fred johnson

I can't speak for you and yours, but for me and mine I'd would not use the service hour requirement to manipulate the scout ... i.e. "compelling". Service is to be congratulated, not to be held hostage.

Agreed. I just want my sons to be able to spend their time with their friends as part of scouting. Building friendships and relationships. Scouting being the safe harbor through which he can explore many different activities.

Excellent answer.

Well said.

Glad you were able to turn it around at the meeting. I've seen the same reaction and within a few months several of the scouts quit. Sounds like your involvement might avoid that. Good luck.

BSA's program really doesn't change that fast. It's more that we remember our experiences over the decades. It's all relative. Krampus identified a key thing that I am not sure how to resolve. BSA says ... for risk management ... it's part of the unit program and that the scout plans the project without any requirement for further approvals or inputs. As such, how is the troop leadership supposed to be ... key term ... responsible ... for ensuring two-deep leadership and all other safety expectations. You can't assign responsibility without providing structures within which those responsible can be successful. Only signatures are at proposal time that is before the planning has happened. The process isn't in place. That's not assigning responsibility. That's dressing a scapegoat.

You quoted the words that are pretty much the same as the GTA 9.0.2.14 Risk Management that I was referencing. In fact, I would have to check that the words are not the same. Before BSA changed to the new format of Eagle workbook ... and I would not be surprised if even latter ... I'd have to check GTA revision history ... Eagle projects were NOT considered part of the unit program. That's why the muddied waters. Youth protection enhancements. G2SS improvements. Now to cover "Risk Management", Eagle projects are part of the unit program effectively for youth protection. But the troop has no role in coordinating the plans or execution. So it is really a mess where people are looking the other way. IMHO, it is up to the troop to make sure a leader is there. Unit leaders should be asking the scout when the work days are scheduled. It's the unit leaders job to staff it. It is NOT the scout's job to make sure a troop leader can be there or to review the project schedule with a committee. IMHO, I do NOT want it to move any more toward an integrated part of the unit program. I do NOT want unit leadership to have additional signature or approval roles.

Ya know. You're right. I'm caught with forgetting Guide To Advancement, Section 9.0.2.14 Risk Management and Eagle Scout Service Projects ... for risk management the Eagle projects are effectively part of the unit program. The challenge is there is no requirement (and explicitly listed as NOT appropriate) to have the troop approve work dates or plans. It seems BSA has setup a contradiction. It is still ingrained in my mind that Eagle projects are NOT a troop function. And in most ways, Eagle projects are NOT a troop function. There is no requirement to use another scout. There is no requirement to communicate with the troop ... beyond signatures for the proposal and report. Scouts do much of the planning and initial prep fully outside the visibility of the troop leadership. Saying an Eagle project is part of the unit program just seems to lay liability on others without setting up an effective structure for those to manage that liability. Even then ... with two deep leadership ... there would be no guarantee that when the power tools come out ... that there was an appropriate leader observing it every moment. ...Unless BSA establishes rules for locking up power tools, a certification program for power tool trainers and power tool range masters. To be frank, GTA 9.0.2.14 Risk Management really muddies the structure of an Eagle project and creates a huge inconsistency.

I never said it was about law enforcement. But G2SS reflects a choice by BSA to align with national child labor laws. Many volunteer organizations have done this. And, I had not even thought about the fact that BSA hires many many youth. As such, I can see that there is a need for consistency. Plus, BSA is putting it's name on the project with the signature of three registered BSA leaders. Locally, there is a scout who had major brain damage for falling from what was essentially the height of a four foot ladder. It happens. And when it happens, I'd be really surprised if lawyers could not successfully argue negligence and liability when labor laws have decided it's a bad idea. So law prevents you from having an employee do it, but you can use an unpaid volunteer? Yeah, doesn't surprise me G2SS is relatively aligned with child labor laws. I let my own sons use power tools (skill saws, sawz-all, power miter boxes) under my direct supervision. But it's because I want them to learn. I know other 17 year olds from other families that I would not trust anywhere near a power tool. I also view power tools as a risk on Eagle projects because there is no guarantee adults are present when the projects are executed. As such, a consistent set of safety rules is important.

