CalicoPenn

Regarding Eagle and community service, as I look back at my own youth, I come away believing that Eagle did nothing to instill a sense of community service in me. Doing the service project for Eagle (and the service projects for the other ranks) were just another hurdle to clear. When I was done with that, it was time to move on. Sure, there are exceptions - but look back at your units - how many Eagles continued on with their service projects - revisiting them to see how they were faring, taking the time to revitalize them if needed? A common comment I hear from non-profits that have sponsored Eagle projects is that they never hear from the Scout or the Troop about the project that was worked on again - and only hear from the Troop when they have another Scout that is looking for a place for a project. It's frustrating to go to somewhere where someone did an Eagle project, and put a nice placque up talking about the fact that this was an Eagle project, and see that the project has deteriorated. I believe the OA does a much better job of instilling a sense of community service in Scouts - and it should since that's pretty much the reason for it's continuing existence. I sometimes wonder if Scouting, and the Scouts, would be better served if the "leadership service project" required for Eagle was eliminated and replaced by a requirement for a long-term (minimum 6 months, with a minimum number of hours - 100? 150?) on-going volunteer/mentoring/internship type of program with communities and non-profits.

In three years, when Wii introduces "Wii Campout" we'll be looking back on this outing with nostalgia for the way things used to be.

I thought Meatballs II was the worst movie about summer camp - and it was - right up to the release of Scout Camp. Had the Scouts found an alien they nicknamed Meathead, it would have gone a long way in making this movie tolerable.

"they are ugly as sin" I don't think anything else really needs to be said about crocs.

I don't think the rules on open toe shoes is about a desire to make up rules as much as a need to make a rule to replace lost common - no, make that outdoors, sense. Camps didn't need to make rules about shoe types because people knew that wearing open toed shoes on trails and in roughly mowed or unmowed fields was just asking for trouble. No one would even consider wearing flip-flops, and back in my day as a Scout, if you wore sandals, you were a hippie. It's been a fairly recent (15 years or so) phenomenon that sandals have become footwear of choice for leisure wear. Because they've become a comfortable norm, people expect to be able to wear them for any activities, even if they aren't appropriate footwear. These new rules are reminders that we aren't walking around Mall of America. Back in college, most of the Outdoor Rec majors wore Birkenstocks on a daily basis on campus - even in winter (that's what colorful wool socks are made for). But the moment it was announced in a class that we would be walking through the college's wood lot, there was an automatic 5 minute break while we all went out to our cars (or to dorm rooms for those that lived on campus) to put on boots or shoes. No one had to announce that we should go put on boots - it just happened. Yes - we all carried a pair of boots in the car - never knew when we would be headed into the woods. I fear that kind of outdoors sense is rapidly disappearing. As for the hat snatching - never happened at our councils camps. The rule of etiquette on wearing of hats was explained at the first meal. Subsequent meals just wouldn't be served until everyones hat was off. No hat snatching needed - just a meal's host standing quietly and patiently until all hats were off to begin the meal. You could tell which tables were set as the staff members at those tables would be looking up front, while the staff member(s) at the table(s) with the hat wearer(s) would just be quietly looking at the hat wearer. It didn't really take much for the message to sink in.

I agree - keep the sashes as they are. The "once in a lifetime" neckerchief must be a local lodge thing as I don't recall there being a national OA neckerchief that couldn't be purchased any old time at the Scout Shop if you had a current OA card. Like John, I could see someone pointing to a Centennial Sash and saying "I am a Centennial Arrowman, and you are not". Of course, my simple answer would be to point at the triangle in the middle of my sash and raising my right eyebrow as a subtle reminder of what the Order is really all about.

