eolesen

My son did Havasupi last year with our troop, and I've done hiking well below the rim hiking along the Kaibab and Bright Angel trails and on the Tonto Plateau. Haven't done a rim to rim, and haven't gone to Phantom Ranch yet, but they're on my bucket list of things to do with my son before he graduates HS.

The Canyon should not be compared to hiking in the mountains -- the easy part is at the beginning, and my first time in I thought I was going to collapse on the way back out...

Several years back, there was a somewhat publicized case of a troop from Utah who went in from the North Rim, and tried to do a trail that was well beyond their capabilities. One of the Scouts (David Phillips) died from dehydration, and the seven other members of the troop had to be medevac'd out. They got lost and ran out of water...

Don't get me wrong -- hiking in the Canyon is something everyone should have the opportunity to experience. But it requires a little more thought, planning, and perhaps even physical conditioning than a lot of people think it does.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

I've seen COs who have refuse to have leaders with facial hair and COs who refuse to allow women to be leaders in a troop. But I haven't ever run across one who even took a dim view on tattoos.

Given the number of ex-military leaders I've run across, I'd say chances are slim, but I don't recall seeing too many adult leaders with tattoos that were visible or distracting in a field uniform.

I know of one troop in AZ that has does a rim to rim pretty much every year. They consider it on the same level as a Philmont or Double H trek, i.e. 14 and up, and appropriate medicals. They also won't allow boys to go who haven't previously demonstrated their ability to backpack something that demanding.

Interesting that roadside cleanup isn't seen by some as acceptable, yet trail restoration is commonly used in some districts.

Our district is another which takes a dim view on collection drives, be it books, flags, canned food, or blood. They're not "banned", but they do need to clear the hurdle of demonstrating how you plan to show leadership, and the level of pre-planning you will be performing.

Plan to be putting a lot more time into the planning portion of the project than you do the actual project. I like to see enough detail put into a plan that a Scout can hand the approved project binder over to another Life Scout on the day of the project. We've never actually done it, but the plan should be detailed enough that any Life Scout could execute the project in your absence.

Frankly what is most shocking is the way people seem to enjoy the fact that a Scout does not have to be present to win the Eagle award.

Being right seems to be more fun than attempting to make it better.

Sure, a scout has to be present. At least 22-24 months in practice at a minimum.

The fastest a Scout can advance from First Class to Eagle is 16 months, plus however long it takes to go from Scout to First class, which is six months to a year on average in the troops I've worked with.

If they're not present, they can't complete their POR requirements, the camping merit badge, and other requirements which can't be done if you're a parlour Scout. If requirements were signed off and the Scout wasn't present to do them, that's another issue altogether.

I know you have a desire to have older Scouts give back, and so do I. To date, BSA hasn't found a practical way to require that, and I know many before us have pondered the same issue without ever coming to a consensus on how to achieve it.

Given the choice of camping with his friends & being able to light fires, or play video games, even my XBox and Wii addicted 15 year old will chose fire and sleeping under the stars every time.

And he's more or less checked out of his Troop for the past six months. Yet he still loves to camp.

No, he definitely wants Scouting. Minus all the interference from the helicopter adults, he'd be a lot more active.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

I'm sure it would do wonders to get older boys interested in attending camp, but high-school age girls working as staff does present some risk in my over-protective mind. Images of "interactions" between staffers in "Dirty Dancing" and "Meatballs" immediately spring to mind...

I'm sure they may be a bit of a distraction, but I don't see the college age and above women being as much of a risk. 16 and 17 year olds girls aren't necessarily going to be as quick to use good judgement when it comes to maintaining their distance after-hours from the 16 and up boys likely to also be working as staff.

It's obviously easier to drop adults (and Scouts for that matter...) during recharter because you have people actually looking at the roster. Not that it makes the process of removing adults from a leadership position any less messy, but at least you're not stuck dealing with prorated refunds for dues, etc...

Bobwhite, our troop policies mirror those that Mark posted above.

If the parents weren't engaged by the Scoutmaster either immediately after the incident or upon returning home, then it doesn't meet my definition of something serious enough to refer to a committee.

