fred johnson

IMHO, that situation is probably absolutely fine ... but it would raise some questions. .... I'd look for a proposal description of a stand-alone project where the scout owned the proposal, could develop the idea and significantly influence the result. Does the project stand on it's own? Or is it started by another's efforts and/or completed by another's efforts? Is the scout just coordinating labor for another's project?I've seen some projects where the scout describes a much larger project than is under the scope of his influence. Others acquire materials and/or execute the design. The scout in reality is just staffing part. Would the project still happen if the scout's proposal is not approved?

Lots of chat here ... but the OA election process is the ultimate let the scouts do it. Scouts are told "friend to all" ... "helpful with a smile" ... etc. They know who is good and who should be voted in. NO is much more meaningful when it comes from your peers. Let the scouts vote as they will. Anything else uses part of your relationship of the scouts up.

Precedent is useful to review consistency, criteria or how things are being done. But whether I sign is based on the specific proposal and the here and now. If anything, I've seen the opposite. As we learn about beneficiaries or types of projects, Eagle proposals that may have been signed in the past may not be signed in the future. Usually, it has to do with learning how the beneficiary works with the scouts. Or, learning more about the nature of a specific project. Or learning that a troop has a blue-print for a bench and all the scouts are using that blue print. Just buying wood and assembling. Consistency is important. But we get the consistency by targeting approvals based on BSA guidance (policies, procedures, news letters, etc). Essentially, it goes no where when I hear that from my scouts or my sons justify that they should get something because another person did.

Survey needs another option. State does not require registration.

In our state, small utility trailers are not licensed any more.

I won't knock our current Eagle scouts (quantity or quality). Also, I can't speak to the program from years and years ago, but I do agree something is missing. Many of the merit badges tend to be tedious and a shallow reproduction of what is taught in school over and over again. Many of the PORs have little real responsibility. IMHO, the real reflection of a great scouting experience is the camping, outings, fellowship and unique new experiences that don't overlap as much with school and other programs.

Same in our area. Very hard to have any continuity over time. Lots of hard feelings. Parents that cross over expect they can influence the next group. More hard feelings. The Webelos transition is just not fun anymore. It's rather ugly.

Changing COs ... Packs change COs all the time. You have to get the CO to write a short memo such as "<charter org> releases Pack <xxxx>> and it's a assets to be rechartered by another charter org.". Council helping solve your CO issue ... doubt that will happen. COs can torpedo their packs and there is not much that can be done. COs own the pack. Unless they release the pack, there is not much to be done. Changing packs? ... Your decision. How invested are you in that pack and the CO ? How many kids do you have left? Personally, cubs are cubs for a relatively short time (for this discussion). Protect your scouts experience.

And ... youth protection training too. Not sure if "This Is Scouting" is still required too. The above is just "Den Leader" specific.

Yes and no. It breaks it down into before 1st meeting, 1st 30 days and fully trained. But within those categories there are many more. Before first meeting - Four courses, 44 minutes (ideals 13:35, Adv 3:45, Leading den mtgs 13:08, discipline 15:15) First 30 days - Six coures, 45 minutes (purpose 6:08, methods 4:13, recog 9:41, how it owrks 11:28, Effective leadership 7:21, resources 6:30) Position trained - Nine courses, 66 minutes (Parents 5:34, Uniform 13:39, Insignia 4:43, Uniform 3:39, awards 4:41, planning 14:35, Year round 12:38, Position 4:57, Roles 3:07) Den leader is 19 courses, 155 minutes of training. It's intiminating for someone who just signed up blind at a join scouting night meeting.

It's all screwed up right now with the redesign. Give it time to settle down. If you can, take it in-person. The online stuff is just too much right now.

Sounds like the troop committee is not doing their job feeding back to CC & COR feedback from BOR and other people. CC & COR are not providing feedback and/or correction to SM.

Fred johnson, on 07 Mar 2016 - 12:55 PM, said: Argh. Sounds like someone took a good course and restructured it because they did not want or have time to learn how the course is meant to be taught. The result is creating a death by PowerPoint situation. The BSA ISLT course can work. But it's like an course syllabus, you have to learn how to teach it. Otherwise it becomes a "not invented here" situation and people end up re-inventing what already exists.

That sounds like an adult modified ILST where the adults modified it to run it themselves. What scares me about that is Sounds more complex than it is meant to be. Sounds more sitting than it is meant to be. Sounds more like a PowerPoint presentation than it is meant to be. From what I saw, the best ILST, is a partnership between the SM and SPL. The SM mentors the SPL. The SM helps the SPL prepare materials and get organized. The scoutmaster supports the SPL. Otherwise, the SM sits quietly ... maybe asking questions such as "What did you do?", "How did that work for you?", "How did they react?" Adults talking subverts the concept of ISLT.. Sitting too much defeats the concept of ISLT.

Well said ... BSA ILST is a once and done type of course. It's only fresh and meaningful once. It's part of a continuum and a prerequisite for the rest. ISLT --> NYLT --> NAYLE. The person who benefits significantly from the 2nd time through is the SPL who leads the course. I agree. There needs to be position specific training too. But, I doubt a couple of hours is necessary and even then I'd expect it's a once-and-done situation. ASPL training overlaps with SPL and PL. etc. Anyway ... I've seen the BSA ILST done really well and it was useful. Not done well, I'm sure it's lame. Sort of like Wood Badge. Done well, it can be almost life changing. But if you've seen it before, it's a little hoo hum.

