scoutingagain

SueM, We've already registered him as a counselor and I'm sure it will happen in due time. He doesn't quite understand why the adults can't just schedule him to teach the MB at Troop Meetings and force the scouts to come. He was the Webelos den leader and was used to scheduling the den activities that he liked, when he liked to do them and is adjusting to having to run his ideas by a 16 year old SPL and several younger PLs! That said, I think he'll get it. He's very enthusiastic and is willing to take all the training he can get. He did much to help turn around the Cub Pack he came from and I think eventually will be a great asset to the Troop. SA

Congratulations and good luck. SA

Have no connections, but another suggestion. You might find a manufacturer or manufacter's rep who would be willing to lend you the use of a radar gun for appropriate recognition in the booth. I have no idea who makes these things but a quick look on the web might help. SA

EagleinKY, I had to check my brain to make sure I hadn't written you post. I pretty sure I didn't, but am currently going through much of the same thing. After 3 years of slowly help the troop become more boy led, or I should say, properly boy led, (we had a period of boy-led-into-the-ground), I now am dealing with a set of parents from our new scouts that want take us back toward more adult intervention. They like to cook and plan activities. So far I have managed to avoid the kind of confrontation you described but have come close. I don't know that I have answers. For the Dad that likes to cook, I generally have asked him to cook for the adults or occaisionally ask if he would cook a Troop desert. He is really a nice guy that enjoys cooking for others. When I am on an outing I can usually control or at least direct his effort so that he doesn't completely take over for the scouts. However, I find when I'm not there, he usually ends up doing most of the cooking. He is in fact really good at it and given a choice of a meal from Mr. C or one they cook themselves, the scouts will take up the offer of Mr. C. As far as outing gos, I've tried to get the adults that have specific ideas to present them to the PLC with the understanding the PLC gets to decide what they want to do. This has worked out better. So far the PLC has in fact decided on some(not all) of the suggestions from the new parents and this has led to trying some new outings. Anyway, you're not alone and hang in there. Feel free to vent any time. BTW, I find cabin camps one of the most non-productive, camping venues I can think of. As you pointed out, they are not set up to support patrols and frankly I generally don't like them. SA

LOL You folks are great! The only one I can come up with is Eagle Scout Card, "What's in your wallet?"

So I suppose we shouldn't let any British companies work for us either, given the British citizens that have been identified as terrorists. We should probably ask them the leave Iraq. I suppose we should return the $100 million dollars the UAE sent for Katrina relief. It's probably blood money. (Although I can only take the President's word that's how much they gave. Probably counted by the same accountants that figured out how much the drug benefit would cost.) I agree with the President in principal. We can't arbitrarily choose to not do business with a country that over all has been generally supportive of our efforts in the middle east just because some of their citizens have engaged in terrorism. Heck, given all the countries that have citizens that don't like us, that would leave us with darn few countries we can do business with. It would leave out most of Europe, SE Asia, Canada, Mexico, South America, N. Korea, the Middle East....The big question is, not can we trust the UAE, but can we trust this administration to properly review the bid from a security standpoint. Apparently both the Senate and House Republican leadership don't think so. SA

The port issue is less about security than confidence in the current administration. In principle, I actually agree with the administration that there is no reason a company based in a friendly Arab country shouldn't be able to bid on and execute contracts that are let to any other international firm, provided they meet the same security standards anyone else is asked to meet. But as pointed when the same group that tells you there are WMD in Iraq, a prescription drug benefit will only cost a third of what it really will end up costing, that they didn't expect the levies to break....says trust us, these guys are OK...well now even the leadership of their own political party doesn't believe them anymore. Wonder how many Republicans will be asking the President to campaign with them this fall? The sad thing is now we are stuck for another 3 years with an executive branch that has little or no credibility with members of either party. As far as I can tell about the only Federal branch of government that might actually do any governing will be the Supreme Court. SA

