving is a privilege, eh? If we can save one life, isn't that worth it? IMO, that's a very, very scary road to take the nation down. Even scarier that folks don't recognize it. I'm all for parents makin' decisions about their own kid. I sure did. Parents have first-hand knowledge and judgment of their child. But when it's the government making a decision for a group of people as a class? Count me among the opposition almost all of the time. Yah, I wonder how many teens are likely to die in Illinois as a result of this policy, eh? Most young people who get in trouble or screw up aren't all that likely to call an adult. Dat's the reason for the peer-driven programs. Beavah

Yah, I think da question that anybody should ask before imposin' new restrictions on another group is "would it be OK if they did it to me?". Have another baby boom, perhaps from expanded "legal" immigration, to move the votin' strength back to young folks. Are you ready for them to impose driving restrictions on anyone over 65? We're talking seniors here. People who are no longer contributing to their own welfare but are being paid for with our social security and Medicare taxes. People who have clearly diminished reaction time and multitasking ability, plus much higher risk of health-related driving complications. People responsible for tens of thousands of accidents a year. Scary stuff, eh? Seems to me as parents we should be able to manage settin' rules for our own kids without needing the state to do it for us. Can't see as it's my business to set rules for somebody else's kids. Know plenty of teens who do their homework early, then help in the family business in the late evening, trying to keep the family afloat or save money for college. We're gonna tell 'em they can't do that, because old folks are prejudiced and think such a lad drivin' home at night is more worth restricting than a bar-hopping adult? Or some parent can't be bothered to set a restriction on their own kid and wants the government to do it instead? Just feels...ugly, and unAmerican. B

Yah, in my experience this is highly dependent on organization. The VFW, Catholics, LDS, and some individual protestant parishes are the most likely to provide some kind of direct support for the units, in part because they are more likely to do the charter relationship right and think of Scouting as "their own program." Smaller town CO's are also a bit more likely to support units directly, I think. I've seen churches in small downs give the troop a whole house as their "permanent headquarters." Really depends on the units keepin' up the charter relationship and mutual goodwill. When that's strong and runnin' right, there can be some really amazing synergy. Beavah

We have had a similar law in place in MA. for several years now and it had signgicantly cut down on the number of teenage driving fatalities. Yeh could cut down a lot more on teenage driving fatalities if yeh just prohibited anyone under 21 from driving at all. Fact is, folks over 40 slowly lose their ability to multi-task, their reaction time slows, and their visual acuity slowly declines. I can attest to that . We could reduce fatalities by placin' gradually increasing restrictions on us. I'm very, very wary of any "safety" law that specifically targets one segment of the population just because they don't have the demographic/voting strength to oppose it. Doesn't matter whether it's age or race or gender or creed or someone who really enjoys an odd hobby like flying airplanes or shooting guns. Seems... dirty. Contrary to American values. Beavah

Yah, part of our Scoutin' ministry often is ministering to da parents, eh? I've certainly known plenty of dads like Ohio_Scouter; guys who worked construction and were sometimes gone from their family for months. Those have a different attitude. They're apologetic and supportive, and almost never a problem. They're grateful, and if they can help or you need something short-term, they move mountains. I agree with Calico. This guy is perhaps more a "sad, little man." But yeh don't know. Financial stresses, family tensions, care of an ill relative, etc. can really impact people and make 'em into people they would never want to be. Yeh say he's a Sunday School teacher? Is the church your CO? I'd consider callin' up the COR or IH or youth ministry director, and lettin' him/her know that there's tension in that family, and there might be an opportunity to reach out. You probably can't do that as SM, eh? It's too much high-stakes poker. But a well-respected pastor/rabbi/imam can. In the meantime, may the Great Master of all Scouts be with you for da care of His Children. Beavah

Yah, da question is whether the generation-war-on-kids puttin' more restrictions on youth drivers has any merit in the first place. Accident rate for folks over 70 is pretty darn high, eh? When are we gonna start seein' restrictions on night driving? Fact is, there are lots and lots of teens who are better drivers than many adults. Somethin' over 90% of the DUI fatalities are caused by adults. Anybody who's ever worked EMS in an area can tell yeh when the bars get out on the weekends. Puttin' an adult driving curfew on would save a heck of a lot more lives than one for teens. And if we can save just one life... well, than any restriction on liberty is worth it. I'm reminded of the old yarn "they came for the young people, but I was not a young person, so I did nothing... and then they came for me." B

Anyway, I've been to adult-run and youth-run COH's. Seen youth make mistakes and fumble through things some. Seen adults make mistakes and drone on some. Both can work just fine. Good adult ones are crisp and flashy. Good youth ones make me smile. To be honest, though, I can't really recall a by-the-book one that is run by the Committee rather than the SM. Da conflict between the Advancement Requirements and the SM Handbook is a funny one, but there's a lot of those, eh? That's why we have youth and adult leaders to make decisions. Beavah P.S. Anybody know what's up with da Edit Message function? Ain't workin' for me at the moment.

