SeattlePioneer

In his last post, Bob White says he's not interested in punishing people who might be violating relatively trivial rules. He asks instead how people violating those rules can justify that behavior. That's a question I'm not usually especially interested in answering in such situations. I might ask a person violating such a rule why they are doing it, and if they realize they are violating a rule. But I would avoid debating WHY they are violating it beyond that kind of casual inquiry. Why? Because arguing, debating, cross examining and criticizing behavior aren't very nice ways of dealing with such issues, and not very likely to gain compliance, either. Indeed, Bob White's rather pedantic tone that he takes repeatedly in these forums grates on people, who often perceive it to be unfriendly and discourteous. I trust that I make my point by illustrating that pedantic behavior can often be perceived as being unfriendly. So rather than asking people to justify and explain their behavior, why not ask the best ways to INFLUENCE such behavior. I'll suggest several ways: 1) in the case of the socks or uniform, conducting a uniform inspection weekly that includes the adults (or perhaps just for adults) might be a useful way of encouraging people to conform to Scout norms. 2. One or more Scoutmaster minutes on the importance of proper uniforming might influence adults as well as Scouts. 3. Including proper uniforming as an agenda item at Troop Committee meetings 4. Frankly, issues like socks and minor departures from uniform standards probably aren't important and not noticed in many troops. If it's not an issue and not important for some reason, very likely it can be safely ignored without harming the Scout program. 5. But such issues COULD be important. Some Troops have high standards for uniforming which adults need to respect. Or departure from uniform standards could be pointed out by Scouts as reasons why they should be able to ignore rules. If conditions like these threatened to damage the Scout program, then placing demands on adults to conform would be justified, including not renewing a Scouter's position in the Troop. Seattle Pioneer

Well Bob, I think everyone agrees that rules have value, the question is how much. I'm sure you're aware of the contributions Eamonn makes to his Scouting organizations. Suppose he chose not to wear regulation BSA socks, or was obese. What actions would you take over these issues? I have to assume from your comments that you would prefer to have him excluded from Scouting if he didn't shape up after being warned about these rules violations? Seattle Pioneer

At the request of the Cub Scout Pack, the Boy Scouts will be doing the flag ceremony for the Cub Pack Overnighter June 4-5th, which involves hoisting the colors on a flagpole. Last week, the Scouts practiced this skill, and improved their performance a fair amount, but they still need more practice. I just got a call from the SPL requesting that I bring my large flag again this week, so they are apparently going to work on this some more. Last week, all the Scouts but one made a left face on command, while one Scout achieved the same result by twirling around a right face 3/4 of the way. I'll have to report back on how this goes. Our troop bugler has apparently taken a Vow of Silence, since he hasn't bugled since last October. Another Troop will has been asked to provide a bugler for the Pack flag ceremony. And so it goes.... Seattle Pioneer

Hello, Madkins! I can appreciate your frustrations with your district. Too much of that would probably bug me, too. In reading through your post, though, it sounds like your district and council is aiming to do a good job. For example, while your Cub Scout camp is worn down, the Scout Camp has just been rebuilt: that suggests that money is being spent for good purposes, but that there isn't enough to do everything at once. Are you involved much at the district level? If you are active at that level, you'll soon learn either good or poor answers to many of the questions you pose. Volunteers talk about weaknesses they see. Perhaps you could volunteer to help plan the Cub Scout Daycamp, be a Unit Commissioner or help with the Friends of Scouting campaign. I'll bet that all of these could use some help. I have a Troop Commmittee Chair who has some feuds going with the District. He felt the Troop was being nitpicked when it didn't get free rank awards after meeting MOST of the requirements for getting the freebies. Similarly, the SM's employer was/is willing to make a $1,000 or so donation, but the CC wanted Friends of Scouting to rebate much of that for the use of the Troop, and was peeved when the District refused to do so. He's now trying to get this donated to the church/Chartered Organization and get a rebate from them. Well, it's fine with me if he can get rebates like that, but I think his anger toward the district is misplaced. As someone quite involved with the district, I recognize that we are fortunate to have an excellent organization, while the CC sees mostly negatives based on his limited experience. Seattle Pioneer

