fred johnson

I finally had time to find the reference. Sorry for being late back to the party. GTA 9.0.2.8 near the end. "Boards of review should use common sense: Did the project meet the requirements or not? Was there planning and development? Was there leadership of others?" GTA 9.0.2.13 also says "At the board of review, if an approved proposal and any subsequent effort represents planning and development that was adequate to the project, and the project was well led and carried out to the satisfaction of the unit leader and project beneficiary, only in a very rare case would rejection result. It would have to be clearly established that Eagle Scout requirement 5—as written— was not completed." BSA Advancement New August 2014 says "Ultimately the decision of a Scout’s board of review relies not on how complete his workbook is, but rather on his project’s impact and whether he showed sufficient planning, development, leadership, and helpfulness to the beneficiary, as stated in requirement 5. Final plan or not, the Scout should be prepared to explain to his board of review how he met the requirement as it is written, and to discuss the project’s impact ." I believe these can be clearly read as the EBOR does consider the project, not just the signatures. I say this because our district does look at other leadership the scout has presented if they consider the project to be leadership thin. In another words, our district EBORs want to positively pass the scout. If the project is thin, they work to find another way to pass the scout. It's only happened a few times, but I have seen it and I respect the EBOR coordinator working hard to find a positive way to pass a worthy scout. I also find this as positive because otherwise the district needs to hold a higher standard for more details and more specifics in the Eagle project proposal.

No. I know everyone involved. They will support the scout. It's just seems like a major part of his Eagle rank journey and it should be visible. Judging his scout career without considering the previous project effort leaves a big hole.

Thank you. That's what I'm thinking too.

Actually, they can. It should be rare, but they can. And by rare, I mean rare. Essentially, the SM and beneficiary signatures define a good project in that the project was completed and they think the Eagle rank requirements were met. But the final decision on whether the scout has displayed sufficient leadership lays with the EBOR. Just because a district signs off on a Eagle project PROPOSAL, it is not automatic that the final result of how it's planned and implemented will pass the rank requirement. The SM and beneficiary signatures mainly indicate the project was completed. Though it should be used extremely rarely, the EBOR evaluates leadership. If the EBOR judges the project contained insufficient leadership, then the EBOR can consider other aspects of the scout's scouting career through which the scout displayed leadership. Using those other parts of the scout's career, the EBOR can pass the scout on the leadership requirement. Or the EBOR can ask the scout to find a new project and try again. But that should be extremely rare and would indicate many other process failures. I've been looking for the BSA GTA reference to this. I swear I've read it. I can't find it right now. I'm looking

I agree it's about showing leadership, but an Eagle Board Of Review is also looking at did the scout show enough / significant leadership. Hours is a measurement whether or not we want it to be one. Also, hours helps set the scope and size of the project. The newer project is smaller and the scout did exhibit major leadership while trying to do the first project. The GTA says that an EBOR can look at other leadership to qualify the scout if the project is in question as showing enough leadership. I suspect I'll keep my advice the same. Bring the previous project to you EBOR as supporting material to explain the path to completing the Eagle rank. I suspect his personal investment in the previous project will be twice or three times the amount of total hours of everyone on the new project. Both were good projects. Just the new project is smaller.

I need advice. I've got a scout that invested heavily in his first eagle project. The proposal was signed off and he worked the plan for his project significantly. Due to outside factors involving city governments etc, he had to abandon that project. He is now doing a completely different project. New proposal. New plan. New beneficiary, etc. QUESTION - Would you roll the hours from the first project into the reported time for the second project in the Eagle Project Report? Listing the hours on the new project doesn't seem right, but the volunteering and effort occurred. IMHO, the volunteer hours should be still credited even though the project was abandoned. I'm just not sure where to credit those hours. Currently, I'm advising him to bring his previous Eagle project workbook to his Eagle board of review along with time sheets, plans and pictures. IMHO, the EBOR should know and see his investment as the first project was a major part of his journey to complete his Eagle requirements. The EBOR should see it. I just wish we could formally report the hours.

