Beavah

SCOTUS decision is no surprise, eh? Same as they did in CT. Too bad, because there are some serious latent issues here. Let's say da great State of Minnesota owns most of the right-of-way access to the lakes and streams of the state for boatin'. It charges $1000 per boat for anyone to have access. Commercial companies like loggers pay that; they can afford to. But the fee applies even to canoes. However, if you're a non-commercial private citizen or group, and yeh sign a public statement agreeing with the political persuasion in power at the time, yeh get a discount down to $10. If yeh don't agree, you can either pay the full fee, or go drive to Wisconsin. The SCOTUS decision is the right one only when government is small, so that the economic impact on groups which are excluded is small. The larger the fraction of the land owned by the government, the larger the percentage of government jobs in employment, etc., the greater the impact of such "differential fees" on liberty.

When dealing with a bullying type situation or other behavior issues, what's the role of the committee, in your view? Is it to direct the SM? No. Havin' a group of different people with different views try to direct the SM or the program is inappropriate. They have less information, less personal contact, less relationship with da parents and da boys than the SM. This approach only leads to trouble, and can be truly deadly for a troop. To offer over-sight (ie, to ensure that the issue isn't swept under the rug)? Yes, and no. To provide "expectations/policy guidelines", yes. To watchdog any particular case, no. To back-up the SM when he needs a "bad cop" - yes. With a SM uncomfortable with confrontation, perhaps to take a more active role with her/his at least tacit OK. To provide for follow-up on a situation over time? No. That's the SM's job. To help the SM outline options? As a whole committee, probably not. As individual MC's, yes, but only if the SM asks. To set policy to deal with a specific scout and/or his parent(s)? Yeh don't set a policy to deal with one issue. You set a policy only when you're convinced that a policy is needed to make the troop better on a long-term basis, for all members. When you have an individual problem, have the courage to deal with the problem without burdening the entire program with Policy. Formal warning, probation, long-term suspension, and expulsion should come from the committee in its bad-cop role. Everything else is SM. To offer moral support for whatever route the SM may choose (within reason of course)? Always, at least in public in front of kids and parents. Is there, maybe, not a role for the committee to play here and rather this is solely the domain of the SM/ASMs? Committee role is only to take formal, "big" action or warn of it. How that proceeds depends a heck of a lot on the committee, eh? Committee organization in troops is all over da map. A committee of parents that really doesn't have strong CO connections is a terrible place to have a bullying discussion; it is highly charged, sets parent against parent. Yah, yeh don't want to go there, eh? Better to keep the response to the CC, COR, UC, SM "key 4." On the other hand, a committee with some deeper expertise and stronger CO connections might handle such a case well. But then later, when it comes to BORs and/or when the problem is raised to the committee by irate parents whose kids are quitting in part as a result of past bullying, what is the committee supposed to do? An "irate parent" complaint that comes up in a committee meeting should always be ruled out of order and dealt with by the CC in private. No SM or any adult for that matter should be berated in public, and no highly charged issue should ever be entertained except as a scheduled agenda item, so people have a chance to prepare (and perhaps cool off for a bit). In the longer term in response to such things, the committee might have a serious conversation, in private, with the SM, to convey concerns and re-iterate expectations. Or replace the SM, eh? Yeh see, if the SM isn't respondin' well to kid behaviors/discipline, the committee can't correct it by intervening and micromanaging one case. The SM might need a really firm reminder of expectations (and a request to report back the next month with what step's he/she is taking overall). Or the SM might need some real training/coaching assistance that the committee should arrange for. Or, if all else fails and the situation is serious enough, there may need to be a change in unit leader. But micromanaging one case is always the wrong way to go.

