Beavah

Unless someone has different books, then it looks like the Scout, MB Counselor, the SM, and the BOR are making sure that the requirements were completed. It appears that learning is important even in Scouting. Nobody has different books, Fuzz. Some people have different capabilities and competencies. The Naval Officer LongHaul mentions clearly wasn't capable or competent as an instructor/MBC for the badge. We all see dat pretty frequently with MBC's or "assistants" at summer camps. Most councils don't even pay lip service to MBC screening & training. Some people also have different ethics. Da parents LongHaul mentions who talk about how they feel they've done their job if they sat in training but didn't learn anything (to help their company/colleagues/coworkers or to improve themselves) are an example. They're lookin' for the fastest way to "get something" and don't value learning to be able to "give something." The challenge for all of us who try to use the Scoutin' program to teach kids both life skills and lifelong values is what to do when we hit these two obstacles.... adults who fail at, or don't care about, helping kids learn skills successfully (and then fudge signoffs), and adults who promote values contrary to those we're tryin' to teach. It's tough because these cases are never the kids' choice/fault, and we hate to hold kids back because of our weaknesses (whether on a MB or on a bike trip...). But at the same time, if we give in very often, the values we're trying to teach get replaced by other values - we become a badge entitlement program, and our message to the kids is the same as LongHaul's two problem parents.

One of the hardest things for crews in our district is understandin' that recruitin' has to be a constant activity. It seems like many of the crews form around a "core" group that came in at startup, and once they move on da crew folds. Short-term high school clique kind of thing. The other thing to look at is whether your program matches their schedule. Yeh mention dull crew meetings. Maybe you're tryin' to be too much like a troop. Crews seem to do best on a high school schedule. Activities, gatherings, and hangin' out more than meetings. Random more than scheduled. Maybe a "business meeting" a month with pizza. Successful crews also seem to run hot and cold. They ramp up to a big activity then go quiet for a bit. Yeh got to remember that this is kids' lives... they ramp up for a paper or finals or homecoming and then go quiet for a bit. Yeh just need to help them have "the next big thing" scheduled down the road to ramp up for. So I'd add some adult "push" for recruiting and some more adult support to help 'em plan the next big thing. Encourage activities more than meetings, and go with their lead on those things.

A similar case from Michigan, Scalise v. Boy Scouts of America and Mount Pleasant Public Schools, was taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (cert. denied). School facility use, fliers & posters, and recruiting including classroom presentations were found to be acceptable. https://nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=468&DID=35571

Sorry, BA. I understand your point, but it doesn't apply in this case, eh? Da BSA adopted the term "Scouting" because they were tapping into the goodwill of the worldwide scouting movement and BP's works, which existed prior to the BSA. We "borrowed" from that reputation, goodwill, and worldwide connection to do our thing. It's not honorable to turn around and claim we "own" it now. It'd be like Dominoes claimin' exclusive rights to the word "pizza" because they were the first to build a big franchise in the U.S., even though the term pizza was already in common parlance. Of course, da BSA is free to protect "Boy Scouts of America" or "Eagle Scout" in the same way Dominoes is free to protect "Dominoes Pizza" or "Fudgems." It's simply a matter of honesty and honor. Oath and Law stuff. Besides, competition and choice isn't a bad thing. Many countries have multiple scout associations, with none of the problems you suggest, and some healthy competition and rivalry. We seem to do just fine here in the U.S. with many programs that offer "soccer" to youth; some good, some bad, some tailored to specific kids. People in free societies are used to makin' choices between brands of different quality. And there really are a whole patrol of Beavah's out there, too. I don't claim exclusive rights to the name, though I haven't seen most of my patrol-mates in years. We're all Gnawsome!