Yah, yeh know, I was lookin' up somethin' else for that other thread and I found this in the Scoutmaster's Handbook: All Scouts who have moved up to any rank except Eagle Scout, or who have earned merit badges since the last Court of Honor, should be recognized [at a troop court of honor] So "by the book," the Scoutmaster should not be recognizing an Eagle Scout at a regular troop Court of Honor. There's your answer Bear12. SM was following the manual and his training. No point in being upset with that. Beavah

Interestin' thread. As I watch things, sometimes adults who aren't great at details get the Advancement Chair job. Poor choice, eh? That's a job that needs somebody who is a detail monster, who would fall down and die of shame if a boy got missed. Kids are often better at it. Not da paperwork part, but remembering. For the AC, it's a volunteer task to squeeze into the free moments of his/her week. For the PL's and da boys, it's a much bigger deal. They also have the advantage of being there when things happen, rather than comin' in as a sorta visitor. And the advantage of those darn youthful brains that can remember stuff. Then sometimes, the Scout Shop is just out of patches . Been to a few Courts of Honor where older boys were clippin' the badges off their sash or uniform to make sure they could give a newly advanced scout his patch properly! Anyway, I've been to adult-run and youth-run COH's. Seen youth make mistakes and fumble through things some. Seen adults make mistakes and drone on some. Both can work just fine. Good adult ones are crisp and flashy. Good youth ones make me smile. To be honest, though, I can't really recall a by-the-book one that is run by the Committee rather than the SM. Da conflict between the Advancement Requirements and the SM Handbook is a funny one, but there's a lot of those, eh? That's why we have youth and adult leaders to make decisions. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Also in da nautical theme are the A&E "Horatio Hornblower" series of made for TV movies. The first few are the best in some ways, showin' a young Midshipman Hornblower struggling through leadership choices and fears. Though a couple later ones show leadership when operatin' under a tyrant of a captain. Plus if yeh use Master & Commander or Horatio Hornblower, they'll all want to become Sea Scouts . B

I dont want to tell the Ship members what to do but I also dont want to give them the option of new elections as they had the chance to run and were not willing to do so when given the chance. Then don't give 'em that option. Honestly, I doubt it would come up, except perhaps as a red herring. A proper Roses & Thorns brings a ferocious amount of peer pressure on folks. Kids care what other kids think of 'em. Yeh seem a bit emotionally invested on one side of this. That's not a good place to be. Is there an Assistant Advisor who can lead da Roses & Thorns bit, or otherwise take lead in handlin' this particular issue? New kids always change the dynamic of a crew. Part of life. Some of the response is teachin' the new ones about the culture they're comin' into. Some of it is adapting the culture to allow them to contribute. B

