ajmako

LongHaul wrote: The DAC coming out and saying "I will not approve a MBC for more than 7 badges." isn't something that can be appealed to National particularly if the CAC upheld the DACs position. Well, all I can say is there's no real appeal process involved here. If my DAC imposed this policy in my district I'd simply ask him to provide me with his reasoning and the national policy that gives him the authority to do it. It's not hard to guess I don't agree with the idea that the ACP&P gives him that authority, which means we go to the next step. Without much difficulty we can get an answer from National, and I would happily abide by that answer. It's just my experience is that not every DAC even knows what the ACP&P is, let alone what it says--like the folks who thought Eagle Service Projects weren't valid unless the Scout put in 100 man-hours, or the guy who thought since the district was responsible for EBOR's the district should take over the whole Eagle advancement process, or the guy who wasn't willing to convene a BOR until a Scout's project book exactly matched the workbook (it had to be in exactly the same order and use exactly the same wording or no EBOR). These are just a few examples. I'm sure they all thought they were doing the right thing, but each one of them claimed they had the authority to do it. All I'm saying is if I can't find it in the appropriate BSA manual, they should be able to point me to the right document.

My council doesn't have merit badge days. We did once, when I was 13 or 14. I went but didn't get anything out of it. The fact is, merit badges are supposed to be individual study, where a Scout and a buddy or parent meet with a mentor and actually learn the subject. When I went to that one merit badge day, just for one merit badge, I never actually met the counselor. I filled out a sheet, sat and listened to him talk for a while, then I had a chance to work on a couple requirements while the counselor was busy signing off the two or three requirements he covered during his speech. There were too many Scouts for him to go through the stuff I'd already done or the stuff I did that day. All he did was hand back the sheet (what the council used as a "partial" at the time) and tell everyone to get our SM's to sign the rest of the requirements. I got more out of a summer camp merit badge class.

Beavah wrote: Can/should a district do anything if a SM is the counselor for every MB earned in his troop (or earned by his son, or...). I read some people as sayin' "no, nothing can be done, everyone is bound by the two sentences in ACP&P." Beavah, As one you probably read as saying "no" my answer is: yes, the council/district can do something to discourage this sort of thing. The council/district has the responsibility of 1) recruiting qualified merit badge counselors, and 2) training them. Noted in my other message was the list of qualifications for a merit badge counselor, which includes "recognized as having the skills and education in the subjects for which they are to serve as merit badge counselors." So the first thing the district can do is make an effort to ensure approved merit badge counselors are indeed qualified. Secondly, the district is responsible for training not only merit badge counselors, but Scoutmasters and unit advancement chairs as well. That gives the district the ability to establish high standards for merit badge counselors and convince unit leaders to adopt the same high standards for the merit badge counselors they recruit. Ultimately, the district isn't responsible for assigning merit badge counselors to Scouts, so imposing some kind of restriction in that regard is overstepping their authority. It's up to unit leaders to encourage Scouts to meet with a variety of different counselors instead of just using the same one over and over again. I don't have a problem with a unit establishing restrictions on how many merit badges a Scout can earn from a single counselor, or limiting the number of badges a counselor can counsel. Beavah wrote: Because councils in the U.S. range from geographically huge, rural ones to tight, near-urban ones, settin' one "national" policy just wouldn't work, eh? Which is why we have local councils and districts, to figure out how to interpret the real policies so they work in their area. Well, if National wanted to have restrictions and limitations, or wanted local councils and districts to have the authority to make restrictions and limitations, I think they would say it in the manual the appropriate committee is supposed to use. Since no such authority is granted in the ACP&P I would question the validity of a district policy. The Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures manual is exactly what it claims to be--official BSA policies and procedures. The text I quoted is in fact official national policy. You are right, however, that "violation" isn't the right word for not following the policy. Policies are not rules or regulations and the text I quoted is neither a rule or a regulation. The question I have to ask is exactly what is accomplished by publishing a policy manual that includes a policy that is contrary to a rule or regulation? Even if we assume it's not a policy manual, that it's merely a guidebook or "best practices" book, what good is a "best practice" that is contrary to a rule, regulation, or official policy? OldGreyEagle wrote: So, can the District set a Limit? Well, yes it can, it did didnt it? Will the limit stand an appeal? Probably not, but is it such a horrible limit? Do you want to involve a youth in the appeal process? What if the scout ages out and the appeal is denied? I echo Lisabob, is this a fight worth the effort, the worst thing that happens with this rule is the Scout is forced to have contact with multiple adults, is that so bad? The answers are no, officially the district can't set the limit. Just because the district can get away with it doesn't make it right or allowed. My district used to get away with requiring a minimum number of man-hours for Eagle Service Projects; didn't make it right or allowable. No, it won't stand on appeal, and it's a sad state of affairs for something called Scouting that a district has to get caught doing something wrong before they bother doing it right. No, I don't want to involve the Scout in an appeal, but again, the only reason an appeal would be necessary is because the district is not following official policy. Since National tends to give the Scout the benefit of the doubt in appeals, I can't see such an appeal being denied. As far as whether or not the district policy is good or bad, that should be obvious. The policy isn't all that bad in and of itself, but it's not right whether it has good results or not. There are other means of ensuring Scouts have contact with multiple adults--means that are within the published rules, regulations, policies and procedures. Perhaps we should try those first.(This message has been edited by ajmako)

