Beavah

LOL. Yah, that seems about right, JoeBob. If they ever come up with a program, it might develop a head of steam. After all, today we had da nitwit from Bank of America talkin' about how he had a "right" to profit and tens of millions in bonuses for gambling with other people's money. Used to be banking was a boring profession, eh? Yeh provided a service, and made money on da spread between the interest you paid and what you charged for loans. A nice, comfortable, steady 1-3%. No fees for using a high-cost human teller. Now it seems yeh have a "right" to charge all kinds of fees for providing less service, in order to support your gambling habit in da derivatives market so yeh can get a jazzy 10-20% unsustainable profit at da expense of the national economy. Then yeh have da folks strugglin' to make ends meet and payin' a higher percentage in taxes than that Bank of America CEO, who nonetheless send their kids into harms way in Afghanistan while da CEO's kids get to go to college and avoid service. If da protesters actually start to focus, watch out. Beavah

Yah, as an old fellow it just amazes me how sheltered and prissy we're raising young men these days. I'm astounded by da "fear of pit toilets" thing at camps each year, and I'm certain that "holding it in" is responsible for the dumps taken in showers that we older adults attribute to vandalism. This is one of those things that I think is best addressed explicitly with younger boys in the way Troop185 suggests. Yeh just explain how to do it using a bit of comedy and good humor. Da thing is to acknowledge their fears as normal but downplay 'em into somethin' that's just funny or less intimidating. An admonition to just "man up" delivered with gentle humor often does the trick to get 'em past the icky part. It's much easier da earlier kids start, but I think with just a bit of good natured mentoring away from da women folk yeh can get most boys through it. Beavah

Yah, momof2cubs, generally speakin' da treasurer should at least provide a summary report to the committee. But this does vary, eh? To the extent that the unit provides financial assistance to boys, I'd expect the books to be "closed", and generally speaking I don't think a large group of people should be made privy to other families' payment records. None of your business if Billy's mom always seems to pay late because of when her paycheck comes in, or half Billy's dues are paid by da ex-husband or grandma. Best practice IMHO is to have a small group of folks with da necessary skills and discretion do an annual internal audit. Not a full-out professional audit but enough to verify that things are being handled well and are in order. Between audits, someone other than the treasurer should be sent copies of the bank statements. Together, this helps guard against "temptation" and provide a relatively quick alert to potential problems, without generating some of da occasionally dysfunctional adult behavior that "open" books can cause. A big pack might do a full - out annual budget and track it monthly, but by and large that's more effort than most packs seem to be willing to put in given da relatively small amounts involved. Operating more informally is fairly normal. Troops and especially units that run high-adventure trips tend to see more material cash flow and their youth (and adults) are encouraged to do more budgeting. Beavah

Yah, UCEagle72, I agree with yeh on international scouting. The kids genuinely buy into da neckerchief thing, not da full-out uniforms. A token of symbolic membership which is much, much closer to da notion of "gang colors" that someone mentioned than a uniform is. Indeed, in many areas of the world kids in uniforms symbolize a lot of bad things. I think kids who are proud of their program naturally find such symbols with which to self-identify as group members. It doesn't really matter so much what da symbol is for it to have all da effects and benefits. For our character-building purposes, da uniform is somewhat inconvenient, eh? It's less portable, less able to be worn in daily life than most other effective group membership symbols. Jblake mentions a long list of jobs that require uniforming, but those are different, eh? When you're performing a special function (law enforcement, burger flipper, etc.) in public, there is a need to be easily identified by non-members in order to do your job effectively. That's a different thing, and almost all of those folks take off their uniform as soon as they leave da office or the public eye. Sports teams don't wear the uniform when they are practicing or scrimmaging among themselves, physicians don't wear lab coats or scrubs to physician gatherings, judges take off da robes when they leave the courtroom. We shouldn't confuse da normal role of uniforming for identifying people to non-members with da symbol-wearing which people choose when they are proud of group membership. Those are different things. And for da most part, the Aims of Scouting are lookin' for the latter. Beavah