Mrprar--- You say your son's troop has 12 Scouts and 8 active Scouts, yet has an Assistant Senior Patrol Leader? I just want to check to be sure we are talking about the same office. Your troop should have one or two elected Patrol Leaders, and usually the Patrol Leader appoints the other leaders in the Patrol, such as the Assistant Patrol Leader. The Senior Patrol Leader is usually elected by all the Scouts in the Troop, and then appoints the other Troop leaders, such as the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader. It would be unusual to have an Assistant Senior Patrol Leader in such a small Troop, I'd say. Has your son served as a Patrol Leader, and if so for how long? Seattle Pioneer

Jkhny makes some good points about exagerating membership. I see what I think is an example of this by a Troop and Pack that has the benefit of getting registration fees paid by the Council due to serving low income youth. This encourages leaders to sign up the most marginal boys, who may not be seen after the application is turned in. The numbers seem impressive, but the program is actually very weak if not failing. That's not fraud, but it means numbers that don't give an accurate view of the program. Other criticisms by Jkhny seem of less substance. He questions BSA claims of "4.1 million youth served," but doesn't take the time to look at the content of that claim. BSA has additional programs beyond traditional Scouting, and I don't find it hard to believe that adding those numbers together might well add up to the total mentioned. Being critical of the number without bothering to look at the reasoning behind it doesn't impress me as a criticism. As to attacks on the BSA due to decisions to exclude atheists and self proclaimed homosexuals, that is properly a question for the Scouts as an organization to make. At present, the BSA is PROMOTING diversity with these policies, while the ACLU is attempting to oppose real diversity in the United States by attempting to exclude the BSA from participating in important parts of American society. I'd have to say that the American Civil Liberties Union is profoundly UnAmerican with some of these rather warped policies, and that it's a lot farther from the mainstream of American society than is the BSA. Looking at the prospects for judicial appointments in the next few years, it may be the ACLU that begins receiving a hostile welcome in public venues such as the courts in the next few years. Seattle Pioneer

Hello, mrprarar-- There is no BSA requirement that Scouts be 16 years of age in order to be Eagle Scouts, and no one else is entitled to add additional requirements. So I'd ask those people to show you WHERE in BSA rehulations this requirement is to be found. If they say it is a "Troop Rule," ask them to show you where such rules are authorized. Follow the same procedure with people who say that Merit Badges for Eagle have to be earned by some special procedure. As far as your son having difficulty commanding respect as ASPL, that is something he will have to do by his excellence in planning, organization and performance. When the Scouts discover that they can do more things and have a higher quality experience because of your son's contributions to the program, they ought to come around. If he can't make those contributions now, he may have to endure doubts about his capability to do the job until he grows into the position. Still, I'd say I'm surprised that a twelve year old is ASPL. Can you describe the circumstances that brought this appointment about? There's a lot to be said for a boy to develope leadership and planning skills as a Patrol Leader (arguably the best job in Scouting) before being thrust into a job that ought to require significantly more planning and leadership experience. What kind of tasks is he assigned as ASPL, and how large is your Troop? Seattle Pioneer

I completed the Woodbadge course and completed my ticket and had it approved, but was never awarded the beads or the completion ceremony. The course was in..... 1985. I still have a record of the course number, which is in the same district I volunteer in now. Is there a Council "Woodbadge" committee that would maintain those old records? Frankly, if the records don't verify completion of the requirements, I'd just drop it. But I suspect that it would show completion of all requirements, just no final award. If that proves to be the case, is there any reason that the final ceremony can't be completed now? Seattle Pioneer

I am fortunate to be a Scouter in an exceptionally fine District. It has excellent District officers and a teerrific District Directo who supervises an additional staff member who is DE ---so we have two paid staffers. We have some excellent District events around the year. I don't have a lot of contact with the Council, but they seem to be doing a good job too. (Chief Seattle Council, Seattle). But from what I hear, not everyone is so blessed. What would you most like to see change in your district or council, and what would you most like to see them do? Seattle Pioneer

