Beavah

I'm sorry Beavah, your harping on about the arrangements that the BSA has with the LDS, is getting really old....Of course he can enforce the rule... and other things that really shouldn't be enforced.... But this is not how things should be done or how the program is supposed to be delivered.... just plain wrong. Sigh. Just so yeh understand, I find the harping here about how every other scouter shouldn't be doing this, that or the other thing, and how any scouter who doesn't do it "my way" or "the way" is "just plain wrong" to be equally old. I'm really not sure why that is so attractive to some scouters. And, though I'm not LDS, the sort of subtle prejudice against LDS in some posts is simply awful. I have never once, ever, anywhere, seen a pack, troop, crew, or ship who did absolutely everything "by the book" according to the extant official interpretation. Not once. Not in Scoutreach, not in other direct service units. Never. But I have known many outstanding scouters, and cheered many outstanding programs. Those who write program materials never think in the absolute terms you do, and never intend their materials to be used in the way you suggest. Nobody who puts together handbooks for kids is trained to think in terms of strictly worded regulatory policy (with its risk of unintended consequences), and no strictly worded regulatory policy would be useful to the kind men and women volunteers who are just doing their best to work with kids. The only time I've ever seen someone hurt kids and damage the reputation of the program is when they insisted on only one interpretation, only one way, and in their self-righteous bureaucratic indignation stopped supporting the people who were working with kids every day. Ours is a role of humble service, and gentle support. When we forget that, we lose our soul.

Yah, cnsnider, I think you're thinking about this right. Your son sounds like he's ready for a crew experience, and like it will be a great next step for him. In general, he can still work on finishing his Boy Scout advancement in the crew. The level of "push" he'll get from the crew leadership will be smaller, though. Since girls and other non-boy-scouts are also members, the crew won't typically offer things like MB classes, etc. It's just not a part of the methods of Venturing in a good crew. So whether a crew is "up front" about it like jblake or not, Boy Scout advancement is just not what the crew is about. I'd encourage your son to pursue crew membership, with or without retaining his troop registration. Eagle will be his own, independent choice, as it should be, eh? But you'll both be pleased with the other things he gets out of the crew. Ignore the rest of us jawin' about program adaptations and "authority." It's an unrelated runnin' argument between friends.

You don't have the authority to enforce this rule. Aw, not again. We should all go off to a solstice party or somethin'. Course he can enforce the rule. Same as an LDS can enforce a "no boys under age 11 or over age 13" rule in a troop if they want. Units get to decide who they admit, and who they retain on the roster from year to year. Volunteers get to decide how they spend their own time. If the commitment is dual registration, then every boy knows what Trustworthy, Loyal, and Obedient means for this unit when they join, eh? Scoutin' is a gift, not an entitlement. That bein' said, jblake47's is the proper way to go, eh? Kids live up to their own commitments. Leastways, until some adult teaches 'em to argue everything.

I like jblake's way. It's a nice way to encourage cooperation between units, when kids can spend that kind of time. It's not required by all crews, though. If your son leaves and joins a Venturing Crew, you'll find that the crew works a lot differently from the troop. It will have more genuine "youth led" feel, and be more "age appropriate" in some way for a boy your son's age. The crew sets its own uniform (usually an informal one), and Advancement is not a method in Venturing. But all of the character, fitness, and citizenship stuff is alive and well. Stronger, even, for bein' more adapted to that age group's needs. In terms of Boy Scout advancement, your son can fulfill his position of responsibility in the crew (by being, for example, Crew Treasurer or Vice-President). He can work on merit badges while in the crew, though they won't usually be a part of the crew program. And he can do his Eagle project, get a "SM conference" from the crew Advisor, and receive a Board of Review from the crew committee. So, if it's OK with the crew, your son can do all of his Star-Life-Eagle scouting with the crew. And the Venturing awards will encourage him to go back and serve as an instructor for the younger kids in his old troop occasionally. I find that the more relaxed, not advancement-focused style of a Venturing crew is great for boys like your son. That's more important than any award, eh? But boys who stay in usually get the encouragement along the way to finish Eagle. So your son I think will adapt fine, eh? You might have some time adjusting to the less [adult] "organized and structured" feel of a crew.