Nope, not gonna subject my guys to that. And what's the lesson then, eh? That cleaning up after ourselves and each other is somethin' that we're too good for? It should be done by lower-class hirelings? Changin' diapers is why yeh hire an immigrant nanny? What do yeh do when yeh have a lad get sick on a campout? Leave his vomit on da floor of the National Park bathroom? We pick up other people's trash in the woods even though it's inconvenient, it's gross, it's potentially "dangerous" (dependin' on how far you're willin' to stretch da notion of "danger" ). We do it not because we are da folks who left it there in the first place... but because if we walk away then we will be among the folks who left it there. Strength of character is measured by doin' more than our fair share of hard tasks, because we care more about da group, nation, God, etc. than ourselves. Boys learn that by the examples we set in small things, only later connectin' those examples with da words of the Oath and Law. So me, I'd just buy some gloves. Beavah

In truth, I found that for boys pride comes from the program and is expressed through the uniform, not the other way around. Yah, I was about to write a long Beavah Missive then Eagledad went and captured it in a single sentence. I've never bought into da blather about uniforms being democratic or all the other "theoretical" benefits in da BSA literature. Sheer nonsense for da most part. In fact, makin' everyone wear the same thing is more properly associated with communism than democracy. Enforced "equality" and all that. I've also never seen anybody change their behavior or be "reminded of values" or whatever by what they wear. In fact, we hear plenty about boys in uniform vandalizing parks and porta-johns at Jambo and whatnot. We do, however, react to and change our behaviors based on what other people wear, as ScoutLass describes. And we do choose what we wear to reflect our own values and sense of self. So when yeh see a lad choose to wear a uniform, it reflects his sense of self-identification with da program. That, in turn, reflects the quality of program he's experiencing, and his learning by da example of others who self-identify with it. And that's really somethin', given how goofy most boys think the uniform is on its own merits. Beavah

Nah, forget horses. I think it's a travesty that the BSA still does not have a ban on dwarf-tossing. It's just what people would expect from a discriminatory organization, to continue to allow this "sport."

And if it's important, the natural question follows of whether it should have a consequence if it is not followed? If there is no consequence, does that make it unimportant? Why have the standard if it does not matter if it is followed? Yah, 83Eagle, I reckon that some of us are responding to comments like this, eh? You've said it several times, and I really think it's exactly da wrong way to think and act as a scout leader, but especially inappropriate for cub scoutin'. Might work fine in certain adult workplace environments or with your own kids, but not so much elsewhere. There are lots of social norms and standards that exist and are important without defined and authority-imposed "consequences", at least in this life. All of the Scout Oath and Law, in fact. What are the "consequences" of not doing our best in our duty to God or Country? And yet, even without "consequences" those are the most important things we teach. How many of us impose "consequences" when a scout doesn't Help Other People at All Times, and would that really be the right way to teach generosity of spirit? Yeh have to think about this stuff differently. Scouting is not a game of reward and punishment. It's a game of Inspiration - of inspiring young people to be good group members, good citizens, good people. And I ain't ever seen a boy truly inspired by "consequences", eh? And if we're not inspiring the lads, then we really need to think about a different line of volunteer work. Beavah

Again, back to the sports scenario. Billy shows up without his jersey, he doesn't play. Period. At da elementary school level?? I hope not. I'd expect most coaches for kids that age would bring a spare, just have the lads swap shirts with whoever was on the bench at da time, or work it out with da ref and opposing coach. There are lots of things about da cub program that take effort to make run really well. If this is da biggest thing yeh have to worry about, count your blessings and sit back and enjoy the energy and enthusiasm of the boys, whether they're in blue or not. At this age, this stuff is a measure of da parent's commitment, not a choice by the boy. That's not a fight yeh win by "consequences", it's a fight yeh win by providin' a great program that increases parent investment and enthusiasm. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, reality is da commissioner corps is sometimes slow on da uptake, and it's the leaders who are seeing "refugees" that are the first sign outside a unit of trouble. I think yeh absolutely should let your DE and DC know what you're seeing. I think it's also worth a call to the CM and CC of da other program just to offer support and assistance if they need it. We're all in this Scouting thing together, eh? Loss of another unit just hurts scouting in da long run. Fewer members, fewer volunteers, fewer camps, merged councils, fewer resources. Beavah

