Frank17

We generally split our scouts into 2 groups when we camp, so as to make it more challenging for the older boys. The younger ones may do a 5 mile day hike, while the older ones backpack 10+ miles with their gear. For bike trips, 10-15 miles for the younger scouts; 50 miles for the experienced ones. Similar for canoing and rafting. Seems to keep their intereset well.

I agree with DeanRx and some others. The real issue is not sharing sleeping room space with adults / scouts and/or men/women. It is in providing the needed privacy for changing clothes and bathroom essentials without impacting others. I have been to multiple council organized scouting events where the adults and scouts were all jumbled together in one large dorm for sleeping. Almost all the adults were scouters who were youth protection trained, and unrelated, both male & female. Separate bathrooms, showers, and changing rooms were provided. It just happened again to me 2 weeks ago during an OA weekend when the camp was overbooked. The choice was stay and sleep by council's rules or go home. Maybe I should have griped more about the G2SS, but when there were multiple adults and multiple boys to watch out and provide witnesses on both sides, I did not see a real problem.

TAHAWK:

Congrats on working on your WB ticket.

I am not a Wilderness Survivor expert, but you mention the large file size. 2 suggestions:

1 - If you can, convert to Adobe PDF as this will greatly shrink the file size and make it able to be viewed by most PCs.

2 - For sending the file, use a free on-line file transfer service (like yousendit.com or sendthisfile.com). You upload your file and the recipient gets a link to the file via email, rather than the actual file. This eliminates the email file size restrictions.

Good luck!

Frank

NE-IV-214, Owl Patrol

Try ebay, they have all sorts of QUPs for sale, and you should have no problem getting them by your deadline.

We just had one in our district who did it in about 6 weeks, at least to the BOR stage. He came in March to our Eagle reviews with a very poorly written plan with lots of obvious holes. We sat down with him and made suggestions and gave him things to think about, and were preparing to send him home for a redo for next month when he mentioned he turned 18 next month. We panicked, and got our DAC over to discuss ways to make it happen. We agreed we could do an accelerated review process using email and phone to approve his project plans. After a week of back and forth, we were able to approve the plans and get him started. He completed his project and SM conference and turned his paperwork in just before he turned 18. That gives him 3 months grace for his BOR scheduling.

That was the shortest one I have seen to date.

"Please note that though we'd love to see every member at meetings it's not the only way to serve the order.Contributing to the health of your unit or camps constitutes fulfilling the Order's obligation."

This makes me feel better about it. If the members are given credit for non-OA Troop activities, they have done a fair amount of service over the past year. It seems like Brotherhood membership is fairly standard for any ordeal member who desires it.

Some background:

I am a recent SM for our troop after having been an ASM for 3 years before. My knowledge / experience with the OA is very limited. The district OA holds it's meetings the same night as our roundtable, and they are very poorly attended (typically only 4-6 scouts total in a district with over 2,000 boy scouts total). We have a fair number of OA members in our Troop, and I have been pushing them to become more active in OA by attending meetings and OA campouts / service projects. A few have begun attending, so it is having an impact.

My question relates to Brotherhood in OA. Does the SM recommend or approve potential Brotherhood members, similar to what is done for initial OA membership? In the past, it seems like the brotherhood candidates meet with the Lodge Chief at Summer Camp, write a letter as to why they would like to become brothers, and are automatically inducted. There seems to be no lodge service or participation required. Is this correct?

Looking at the OA Handbook, the Brotherhood requirements on page 50 seem to only list service in the Troop, and not in the lodge. Only "future service in the lodge" is required. If this is the case, fine, but I do not feel comfortable seeing scouts become OA Brotherhood members who have never attended an OA meeting or campout or service project. I feel that as a service oriented organization, the price of advancing in OA membership should be participation in the same. Or is this the Lodge Chief's call?

OK, that agrees with everything I had been reading. I would rather see all the scouts have a chance to get in and not be limited by an artificial limit. If they each get the 50%+ vote, they are in.

OK, here is the math. We have 56 scouts on our roster, and 11 of these are OA eligible this year. Assuming I have the 50% quorum present to hold our Troop vote in the OA elections next week, how many can be elected? According to the OA Troop Support Pack, anyone receiving 50% of the votes is elected. But, I have also been told (by another SM, undocumented) that there is a limit to the number of votes a scout may cast on each ballot, of 50% of the names on each ballot. This would limit us to 5 or 6 elected scouts, max. Which is correct?

We have a similar tradition. For those without a woodburning kit (me), a thick black sharpie with spar urethane works just fine to preserve the manes. It really is exciting to see the list of names grow.

I find it amusing that BSA would award a patch for surviving something that would have violated the G2SS if they had known about it in advance. Especially given the new weather hazards training that we are all required to complete in my council.

I would agree that some PORs require more work or are harder than others. We generally try to encourage the younger scouts as Librarian, Historian, Scribe, and APLs. SPL, ASPL, Troop Guides, and quartermaster are generally taken by older scouts, with the rest of the positions being rounded out by the middle of the pack. We occasionally get some switches, as the boys elect and appoint their own representatives (with veto power by the SM), but for the most part it works out well.