Hmmm... deadlocked jury so far. I might avoid jail yet . But at least a few would stick with the "collected wisdom of the ages" in the original requirement, and require a pullup from the lad. I always wonder if they've actually seen how committees compile materials. ... it seems to me that you really can end up on the slippery slope that leads you to something too far removed from the BSA program. Yah, I don't really get the "slippery slope" arguments, eh? There's nothin' slippery about it. The slope is as solid as a staircase. You can walk up and down it and choose exactly where you want to be. Each CO has its aims and values, and uses the Scouting program with BSA support to do the best job it can to help kids. Da original "slippery slope" quote referred to central organizations like governments taking away the liberties of individuals and groups, eh? As we see, each of da jurors adapts or "reinterprets" this particular program piece to balance their own view of the importance of fitness, their own view of the relative wisdom/effectiveness of the requirement in achieving that aim, the troop's need for consistency, and the individual needs of each boy for support. Fuzzy's my juror, though. Despite all the different implementations of this program piece, he says it's all Scouting, because it's all based on caring adults doing their best. We should support that, eh? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, one of the best ECOH's I attended had all of the refreshments prepared by the boys - a combination of the small kitchen in the meeting hall and a set of camp stoves out back. The boys were encouraging each other to "be creative." I think it did a great job of conveying the spirit of Scouting to all who attended. Much better than the supermarket veggie tray, eh?

Yah, I think it's OK to ask yerself "What would the kids do?" I would expect an SPL or Crew President if they were standing in the same line and usin' their brains and were told the same information to do the same thing. Part of leadership is stepping up. Part of bein' an example of leadership is steppin' up, too. Bigger question is why you were the one at the Borough office, eh? If it required an adult signature and was a business-hours-conflict-with-school thing, then I vote "No foul. Case dismissed."

Not to change the thread but practically everyone here has agreed that many 10-12 year olds lack the upper body strength to do pull ups, due to the nature of their physical development at that age. ... So can someone tell me then, why is this pull up requirement in the tenderfoot rank?! Da Presidential Fitness Test 50th percentile for 10-year-olds can do 2 pullups. So almost half of the 10 year olds can only do one or zero. I agree with Lisa'bob on this, eh? It's not a great test if fully half of the kids can't do it, or reasonably show improvement. The increment is also wrong. To improve by 1 pullup requires jumpin' up at least 10 percentile points in your class for most kids, often more. To improve by one pushup is typically less than a 5 percentile jump. It'd be one thing for fitness MB, eh? There you might set some reasonable goals for kids to get to after a couple of years. Promote fitness and all that. But we're tryin' to do First Class First Year, and use this requirement just to show kids that a little effort can yield some success (to encourage 'em at TF), eh? So we all end up tweakin' this one for half the kids, (or holdin' kids at Tenderfoot until they're 15). IIRC, this requirement is an unchanged relic from well before FCFY. Da program materials are compiled by committee, eh? Good folks, but they don't catch everything.

Yah, acco didn't vote on the verdict, but he did tweak my tweak Good, and some other adaptations, eh: 1) Count fractional pullups, pushups, and situps for improvement (acco) 2) Just use flexed-arm hang for everyone, so as not to single kids out by initial ability (modified Beavah) 3) Yah, yeh know a kid who can do 10 pullups has fairly little difficulty gettin' to 11, compared with a kid goin' from 0 to 1. Make it even by havin' every kid's goal to go up 10 percentile points in the Presidential Fitness Test. (just weird, but fun math for the homeschool kids!). #1 might be appropriate for a unit whose CO doesn't care too much about physical trainin' as a component of fitness. I wouldn't advocate this one the way acco does. Just seems like it's shortchangin' kids on the Aim too much. "Congratulations, Johnny, you did 25.2 situps instead of 25.1." Nah. #2 hey, the pros on the President's Council on Fitness accept this, and it's usually more fun, with more chance for patrol mates to cheer each other on, eh? Avoids acco's complaint about shiftin' between two methods. #3 seems more "fair" for units that want all boys to exert equal effort at improvin' fitness. Might also be more useful to a Christian school that does the Presidential Fitness test, because it fits better in their program, eh? (Got just such a unit in our district that I visited tonight). I agree with acco, tho. A carin' adult should "infer" the purpose for the requirement and how it connects to the aims of the CO and BSA, eh? Then interpret/adapt to do what's right. The goal is service to the boy and da Aim, yah? Surely there are other jurors out there, though? Oathbreaker, or decent scouter tryin' to do what's right? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

