Council/district restricting participation?

[Basementdweller]

Moose....

 

The District would not let our boys attend our districts webelos woods because each boy could not have a parent with them.

 

I circumvented their rule by finding a district/council that would take us with out every boy having an adult in tow. I got a tour plan and we went

 

The District webelos woods event we attended was in a neighboring council and was very affordable. The boys had a blast

 

They said that I violated the Cub scout Family camping rules by taking the Webelos den camping with out an adult for every scout. It was irrelevant that it was to a Boy Scout Council event and I followed the events rules on adult to scout ratios.

 

Big Sigh.

[The Blancmange]

BD hasn't yet given any indication that the DE is on board with this evil plan. Judging from the fact that the tour plan for the Webelos event was approved, I suspect not.

 

The district committee really has no say in whether or not to renew a charter. That the the DE's (& SE's) territory. No DE is going to refuse to renew a charter over something this petty. It affects his numbers, and in turn his performance reviews and chances at advancement. It just isn't going to happen, and if it would, BD's plan to go to the media would make them look even more ridiculous.

[Basementdweller]

I don't think the DE cares.......We have 21 refugees from other Packs now.

 

I spoke with him about them and his response was, Well at least they are not quitting.

[Once_Eagle-Always_Eagle]

>> Cub scout Family camping rules by taking the Webelos den camping with out an adult for every scout.

 

This is getting stranger with every post! They really are off the ranch here.

 

Family camping and Webelo den camping are two different events. Family camping indeed requires a 1:1 ratio (and even then the rule is not firm- e.g. a father with twins). On the other side, Webelo den camping is much more like traditional troop camping and requires 2 deep leadership. At least, this is what I teach the last two times I taught BALOO. If the rules are different, someone better correct me quick (and cite the reference)!

 

[Eagle92]

This is what the G2SS states on p 15. on the matter

 

A Webelos Scout may participate in overnight den camping when supervised by an adult. In most cases, the Webelos Scout will be under the supervision of his parent or guardian. It is essential that each Webelos Scout be under the supervision of a parent-approved adult. Joint Webelos den/troop campouts including the parents of the Webelos Scouts are encouraged to strengthen ties between the pack and troop. Den leaders, pack leaders, and parents are expected to accompany the boys on approved trips.

 

Notice it does NOT say parents are mandatory, nor do they give

cub:leader ratios. The committee is messed up.

 

[Eagle92]

OEAE,

 

Crossed posted. Yep you are correct and I cited the page for ya

[The Blancmange]

>>>> On the other side, Webelo den camping is much more like traditional troop camping and requires 2 deep leadership. At least, this is what I teach the last two times I taught BALOO. If the rules are different, someone better correct me quick (and cite the reference)!

[moosetracker]

Here is where I am confused.. What is Webelos Woods? We had something long ago when son was a cub where the Webs got a more glorified Summer camp program to keep them interested & retained.. I assumed this to be Webelos Woods.. If so then it is a Summer camp program, which does not have the 1:1 ratio..

 

The 1:4 of the other council is more in line.. As I stated ours for cub camp is 1:5

 

Also Basement stated they did this to keep their pack from attending.. Was it a rule just for his pack, or was this what they asked of all the Packs in the council? If all the Packs in the council it is an odd request for Summer camp, and I can see few attending.. If it is Webs den camping then it is slightly stricker then National but not too off the wall.. If it was a rule for all Packs then Basement wasn't targeted specifically.

[Once_Eagle-Always_Eagle]

Eagle92 & Blancmage: It sounds like we all agree. The request to cite a reference was rather rhetorical. This committee is twisting words to enforce their own agenda which I can only speculate on.

 

My district has a problem that is 180 degree polar opposite of Basement's issue. I use the term 'problem' loosely because the only people that seem to take issue with it are the oober-conservative leaders like myself.

 

Our district chairman is also the committee chair for a local troop. This last summer, this leader took a group of boys on a 6 day trip to the top of Mt. Elbert (a 14K mountain in Colorado). The majority of the boys in this unit were under the age of 14- the minimum age to be allowed to attend a National BSA high adventure base. Furthermore, they took a Webelo scout and his father with them as well. Read the full article here: http://www.forneypostnews.com/Story.aspx?ArticleID=1572&HL=Forney-Boy-Scouts-Climb-Mt.-Elbert-in-Colorado-

 

Anyway, our district has identified two 'loopholes' (my term, not theirs) to justify why this is acceptable. First, the adult that took the Webelo scout has dual roles. He is on the troop committee and also the asst webelo leader. However, as a father attending the troop outing, he is allowed to bring his son. They even took it a step further by clarifying at roundtable that family camping is allowed at every level of scouting. If a member of a unit is participating in the event through allowed channels of participating, families are also allowed to be at the event.