Yah, I wouldn't say a thing, eh? I also wouldn't have waited to the next meeting, but that's just somethin' to learn. Problems are like dirty pots. Always deal with 'em when they're "fresh". Don't let 'em sit around and congeal. You put the crew members in a room and you have a Roses & Thorns debrief, eh? You set the rules - nobody is allowed to argue, each person's opinion is valued and worth listening to and thinking about. Yeh might need to help 'em with an example, like "When you did this, it made me feel this way" not "When you did this, you were WRONG". Each person is describin' his or her own perspective, without shoutin'. On good things, too, not just bad. Roses as well as thorns. After yeh get all the "feelings" and individual perceptions out on the table, from both sides, yeh gently prompt 'em "OK, where do we go from here? How do we all do a better job in the future? And yeh let 'em work it out. This is not a problem you solve. This is a problem where yeh lock 'em in a room and let them solve it. Beavah P.S. In da back of your mind, it's also worth askin yourself why yeh didn't back the Bo'sun up when he/she just said "no, we're goin' with the original plan as we all decided." (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The SM was with him at the BOR two weeks before, how can someone forget something that important? Yah, until you've walked in a SM's shoes, it's hard to understand, eh? The SM no doubt had to deal with Christmas for his own family. On top of that, he was a major player in coordinatin' the whole combined Christmas Party/COH thing. Wow that's a lot of work in a busy season. On top of that, he no doubt was deluged with SM conferences and BOR's and signing requirements prior to the COH, because we all know that's how kids work, right? Plus campouts, and working with other leaders, and meetin' with a few parents about their boy's behavior. Plus end-of year commitments at work. Plus tryin' to get stuff set for recharter and makin' sure things are ready for the January campout. Then he shows up at the party, and spends every moment either dealin' with an issue or being social with people who come up to him. So he gets to da awards and he just follows the list the Advancement Chair gave him. Your son's not on the list, because the AC hadn't gotten confirmation yet. He doesn't catch it. Bein' a SM in an active troop can be a 40 hour a week job, on top of your "real life." Dat's somethin' nobody really sees, eh? Because more than half of the job is in conferences and phonecalls and thinkin' about things at home when you should be listenin' to your wife. You and your son, Bear, need to trust us. It's an easy thing to do by mistake. For your son, Eagle is the biggest thing in Scouting. For the SM, it's usually gettin' through the next event and worryin' about the lads who still have a long way to go before anybody will recognize 'em as Eagles . The SM gave your son far more of himself to get your lad to Eagle than almost all other humans on the planet who aren't family, eh? That's a level of love and commitment that yeh just can't throw away because of an error one night. Especially when there's a big party for your son to celebrate that accomplishment this spring. Kick your lad in the behind and tell him to grow up and get his butt to a meetin' or he doesn't deserve that party in the spring. A real Eagle Scout honors his SM for the good he's done, and overlooks his occasional mistakes. Just the way I'm sure that SM did for him along the way. Beavah

Yah, Bear12. A good lesson for all of us to learn in our lives is not to be hurt or offended where no offense is meant. An Eagle Award is not official until approved by National. That takes a few weeks up to a couple of months. They rarely turn one down in these days of electronic records and such. But I have seen SE's reject an Eagle Application even after a EBOR has been completed and passed. Those usually involve fairly serious policy violations that weren't caught earlier on. So I think it's just fine and completely honest to tell your son that it's right and proper for the SM to wait until the Eagle Rank is confirmed before making an announcement. I doubt that any slight is intended at all; he's just bein' proper and respectful - it is up to National to grant the award, not the SM. The date on his certificate will be the date of his EBOR, which does make it a bit odd. To your SM, I'd privately suggest gently that makin' an announcement at the regular COH that Bear13 completed the requirements for Eagle Scout, and, "pending approval from National" will be joining the ranks of our Troop's Eagles. But he's right in that he can't present the award until it is approved. Beavah

Yah, insane and others make good points, eh? I reckon in some troops the position of PL is "light" duty because they're runnin' Troop Method. It's not the position, but how it's used (or not used) in the troop. That's why I was suggestin' folks describe the duties of positions that they think are worthy of (advancement) recognition, eh? What's a Librarian position look like that really shows responsibility? How about Bugler? A Patrol Leader? It can help SM's decide whether a position should be deleted from their program (or beefed up) because there's not enough responsibility in the position to merit recognition. Like a Librarian for a troop that doesn't keep a library (seen those), or da Historian Lisa'bob describes. Da other thing to consider is that it's just fine to have lighter positions of responsibility which can be good for kids, but might not meet S/L/E recognition. Assistant Patrol Leader, Patrol QM, Cheermaster, are all great things for guys who are growin'. Remember da tenets for Boy Scouting Advancement, though, eh? Self confidence is developed by measuring up to a challenge or standard. Peer confidence develops when the same measuring system is used for everyone - when all must meet the same challenge to receive equal recognition. Confidence in leaders comes about when there is consistency in measuring - when leaders use a single standard of fairness. Handicaps aside, that argues against having a "light" position than can get you to S/L/E via an easier road than others. Beavah

