RuddBaron

Has anyone seen District Committee members working with units, showing up to meetings, going on outings, etc.? I mean AS DC, not as a Scoutmaster in SM uniform who is also on DC. My registration is DC, and I like to do this so I can see what is actually going on in the units in my District, how they do things, what they'd like to see happen, let the adults and boys interact more personally with the District, etc. As a boy I saw our Unit Commissioner at meetings on a rare occasion, but that was it.

The black sash was the original one. I had one that I wore with my official red-on-white sash when in costume. Another member of the ceremony team had a fully-beaded sash with the legend down the back that he used in costume. I will state that my black sash was STOLEN at an Ordeal. Scout spirit in action. "Spiriting" away the sash, I suppose.

"Boys will be boys" does not include needlessly dangerous and stupid activities like you mention. You can and should set a standard of conduct for troop activities, especially when it relates to fire. If they don't follow the policy during an outing, send them home IMMEDIATELY. If the parents won't come, deposit them at the local police station. Be prepared for some flak, but never never never back down. Years ago at a Jamboree my Jambo troop had a kid with a real discipline problem. The adults kept threatening to send him home, even to the point of calling his parents numerous time, but they never did. Surprise, surprise, he never improved, and it continued disrupting the troop. ONE BAD APPLE SPOILS THE BIN. They either follow the policy, or OUT THEY GO.

Fear not. This isn't a post about ADHD. In response to the following segment, "Spurred by the pain of hitting the fence, Ken came off it and unloaded a single right hook on the other boy that nearly broke his jaw. Both boys got ISS, the other boy got 2 days for starting it and my son got 3 because he did really hurt the kid," I will say the following: This is part of the problem with society today. One is punished for self defense? If your son had just taken the abuse, the other kid would have been the only one to be punished. Hmm...now what's wrong with that picture? It sounds a lot like the way I understand French kids were taught prior to Hitler's invasion, where the German youth were taught just the opposite. It made for a relatively easy invasion. Do we really want our youth taught to be doormats and pushovers? I much prefer a peaceful solution to problems and avoiding a fight if possible. Especially under the scrutiny of peer pressure, walking away is often more difficult. But, there are sometimes (as in the event you described) that there really is no choice. If a kid is being picked on by a bully and just walks away, the bully keeps on. While the kid might be able to continue walking away, there is only one way to stop the bully from continuing the harassment over time, and that's to fight back. It would be nice if tthe school system actually did something about the problems. Usually what happens is that the bad kids get ignored, but let one good kid defend himself, and he is sent up the detention river, or worse.

I'm baaaaaaack. To paraphrase Charlie Chan, here is humble suggestion. If a Scout does as you indicated, DON'T pass him for Eagle unless his performance improves. Surely the intent of the requirement is to teach the boys responsibility and have them help lead the troop. Merely being the name listed by the office hardly does that. Of course, there are other more immediate solutions to a QM not doing his job. Depending on the circumstances at hand, one could have things the troop is doing delayed until the QM and senior scouts show up to lead. Peer pressure resulting from punishing the group as a whole can be effective. (Gosh, I can't wait to hear the challenges to this method!) Older boys managing and not doing the grunt work could be justified as part of their leadership training, BUT they have to be there to lead, not hiding elsewhere to avoid the work.