To summarize: 1) Parents sign off on Wolf Achievements and Electives. It has always been this way, and it appears it will always be this way. 2) Wolf Cub did not attend Wolf Den Meetings, but apparently attended Bear Den Meetings. Ok - maybe not age appropriate, but still attending some kind of meeting. 3) Wolf Cub did not have great attendance at Pack meetings. 4) Cub Scout advancement is not based on active attendance at meetings. 5) Wolf Cub's parent has signed off his achievements and electives to get the Wolf badge, one Gold arrow and 4 Silver arrows and has let the advancement chair know. See Summary Statement #1. So what to do: Give the lad his Wolf Badge, one Gold Arrow and 4 Silver Arrows at your May meeting. Sure, you could insist on seeing the book - and what do you do if you point out that such-and-such wasn't signed so the Achievement wasn't earned and the parent takes the book, signs it right in front of you, and says it's been earned now? Nothing - the Parent can sign off on the Achievements. Not giving the ranks that the parent has signed off on is also an affront to the program. There will always be parents that try to game the system. The Cub Scout program provides the most opportunities for that. But that's the way it is - we aren't the program cops - in the grand scheme of things, it's much more important that you remember that you've provided a great program for Cubs and parents that did participate.

A good pair of lightweight hiking boots or trail shoes (I consider boots to have ankle support - and trail shoes to be hiking boots without ankle support) for most of the day. A second pair of boot or trail shoes, or a pair of gym shoes for banging around in camp. The purpose of the second pair is to allow the first pair to dry and air out. Finally, I bring a cheap pair of tennis shoes - the canvas cloth type for wear at the waterfront, canoe/raft/kayak trips, river & stream walks (haven't done this? Why not? Instead of walking on a trail alongside a stream, walk in the stream). Ever since I cut the bottom of my foot open at a summer camp waterfront, I've always worn shoes when swimming at a non-pool waterfront. Open toe/open heel shoes? Unless you're camping in the backyard and walking nowhere more challenging than a shopping mall, then nope - not going to wear them.

Let's not confuse procedures with policy - it leads down trails we can't get out of. The procedure is that after a Scout has completed the requirements, he appears before a Board of Review. Though that sounds like clear policy, there is also a very clear problem with it. One of the requirements to reach Star is to complete his Board of Review. How does one complete one's Board of Review for rank if one can't have a Board of Review before completing all the requirements? If we follow the procedure as strict policy, then a Scout will need to complete a Board of Review, which completes the requirement, then complete a second Board of Review in order to be granted rank. But that's ridiculous everyone is likely to cry out - and yes it is - but if we want to be strict, it's technically true based on the quote from the manual. IMHO, the procedure is there to prevent Troops from holding a BOR at the beginning of the next rank process, not at the end. Frankly, it's one day - heck - it's even less than a day - it's less than 5 hours (assuming the BOR takes place sometime after 7PM. I think this is one of those times that you make the common sense decision and do the BOR - how much is going to change in a day? Otherwise, hold it next week - not three months from now - don't penalize a lad because the Unit has a strict schedule of BOR's. If it makes everyone in the room feel better, bring in a cloks set to the right time - then before the BOR, experience a roomwide temporal anomaly by setting the clock past midnight so that in that room it's the 25th. Or just dispense with the silliness, do the BOR - and date it the next day.

Tricky situation - you've started a new pack - you have a brand new chartered organization, with a brand new COR who doesn't want to be involved and doesn't want to be the bad guy. It sounds as if the chartered organization is willing to charter the pack but doesn't really want to do anything more that that. I think you really need to have a sit down with the COR and IH to measure the depth of their committment to the Pack. If they truly want to be a sponsor in name only, then you need to get them to agree that the committee deals with leadership issues as it sees fit. Otherwise, they need to either let you know you need to find a new sponsor because they don't want to deal with the headaches, or the COR needs to step up and accept the committees recommendation and let the Den Leader know his/her services are no longer required, knowing that the Pack leadership has the COR's back. Or do as Beavah has said - have a meeting and let the Den Leader know their services are no longer required - done deal. It does seem rather odd that the Council has said they want you to remove this leader but that you don't have the authority to do so.