Up until a couple of years ago the unit I belong to hadn't backpacked in at least a generation of scouts. Last summer we took a crew to High Knoll. Prior to the trip we did a couple of shake down trips, including at least one that would be a qualifying hike for Backpacking MB. This year, the scouts have elected to take another Backpacking trip to complete the MB. We still mostly car camp, but now we do one or two backpacking trips a year. In my opinion, scouts really don't get to appreciate LNT principles until they get out of the state park and council group campsites and see what it takes to really LNT. SA

"Troop is at 8 scouts per patrol (3 patrols for 24 kids) but is only running about a 20% attendance at monthly activities." With all due respect CNYS, if the troop is only seeing 20% participation at monthly activities, there are probably bigger issues than adherence to the Patrol Method. SA

I believe OGE has it right. The membership policies related to "avowed" homosexuals are directed towards adult leaders, not youth members. As far as I know, unless someone can show differently, this youth can be totally out of the closet, and can be allowed to join. Although I see no reason to press the issue since it is irrelevant to his membership status. However, if he were to act out sexually with other members of the ship, he could be asked to leave, as would any heterosexual member if they exhibited similar behavior. And there is no reason to believe he is any more likely to act out inappropriately than any other member. Welcome him aboard if he is truely interested. SA

"I just think that the combining of patrols, no matter what the reason, is a slippery slope to start heading down. " CNYS, I agree whole heartedly. While there are times when the use of "virtual patrols", may be the lesser of two poor choices, it should not be done automatically, and certainly not for the convenience of the adults. I would not condone the situation you describe and it is similar to the situation I faced when my son crossed over to scouts, now close to 5 years ago. The main difference was that the adults in the unit were amenable to change. Non had been a scout as a youth, and being an Eagle gave me some credability within the group. As it is, after 5 years as an Adult in this game, I will admit that I'm just beginning to be able to put into effective practice some of the skills learned. I emphasize the term "effective" practice. Frankly, initially while I knew what the unit and I should be doing, getting the boys and other adults on the same page was difficult and I will admit a tendancy to regress into parental mode instead of scouter mode. I did it wrong more often that I did it right. Now I feel with the group of scouts we have, we're just getting there. We could still do a better job with the patrol method, but we do better than we did 3 years ago. The same could be said for uniforming. But, we're doing a much better job at being boy led, advancement, and have sigificantly improved the outdoor program and the overall scouting experience for those involved has improved. In the other thread it was mentioned it takes anywhere from 3-5 years to turn a unit around and I would have to agree with that assessment. That may even be optimistic, unless you can directly step in as Scoutmaster. Don't expect change overnight. Take satisfaction in what you can do, rather than in what you can't. For me the motivation was to provide the best scouting experience I could for my son, but part of that required changing the experience for all the members of the unit. Take baby steps. If your son is enjoying his experience, take satisfaction in that. Look for other scouting activities outside the unit that may provide your son better insight to what scouting is supposed to be. These include OA, provisional camping at summer camps, or participating in High Adventure bases as a provisional scout. He can bring those experiences back to the unit and help implement change. Good luck. SA

Eagle 76, No, I think you're being pragmatic. I would do the same. This seems like an area where good, well meaning folks have different approaches. All want to follow the methods of scouting and provide opportunities for the youth they serve. I think we all agree the preference would be to have outings conducted with the standing patrols scouts are in during meetings and other activities. However, as Eagle76 points out, there maybe times where strict adherence to those groupings is not in the best interests of the scouts. Sure, 2 scouts trying to compete against other full patrols may teach them a lesson in how important it is for all members of a patrol to participate. It is also just as likely to teach them, that Boys Scouts is a messed up organization that sends them into events with no hope of effectively competing. What message is a two scout patrol likely to bring back to the other scouts and their friends after spending a cold day trying to drag around a full sled and comming in last or near last in every event. That the others missed a really good time and they should participate next year? Doubt it. More likey it will be, you guys had it right. Klondike is bogus. Then your down to a 0 scout patrol the following year. If a patrol is a natural grouping of boys, I see nothing wrong with allowing the boys to re-group themselves for certain events if not enough patrol members participate. (After the appropriate attempt to try an convince others to participate.) On the other hand, there may well be certain events a 2 scout patrol can function in. Say a backpacking overnighter. In this event a pair of scouts may be able to function reasonably well as a pair. The point is, each situation has to be evaluated separately and the guiding principle should be what will be the best way to help achieve the AIMs of scouting, not necessarily how to fully comply with ALL the METHODS of scouting ALL the time. In my mind, it is better to have the scout PARTICIPATE in the OUTDOOR method and participate in the other methods while on an outing, than not participate because if they strictly applied the PATROL method, they are not likely to have as much fun. Because...if they're not having FUN, they're not likely to stick around long enough to realize the PURPOSE of scouting. Nor are they likely to encourage their friends to participate. SA(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)