Yah, this is an interestin' challenge, eh? Especially since the sights of the kids have gotten a lot higher in the last 20 years or so, with more technical adventure sports out there and more TV to bring it to 'em. Begin with your strengths. If you've got solid whitewater skills, encourage the kids to plan a whitewater superadventure. Find an outfitter or two that will offer kayak clinics, rafting, and canoeing. Then use your internal expertise to manage the preparation trips. Shoot for a two-weeker with days off to do side trips that might turn into other adventures in the coming years. Many eastern WW outfitters, for example, will also offer some climbing or mountain biking. That will give you and the boys ideas for the future. In areas where you aren't competent to guide, use others. Find an outfitter for the superadventure who will start you "from scratch." Or, alternately, find a local V-crew or other local resource to help you with prep trips, so that you can "jump in" with an outfitter at a slightly higher level. Be humble. Recognize that if you do this well, the kids are going to kick your behind in most of these activities. That's what you want to happen. After their superadventure, use them as instructors and leaders for related troop trips. This will cement their skills, and begin building a stronger troop program that will lead to more adventures down the road. Finally, get trainin', for you and for your key youth leaders. Not da BSA silliness, eh? Climb on Safely is useless. Go invest in a Wilderness First Responder course, go take a 7-day whitewater kayak clinic on your own, hook up with the local university climbing club and get real instruction. Be a good example to the kids of how even adults need to take classes and work hard to learn new things, but that it's fun. You're thinkin' right about this. Using canned package deals like SeaBase is good, but buildin' your own program from that beginning is better. It's buildin' experience in boys rather than havin' experiences.

Love the astro quotes, Prairie. But if yeh think about it, any job worth doing is worth doing poorly.

Can I call my new youth organization the Impalas? Probably. Can I call my new hybrid auto an Impala? Probably not. Can I call my new hybrid auto a Scout? Probably. Can I call my new youth organization Scouts? Probably not. An improper analogy, eh? Impala was the first use of the animal name for an automobile. The BSA is not the first use of "Scouts" for a youth outdoors character development program. The use of "Scouting" to describe a particular kind of youth outdoors character development program is in common worldwide parlance, and was so prior to the formation of the BSA. How about Boy? Or America? Why is Scout the only word of interest here? Da words "Boy" and "America" were in common worldwide parlance prior to the BSA, too. Claiming "Scouting" as proprietary to the BSA is as dishonest as claiming the term "America" is proprietary to the BSA, and can be used by no other youth service organization. While perhaps it reflects the current abuses of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, it is not honorable. If the only way we can stay the pre-eminent youth outdoor character program in the U.S. is by litigation, then we should be ashamed.

If you do an inventory of what options are open and look at what Scouting is supposed to be all about, what are the options? I may just be thick, but I think folks have been pretty consistent in tone and substance of suggestions: Meet with the boy Talk about honor Explain the requirements Ask if / show they were not met Apologize for the adult failure Help the boy find a good counselor to complete the work (if the boy desires) Maybe ask the boy to help you write the letter to the camp director. Easy, eh? The only issue of difference is in what to do if the boy says somethin' like "Go eat cow pies. I scammed that MB counselor and you can't do anything about it." I agree with Hunt, that's just an empty hypothetical, at least in 99% of the cases. Heck, 'round here, most of the boys self-report problems long before the adults catch on. But if a scout ever did cop such an attitude, then yeh need to respond to that like the poor scout spirit it is. How you respond depends too much on other things about the boy, your relationships, your troop culture, etc. for anybody here to offer good advice. But I expect for most of us it doesn't include lying on an Advancement Report.

If we say nope you have to do the the badge again if he could call the council up and most likely he would be awarded the badge OR he could get frustrated and say why should I be better than a counselor and give up on scouts, may not quit but just slide on through doing the minimum without enjoying it. I think if yeh really think these are options for a boy then you have to take a good hard look at your program, your adult leaders, and your use of Adult Relationships Method. Boys don't want to get a badge from council. They want to get a badge from their troop, that is recognized and respected by their peers and the adult leaders they trust and respect. Boys don't get frustrated and give up on scouts because of being expected to really meet a challenge. They get frustrated and give up on scouts because of real problems with the program, and especially with poor adult leadership. Boys don't just slide by and do the minimum unless that's a habit that the adults in the unit have allowed and encouraged. Using the Advancement Method as designed to build proficiency (and through proficiency, confidence and leadership) is a good thing. If you're findin' that you're gettin' negative outcomes, you have to look at strengthening OTHER aspects of your program, not weakening your use of Advancement Method.

