Beavah

Yah, this seems like an every-3-month thread, eh? I find myself in agreement with the group. Here's how I think about it... PROGRAM Da program needs only minor adjustments. Here I agree with OGE and others. * It would be helpful to have mandatory, meaningful training and "continuing education" for scouters and other key positions (CC, IH/COR). Meaningful in that it demonstrates exactly the same kind of expectations we have of scouts - a demonstrated/tested level of mastery. Avoiding adult "training mills" (get a knot) is also the best way to avoid adults running "advancement mills" (get a badge). * Uniform is finally goin' the right direction. Keep goin'. * Revise the required badge list to include cooking, swimming for sure, and some badge that reflects an honest-to-goodness "real" level of physical fitness. I like da Owl's idea about backpackin' too. Also would get some adults off their duff. Consider whether we can go to 25 for Eagle. Yah, but my real wish for Advancement is that we could make the parent pressure less dysfunctional, and de-emphasize it. It's only one of our methods, but it seems to take up more than half of our printed materials and our time. Where it gets out of hand, it turns us into "school" rather than "fun" and puts pressure on kids in all kinds of bad ways. * I see lots of room for improving da program materials, which are really weak on providin' highly-specific guidance to newer leaders on demand, and seem to generate this "book as bible" thing in some people. Better writing, and shorter, more targeted materials that offer ideas and options would be nice. Things like "practical suggestions on how to run a small troop", or "how to run a safe river canoe trip," or "the top 5 different ways to set up patrols, and how they work." Related to that, re-word all the advancement requirements in the present tense for clarity. As written, they put too much emphasis on the test, not on the learning. "Be able to select a tent site and pitch a tent, and demonstrate this ability by xxxx." "Be able to splint a broken ankle, and demonstrate this ability on demand, in a first aid scenario set up by your troop or counselor." Make it clear that it ain't a one-shot parrot exercise, but something we want kids to learn to do on their own. * More camping in webelos, more adventure in Boy Scouts, more independence and high adventure in Venturing. INSTITUTION I think da institution is where our real weaknesses are. I don't think one Council in ten is lively, proactive, service-oriented and healthy. About 4 in 10 are weak. About 1 in 10 are evil, in that they're lyin'/cheatin'/stealin' or workin' their own agenda at the expense of the kids. Been involved in this at different levels for a number of years, and it's pretty discouragin'. Much like U.S. politics, a fair chunk of the organization has shifted from a service-mindset to a personal-agenda-and-policy mindset. Don't know how to fix it, either. Still plenty of good, service-oriented people in it, too, more's the pity. But da corporate culture has become mildly toxic in many places, and it's killin' us, both nationally and locally.

Great POR, Lisa'bob, the "Differently Abled Scout's Buddy". When it works, it's a very special, magical thing. Seems to particularly work well for scouts with Autism Spectrum Disorders. That's real. But I'm right there with yeh on the do-nuthin' historian and librarian. Not what we want to teach, that. Beavah

Any position, whether bugler or historian or Senior Patrol Leader can be a token position if the adults allow it. Yah, you bet. And plenty of times, especially in smaller troops, some of da listed positions just don't make any sense, eh? Eagledad talks about historians doin' a troop newsletter and scribes runnin' a web site. Super! Great POR's (though I think we should call 'em Newsletter Editor and Webmaster ). 'Round here, though, pretty few troops have either newsletters or functioning web sites. Most small units get by with meeting announcements. So it's OK not to have a scribe, if that really isn't a position a particular troop has or needs. Lot's of troops, though, get into a notion that they have to have someone in every position to "give them something for advancement." Chaplain's Aides in secular units without a Chaplain or a prayer is my favorite. Talk about adults not gettin' it. Doesn't do a kid any favors to teach him that the job to be sought after is da one where you have to do the least but you still get paid. I think most of the problem in troops is adult and kid understanding. We have great little spiral-bound books with directions for PL's and SPL's. We don't have anything more than a few cursory job descriptions for other POR's, which often don't fit into a particular unit's setup. And we offer no guidance to SM's on "What makes for a good POR or SM-assigned project?" So I think the original thread was a great question. Yah, and I'll stick by my guns, eh? I think the best way to talk about it is that POR's should be in the same league in terms of effort and growth as the PL position. Not identical, just in the same league. That leaves plenty of room for a good SM to adjust to individual kid abilities, and gives enough vision for a new or weak SM to understand the elements to use that program piece well, without makin' it just a token. I also think it's just fine to encourage a lad to take on a task without having it somehow tied to advancement. Running a COH should be just a cool way to help out, even if it's not quite enough to make for "serve actively in a POR for 6 months." And "attaboys" are as potent a form of recognition as badges. Beavah