A small amount of sour grapes after a close election, while not perfectly honorable, also doesn't rise to da level of "bullying" in my book. It's a kid feelin' a bit hurt and sayin' "Yeah, but I'm better than you in some other way." Not a great choice of words, could be intimidatin' to the quieter PL, definitely worth payin' attention to, but not a hangin' offense. Certainly, keep the committee out of it. In your whole long description of your responses to this boy's behavior, the one thing that leaps out is that it's always adults respondin'. I'd encourage you to break that habit, and involve other kids in the discussion if they're mature enough. They have way more impact than an adult lecture will ever have. Set up a meeting with the SPL, the Star scout, and (perhaps) the PL, and (perhaps) other boys in the patrol. If your troop does "Thorns and Roses" regularly, think in those terms. Coach da SPL in advance. "I was really thinkin' about you for ASPL (because you're good at XYZ roses...), but man, the way you talked to the PL really bummed me out (thorns...)." Good experience for your SPL, too. Talkin' about people behind their back is easy, havin' the courage and kindness to confront them takes more work. Have a conclusion in mind before you start. Maybe ASPL for a month to see how it works. Maybe nothing for a couple of months, but the chance to become a second ASPL after that. Acknowledge the thorn and its consequence, but also acknowledge the rosebud and its hope for the future. It's a good teachable moment, use it if you can. But if you can't, I wouldn't convene the grand jury quite yet, eh?

Yah, dittos. Suggestions: 1. If you have patrol(s) that drop below 4 members on a campout more than once or twice a year, increase your patrol size. Select a patrol size that pretty much guarantees havin' at least 4 boys out on any event. 2. If da boys feel that 2 guys is too much work, take a good look at how your patrols do cooking/tenting/cleanup. It is possible, if you do big heavy car-campin' and expect 2 guys to rig the 80lb. patrol dining fly and haul an additional 100lbs. of equipment that they're right, eh? Make your patrol gear and procedures "scalable" so that it's roughly the same workload no matter what. 3. If the boys think the workload is too hard, spend some more effort on YLT and on helpin' and coachin' them. Most kids need a lot of hands-on instruction before they start to figure out how to cook/clean well and efficiently. It ain't always easy, and bein' stuck with dishes for 2 hours just because nobody take the time to show 'em how definitely isn't fun. 4. Even in da most active busy kid lives you should be able to get half the troop out per trip. If you're gettin' less than that, then you need to spend some real time talkin' to kids and lookin' at your program, eh? I personally would suggest da 80 boy troop that doesn't run patrol method split up into 2 smaller units. Tryin' to convert their school-trip style campin' back to patrol campin' will probably just cause chaos. 80 is more than an SPL can handle. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It is interesting that the troop is half-and-half, that is, half Catholic and half non-Catholic. Yah, dat's fairly common in our district. Catholic units are often about half and half. So they have more Catholics than the general population, but are fairly welcomin' of others as long as they aren't anti-Catholic. It will be interesting to see how things develop in the future, with the increasing emphasis on youth protection on a parish-wide basis. Will all Catholic churches require that all the adult registered Boy Scout leaders and scouts who are 16 or older take the Virtus training (or other similar training)? I think they are all supposed to, eh? The Catholic units in our area require finger print background checks and the Virtus YPT stuff for all unit leaders, assistant unit leaders, and cub den leaders. One of da big questions is whether MBCs will be next. The rule seems to be "anybody who has regular contact with youth." Smart on their part. I'm always amazed by the CO's that sign up any warm body.

