Jump to content

Scoutmaster Minutes

Sign in to follow this  

Inspirational stories and meaningful remarks to share

187 topics in this forum

    • 8 replies
    • 836 views
    • 13 replies
    • 308 views
    • 13 replies
    • 672 views
    • 3 replies
    • 904 views
  1. Camp Toquam 1970-75

    • 8 replies
    • 1874 views
    • 0 replies
    • 284 views
    • 4 replies
    • 426 views
    • 3 replies
    • 284 views
    • 1 reply
    • 314 views
    • 3 replies
    • 1319 views
    • 11 replies
    • 1540 views
    • 17 replies
    • 1266 views
    • 14 replies
    • 3516 views
    • 2 replies
    • 1072 views
    • 48 replies
    • 2999 views
Sign in to follow this  
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Well ham_solo, From what you stated it sounds like he used the entire "Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances" and Appeals process as it is designed and described in the Guide to Advancement. You may not like the result, but it sounds like they followed the rules in how to proceed. Yes, it is his right to send it to national when the council says no.  This was not wrong for them to do.  Similar holds for other stories on this thread. Like having 5 people on a Board, the policy says for an appeal There has to be an odd number of votes, either 3 or 5. Normal BoR has 3 to 6.
    • From the later article it is clear that he knew about the 6 month requirements, knew he would call short due to his own choices and accepted that he likely would not win the appeal. He chose to do the project, knowing that he probably wouldn't get Eagle. He also has accepted Nationals ruling, and only blames himself for falling short. I highly respect his maturity.     
    • Can we please restrict this thread to the subject of preparing for female Scout BSA troops in six months?  If you want to discuss water guns for the 100th time, there is no fee for starting another thread.
    • I got to hand it to you CP, you are consistent. Your creatively stretched reasoning reminds me of Evil Knievel jumping the Grand Canyon. And when creative reasoning doesn't work, intimidate change with threats. Yep, sounds very inviting.  Barry
    • Coming late to this discussion, but I am surprised the NYT article did not mention one of the main reasons U.S. soccer lost so many kids in particular. In 2016, U.S. Youth Soccer changed the age determinations for play from school year to calendar year to bring U.S. clubs and players more in line with elite international clubs. So, kids who played together as a team suddenly couldn't play with half their friends. It broke up a lot of teams in our region and caused a lot of kids to drop out. It would be like scouts suddenly splitting cub dens up by calendar age on January 1.   
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×