Bob White

Tour permits do not "engage coverage". The fact that is is a Unit activity means that BSA accident insurance is active.

More smoke and mirrors Beavah. Do you EVER stay on a single topic and discuss a single situation. In addition you misrepresent the elements of the Safe Swim Defense Plan. For instance a triatholon not held by a Scout unit and not done as a scouting activity but done (are you ready) outside the sphere of scouting, is not subject to the rules of the BSA. So your premise as usual is false. And the snorkeling situation at Sea Base is a far cry from your original scenario of tying a rope arond a scout and having jump overboard on a unit activity. You are a master of the flim flam, you alter course continually to try and negate the response to the original question you ask. It would seem by the recent replies from others that your dodges are not being as easily ignored as before. Which brings us back to your original post which you based on a false premise of opinions that no one on the forum had put forward as you said they had. False premise can only lead to false conclusions. And your attempts to continually change the subject does nothing to advance your position nor is it in keeping with your own admonition to "try and keep on track". (This message has been edited by Bob White)

Who would be the contact person between the troop and council? There are a few. The very first being your Charter Organization Representative who is a voting member of the district and represents the unit or units of your charter organization to the district and council. The second person would be the Unit Commissioner. The third would be the any registered leader in the unit since they are all free to contact any district/council volunteer or professional for any reason. As for the council not knowing when you meet. The day, time, and location, of your meetings are asked for each year on your your re-chartering forms. If your actual dates are different than those you reported, well that is not the council's fault. As for not being at the meeting, who have you invited and why did they say they would be unable to attend? Why are you concerned about a representative not being a unit meeting?

"If the system has no way to differentiate this information, why include it on the form?" Which "system" are you refering to?

Beavah wrote "Would yeh even let a sea scout take a quick dip off of a boat without a roped-off swim area and in more than 12 feet of water? Would you, in fact, sometimes, when it's da right thing to do, not follow a rule?" First you suggest that violating the Safe Swim Defense rules is 'the right thing to do". Anthen you write in your next post..." "But nobody was talkin' about endangerin' lives," Yes, YOUR were talkin about endangering lives, When you advocate the violation of safety rules such as Safe Swum defense you are in fact endangering the welfare of other people's children. This is not fear mongering, this is seeing you promote irresponsible behaviour and pointing it out to you and others.

"everyone seems to want to turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen because society has become lackadaisical, and scared to stand up for what is right and moral. So much for what our Scouts are being taught today about moral obligations." Everyone? Seems to me that not only have some posters agreed its wrong but you can't possibly think that the views on this forum represent EVERYONE?

Have you looked in the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual to see if it says that or not?

Use the Patrol method in everything they do before during and after the activity. Just as a few examples BEFORE The patrol plans, food, equipment, collect the money, does the shopping does the packing, arranges transportaion, draws equipment. Plans patrol activities, participates in troop activities as Patrols. DURING The patrol sets up a separate campsite, tents together, cooks together eats together, participates in traoop activities as a patrol, works on patrol activities as a patrol, cleans up together packs up together. AFTER The Patrol returns, stores gear together, evaluates the event together, makes adjustments for the next event together, starts the process over again...together (This message has been edited by Bob White)

I think you may have missed the purpose of the game, or the staff in the course you attended missed it. The purpose is not to create a storming situation. If you consider where in the course agenda this falls you will realize that it would make no sense to want patrols to storm this late in the process. Any conflict that arises from this game is not caused by the game itself, it is brought to the game in the beliefs and characteristics of some of the individuals who play. This becomes obvious if you get the chance to see the game played in multiple courses. Sometimes there is no conflict and sometimes there is a little, or a lot. In every case the game and its insructions are identical, the only two variables are the staff and the participants. This is one the topics that should not be lead by anyone who does not fully understand its purpose. What is the purpose of "Win All U Can" (the game of life)? What were the pople who caused the most conflict trying to do? and what would have to happen for the game to be played without any conflict. I strongly recommend you not answer that on-line because it will likely lead to the thread being closed. If you want to discuss it more I would be happy to discuss it with you through private messaging. People who understand the game see the game of life played out all the time among kids in and out of scouting as well as among adults in and out of scouting. In fact you see it played on this forum almost everyday. I would hope that leaders who go through Wood Badge the first time do not try to take every excercise back toi do with the scouts until they make sure they thoroughly understand the excercises correct applications and purposes. There is a reason that the staff trains and practices BEFORE they do these excercise with the participants.