You tried to backpedal on my example of genetic diseases, but that actually refutes your position. If some genetic diseases can confer benefits under some circumstance (such as the well-known malaria resistance from inheriting one sickle-cell gene), it's quite possible that exactly the SAME sort of situation holds for homosexuality Nah, Mirlyn, yeh just don't get it, eh? True homosexuality (exclusive preference for the same sex) is a nearly 100% negative selector. That's just hard to overcome mathematically with any benefit, eh? And in order to make that claim, you have to find a matching benefit. And then you'd have to explain why the incidence of homosexuality vastly exceeds the incidence of any of the genetic diseases, if they are predicated on the same selection principles and not somethin' else. DanKroh mentions twin studies (a small and badly confounded sample if there ever was one), which nevertheless demonstrate that homosexuality does not have the same congruence as other genetic disorders. As DanKroh says, none of us are genetic, neonatal, socialpsych or psych researchers, eh? So talkin' about mechanism is the blind leadin' the blind. But my original point remains: it's dead wrong to claim that the basis for homosexuality is genetic or physical. At best that is only speculative, and the jury is still way, way out. The research should continue, though. If it turns out you're right, it'd be nice to find a cure. But back to the original question: If it's wrong for the public schools to teach Christianity as part of the curriculum because that would be the state infringin' on the rights of the family to its beliefs, then why is it OK for the public schools to teach homosexuality as a social norm, when that infringes on the rights of the family to its own religious beliefs? Seems like in a polite, diverse, democratic society yeh wouldn't want to introduce that kind of culture clash into the First Grade classroom.

For those jumping in to insist that tolerance for gays has no place in the curriculum, would you be that quick to defend a white supremecist who insists that tolerance for other races has no place in the school curriculum? Or will you admit to be a hypocrite?? Oh get off it with the emotional labels, eh? One can be a Christian/Muslim/Orthodox Jew/Buddhist and simultaneously oppose both homosexual practice and racism without being hypocritical. All this comes down to the oppressive nature of government-run schools if they insist on venturing into areas where there is no societal consensus. How would you feel if the current Republican majority instituted a history curriculum where all of the successes of America were attributed to the G.O.P.? Government schools, unless we're very careful, are themselves discriminatory means for indoctrination. After all, they got started to indocrinate those pesky Irish Catholic immigrants, eh? Hardly a noble legacy of tolerance. Until we give parents real educational choice, our public schools should exercise extreme tolerance and sensitivity toward different family beliefs. If you're against teachin' da Baptist Bible Camp curriculum in the public schools, yeh should be against teachin' these books for the same reason. I'll stick with the opinions of real scientists, thanks. Yah, right. Except at da moment there's no consensus among the real scientists and only very spotty research, eh? The speculative science right now says no genetic link for female homosexuality, maybe a genetic link that contributes to male homosexuality under some circumstances, if environmental factors allow, and only if it's an X-chromosome gene that makes the women carrying it a lot more fertile. And only on Tuesdays. There's just too little data, eh? You might want to reconsider your pronouncement in the face of genetic diseases that kill before puberty - they can't exist according to your simplistic reasoning. Nah, I don't think so. Genetic diseases that are single-gene Mendelian disorders (like duchenes muscular dystrophy) are likely the result of random transcription error (mutation). They can occur at any time. They necessarily affect a very small portion of the population - much, much smaller than the reputed population of homosexuals. Other types of genetic diseases are related to positive selection influences, like sickle-cell mutations which protect against malaria, or CF which is apparently related to typhoid protection. Here natural selection is playin' a percentage game. Say 20% of da population would die before reproduction from malaria. If 2% die before reproduction because of the sickle cell gene, but only 10% of those with the sickle cell gene die from malaria, then you'll have 88 out of 100 sickle cell gene carriers survive one generation and only 80 out of 100 non-sickle cell carriers. The gene will still be selected for, despite the risk of early onset genetic disease, - but only in populations in parts of the world where malaria is endemic. Yah, dat's how natural selection works, eh? It plays mathematical percentages. But the one-generation survival rate for true homosexuality is zero, eh? Even allowin' for some "closet" gays to live a heterosexual surface life and reproduce, and for speculative theories of kin selection, it'd still be a brutal negative selection effect.