Actually who determines scout spirit is found in the Boy Scout handbook, take a look at the first post in this thread "Scout Spirit... Redux"in this section When I read BSA materials, I don't make the assumption that everything is a policy document. Otherwise as scoutldr says, the contradictions give me a headache! The handbook is written in an informal style to help a lad learn and think. A set of instructions to a boy on how he should think about character (uphold his own values no matter what others say, be his own judge, act the same even if nobody is watching, etc.) are a good thing to put in da Handbook, eh? But that instruction to a boy on what good character means ain't the same as "you can sign off your own book for the requirement." The BSA Handbook is a tool for step one - helping a Boy Scout learn. Actually, who determines Scout Spirit for Step 2 (feedback/testing/signoff) is the same as who determines the signoffs for all the other requirements. Da "Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates" on individual requirements (ACP&P). Most SM's tend to hold on to the Scout Spirit requirement for themselves rather than delegating it. But in bigger troops an ASM may be delegated as sign-off guy or gal, or perhaps a Patrol Leader might be so empowered (the PL is, after all, most likely to know the boy in school and sports and the neighborhood as well as the troop, eh?). The exception to this is Scout Spirit for Eagle rank, where the BSA expects the EBOR to use outside references in addition to the SM's endorsement to determine Scout Spirit - and asks for references from home, school, church, employer, etc. Nuthin' stoppin' a troop from doing that kind of "reference check" for the other ranks, eh? Just that most of us are a bit lazy, or don't want to impose on others for all the non-Eagle ranks. I haven't seen troops use outside references for lower ranks very often, except when a boy managed to screw up big time in his "everyday life" and a SM put things on hold for a bit until he made amends. Yah, and then there's Step 3 - Review. The BOR should review, so there's a place for committee members in "the conversation" with the boy about character and spirit. Helps reinforce, and double-check, eh? We're all sharin' responsibility to help a boy learn and grow. And yah, in cases like what Lisa'bob describes, it means committee members takin' up some of the slack that's crept into the system. And then there's Step 4 - Recognition. I think this is what OGE's really gettin' at. Recognition doesn't just mean getting a badge, it means that "others will recognize those values in you and respect you for it." Our final goal, eh? A self-motivated good scout easily recognized as such by others, where the "advancement" process is left behind in favor of what a boy has truly become. But we get there through a process. And though Kudu will no doubt now launch into his usual objections, in the BSA process there are important steps where knowledgeable folks evaluate, give feedback, and review/reinforce. It's how we get to Step 4. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, does anyone else struggle with token positions like bugler or librarian? I confess these drive me a bit batty. Not that there aren't troops where those are real, substantive positions, like troops where the scribe is effectively the youth treasurer (collectin' dues and doin' budgets) or runs the troop website and newsletter. Seems to me that every POR should be about the same level of commitment/growth as PL. Same should be true for Scoutmaster Assigned Leadership Projects. Some that I've seen: * Put together a recruitin' video for the troop (~ 6 months of work, probably a couple hundred hours). * Do all the logistics work for a Venture Patrol superadventure (the actual position was APL of da Venture patrol, but that was his assignment). * Serve as Director of Community Service (in charge of planning/leading a troop's community service activity(s)). Sorta an ASPL of Service. * Rebuild and refurbish the troop trailer (actually youth-done at a HS auto shop, not done by dad). * Build a few thingamadoos for a small local skate park (more like a mini-Eagle project than a troop POR, but definitely showed leadership). * Get trained in ARC lifesaving then run safety for a series of troop watersport activities. Beavah