I am just saying that HE MAY THINK he is doing right by the scouts. Of course we all think our own units are da best units for boys to join, eh? That's just natural, and as a Scoutmaster you'd be expected to advocate for your unit and do da best recruitin' yeh could. But UC is a different job, and it doesn't matter what he thinks. He's there to represent da council and help fulfill the council's obligation to the CO under the Charter Agreement. A good district commish, if informed, will pull the fellow aside and re-orient him to his proper job. And then place him somewhere else that avoids a conflict of interest which the fellow doesn't seem capable of managing himself. B

Ahh the million dollar question. Is the UC doing anything wrong? I would say "yes". Da ethics of work or volunteering is all about knowing who yeh work for and represent, and avoidin' conflicts of interest. As a Unit Commissioner, the fellow is volunteering on behalf of da BSA's local council, and is there to represent da council's and BSA's interests by helpin' 'em fulfill the council's part of the Charter Agreement. That means to help the Chartered Organization implement and employ the Scouting program to meet its goals, and indirectly to help da children in a unit get the best experience they can. So there's nuthin' wrong with a UC helpin' a Webelos 2 Den Leader connect with various troops in the area to check out, or even listening to what a boy and his family are lookin' for and offering suggestions for troops that might be a good fit. If asked. Da conflict of interest comes in when the person in their role as UC is instead acting for the interests of another CO's troop (as SM or whatever). That's exactly da sort of ethical conflict a wise and honest person avoids assiduously. I don't fault the man particularly, though I think any adult should really know better. Sometimes folks just don't pay da attention they should. I mostly fault da DC for makin' that UC assignment in the first place. Yeh always have to be very cautious assigning a UC who is or was recently a member of a unit to that unit. There are just so many different ways that can go wrong. This is only one of 'em. Beavah

Yah, this is another sad example of how da "warm body" approach to assigning commissioners is broken. To be effective as a commish, yeh need extensive familiarity with da program you're tryin' to assist. So a fellow who has only been a cub scouter makes a poor Venturing commish and vice versa. Then, they actually have to have been good at what they did as a unit scouter. Then, they have to be able to get over themselves and realize that other folks are goin' to do things differently than they did. Da point of being a commissioner is the same as the point of being a unit scouter. You're there to help others succeed at what they want to do, not to do it yourself or accomplish anything yourself. A scoutmaster succeeds when his boys achieve their dreams and can continue without him or her. Same with a commish and units. What yeh point out is why it's often best not to have active unit scouters in da commissioner corps in their own area of operations. They can't be effective and also be an advocate for a particular program they are involved in. Have your COR contact your District Commissioner and let him/her know that the UC for the pack is not performing in a manner that appropriately supports da Chartered Organization's desires and you'd like an immediate replacement. Then I reckon yeh still have some work to do rebuilding relationships with your pack, eh? Den Chiefs don't happen without both the cubmaster's and den leader's permission. Sometimes another troop is able to recruit because they're providing a level of service and attention where a CO's troop has been a bit neglectful. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

