clemlaw

I doubt if there are many more child molesters these days than there were in the past, but there's a lot more fear of them. One of the reasons this fear is fueled is because of the large number of "registered sex offenders", and it is assumed that these are particularly dangerous people. I'm sure some of them are, but the fear is overblown for a couple of reasons. First of all, if someone is convicted of something like abducting a child, contrary to public perception, this is a very serious crime, and just about anywhere that I'm aware of, this person, if convicted, will get a long prison sentence. Now, eventually, this sentence might get completely served, and there will, indeed, be a serious offender released after 30 years. Even that is less likely, since such cases usually now get an indefinite civil commitment in most states. Yes, it happens, and there was one such case that received much publicity around here a couple of years ago. But it is rare. The ranks of the "registered sex offenders" are artificially inflated by people who were guilty of relatively minor offenses, and who probably pose little if any danger to the community. For example, some "registered sex offenders" are those who, when over age 18, had consensual sex with their girlfriend who was under 18. In some states, people convicted of public urination become "registered sex offenders". Are these people upstanding members of the community? Maybe not. But are they particularly dangerous? Probably not. Stranger abductions are rare. They're probably more common than meteor strikes, but much less common than other things that we don't worry too much about. My son is in first grade, and my wife or I usually walk him to the bus stop. So maybe we're being overprotective to some extent. On the other hand, if we're not there the second the bus drops him off in the afternoon, we don't lose a lot of sleep over it.

I guess that's pretty much what it boils down to. With regard to epi...epi...ep.....threads with someone's name in them, do we allow a little bit of clemency? Or do we follow the letter of the law?

Well, it said that he had refused to do it, so I assume that he had already been asked. But yes, the request should come from the Pack leadership. But if he still refuses, I don't see any other solution. (Apparently, it's not possible to hand out the beads at Pack meetings.) Personally, I would just overlook it as a very minor offense. But apparently the original poster views it as being much more serious.

Yep, since there's a blatant refusal, there's only one solution to the problem. The den leader needs to be relieved of his position. If nobody else is willing to take the position, then the Tiger den should be disbanded. If a pack is going to run a Tiger program, then it looks like they're required to hand out the beads. But there's no requirement to run the Tiger program in the first place. So that should make everyone happy.

Well, I just don't think that "refusing to teach" history is the same as being "ashamed of the history". In my years as a Cub Scout back in the historical days, I don't recall ever once being "taught" history at a Den Meeting. In fact, I don't recall it ever once being mentioned. That's not to say that it's a bad thing to do so. In fact, as I mentioned above, I had an old Cub Scout from the 1940's come in and talk to my Den. But that was never done when I was a Cub Scout. So the mere fact that I was talking about history was, in itself, a break from historical tradition. Of course, when I was a Cub Scout, we didn't have any history yet. And I still think that not handing out the beads is a pretty minor transgression, especially at the higher ranks. I guess that every Tiger I've seen has the beads, but unless the kids consistently leave them at home, in my Council, the "Advancement Toward Rank" totems are definitely not used by every pack, although it does indeed appear that "officially" they are supposed to be using them. The original poster never said what level this den was. If it's Tigers, then there's a stronger case for handing out the beads. But even then, I would ignore it if everything else is being run well. At the higher ranks, then it's even less of an issue. The original poster asked "what should be done". My advice still stands--if the den leader is otherwise running a good program, then nothing should be done. If the original poster feels strongly that a history lesson should be included in the program, and if he can do it so that it's fun, then my advice is that he should do like I did and do it himself. If the den leader in question is actually communicating to the members of his den that he holds the BSA's history in disdain, then something should be done. But merely refusing to "teach" history at den meetings is a non-issue. And so far, that's all he's been accused of. And "teaching" history lessons about the BSA is nowhere to be found in the Tiger program.

>>>>Why be part of a group when you don't care to use the program they offer and don't care to take pride in the history of the group.

Well, from the material quoted above, I was obviously mistaken. I was under the impression that they were "required" for Tigers, but not for the higher ranks. I assumed that the den in the OP was a higher level, but I guess that was just an assumption on my part. I award them at Den meetings, but my observation is that it's not that big a deal for the kids. They have more fun actually doing the stuff, rather than getting the beads. Obviously, others have a different experience. I still think that as far as infractions go, it's a pretty minor one. If the original poster is the CM, can't you just award them at a Pack meeting? That's not "immediate", so it's not following the program. But if an otherwise good den leader is, for whatever reason, failing to hand them out at den meetings, wouldn't that satisfy those who really want the beads?