Yah, Whitney679, as others have mentioned, there's no obstacle to achieving Tenderfoot, Second Class, or First Class, if in fact all other expectations for that rank have been met. For Star or Life rank, a boy must "serve actively for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility: Patrol Leader, Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader, Troop Guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, den chief, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, bugler, Junior Assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, or instructor." Most troops don't use all of these different positions, so for example your troop might not have a historian or a bugler. Some troops use two boys in some positions, like having two Assistant Senior Patrol Leaders or two Quartermasters in a large troop. A few troops use Assistant PL's as "dual PL's" who participate in all the troop PLC's and who actually are responsible for leading patrol and troop outings, and they might get credit as PL or for a "scoutmaster assigned project." In general, though, an Assistant Patrol Leader's role doesn't let a boy really develop the responsibility and planning skills that we want to teach 'em for Star or Life, and that they'll really need when they approach Eagle. And that's what we really care about, eh? Kids learnin' and growin', not just gettin' the next badge. Be patient and don't push to hard. It's not a race, it's an expedition. Beavah

Yah, as SR540 describes, there's sometimes an occasion where it makes sense for a change of pace to fire up the Really Big Grill and just have a massive whole-troop burger fest or somesuch. No big deal, eh? But for da rest, the patrols should be independent entities, dependent on the troop for... nothing. I agree that a troop of 80 doing whole-troop cooking needs to have their leaders strapped to trees and threatened with bodily harm unless they repeat "I will work to properly implement Patrol Method" a thousand times. Thing is, especially in mixed-age patrols, patrol method cooking is far more fun and time efficient than trying to set up a cafeteria/restaurant to feed 80-100 people. Yah, so "follow da program", eh?! Maybe we should make program materials more clear, though, if training staffers aren't quite sure how things work. I suspect, though, that a big issue is having the unit pay for all the individual patrol gear. It is tough sometimes to explain/justify the patrol method in terms of its relative inefficiency with regard to duplicating gear. Kinda like having kitchens in every house in da neighborhood, instead of havin' just one industrial-sized kitchen at the end of the block. Economies of scale and all that. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Just this past Monday, we were told by a Scout dad that "Johnny won't be going to summer camp after all. My work schedule has changed and our family vacation had to be shifted to that week." BAM, now we're out $300 bucks, because Johnny has been telling us for 6 months that he would be going, and we fronted the money to meet the Early Bird deadline of 1 March and ensure our reservation at this new camp. Most of the others have paid up, in installments, but Johnny has not paid anything yet. Never again will we front the money. THe deadline is the deadline, and if you've not paid, you don't go. Welcome to the real world. I suspect we may not be going to camp next year, because not many will commit (with real money) that far in advance. Yah, this was a description straight from da real world, eh? I expect most of us feel scoutldr's pain. Reality these days is that the commitments tend to come late, and not be "commitments". We can try to "hold the hard line" but that can often mean loss of a lot of program. Take careful aim at our own foot, pull the trigger, eh? Then sometimes people who are late with payments are really in a position where they can't afford it and are embarrassed to ask for help. Bein' hard line with them is a great way to drive off scouts who really need us. Others are just takin' advantage. So how do you all thread this needle? What ideas and suggestions do yeh have for the frustrated among us? Beavah

Yah, meamemg. Around here, the norm is "it's OK for parents to contribute approximately the same amount in money and labor as other helpers/donors". Where board members start lookin' at things funny is when the parent contribution gets really large compared to other workers and contributors. If you're funding it out of your personal pocket, I can't imagine anybody saying anything other than "thank you". Dat's how most of scoutin' works, eh? All the adult leaders you know probably do the same thing - funding the last 10% of what a troop needs out of their own pocket. So I'd say "should be no problem at all". Now be sure to follow everybody else's advice and make your project proposal the most thorough, well-written, and grammatically correct thing you've ever done. Proofread! Remember, those board members don't know you personally, eh? The only way they have of knowin' whether you can handle it is by how well you present yourself.