The fact that the committee chose to play judge and jury with the boy and his parents in absentia tells me they don't have a very good understanding of our own justice system or the concept of due process.

and

upon completion,or prior to that leadership position for the 6 months prior to acheiving the Eagle requirements serve the Troop as a senior Scout in tasks, determined in concert with the SM, SPL and committee chair, that will best put your knowledge, skills and interests to use mentoring and aiding your Troop as they (CC,SM,SPL) direct, with the overall goal of helping your unit serve your community and the Nation.

Sounds admirable, but how much of what you're doing is also accomplished via the service project requirement? Aren't they using their knowledge, skills, and mentoring to execute the project, which presumably also helps the unit serve the community?

Honestly, if it were done correctly, I'd willing accept your six months of giving back approach used in lieu of the service project. But I don't know that it could work for all Scouts. It's probably not as valuable asking a 14 or 15 year old to apply their interests in the same manner your 17 year old volunteer fireman could.

The additional six months of duty requirement in my mind would probably just increase the number of boys who simply push the timetable, punch their tickets, and move on at 15. It's hard enough to keep them interested at 16 and up when they have girls, cars, and jobs competing for their free time. If we start demanding more of their time, we risk pushing more of them away from the program than we already do.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

I'll second (or third or fourth) some of the views above. BP House is a hostel first and foremost, but Gilwell is and always will be hallowed ground, which is why I went there when I had a day to kill in London.

Being there on a Friday morning in February was a little interesting -- I had the camp to myself with the exception of a few meetings going on in the White House.

I took a few pictures while I was there which are available at at http://lanehog.com/gilwell (and yes, I realize there aren't any pictures of the barn or the white house. I wasn't focusing on the commercial venues which are well represented in photos elsewhere...).

They did have a guidebook available for purchase, but the only other thing I brought home from there was a ziplock bag full of ashes from the campfire ring to bring back to my WB troop guide and mentors.

Agree. This isn't even what I'd consider a committee decision. Behavior and misconduct are the SM's to deal with.

Amen to that... We had a scoutmasters meeting last night, and decided meetings will go better if we ban adults with the exception of the SM & ASM. Parents and MC's will be in an adjacent room to conduct business and be available for the scouts to visit, but the rest of the meeting will be boy led & ASM supervised. Time will tell if it works...

GW, glad to see you still like to split hairs on a tangent...

You're right the CC and COR approve leader applications. But in my neck of the woods, the SM still has a say over who serves as ASM in a direct contact role. If you're not an ASM, you take a back seat unless it's a safety issue.

I know of one parent who refused to send their kid to a camp more than 90 minutes away, so they could be there "just in case". I know of another one who not only spent the $500+ to send their kids to a week long resident camp six hours away, but also went so far as to stay in the nearest town for the week, again, just in case.

There's a good reason some camps go so far as to invest in the cell phone disrupters they sell to churches and schools.

http://www.grandtrades.net/GT2000Q.htm

I have to take exception to you calling this young man or any Scout a poser. It is neither helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, or cheerful, and a poor reflection on you as a leader, and un-Scoutlike.

From what you've said, this boy lives the scout oath and law every day.

You say he shows work ethic and is trustworthy. He is thrifty (especially if he paid for his own car).

He has shown that he helpful, courteous, kind, is open to helping people at all times thru his volunteer firefighter commitment, and I suspect loyal to those he works besides. He probably also shows leadership.

He has gone beyond brave, as firefighters put their lives on the line for their community.

Yet you call him a poser???????

Nowhere in the Scout oath does it say "to help other Scouts at all times" nor does it say "I will do my best to do my duty to Scouting" or "give back to the troop"...

From your own account, this young man appears to have has grown well beyond what many Eagles and other Scouts achieve by their 18th birthday. He is serving his community in a way that is for the most part thankless, and as you did with your military service, has shown he is willing to risk his life for others.

If anything, he's the type of example I would want for my boys -- taking all that they learned about leadership and community service, and turning towards serving the community in a public safety capacity.

Yet you call him a poser???????

I will suggest that you and the Scoutmaster both step back and stop taking it as such an insult that he didn't do more for the unit.

It looks to me like he was busy preparing to take on an even bigger responsibility...

"Where a man cannot conscientiously take the line required, his one manly course is to put it straight to his Commissioner or to Headquarters, and if we cannot meet his views, then to leave the work."

