WoodBadgeEagle

Benny- glad things worked out. I think I'll take Dan's advice and have our SPL run this year's election, including the white board part. Just one more way I can help our Troop be more boy-run. Dan, I hope you find your Holy Grail of a boy-run Troop. I know that if I visited 50 Troops in 3 years I would have found at least 50 ways that boys were running things instead of 50 units that weren't perfect.

As our Troop heads into yet another year of patrols, leaders and elections, I thought I'd share something that we have been doing in our Troop for 5 years now, and it helps set the boys' attitude as they vote for SPL, or even for PL (though that one usually comes down to who wants the job within the Patrols of older Scouts!). Before we do the election, I get out my trusty whiteboard and dry-erase markers and ask the boys to list the QUALITIES that they feel a leader should have in a boy-run Troop (which we are). I never censor what they say, they do that themselves, for example if someone is being goofy and says, "whoever pays me to vote for them", others tell me to erase that one. Of course, they list the Scout Oath and Law, but I ask them to go beyond that and think a little about how the person who runs the Troop should BE. It's fun, interesting and it changes a little year to year, but I am always impressed with the list of characteristics they come up with. Once the list is complete (when they can't come up with any more), we have the candidates come up and give a brief speech for why they think they would make a good SPL, what they have done in the past to embody the traits that are listed right next to them, and what they intend to DO as SPL. Sure, the list sets them up a little, but we usually find the candidates giving examples of how they HAVE been the kind of person and Scout that the Troop is looking for in an SPL. After the speeches, I remind the boys that THEY chose the qualities they were looking for in an SPL, they listened to (and probably have seen in action) the candidates, and that their votes should be based on how well they feel that the candidates will be the kind of SPL they are looking for. Then we vote, and you know the rest. This process takes time (nearly a whole meeting), but it really drives the point home, and the boys feel very involved and responsible for their choices. Every year I ask the PLC at the annual planning conference if they want to keep this in the election process and it's always a unanimous YES.

Okay, back to my original question, which was about participation in Camporee events. The letter of the "law" states that "Webelos Scout dens should not compete against or partipate in activites designed for Boy Scouts.". I want to have ONE set of events that all Scouts and Webelos participate in (Lord knows with all the lawyers in America, I hesitate to have any "dangerous" events), but with separate scoring for the Webelos, and separate sets of awards. The rule does not seem to allow this. Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation? It wouldn't be the first time. Thanks!

I am a former Cubmaster, and am now a Scoutmaster (for the past 5 years). Our Troop has always invited 2nd year Webelos from a couple of neighboring Packs to come to and participate in Fall Camporees and winter Klondikes with the Boy Scouts. We did not usually have them stay overnight, but they went around and did the events. Sometimes we mixed them in Patrols with older Scouts (the older Scouts really enjoyed this), and sometimes they went around as their own Patrol- it depended on how many Webelos went to the event. We have had a separate set of awards for Webelos dens who compete, but the events have been the same ones that the Boy Scouts participated in. I just got an e-mail from someone in our Council that says we must not do this. She quoted from the "Cub Scout Outdoor Program Guidelines for 2002" as follows: "Webelos Scout dens are encouraged to visit Boy Scout district camporees and Klondike derbies. The purpose of these visits should be for the boys to look ahead with anticipation to their future as Boy Scouts and observe troops they might join. Webelos Scout dens should not compete against or partipate in activites designed for Boy Scouts. Webelos Scout dens should not spend the night as particpants at the event if the program is Boy-Scout based." My opinion was that asking a 10-year old to come and OBSERVE and not PLAY was about as exciting as asking them to visit an art museum (sorry to all the art museum fans out there). I will of course follow the rules, but does anyone know where this came from, and if it is in keeping with the way things have been done or supposed to be done in the past? I am a bit discouraged by this, and I don't see us having a separate set of events JUST for Webelos, but anything is possible. Thoughts? Thanks! WBE