Yah, one more vote for "you can cook anything!". No real cargo limits in a canoe for just a weekend, not like backpackin'. No need for dehydrated junk anytime, IMO. Anything you can cook at home you can cook on a weekend canoe trip. A lot depends on your heat source. If you're doin' fires, that will determine some of your options. If you're bringin' backpack-type stoves that'll get you other options. Do try to limit "packaging" though, in the same way you would for backpacking. You want to repackage all food into lightweight plastic bags to severely the amount of trash you bring into the woods, so you limit the amount of trash you have to take out of the woods. Trash in canoes sometimes gets loose, and always gets "ripe." Repackaging also gives you another layer of protection from water incursion. Beavah

He's only 12 years old! He's been in scouts for only a couple of years, and you seem to be promoting the falacy that once one achieves Eagle, life as a Boy Scout is over. Nah, that was Gern, eh? He was describin' how his brother, another go-getter, went and got Eagle, and then dropped out to pursue other challenges. I agree with Gern, though, that is a risk for kids/parents/programs that are highly advancement focused. We do see plenty of Eagle-and-outs in troops. Don't you think so? Doesn't mean we can't hold 'em as Eagle Scouts by providing them with more challenges based on the other methods of scoutin', just like you suggest. I'm just thinkin' that it might be a better strategy to put those other methods into play earlier on. I remember a district AC braggin' to me at one point that he encouraged the boys in his troop to earn Eagle as quick as possible, "so that then they could have fun." I personally believe that's the wrong approach. Same with challengin' the young gun go-getters. In my opinion, it's better in both cases to incorporate the fun and the extra challenge into the advancement journey, rather than puttin' it on afterward. Let's stop and hear what ideas some others have, eh? Beavah

Now here I am about to do somethin' very uncharacteristic. I'm goin' to mention insurance and liability of all things! I think in these cases, that's somethin' we all need to at least consider thoughtfully. As Leader of an outdoor activity, especially a technical outdoor activity like a whitewater or high adventure trip, we have some duty of care to the adults, the scouts, and all the other rug rats who come along. The BSA will of course back us up pretty well, but there are some differences for non-registered adults, and some bigger differences for non-registered youth. First, remember that proper preparation is expected. For a whitewater trip, that means swim checks for everybody, and prior whitewater and paddling skill prep for everybody. For siblings, BSA accident insurance might not apply, so checkin' on family medical insurance is a good idea, and makin' sure they know they're responsible for such things. Supervision applies to adults as much as kids. Adults can do dumb things in whitewater or other technical environments. "Chain of command" must be clear. It's particularly important that non-registered adults not assume major supervision tasks, or at least we should be clear that their personal insurance is going to be "primary" if they do. We all need to think about whether we want to be responsible for all the rug rats who come along. The SM bringing his own son/daughter like Gonzo did is pretty clear. But if I'm the leader of the trip, I'm also responsible for Gonzo and his daughter if they come. A SM may be willing to do that or not, but it should be a conscious decision with eyes wide open. The trip leader is responsible for everyone on the trip. And BSA liability coverage for an unregistered, ineligible youth participant is at least a slight gray area, though the BSA's reputation is very good for stickin' by our volunteers. Personally, I'm all for the once-a-year family campout or museum trip. I'd be a lot more squeamish about a family-and-friends "high adventure" trip. Worth havin' a real, live in-person conversation with your council program director about. Beavah

Not all Scouts are the same. We certainly shouldn't try to add artificial requirements to try to slow down the go-getters. Yah, not to slow 'em down, eh? To challenge them! To make their experience richer and deeper and more meaningful, the way the Owl and the Chippewa describe! I'm a firm believer in inspirin' each boy to live up to his full potential. A strong young lad may do Eagle-and-out at a young age as Gern suggests; or maybe a strong young lad can be given a host of fun, richer, and deeper challenges that keep him in to 18 and an Eagle award that's truly stunning. If we don't do that, then we have to think about what the next challenge is. Maybe OA, maybe Venturing, maybe Sea Scouts. Maybe a Venture Patrol or a special troop service. We shouldn't give up on the lad because he turns 14 and Eagle. Any way we do it, we should be there with the level of challenge the boy needs to continue to develop and grow. B [jblake, that wasn't my comment on the other thread you responded to. That was someone else, eh? No accusatory tone intended, just a genuine friendly answer. I'd encourage yeh to examine your program, and figure out where/how you can bring this lad and other lads to the right level of challenge. Doesn't have to be through the Advancement Method. Can be any of 'em that holds the key for each boy.](This message has been edited by Beavah)