>>>>I never said he was not doing his job.

@ 83Eagle: Again, I was not the leader at that time. It was a family situation where if she would have said that, I suspect that he wouldn't have been able to participate at all. I also suspect that the parent had already talked with her about it. She handled it well, and in effect, she became his "adult partner" for the entire year. Obviously, ScoutNut is right, and this is how the program is supposed to work. And my reference to the "real world" wasn't appropriate, and I apologize. But I guess what made me pipe up was the fact that someone had posted a question, and during the course of asking that question, he mentioned that he had been frustrated by parents who "thought" something that was mistaken. He didn't provide any details, and he didn't say that he went along with this erroneous thought process. I suspect that he corrected the parents in question, although perhaps he didn't do it at the first meeting, as ScoutNut knows to do with his eleven years of experience. Someone with eleven years of experience is probably going to do a better job of it than someone who is brand new. So he has the experience to dispel a common misconception at the first meeting, before the parents are able to "think" it at a subsequent meeting. But the original poster gave absolutely no indication whatsoever that he was not using Teams of Adults/Tigers in his program. Perhaps he was not doing so _as well as_ someone with eleven years of experience was doing it. But because of this side remark, he is told, "if you had been using the Tiger program". Again, I see absolutely no indication whatsoever that the original poster wasn't doing so. He apparently isn't doing it perfectly, and he apparently isn't doing it as well as someone who is doing it for eleven years. But I think it's really out of line for someone to be told that they are not "using the Tiger program". A Scout is Helpful; a Scout is Friendly; a Scout is Courteous; a Scout is Kind. I don't think those standards are met when someone asking a largely unrelated question is accused of not using the program. To reach that conclusion requires making a lot of unwarranted assumptions. And as a relative newbie around here myself, I hate to say that seems to happen to a lot of newbies.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

Well, I guess I've never had the problem of being asked to be a babysitter. It happened last year, but I wasn't the leader, so it wasn't really any of my business. But you informed the original poster that he had not been using TEAMS of Tiger/Adult Partners, and I didn't see any indication of that whatsoever in his post, other than a single offhanded comment about some occasion when he was asked to be a babysitter. Chances are, that didn't literally happen--the parent did not say, "please babysit my child." Since the comment was obviously not meant literally, I don't think it was called for to tell him that this was evidence that he wasn't doing his job, especially since the thread was talking about something else.

I don't think we have BOR's in Cub Scouts, so I guess I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. If your pack is using BOR's (with or without parents), then it seems to me that puts you pretty squarely into Camp #2. But I wasn't aware that the beads were a required part of the program for Wolf and above, so thanks for enlightening me. For future reference, could you give me a link to the BSA document specifying this so that we can follow this part of the program the best we can?

>>>>>The requirements are toughand thats by design,

>>>>>If you have been using the Tiger program running TEAMS of Tiger/Adult Partners working/playing together,

I'm a TDL, and if I had it to do over again, I don't think I would bother with the beads. It's a pain for the leader to keep track of them and hand them out. It's a pain for the parents to put on the beads (I gave up trying to do it for 11 kids). And it's a pain for the parents to remove the thing to wash the shirt. I guess the Tigers get a little bit of enjoyment from receiving them. But if they didn't know they existed in the first place, they wouldn't miss them. And besides, "they already receive enough awards." As for "teaching" the history of scouting, is there some achievement for their rank advancement that requires this? If not, I don't think they have any obligation to "teach" it, or even acknowledge it. There's nothing in the Tiger requirements about the history of scouting. We've talked about it in my den because I wanted to, and the kids enjoyed it. But I'm sure that other den leaders have never mentioned it, and as long as they're having fun doing other things, I don't think that's a problem. As far as I know, the instant recognition emblems are sold over the counter at the Scout shop. So if some parent thinks their son really needs one, there's nothing stopping them from getting it on their own. And there's no reason why either parents or pack leaders can't talk about the history of scouting at home and/or pack meetings. If the den leader is otherwise doing a good job, I would say that those shortcomings are pretty trivial.