I have encountered both situations, one very recently. For the Scout who was nervous about participating in the flag ceremony (he mentioned it to the SPL when he was asked to do it), we had an Instructor assigned to each of the new Scouts (not just the Scout that was nervous) and the Instructors walked with and gave quiet advice to the new Scouts about what to do when. It helped the nervous Scout and set a good example for the older Scouts. We almost got kicked out of Dorchester CA about 4-5 years ago because of noisy Scouts at night. At the time, we had a big tent that slept (er, I mean HOUSED) 12 Scouts. No matter what we did, they would not quiet down. We replaced that and the 2 other larger tents with 2-man and 3-man (but used by 2 larger people) tests. Best thing we ever did. Since then I only have to go around once and remind the few noisy Scouts that if I can hear them they are talking too loudly. As someone else said, quiet Scouts go to sleep quicker. The "threat", if there is one, is that anyone that makes me get out of bed to tell them to quiet down risks having their parent called on the spot and having them come pick them up. The PLC decided on that as our Troop's consequence to disruptive behavior. For the past 4 years, I've had no problems with noise at night, other than adults snoring too loudly. I must admit, I'm still a little surprised at how quickly they get quiet. As for the latrine duty, the PLC decided that, even though latrine duty is always a regular duty roster item, on-the-spot latrine cleaning was called for for any adult or Scout who swore (this consequence was reserved for swearing, and the logic was that if you had a potty mouth, you should become more familiar with the potty). Since they decided that, we have only had to dish that out a handful of times (over 3 years now). We do NOT use the term "punishment" in our Troop Code of Conduct. Everything is a "consequence", because everything we do has consequences, anyway. WBE

Tony- I helped organize the 2002 Klondike for our district, and it was a big success (not much snow, but cold enough!). I am the Jr. Leader Roundtable Commissioner, and we got the boys together in early November (at Roundtable) and asked them what they liked best in a Klondike Derby. We set some guidelines (fun, Scout skills, age-appropriate, etc.), and then did a brainstorming session. We laid out the rules for such a session (everyone's ideas are welcome, no criticizing,etc.). They started out slow, then came up with some great ideas, then drifted into strange ideas. With every idea, we did not say "good idea", or "okay", just "thank you". Once we a list of about 30 ideas (our Klondikes tend to draw around 30 Patrols), and the boys were all out of ideas, the adults asked "what about..." with events that they had seen in previous years. It was surprising how often the boys were unanimous in their dislike of past (adult-idea) events! Sometimes, it was only part of an event that they didn't like, and offering a modification made it attractive again. The next month, I had typed up all the ideas and we (a slightly different group of Scouts) sat down again to finalize the ideas, to "flesh them out". One was "golfing in the snow". I asked wouldn't it be hard to FIND the white balls in the snow, and they said that's the FUN part. It became the whole event- a searching game. Funny how much it resembled policing an area, something they don't usually like to do... After the 2nd meeting, a group of 4-5 adults met at a restaurant and fine-tuned the events to make sure most contained Scout skills all were teamwork events (most didn't require much modification), then we divvied them up for materials. I made all the score sheets and punch cards. Others did sign-in and registration. Somebody did the cocoa. We always get adults and older Scouts who want to run events before opening (we include this request in the flyers), so event staffing isn't a problem. Hope this helped! WBE

Rooster, I read through this entire thread before I posted this (as it is of interest to me), and I think your quip back at Bob was uncalled for. I was wondering when one of you was going to take the lead and start a new post centered around the last 10 messages. But, then again, the title of this thread IS "A Rather Interesting Comment", and I gotta admit, all of these have been "rather interesting comments" . Like I said, this (UW) topic is of interest to me. I was at a District Committee meeting last week and one of the commissioners brought up the following scenario: A group of large local businesses had contacted our Council and (I am paraphrasing here) said that if the Council didn't get some diversity/sensitivity training right away, they were going to divert "their UW funds" away from BSA by pressuring the local UW chapter. When ended up happening was that the leader of the local Gay Alliance was selected to come in and do the talk (wow, talk about drowning a fire with gasoline!). And he (the commissioner) was caught off-guard and under attack by people who believe that the BSA should stand its ground on not allowing gay leaders (or members? I'm not totally clear on the wording of the BSA policy, and that's not terribly important for this post). I personally did not get anyone confronting me about it. What I find "interesting" is that these businesses have enough clout to take their EMPLOYEES' donations and treat them as THEIRS. Matching funding aside, it is NOT all coming out of the pockets of the corporations, yet they appear to be using it as bargaining chips for their agendas! Has anyone else heard of this happening, and what (if any) were the outcomes? I wish I had all the specifics, but the gist of this (described above) was not disputed by the 5-6 people in the room who had first-hand knowledge of it. Just wondering. ps- DedDad pre-dates me, and, from the sounds of things, I think I am happy with that.