What do you do with a boy that has just completed his Life requirements, is waiting on his BOR and is only 12 years old? And before anyone even thinks it, no one has been pushing this boy nor is he getting any special considerations. If anyone has ever read any of Percy K. Fitzhugh's books, just imagine Pee-Wee without the belt axe and fry pan. By the way, in this boy's spare time, he's a fully functional Den Chief working on the national award as well. I think yeh take a good look at your program and how Advancement-driven it is. Seems like a boy doin' this is really pretty tightly focused on only one of eight methods, and I have to wonder what's happenin' with the rest. Is advancement your only form of recognition? I love these young rascals. Rather than let 'em race through requirements, I think we should respond the way any Gifted and Talented education program does, eh? Encourage 'em to "dig deeper". Give 'em the hardest first aid scenario you can think of. Don't just make 'em tie one lashing or a simple camp gadget - make 'em lash together a full-out fort with working drawbridge. Not just plan and cook one weekend's meals - challenge 'em do a 4-star camp gourmet job. Yah, yah, da "can't add to requirements" crowd is probably goin' nuts about now. But no kid just wants the badge. They want our approval, eh? And the approval of their peers. That's a much more powerful form of recognition. Doin' the lashing fort is far more cool than just gettin' First Class fast. With the young guns, I think yeh need to adjust the challenge to their ability level. Make 'em strong and deep, not fast and shallow. Beavah

This varies a lot by kid and by troop, eh? Da best troops I know, the kids are there by choice. They drive themselves. They bike in. They participate right through age 18 and then become ASMs and participate for as long as they're in town. But within each troop, there's always a range. And it always helps to have a supportive (but not totally pushy) mom and dad. Boys are funny critters, too. We think of 'em as adventurous, but that's not really true. They are very cautious about participatin' in things they don't know or may not be "good" at. It's really tough on 'em socially to go out on that limb and not perform well the first time. If we're not sensitive to that, we can mistake it for apathy or laziness or disinterest. I figure 8 times out of ten when an adult talks about teen apathy or lack of commitment, that's the real cause. Adults not understandin'. Takes some real skill with the Adult Association method to get through that. Get to know boys, try to gently encourage and provide opportunities that get 'em over that reluctance. Works way better individually or very small groups, where the social "performance fear" isn't present. True for first years. True for older boys goin' into leadership or high adventure. True all the time. Dat's why they need us one hour a week, eh? Not for regulations and supervision, but for encouragement.