I too have always been inspired by these stories both person-to-person and the ones I'd ready Boy's Life. Heck, I almost always opened Boy's Life directly to that section first as it was the most interesting to read. QUESTION - I've seen a few of these processed. Is it always normal to have significant involvement from the award recipient during the writing and submitting of the award?

Fully agree with this. Gender and orientation are not big factors. BSA's relevance is using the outdoors to teach core values.

I am not sure with the program re-design, but with the program previous to the 2015/2016 re-design, there was a subtle shift with Akela at Webelos level. For lower Cub ranks, Akela was as you describe. For Webelos, the BSA published books described Akela as the den leader. It was part of the progression to prepare for Boy Scouts. I still don't have trouble with the boy getting his rank. Advancement, especially at the cub level, is a motivator to continue and develop further interest.

I agree. You need to define commitment as having paid or at least having paid the amount the pack would lose if it went unused. Another approach also is look for overnights that have more flexibility. Perhaps families that are really dedicated and willing to commit early can still pursue the events that sell out quick. For the rest of the families ... Choose a date that sells out slower because it is less popular Choose a different venue that might have more flexibility Run your own overnight event. It's more hassle, but you have the ultimate flexibility.

From outside, yes. But the target isn't just BSA. It's all groups including clubs, schools, government, churches, etc. And the pressure to take sides is coming from both the liberal and conservative sides. From inside, there is no clandestine plot. BSA is trying to continue a program in a world that is drastically changing: Technology. Values. Institutions. Population. Nationalities. Faiths. BSA was created before radio was available. Most people had out houses. Few homes had electricity. Flying was still experimental. Conflict was Protestant versus Catholic. English versus new Irish immigrants, and German immigrants and Swedish and .... Now it's every nation, every faith and technology continues to accelerate. Every institution today is fighting to adjust. So is BSA. Just don't accuse BSA of social engineering. It's not. It's about fitting BSA to today's nation. We can teach 1910 skills, but we can't exist as if it is 1910. =================================== If you want to run what you perceive as a classic scouting program within BSA, you can very much setup your troop that way. There is little preventing that. If you want to limit members in your troop to people fitting your charter org, you can do that. But if you want to force ==================================== I agree that there are many things BSA needs to change. I just don't think there i some magical "classic scouting".

This is by and far one of the most important needs. Scout requirements need to be clear, concise and understandable. Most importantly, they need to be scout sized and not a legalistic contract. Perhaps, have the BSA annual requirements book have explanations for adult leaders on scope and size of the requirements.

PWD is what ever the individuals want to make it. Pack leaders can structure it as they want to serve their objectives. PWD is a traditional activity and not a formal program element. For all the formality, you could go to a forest looking for downed pine trees and cut six inch segments and kids can figure out how to put wheels on them and race'em. ... to be honest, that might be fun.

I like the idea, but it would only work if the cars could not leave the build location. Come to the location to get your car, build, paint, etc. Then race it. Once a car goes home, it's a parent project.

lol ... scooby doo

Sometimes you need to just move on. Scouting really doesn't last that long. Unless you want to dig deeper to get involved and fix the issues, look at other packs or look at another den in your pack, if your pack has multiple dens at that rank. You can find other packs here: https://beascout.scouting.org/BeAScoutMap.aspx Choose cub scouts, enter your zip and click the symbol next to the zip. It will show you other local packs. The other option depending on your son's age, move him early to boy scouts. It's a great program. Sometimes you can participate as a friend of the troop until of age.

I don't think this is worth pursuing, but I do want to validate the original posters feelings. I think she is right to be frustrated at the situation. Yes, we always need to welcome new families and new scouts. So the right choice is to let the new scout race and participate. But a den is a collection of boys that are doing activities, getting to know each other, forming friendships and working together toward their rank objective. When an unknown person wins best-in-den, it's a slap to the members of the den. Maybe best in rank would be okay, but best in den does seem wrong. The idea of a den level award is to promote den identity and pride. An unknown person winning that award works against the goal of that type of award. Perhaps, next year let the den members vote to choose best in den. Heck, they might choose the new scout's car. Maybe don't have this award. I've seen it too where a cub was really not active, but his family was members of the pack for the pinewood derby. And they would almost always win. It was a little frustrating. But then again, it's cub scouts. Ya gotta let things like this go. Anyway, there is nothing to do except think about how the race could be changed next year. The most important thing is to let go of any bad feelings. It's now in the past. Move on. Build friendships. Promote great experiences.