So you say. Others view it differently. http://www.ehow.com/about_5513233_volunteer-labor-laws.html "Child Labor Laws One of the toughest areas of labor law enforcement is child volunteering. Though the Fair Labor Standards Act (which governs child labor laws) usually doesn’t apply to volunteers, it is in the best interest of both the organization and the child to adhere to these laws. States are particularly observant of child volunteers and may have even stricter laws than actual employment would dictate. Experts advise to follow child labor laws—volunteer or not—when involving minors, and a signed parental-consent form is a must." https://www.nonprofitrisk.org/advice/faqs/volunteers2.shtml

My son attended four years ago. Jamboree cost was about $2400. Add another $400 for misc stuff (uniforms, gear, cash, etc). Sadly, after that experience, I've written off Jamboree for my other sons. Between risk of it may or may not be a great experience depending on people and weather, it's just not worth that much. Seven years of summer camp doesn't even add up to that cost. We can pay for two high adventures at that cost. I'm sad they won't experience it, but cost is not at a reasonable relative level to the experience.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=48d6ee3b99d3b3a97b1bf189e1757786&rgn=div5&view=text&node=29:3.1.1.1.31&idno=29 PART 570—CHILD LABOR REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND STATEMENTS OF INTERPRETATION §570.33 Occupations that are prohibited to minors 14 and 15 years of age. (g) Outside window washing that involves working from window sills, and all work requiring the use of ladders, scaffolds, or their substitutes.

It could be approved, but with caveats and safety rules about who can do what. Times changed and national child labor laws exist and our projects are subject to those laws.

Great quote! I'm going to steal that one.

Debatable, but a valid point.

I was involved in a troop where the scouts "choose". What I also saw were adults heavily influencing the scouts behind the scenes or outside the meeting. It's like that kid in every grade who stands up as a representative for some unpopular view because his dad or relative was involved even though it makes him less popular with the girls. When I was young it was my friend who supported nuclear power because his dad helped build and run nuclear power plants. His opinions were heavily influenced from the relationship and comments of his dad. When I saw going from scouts choosing their patrols to the PLC assigning the patrols, I remember some parents talking about it with their sons about it being the right way to do things and how it was done when they were a kid. Those scouts then argued for it because essentially they were defending their opinion of their dads. So when i hear ... "The PLC decided" ... an eyebrow goes up and I apply a filter of common sense to understand the decision. In any event, good luck. It can work. I prefer scouts choosing and NSP. But that's me.

I think we are all discussing small nuances or viewing the same challenge from different perspectives. We're discussing terms versus a difference of fundamentals. The issue with blood drive is not at all about effort ... unless you mean there is little effort to plan and develop. Most blood drives are hundreds of hours. But, if it is hundreds of hours, how much planning does the scout do? For a blood drive, probably not much as almost everything is provided including processes and procedures. The issue with blood drives is the planning and develop. In addition, it's an issue of leadership. Scout's can't really lead blood drives. If the scout wanted his project to be associated with the blood drive, I'd be looking for him to write the proposal as such. "I will be developing a marketing campaign to ... ??? draw in first time donors ... ??? solicit new organizations ... ??? young people who have never donated ???". Or, I will ???? I would not want the Eagle project to be called a "blood drive" as that is outside and beyond his control. Essentially, "blood drive" would be claiming credit for another's leadership and planning. "Running a marketing campaign for a blood drive" would more accurately reflect an acceptable project. Absolutely. I use the rule of thumb that it should be a slight stretch or challenge. IMHO, there is a different expectation for a 13 year old versus a 17 year old and different than a scout with a disability. It's not exactly "do your best" as much as stretch your best. Leadership yes. But the planning and development is also a key guiding principle. IMHO, if there is leadership without the need for planning or development, then it's more of a normal service project and not so much an Eagle service project. Essentially, providing labor versus conceiving and developing your own project.