I think the first thing I would do is try to understand how the process to let the Scouts and their parents know the change of meeting places failed so it can be fixed. Then, I would have given the Scout a ride to the new meeting place and made sure Dad was called to know you were giving his son a ride, and that Dad knew where to pick his son up. Then I'd be thanking the fates that you were at the Scout Shelter when the Scout was dropped off - otherwise, the Scout would have been dropped off with no one he knew around, potentially no way to get home for a while, among a bunch of probable strangers in the park - and you might be facing an angry father who would fault the Troop for not letting them know of the meeting place change (whether you did let them know or not). Sure, it is a violation of the no one-on-one contact YP policy but that was inadvertently violated the moment that Scout walked through those doors while you were alone in the Scout Shelter. All of us will, at some point, have to face a situation like this - and then question ourselves afterwards - that happens when policies are absolutes. In this case, common sense had to prevail. Otherwise, we become as stupid as a school board expelling an 8-year old boy for having a plastic army man holding a rifle under a school board's "no tolerance" policies (which I consider "no thinking required" policies).

"tires have a tendency to make you very dirty and they stain clothes" Goodness gracious - can't have the Boy Scouts getting dirty, can we?

So what would be wrong with using a couple of stout wooden poles, or fence posts, or even 4x4's and 5 tires, with the numbers painted on the treads? Do you have a service station or tire shop nearby? Someone who might be willing to lend you 5 tires they're going to be sending to the tire landfill anyway? (A Scout is Thrifty, a Scouter should be Thrifty too). As long as you aren't using truck tires, they aren't that heavy, even if moving 3 at a time, for a patrol to handle as a team.

Ok - the Tiger Cub with all the ranks is obvious. But the first thing I thought of is "Why is the Den Chief wearing a Webelos hat, Webelos neckerchief and Blue tabs, and not wearing a Den Chief cord or doesn't have a Den Chief POR patch on his sleeve - then I realized I was mistaken - it wasn't a Den Chief. So now my answer to the question is "The 13-year old Webelos".

If the goal creates a situation where the Council is pressuring the District Committee/District Commissioner Staff to pressure the Units into making sure every Scout in the Unit advances one rank per year - then it's a goal that is going to fail right at the beginning as Scoutmasters tell the District folk to go climb a tree. If the goal creates a situation where the Council reflects on the support they give to Units to encourage advancement, and creates new opportunities that can be accessed by units, then it's an admirable goal and a successful goal, even if the goal itself is not fully reached. It's a goal, not a mandate - if at the end of the year the Council can say "well, only 95% of Scouts advanced one rank this past year, but we created some exciting new programs, revamped our moribund summer camp program which was very well received, and last year only 85% of Scouts advanced one rank" - then I don't know of anyone who would claim that is not a success - except perhaps for those that believe unless something is 100% met, then it is a failure.

Skeptic, Adding to the requirements? Yeah - there is that as I can't find a reference to any rank advancement that states "Maintain a "C" average at school. But you already know that's adding to the requirements so we don't need to go there. Where we should ge going is you're adding to your responsibilities needlessly, and more importantly, treading on the parent's responsibilities. I don't disagree with anything that Engineer has expressed about school first - I'm just suggesting that there has to be other factors at play. Ultimately, as the parent, it's his responsibility. Now if Engineer would come to me as Scoutmaster and ask me to monitor juniors homework and grades - my answer is a definitive No. See, that's his job and responsibility. If the parent wants to impose some kind of grade-based eligibility standard, I'd be disappointed but I'd also let the parent know that is fine and the lad will be welcome to come to meetings and campouts when the parent is ready to allow him to (I won't play the "let him participate but don't advance him" game with the parents - he either gets to participate as a full participant, including with advancement opportunities, or the parents hold him out of meetings and activities until grades improve to their satisfaction). I'm not there to play carrot and stick games over grades. As Scoutmaster, I don't need to see, nor do I want to see, report cards. Those report cards are between Student, Parents and Teacher. What happens when the next Scoutmaster decides a "C" average isn't good enough - it's got to be a "B" average. What criteria do I use to determine if a Scout is "really trying" in school?