So are yeh suggestin', SeattlePioneer, that rather than use drone strikes we invade Pakistan and Yemen? Yeh ready to send your kids to do that, and vote da huge tax increases that would require? Because then I would agree with yeh. Once we invade and an enemy surrenders, he is a prisoner of war and entitled to be kept free from torture and in acceptable conditions under international monitoring. Either that, or he is a civilian criminal subject to arrest and prosecution by da occupying authorities or provisional government. Let's just not confuse a raid behind enemy lines with an occupation, nor a belligerent in a firefight with U.S. forces for a surrendered prisoner of war. Bin Laden has been wanted "dead or alive" since 9/11, and had he surrendered he would be alive. But dead is just fine if da alternative involved even da slightest additional risk to the brave men of da Navy who took action that day. And I don't reckon any of us has a problem with a drone strike on the most recent nut job any more than we would have objected to a sniper takin' out Benedict Arnold after da plot against Washington. A traitor is just a traitor, and enemy command-and-control is always a legitimate target. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Austinole, I reckon we have to be a bit careful, eh? SeattlePioneer was referrin' specifically to districts in his original post, not to councils. You're right that councils provide camps and camperships and some training (WB, NYLT, skill-specific, etc.) and web resources, and those can be a different kettle of fish. Districts don't provide those things, though. They're charged only with da set PappaDaddy describes, or with da vision I describe. There are some fine districts out there, eh? And some fine district volunteers like PapaDaddy everywhere. But I reckon that not all of the districts feted for being "Quality" really provide da level of support and service to unit folks that they should. Not to do the unit's job, but to make it easier by way of inspiration or information or resources for da units to do their own job. Beavah

Yah, shortridge, yeh would think this sorta thing would be common-sense, eh? What yeh need to understand is that the BSA national office functionally runs a union-like seniority employment system, and requires council corporations to participate in it. So da reason a Director of Field Service can't be promoted to Scout Executive is that in national's employment system he or she doesn't have da seniority for the position. Might have da skills, experience, established trust and contacts, and 100% support from da council board, but that doesn't matter. The next step up might be to SE, but only to a smaller council somewhere else. A Senior District Executive ain't anywhere near the seniority status for SE. Personally, I think da council exec boards could push this issue, and that it would be helpful for U.S. Scouting if they did. National's system creates a genuine conflict of interest for da professional staff, who have a duty to their employer (the council), but whose long-term employment prospects depend on a different corporation (national). No employee should ever face that kind of conflict of interest, and in da rest of the world it would be considered an ethical violation. More important, it really hurts scouting in the ways that you describe and more. To "move up" an SE has to leave da state for a bigger council somewhere else... leaving behind contacts, displacin' their family. Same with all the lower levels. That results in poor service, as well as us losin' good people who just don't want to keep displacing their families. Rumor has it that da proposed mega-council for Michigan is goin' to address this somehow, but from what I've seen I'm skeptical. Da system is deeply ingrained in da BSA. Beavah

One step up from Scout Troops or Cub Packs is the area district organization. One step up? Nah. I always tell my district and council (and area and regional) colleagues that we are steps down from da fine folks who are doin' the real work of helpin' boys and girls learn and grow. We're just support staff, what military folks call REMFs, eh? The important people are the den leaders and cubmasters and SMs and ASMs and Advisors and such, because they're the ones who touch da hearts, minds, and lives of the young. Never confuse corporate organization with what really matters. I think a good district provides whatever support units in their area need, in part by encouragin' communication between those units. Findin' a strong troop to help support a weak one or a start-up. Identifying or securing local resources to support all units, from camps to activities to other scouting friends units may approach. Providin' some wisdom, a shoulder to cry on, some extra horsepower for events that a unit can't manage themselves, and some help with adult interpersonal dynamics when that becomes necessary. Mostly, to help the folks doin' the real work feel like they're not alone. That they are, in fact, part of a bigger, even worldwide community of like-minded folks who care about young people and each other. That's what a good district does. A poor district just follows da corporate outline that PapaDaddy lists, and checks off da boxes for "Quality District." Which for all practical purposes amounts to what BasementDweller describes: Absolutely Nothing. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