fgoodwin, sorry can't answer your question. WRT the scouts participating in this event, I don't think this was appropriate. The BSA is a youth organization and not a political organization. Participation as a unit or in uniform in events such as this, regardless of how one feels about a particular issue, has the potential to politicize the organization. In fact I don't think it was appropriate for the BSA to participate in the infamous Democratic convention either. However I am heartened that this Senator has taken such a courageous stand on such a controversial issue. By comming out in support of the Pledge of Alligiance, we can rest assured congress won't be distracted with less important matters such as the war and whether or not the scouts present will need to serve in Iraq 3,4 or 5 years from now or if they will have 50% of their incomes taxed to pay for the deficit currently being rung up or support their scoutmasters in retirement. SA

OK, At first I was going to respond to "Again its just not a good idea to rearrage patrols for any reason." as being a little dogmatic. While I'm not in favor of the concept of virtual patrols, I'm also not in favor of extremes that take situational considertions out of the picture. Things like never, always, mandatory, etc. as there is almost always(there I go contradicting myself) a situation where some flexibility is beneficial to a hard dogmatic adherence to a particular procedure or rule. However, I then read,:"As it's been said on these forums many times two kids can compete as a patrol. They can't do it as well as 6 or 8 but they can function as a patrol. It's better to keep the patrol togehter than to combine them into another patrol. " And started to think that this just doesn't make sense. How can you ask a patrol to effectively compete against a patrol of 6-8? I mean you would take a soccer team of 4 players and expect them to compete and enjoy themselves in a tournament where all the other teams have 11 players. But I thought some more, and came up with the idea of using a point system based on a per/scout basis rather than a per/patrol basis. Sure in any given event the 2 scout patrol would be at a disadvantage and maybe earn fewer points than an 8 scout patrol, but on a per scout basis they could actually win the event. Example: An 8 Scout patrol performs an event fairly well and is awarded at total of 42 points out of 50 for the event or 7pts./scout. The 2 scout patrol struggles to reach a result that is not nearly as good but demonstrates teamwork and effort. They are awared only 16 points. But that is 8pts/scout and in that instance would be quite competitive. So, I think if we put our mind to it, a system could be fashioned that would allow a 2 scout patrol to be competitive with an 8 scout patrol. FYI, We will be going to the Valley Forge encampment this weekend with a crew of 4 scouts. We don't use virtual patrols anymore. The crew leader is the ranking scout from one of the regular patrols, and three other scouts from the NSP. This was an added trip that conflicts with many family vacation plans and the holiday weekend hence a small turnout. They had a crew meeting last night to prepare for the trip. I suppose we could have had the one scout from the regular patrol eat and sleep on his own to maintain patrols though. Next month we'll have our regularly scheduled outing and the scouts will participate in there normal patrols. I agree though I would not be in favor of Distict or Council events that artificially forced reallignment of patrols to meet the administrative needs of the adults. To the exent feasible, the events should encourage participation by standing patrols. SA

If you have to draw up a form and have signatures to assign roles in the absence of the SM you have bigger problems than any form will fix. It should take no more than a phone call or statement to a specific ASM,"Hey, I can't make it to the next meeting. Do you mind acting as SM for the night/outing/whatever." If needed a specific announcement can be made as eagle90 suggested. If the offending ASM doesn't get the message, the SM should have a cup of coffee with him and lay out ground rules for when he is not there. If the offending ASM still doesn't get it, he may need a cup of coffee with the Troop committee as they suggest he find a way to support scouting, other than being an ASM in the unit. My 2 cents. SA