I believe I relayed once a loooong time ago that at one time in my Council, as I was growing up and starting out as a young adult leader, the LDS units, no matter where they were located geographically in the Council all belonged to my District - mostly because the folks in my District were more willing to accomodate the LDS units so I knew a lot of LDS youth and adult leaders. Yes - most of the time, the LDS units would pack up on Saturday nights for the journey home - and it was always thought that they had to leave because they couldn't drive in Sundays. We quickly learned from the LDS members that this was utter nonsense - after all, most have to drive to get to temple on Sunday mornings. We adjusted - the awards ceremony was changed to Saturday evening - and that proved pretty popular among everyone once the initial resistance of a few traditionalists was broken. After a couple of years of the LDS units bailing out on Saturday nights, many of us were surprised to find one year that 2 LDS units, of mostly older Scouts, had stayed over until Sunday! That was the year the District had decided that we would have a campwide 3-hour service project for the host campground (a forest preserve) on Sunday morning before everyone left camp. It turns out that the whole proscriptions of what the LDS can and can't do on Sundays are more like guidelines of goals to strive for rather than absolutes. Can't go shopping on Sundays? - yeah - avoid it if you can but if an emergency crops up, then it's not a sin to head to the Walgreens. Can't work on Sundays? Yeah - avoid it if you can but if it's in service to others and contributes to your spirituality (ie - volunteering - especially as a family), then don't feel as if you must not do so. Because the camporee had a service component to it, it was agreed that the older LDS Scouts would benefit from the service project. Arrangements were made for the families to attend a special, later service when their sons and husbands returned home. As more and more adult LDS members became members of the District Committee, it seemed that there were more and more "special dispensations" to attend training on Sundays, attend OA ordeals and work weekends, and stay in camp until Sunday mornings. I suspect they had a number of Stake Presidents and Bishops that got Scouting and understood how it could be used to strengthen families.

To paraphrase an old saying "Sandbag me once, shame on you. Sandbag me twice, shame on me". I would have thought that after the first act of sandbaggery, one of the parents might insist that the lad drag out his homework every night to show what he needed to do and prove he'd done it, for at least a few weeks to rebuild some trust. But then, maybe that's just me. I hate to sound like a broken record but once again, time management seems to be the issue. You don't give any details as to what the pre-lab assignment was. Most pre-lab assignments are reading assignments, with perhaps a short pre-lab writing assignment. At the middle school level, it shouldn't require hours of work. I'd sure be wondering what my child was doing between the time he got out of school and dinner time. Or maybe its a matter of resource allocation? If he needed a computer to complete the work, perhaps he couldn't get on because big sis spent 2 hours updating her face book page, or access isn't allowed until mom and dad are home which affects timing. Or maybe he's learned from experience that if he has a homework assignment that will take him 10 minutes and lets you know at dinner time that he needs access to the computer for the 10 minutes needed, in your mind that means he can't go to Scouts because he's got homework that needs to be done - so he's just stopped telling you. Now this is all speculation - none of it may apply in your case - so apologies if you get offended - no offense is intended. But my speculation is not without foundation - I've seen combinations of all of these scenarios in my work with at risk youth. (The above is not meant to imply that your son is a youth at risk. It is only meant to identify that I work with youth at risk).(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