In a prior thread, ScoutNut commented: As for your Case #5 (a SM can choose to re-check a rank requirement like First Class CPR if the boy has not yet earned FC and the person signing was not approved by that SM)... I do not see it as the SM having the discretion to accept another SM's sign off on a rank requirement or not. It has been signed off. However, a good Troop will never let old skills sit idle. In order to remember & perfect our skills they must be used - often. In your scenario of CPR skills, all of the scouts who have had CPR signed off in their books should be the ones teaching it to the younger ones, running the CPR station at a Troop First Aid skills meeting, & helping Webelos earn their activity pin. Telling a boy you are not accepting anything you did not personally sign off is one way, making sure all of the boys are using, & perfecting, all of the skills they have learned is a much better way. Yah, sure. Troops like yours, with a strong "culture of competence", are great, but lots of other units aren't there yet, eh? And some units get boys and families who may be turned off by the way your troop does things - folks you usually don't have to deal with. Those units need other tools in their toolbox. You might need 'em too, occasionally, when you get a boy from a different unit . For example, junior missed the meeting the last time you did CPR, and on the campout where you tried a scenario he didn't help. He did try an ankle bandage, but it was completely ineffective, and in response to coachin', he said "I don't have to do that, I'm already signed off!". You had him try to teach CPR, but he was completely lost and all of the boys he taught got confused. He's now up for First Class, having finished his last two requirements with your troop, but for at least half of the FC requirements he clearly hasn't met the BSA policy a badge is recognition of what a boy is able to do, not a reward for what he has done. Caring adults naturally balance issues of learning and motivation, how much to push without discouraging. We all need some flexibility to accomplish things with each boy. I'm not arguin' that every SM should re-check every partial, just that some SM's somewhere might need to on occasion. And they can, if they need to. Whether they should or not depends on a lot of things. Same deal as MB's, eh? A new counselor does not have to accept a "partial" from someone else. In fact, in the BSA literature there's no such thing as a "partial." The MBC who signs off must be assured the boy has met all the requirements, period. Most of us accept 'em if we know the other counselor, some of us spot-check and repeat where needed, etc. I find I have to always remind myself "just because I don't do it that way, doesn't mean that another scouter in a different unit with different kids shouldn't try it." Dat's why I like these forums, eh? I learn different tricks that might help a troop I'm workin' with in a particular case. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm with OGE. OA is an honor society for Boy Scouts. We can ask why Venturers or Cub Scouts can't join, but the reason is it's an honor society for Boy Scouts. Venturing Crews are just different. Advancement is not a method. Depending on the crew (like Youth Ministry crews), Outdoors may not even be a method. So OA doesn't work as a Venturing honor society. If there's going to be an honor society for Venturing, it needs to be set up along different lines, not piggybacking on the little boys' OA thing. There were some council and regional attempts at starting Venturing honor societies a few years back, but I'm not sure whether any of them are still operatin'. IMO they were still copycatting OA too much to attract a real following. Beavah

Yah, local1400, sometimes it helps if yeh just give the lad something to do. Like put him in the color guard and make him carry the flag. Then his mind has somethin' to focus on. He won't do the best job, but he'll do a fine job. Planting an older scout that he respects next to him, and teachin' him some tricks like hooking his thumb in his pocket and such can help, too. Especially watch to make sure other "easily distractable" scouts aren't close by. In addition, if a boy is really this bad in terms of attention, yeh need to have a conversation with the parents. That level of inattention is no doubt affecting other areas of his life negatively, and that feedback is important. They need to pass that information along to his psych pros for changes in his treatment regimen.

Hmmm... oops. Let me clarify a bit. I was thinking of this as "non-scouter adults". Parent drivers and such - adults who aren't "regular" program people. For regular program scouters, there's always the question of how much "coaching" to provide, as OneHour states. But this question is different - how many total adults, what structures to keep 'em separate, how much effort is spent on keeping the adults safe/happy/fun compared with the effort spent on the kids, etc.

Yah, a couple of recent threads have talked about some of the issues with adults on campouts. Adults can interfere with boys' patrols (in the extreme, insistin' on sleeping or cooking with them). Lots of adults can change the dynamic in other ways, too, either taking Scouter time, or just changin' the feel of a trip. At the same time, as SR540 points out, welcoming adult participants and making it "fun" for them is probably the biggest single thing we can do to get new adult leaders and committee members. So where does your unit draw the line? How much are adults welcomed/encouraged to participate? How are they "managed?" What have you found works for you? What is still a challenge? Help us learn and get new ideas! I'm a bit curious, too, about whether there's differences for troops that do more care-campin' compared with adventurin' with backpacks/canoes/snowshoes etc. Around here anyway, there seems to be a big difference in adult roles in those different kinds of troop programs. Beavah