Yah, Gonzo. Many studies can be intentionally or unintentionally biased, especially when you "go off looking" for some conclusion or another. There's political hay to be made by declarin' homosexuality to be physical / genetic. Any time there's political hay to be made, extra skepticism is in order. The availability for funding of studies is part of the bias, too. How many studies are funded to examine social/nurture causes of homosexuality? None, eh? Too sensitive a question to ask on large scale surveys or even small-scale interviews. Implied causality can also be a bias. We all recognize now that learning causes physical and chemical changes in da brain and its operations, eh? So it's difficult to tell whether brain processes are a cause or an outcome. But there's no way around the fact that true homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end and therefore not genetically transmitted, eh? By contrast, aggressive sexuality can persist genetically, and may manifest itself as many-partner polygamy, or as bisexuality, homosexuality, and even beastiality in some environments. That would be consistent with da research that suggests a very large number of partners among gay men compared with straight men, eh? It would also be consistent with the strong taboo on all these behaviors, as sex with a lot of partners could be very disruptive to the social fabric of an agrarian (vs. hunter/gatherer) society, and can become a strong vector for disease. None of this changes our response, that all people, including us when we make poor choices, should be treated with dignity and respect, eh? Just that science, like schools, should stay out of da culture wars. So homosexuality is like alcoholism, huh? Love for another human being equates with compulsive partaking of a substance that leads to violence, anti-social behavior, and liver disease. Truly sad. Yah, it is truly sad, eh? It often leads to violence, anti-social behavior, and disease, especially among men. The two are quite similar, with some genetic, early developmental, and nurture connections.

"Winter camping" is not listed as an age-appropriate activity for cub scouts. That's a guideline, of course, and winter isn't defined. Maybe your council has some "under 40" definition in its interpretation of the BALOO site approvals? But in terms of the national guidelines, if you camp in the "winter" in Texas or Florida, that would be OK, eh? And kids in northern climes who typically walk or snowmobile to school when it's 20 below aren't goin' to have a problem with eatin' S'mores around a fire at 39 degrees. On average, though, it's a good guideline. Takes a lot more gear, experience, and work to keep young'uns happy and healthy in the cold. 30's or 40's and rain can be particularly challengin'. Switchin' to cabins when da North wind blows gives you a lot more flexibility, especially for the Tigers, Wolves, and Bears.

Yah, you need to talk to someone in Washington State, eh? Too many differences across state lines on how this is handled. But what you're describing is different than what anybody has answered yet. Your wreath vendor is lookin' for some proof that you're a corporate entity/reseller, rather than the end purchaser of the wreaths. In other words, he wants to act as wholesaler, so he doesn't have to charge you sales tax because you're a retailer. As a retailer, it's then up to you to collect sales tax on wreaths you sell, or determine if there's an exemption from the obligation to collect sales tax in your state if you are doing a one-shot fundraiser (in other words, no longer his problem once he establishes that you are the retailer). In this relationship, a typical state sales tax exemption for purchases (as a NFP, church, etc.) is not goin' to apply, the way it would if you were buyin' tents. You aren't making a retail purchase of wreathes; you are buying wholesale, then acting as a vendor.

Yah, this is hard to say, eh? 1. Paperwork. We all just love the paperwork we have to fill out all the time. 2. Popcorn. No scoutin' year would be complete without people we're payin' calling us up to get us to peddle overpriced kernels. 3. Endowment. By sellin' camps and collecting donations to build endowment, eventually all their salaries will be paid for by endowment income. That way volunteers in the future won't be made to solicit donations to pay for executives with da disingenuous claim that it's "for the kids."

Polygamy is not a biologically defined state. Homosexuality is. Yah, I always love this specious argument. There is no sound evidence that homosexuality is biological. Natural selection would virtually preclude a genetic basis for homosexuality. Unless of course yeh think that humans were the product of intelligent design, eh? Even within the homosexual community there is considerable belief that it's substantially dependent on nurture. By contrast, polygamy is highly present in nature. Regardless of its origin, there's no doubt that most homosexuals can't help their tendency of attraction in any conscious way, so the tendency is to be treated with understanding and compassion; just as an attraction to multiple women should be treated with understanding and compassion, or alcoholism should be treated with compassion. Acting on such tendencies, however, is wrong / sinful / etc. Whether it's the choice to have sex or the choice of the alcoholic to pour himself a Scotch, we can condemn the choice to act, eh? People can make poor choices.

