fred johnson

It depends on your interpretation of "scout run". My troop interprets it as the youth run the meetings, activities and events. They lay out the schedule and resources. They take responsibility. We view "advancement" as mostly outside "scout run". Advancement is an individual drive and choice. The troop program should be structured to include plenty of opportunities to learn and fulfill requirements. Beyond that, it's up to the scout. I've been in troops that have youth teach and sign off on requirements. I like and dislike it at the same time. Like anything, pros and cons.

I disagree. In our troop ... Youth run the program and activities. Individuals run their own advancement. As such, scouts need to talk to the scoutmaster about blue cards, scoutmaster conferences and other advancement related topics.

Yeah, I can't argue. Meetings can be boring. Perhaps, troops don't need "weekly" meetings. Perhaps, only sign your scout up for interesting activities. Don't require him to attend all the meetings. Just enough to participate in the fun things. I myself expect my sons to attend. But I'd be glad with scouts who attend as they can.

What one person considers is "proactive" another considers as a "know it all" or a "thorn". It is a real skill to know when to step in and when to let the new leader learn his job. Being "proactive" is only good in really important things. Otherwise, I'd let the scoutmaster learn his job, help as I can and wait to be asked before inserting myself "proactively".

Business, family, scouts, etc ... It's always hard to be an expert or extremely experienced and watch someone else take the lead role. There is a skill to sitting back and supporting. Don't ask the SM too many questions Don't nit pick everything the new SM does Don't point out every possible way things could be done better Avoid inserting yourself as a display of your own knowledge and skill

My sad perspective is this was started a long long time ago. The precursors of this really happened when women became scoutmasters and Boy Scout camps started to be staffed with a large percent of female staff. IMHO, this is just the natural continuation of those actions. Not bad or good. Just what it is.

You need to let the CO know, but I'd reflect the shut down similar to how the CO supported the troop. If you have an active CO, involve them. If not, I wouldn't grow the relationships at this time. IMHO, one of the nicest way I've seen this done is a troop brings equipment to roundtable or sends a message to near by troops about extra equipment. The only sale I'd see is selling the trailer. Or give the trailer to a troop that doesn't have one. I know our CO knows nothing about our budget or equipment. If our troop folded, they would want nothing to do with the equipment. Nothin

Everything we do teaches our scouts lessons. But, is it a good lesson ?? Our troop has no set rules. If you publish your phone number on the troop site, expect that it might be used. Same with email. If you don't want it used, don't list it. Now if someone calls you and leaves a message, I'd expect it's only polite to return their call or get rid of your answering machine. Anything else is at best high maintenance. At worst, it's a really bad lesson to teach our scouts on how to treat others. Yes, we do need to teach our scouts how to continue to pursue things. But we don't do

I agree discussion should happen. I just fear drawing out the discussion for a significantly long time. The time of change can be damaging and painful. Letting it go too long just continues the pain.

I'd do the same. It's just too hard to find enough volunteers and resources to run two separate units for the same families.

I am sad for the pain your son and your family is going through. It is tough to see things such as this. I have seen parents and individuals submit reports that were overblown or one sided. I've seen individuals go-after one another with a blood thirst. It's hard and sad to see. Unfortunately, I don't think you will get any useful answers here without providing a lot more detail. And, I recommend you do NOT provide that detail. Work with your council. Work with other groups. Revocation doesn't happen easily or without painful consideration. I wish you and yours the best.

COs always have a choice to select members that reflects their boundaries and values.

I'd hope Eagle would not be under discussion. It's already bad enough that boys in Venturing can earn Eagle, but their equally registered female members can't. IMHO, not allowing girls to earn Eagle would just continue the pain. The best change is done structured and planned, but relatively fast. Drawing these things out just continues the damage.