I'd do my best to let it go. You will find things like this happen. What one person does not think is a big deal is a big deal to another person. Sadly, they probably thought it was not a big deal and you did. You have ownership of a den and wanted to do right by your boys. They wanted their son to race. They probably did not see the issue. I agree it's probably not right, but there is zero value in pursuing it. Maybe next year, have the den winner (if you need one) to be voted on by the boys in the den. IMHO, that's the best way to teach social lessons by having the scouts see the feedback from their own peers. It's more work for the adults, but not that much. Personally, I see many things like this just way way over-hyped. In the grand scheme of scouting, Pinewood derby races are way over rated. What are underrated are the outdoor games, hikes, campfires, other experiences ... and building friends and a social structure.

Boundaries are a soft rule, not a hard one.

Ten years ago, I was a larger proponent of good uniforming. I still believe in it. Tuck in your shirt. Keep it clean. Have it current with patches and insignia. But I was burned by the centennial uniform update. I bought three complete sets. Pants wore out within six months (compared to the previous version NEVER wearing out). Shirts lost the flag or random letters and then spelled interesting phrases. Belts that broke. Just way way too many failures. So now, I find pants that match the color and general style, but I buy them from a vendor I like. I keep my shirt clean and and up to date. To be honest, I'm worried much more about functional than looks. If I go on a long hike with my troop, I want the uniform to keep me warm or cool and to not fail. So when I think of neckerchiefs, I view it similar. Is it functional? No, it makes me sweat. No, it adds time uniforming and searching for piece parts. Can I look respectable without it? It's just not that big of a deal to me either way. Wear it if you like, but it's just bling to me.

I applaud you and your troop. Your troop must have a great program. My experience though is that a long drive increases how often people skip meetings due to timing. Skipped meetings leads to drop out.

That's not such a bad idea. Move troop meetings to a different night to produce an obvious difference. Hmm....

BSA uses the concept of "charter" to put ownership onto someone other that BSA. BSA does not own units; does not own their equipment and does not own their bank accounts. Charters select leadership, membership and provide resources such as meeting locations and storage. On the flip side, it is meant to limit BSA liability. Legally, units exist under their charters, not under BSA. Charter organizations are usually churches, but can really be any organization wanting to run a program for youth: schools, business, Lions clubs, VFWs, community groups, etc.

LOL ... I love my Church, but I also am a bit of a pragmatist. KofC chartering units exposes a large national organization to legal liabilities. KofC has huge assets as it is also an insurance organization originally founded to help families of poorer Catholic workers insure each other. Having KofC charter units exposes that insurance fund. KofC Organization - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Columbus KofC Founding - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._McGivney Parishes are autonomous individual organizations. When a volunteer in one parish does something wrong, it would not escalate into deeper pockets across all parishes. IMHO, this is also the right move. "I think" huge deep pockets (assets) attracts the attention of those wanting to connect mistakes (crimes) to those deep pockets. IMHO, overly deep pockets perverts justice. If a parish fails to oversee a program, that parish should be sued, but not the whole nation.

To be honest, I agree with you. My previous comment was sort of a tongue-in-cheek, resigned type of comment. If we can't get over these arguments about faith and orientation, then BSA will continue to be damaged. BSA has a long history of outdoors, skills, camping, etc. BSA could easily take the lead. But BSA is mired in painful worn out debates that continues to damage BSA. And, many are just fine with BSA being a small niche organization and letting schools and YMCA and others take the scouts that don't fit BSA's niche. IMHO, one of the things that keeps BSA down are the leaders that keep BSA stuck in the past in a world that doesn't exist anymore. IMHO, we do our best when we focus on getting scouts outdoors and keeping our opinions about the rest to ourselves.