Yah, the more capable a person is, the more she will get recruited to do more things, eh? Stick with what you enjoy most and what you are best at. Scouters are generous people by nature; they don't say "no" easily. But I've seen too many who spread themselves too thin. Better to do a great job at what you love than to do a mediocre job at a bunch of different things. And best to listen to your husband/wife, too, when they send signals that it feels like too much to them, eh? Seen plenty of strain at home when scouters don't read those signals right.

Yah, right there with yeh, Gonzo. Any teacher or school official with modicum of common sense would do everything possible to avoid turnin' public schools into a social battleground. Stay out of the quagmire until there is a societal consensus. Otherwise you undermine public schooling by making it an unwelcome and unfriendly place for a large part of the public.

Yah, some of your tent problems may be because of da way you are usin' them. Haulin' gear into the tents, wearin' shoes in 'em, etc. puts a lot of wear and tear on the floor waterproofing. Kids have bad habits of stressin' the zippers especially when they're gettin' in and out of tents a lot with gear. Yeh could cut down on some of that with smaller tents with good vestibules and some work on trainin' kids how to tent well. Then you might also do some backpackin', eh? But if you're goin' to keep with the big beasties, you might choose to spring for some overstock major brand tents like Mountain Hardware or North Face. These typically have "lifetime" warranties; just send 'em back and they'll be repaired for free. Often well worth it in a scout troop, eh? Some troops around here have also had good luck with the Alps tents, provided they pay for the heavy-duty zipper versions. Alps offers great deals for scout troops (http://www.tentsonsale.com).

Yah, Dale. Your boy is in trouble, eh? I'm not sure of any official rulin' on the matter, but a lot of people would consider working on the project workbook as still working on requirements. After all, the actual requirement states that the boy must use the Eagle Project Workbook in completing the requirement. So off the cuff I'd say he would need to apply for an extension of time to finish the workbook beyond his 18th birthday. But even if your council thinks it's OK to work on the workbook after he turns 18, your boy has passed the time limits for conducting an Eagle Board of Review: "For Eagle Scout boards of review conducted between three and six months after the candidate's 18th birthday, a statement explaining the reason for the delay must be attached to the Eagle Scout rank application when it is submitted to the Eagle Scout Service. If an Eagle Scout board of review will be held after the six months following the candidate's 18th birthday, the Eagle Scout must petition the National Boy Scout Committee for an extension of time to hold the board of review. The petition must be processed through the local council, detailing the extenuating circumstances that prevented the board of review from being held within the six-month period following the candidate's 18th birthday, and be accompanied with a copy of the Eagle Scout Rank Application." (ACP&P #33088D p. 29). Yah, sadly, I think your former scout has missed his opportunity by his own choosing.

A boy who starts a merit badge with a counselor can finish under the old requirements or can switch to the new requirements. In the BSA system there is no such thing as a "partial" merit badge. The Merit Badge Counselor who approves earning of the badge is approving that the boy has met all of the requirements. It's the MBC's discretion whether to take the word of the scout/another adult/blue card for any requirement, keeping in mind that the BSA policy is that a "badge represents what a boy is able to do (i.e. a current skill), not what he has done (i.e. a task fulfilled a long time in the past which doesn't reflect current ability). All that havin' been said, many good troops will impose deadlines as a way of helping kids "finish up," and as a way of ensuring kids get a good MB experience given that many summer camps and some counselors don't "follow the program" in terms of requirements or expectations. So I'm usually supportive of a Committee that sets some (reasonable, flexible) deadlines for boys. After all, if the boy is really "able to do", it's not goin' to hold him up to make him demonstrate a requirement again, eh? But there are no BSA deadlines for MB completion. Just like ranks, boys keep workin' until they can do all the requirements. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