longhaul wrote: "What most people are failing to realize is that the above sentence does not say a person can counsel as many badges as they want. What it does say is that the Council Advancement Chair can at his/her discretion approve a person to counsel as many merit badges as the Council Advancement Chair feels they are qualified to counsel." I don't want to nitpick, but that's not what the ACP&P says. It says the Council Advancement Chair is responsible for approving merit badge counselors and publishing a list of approved counselors. It says the Council Advancement Chair can delegate this authority to the District Advancement Chair. It says there's nor restriction or limit on the number of badges a counselor can be approved for. As far as I can see there's no authority given to the CAC or DAC to set limits on the number of badges a counselor can be approved for. The only mention of qualifications is: "They must be men and women of good character, age 18 or older, and recognized as having the skills and education in the subjects for which they are to serve as merit badge counselors, as well as having the ability to work with Scout-age boys." There's nothing in there about deciding how many badges a counselor can be approved for--except for the sentence I already cited. So, for myself, before I sit back and let such a restriction stand, I'd want to see something in writing, not just "the ACP&P implies..." or "the ACP&P doesn't say we can't..."--especially when I have a far different reading of the ACP&P than whoever came up with the restriction. It seems to me that placing restrictions on the number of merit badges a counselor can be approved for really doesn't solve any of the various problems such a tactic would be implemented to solve. If some Scouts earned most of their merit badges from a few counselors and there's some question as to whether or not those counselors even know the subjects, the CAC and DAC have a method of solving that (see qualifications cited above and uncited training responsibilities). Limiting the number of badges doesn't completely solve that problem.

So I guess I've put this off long enough. It's time to introduce myself: My name is A. J. Mako and I've been doing this Scouting thing since I was 7 years old. I earned Arrow of Life as a Cub, went on to Boy Scouts where I earned Eagle (2 weeks before turning 18). I served as ASM (Troop 1 and Troop 38 Great Trail Council) for a while, as well as being on Roundtable staff and OA Chapter Chief. I got my first chance at Scoutmastering back in 1984 (Troop 38/86). That lasted four years. I got my second chance at Scoutmastering back in 1997 (Troop 381). That lasted five years. In between I served as a District Member-at-Large (Old Portage GTC), Roundtable Commissioner (Island District, Mount Baker Area), ASM (Troop 59 Oak Harbor, WA), and Unit Commissioner (Old Portage GTC). Since then I have been Charter Organization Representative for VFW Post 7971 in Copley, Ohio. My motto seems to be: "You can't tell me I'm wrong, I've been wrong before and it didn't look anything like this!";)

dluders, I haven't seen the latest Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures manual, so it's possible this has changed, but I doubt it. My advice is based on the following quote from my copy of the ACP&P. Before taking this advice you should find the latest copy of the ACP&P you can and make sure the policy hasn't changed. "There is no restriction or limit on the number of merit badges an individual may be approved to counsel for. "There is no limit on the number of merit badges a you may earn from one counselor." (ACP&P #33088C pg 13) If the other districts in your council have different policies then by all means do as nldscout suggested. Write a nice letter to your DE asking for his authority for making this policy. You can point out that that Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures manual, which defines council and district responsibilities and clearly says there are no limits, does not support the change in policy. I would cc the District Advancement Committee Chair and the Council Advancement Committee Chair as well. The answer to your letter will either be another memo recinding the first memo, or a letter to you explaining that: 1) the policy was created to address a problem with certain adults counseling badges they aren't qualified to counsel, 2) Scouts being signed off on hundreds of merit badges by the same counselor without doing the required work, and 3) the ACP&P is merely a suggestion. If that is the answer you get, re-write your letter and this time cc the SE. None of those reasons are valid reasons for the limitations. The ACP&P is quite a bit more than a suggestion. It can't be overridden by just anybody. The only way limitations on the number of badges a counselor can counsel or the number of badges a Scout can earn from a particular counselor can be justified is by a change in the official BSA policy (what's currently stated in the ACP&P).