I'm doing my best (hey, where did I hear that before) to make sure my Tiger parents are kept up to date on what their Tiger is missing. I'm also doing my best to let them know what we're probably going to do again as a den, and what we're not going to do. For example, for the ones who missed museum/older person visit, I've let them know that we probably won't be doing that again, so they should do that as a family. On the other hand, if they missed the hike, don't worry, because we'll probably do that again. It's looking like everyone is going to be earning the Tiger badge at about the same time. But if they don't, it's only because the parents didn't take advantage of the opportunities to catch up on what was missed.

If you ever see another guy with an OA flap on his TDL uniform, be sure to say hello, because that's me. I was kind of in the same position in the pack we were with last year. (Our council has a pilot program for Kindergartners, in case you're wondering how we were in a different pack before the Tiger year). I think they had pretty much decided that I was going to be CC in a year. We were able to dodge it, because we had to change packs due to meeting night issues. In the new pack, I think they have pretty much decided that I'm going to be the CM in about a year. Frankly, I feel a lot more comfortable with that, and I'm guessing from what you're writing that you would too. I go to enough meetings as it is, and I don't think my talents are well spent running another meeting and dealing with the "business" issues that the CC should handle. I can do a lot more to help the program, rather than dealing with those things. While it would be nice, I don't think prior scouting experience is all that important for the job of CC. It's much more important for a CM (or even den leader). Since you're in pretty much the same situation I am, I suspect you're also a better fit for CM (or continuing as Den Leader). As for the "dealing with council", as is probably true with you, I actually _like_ going to Roundtable, and I started going as TDL without anyone asking me to do so. I let it be known that I can take on the job as our "roundtable person". Interestingly, after I made that known, I think we have more leaders going to roundtable than we did in the past. So if you volunteer to be the "roundtable person", that might take the pressure off. The CC will still have to worry about things like getting the recharter in on time. But you can be the one communicating things from the district and council back to the committee. Ideally, the CC ought to be going to roundtable. But if you agree to take on that duty, that might make the job seem a lot more managable.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I just wanted to say that Roberts' Rules of Order (or even the less formal and less known Bob's Rules of Order) are going a little bit overboard, IMHO.

My son is still a Tiger, but I started playing it up when he was about 3. When he saw people doing something interesting, I mentioned that he'll be able to do that when he's in Boy Scouts. Yes, his father is very sneaky. He actually got started while in Kindergarten. Our council has a pilot program called "Lions" for Kindergarten-age kids. The pack we were in was always scrambling to figure out what to have them do at their den meetings, but he really loved being able to participate in many Pack activities.

Yes, I also think that if the MB program is done right, the question shouldn't really come up. Because as a general rule, a MBC should be someone with specialized expertise in a particular subject, and more often than not, that person will be outside the troop. Now, there are certainly exceptions to this general rule. In fact, the exceptions could actually outnumber the cases where the general rule applies. For example, when I was in Scouts, there were two exceptions that probably accounted for about two thirds of my merit badges. First of all, a _small_ handful of merit badges were generally done as activities within the troop. (I'm loath to use the word "classes", but an even smaller subset of that group were "classes".) These were for merit badges that everyone needed, and that didn't require any particular expertise. Most notably, this included the Citizenship merit badges. Since the counselors were indeed, good citizens, they had the required expertise. The second group of exceptions were the merit badges earned at summer camp, such as camping, cooking, canoeing, etc., and they were generally signed off by the camp staff. Again, these were not necessarily "classes"--we were learning and doing activities at camp, and most of these translated into merit badge requirements. But for the rest of the merit badges (roughly a third, I would guess), the scout generally did call up an adult outside the troop, who was someone he didn't know, and this person had some particular expertise in the subject. That really adds an important part to the program, I think. It's really an important skill having to call an unkown adult and saying, "Hello, Mr. ____. I'm Tommy Tenderfoot from Troop 4321 and I would like to make an appointment to start on _____ merit badge." At University of Scouting this year, I decided to sign up for the MBC training, and I was very surprised to discover that I was the only one there who wasn't there on behalf of some troop. Now I'll grant that anyone who is present at University of Scouting is probably there because they are scouters with a troop, and not just community experts who are willing to be MBC's. But still, from the way the discussion went, I got the distinct impression that earning merit badges is now a troop activity. I hope I'm wrong, because doing it the other way is a lot better way to run the program (with numerous exceptions, as mentioned above.) Also, at one other session, a scouter casually mentioned something to the effect that "we" (referring to his troop) had a field trip to ___ for ____ merit badge. But as far as I know, he had no particular expertise in that subject. He got his expertise only by going along on the field trip. I kept my mouth shut, but I couldn't help but thinking that was the wrong way to do it. Yes, they got a lot more scouts signed off on that merit badge by making it a troop activity. But when I was a scout, I got a lot more out of that particular merit badge by having to call up Mr. _____ and make an appointment to come over and work on it. If merit badges are a troop activity, then you probably do have to worry about limits. With community experts, you probably don't have to worry about it. In fact, the limits might get in the way if the program is done right. Right off the top of my head, I would say that a scout shouldn't earn more than about three merit badges from the same "troop counsellor". There's no need to do so, because most of the adults should be competent to counsel many of the "common" merit badges. But on the other hand, there might be some MBC's in the community who are perfectly competent to counsel multiple merit badges. For example, one guy with a background in electronics might be an excellent counsellor for Radio, Electronics, and maybe a couple more scientific merit badges. And he might be the best (or only) counselor for them. In that case, it would be unfair to impose a limit. So my advice is to not impose a limit, but instead start re-building a culture where merit badges are seen first as an opporunity for scouts to go out into the community and find experts to counsel them. Yes, you still might need to run a "class" now and then for the Citizenship merit badges. But treat those cases as the exception, rather than the general rule.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