I believe you are incorrect when you say "BSA policy and guidelines are that a Badge is awarded for "what a Scout can do, not for what he has done." Can you tell me where I can find this information? Advancement Rules and Regulations, Article X General Principles Clause 1: Education is the chief function of the Scouting movement and it shall be the basis of the advancement program... In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration. In the ACP&P guidelines book discussion of the Rules & Regs mentioned above, we are we are told in BOLD... A badge is recognition of what a young person is able to do, not merely a reward for what he or she has done. (p. 3, #33088D). In the Boy Scouting section of ACP&P, this is repeated: "A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do; it is not a reward for what he has done." (p. 23). The section goes on to mention that the first role of a BOR is "To make sure the work has been learned..." (p. 29). So da official rules and regulations establish proficiency as the expectation and requirement for badges and advancement, because education is our primary goal, and units through BOR's are supposed to verify that learning to proficiency has been accomplished. That's the program. The rest is just ways we try to administer the program to be fair and accurate. That makes sense, eh? What young man of character would be willing to accept and wear an award that did not represent his capability? What adult (aside from the most unconscionably lazy or mis-informed) would cheat a boy by giving him rewards for short-term parroted performance rather than genuine long-term learning and growth? And I'd assume nobody would deliberately undermine the program by givin' a boy a badge he hadn't really earned.

I think SSS's point is that the firefighter running into the building requires the same notion of self-sacrifice as the bomber running into the building. Jim Jones' Guyana compound is, at some level, a very similar self-sacrifice as da martyrs at Masada. The worst evil is often a reflection and mockery of the most generous good. The actions, commitment, and sacrifice are similar, eh? So is the language in some cases. Only the goals and results differ.

Yah... Da BSA policy and guidelines are that a Badge is awareded for "what a Scout can do, not for what he has done." So it's supposed to be about learnin' and retention. I think we all agree that recognizin' a kid for his First Aid knowledge if he can't do First Aid is ridiculous, and darned embarrassin' for the kid (or worse, a reinforcement of "slide by on what you can get away with" behavior). If a boy hasn't learned he hasn't earned and doesn't Merit public recognition. The blue card procedures are just paperwork in service of the goals and principles. Proper response is what Jim suggests, eh? A friendly conversation and apology to the boy for adult failures, followed by help to have him learn and earn "for real" - because it's fun, and it's da right thing to do, too. And then a quiet execution of the MBC who would cheat a kid.

Da way most good troops handle this, Lisa'bob, is 1) Restricting MB's that can be earned at camp. Lots of troops, for example, will make First Aid and the Citizenships "not at summer camp." 2) Have conversations with the kids in the way you have done, and then helped the kids to really complete the badges after camp. Kids have a strong sense of justice/fairness, eh? And this "hard work to do it right" choice is one we should be reinforcing. 3) Give active feedback to the camp. Yah, many of them won't listen, because they get as much feedback from the MB Mill troops when badges aren't completed, but at least you'll add some weight to the other side, eh?

Yah, and all this hifalutin' stuff gets us back to Eamonn's original question, eh? Da boys will make choices; we can't do anything about that. All we can do is try to set things up so that the odds are better that they'll make good choices. We do that by our caring for them and our example. We do that by community rules and expectations. We do that by occasional recognition for exemplary choices. We do that by consistent consequences for poor choices. All of these things are tools to help boys learn to make choices on their own, yah? None should be dismissed. Even Mother Theresa's religious order, with her inspiring example, lives by a set of Rules. Maybe dat's an important ingredient of what separates them from homicidal bombers, eh?