Evmori- Thanks for your comments. My last post got so long (yes, I was aware of that ), and I am glad you said what you said, because I needed to add something. I read the entire manual (at least all of the parts that were either general info or related directly to Troop Advancement). Until then, I did not feel comfortable making any statements about what I felt the Policies said or were supposed to mean. Yes, it is open to interpretation in (in my opinion) too many areas. However, most everything that is written IS. That's the beauty and the curse of the English language. Yes, I feel I could make suggestions for clearing it up. But I also got my answers by reading the entire thing. I came away with a much better sense of the intent of the manual, the policies and the procedures. It answered a few other little detail questions that I had not thought of asking yet. It was in relatively plain English, and that's a feat that is infrequently accomplished by procedural documents. In those respects, it fulfilled its intent. I challenge everyone who is commenting on advancement to read the manual. At least twice. And use a highlighter. THEN let's have a dialog about WHAT it says (there will still be lots of opportunity for that). Unfortunately, a great many of the well-intended comments that have been made here have been from hearsay or tradition, not from direct knowledge. Bob White stands as a blessing and a crutch to this Forum. He reads the rules and regs, goes to training and then people like me ask him questions. Until I read the manual, I did not feel I had learned my answer. I do now. This is such an important topic and apparently widely misunderstood, that it behooves everyone to read this document. I have spent the past 15 years in the computer networking world, and we have a nice little acronym for everything. My most often used is "RTFM", or "Read The Freakin' Manual". RTFM, everyone. WBE

I now possess (and have read all of the Boy Scout scections thoroughly) the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual. Like any other written instrument, it is difficult to include the variety of information that this contains and put it into "the best" order so as not to be confusing. This manual covers the Procedures and Policies for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts (rank AND Merit Badges), Varsity Scouting and Venturing. If you don't read ALL of the applicable sections (if you skip through looking for information that supports your viewpoint, for example), it can be downright misleading. I suggest that every Troop get multiple copies of this document, have everyone on the Troop Committee plus SM's and ASM's read it. Thoroughly. Then, the Advancement Committee, the CC, the SM and ASM's should sit down and discuss what this says and make sure that the Program and Advancement procedures that the Troop follows meet all of the requirements. Examples of what I found misleading are as follows: Page 23, Troop Advancement, Goals, opening sentence: "The Scoutmaster must be in charge of advancement in the Troop.". If that does not impart the concept of "authority", I don't know what does. You MUST read elsewhere in the manual to get clarification, and even that is vague. It NEVER states that a SM does NOT approve the advancement of a Scout, yet he is "in charge" of it. Page 26, Boards of Review: "The members of the board of review should have the following in mind when they conduct the review. To make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to for the rank. To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit. To encourage the Scout to progress further." Sounds good, right? Except the VERY next sentence: "The review is not an examination; the board does not retest the candidate. Rather, the board should attempt to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals." So, I read this as saying that if a requirement has been signed off, the board does not have the right to retest (challenge) that requirement. If someone here sees that differently, let me know. Later on, on Page 27: "The review is not an examination. The Scout has learned his skill and has been examined [WBE note: I think they meant to say 'tested', since 'examination' is not one of the Four Steps of Advancement listed on page 22]. This is a review. The Scout should be asked where he learned his skill, who taught him, and the value he gained from passing this requirement. "The Scout reviews what he did for his rank. From this review, it can be determined whether he did what he was supposed to do." Ahhhh... now it is becoming more clear (to me, at least). If I get the meaning here (because it is CERTAINLY not crystal clear!), then I would say the following: A board of review must BELIEVE that the Scout indeed DID everything that he -and the signatures in his book- claims to have done to earn the rank. Just when I thought I had it, the manual goes on a little more, Page 28: "The board should attempt to determine the Scouts ideals and goals. The board should make sure that a good standard of performance has been met. A discussion of the Scout Oath and Law is in keeping with the purpose of the review, to make sure the candidate recognizes and understands the value of Scouting in his home, unit, school and community." That is, in my opinion doing two things- 1) Adding to the requirements for a rank. Requirement #2 says that the Scout must SHOW Scout spirit in his everyday life by living the Scout Oath and Law. It does NOT say he has to understand the value of Scouting. I am splitting hairs a little, but I think either statement taken individually means something a little different, and consistency is sorely needed in this area. 2) Creates wiggle-room. I believe (know!) that the Scout who was the focus of my original post UNDERSTOOD and even RECOGNIZED the value of Scouting and the Scout Oath and Law- my SMC proved that. The problem is that he did not convince me that he was DOING anything with this knowledge, especially in the areas of Trustworthy, Obedient or Courteous. So, let's take my very real example instead of a ficticious one- his dad (an ASM) signs off on Requirement #2, ostensibly because he knows his son better than I do (true, but he, like every parent, has blinders on). I cannot challenge this (he has been "tested"), the board does not retest this requirement, but determines that the Scout RECOGNIZES and UNDERSTANDS the value of Scouting and the Scout Oath and Law. POOF. He advances to Life, ill-prepared for the final 12 steps from Life to Eagle. We have done him a disservice. Having said all that, I do feel that the appropriate advancement procedure is to have the board do the advancement (or not). I like the shared leadership and responsibility that this process provides me and the rest of the adult leaders in the Troop. I just think that this confusion over who is supposed to take what steps when to ensure that the advancement process supports the Aims of Scouting is aggravated by (what I view) as a confusing document that is supposed to be the Gospel. Comments? (like I needed to ask!). WBE