My colleague acco40 gets a bit pointed in another thread and declares: Beavah, I think you take much to lightly the so called "rules" of the Scouting program. We, Scout leaders, have promised to deliver this program and would be ... violating the Scout Oath and Law if we "bent the rules" to our satisfaction because we, in our infinite wisdom, thought that we were really helping the boy by doing so. I'm curious what others think, and in another thread on "How would you handle this?" I posted a program adaptation that I recommend to units to help kids who are stuck at Tenderfoot because of the pullups requirement. Specifically, I suggest: 1) If a boy can do 2 or more "good" pullups, make the requirement "doing one more." 2) If a boy can do only 0 or 1 pullups, substitute the "flexed arm hang" instead, just the way the Presidential Fitness Test or military academies do. Improvement then means "hang longer." But hangin' is also the best way to build up strength to do real pullups. Yah, this is clearly exactly what acco40 is talkin' about, eh? Here I am substitutin' my own program adaptation to try to do right by a kid. Directly contravenin' "No changing the requirements" which seems to be the Scouter.com Golden Rule. I make no claims to "infinite wisdom." In this case I stole a march from fitness professionals and military academies. So what does the group really think? Am I an evil heathen Oathbreaker? Or is it OK to use common sense and judgment, and perhaps even the expertise of non-BSA groups, to do right by a kid? I patiently await my sentence.

Yah, scotteng, so I'd suggest you grab coffee with the SM and hear his side, support him, etc. And I expect your son will get his rank badge in fairly short order. If a SM conference to discuss "Scout Spirit" is in the cards, as Acco suggests, great. Even if a BOR is in the cards to discuss "Scout Spirit," great! BOR's aren't just for rank advancement, eh? Best way to go, IMNSHO. Both your son and the troop will be better for it than debating Advancement Method guidelines and techniques with everyone who will listen.

Yah, that helps, kittle. Pullups are a lot of back/shoulder strength, not (just) arm strength. The arm curls won't help him much with pullups. Bench presses will help with pushups, but not pullups, eh? Great time to get Personal Fitness MB as part of the deal, especially since he's at the age where he's developin' a bit of discipline (workin' on it the last 2-3 months). Done well, this can be a "big victory" that shoots him to 1st Class with some MB's and a lot of momentum and pride goin' forward. Here's rootin' for him!

Yah, John-in-KC gave the perfect answer, eh? You should do exactly as he suggests. In terms of protectin' your treasurer's time (and protecting your treasurer from difficult individuals), I'd also add a standing policy that the SM, CC or COR (individually), or committee (by motion and vote) can request the treasurer for reports and detailed records. Nobody else. The treasurer should not honor such requests from "any parent" or "any committee member" beyond providing the records from the individual scout's account. Family payment histories, individual kids' fundraisin' levels, and especially records of financial aid/support/camperships for any boys, should be confidential anyways, eh?

Yah, hmmm... 2 Years and still can't do a pull-up? Is there an overweight issue? Otherwise, I think this boy needs better coachin'. I'd kill an extra bird with the stone and suggest the boy work on Personal Fitness MB (for real, with a counselor ). The time spent really workin' out a 90-day fitness plan with someone knowledgeable will help him a lot in other ways, and will get him both a required MB and TF, eh? Remember, he can get all of his other T-2-1 requirements done and then pass 'em all in one night when he finishes this last requirement. Lots of times I've seen boys go through a growth spurt and end up in the short term doin' fewer pushups/pullups while their muscles catch up with their new size, eh? I suggest this to all the units I work with: 1) If a boy can do 2 or more "good" pullups, make the requirement "doing one more." 2) If a boy can do only 0 or 1 pullups, substitute the "flexed arm hang" instead, just the way the Presidential Fitness Test or military academies do. Improvement then means "hang longer." But hangin' is also the best way to build up strength to do real pullups. If your unit insists on real pull-ups, I'd restart the clock and get your lad to try to go from 0 to 1. To train for this, have him start in the "up" position, then slowly lower himself on a slow 5-count, then step back up and repeat. Do as many of these "anti-pullups" as he can in keepin' with the 5-count, then take a short rest, and do as many as he can on a slow 3-count. Do this 3 times a week. Every 3rd week, only do it once during the week to give him some extra "recovery time." I betcha in a month and a half he'll have his one pullup. Of course, if there are severe overweight issues, helpin' him work on those may be a far greater gift to him than TF.