Kudu, my friend, once again you've let your evangelism get the best of you. You made a nice argument, but unfortunately the people you have an argument with are long gone. While it might be quite interesting to see how the BSA circa 1910 was different than B-P circa 1910, no one should have to point out that the BSA has changed quite a bit since then. Many of the things you find so egregious are no longer the way things are done today in the BSA. Granted, the BSA still misses the point in some ways, but the same can be said of other Scouting organizations. So what? We can fix that by being helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind to our fellow Scouters in providing advice. We can help them by sticking to the subject of the thread and rather than rant about how the first edition of the SM Handbook got it all wrong, point out ways in which we can all get it right. Perhaps the BSA is wrong in having a Scout Spirit requirement, wrong in having the SM decide whether the requirement is completed or not, and wrong in making it a topic of discussion during the BOR. In that case perhaps it would be better to explain why it is wrong instead of giving long sermons about how different BSA was from B-P ninty-some years ago. I don't mean listing a bunch of quotes from B-P, but explain in your view why Scout Spirit should not be a requirement, why the SM should not decide its completeness, or why it should not be discussed at a BOR. We who operate exclusively within the BSA cannot remove the rank requirement, and we cannot eliminate Scoutmaster Conferences or Boards of Review. We can use these things to our advantage, and I think that would be a far more constructive discussion. By that I mean, of course, ways in which we can achieve the aims of Scouting the way B-P intended within the system established by the BSA. Please don't answer "it can't be done," that's a cop-out. I'll leave everyone with just one B-P quote: "We are all different and we must not think that because other fellows seem inferior to us, they are to be despised. "For example, you may be a good athlete and Smith may be a poor one, but very good at books. Don't despise him, but 'live and let live'." --Baden-Powell, Rovering to Success(This message has been edited by ajmako)

gigibw, Did you report the incident to the police? The reason I ask is you can certainly report the incident to the SE, but there isn't anything the SE can do. Since it happened at a non-Scouting event there's nothing for the SE to report to the authorities. If you reported the incident to the police and you mentioned the Scouting connection, then you should at least notify the SE that the police might contact him during the course of their investigation. Otherwise it's just an incident between two parents and thier children. As a COR I would certainly be concerned about this, but again, there isn't much I can do if you haven't reported it to the appropriate authorities. If I was COR for the pack I'd talk to the CC about whether or not there was a problem with this Scouter or if there had been any complaints from Scouts or their parents about his behavior. That's about as far as it will go. If there have been complaints or he has been a problem we'll deal with him. If I was the COR for the troop there would be even less that I could do. It's important to understand that the SE doesn't investigate reports of abuse. He or she simply reports them to the appropriate authorities and cooperates with the investigation.

Ea. I don't think you're splitting hairs (or should that be "splitting heirs"). As I remember it--I don't have the entire contents of B-P's writings on Scouting memorizied--Scouting isn't about making men out of boys, it's about helping boys become the right sort of men. That can be made gender neutral--helping young people become the right sort of adults. To me, the distinction is important. Lots of activities can turn a child into an adult, but not all activities result in the right sort of adult. What we, as adults, do in Scouting should be focused on building from within, not imposing from without.