I forgot about that. Maybe they'll update it: "I swear, comrade, I only did it to put on my college application!"

>>>>>I'm sure they decided to use red because it's connected to the centennial and red has been around for Boy Scouts for 100 years...

Congratulations to you and your son! I have one suggestion for a Christmas present! A lifetime membership in the National Eagle Scout Association isn't very expensive. As is pretty common, I drifted away from Scouting during college. I never got around to drifting back until my son became a Cub Scout. I never got around to joining NESA until recently. I suspect that if a magazine about Scouting had kept showing up a few times a year, I probably would have drifted back sooner.

Fortunately, it's not a widespread enough problem that we need to come up with a new national form. And if they had a form, they would also need to publish the "G2TS" ("Guide to Trustworthy Scouting") that would have procedures specified in excruciating detail (including the "leave no trace" section, which would discuss how and when to dispose of old receipts). And the new form would undoubtedly create as many unanticipated problems as it would solve. Did Johnny bring back the book of 50 receipts he was issued? Fortunately, most scouts are trustworthy. And most popcorn consumers are also probably trustworthy. So if someone comes forward and says that they paid for $20 worth of popcorn and never got it, the best policy is to apologize, give them their $20 back, and then have the unit come up with some common-sense procedures to prevent it from happening again.

The issue of kids being driven to school, at least around here, isn't really related to the parents being overprotective. The sad fact is that kids these days generally aren't able to attend neighborhood schools, so walking to school generally isn't an option. So if Junior misses the bus and/or has to be somewhere else after school, then getting a ride from Mom and Dad is pretty much the only option. Clemlaw Junior stands in the cold to catch the bus, no matter how cold it is. But I can understand the temptation to have him wait in a warm car. He's supposed to be there five minutes early, and if the bus is running a few minutes late, it can be a long wait. If you're walking, it's not so bad. But if you're just standing in the cold, it can indeed be cold. I had the privilege of attending my school district during the only 13-year period in history during which school was never once cancelled because of weather. It was cancelled once the year before I started because of some snow storm of Biblical proportions. But starting the year after I graduated, it was cancelled on a regular basis because the logistics of bus transportation were so much more complicated. We had a couple feet of snow on Saturday, and we just received word that school will be cancelled for a second day Tuesday, even though, as far as I can tell, all streets are perfectly passable. So there's some over-protectiveness at work there. But in general, the traffic jams of kids being dropped off at school are more a function of the distance to school being so much greater these days.

That's what I was going to say. The padded material on the ground does not do anything to prevent the types of injuries that you and I suffered as a child, such as skinned knees, cuts, bruises, etc. So kids can still have fun, and continue to enjoy those types of minor injuries. What it does do is prevent the relatively rare traumatic head injuries. Since shredded tires probably don't cost much more than cement, it does seem like kind of a no-brainer to me.