I'm not familiar with Pony Club levels. Part of the reason the requirements are not higher is to allow for the differences in disciplines. An eventer, for example, isn't necessarily going to jump as high as a show jumper...and a Western rider won't likely jump at all. The other reason is that, as you pointed out, the level of instructor ability has to be very high. If I make the requirements much higher, we run into problems in that area. Again, though, this depends on your definition of expert. The definition I use for the purpose of this award is that an expert is one who is competent in the handling and care of horses and can ride in his own discipline with a high degree of skill as pertains to general riding within that discipline. The point here isn't to demonstrate one's ability to ride like an Olympic dressage rider. Someone who can do the requirements here is not going to appear to be an expert compared to someone who competes in the World Equestrian Games in show jumping. But, is that a fair comparison? We're not talking about the competition circuit. I would also expect the levels of "expertness" to be higher in a program like Pony Club that is designed specifically around horsemanship. In sections like jumping there are options. You can do lower jumps (hardly expert), but more of them laid out in a course. Or, you can do a few cross country (jump height is less important). Or, you can go for complexity and height. A competent ring jumper to ME is one who can jump at least 3+ ft fences, oxers, gymnastic lines, bends, etc. Why 3 ft? Practical riding. I've never encountered anything higher than that in the field, excepting cross-country courses. Will that get you an "expert" rating in competition circles? Probably not. That having been said, these are preliminary requirements. Things like flatwork may need to be improved. I'm personally retired from training, and most things with a horse are just things I do without thinking, so I don't always think of EVERYTHING that should be included. Feel free to make suggestions (privately, please, so the rest of the forum doesnt' get bored. ) Venturing Crews would certainly be eligible, and I have mentioned this to a friend of mine working in that realm of BSA. I don't think the specific views of BSA, GSUSA and Pony Club necessarily have THAT much relevance when it comes to a horsemanship award. For example, there are churches that sponsor BSA troops with viewpoints that are RADICALLY different from BSA, and the same goes for religious awards. I also don't think the views of GSUSA and BSA are THAT different...or SO different that we can't come together for something like this. But, I might not have a full understanding of GSUSA policy.

They have to know about horse diseases for the merit badge. But, it could be added as a requirement for this award at a higher level of knowledge. Since we're talking about a joint award already, what's your opinion as a Girl Scout leader about having the award be sponsored by BSA, GSUSA, and Pony Club?

Of course, the head of BSA, the National President, isn't paid a dime. Yes, I agree we need to attract high quality administrators for the CSE post, and salary is one major way of doing that.

>>> In your mind, does a boy ever become a man? My experience is, as long as adults think of boys as just boys, there leaves little room for boys to ever be treated as men. Yes. Legally when they are 18, but the process of maturation actually continues on up. One must give boys more and more responsibility and privilege as they age, based on their demonstrated maturity. Yes, we're the adults, and we have a responsibility to control their environment so that they can mature without being given so much freedom that they can't handle it. Ever notice how kids who were extremely sheltered and never allowed to do anything suddenly go NUTS when they hit the freedom of college? They can't handle it. A child who is trained in an age-appropriate manner from childhood and given more and more experience as they age and mature will be less likely to do this. >>>> In the example of the cliff, fear motivated the adults to react for the scouts safety. What makes the adults opinion (fear) more valid than the scouts? Hmm...perhaps the fact that the adults are responsible for the safety of the children. I'm not a big fan of being over-protective. Scouts need to learn how to deal with danger. But, there is a HUGE difference between courage and stupidity. Sometimes boys' natural fearlessness leads them to do stupid things. Some of this is healthy, some is not. The adults supervising in theory have more experience and maturity (otherwise why are they leaders?), and it is their responsibility to step in when needed. A kid who knows how to ride a horse falling off a horse while riding might be an inherent risk. An adult leader might allow that activity. But, an untrained Scout jumping on a strange horse is stupid and might ought to be stopped. >>>> You can order the boy to obey the adult with Move away from the edge before you fall or ask the young adult to respect our fears "Bob, I am uncomfortable with you standing that close to the edge, would you mind standing back for me? In the first example, the adult expects obedience simply because boys must obey adults. In the other example, the adult is asking for respect of the other persons fears or feelings. Use whatever method you like. Whatever gets their attention. Remember...you have more experience than they do. >>>> I find that adults who think boys are just boys also tend to think their way IS the BEST way. You have taken my comment a bit out of context. As I mentioned, boys have a natural fearlessness in general. This is why we like 18 year olds to go into combat. Sure, we can hold back, but permitting extreme foolishness, regardless of what the kid might think is ok, is a gross negligence of OUR responsibility as adults. Sure, the boys might sometimes have a better way. Fine. Another example: The OA used to allow supervised use of gunpowder to light campfires around here. Dangerous, yes. But, it was done with safety in mind. Now, other boys thought it would be great to start a fire by chemical means that would, as a byproduct, release chlorine gas. Clearly, whether or not the boys are comfortable with the risk, that should not be allowed. >>>>> By putting ourselves on the pedestal as the all-knowing adults, we tend to hold the program in our tight little box, which leaves little room for the creative minds of Boys to grow from their experiences and ideas. Who said anything about a pedastal? >>>> But I think you are not incorrect in thinking that that adults need leadership titles to be good leadership role models. What titles did I say were necessary? You can call it "Leader," "Scouter," "Scoutmaster," or "Grand Scout Poobah." The adult is stil the adult. >>>> Nor are you correct in thinking that boys need adults to run a good troop program. Well then why don't we just all quite the program and let the boys run the whole thing on their own. Hmm... >>> I know of a couple of troops that ran successfully without adults and the scouts from those troops are now some of the finest adults I know. A troop without adults? Now how on earth was that allowed? >>>> And I enjoy watching someone try an idea simply because they havent been polluted with experience yet. Or until society crushes their creative spirit! >>> Unlike adults, scouts dont have a lot of lifes experiences, so they dont have a lot to fear. Which is why kids require a guardian....