CC spoke with the UC and meeting is being set up between all parties (CC, CM, ACM, UC, COR ) Yah, OK. This can be good edumication for others who deal with these kinds of things. What is the outcome of the meeting? The CC and COR in particular should not go into this kind of meetin' without the outcome being more or less determined in advance. That can be a tree, like "if he acknowledges and apologizes, probation for a period of time; if he doesn't acknowledge the issues or apologize, move to a support role" like ordinary parent volunteer or assistant manager of paperwork. Your UC might also want to be ready with "there may be other cub packs in the area that would be a better fit for you." You're only settin' yourself up for trouble if yeh go into this kind of thing with the only goal being "we want to express our concern." That can put yeh down in the mud where you all start quibbling about the merits of each one of his actions. With that many people involved, he's goin' to feel ganged up on in any event. Keep it simple, respectful, serious, to the point. Listen to him, let him vent, but yeh have to take it to a conclusion. And that should be a conclusion yeh all are on board with before you enter the room. Not to say you're locked in if some creative solution pops up, but that you all are on board with the vision of what a successful outcome is, and you're determined to get there. Otherwise he'll just play you against each other and try to manipulate the outcome for himself, eh? Just human nature. That means you and Mrs. Ekmiranda and da COR have to get on the same page before the meetin'. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, though da northern midwest set weird record high temperatures this week, we hope winter will come back shortly. For all those of you who live in places where it gets cold enough for water to become solid, how 'bout sharin' your favorite camping spots, trips, tips, gear, whatever! We might even make some of dem grit-eaters jealous! Beavah

Yah, let's not get too hung up on the formalities of pack organization, eh? Reality is all over the place. Da most common for small to midsized packs is all the folks who actually do work gettin' together and deciding on things collaboratively, no matter what their title happens to be. Hopefully CM plays lead in program and CC plays lead in administration, but a lot depends on personalities. Bigger packs often have a strong organizer/personality CM. Least dat's the way I remember it. I try not to work with packs too much. Not my game. But I do recommend against the husband/wife thing in the formal roles. Issue sounds like someone who doesn't want to collaborate and just wants to take charge. That can be a resource if put in da right position in the right kind of unit, or a pain in the a** if unchecked. Moral for Mr. Ekmiranda is to use folks in a position for a bit before yeh recommend them for a title . Beavah

Yah, some religions have awards for different program levels, and separate awards for adults, eh? I'm of a mind that if your religion has an adult award, that's the one to wear as a medal at formal occasions. I also find it odd to wear a youth religious award from a different program, particularly a younger program. So a Crew Advisor wearin' a youth cub scouting religious award just seems... off. But no problem for a Cub Scout leader, eh? Just another opinion to kick around. Beavah

Yah, this is da CO's call, eh? But it might be worth goin' to the station and getting the police report. Raw data, not seen through anybody's "lens". Even havin' a short phonecall with the local DA. Yeh have to do your due diligence. Aside from that, if everything is as stated, I think it's fine to be understanding about minor legal issues surrounding a contentious divorce, and most folks would probably recognize that. If the guy doesn't meet FScouter's "drop him" tests, then stayin' involved in Scouting can be a healthy "home" for him in a tough time. Just stay alert to the effects stress might have on his performance/work with the boys. I'd keep this at the CO level, too. Not something that needs to go to a parent committee. At most, if yeh think the issue might become public, a simple statement that "Mr. Jones informed us of some legal issues surrounding his divorce. The CO reviewed the legal record and determined that these do not pose any concern and should not affect Mr. Jones' fine work with the troop in any way. We nonetheless thank Mr. Jones for being up front about bringing it to our attention." Beavah

Yah, Ekmiranda, it's noble of you to try to rein things in and set boundaries, eh? You've got some decent ideas there to try. I'm never fond of situations where a unit leader and assistant unit leaders don't get along and share a common vision, eh? If the CM says he can't work with a guy, it's a bit like the CEO saying he can't work with a subordinate. The subordinate gets removed, eh? Or, if the chairman of the board doesn't support the CEO, expect to be lookin' for a new CEO/CM. Cub packs generally stand or fall on da mutual goodwill of the key parent participants. If one guy is disrupting that, it's just poison to a pack, because those key participants will simply avoid his behavior by not showin' up and participating. So go ahead and try if yeh feel like it, but be prepared for the leopard to keep his spots. Aggressive types often are good at Roberts Rules, and can use 'em aggressively against others unless you're a really strong and savvy chair who's ready for the confrontation. Yeh gotta be prepared for him doin' the announcement thing anyways, no matter what you tell him; and you have to be ready to override him in public. In short, be ready for your effort to fail. Have a Plan B. And if yeh pull the ACM aside to speak with him in private about his behavior, it should be you and the COR (or UC or another trusted committee member), not you and your husband. Yeh know that, right ?. These are the one areas where havin' a strong COR/CO relationship make a world of difference. A good COR can have a firm, private conversation about expectations or can remove a leader if necessary without makin' it into a public scene of parents tryin' to vote other parents off the island. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)