Naturally, they're goin' to spend more of their time at the activity that is more age-appropriate for them, eh? The question for you is whether you have anything for them to do anymore. If yeh want to keep 'em around, with a 13-year-old SPL, you're goin' to have to treat them all like ASMs. Invite them to scouters' meetings, and use them in that capacity. Alternative is to move the troop to a new mode of operatin', with vertical patrols and a loose expectation that the SPL should have a 16-year-olds' level of skill and experience. Then those roles workin' with patrols become valuable again. I've always thought that this was the big downside of the First Class/First Year emphasis. To get Star a boy needs to be a PL at age 11 or 12. Too soon, too early; it changes the nature of the job. SPL and Life at 13 and then what? Nowhere to go but da crew, eh? That seems to be what National wants these days, followin' the LDS model and turning Boy Scouting into a middle school program. If that's where yer at, though, that's where you're at. Boy Scoutin' is a middle school program. No point in fightin' it. Welcome the crew members as alumni visitors and don't let it get your dander up.

Yah, OK. Sell a camp to try to fix a structural deficit (dumb), then hire an Operations Director to increase the structural deficit (dumber), while having one less camp operation to direct (dumbest). On the surface, I'd say this kind of inept unprofessional management should simply be fired, eh? Is there more to da story?

Kids in their first year of Boy Scouting need support and encouragement, eh? I wouldn't bother with long adult explanations, though. His brain isn't wired between those and action yet. I'd just take him to the meetings, encourage and help him sign up for the outings, and talk things up. Don't push advancement, let his peers and leaders do that. Just get him there. Second year (7th grade) is a different thing. At that point, you have to fade and start leaving the choices up to him.

Yah, the moral of the story is always be cautious about signin' up a den leader immediately as an ASM, eh? Best to give their son a little space to make Boy Scouting "his own", and the troop a little space to figure out if dad can make the transition to Boy Scout leadership from the Cub program. Pull him aside and have "the conversation", for sure. And certainly, if he comes to a meetin' and tries to infringe on the PLC's plans, the SPL or you need to tell him "no, that's not what we're doing tonight." Ditto if he starts cleanin' boys' pots. If you plan on tryin' to keep him, consider assigning an "adult buddy" to him for a while, until he gets with the program.

Yah. Would someone tell me how sellin' a capital asset (gaining one-time money) helps solve the problem of a large structural deficit (recurring year-over-year losses)? To solve a structural deficit, yeh need to cut recurring costs, like exec. salaries, eh? Or yeh need to improve recurring revenues. Sellin' their admin building might help, if they also cut staff. Yah, it may be an OK thing to sell this camp if they have others nearby, and if they can use the money for some other capital need that builds program. But it's a very poor business decision to sell to cover a deficit.

Yah, I've seen da Chippewa effect in a lot of troops, eh? Seems like attrition year 1 all happens in the first six months, and takes out a bunch of kids/families who really had no commitment to the program to start with. Might be soccer, might be bein' scared of older boys, might be not likin' mud and spiders. Yeh have to show up and play if you're goin' to find out if you like Boy Scouts better than soccer, and to figure out those older boys are really friendly and cool. And it takes a few times out with the mud and the arachanids to realize how much fun they are, too. Maybe you should make 'em pay 6 months worth of dues and activity fees up front, eh? That's what the sports leagues do, too.

My sons' school has had the policy of no non-school related flyers in the backpacks for as long as they've been in school. Personally, I think it's a good policy, as it should not be the job of the teachers to stuff flyers for non-school related information. However, our PTA group isn't labeled an "outside group", since it is school related. Yah, sorry, that's not legal there, DanKroh. PTA's are separately incorporated and not under da direction of the elected school board, eh? If your district allows the PTA fliers, but doesn't allow Scoutin' flyers, they're acting illegally. Anybody who wants to can bring a complaint and win. And an honorable school system would act in accord with the law, eh?