1) G2SS (Chapter XXI: Transportation/Automobiles/11) and the National Tour Permit application (#4419 Transportation 6c) limit driving time to 10 hours of driving (not including rest stops) per day. There is no mileage limit. But da real answer to your question depends on the age of the kids (old kids are better on longer drives than young ones), and the experience and comfort level of your drivers in the weather and road conditions you're drivin'. 2) Don't go less than half way day one. Everyone is more tired day 2 (yeh know the adults aren't goin' to sleep as well on the road, you know the kids are goin' to stay up later, etc.). So it's best to go farther day 1 and shorter day 2. 3) This is a troop right? The Committee shouldn't have any involvement in the itinerary. That should be done by the youth leaders with da help of the unit leaders (SM/ASMs). The SM may ask the Outings person on the committee to help get some information or make reservations, that's about it. I don't know that part of the country, but I expect it depends on the time of year, eh? There's good mountains for skiing/whitewater/hiking south and east of Pittsburgh in PA, WV, or MD. 4) I've been with scouts at amusement parks dozens of times. It's also a regular thing for middle school youth programs. Normal precautions - Reinforce buddy system, designate "where to go if you get separated", "we all are meeting for lunch at 12 at the roller coaster, don't be late, etc." and let 'em have a good time. 5) Local troops are usually very helpful and will find you a church floor. Or camp, just like always. Hotels? Bah. Hotel rooms split up the patrols and create supervision headaches. 6) How do you handle gas for other trips? I encourage units not to make it an accountin' nightmare. Take your best guess, make it flat fee. As for us in northern climes, I don't know of any active troop, crew, or even pack that follows the G2SS nighttime driving restriction. If we did, we'd have no outdoors program for half the year, eh?

A Scout Executive must usually have at least ten years of progressive non-profit managment experience. Yah, yah. I wish this were the case, eh? It would be great if a SE had 10 years of progressive NFP management experience in different organizations - Red Cross, Y, B&G clubs, education. Even better if they had an MBA in NFP management. Then they'd know somethin' about the real world of fundraisin', service-oriented leadership and the like. They'd be worth their salary. The problem is that a council is limited to hirin' people with very limited real-world NFP management experience. If the county superintendent of schools or the 4-H regional director or the assistant CEO of the local hospital were long-time scouters and supporters of the program, they couldn't be hired, despite extensive local contacts and outstanding records as NFP leaders. Only 10 years of inbred BSA trainin' of dubious quality, bouncin' between councils is allowed. Gotta be a company man, eh? Just pay 'em the same as yeh would someone with real experience. If yeh pretend hard enough, maybe it'll work out.

I dunno about them there Bobwhites, eh? Flighty creatures. But you'd sure be welcome to belt out "I ustah be a Beavah!" with the rest of us "dam" Woodbadgers. Takes a while to gnaw down a tree into a couple o' beads, eh? Just cause yer still gnawin' doesn't mean you don't have whiskers and a beautiful flat tail!

This ended up in the Girl Scout forum for some reason, eh? I'll second what Semper said. And then add some things for you to consider as you make a choice. * How is the program of this troop in general? In other words, are there a lot of reasons to stay because aside from this one PL your son is gettin' what he needs? * Is the bullying confined to this one PL, or is the lack of support for your son and his friend more general? Sometimes a troop will have the misfortune of gettin' a kid who is a bully. It takes a bit of time (and some feedback from kids and families) to figure that out and respond appropriately. Real bullies are very good at doin' things only when adults aren't watching. So the conditions you describe can sometimes happen even in a great troop. If you think that's the case, do what Semper said, meet with the SM and CC, and be very firm. I'd also ask that your son and his friend be moved to a different patrol. Yah, hmmm. Some parts of what yeh say suggest that the troop may have a troop culture that isn't goin' to change fast, and merits a move. Some teasing happens among all boys, but in some troops it's more "accepted" or at least tolerated. These troops tend to have adults who aren't as comfortable respondin' early, often, and firmly to kid behaviors. The program may work just fine for a bunch of strong, self-confident boys who aren't facing other challenges. But such a troop may not have the "every kid counts" service ethic that your boy and his friend really need to thrive. In that case, I'd suggest finding a troop that does.