I understand your comments. And it makes sense. It's something we should be continually doing as an on-going, on-the-job training program. But, it's not a syllabus training course. Not you might want to argue against the need for such a course. Fine. I just like having a special event / special training opportunity to make the current leaders think about their leading styles and methods.

I can respect your approach. I am sure it works fine. I like the TLT done by the BSA ILST as documented in --> http://www.scouting....ber 511-016.pdf SPL runs the training. SM spends time coaching and mentoring the SPL on how to successfully run it. Training is a good mix of 15% class time 10% intro video 50% team building games 25% reflections One I remember is the SPL coaches the youngest, smallest, etc scout on how to lead and how a game works. Then, everyone except that scout is blindfolded and given a rope. All ropes connect to a rubber ring. When done right, the scouts pick up a pale and move it to another spot. The ropes have to stretch the ring to fit on the can. The ropes have to be the right tightness. It's fun to watch. Also teaches more experienced scouts to listen to the quieter scouts and the quieter scouts have to learn to speak up. Lots of good lessons. I like it because it's good team building as much as leadership training.

Our troop until just a few years ago kept using the VHS based ILST training materials from BSA. It was very 1970s production and the scouts thought it was funny. But it worked. The agenda was based very closely to this. In fact, after scanning this, it is very very close. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/ILST%20FINALS%202011%20-%20Item%20Number%20511-016.pdf I still remember each person grabbing their bag lunch. The guy with the bag of cookies or chips were excited. The guy with the bag of lunch meat only, not so much. If I had to do it again, I'd start with the referenced doc.

One reason Cub Scouts works (somewhat) is because it was created as a separate program from Boy Scouts. It avoided lowering the maturity of a Boy Scout troop by adding younger less mature and less capable members. One repeated issue I see these days is the 4th and 5th graders who are just much more mature than the 1st grade Tigers and ready to do more. SUGGESTION ... Move Lion Cubs (kindergarten) and Tigers (1st graders) into a new brand new program. Perhaps district run. Perhaps just big gatherings. Perhaps just go-and-see its. Call it Critter Scouts or some other cute name. But I truly believe this is a good idea to avoid Cub Scouts that do six years of pinewood derbies and six years of blue and golds and six years of etc, etc, etc. If siblings really want to join scouting, create another younger program for it that does not damage the existing scouting brands.

This is the reason I've heard repeatedly from parents. But, it's same argument that moves the entry age lower and lower. - Right from the start, younger brothers couldn't wait to join boy scouts. - To satisfy younger siblings, Cub Scouts was created and formally introduced in 1930s. - To satisfy younger siblings, Tiger Cubs was created in the 1980s to serve 1st graders. But, it was more of a partnership and friend of the pack idea. - Now, we are looking at kindergarten scouts ... and more of a friend of the pack idea again, but with pseudo requirements and tasks to earn their rank. - In ten years, we'll have 3 and 4 years olds want to join cub scouts. And, then the diaper scouts. This seems more driven by parent desire to include the siblings. And, I like the idea of a "family scouting program". The trouble is this is often opposite of where you find the core lessons of scouting. Those being about the scout reaching out on his own or with his friends, stretching his boundaries and exploring aspects of life that you can't normally do at home or at school. We are growing scouts by creating a lower age limit where that age benefits much less and the scouting program offers less value than traditional community programs such as early child hood programs. And, people move on to the next program eventually. My great fear that I think has a strong basis is that whole families will see a less mature program and move on for many different reasons before experiencing the program where BSA makes the big big difference, Boy Scouts.

We've had some action that we had to act on. - Behavior issues between the scouts. - Adults that overreached and were affecting the scouts. I really hope we can let the scout get comfortable enough at the BOR to let us know what he thinks.

Wow. I did not expect the tech trouble issues. I was referring to the dozens of modules and the overall time it would take to complete them all. It's just too much. It is a huge negative for doing online training. The old online training could have been beefed up some ... some ... but it had as much meat as the in-person program and was very easy to complete. This new stuff is just way over the top in size.

The Cub Scout online training has been re-done and the new layout is extremely intimidating. Dozens of modules. Each 10+ minutes long and done individually. Anyone know if this is the final state or is something else happening? I really can't recommend cub leaders use the online training anymore. It's just too much.

"A scout is trustworthy". Represent the cost the best he can and it will be fine. If any adult leader doesn't accept that, then the issue is correcting the adult leader not the scout.

CalicoPenn said it well. I don't see anything wrong with what you said ... but ... the real test is how the troop leaders feel. If they are okay with it too, then fine. If they are uncomfortable, respect their position and either step up or step away. So, talk with the unit leaders. The only point I'd differ on is why not sit on EBORs. BSA GTA section 8.0.3.0 "Particulars for the Eagle Rank" says ... "They need not be on an advancement committee or registered with the Boy Scouts of America, but they must have an understanding of the rank and the purpose and importance of the review. This holds true for Eagle boards of review held in any unit, whether troop, team, crew, or ship." As an experienced scouter and a venture crew leader, I'd think you'd be a good choice for an EBOR.