They were so disgusting the boys refused to use them and one the trip home had to stop at a mickey d's for them... Ah, then I reckon yeh missed an opportunity, BasementDweller. Rather than waitin' and usin' a bathroom maintained by other people, wouldn't it have been great if some fine group of young men led by an equally fine Scoutmaster asked da event staff for buckets and sponges, rolled up their sleeves, and did the hard work of maintainin' their own bathrooms for the sake of themselves and their fellow scouts? I can't help but feel that would be the better lesson. Service to our fellow scouts and da folks who put on the event and all that. Beavah

Yah, I reckon folks are never more upset than when we are upset with ourselves, eh? And lots of times when we are upset with ourselves we direct our anger unproductively at other things - at the boys, at the camp, at our spouses. It's a normal, if regrettable, act of human nature. Yeh see it in scouting all da time. Perhaps was even a factor in da other thread with regard to vomit in porta-potties. When we're upset, it's easy to blame a little lad who was ill rather than ourselves for not providin' for the possibility a boy may be sick or not have experience with porta-johns. So it's not surprising that a fellow who doesn't yet know how to lead/manage a big group of boys latches on to some external contributing factor like minor disorganization in seating arrangements as somethin' to blame. While it may be worth considerin' having assigned unit seating at the campfire so that da troops that arrive last aren't forced to be split up all over the place, we all know that's a secondary consideration here. I think when confronted by this sorta thing, da wise commissioner-like thing to do is to sit with da fellow afterward for a bit. Begin by acknowledging the seatin' issue and promise to work on it, just because yeh have to get past his anger and defenses. Then yeh need to help him with da real problem, eh? How does he learn how to manage a group of boys? That's harder than it looks, and many adult comes to it with no experience at all. Give the fellow some resources. Invite him to come visit a well-managed troop to see an example of how it's done. Get him a good unit commissioner. Yah, sure, da complaint is misdirected, but we're all wise enough to recognize it for what it is, eh? It's a plea for help from a fellow scouter. Beavah

What he has done is to mount military strikes that leave people dead rather than captured. We can note that under Bush Saddam was captured and had a trial before being executed. Under Obama, Osama Bin Laden was killed in circumstances where it would seem his capture could have been made. Oh puhlease! This is da sort of mindless neo-right nonsense that has undermined da American conservative cause. Saddam was captured in a country we occupied, and da fellow was found in a hole in the ground with no support and no route of escape. Bin Laden was taken by a strike team operatin' deep in what amounted to enemy territory and was killed durin' an extended firefight. Anybody who questions da integrity and honor of our military personnel operating under such conditions or accuses 'em of carrying out an assassination does dishonor to the flag and to our men and women under arms. Is disgustingly anti-military and anti-American, and da so-called "conservatives" who stoop to such calumny to try to score political points should be ashamed of themselves. All da rest of us are. By accusin' our troops of acting improperly yeh aren't doin' anything more than givin' aid and comfort to the enemy. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... I confess da notion of padlocking da bathrooms I just find offensive, having "been in a hurry" myself on occasion, sometimes not close to my own particular camp. I reckon I just wouldn't ever bring boys back to an event where I as a participant or guest was treated in that way. Especially for cub scouts, I think we have to allow for children being children. A lot of boys these days have only limited experience with outhouses and porta-poties, and their diet at camp compared to at home can sometimes be quite different (with da usual gastrointestinal consequences). I can't figure as da cub scouts are deliberately "vandalizing" bathrooms so much as not bein' the right size for adult-sized porta-potties or not feelin' well or just not handling "latrine smell" well. At some point, we adults have to act like adults, eh? We do that by showin' a bit of understanding and compassion for kids, and not getting upset with them if we didn't think to take each den through a session of compassionate "how to use a latrine" training, includin' what to do if we're not feeling well. Beyond that, I reckon we just earn our heavenly reward for cheerful service that is sometimes unpleasant. As for teens deliberately vandalizin' a bathroom as BasementDweller describes, WTH? I think there yeh have to make a choice. Sometimes, da lesson is more important than the scout activity. It is OK to end the activity for everyone until the culprit(s) confess/are turned in or some other scouts from da same area/unit complete a cleanup and speak to the group about it. Da reality of life is that when members of a community do bad, the whole community suffers. At the Boy Scout level, especially older boy scouts, it's time to learn that lesson, and to learn that proper citizens both report wrongdoing and help clean up after it for da sake of the community. At a big regional event, though, that's hard. Usually it's just one "bad egg" troop and da social pressures aren't the same. So all you're left with is catch-and-expel, and in da meantime, clean-with-hose. Of course, this is also one of those areas that would be solved overnight if we went coed . Ain't a young lady around who is goin' to think such behavior is anything other than disgusting, and the lads would get that message right quick. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I like CalicoPenn's notion. Or, when an "issue" is discovered, pick one troop at random to do the cleanin'. Boys are just boys, eh? They're in a hurry, they're careless, they're not feeling well. And they're used to mom cleanin' up after vomit and diarrhea and such. Unless they work the other side of it, they don't have empathy with the folks doin' the cleanup, and that's an important thing for boys to learn. Also, these days I notice that a lot of young lads are so mothered to death that they can barely managed to touch a dirty pot through their "icky-a-phobia", let alone managed da simple steps to scrub a latrine. Helpin' 'em through that is a necessary step on their road to adulthood and eventual fatherhood. Beavah