Beavah - I'm pretty sure I said I'm not sure of what a judge may or may not do. Now while I bow to your legal expertise that the argument might not pass muster, I have seen a number of judges in Cook, Lake, DuPage and Will counties in Illinois where it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine a conversation in the initial stages that might go like this: Judge: This was a trip of a bunch of families just getting together? Defendant: Yes Judge: And it was originally planned as a Boy Scout Troop outing? Defendant: Yes Judge: And you changed it to a family outing because people didn't want to file the BSA medical forms? Defendant: Yes Judge: And all the families that went on the trip know each other from the Troop? Defendant: Yes Judge: Did you use any Boy Scout Troop equipment? Defendant: Yes Judge: Did you pay the Boy Scout Troop rent for the use of the equipment? Defendant: Ummm, No Judge: If you didn't have use of the equipment from the Troop, would the families have been able to go together? Defendant: I don't know. Judge: And you're seriously telling the court this wasn't a Boy Scout trip? It was a Boy Scout trip. Now maybe that won't hold up in an appeals court, but it would wreak havoc at the circuit level.

Maybe I'm the one not getting it. I don't disagree that inviting the SPL to an occassional committee meeting to talk about the Troop from a youth's point of view is a bad thing. That being said, I think I'm strongly and negatively reacting to the idea that the SPL must present a written report to the Committee Chair one month before a committee meeting so that the Committee Chair can "approve" the report. This seems to be a corporate model to me - and a big waste of the SPL's time. The Committee Chair may as well write the SPL's report. I hate to say it, but a thought just flashed through my head. While I'm not suggesting this is taking place in this Unit, the need of a CC to approve a report before it is presented to the Unit Committee raises a big red flag. What happens if a strong CC decides s/he needs to approve the Treasurer's report before meetings - and what stops them from making changes to hide things? Coming from that angle, I think perhaps the Committee needs to make clear to the CC right now that they (the Committee) won't allow the CC to approve/censor an SPL's, SM's or any other committee members reports in advance of a meeting - and take the tact that they aren't doing it because the believe the CC is doing so for nefarious reasons but because it gives the appearance that the CC is hiding something. I'd suggest that if the CC balks at that, then it might be time to become suspicious that the CC is, or is planning to, hide things - and that it's time for the CC to be replaced.

Scoutmaster is responsible for the program side of the Troop. CC is responsible for the administrative side of the Troop. Youth leadership, such as the SPL, is part of the program. The Scoutmaster is the voice of the PLC, including the SPL, for the committee. There should be no need for the SPL to attend any meeting of the committee - that's what the SM is there for. There is definitely no need for the SPL to give a written report, that's essentially pre-planned by the CC, to the CC. The CC is out of line - the SM needs to tell the CC that the SPL's will not give written reports to the CC, and they will not attend Committee Meetings. If the CC balks, the SM contacts the COR, explains the issue, and if the COR doesn't agree to back up the SM, the SM hands his patch over to the COR and tells him "good bye and good luck". If I'm the parent, I'm telling the SM that my son will not be doing the SM's job by providing reports - written or oral - to the CC and Committee. If it's pushed, I'm counseling my son to take on a different role (Den Chief comes to mind) and give up SPL.

The Scoutmaster has already proven that he doesn't have a spine (I know Beavah may disagree because I'm not considering that the Scoutmaster is a volunteer doing his/her best) by not standing up to the whining parents and informing them that either the proper forms are returned or their sons don't go on the trip. The Scoutmaster has now, in essence, turned a Boy Scout Troop into a Family Camping Club. Not pulling a tour permit? Had someone gotten hurt, I'm not sure using an "it wasn't a Troop outing" defense would hold up in front of a no nonsense judge with common sense. What makes anyone think this Scoutmaster will have his ASM's back on this issue? I do believe that you are on the right side of things in this case - but unless the SM is on your side, it's a losing battle for you. I'd talk to the SM and make sure he agrees with you - if he doesn't, I'd hand over the ASM patch and be done with doing any volunteer work with the Troop. I'm not suggesting you take your son out of the Troop - just your participation as anything but a parent. BTW - welcome to the forums