What about if a scout transfers from one troop to another do all his achievement, nights of camping, any achievement need to pass on to next troop or can the Scoutmaster decline using any previous advancements or achievements, if so what are they specifically. Yah, I read this differently too, eh? Da biggest advice is "do what makes sense", eh? Taking Advanced First Aid class twice probably doesn't make sense. Doin' camping with the Crew rather than counting prior camping with the troop probably does make sense, 'cause troop campin' is a lot different. Either way, yeh shouldn't be goin' off to your District Advancement Chair or filin' protests or quotin' things at people. You should teach boys to work with adults to reach mutually agreed upon expectations. Nuthin' worse for a scoutin' program than a "little league parent." Let me try a bunch of different scenarios to help sort it out. Case 1: SM approves the boy for the MB and approves the counselor. Boy goes to the counselor. At that point, it is up to the counselor what prior work is accepted for badge requirements. It could be work done in the troop, in the crew, or on the boy's own. When finished, the boy gives the signed MB card to the troop, and the troop submits it to the council. The MB now counts for the boy, no matter whether he does his advancement to Eagle in the troop or crew. This same works in reverse, with the crew Advisor approving the MB and MBC, in which case the boy submits the badge to the crew, and the crew to the council. At that point, the badge counts for rank advancement in either program. Case 2: The crew Advisor approves a MBC and a MB for the boy, and the boy does all the work to the MBC's satisfaction. Then the boy tries to submit the badge to the troop, and the SM goes "Huh?? I never approved that." It's OK if the SM says "no, you have to submit that through the crew, because it was approved by your crew advisor." It's probably OK if the troop accepts it and submits it, but it's not great, eh? The crew advisor and committee should be in the loop. Case 3: The SM is the counselor for backpacking MB. The boy tries to use prior work done in the crew to meet some of the requirements. But the SM isn't sure, perhaps, that the requirements were met, or maybe that good LNT practices were used, or something. It is OK for the SM to not accept the work done in the crew, and to make the boy "re-do" that work. It's also OK for him to accept it. It's up to the counselor. This is why it's important when starting a MB to meet with the counselor and go over his/her expectations, so you know right from the beginning where you're at. Case 4: A boy transfers in to a troop from another troop where he earned 1st Class. The SM thinks (correctly) that the old troop was an advancement mill, and recognizes that the boy is way behind compared to his same-rank peers in scoutcraft. The SM cannot force the boy to re-do First Class - once it is earned, it is earned. (though a savvy SM would find a way to do some review and refresher). Case 5: A 2nd Class boy transfers in to a troop from another troop and has a signature for the CPR requirement for 1st Class, but hasn't yet earned 1st Class. Yah, there'll probably be some debate over this, but I think acceptin' this is at the discretion of the SM. The SM can accept it, or make the boy demonstrate the requirement again. (If there is some debate, let's spool it off, eh, so diannasav can still get things out of this thread ).(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, turn their bodies and face the flag, eh? Leastways, that's my vote. I have another, perhaps pet, peeve. Seems like most troops I visit, and most troops at camp, just seem slovenly in their flag protocol. Now, I'm just fine with variations in uniformin', or boys who show up direct from band or soccer or whatnot without a uniform. I'm not talkin' strictly about appearance. I'm talkin' about attitude. They slouch. They look bored. They're chewin' gum, with hands on their hips or in their pockets. Leanin' on tables, standin' on one leg, hand to brow but arm hangin' down like a limp noodle just to tired to really salute. Perhaps I'm an old fuddy-duddy. But I really wish Scouters would take a few minutes to teach 'em how to stand up straight and not look like a putz. And then insist on it eh? I'd be happy with that, no matter which facing rule they chose. Beavah

Egad. Barristers and cricket matches. Someone please tie Eamonn down and de-program him again. He needs to watch a week's worth of baseball or somethin' B