Fair 'nuff, packwife. I'm not real fond of the teasers; they need to re-learn some leadership skills a bit more in line with the Oath and Law too. I'll respond like SR540 in the spirit of the original question. How bad of an offense does a scout have to commit to get suspended? Yah, I guess da real answer is "bad enough that the adult leader doesn't want to deal with him for a while." No way to force volunteers to take responsibility for a boy they feel uncomfortable being responsible for. In most units it's somethin' like fightin', bullying, or a serious safety/Scout Law violation committed with malice. But it can also be catchin' a lot of crap from a kid and needin' to set an example, or just to catch a breather and figure out some other ways to manage a kid before he comes back out again. Is it what the SM or ASM sees as bad or are there guidelines for offenses? Your troop may have guidelines for offenses, but ultimately it's up to what the SM or ASM is comfortable being responsible for. Is a scout allowed a few chances first or is it one screw up and SM thinks its bad and out he goes? Others' experience may differ, but I don't see suspension as a multiple chances thing. Multiple chances means a behavior issue with a boy that just takes ongoing work and some old fashioned creativity. Potato peelin' is out these days, but some other "service learnin'" would be more appropriate. Yah, I'd say suspension is mostly for doin' something pretty bad on the first offense, that can't be handled with multiple chances and lesser consequences. What if the parents think it wasn't as bad and the SM thinks it was, does a parent have any say? Always a place for supportive, respectful, and friendly comments, eh? Just don't do like some of da posters here and call the SM "nuts," "way over the top" or "ridiculous". But if by "any say" you mean "any control over the decision", then nah. Parent doesn't have any say with the school principal, the football coach, or the police officer either. "You have to give your time to my kid, whether you like it or not" isn't reasonable, eh? If you're supportive, though, they're much more likely to view it as a problem incident that can be forgiven, rather than a "problem kid/family" that might have other negative impacts in the future. If yeh really can't be supportive of your troop's leaders, though, then I agree with the other posters - you need to look for a new program and people you really can support.

Your son was being harassed ???? Where'd this come from, eh? Respond to wrongdoing by accusing someone else? Not in my version of the Oath and Law. Close as I can tell, the other boy was a PLC member and a youth leader. "Harassment" may have been "stop bein' a jerk, you have to pay attention and follow the rules." In a youth run troop, it is important for the adults to ensure that the boys respect the youth leaders. That merits a follow-up conversation if it was an ongoin' issue. Then, too, lots of boys when they are gettin' ready to leave a group they've been involved with for a long time need a clear reason to leave. They need a psychological "break" with the group. So they generate one. Just like teen romances, a fight and casting blame makes the separation easier. Could be what's goin' on here.

I'm old and grey, but I remember a time when parents would support other adults involved in da care and feeding of their kids. If a teacher or coach or scout leader ever told my mom that I had mouthed off, the SM was the least of my worries. He wouldn't need to suspend me, my mom would have taken care of that and more to boot. And she wouldn't have spared any time for my excuses, either. Yah, sure, there were some times where I was right and the adult was wrong, or at least I felt so and would sure tell the story that way. Dat wouldn't have mattered, eh? Even if I was right, the lesson to be learned was how to be right in a way that was respectful. Not supportin' the SM is the same as not supportin' your husband/wife in a discipline matter with the kids, eh? It does nothin' but harm. Support the SM, or if s/he is really so awful ask the committee for the SM's removal and step up to be Scoutmaster yourself. There's no middle ground that makes for a good lesson for your son or a healthy environment for the troop. If you can't do one of those two things, it's time to find a new youth program run by someone you can respect and trust, eh?

But, like Merlyn said, if the Government maintained that nobody could grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and therefore withheld Medicare and Medicaid support to those that did not declare a "God obligation" I would have some heartburn with that. That's not the question, though, eh? The question is whether the Government should maintain that nobody who publicly professes a belief in God should be eligible for government funds (Medicare, Medicaid, using the field at the Army base, going to school, etc.). The issue isn't cutting access to non-theists. It's cutting access to theists.