Hello novpr! You describe weaknesses in your Commissioner program, but don't describe if this is having actual consequences for your district. Eamonn describes the weaknesses in his district, and describes in detail how they affect the functioning of the district. As I see it, weaknesses in one element of Scouting are often met by other elements of scouting who pick up the ball when others have dropped it. When there is no one to pick up the ball, you have troubles. Eamonn seems to have a lot of balls on his hands. After reading through this thread, it seems to me that the big question is how to inspire us tired old has been Unit Commissioners to get in there and do the job that needs to be done. How do you do that? In my district, the District Commissioneer is trying. He has a blizzard of statistics that he reviews at the monthly District meeting, and invites each commissioner to report on what is going on in their units (rather commonly, litanies of Doom). I had to protest last month that I was being snowed under by statistics, but the District Commissioner is trying. What other things can he try to inspire improved performance? Seattle Pioneer

I thank the people who responded to my bright idea. I had supposed that the Bobcat requirements might be difficult to accomodate in the regular Den program, but apparently that's not the case. So I'm abandonning the idea as not needed and counterproductive to the Cub program. Thanks again for the counsel and advice. Seattle Pioneer

The troop I am a part of has a Scoutmaster who can't and doesn't plan things. No PLC meeting had been held in the year or so since he became Scoutmaster. However, he was happy to have me plan almost anything. So I encouraged the SPL to schedule a PLC meeting and backed that up by offering to let the boys cook a babeque that I would plan and support, and they would cook. That worked fine, with both patrols represented, although the SM didn't attend due to conflicts with work. The next month, the SPL scheduled the PLC and I offered to bring a blackberry pie as a snack, with the ice cream suggested by the SPL. At that PLC, only the PL and APL of one of the patrols showed up, along with an ASM and myself --no SM, no SPL. The two Scouts did a creditable job of laying out outings and monthly themes through August. The next PLC scheduled by the SPL was cancelled due to the illness of the Scoutmaster, whose home was going to be the location of the PLC. That was nearly a month ago. No PLC meetings are scheduled. Back to having adults plan meetings and activities by default. At present I am occupied doing recruiting and membership work for both the Troop, a Cub Pack and the District. I don't have time to be Scoutmaster too. I've pitched the Troop Committee Chair and an ASM on the idea of being SM, but they beg off. Makes it tough. Seattle Pioneer

First of all, I was expecting a thread with unique and highly profitable fund raising ideas. I'm disappointed. Secondly, I'm sympathetic to Eamonn sliding by without those BSA regulation socks! If Bob W would kick him out of his troop as a leader, I can tell you I need him in mine! A few weeks ago, I started a thread about obesity and Scouters, which produced outraged comments about kicking people out as adult leaders because they were obese. I hadn't suggested that, actually. I had asked what we might and ought to do about such folks. The bottom line on that discussion was that nit picking people on details was probably not wise. It's appropriate to look at the contributions as a whole that leaders make. They may fail or be weak in various areas, but make valuable contributions in other, more important areas that justifies keeping them as leaders. On the other hand, a person who publicly states that he knows he's violating a rule and is going to keep doing it starts skating a lot closer to the edge, especially if it actually starts affecting the organization because of that. If Patrol Leaders and Scouts pointed to Eamonn's socks repeatedly as reasons why they didn't have to do things they didn't like, I'd probably make a point of buying an extra pair of Scout socks and having them available if Eamonn showed up without them. What say, Eamonn? Would you help me out if that were to happen? Seattle Pioneer

Ahhh... so you can start a sub thread by clicking on the active thread...

I agree wwith JR56 that too much emphasis on 1 year First Class Scouts can be counter productive. Iedeally, senior Scouts would be teaching younger Scouts the basic skills, and relearning and polishing their own skills in the process. Unfortunately, we lack the older Scouts willing to do that kind of teaching for the most part. So we have monthly themes on basic Scout skills, such as map and compass, first aid and pioneering, and aim to qualify as many of the younger Scouts on the Tenderfoot-1st Class requirements as we can during a structured program of troop meetings and monthly outings. That often leaves boys with some requirements they need to take some initiative to get signed off ---or it means that adults need to take the initiative to get those requirements signed off over time. Unfortunately, the latter seems to predominate. These are young Scouts, though. I don't think yet more hand holding is suitable just to get them to advance in ranks rapidly. They are willing to stay on task for a reasonable amount of time learning skills in a structured program. PLC meetings tend to be about identifying desired monthly themes and outdoor activities, not about planning the details of the Troop meetings and taking responsibility for insuring that needed equipment, materials and trainers will be present. The SPL, a Life Scout, has a reasonable amount of leadership skills, but he's not able to do the whole thing either. So the aim of adults is to leave the Scouts with as much leadership responsibility as they can handle and to step in to support them to carry out the general plans they make. It takes time to learn Scout skills. I'm glad to give Scouts the opportunity to advance rapidly, but trying to frog march them to First Class seems like a formula for poorly learned skills or boys bored with too much advancement work. Seattle Pioneer