Volley6, The question arises, what is the point of reforming patrols if those patrols are just going to be reformed again for activities? You end up with two patrols that aren't real patrols. They're just groups of names on a roster. The Patrol Method only really works when the patrols have permanence and independence. That is, the patrol exists beyond the paper it's written down on, and the members of the patrol identify with the patrol as their patrol. A real patrol goes to camp under its own leadership and every member of the patrol works toward the its success. When you're rebuilding a unit with these sorts of numbers, the best thing you can do is focus on the Patrol Method. One patrol that functions the way a patrol is supposed to is better than two patrols that have to be reorganized every time the troop goes outdoors. Focusing your efforts on the patrol establishes the patrol as the basic unit of Scouting (which it is). It establishes the Patrol Leader as a real leadership position with real authority and responsibilities (which it is). And it sets the stage for what kind of troop you'll have when a second or third patrol is added. The Scouts you start out with, having experienced what a real patrol is like, will teach newer Scouts according to that experience. The patrols will be tighter and Patrol Leaders will be better leaders, which means the troop will be better and so will the troop program. If we don't focus our rebuilding efforts on the patrol the Scouts learn that the patrol doesn't matter. To them it becomes nothing more than a convenient grouping. Any Scout given the job of Patrol Leader finds he doesn't have any real authority--after all, if the patrol isn't anything the leader of a patrol isn't anything either. He also finds he doesn't have much responsibility either. Not when the thing he's responsible for can disappear at a moment's notice. The less real patrols and positions are to the Scouts, the more adults think they have to do to pick up the slack, and the end result is a troop in which adults run things and Scouts with leadership positions simply follow orders.

So the question is, what exactly does doing push-ups accomplish? Forgive me, the question is rhetorical. Speaking only for myself, one who once believed firmly in something called "Scout Law Push-ups," I have found there are far more effective means of reaching a young man. Doing push-ups certainly focuses attention on the offender, showing that there are dire consequences for bad behavior. But then we run afoul of that whole thing about praising in public and criticizing in private. Doing push-ups certainly works toward one of the three aims (or an aspect of the one aim if you're inclined that way). But then we sort of send a confusing message--fitness is a form of punishment. Steve, I understand your reasoning, but I think if you try you might find the things you do will work without the push-ups. Here's how: stevejb: When a boy joins the troop I sit down with him AND his parents and explain that bad language will not be tolerated in the troop. Right from the start you are establishing standards of behavior and communicating them to the Scout and his parents. You are telling them what is expected, and essentially defining "Scout Spirit" for them. Most likely at the same meeting, or another with just the Scout, you go over the joining requirements. At that point the Scout begins putting things together. There's the Oath that says "On my honor I will do my best..." There's the Law that tells him all the things he must be in order to be worthy of being called "Scout." There's the SM, not just laying down the law and clearly defining expectations, but actually sounding encouraging and confident. The Scout gets the idea that you seem to know he can do what's expected. No doubt, when the offender is "charged and sentenced" or after he does his "penance" you have a little talk with him about why what he did was wrong, etc. The basics of that conversation are probably something to the effect: "You know what you did wrong; I'm disappointed in you, but I know you can de better; go do better." And as you say: "once a Scout has been a member for a few years all it takes is a look from me with nothing to be said, and the Scout will do the push-ups on his own." In my experience, it's not the push-ups doing that. In fact, if you took the push-ups away you'd probably get the same result. You get that result because you make it clear from the start that the Ideals of Scouting mean something, that "honor" means something, and the boy is expected to do his best to be worthy of the name "Scout." That little talk, that disappointed look, are all you really need. Just something to think about. >>Have your son go to the his Patrol Leader first.

kittle: I know that boys will be boys, but do they have to be rude also? Kittle, boys may be boys, but Scouts aren't just boys. If their behavior is rude, inappropriate, or even offensive, they are just boys, not Scouts. What can be done about it? My advice is to sit down with your son and make a list of the things that bother him. Look over the list and evaluate each item according to the Scout Oath and Law. Anything that doesn't pass all twelve points of the Scout Law and all of the parts of the Promise, is un-Scout-like. Take your concerns to the Scoumaster and talk to him (your son can do this on his own, or you and he can together). Be honest about how these things make you and your son feel. The Scoutmaster should thank you and proceed to do something about the bad behavior. If he just shrugs his shoulders and says "boys will be boys" you've only got two options: 1) start a campaign to change the culture of the troop; or 2) run away and start looking for another troop. A Scout leader who isn't concerned about a Scout's concerns isn't focused on the right thing. A Scout leader who isn't concerned about the behavior of his/her Scouts isn't doing the job.