Bob- I didn't feel "jumped on" at all- I simply suggested that I'd rather keep things in the forum in case someone (like you) saw something I posted as not in keeping with the Scouting program, then they could "jump in". It was a real eye-opener for me about the way we do MB's in our Troop not following the methods and purpose of the program. We have been doing MB work at Troop meetings since WAY before I became SM. We were also a completely adult-run operation. We changed to a Scout-run program over the past 4 years, but we kept (in fact, refined) the doing MB's at Troop meetings, largely because I was not aware that this was not the way things should be done. The hardest thing for us when (note- not IF) we change this starting in the fall will be the fact that it works so well. MB work is only a part of the Troop meeting time, and the Scouts who choose to work on a badge (we do two required MB's at a time for a total of 4 throughout the year) get the MB books from the ligrary, request additional resouces from the MB counselors, recruit guest speakers and parents to come in or help organize an outing (town hall meeting, etc.) and then work together on a requirement or two each week at Troop meetings. I can (and have) seen the downside of this (some Scouts who have little interest in the badge just tag along and don't make it a decision to do the work). But, it's not really a cookie-cutter thing, either. Nobody tells any Scout to work on a MB, and even if they choose to work on the ones at Troop meetings, not everyone finishes the badge with the group (about 50% do finish it). I have looked through what used to be called Woods Wisdom (I forget the new name of the 3-volume set) and I always wanted to try it "by the book", but we focused on changing other things to get our program to more closely match what the BSA says (we were a long ways off at the start). We'll discuss how to go about this at our Annual Planning PLC later next month, and next year will be another new beginning for us.

For me, it is sometimes difficult to be certain what information I possess comes from my association with existing Troop operations and what came specifically from training. That's why I continue to read and ask questions, and attend as much training as I can. And that is the shortest post I have made in this Forum (sorry for the other long ones!).

Well, the discourse on this post has certainly taught me one thing- this is a VERY misunderstood Policy. At first, that made me feel better (ignorance, like misery, loves company). But now, I am concerned about 1) The amount of training adult leaders NEED to go through and 2) The content of the training being clear enough on this Policy Like my original post said, I have been through a good deal of training, and I took that training very seriously. I believe in doing things by the book, but I am also human and slip into the "here's how we do it" mode from time to time. Always with good intentions, but straying from the way the program was designed, at least somewhat. Our adult leaders have been discussing this all week, and we believe we have discovered where all of the error came from. I am certain that other Troops have had the same path followed. We simply adopted the same erroneous activities from SM to SM: 1) The SM was assumed to have had the authority to advance (or not) a Scout. Obviously incorrect. 2) We used the SMC as a means to assess and discuss that advancement, especially on Requirement #2, living the Scout Oath and Law. Somewhat incorrect, as the SMC is a good time to discuss these things, but placing the SMC as an advancement step that immediately preceeds the BoR is incorrect. What is most troubling about this whole thing is that NONE of the training I went through definitively DISPELLED these two incorrect assumptions. I think that these two errors are widespread among Troops, especially ones like ours where the past leadership was highly UNTRAINED. Doing things the way they have been done must be carefully watched. I am actively involved in adult leader training, right now as a Troop Guide on Outdoor Fundamentals (if that's what it is still called), and doing Pack Committee training in Cub Leader Specific training. I am pleased to have been invited to help staff a Wood Badge course for 2003, and I am really looking forward to that, as I learn far more as an instructor than as a student, and I learned a LOT from my Wood Badge course. I'm going to talk with the Course Director and let him know that I am concerned that this material may need to be better covered in the syllabus, and see what he says. Bob (a different Bob) has been an excellent resource for me, and I know he'll look into this. Thanks again for all the dialog.