We have three scouts with development issues in our Troop: two with autism and one with tourette's syndrome. Of the three, only two have been with us long enough to be eligible for OA and only one of those is very active with our Troop. That is the scout the boys elected into OA. They realize that being a scout is about your spirit, not always your behavior due to a disability.

Only when you have the other person's consent, as in a sporting event: Steelers vs. Titans this weekend!

Other than that: NEVER! The "fighting words" doctrine is dead in most states.

After having been a member of groups that both used bylaws and did not use them, I would definately reccommend doing without them if at all possible. If you must have them, make them as specific and flexible as possible. Too many times, arm-chair lawyers spend valuable volunteer time arguing about what they mean instead of trying to resolve the issue of the day.

In our Troop, we have never had to go beyond National's guidelines.(This message has been edited by frank17)

First one sold on ebay yesterday for over $100 (Item number: 330290523105). That did not take long.

We will be visiting there for our company holiday party, but a week late. Shame we will miss it.

Here are some websites with many ideas listed.

http://www.buckskin.org/Resources/Boy_Scouts/Eagle_Scout_Project_Ideas.htm

http://www.scoutorama.com/project/

http://www.troop160.org/eagleprojects.htm

Beavah: The problem in the past has come from some parents (who are also committee members) who have complained that these in-training ASMs are not allowed to sign off on the books, as they have not completed their training. As it is not an "official" position, their feeling is that they cannot approve of the requirements. The reality is that these parents have friction between them that is outside of scouting that they are bringing in to the Troop. No one is questioning that the scout completed the requirement; only whose initials are on the sign-off page. Ridiculous.

Rather than continue the argument during my tenure as SM, I would rather eliminate the position as I am not sure where the "in-training" designation came from in the first place. I am happy with my ASMs and want to make sure they are recognized for their time spent, and do not have to spend time arguing a title. This was the reason for my original question.

Thanks all for the advice. It jives with what I thought was correct: that once you are registered, you hold the position. I do not know why or how our Troop came up with the "Assistant Scoutmasters in-training" label; I just know I do not like it. It is very confusing for the scouts and parents. I would prefer they be labeled as ASMs or, if they do not want to pursue training, be labeled as Committee members (which is how they function now). That would still leave us with 5 ASMs and the SPL, and ASPLs to approve / review requirements. We too allow our senior scout leaders to approve TF-2-1 requirements, but as they are not always available for every outing, our ASMs also sign-off. They are the only adults allow to do so (I did not clarify this in my original post).

Some background: I was an ASM of our Troop for 3 years, recently taken over SM position. When I became an ASM, I had been a Den Leader previously, so I already had the health and safety training needed. I simply registered with the Troop and took the Fast Start and SM specific (indoor & outdoor) training the next month. I was now an ASM, and could sign off on books, lead trips, etc.

Now when I joined, we had three other ASMs that had not finished their training (all they had taken was YPT). They were listed on our Troop Directory as "Assistant Scoutmasters in-training". Now, three years later, one of them has finished his training and is registered as an ASM, the other 2 are still "in-training".

My question is, since only SMs and ASMs are allowed to sign off on requirements and do other Troop actions, when do other Troops consider ASMs to be functional? When they first express interest in becoming ASMs? When they fill out an application? When they complete all training required by BSA?

I will hold my opinion for now until I see what others suggest.

Reading your update, this is sounding more and more like an event where you should raise the white flag and ask for LOCAL advice and help, from either your District Commissioner and/or Council Executive. Whether she apologized or not, Parent A got the police involved, who now have a partial record of the situation. This could lead to several things:

1. Charges by the police against either Leader B or Parent A or both

2. Lawsuit by either Parent A or Scout C against your troop or chartered organization

3. Lawsuit by Parent A against against Leader B

In any case, it is time to stop reading opinions here, get your local district and council involved, and get the help and advice you need. We may have great advice here, but it is only advice. Our butts are not on the line. You need official help to protect youself, your SMs, your Troop, your Chartered Organization, your District, your Council, and ultimately BSA.

In our Troop, the initial SM approval signature is a formality only. It is intended to keep the scout from getting overloaded by working on too many MBs simultaneously. Some of our scouts complete MB classes at local museums, conservancies, etc., and the card is supplied and signed by the MB counselor before the SM even sees it.

I would date the front of the card for the date the MB was started and date the back of the card the date it was completed and turned in to me for approval. Others may feel differently, but this is accepted practice in our Troop.

If I read your post correctly, the mother of one scout was wrestling with the son of one of her friends, who is also a scout. They were broken up by a female leader of your troop. Seems like there may have been some hurt feelings and over-reaction involved. This type of behavior is not approproprate at a scouting function regardless of the relationship of the parties. Time to get your Troop Committee involved and talk with all the parties to try to settle things down. At worst case, try to keep or move the scout to a new troop - they should not be penalized because of their parent's actions. Remember, scouting is about the scouts, not the parents or adults. Good luck. Sound weird to me, and potentially explosive.

Ah, I knew there was some sort of exception.