SWScouter: I always wonder what one who constantly cusses says when they really need to cuss? If expletives are constantly spewing from one's mouth, how do I as a listener know that he/she is trying to accent something or just speaking normally? Back when I was young and stupid and I was firmly convinced cussing was the thing to do to show I was grown up, I resembled the above remark. Yes, even in Scouts and my private Catholic school. In school such language was not tolerated at all. It was a good way to get sent to Sister Dorothy's office. As a result such colorful language was used "underground". The same thing was true around my neighborhood--on our own we kids tried to outdo each other, but within sight of home we wouldn't even whisper such words. Why? Considering what my mother would do if she heard just the first syllable of cussing from my mouth, I would have preferred being sent to Sister Dorothy's office. In Scouts cussing was an underground operation as well. Something done with whispered voices in our tents at night, or in normal tones when we were sure no adults were around. Curiously, if I burned my finger, or smashed my thumb, or dropped my baked potato in the mud, my response was not laden with colorful metaphores--usually. I can plainly remember several occasions when the odd curse escaped a Scout's lips in the vicinity of an adult, but I can't for the life of me remember anything being done about it. At least nothing beyond the disappointed expression on the adult's face. In answer to SWScouter's question, people who constantly cuss merely get louder when they really need to cuss. And when accent and and stress is needed in "normal" conversation, the usual foul adjectives and adverbs are further modified by additional, complimentary (and usually more foul) adjectives and adverbs. The moment I realized that I was stupid and needed to get smart came when I was in the Navy and as a Petty Officer I was trying to explain a planned maintenance process to a female sailor. "You just bleeping go to the bleeping PM box and get the bleeping card for the bleeping inspection you bleeping need to bleeping do, then bleeping follow the bleeping steps. Bleeping easy as bleeping bleep." This was supposed to be teaching, BTW. Something in my head just sort of clunked into place saying, "this is someone's mother you're talking to stupid." Okay, that's the sea story. Now, what can be done about the use of foul language in Scouts. Most of the suggestions are good ones. The only thing I can add is that we need to remember that for every foul word we catch, there's about ten or twenty we didn't catch. The solution we use (my personal method can be found here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=154232&p=2#id_155273) has to address the situation at the source--the idea that it's okay to cuss in the first place. Our solution has to be consistently applied, impressing upon the Scouts the fact that it's inappropriate behavior for Scouts even if no one catches them. If we make it clear that this behavior is not appropriate for Scouts, will not be tolerated, and we explain our reasoning, we'll have a much more effective result.

Kudu: Finally, someone who writes longer posts than me :-) What? Hey, after I got a quick look around, I thought really long posts were the order of the day around here!

I don't know. I guess if what we're looking for in a Patrol Leader is the Scout who can be most trusted to do the job then there are problems with both having elections and SM appointments. Imagine, if we want a patrol to be independent, to function on its own led by the PL with as little interference from adults as possible, then having an adult appoint the leader starts things off on the wrong foot. The SM certainly knows which members of the patrol grok what it means to be a leader, but will the patrol actually follow that guy's lead when they don't have much say in who he is? Don't make the military argument either, Scouting ain't the military. OBTW, when I was in the military, us boots didn't really care for most of the leaders appointed over us. The thing that usually made us follow him (or her) was a little thing called the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). On the other hand, if we just hold elections without encouraging the members of the patrol to put some thought into their choice, the patrol will usually end up being led by the most popular guy--who has about as much chance to become an effective leader as the most unpopular guy. I think we've got enough real-world examples of those "leaders" staring us in the face every night on the news that I don't really have to describe it further. The thing is this. The argument over whether Patrol Leaders should be elected or selected is really pointless. It's not how a leader is chosen that makes him a good or bad, effective or ineffective, leader. It's how he does the job, and how he does the job isn't a function of how he was chosen. It's about training, ability, and earning the respect of his fellows in the patrol. More than that, it boils right down to what the patrol really is. You can have all the patrol elections you want, do all the PL training and mentoring you want, but if the patrol is not much more than a group of names on a roster, the PL won't turn into a good leader and the job of running the patrol won't get done. There's nothing for the PL to do. The patrol isn't anything, therefore it doesn't do anything, and the end result is a leader with a lot of experience leading nothing in doing nothing. Get rid of the elections and go with an SM-appointed PL and the result won't be any different. I can see the argument that comes next. "Well, if the SM appoints the best leader to be PL, the Patrol is more likely to become a patrol." Yeah, if that's the challenge the SM gives him. The SM can give the same challenge to an elected PL. And we're right back where we started--training, ability, and earning the respect of his fellows in the patrol. Things that aren't dependent on how the PL is chosen, but go right back to what the SM does to mentor the new PL. Frankly, I used both appointing and electing with my patrols when I was SM and the end result was about equal. Some successes, some failures. There were times when I appointed the Scout I thought was the most capable, and it turned out I was wrong. There were times when I cringed at the results of patrol elections, predicting doom and gloom, and it turned out I was wrong. It always came back to what I did after the choice was made. How well I was able to sell the idea of "patrol" to the new PL, how willingly he took on the challenge, and how well I taught him to be a leader. It boiled down to how important "patrol" was to the program and the operation of the troop, and how much of a real job being PL was.