Some gals and gents think that Scouting is all about program materials and guidebooks. In the many outstandin' units I've seen over the years I've come to realize that the program materials are helpful resources, but that Scouting is really about people. In almost every great unit you can find at least one, and sometimes more than one, outstanding adult leaders, and a cast of supporting characters. These special scouters are the ones that stick to high standards, for themselves first and then for the boys. They're the few who can talk to kids as friends while remaining adults; the ones that kids talk about all the time. Troops are a symphony of voices, but often a few special people carry the melody. They are B-P's Scouters of the Right Sort. Treasure those people. As I watch units 'round here, I worry that they are becomin' more rare, and burnin' out faster. Adults and families are more mobile, so some move. Two-income families and busy schedules make it hard for people to give that kind of time anymore. But mostly, the rewards of their efforts are often listenin' to the constant complaints of people who give very little to the program. Can't do this. Shouldn't do that. I read a book that says you're wrong. My son has to do band, so he's blowing you off as SPL. Why don't you ...?? They turn the work of a Scouter into an expectation of servitude, rather than an act of Service. Sometimes the token thankyou of the one family that remembers Courtesy and Kindness can barely peak through. If you know one of these special men and women, your homework this week is to write them a note, buy them a present, and remind them of how much their Service is treasured as a Gift. Don't forget their spouse, too! Not just this week, either. Water these folks regularly. And, too, lend a hand to da work of weedin' when it comes up. When you hear a fellow parent gripin' and moanin', step up and say "No, I'm so glad my son is in this program, and I thank God every night for those volunteers. Sure they make mistakes, but so do you. Leave 'em alone, or keep yer bellyachin' to yourself." Don't be silent and let a few complainers choke off their enthusiasm. Be Loyal. I had three gents and one lady of the Right Sort walk away from units this last month, and one old friend in another state. Treasure your good Scouters, they are irreplaceable.

Yah, what da wise old Owl said. Good on yeh for gettin' training. Keep it up. But remember that trainin' ain't the same as experience. Training only moves you from a raw beginner to a beginner. If yeh think that a couple of parlor sessions and a weekend make you competent, you don't belong in a leadership role. When you enter a troop, you are a beginner. Be humble. Watch and learn. A good troop won't even consider you for an ASM position until they spend at least a year gettin' to know you, and you gettin' to know them. You need to step back, be an observer, and give your boy some room to make it his troop before you become more involved. You need at least a year as a quiet supporter to get yourself out of thinkin' like a Cubmaster. Really. You've spent years as a CM, eh? It's hard to break those habits overnight. So your job is to attend committee meetings, but not speak for the first year. Keep a diary to write down all the things you think they're doin' wrong, rather than sayin' anything. You'll be amazed how silly some things are in your diary when you read it a year later. Go on no more than 1/3 of the campouts, as just a visitor and quiet helper. Spend your time with the experienced adults as a student, not with the boys as a leader. Training is your learner's permit. Now listen, watch, and learn.