Excellent idea. The person for whom I am considering naming the award is an old pony clubber, so that might just work.

It depends on the TA and school. Where I went they would indeed charge you for it and also perhaps give you a grade penalty. But, most of my TA's would not tolerate messes. Their method of coersion was the grade penalty.

Close. I meant mountain hiking. At a stop, for instance, they might get too close to the edge trying to get a good view. Boys are still boys, and sometimes they get curious and need a little jolt of direction.

I wonder if the National President suffers the same way. Perhaps not, since the Chief is a lot more visible to the non-Scouting public. I did notice a lot of security at the National Scouting Museum, right next door to HQ. I would expect there might be some attempted defacing by the groups you mention, especially of the Rockwell paintings. Now...I wonder if similar threats have gone out to Regional and Council leaders, both professional and volunteer. Either way, not to be callous, but if he is actually killed, we'll get a new one. The organization won't suddenly shrivel up and die.

One of my favorite examples is what I see at the theatre. A woman is in an elegant formal evening gown, and her date is in blue jeans and a t-shirt. Hmmm.... Actually, I would say a lot of the lack of sufficiently proper uniforming is also due to the natural tendency of boys that age to challenge conformity and authority. There's a difference between a Patton-esque alteration to the uniform and a complete flauting of convention.

I'd like to think Roy doesn't do it for the money. Death threats? News to me. Please enlighten, if you wouldn't mind.

Marriott alone could pay the Scout Exec a $300K salary.

Right.... Someone else did suggest a "saddle blanket" patch, and that, or some other creative insignia, would be fine and perhaps more appropriate. I have my little Paul Bunyan axe on one of my packs, and it has never bothered me it can't go on the uniform. A patch on jods? Other than the knee patches, I've never seen that done!

No, I'm asking why their use seems to be waning. Lately I have seen nothing but the really short socks. Given the choice, the kids seem to prefer the shorter ones, as the knee socks are no doubt seen as "geeky" or at least out of style. For that matter, BSA in general seems to be considered geeky by a good number of kids. This is a bit off the topic of new uniforms, but perhaps someone can clue me in as to why?

And while we're at it...what on earth happened to KNEE SOCKS???????? I know they aren't "cool" with the current generation of Scouts, but they not only are very "scout-like" in appearance, they are EXTREMELY functional by protecting the legs. I went to a troop at the SM's request to discuss the OA opportunities with them last week. I was in knee socks...and I don't think any of the boys had seen them before. As I pointed out, those are REAL Scout socks.