WOW! In a pack that large the only reason for not having adequate leadership is noty using the right selectionaand recruitment process. The Cubmaster and Committee chair need to serioulsy learn and adapt the process that can be found in the BSA's "Selecting Quality Leaders" brochure. http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/trainingmodules/selecting%20quality%20leaders.aspx

It's a matter of good communications and not caravaning.

As a merit badge counselor you are registered through the counil it is not a unit position. However you have the option oin the MB councelor form to select to have your contact information avaible throughout the District or counil or just at the unit level. As a counselor you can choose what scouts you want to work with.

SctDad Why are you following behind each other? Are you not aware of what the BSA tour permit and the Risk Zone training says about caravaning?

"Responsible Consumer" Consumer perhaps, but I do not know that you have enough information or determine if he is a responsible one or not. "Two separate issues not related." I totally disagree, it was dluders who began the conversation on incompetence and what constitutes it. I think considering the competency of both the accusser and the accused is relevant. As is evaluating the actual importance of each offense. Volunteers are encouraged to do their best, as are paid employees. I just found it interesting that when presented the question of competency of the parties involved that some posters seem far more comfortable insulting the office staff for not doing a minor part of their job then they are addressing volunteer for not doing a major part of his. Volunteers outnumber professionals about 1000 to 1 and certainly have far more direct influence on the program, and yet some of the the 1000 seem far more at home criticizing the the 1, then the 1 is incriticizing any of the 1000. It's seems more a less a blood sport with some volunteers, we are very quick to sling arrows at the office but will hang on to all kinds of excuses for our own failures in the unit.

Sounds more like a lecture than a converstaion that you had with him oldgrayowl. Talk with him again and this time ask more questions rather than telling him things. Ask how he thinks things should get done in a patrol, ask him how he would get things done if he was the patrol leader, ask why he feels others should work but not him? Guide him in a conversation where your questions and his answers guide him to the right behavior. At the very worst you will each come away with something to think about you'll each and have a little better understanding of his behavior. If he simple refuses to help be a part of the patrol I would allow him to go home and do other things that he enjoys more.

How did you eplain the problem to him? What was his explanation when you talked to him about his behavior?

The term "Whistle blower" suggests he is somehow the first person who knew of the problem, or that it was some sort of secret. He isn't, and it isn't. What I was showing was the proprotionate importance or seriousness of the two problems and how the office staff has fortunaltely chosen to be far less condemning in their words and actions with dluders then dluders (and others) have chosen to be with them.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

You cannot possibly believe that there is a comparison between having to miss a campout in order to attend your father's funeral, and choosing to ingore a safety rule and endangering the lives of other people's children by ingnoring a safety rule? Knowing that there are driving restrictions why would you purposely plan an outing in a manner that violates those rules. Simply leave earlier or schedule a stop along the way as you are directed to do. Would I let allow a scout to risk their life by purposely violating a safe swim defense rules. Absolutely not. How could you be so irresponsible?