I'll be glad to agree with Dug that when I went solo rowwboat cruising or backpacking, it added a degree of additional risk, which I chose to accept. Personally I wouldn't go climbing alone, and in fact I gave up climbing long ago because of the high degree of risk of injury and death. Seattle Pioneer

Actually, Dug, while the Scouts dote on the buddy system, lots of other groups traveling in the backcountry don't use it. The Mountaineers in Washington state have hundreds of backcountry trips and climbs per year, and don't have any formal buddy system. Instead, the qualified leader of the trip has the overall responsibility for conducting the outing, and each person is individually responsible to that leader. Personally, I'd consider carrying a flashlight a lot more essential than a buddy system, and far more widely accepted as being essential. Seattle Pioneer

Interesting thread. The Scoutmaster here should realize that if you ask other people for input, you may get input you'll disagree with. That goes for the Troop Committee and this post. Based on the facts related, my inclination would have been for the Scoutmaster to decide to suspend the Scout. Before reinstating the Scout to the program, I'd want to have a conference with the parents to decide what's going on with the boy and what additional steps they might consider appropriate. I'd also want to talk to the Scout and decide whether I was satisfied that it was safe and appropriate to return him to the troop. Talking to the Troop Committee Chair would also be essential. It might also be appropriate to consult with the District Executive and District Committee chair to get input on appropriate actions to take. My own bias would be for suspending the boy for 30 days, with no requirement for anger management. Depending on the information and advice I received from the Scout, parents, Troop Committee Chair, DE and District Chair, a longer suspension, other requirements or even a revocation of Scout membership might be appropriate. In short, I'd act right away to remove the boy, but consult more widely to determine suitable ways to resolve the issues involved. The Scoutmaster acknowledges he doesn't have a lot of experience in dealing with this situation, and neither do I. That argues for ending any immediate hazard and consulting widely on possible actions until the best course of action becomes clear. Seattle Pioneer

With George Bush able to get his judicial nominees voted on by the Senate, it may well turn out that many of these legal fine points will turn out to be obsolete. It seems that the Supreme Court will again be permitted to follow the election returns, over the objection of many Democrats. Seattle Pioneer

Dug asks why you can't rely on the buddy system instead of expecting everyone to carry arguably necessary equipment. That gets back to the question posed by the title of this thread. What is overkill, and what is not. Just today newspapers reported that two people were dead climbing to a 10,000 foot high camp on Mt Rainier. These people had tents, camping gear and rain gear, but apparently became disoriented and fatigued, and were unable to erect a camp in whiteout conditions on the mountain. They apparently tried to set up their tent, but were unsuccesful. They apparently died of hyopthermia while separated from their gear by about 30 feet or so. As I noted in my original post on this question, I carry the gear I figure I might need to survive the worst conditions I can expect to encounter, and carry additional equipment that will leave me reasonably comfortable under the conditions I might reasonably expect to have happen. The buddy system is all very well, but people become separated despite that. People may lose or damage vital gear, in which case redundancy is very valuable. Part of my education involved reading about the death of my brother when he was 15 years old in a snow avalanche in the American Alpine Club's annual "Accidents in North American Mountaineering." I wound up reading the analysis given for several years worth of fatal mountaineering accidents. That left me with a greater respect for the uncertainties and unexpected events that happen to people on backcountry travel than some people posting here seem to have. In 2500 miles or so of backpacking and climbing, I've never regretted the weight of carrying a knife, flashlight, map, compass, first aid kit, sunglasses, sunblock and other such safety related gear. I recall being camped at Mowich Lake on Mt Rainier, and being asked to join a force of 15-20 people needed to pack a woman out of the back country on a stokes litter down several miles of trail, at night. First we had to hike up to where the woman was and then pack her out. Quite an experience. If only a half or a third of your party had flahlights, I suppose only a half or a third would have been prepared to help that person. But ---heck. I'm not really trying to tell people what they ought to take. People leave such equipment behind rather frequently when they are taking trips into the backcountry. I'm merely explaining why I take such things with me all the time. Seattle Pioneer