Bob White- Looks like we are online at the same times. Funny, your mannerisms and phraseology remind me of my favorite mentor in Otetiana Council, also named Bob (though I think he is a Beaver). Massawepie is still as great as ever- it's where our 40 boys are going this summer. Camp Cutler (I think you are referring to it) has become a premiere summer camp for Cubs, plus a great all-year camping facility. We do a lot of leader training there. Check out www.otetiana.org. I'm on the web committee, soon we'll have Camping info up there (that's my current assignment). WBE

Chippewa29- If it's OK with you, I'd rather have those discussions in this Forum. I got some feedback from Bob White about what I posted here, but in another Forum where I had posted a request for help. It seems that the way we do Merit Badges and elect positions of responsibility are not permissable. I need to get more info on this, because these two program components have yielded excellent results (Scouts come to meetings, take responsibility, actually LEARN something from doing MB's, but most of all they LIKE this structure. They also feel that the elections of positions is far more fair). I need to do more research before I simply tell the PLC that we must change. Maybe I didn't explain everything well enough, but I can look into it more. For those reasons, I'd rather field questions about our Troop in the Forum, where I can't give incorrect advice without someone who knows ALL of the rules around to jump in as needed. I'd be happy to answer any questions about our Troop in this Forum. WBE

LongHaul- I'll field both of these (I think I have learned enough at this point to give it a whirl- Bob, please jump in if need be). 1) "Failing" an SMC is not technically a correct phrase. If I have an SMC with a Scout, and we accomplish what they are intended to provide (a discussion of the Scout's advancement, helping them set goals, making suggestions for improvements, listening to their feedback about Troop goings-on, etc.). It's hard for me to imagine a Scout failing at that, unless he never shows up. It's not a pass-fail thing, it's an event, an occurrence. 2) I always thought that the SMC was to help prepare them for the BoR, too, and I guess it still is my job to help them understand what they'll need to do to accomplish advancement through their BoR. It isn't the immediately preceeding step in advancement, however. I really like that change in my understanding of the SMC, because now I get to have SMC's whenever they (or I) want to have them, not all bunched up just prior to their BoR's, which are all bunched up just prior to a Court or Honor. I always felt that there was something wrong with that pressure. As far as the "invented" comment was concerned, it was probably a poor choice of words. These Scouts came to me (or rather, their parents did, but I asked the parents to have the Scouts approach me instead, which started an attitude with this particular Scout's mother, something I did not catch on to until last night). Anyway, they came to me and said that all of the positions of responsibility were taken, and what could they do to "carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the Troop", thereby fulfilling that requirement for Star. We talked about what this requirement meant, and I asked them to talk among themselves and come up with a suggestion or two. I'd rather involve them in coming up with ideas than spoon-feed them (their parents have already been doing enough of that). They came up with putting together a Troop Information Book that could be borrowed by new Scouts and their parents to help them understand how Boy Scouts and our Troop functioned. Through more discussions, we expanded it to include the use of this information in a presentation to be given at our Pack's Cross-Over ceremony. I made it clear that, since this was an individual rank advancement, this "group" project must be divided up into distinct areas of responsibility that could be individually measured to assess their completion of this advancement requirement. They met every requirement, though this particular Scout did the least of them all (by far). He also understood the principle of the leadership project the least. Like I said, he does the minimum, but enough to prevent me from saying he didn't do it. Overall, it was a fairly impressive booklet and presentation, though I am certain that their parents helped out more than any of them will admit. I appreciate your comments. I hope this shed some additional light on the subject so you understand why I felt that the advancement requirement was fulfilled.