Well, I sat down and did my taxes during the snow storm this weekend. I am one of those suckers that actually looks at what I'm allowed to legally claim as a deduction and what I can't. My wife gets very frustrated with me because she knows her sister gets a return 2-3x what we get on less income. She's convinced I'm not taking enough deductions. I only take the ones I'm legally allowed to. Now being a fiscal conservative with libertarian tendancies I'm not a big fan of taxes to begin with, but recognize the government does need some source of revenue to provide even the most basic services I would expect from the federal govt.(Provide for a common defense, deliver the mail, protect the environment, but for the most part stay out of my life.) Now I read this in a recent blurb: "So much for the honor system Americans failed to report a trillion in income on their 2003 tax returns -- a 37 percent increase since 2000 -- according to a new Commerce Department report. A separate Internal Revenue Service study said taxpayers failed to report so much income and made so many improper deductions in 2001 that they shortchanged the government by $345 billion, an amount nearly equal to next year's projected budget deficit." Note, the figures above do not include tax loopholes. This is money that is illegally denied the government by falsley underreporting income and taking improper deductions. Just wonder if this is all anti-tax conservatives who don't want to pay taxes combined with liberal tax protesters that don't want to fund the war? It's time we go to a basic flat tax. No deductions, No tax returns, No tax lawyers or tax accountants. Just take the National Budget, divide it by the total annual income of everyone, and have that fraction of everyones income withheld from their paychecks, dividend checks, interest income, social security income, capital gains, etc. SA

Longhaul, What I'm saying is most accidents can in fact be prevented. What it takes is a conscious commitment to make the effort to make it happen. I've worked in the construction safety field for over 20 years and have seen some projects that are literally disasters. Disabling injuries, loss of limb and fatalities. On others, millions of hours of work are conducted under extremely hazardous conditions, including tunneling, nuclear decomissioning and demolition work, work at high elevation, etc. and no one opens the first aid kit. The difference is the level of committment instilled in the workforce by management. In our case it's the level of commitment to safe scouting we instill in the scouts we serve. Safety, or the lack of accidents, is not a matter of luck or going through life thinking well, accidents happen and there's nothing I can do about it. There is nearly always something you can do. You can't control that drunk driver, but you can drive defensively, don't use a cell phone and always wear a seatbelt. BTW, the No. 1 cause of fatalities of not-at-fault drivers is head on collisions with cars crossing over the middle line of a two lane road. Now that you know that, you can keep a closer eye on those oncoming cars. If you have to, your better off running off the road and hitting a stationary tree than the oncoming vehicle. Stay safe and

Trev, I hope your not going to suggest that your scouts invite their wives out hunting when they get older. SA

Well I'm glad the victim sounds like he will be OK. I tend to echo the sentiments of Longhaul. This incident is the least of my concerns related to the VP, althought I kind of suspected all along he was a little trigger happy. However, I do wish to dispell the notion accidents can happen to anyone. Accidents occur when there is a, "momentary loss of focus" an individuals perform an act that results in injury or worse. When one is carrying a firearm capable of killing the person one cannot afford that moment. When one is in proximity to a person carrying a loaded firearm, one cannot afford that moment. It takes a concious effort to continuously focus attention on the fact that you are carrying a loaded weapon and not to shoot at anything you don't intend to hit or to know where you are in relation to others in your party. I can't tell you how many accidents, injuries and fatalities occur because of a "momentary loss of focus" whether it's driving, working on a construction site, skiing, climbing or many other dangerous activities. There are times one can relax their mind and not think about things for a while. It's Ok while sitting in front of the boob tube, on a beach with a cool drink or maybe around a campfire. It's not OK when you're carrying a weapon or have the lives of others in your hands(i.e. driving a carload of scouts). I'm not saying that I or any of us don't experience those momentary lapses. I'm just saying this incident reminds us of the potential consequences of such a lapse and to make a concious effort to control them in our lives. Sorry I'll get off my soap box for now. Although I am reminded that I read somewhere a disproportionate number of fatal hunting accidents involve spouses. SA