Yah, dan. I guess it all depends what yeh feel is most important. Is gettin' the letter of the wordin' of the BSA Advancement system right the most important? Or is helpin' a boy learn proper behavior, respect, and character most important? I care that the SM does the latter. I think only people with too much time on their hands worry overmuch about the former. But imagine this conversation: Dad: "Why didn't junior get his Star tonight?" SM: "Because junior behaved like a 2-year-old at the meeting and called me an a-hole." Dad: "Well he shouldn't have done that, but he passed his BOR so you owe him the rank." SM: "Yeah, well, when he demonstrates he's ready to wear the patch with honor, I'll give it to him, but not a moment before." Dad: "You can't do that. He passed his BOR, so you have to award him his patch immediately. That's what it says in the BSA literature. Immediate is immediate!" SM: "I really don't care about him passing the BOR. In this case, I'm in charge, not the BOR. He doesn't get his patch until he apologizes and shows that he is ready to wear it." [Dad then screams to the forum and the DC that the SM says he can overrule the BOR and take a boy's rank away.] If SM loses this one, the message to the boy and to all the other boys in the troop is that it's OK to mouth off to adults and be disruptive, because you still get awards and everyone applauds you. Now, I don't know what the real conversation has been, any more than you do, eh? I just gently suggest that being Loyal to our fellow volunteers, and Helpful to an upset parent, involves considerin' other perspectives and important issues like how best to build character. Givin' Scotteng a different perspective may help, eh? And the forum not immediately jumpin' on the bandwagon of every helicopter parent with a beef with their unit's leadership is a habit we should grow into, even if it doesn't apply to Scotteng. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, dan, I think it's unreasonable to expect a SM to parse his words as carefully as an attorney when dealin' with a youth mouthin' off to him in the middle of a meeting, eh? I also don't think upset parents often get their quotations exactly right, eh? I think we have to read into the situation a bit when we get the one-sided posting of an aggrieved party. Almost all of the Scouting volunteers I know are really good people, who deserve the benefit of the doubt, eh? And of course, it's hard for a SM to sit quietly with a boy and work through it if dad immediately goes ballistic because it's disruptin' the quest for a 13 year old Eagle. Yah, and it didn't seem like the DC did much more than listen and perhaps gently support the SM. I'm old, and old fashioned. I think the default position for all parents should be to support the other adults in a boy's life. What mom says, what the teacher says, what the coach says, what the SM says goes as far as correctin' behavior. Dad may not like it if mom says "no baseball this weekend." But even if he thinks mom is wrong, he'd better back mom up if he wants a boy who isn't a brat. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, yah, let's all jump all over da poor SM who clearly is an evil, wicked, awful human being because one boy's parent is upset. Sheesh. And it's a great service to the kid and to scouting for a bunch of folks who really know nothin' beyond the account of an upset dad to wind that dad up even more and tell him to go chargin' in to pull his kid, disrupt the troop, etc. etc. Shame. Scotteng, I read your message and I see a different scene. A boy just finishes his BOR, earns Star, and then before the SM can give him the patch at the end of the meetin' he disrupts the meeting and (as you admit) mouths off to the SM. So the SM, rather than give a high rank award to a boy who has just been a terrible example to all the other kids in the room, puts the badge in his pocket and says "not this week." When the boy makes an additional stink, he says he's holding his Star rank for now (usin' whatever words he can think of on the spur of the moment). I salute the SM for doin' the right thing. The boy should be made to go back to the SM, apologize, and demonstrate good behavior for at least one full meeting before bein' recognized as a Star Scout. We don't pin medals on kids' chests immediately after they've behaved like that. Support the SM in helpin' your son learn how to be Helpful at a meeting and respectful to the youth and adult leaders in charge. That's your first job, dad. And relax a bit, junior will get more out of the program without pushin' to make Eagle at age 13. Those 12 year old First Class boys who are havin' fun aren't all wrong, eh? After that, down the road, it's OK to say, "Hey, a different troop may be a better fit for my son" if he agrees. But I hope your other choice in troops also has a SM who has high expectations for behavior, not one who will let his buddy's kid skate by. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, another council sellin' camps to build endowment, the income from which is used to pay executives to tell volunteers they should run better program, eh? Dat makes it a "program expense" for accountin' purposes. Sounds like a mini version of Chicago. Maybe legal action by the volunteers is the way to go. My bet would be this council has also played fast and loose with membership numbers. Manipulate one figure to pad your evaluation, manipulate 'em all.