Beavah has laid out a great go forward path. A couple of things though: Was the older brother a witness to any of this? Does he corroborate his younger brothers version of things or the other Scouts? If he's with the other Scouts, that sounds like something to mention to Papa Bear. Does giving piggy backs rides really rise to the level of Scouts behaving poorly? I consider it Scouts having fun. Is running with sticks (a hiking stick perhaps?) really a matter of Scouts behaving poorly? If the Scout was walking and tripped, would we be characterizing it as behaving poorly? I doubt it. Now deliberately hitting others with sticks? Yeah, rises to the level. Did the Scouts who accidently kicked and hit the younger Scout apologize immediately? If so, then they acted very Scoutlike. If not, then they may need a reminder that in polite and civilized society, we apologize even if our actions are accidental. I'm guessing, though, that the Scouts said "Gee, Johnny - sorry about that - it was an accident" right away.

Having your Den Chief along is a great idea and very appropriate. For camping, there should be no problem with him sleeping in his own tent - because he is a Boy Scout he doesn't need a parent along - in fact, it's better if he doesn't - lets the Webelos see how a Scout can handle camping without Dad and/or Mom there to hold the Scout's hands - and that can make the first campout with the Troop easier for a newly crossed Scout - he's already had a positive example modeled for him - but that doesn't mean separate from his Den - his tent should be part of his Den's set up. Unless everyone else is responsible for cooking their own individual meals, he should be sharing in the meals of the Den (many Packs provide the meals as a whole - not sure what you're doing). He would contribute the same individual amount as any other person (though many Packs will "comp" the Den Chief's their meals, and often the camp fees - most people wouldn't complain about that). In case of illness or injury, the Den Leader or the Cubmaster will take on the same kind of responsibility for the lad as a Scoutmaster or ASM will on a camp-out - and ask any Scoutmaster or ASM - it's not that onerous a responsibility and it's pretty rare that it needs to be used. As for how to use the Den Chief - rather than the Den Leader or a parent leading the Den around to stations, let the Den Chief take on that role - it gives the Webelos a taste of what having a Patrol Leader is like - and lets the Den Leader man a station (make sure you inform the Chuckwagon staff first - just so that no one tries to hassle the Den and Den Chief because they "don't have an adult with them". It helps if the Den Chief is carrying a small day pack with a little extra water and a first aid kit - that eases parent's minds a bit). But, make sure that the Den Chief isn't participating in the events - he's just leading them from event to event (does the Webelos Den have their own flag? Guess who holds the flag when the Den is doing the activity? What? No flag? Perfect time to create one). Give the Den Chief some camp responsibilities too - if you're having a campfire at your site, have the Den Chief set it up and light it. Or make him responsible for organizing Cub Scouts to fetch water. What kinds of responsibilities are you planning to have the Webelos responsible for? At a meeting prior to the Chuckwagon, it would be very appropriate for the Den Leader to step aside and let the Den Chief work with the Den in putting together a Duty Roster - again modeling what a Patrol and Patrol Leader does. And by all means, put the Den Chief in charge of organizing a final walk-through and clean-up of the campsite - with Cub Scouts AND parents participating. BTW - a smart Den Leader will quietly suggest that the Den Chief bring along a small alarm clock to make sure he's up and at em before the Den is - he could even be the official timekeeper of reveille - making the rounds at an appointed AM time to quietly let folks know, from outside the tent, that it's time to get up and get the day started (just like a PL or SPL should do). If you've not figured it out yet, I'm a huge supporter of the Den Chief role - Next to SPL and PL, I think it's the most important position a Troop can have - and sometimes I think it's more important than SPL and PL. I've earned both Eagle Scout and the Den Chief Service Award - as I look back, I often think that the DCSA has much more meaning than Eagle Scout (but that's me). But the key to having a great Den Chief is to know how to utilize one. Hope the suggestions have helped. BTW - welcome to the forum - let us know how things turn out! (This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

I think this falls within the "adult rights" realm. If it's that unbearable (and I pretty much find perfume on women or men to be unbearable), they wash up and change clothes, or they walk.