So beavah are you suggesting then that a person that chooses to attend a parent's funeral over a previous committment is behaving unethically? If not then what exactly is your point, because it certainly has nothing to do with the topic about rules and values.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

You do not need a perfect world to be able to follow the membership rules of the BSA. The rules are simple, Within one unit a person can hold only one position. The BSA makes three specific exceptions to this. A Charter organization representative can also be the Committee Chair. The ScoutParent Coordinator can hold another position. And IF the Scout executive determines on an individual unit basis, that the unit is located in an area of the community where suffescient parental support is not available they can approve the registering of a person in two positions in the unit. Other than that your problem is probably not lack of potemtial leaders, it is poor selection and recruitment procedures. When one person does mulitple jobs it sends a very bad signal to the other parents about being a volunteer. Even though you may think you are doing a lion's share of the effort of keeping things together because no one else will help, you are actually part of the problem as to why others won't help. In one unit one person should do one job. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

orrn4ever Why not have an equal number of representatives (one adult leader and one scout) from each unit help at the show and sell sales, and then divide the unit portions equally among all the units that participate. If you have 40 units and 3 locations you could do 2 show and sells at each location in the course of the campaign. Each unit could be represented at one of them. You pool all sales and share the unit proceeds equally with all units.

Good grief, I don't believe I have ever seen adults try so hard to make excuses for not following some simple rules before. Now they are trying to obscure the discussion with some of the most obtuse logic that we have had to deal with on the forum to date, There is no comparison between the two situations being offered. The first is a person choosing between right and wrong, following a rule or ignoring a rule. And the second,the choice between two right things. Attend a campout or attend a family funeral. To try and make it appear that these two scenarios are in any way the same is a pathetic attempt to justify the actions of scout leaders who choose to ignore the the rules and policies of the BSA. Absolutely pathetic! These folks need to muster up some personal values and learn what it means to be a responsible citizen in a community. Beavah writes in another thread "Yah, boys follow da lead of their parents and troop leader, eh? Any boy will push to find the limits, and not findin' any will keep pushin' to see if anyone - especially mom and dad - actually care enough about them to impose some limits." That's amazing...he understands that the scouts model their behavior after the adult leaders but he doesn't understand why those leaders show poor values and poor ethical chices when they purposely disobey or ignore the rules of the community!!! U N B E L I E V A B L E ! (This message has been edited by Bob White)

One does not need to be perfect to be competent wouldn't you agree resqman? There are plenty of things that are done by the council offic and by the National office that they do just fine. It is unfortunate that you and a few others see this one compter glitch to be enough to post on-ine that they are incompetent. My point to dluders was that in the grand scheme of scouting which is a more important task? If a computer program that is not functioning properly is enough to throw around the claim of incompetence then what word describes the management of a unit that losses over 50% of its membership in just a few short yearS? And Yet!!! has any office staff in dluders council posting claims of incompetence against the leaders of the unit he serves? I'll bet not. Why do you suppose that is? I never said the situation wasn't frustrating, It just seems ovious that a few folks are not coping with the situation in an appropriate or proportionate manner. If this is how he and others react to a very minor and easily dealt with situation then how can they possibly deal effectivly with things that really matter, like the failure of a unit to attract or retain youth.

I think Don raises an excellent point, if that is your value structure is based on 1960's sitcoms. I would hope that most of the rest of us draw on more meaningful and more deeply rooted values that that. If he is using TV shows, let alone TV shows from from 40 years ago, to establish beliefs based on "life experience" he would do better to base them on real life than on Barney Fife's make believe life. To assume that a person cannot be knowledgeable of rules without being ineffective lacks logic. To suggest that a person can violate the rules of a community (not because the rules are unfair, but only because they are personally inconvenient) and still be considered to have good ethics is a fantasy.

I am all for backing up data. As I posted when I was the District Training chair I took all the attendance sheets from the courses held in the diistrict and put them in an ecxell spread sheet. I also sent info to the other district training chairs iof a scouter from outside the district attended one of our courses. The council Training Chair sent us copies of the Council training attendance sheets so that we could keep our local records updated. I am all for backups, but you will notice that we did it with the volunteers for that particular committee, What are the training committee volunteers in your districts doing to help with the situation?