I do give the President credit for at least trying to get Social Security on the table for discussion. Unfortunately his initial attempt at a "solution" was such a disaster it was the members of his own party that basically it "was dead on arrival" in Congress. I agree though the Dems didn't help themselves with such a sophmoric response during the State of the Union speech. There are only 3 things that can be done to resolve the upcoming social security shortfall internally. Raise taxes, cut benefits or some combination of the two. There is no magic. Red or Blue, C or L, Dem or Rep. We need to fess up and the sooner the better. SA

I believe we have established that the unit has the authority to revoke the membership of a scout. When should that authority be exercised? My threshold is a scout repeatedly engages in behavior that disrupts the program for others scouts. If there has been no previous problems with this scout, I would be inclined to go with a suspension similar to that suggested by Ed or vmpost. Reinstatement only after a meeting with the scout and his parents. He may choose to not come back. If this scout has had previous discipline problems within the unit I'd recommend he be asked to leave the unit. Don't worry about written discipline warnings or not. Does he exhibit a pattern of behaviour that threatens others? If the committee comes to the conclusion the answer is yes, he should be asked to leave. Again, don't worry about written warnings, etc. Contrary to the belief of some, a scout troop is not a democracy and scouts do not have an inherent right to membership. As EagleinKY said, we are volunteers and are there to serve those scouts that want to partipate in a scouting program in accordance with the scout oath and law. I am not a social worker responsible for rehabilitating troubled youth that don't seem to understand what basic acceptable behavior is. Our unit did have a small number of scouts that had a general history of continuing minor problems. One summer camp they were caught by the Camp Director after lights out wondering the campground. They were told, in front of their parents, they were basically on probation. Any other problem and they would be asked to leave the unit. They were pretty good until summer camp the next year when they were caught doing the same thing again, this time with items that apparently did not belong to them. Their parents were asked to come pick them up that night and we havn't seen them since. The unit has since run much smoother and frankly has been more fun. SA

Our unit elects the SPL and PLs. All other positions are appointed by the SPL with Scoutmaster/Committee approval, except the PL's appoint their own APL. However, I don't believe any scout should be held back from advancment because he has not been elected or appointed to a POR. If a scout asks, I believe it is the responsibilty of the Scoutmaster, to come up with an approved leadership project for the scout to perform and so he may continue to advance. Those that tell a scout to wait are not serving the scout. SA SA

" I would think liberals welcome that diversity. Whereas conservatives tend to be an all or nothing crowd." Unfortunately the extremes at both ends seem to fail to objectively consider the positions of the other. And there seem to be certain bellweather positions that one side or the other are not willing to overlook. For example, it is hard to believe a pro-life Democrat would get very far within the Democratic Party and we've seen what Republicans are capable of when dealing with a pro-choice Republican.(I refer way Republican Governor Bill Weld was treated when nominated for an Ambassadorship. Anyone who thinks Republicans have some special stake in the moral high ground should review that little affair.) SA

Thanks for everyone's perspective. We will have the family fill out the council applications and then see where it goes from there. I do not believe the boys will miss out on summer camp one way or another. I'm just not sure the adults involved will come away satisfied but I'm not as concerned about that as making sure the boys get to camp. Thanks, SA

OK, Without getting into too much detail, we have a family that has had to deal with some difficult times this past year. A divorce, a longterm illness in one child, etc. Boys live with Mom & their Grandparents. No finincial help from Dad. Mom is not working. Mom comes to committee and asks for help to send the boys to summercamp. I checked with the council and there is a campership program available and am having applications sent to the mom. While the council has indicated there is likely some help available, it is typically expected that the family and unit also contribute to send the boys to camp. However the Grandparents are, to all outward appearances, financially in decent shape, if not in pretty good shape. (Nice house, nice car, the boys lack for nothing in terms of stuff.) One boy is involved in at least one sport that takes a fair amount of money to participate in. But I have no personal knowledge of finances. No decisions have been made other than to pursue application with the Council. It seems certain though the unit will be asked to contribute some money as well and there are some on the committee who doubt if there is a true financial hardship. That's the situation. I'd be interested in thoughts from folks that may have been involved in similar situations or suggestions. Thanks, SA