Yah, nobody can give legal advice by remote, eh? I think yeh have to get high-quality counsel and go with what they say. On the surface lookin' from afar, it seems that the CAC is a separately incorporated IL NFP, which applies for a charter to be da BSA rep. for the area, eh? So your analogy isn't quite right. The BSA tryin' to seize the council assets would be like the council canceling a unit charter then suin' the CO to get their uniform supply, camping equipment, the storage shed and the meeting room. Yeh can make arguments for it, but that doesn't mean yeh'd win. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

"This time, I hope the volunteers see it through to the end. Complete with regular press releases..." I have to say this type of comment is way out of line. Not sure why I'm outa line here. But whatevah. IMO, The Scouter 11 made a mistake in not callin' National's bluff. Seizing the assets of an Illinois corporation is non-trivial, no matter what they say. So National can stop sellin' you materials, but yeh might be able to maintain the council assets intact and in the hands of volunteers. They can go start from scratch again. With public pressure, they can start from scratch with no money to pay executives. High stakes poker to be sure. Now, here's a message for all the rest of us. This year, when you send your COR's to vote at your council annual meeting, find out who they will be sendin' to the national annual meeting. Meet with them, talk about the Chicago mess (or just ask at the annual meeting whether executives should be allowed to sell campin' assets paid for by volunteers without the approval of their own legally selected board). Vote NO if they don't support the Chicago volunteers. Let's send a bunch of those who support the volunteers and the camps to the National Council this year, eh?

Yah, OK, we get the lay of the land a bit. I'll echo Hunt and others. Try Methodists Volunteer Fire Department School PTA/PTO. Given your small town, I'd consider tryin' the Chamber of Commerce itself as a sponsor. They could find a local business to put you up in, but the business wouldn't be "on the hook" so much. Do you have any kind of sportsman's club? They might be one to approach, too. Is there a "major" employer in town? Big mill or somesuch? That might also be a real interestin' possibility.

If I every found myself in need of rescue, I think I would have rather died than [not] be able to self-rescue myself. Yah, exactly. That's my problem with PLB's, GPS-dependent hikers, those that call 911 on their cell phone with no map or compass and say "help I'm lost" and novices who pay to have a guide haul them up Everest. All these things do is increase the number of ill-prepared people who expect it's other's people's jobs to rescue them from their own foolishness. We especially should be teachin' people how to be responsible wilderness users. Responsible for ourselves, first of all. And havin' enough "reserve" left over to responsible for assisting others in need. Physically strong, mentally awake enough to help others. SAR folks don't mind goin' after the well prepared, intelligent risk-takers who get in a pickle. Most of 'em are part of the same club. It's the expectation of goin' after the buffoons that's tough.

Yah, Eamonn. I hear you. There are ups and downs to endowments, eh? If a Council gets a big enough endowment, why, it can employ all its professionals and staff fully, and not have a single kid enrolled or single volunteer contribute. Generally speaking, spendin' of endowmment funds is governed by each state's version of the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act. While it's not kosher to spend the original unappreciated gift amount, it often is allowable to spend the appreciated value. Depends on your state, and the terms of the endowment/terms specified by the donors, eh? So it's probably legal, if inadvisable, to spend the investment gains to cover the operating deficit. Then again, its probably not legal for your council to spend down the endowment below the sum of all the original gifts. If yeh think they're goin' there, time to drop a dime (well, guess it's about 4 bits these days). Moral is give only to endowments with clear and highly restrictive conditions. Even better if the endowment is controlled by a separate board, like the local community foundation.

I gotta admit I'm a pro-uniform guy. I hear yeh when you say it just "feels wrong." But I wonder... is it better to have 95% of the kids in the troop Class B T-shirt, or have 40% of the kids in BSA Class A tans? Which makes better use of the Uniform Method to achieve the Aims? I admit I don't have the answer. Might depend on the aims of the CO of course

Yah, JSchlicht, thanks for da update, eh? Poor CAC traded one bunch of goons for another. Is there a date set for the Annual Meeting yet? Should be in the first quarter of '07, no? Problem is you'll be right back in the legal soup again with the bylaws stalemate. Yeh have the advantage of a prior case precendent, though. This time, I hope the volunteers see it through to the end. Complete with regular press releases, talk show appearances, full media blitz to go with the legal side, eh? Lots of daylight helps when folks are spendin' time lurking in shadows. Good luck with it anyway. Keep us posted.