>>Diversity is first an attitude of openness toward others outside a group and secondly it is a legal mandate that provides for that openness. When both parts are not in place, then diversity is little more than a limited action that prevents it from ever happening.

After reading this thread so far I sort of feel like I'm at a district committee meeting--everybody talks and only half listen. But of course I have to squeeze into the conversation, hopefully striking some sort of compromise between what I guess we'll call the BSA way and what my sometimes-friend;) Kudu calls the B-P way. Squeezing a few words in edgeways, it's not really difficult to make this Scout Spirit stuff work. The first thing that must be done (something you'll find quoted in one of Kudu's posts) is establish the expectation. That is the BSA SM makes it clear what he expects from a Scout behaviorwise. This happens when the Scout and SM sit down to discuss whether the Scout "understands and intends to live by the Scout Oath, Law," etc. Really, if the Scoutmaster doesn't explain his expectations for the Scout--what he expects the Scout to understand about what the Oath and Law mean--the Scout's promise that he "understands and intends to live by" them could mean anything. The next thing that must be done is to hold the Scout to his promise. It seems clear to me that the BSA expects Scouts to evolve a rather sophisticated understanding of the ideals. That happens from us. Remember: the Oath and Law have to mean something, otherwise they mean nothing. We have to guide him toward understanding by holding him to the high expectation we set for him. We can't let him slide on this stuff. I should mention, I'm not talking about evaluating the Scout Spirit requirement at this point. I'm talking about our interactions with him during the normal course of Scouting. When he fails to be friendly, we need to call him on it. When he fails to be trustworthy, we have to help him make amends. Gradually he'll learn that we mean business with our expectations for him and he'll work his butt off trying to rise to those expectations. Finally we get to the moment of truth. We sit down with him for the dreaded Scoutmaster Conference. Here's the deal, he knows what we expect from him, now it's time to really trust him. All we have to ask is: "have you done your best to live by the Scout Oath and Law in your every day life?" Maybe he'll admit he could have done better. Maybe he'll confidently say yes. And maybe he'll hang his head and mumble something like "not really." That's real growth happening, and we should be able to guide him the rest of the way to a BOR. The good thing is, if we've established our expectations concerning Scout Spirit, and we make those expectations real by holding the Scout to them, chances are pretty good he'll be a lot harder on himself than the SM. This, I think, is what we are supposed to be doing. We're not supposed to be using Scout Spirit as a catch all requirement for whatever our petty concerns are, or as a means to compell attendance. We're not supposed to be deciding if the Scout has demonstrated Scout Spirit in his every day life. The requirement is meant to measure personal growth, and it has to be the Scout doing the measuring. Personal growth doesn't do a Scout a lot of good if he doesn't see it himself. This isn't just the B-P Way. Ask yourself, how exactly are you supposed to know if a Scout demonstrates Scout Spirit in his everyday life when you see him far less than most other people in his life do? Obviously, the only one who can make a proper determination of Scout Spirit would be someone who is with the Scout every minute of every day of his life. As far as attendance and all the other stuff we sometimes substitute for "Scout Spirit," I could write a book about it, but I'll spare everyone the torture... Maybe in another thread...