On the general subject of getting adults to support the unit, a number of good methods have been identified, in my experience. While it may not always be required, it's probably most powerful to use those methods together. 1: Have a clear standard and expectation that all parents will be expected to assist the unit in creating and presenting a quality program for the Scouts. 2: Start by asking parents to do easy tasks, especially ones that will get them involved with the program and other adults actively contributing to the program. 3. Use the recommended Scout method of identifying the BEST person to fill a needed position and actively recruiting that person. 4. Frankly, if a family isn't willing to help and has no good reason to excuse than unwillingness, I'd invite them to find another program for their boy. You MUST HAVE a high quality program to attract and keep youth, and that requires pariticipation by parents to create that program. There may be some parents you can afford to give a "pass" to. But those without a good reason and candidates to be dropped, in my view. Seattle Pioneer

I was amazed to see that FScouters assertion that it was OK to run a troop meeting with only one adult present has gone unchallened. The Youth Protection rules require two deep leadership during troop meetings, by my understanding. The only time it's OK to not have two deep adult leadership is when driving in vehicles, when having two or more youth and one adult is acceptable. If someone wants to dispute that, I'd be glad to be corrected. Seattle Pioneer

Hello, Richmond --- I hope you'll let us know if those sackrats get up in time for breakfast next time! Personally, I got up at 5:30 AM in order to be ready to serve hotcakes, sausage, chocolate and coffee to the adult patrol at 6:00 Ayem at our recent Camporee. I think I was correct that a substantial breakfast before a long, strenuous day was important. Even so, I forgot to hand out the apples I had on the menue for snacks --- until 11 AM, when hunger reminded me of my error. The apples were important. The Scouts had a big discussion over whether to go "light" to ease the burden of picking their camp up for the Camporee inspection. I think they wound up with a fairly simple breakfast, which showed when the energy level of the boys plunged along with mine around 11 AM. I saw a quite a few Scouts in that condition at the camporee at about that time. And going lite on second day meals doesn't sound wise to me for much the same reason. Energy reserves that are depleted on day one or two of a weekend trip may be easily depleted unless everyone has a substantial breakfast in their stomach. We checked out around 11 AM Sunday at the Camporee, but I got up a 6 Ayem to cook corned beef hash for the adults. That was a stomach full of energy to keep people going. I seem to be developing a definite bias towards keeping people well fed with substantial fare on multi day campouts. And snacks ---they are important too. Some fruit was a big help at 11 AM, four hours after breakfast. Going "lite" is probably very wise with sedentary city life, but I don't think it's good when leading the strenuous life. Seattle Pioneer

Sorry, Dan and Doug. In my view there is a big difference between skimping on toothpaste and skimping on a flashlight or knife. And I've backpacked somewhere around 2500 miles, carrying 50 pound plus packs. If someone can't carry or can't be trusted with essential equipment like a knife and flashlight, they don't belong in the backcountry, in my view. I recall hiking out on a trail with a hunter for a couple of miles one evening. A reached a fork in the trail where I turned to head back into the backcountry again. He still had 2-3 miles to hike out on the trail, with no tent, tarp, sleeping bag or flashlight. Was he prepared? I once got separated from someone I was backpacking with, and couldn't connect up with them again. I hiked back to our previous campsite and set up my tent and left gear for the night, and then hiked out to the cars, where my partner had found her way. The next day I hiked back in to recover my equipment. It's always possible for someone to get separated or lost, and people should be prepared to survive the night without depending on other people. I posted earlier on what to take to be prepared ---I invite those who might disagree to reread that post. A flashlight and knife are essential equipment in my view. Seattle Pioneer

Ok Dan --- I'll bite. I don't care for the idea of one flashlight per tent. On a backpack trip, my preferences would be one flashlight per person plus extra batteries and bulb. Two flashlights per person would be better. If someone gets lost or separated from the group, how do you arrange for that person to be the one who's carrying the flashlight? Seattle Pioneer