Ok, FOG. I'd believe that a Scout Exec has a high salary, esepcially since a Council is sort of a corporate division of BSA. But, I've not seen numbers. I've also a Field Director who wore nice suits with French cuffs. Perhaps he just liked to dress well (a laudable trend), but that type of dress is not generally seen among those with lower-paying jobs. As for the shirts, you're right about priorities. In the warmer climates, kids can just wear a longsleeved t-shirt or the like under their SS shirt during the relatively short cold season. So, it's not THAT big a deal there, though the more serious Scouters often buy the LS shirt for colder weather and, more importantly, more formal functions like Courts of Honor. To me, though, if you can pay $40K for a Jag and you're going to do Scouting, you bloody well ought to be in full uniform. Both shirts would be nice, but aren't essential. I see this also in the local Scottish community. A discussion on another topic showed the cost of Scottish kiltwear. At many formal events that call for the whole shamola, which includes the kilt, TARTAN hose, and a formal jacket and is easily over $1000, some show up in a t-shirt with their kilts...despite the fact that they have money...more than enough to buy the outfit. Not only is it rude to the host, it says to the world that they just don't care. Really...why participate in something if you're not going to do it right to the best of your ability?

Perhaps you need to read my post in the professional Scouter topic you started to get me opinion of Scouting professionals. I was NOT referring to the Council and District executives. I was referring to the excessively high salaries I see NATIONAL execs getting. A list of non-profit corp CEO salaries showed the Chief Scout Executive making over $300K. Is this incorrect? I am aware of the Union problem as well. But, if you want to lower price, you have to accept less surplus and/or cut costs. If you insist on it being made in the USA, which is fine by me, then the reduction in cost has to come from somewhere. If there isn't much markup, yet BSA wants to reduce uniform price, then it will have to subsidize. One way would be to reduce NATIONAL spending and apply the money towards uniforms. Otherwise, the only option is for people to accept the prices as they are and find ways to purchase them. *I* personally have no problem purchasing the uniform. But, as I have been reading, many people do.

"Is your Chem TA acting as a leader when he says, "is your glassware clean?"" Yes. If the answer is no, you must clean it. If you don't take the initiative, you will be issued a formal directive.

Ah, I see the problem! We're using different phraseology to say the same thing. Your statement, "Then again, all forms of leadership are directing in disguise," expresses my point exactly. Coaching is fine, but the coach is still the coach. Just ask Bear Bryant.

I can see the confusion! The uniform costs don't bother ME that much. And, local-level executive salaries don't bother me much, either. The executive salaries I was referring to were the NATIONAL level salaries. From what I have seen (and I could be wrong), they are quite high. For example, a listing of non-profit CEO salaries listed the Chief Scout Executive's salary at over $300,000. That's around what I recall the President of the US getting. The money has to come from somewhere. Moving it down to $200K would save over $100K. But, in part the high salary is needed to attract the caliber of administrator needed to run the day-to-day side of BSA. While I do not know all of BSA's national-level finances, we would not be the first non-profit corporation to have some waste at the expense of the members. So, in summary, IF there is a true need to lower uniform costs, then, since national sets the price, some national-level costs are going to have to be cut or lower surplus accepted. The question is whether or not the gain in welfare to the Scouts by paying less for uniforms is greater than the loss in welfare to BSA as a whole. If so, then net welfare increases and BSA as a whole is better off, even though the Chief Scout Executive might have to take a salary cut. If not, then net welfare decreases, and BSA is better off maintaining its present pricing and looking for new ways to help Scouts raise the money for uniforms.

This is a bit late, but I wanted to say that, when I was a boy, I knew my DE from Webelos on up. When I got involved with the OA, I worked more closely with him. He was always extremely supportive. The only difference to me is that he got paid to play Scout. (Of course, there are some problem professionals.... )