Boy, I remember being 11-12-13 years old. Let's just say calling each other names, using foul language, engaging in incessant conjecture about other people's sexual preferences, put downs, unfortunate nicknames, all of it was "normal" behavior. Joking, yes. And worse. Is it bullying? Sometimes. And even when it's not meant to be bullying, it can be painful to the person on the receiving end. This is boys being boys but that is absolutely no excuse. When it was me dishing it out or being dished upon, it was all part of trying to emulate adults without actually knowing how. It was all about acting big and grown up long before we knew what it meant to be grown up. We had the Scout Law, but there was something missing, and that's the key to solving this. Now, at what age do they begin to outgrow this? Whatever age they happen to be when someone lays down the Law. Some of the guys I grew up with refused to act that way, and some of the people I know who are a lot older than 13 still act that way. So, what do we do to fix it? Follow a few not so easy steps. I wrote them down in order of importance, but you can do them in whatever order makes the most sense. One: Throw away all zero-tolerance policies. They are unnecessary and redundant in Scouting. I mean it. Throw them away. Have a public burning, make a public announcement, let the boys dance around the policies' burning corpses. There's no point keeping them because you won't need them. Two: Have the Scoutmaster stand in front of the assembled troop and recite the Scout Oath and Law. Recite it slowly and with all the right emphasis. Recite it so every Scout hears every word. Then have the Scoutmaster explain clearly and succinctly that the Scout Law is the new zero-tolerance policy. That the Scout Oath is not a suggestion. Have the SM explain that a Scout always does his best to live by the Scout Oath and Law every moment of every day, and that the troop's new policy will be exactly that. If you want to be called a Scout, act like a Scout. If you want to earn ranks and badges as a Scout, be a Scout. This means the troop has to actually mean it. You have to establish your expectations for every Scout--that he will do his best to obey the Scout Law. You have to hold each and every Scout to that standard. If he's caught not being friendly, he isn't being a Scout. If he uses foul language, calls someone a name, or does any of those other things you can't seem to stop, he's not being a Scout. (Don't forget to praise in public and criticize in private). Every rank has a requirement to demonstrate Scout spirit in their every day life. Make it clear this is what you expect, that you know it won't be easy, but show you are confident they can do it. Three: Every registered adult leader in the troop has to not only support the new zero-tolerance policy, they have to model the behavior expected of a Scout. Period. No arguments. I would even go so far as to say they have to model the expected behavior even when they don't think any Scouts are watching (they are, always). Four: At a committee/parent meeting explain this new zero-tolerance policy. Specifically address the old "boys will be boys" and "some people are just too thin skinned" arguments. "Boys may be boys, but Scouts aren't just boys." Lay out the expectations of behavior, answer questions, and be firm. The Oath and Law aren't just a bunch of words to memorize in the hope they'll take root. They have to be encouraged to grow. They have to be nurtured. They have to mean something, or they'll mean nothing. Challenge parents to adopt the same expectations for their son(s) in their homes--reminding them that "Scout" is something he's supposed to be 24/7. You'll have to explain these things to every new boy who joins and his parents. You can add it to a parent handout, but you must explain it to them in person to eliminate excuses and to see that everyone buys into what is expected. This may sound harsh, but it really is what we're supposed to be doing. It's going to be difficult. It's going to require several Scoutmaster minutes to really teach what is expected. It's going to require a lot of Scoutmaster conferences to challenge some boys to be Scouts. There will be momentary lapses of reason and occasional failures. And yes, it's going to be painful when you have to explain to a Scout he can't advance yet because he hasn't been doing his best (um, at the SM conference, not the BOR). Just remember, the Scouts will rise up (or sink down) to whatever level you expect of them. You might find, in time, that instead of the frustrating activities you mentioned, your Scouts will be reminding each other to act like Scouts. You might find that, when they raise their hand in the Scout Sign and recite the Oath and Law, they do it with a little more feeling, like they really know what it means and they really mean the promise they're making.(This message has been edited by ajmako)

kahits, By my count you have six active, participating Scouts. That makes one good patrol. Don't worry about a PLC or SPL. Don't worry about anything you don't need to worry about. Form a patrol of the active, participating Scouts and let them plan what amounts to a patrol program. Focus on that and doing Scouting. Worry about PLC's, SPL's, and all that when you have more than one patrol. As far as the older Scouts are concerned you'll have to review where they are as far as advancement is concerned and ask them what their plans are. If they have the participation and position requirements done, it's a little easier. If they haven't, well then they're gonna have to participate, be active, and meet whatever expectations you have for positions of responsibility. Remind them that at some point they're gonna need those younger Scouts for a service project so it might be nice if they were around once in a while. This will be a major change, but it won't be hard to sell. It's as easy as sitting down with the Scouts and asking them if they really want to own the program. Ask them if they want to find out what Scouting really is all about. Ask your 14-year-old 1st Class Scout if he would like to be they guy to show the others. Ask the other 1st Class Scout as well. What would they do first to build a patrol? If they don't know, teach them. Then let them loose to get the job done.