Sounds good. Each project needs to be considered on it's own. How you explain it sounds reasonable. I've seen some that are little more than project 1 of 3 followed by project 2 of 3 followed by project 3 of 3. That's a red flag.

"Plan, develop" is elaborated and clarified in BSA Guide To Advancement. section 9.0.2.3 I agree that not approving a project should be rare, but there are cases where they should not be approved. "9.0.2.3 “Plan, Develop …†"Planning and development require forethought, effort, and time—sometimes more than for execution. Thus, for the most part, they are considered part of the project and are detailed further once a proposal is approved. It is inappropriate to expect a Scout to invest the time required for detailed planning, only to face the prospect of rejection. See “Proposal Must Be Approved … Before You Start,†9.0.2.7. "It is important not to categorically reject projects that, on the surface, may not seem to require enough planning and development. Consider, for example, a blood drive. Often rejected out of hand, this project, if done properly, could be acceptable. Few would question the beneficiary. Blood banks save lives—thousands of them: maybe yours, maybe that of a loved one. If the candidate proposes to use a set of “canned†instructions from the bank, implemented with no further planning, the planning effort would not meet the test. "On the other hand, there are councils in which Scouts and advancement committees have met with blood bank officials and worked out approaches that can comply. Typically these involve developing marketing plans and considering logistics. People successful in business know how important these skills are. Some blood banks will also set a minimum for blood collected as a measure of a successful plan. To provide another valuable lesson, they may require the candidate to keep at it until he’s met this goal. "A good test of any project is to evaluate its complexity. In the case of a blood drive, for example, elements of challenge and complexity can be added so there is a clear demonstration of planning, development, and leadership."

Yeah, but it's not the same. Once in the military, your choice is gone. You want work to give you a pay check, here's your team. Everyone in scouts a volunteer. You choose to particate. Every time a meeting is scheduled, you choose whether to go. Every camp out you choose whether to go. It's a huge and very significant difference. Anyway, either way can work. Overthinking it can kill it.

It sounds like a great service project and very worth while. As for an eagle project, I don't know either way. That would be something for the specific district to consider. A key point though is there is a difference between an Eagle project and a service project. Both can be very worthwhile and meaningful. But there is a difference.

IMHO, that's what patrols are about. When you choose your patrol or you have alot in common, it's easier. When you are told who to spend your time with, I see little reason to feel that way unless you didn't have strong friendships in the troop to begin with. Anyway ... some troops can make each way work. I strongly like NSP and scouts choosing their patrol. That's for me and my sons. You and yours can do differently.

Yeah, I believe scouts want to hang with their friends. And for the most part you can't force it. I wish you the best. Changing from mixed age to scouts choosing their patrol is relative easy. Switching from age based or self-picked to mixed age is harder. Switching to "assigned" patrols I've seen too. Scouts have quit over it. Mainly because they are now being told they can't hang with their friends. Usually, it's the 14/15 and higher ages that it hits hardest.

Every project is different. Period. Every project needs to be viewed on it's own. I'd take BSA GTA section 9.0.2.3 “Plan, Develop …†as the guiding measure. The blood bank example in that section is a great example. By default, a blood bank project does not meet the criteria. But if the scout can demonstrate how they will be doing significant planning and development of those plans, then it becomes good. In the case of a blood bank, developing an new marketing plan and setting higher targets ... and achieving those targets. If he just uses blood bank marketing materials and their instructions on how to run the event, then the project should not be approved. That's BSA's instructions and our guidance on when something has significant planning. If working on your library project or the DNR or the ... fulfills that expectation, then it's good. Or, can the project be massaged and/or grown to fulfill that expectation.

LOL. That would not get very far with me. I'd probably smile, say thank you and put it to the side almost immediately. Each scout is an individual and each project is different even if they sound similar. Plus, even at the district level, we're learning. Perhaps, the previous one should not have been approved. Mistakes happen. But on the flip side ... it is very rare at a district level that Eagle proposals are not approved.