The scoutmaster does not "approve" the badge work. Never has. The unit leader signature is on the "applicant" section of the card to prove the scout handed the card in. The MB counselor portion can also be used to prove the scout is done and it has no scoutmaster signature. The unit portion also has no scoutmaster signature. The idea is if the scout has the unit leader signature on his section, then he did hand it into the troop. Yes, there is a GTA path for if the scout clearly did not earn the badge, but there is no built-in scoutmaster approval for badges.

Exactly. Well said. ... Except I'd pursue this with the overseeing council advancement committee. It's their job to get this stuff straight. I'd emphasize it strongly so that they do their job making sure the camp is doing their job.

Yeah ... This sounds like the real trigger. Their council adv committee and camp staff came up with what they thought was reasonable to offer the badge. The scoutmaster disagrees on whether the requirements were met. IMHO, it sounds more like a battle between the scoutmaster and the camp staff and the scout pays the penalty. That's why ... depending on the exact details ... I'd let it go and find a way to get the scout the skills and experience without inferring he did not earn the badge. I would still take it up with the council that oversees the camp.

My experience is scouts often don't represent what happened very well. Often, they can't defend their situation especially if being asked by an adult who has an assumption it did not happen as said. IMHO, absolutely take it up with the council advancement team that owns the camp. Absolutely pursue his learning. I just hate seeing badges "revoked" after a MB counselor has signed it off. Especially in situations where dozens of scouts and official camp staff were involved. But then again, I'm not 100% that strong on this. If you can make it a positive experience when you take it ba

GTA 7.0.4.7 is correct, but it's not the only answer. Dozens and dozens of kids would have taken that MB at that camp this summer. Do they get the badge, but only this scout is "held accountable". The MB sessions at summer camp could be viewed as a "patrol cooking on a campout". The MB session is an effective structured group. The summer camp is a camp out. Personally, I'd do it informally. Summer camp MBs are never 100% clean and it's a big negative to use GTA 7.0.4.7 for an adult and a council / camp screw up. Leave him the positive of having the badge and informally witho

Not sure ... You may want to ask all the district and council staffers I've seen that may have also earned it. It ain't a young crowd.

Odd, but no different than units that ignore rules. You now have two contradicting statements and one that is well published in the BSA Eagle Project Workbook and BSA Guide To Advancement with statements about what can be expected from others (including councils). IMHO, there is no wrong in ignoring rules that ignore the rules. Plus, my experience is fundraising is a question, but not a pass / fail screen for the project. The scout could simply say he just followed the directions BSA put in the workbook. Hard to penalize a scout for that.

I agree it's not a cure all. But it's unreasonable to not expect questionable behavior when most scouts are in an all male scouting experience and then attend a co-ed Jamoboree. Civility is not what it was. Perhaps it should be a new focal point.

BSA was created years ago because of a need to teach youth outdoor skills, citizenship and physical fitness. Perhaps the Jamboree issues reveal the real timely need for this new generation. Going fully co-ed would foce youth to learn respect and how to work together. Isolating one gender does not help when those genders will encounter each other and need to work together.

With the assumption that we are only seeing one side. But trusting it is as you said .... SMs never should be yelling in the face of scouts. It serves no purpose and defeats many other purposes. SMs should never physically pick up a scout and carry them unless there is a safety issue involved. Probalby won't help pursuing as criminal matter. My comments are #1 At some point, move on. You can only pursue getting this corrected so much. I'm betting multiple people have seen and know the issue. Others have other view points. The risk of continued pursuit is you will hurt the scouting

I was disagreeing with the fact that scouts had to "work" for palms. That is not at all what I've seen from multiple troops and instances of how scouts view palms. I do agree with you that I could reasonably see treating palms as a separate award from rank. I could even see recognizing palms separate from ranks. For example, a second class scout with 35 MBs could justifiably argue for Eagle palms. It would be a nice way to recognize the above and beyond effort.

I hugely disagree with that. Hugely. My experience with multiple troops is that scouts just after their ECOH target dates they need to have SMC and palm BORs. Then, there is not much more than their previous participation level and making sure SMC and BOR happen on those dates. The new rules add value to continued participation in the MB process.