Yah, I think part of it is you're livin' in the "economically & demographically challenged" midwest, eh? Fewer kids as a percentage of the total population. Budgets gettin' stretched in economic down-times. People movin' out of area. Then there's some bigger things goin' on. Both parents workin', or only one parent. That really curtails volunteer time, and time to be "present" to your neighbors, your church, etc. Makes us more willing to write the big $ check for an "organized" program than to take the time to contribute to our own program as a volunteer coach or such. Leaves us no times for hobbies or entertainin'. Mobility is a big thing, eh? Lots of young families are livin' in towns far away from their parents and other relatives. They don't have "deep roots" in their community. And the notion of yeh find a company and career and stay with it for life is dead. Changin' jobs and locations is the way of things. So there's not as much benefit to buildin' deep connections to the community when you see yourself movin' on in 3-5 years. Buildin' those connections takes time and effort. Fear. Fear of predators, fear of lawsuits, fear of terrorists, fear of other people period. Fear is as high as it's ever been. Keeps the elderly indoors rather than out in the community. Keeps kids under adults' thumbs 24/7. Teaches everyone that the community is somethin' to be afraid of, not somethin' to enjoy and participate in. Can't volunteer, if I make a mistake, I can be sued, insurance might not cover.... Tech. Da technology makes impersonal contacts easy, on our personal schedule. No need to get a bunch of scouters from our district together for a barbeque or cup of coffee, we can talk with hundreds of dedicated scouters on-line. No need to even chitchat with the guy in front of us in the espresso line when we've got our cell. Same with kids, eh? No need to ride down the block and make friends with dat sorta odd kid Joey, when your best friend and some other cool dudes are on MySpace, IM, and Doom. Shoutin. Public discourse is all Red vs. Blue, Christian vs. atheist, us vs. them. The trend is to see others as "wrong" or "bad" rather than "friends and neighbors with different viewpoints." So if everyone else is "wrong" or "bad", then we have to seek out those few "good" people out there who think like us. Again, that pushes people into small and on-line groups, rather than makin' 'em generous participants in the bigger community. 'specially if they're mobile, and fearful, and don't have much time. Most of these changes are permanent, eh? America is goin' to stay more mobile. Communications technology isn't goin' away, nor are two-income or single-parent families. Some of these things, like fear & shoutin', we can each change in small ways, at least for those around us. But all our institutions, includin' Scouting, have to cope with this different environment. Those that don't, well, I guess they become extinct. Beavah

I think maybe we (Beavah & I) might see "Kindness" in different lights? While of course I think we would agree that being cruel, mean or mean hearted is never good. I think we need a lot of information to be kind. Buying a kid an ice cream might seem like the kind thing to do, but if his parents don't for some some reason want him to have one? Maybe it's just not the right thing to do? Nah, I think we see it mostly the same. I just think were obligated to reach out and get the information we need in order to be kind. Quotin a book and tellin someone to go argue with their SE might seem like the right thing to do, but maybe its not if the guy is a frustrated SM near burn-out and the SE is really tryin to help him and those like him. I think that's exactly the same as your examples, eh? I see no reason why a Scout should not be allowed to carry a certain type of knife, but if a camp we are going to has a rule that states that sort of knife isn't allowed I'm OK with leaving it at home or looking for another site. If this was a rule in a camp I used a lot I would see what could be done to change it. Yah, I agree with this entirely, too. ----- As to the Pharisees & scribes of the bible, I think they really were trying to follow the rules as they knew them, and to make other people follow them too. They thought they were in the right, quoting authoritative books and insisting on obedience. That kind of obedience is very simple and very easy. It's a convenient and lazy approach, that doesn't challenge us personally to think, reflect, and do better. Follow the rules, and I'm Justified. No obligation to accept God into my heart. I think thats the important lesson, eh? When the Messiah comes and says to them You brood of vipers! You whitewashed grave stones! You place burdens on others but lift not a finger to help them yourself it is an admonition to all of us to be wary of such errors. Our role is to be out on the street feeding the hungry, and welcoming the tax collector and sinner into our home. Showing kindness, helpfulness, and mercy far more than demanding obedience. The kind of obedience that Jesus taught was absolute, sacrificial obedience to principle, to the will of God. Agony in the garden obedience, accepting God into our heart obedience. Even as he and his disciples challenged and condemned those who quoted administrative law, they were obedient to the will of God even unto death. I think thats what Christian tradition really means when it talks about obedience. And I want my scouts to show that kind of obedience. Yah, I agree with you, too - that kind of obedience is really hard. And that kind of obedience goes hand in hand with with kindness. Beavah