MOsr wars are due to conflicts of relgions or religious views HOGWASH. You're normally a bright fellow, Scoutfish, but this proposition is just nonsense. It's like da Big Lie. People start believin' it because it gets repeated often enough and they're lazy, but it doesn't stand even a moment's scrutiny. Let's look at our nation's wars. Da Revolution? Nope. 1812? Nope. Frontier wars? Nope. Civil War? Maybe, to da extent to which the abolition of slavery was for da most part a religious issue. Mexican War? Nope. Spanish American War? Nope. World War One? Nope. World War Two? Nope. Vietnam War? Only obliquely, to da extent the communists were interested in exterminating religion along with other liberties. First Iraq War? Nope. Second Iraq War? Nope. Invasions of Grenada and Panama? Nope. Afghan War? At it's start, a bit. Maybe. Only Islam really has had a deep, long-term history of religious warfare and violence. It is a sad legacy of that particular faith. Don't confuse that with all religion. Oh, others have had their moments, to be sure, like Catholics vs. Protestants in da 30 years War, but when yeh scratch da surface these were mostly about da usual things - political and economic power. Only Islam really has had and maintains da doctrinal notion of religious war. Yeh can't honestly paint all da rest of faith and religion with that brush. Beavah

Yah, what Eagle92 said! Just have lads who are currently Star or whatever go buy replacement/second uniform patches and give 'em to the troop collection. Then yeh just give boys patches out of da reserve, and replenish da reserve when yeh turn in new advancement reports. Or just buy two for each lad the next go around and tell da staff you require boys to have two uniform shirts just like at NYLT. B

Yah, just depends, eh? If yeh really are usin' 10 year old patrol leaders than 8 patrol members is probably too much. If you're usin' older boy patrol members then that ain't as much of an issue. Havin' watched this a while, I think da worst sin is "patrol collapse" on campouts, which sometimes in some troops results in "temporary patrols". So I think yeh have to look at your attendance, eh? If your attendance is usually 75% or so and yeh want viable patrols of 6-8 on an outing then yeh want patrol sizes of 8-10. That should guarantee that even on an outing with more conflicts yeh won't fall below 4. If your attendance is more like 60%, then yeh want patrols to be in da 10-12 range. So loosely speakin', unless yeh have strict attendance requirements, it's usually better to go a bit higher than 8. Then there's practical considerations. If yeh have 10 boys in da troop, one patrol of 10 might be better than two "too small" patrols of 5. Or not, if yeh have high attendance and do lots of patrol competitions. Best is to choose an approach that works for you and your boys, rather than hold on to some book guidance written in a different era. And if yeh find that what you're doin' isn't accomplishing what yeh want, then yeh can change again and try somethin' else. Beavah