 

Second, when we discussed this at our own unit committee meeting, we were told that parents with their sons operating in a 1:1 ratio, are allowed to visit and participate in troop activities to see if it is a good fit for their family to join when the boy crosses over. They said this parent was operating in that capacity.

 

Despite whatever justifications they use to say their actions were within guidelines, I get stuck at the idea that they left a 9 year old webelo and his dad at 13,400 and the troop went the rest of the way to the top. I've purposed in my own mind not to have my son participate in their activities and leave it to the discretion of other parents what choice they make for their own sons. In the meantime, we've clarified within our own pack policy what is and is not a sanctioned pack outing so that if/when the day does come that someone gets hurt doing something like this, I can show that they were operating outside the boundaries of what we allow as a unit.

(This message has been edited by once_eagle-always_eagle)

[Eagle92]

Again from the G2SS, p 15.

 

If a well-meaning leader brings along a child who does

not meet these age guidelines, disservice is done to the unit

because of distractions often caused by younger children.

A disservice is also done to the child, who is not trained to

participate in such an activity and who, as a nonmember of

the group, may be ignored by the older campers.

 

One reason why I try to avoid bringing the younger kids to CS events by myself.

[Basementdweller]

We were targeted, because in the announcement phase of round table, the event organizer had a leader ask if he could bring his son's friend with him and it was ok. I raised my hand immediately and was told to put it down as my question would not be answered.

 

 

Moose webelos woods around our parts is a weekend program where the Troops host their Pack and introduce the Webs to boy scouting. But the core of the weekend is the advancement, they can do major portions of a couple hard to do activity pins.....Naturalist, outdoorsman, geologist and forester.

 

 

[Once_Eagle-Always_Eagle]

I showed them that exact same line. Their retort was that it was an opinion on the disservice. They claim that the relationship is built between the boys by starting earlier. And the one that killed me is when they said "Guide to Safe Scouting is just a guide. It's not literal mandates."

 

To which I replied: "So if it is just a suggestion, let's take the kids riding 4-wheelers or shooting shotguns."

 

They called me nuts and said that wasn't safe for a 9 year old boy... and when I told them neither is climbing a 14K mountain.. and they told me that was my opinion... and the dog chases it's tail around and around and around.

 

I decided for my own sanity that I can only control my own son and the POLICY of my own pack. I can not control the individuals in other units, district, council, or what occurs at activities that are not run by myself or my approved leaders. To a certain extent, I can't even control what happened at events that are run by my own leaders but I can remove them if they operate contrary to a pack policy- hence the reason we had a special called business meeting to define with clarity what is a pack event.

 

[Eagle92]

OEAE brings up a good point. You can not control folks who do not follow policy. All you can really do with them who are adamant are 1) you pray that nothing happens, 2) if it is your power, then remove them. 3) Bring it to the proper attention. But be prepared for the consequences.

 

I had a CD who allowed a non-swimmer to go canoeing without a lifeguard in the canoe, allowable per G2SS at the time. Also he allowed folks to use the COPE Course without a director present. While I brought to the attention of my supervisor, thinking that it would be brought to his, my supervisor backed the CD and did not do anything. I was persona non grata at camp for the remainder of the season, luckily able to drive 30 minutes each way to my house. It was only after camp was over, when the CD's boss found out what happened, that anything was done.

 

But during summer camp, it was very challenging as I got no support from my boss, or the camp staff, excepting friends on staff.

 

EDITED: didn't i read somewhere that if something happens that is specifically prohibited inthe G2SS, national's insuracne will not cover anything?(This message has been edited by eagle92)

[The Blancmange]

>>>> didn't i read somewhere that if something happens that is specifically prohibited inthe G2SS, national's insuracne will not cover anything?

[Twocubdad]

I understand the requirement for Cubs to camp at approved facilities, however that requirement isn't intended as a weapon for the district/council to limit a unit's activities. The district exists to support the unit. Let me repeat that. The district exists to support the unit. If a unit wants to camp at a particular location, and if the camping committee is doing it's job, it will work with the unit to make sure the facility meets standards and the unit is able to conduct it's program as it see fits. If that means someone has to get off their fat office chair and go inspect the site, so be it. It for dang sure means that if a unit can provide evidence from another district or council that the facility meets BSA standards, they should gladly accept that.

 

But as I suspected, BD's district have their Scout shorts in a knot because he's not attending THEIR event. If they were meeting his needs, I suspect he would, unless the well has been so poisoned that he just doesn't want to work with these people. Frankly, he seems justified feeling that way.

 

And I disagree with the notion that if you're not happy with a district program you should jump in and fix it. No thank you. Cubmaster and/or Scoutmaster is plenty. They do their jobs, we'll do ours. Unit leaders' obligations are to run their units as best they can. If they can utilize the resources provided by the district or council, fine. But if not, the unit isn't there to support the district's programs.

 

Districts exist to support the unit. Did I mention that?