Baden-Powell, Aids to Scoutmastership

If you can't accept the facts that he met (and in my book, probably exceeded) the requirements, it is time for you to leave the work.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

Sometimes boys are more than ready for crossover, but we don't take into consideration that perhaps their parents aren't.

That's why it's important to spend time talking to parents before crossover to let them know that they're welcome to participate, but it ain't Webelos III, and they're not a registered leader until the CC or SM accepts their application to be one.

The situation you ran into with the now-former DL might have been avoidable -- he was used to calling the shots, finding himself busted in rank so to speak, and obviously frustrated that the weekend didn't turn out even close to what he thought it would be like.

But I suspect that it could have turned out differently had the conversation between the two of you taken place at your meeting place the week prior to the event.

It's a national requirement to have it submitted and certified to council by the birthday? Where's that stated?

How is it even practical to certify it if we're giving them until 23:59:59 on the day prior to their birthday to finish their requirements?

Looking at the advancement requirements online for Eagle, nowhere does it say that the application has to be submitted to anyone before their birthday. If the application is submitted to comply with a local demand, then we're not honoring the time committed to in the published rank requirements in the handbook or online.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

I'm glad you passed the kid. Fact is, he earned it, but waited until the end to complete the process. My almost-16 son will probably be in the same boat (finishing at the last moment), mainly because the program is failing to keep his interest.

You said it yourself -- I hope we can get more boys to show up so we can be boy led.

As harsh as it might sound (and please, don't take it as a personal attack), I'm going to suggest that it's the adults who failed the boys.

How?

As CC, how can you blame boys for voting with their feet?

You earned your beads, so you know the patrol method is not an option, nor is being boy led. Even if you only have four or five boys, they're going to get a lot more out of planning and running their own meetings and events than they will from being entertained and lectured by the adults.

Hopefully, you also understand that the BOR and SMC are not only reserved for advancement. You should be using them as a way to check-in with the boys that are still on the rolls yet aren't attending or advancing.

If you didn't believe they were active enough, why on earth did you keep them on the charter? As a former ADC, I heard a lot of griping over death-beds from the same adults who were the most likely to pencil whip the rechartering process and keep boys on the rolls that they'd never seen at a meeting.

Simply put, you had plenty of opportunity to be asking them why they're not active while there's still time for them and the other boys to benefit from it.

You blew it, and in the process, you've failed the boys.

So, instead of questioning whether or not if this boy deserves what he earned, I think you would benefit a little more by asking yourself and the committee you lead what you collectively can be doing to make sure to be monitoring the health of the program and the boys entrusted to your care.

I have the same recollection as Lisabob -- you get one shot at a ticket. If you don't finish, you can't re-enroll and get a do-over. But maybe that's how it's being interpreted in both our councils... several states away from each others...

For leaders, I'd suggest the BSA training as a starting point. We tweak the forms a bit, but National's format seems to work pretty well out of the box.

We have an parent orientation guide for the troop, and it does help.

C'mon Wing... The deadline for the fundraiser isn't going to be the same in perpetuity. If it's going to change from year to year, it doesn't belong in the bylaws. Bylaws can't be changed without a vote and a quorum.

KB6, I don't disagree with the point about most parents showing little interest in reading the source pubs, and many units I've worked with don't bother to invest in a library of pubs for the committee and SM staff to refer to. Our troop has both a P&P we provide to new scouts & parents, but it is separate from the bylaws.

In my view, bylaws exist to instruct the committee how to conduct troop business, and should only need to be referred to when common sense fails.

P&P are there to give direction to parents and scouts on how the troop functions, and that's going to differ greatly from unit to unit.

We'll wind up with three pages of bylaws once we're done gutting them.

Our Scout/parent handbook is about 23 pages, some of it regurgitated from BSA pubs for the same reason you've mentioned.

From firsthand experience, you have to accept a certain amount of risk whenever you regurgitate from BSA pubs -- it's not going to be a matter of if you're out of synch when one of National's publications change, but when.

Well put, John...

We're ready to scrap our Troop bylaws. It's a 30+ page document that just duplicates and wordsmiths what already exists in other BSA publications.

The only thing I'm finding that really needs to be defined at the unit level is how to handle money from fundraising (the same goal you're trying to achieve), and the specifics of how the troop works with the chartering organization.

Everything not covered by BSA publications can be handled by applying the 12 points of the Scout Law...