This is a continuation of the Thinking Ahead thread that seems to be "down" with a database error. ---- Original Post from Cubmaster Randy: Sometime I get ahead of myself, but I wanted to be ready. As a former Boy Scout and now a scouter (A scout is prepared) My son crosses over next March and I just finished up the last part of my SM/ASM training by attending our district's ITOLS course this past weekend. It was a blast. We got to learn, relearn or in my case remember all of the skills needed for a Boy Scout to get to First Class. I did SALT last spring so I am now a fully trained ASM. I did committee training last spring too, but don't think I want to be on the committee. I would prefer to work front line with the boys. Any suggestions for a new Boy Scout leader? ----- uz2bnowl replies: Randy, I am about one calendar yr ahead of you as a Dad/cub Scouter turned Boy Scouter. imho do the following: 1. Take Wood Badge 2. Spend the first year on the troop committee. Attend a few boards of review. Enjoy some camping where you are not vital to the trip. Observe. Observe. Observe. 3. Learn the new program you are joining with your boy. 4. Improve your skills(camping,outdors, dutch oven cooking etc.) Enjoy. Learn from the TRAINED Scouters that are doing a good job. Read the Guide to Safe Scouting. Read it again. PS> Take Wood Badge is #1 for a reason. Good Luck. ----- Eamonn replies: Hi Randy, Glad that the training went well. If you are going to read anything twice, please let it be The Boy Scout Handbook and the Scoutmaster Handbook (When I think I need something from the G2SS I look it up on line.) Two really hard things for an Ex-Cub Scouter are to remember that the Lads you are now working with are no longer Cub Scouts, they are Boy Scouts. When they ask you something you need to practice saying "Have you asked your Patrol Leader?" The other hard thing is to keep in mind that you serve the Troop the whole Troop and nothing but the Troop. One sure way of ruining the Boy Scouting experience for your kid is to treat him as something special. He will always be your son and you can take pride in what he does, but he has to do it. If you start treating him differently than the other Scouts, they will resent it and he will become "The Leaders Kid". I had a hard time, when a group of Lads were doing something that maybe the oughtn't to have been doing I tended to yell at my kid. OK part of it was I could remember his name!! But over time I did learn that he when he was at Scout functions was a Scout and just like all the other Scouts. Some other things I learned are. Be careful what you say when your son can hear what you say. While you might think that the COR walks like a duck, when you say on the phone and he over hears you saying it, you are not setting a very good example. Buy and wear the full correct uniform, even if no one else does -Who knows you might start a trend? Training and training's are good and wonderful, but it might just be that the Troop you are going to serve, might not do everything as the training said it should be. If you try and change everything. Chances are that it's not going to happen. This will leave you feeling frustrated, upset and looking for a new Troop, which isn't going to go over well with your son. Change takes time. One day when you are the SM you can remember all the great stuff from the training's and really make changes, but no one likes to see a new guy trying to change everything all at once. The real big thing to remember is that this organization is fueled by fun. When it's not fun the kids quit and all the good stuff and all the differences and character building we might have been able to do are lost. KISMIF. Eamonn.

Becomin' a Committee Chair having never served as a Committee Member? That's not a bright thing for a COR to let happen, eh? Is there a CO intention of tryin' to "shape things up" by your appointment? If so, then go for it, respectfully. Just make sure the COR is willing to back you up by removing committee members who revolt or become passive-aggressive in the face of your actions; and be willing to accept a smaller troop for a couple of years. If the CO backing isn't there for a really disruptive shake-up, then I think yeh need to recognize that a title is not enough to make real change. You don't have any experience on the committee and therefore lack credibility. You have to build up your experience and your "social capital" first, before you start tryin' to move others. So despite my colleague's thoughts, I'd return to my original caution to everyone who is new to a group. Spend a year being quiet and supportive and just learning about the people and how things are working, before you start speakin' up. That shows respect, and won't be as easily perceived as arrogance ("you're all doin' it wrong!"). But we're still missin' a bunch of information. What does the SM think of this? If he supports the committee, you support the SM. If he (or she) is furious, you get everybody together for a well-moderated "lively discussion" of values. What does the boy think of this? Does he acknowledge that he really didn't do his best, and can do a lot better? Then you support the committee and the boy. Is the boy just at a loss, and closin' in on 17.5 years old? In that case, I'd move more quickly with a new BOR. Is this your son? In that case, you absolutely must leave this to your Advancement Chair and stay out of it, or you will never be effective as a CC and may do great harm to your boy and his troop. What does your AC think of this (will you need to be recruiting a new advancement chair as the first step in gently making changes?). Is the Instructor position in your troop not "real" or well defined? Then perhaps it should be beefed up, or eliminated (coach the committee that it's not the boy's fault, so pass the boy, but fix the problem). Yah, this scoutin' stuff is hard, eh? It requires that we treat each other, youth and adults, with calm dignity respect. Nobody likes a rule-quoting adversarial lawyer, but we will readily follow a values-based, caring leader. (This message has been edited by Beavah)