fred8033

Oak Tree: "I disagree, though, that the Jamboree Scoutmaster is equivalent to the actual unit leader." Unofficially - Agreed - NOT EQUIVALENT because the Jamboree leader doesn't know the multi-year history of the scout. But is that really needed to sign a blue card? Official per BSA - EQUIVALENT. I looked a few years ago and ... if I remember right ... Jamboree scouts are dually registered in his home unit and his Jamboree unit. So while participating in Jamboree related events, the jamboree SM is the real unit leader. Same with some scout camps where staff members get dually

water temperature > 32F. Appropriate gear. Some of the best camp outs have been on the river on 45 degree days.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I read too quickly. Eagle92 raised good point. My comments are removed.(This message has been edited by fred8033)(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Event #1, #2 and #3 and hitting in #4 hitting are all very bad. Tooth paste does not fix sheet rock. #3 is what scares the #### out of me. Several of our camps have river ice and others have lakes with flowages. It can be very dangerous. ... If he's a life scout and 17 years old, there must have been earlier behavior problems. Things rarely get this bad during just one camp out. SO ... what's been done to correct him in the past? Sometimes it's little feedback moments are critical. Sometimes a "come to Jesus" moment is needed. In another words, has the scout

qwazse - What do you mean when you wrote "Plus, the boys have a responsibility to tend to 11-13 year olds, whereas in the crew any such obligation is voluntary." ??? I don't see any difference in troop / crew here. If anything, crews have more responsibility for member to member training. ........... This discussion has really opened my eyes to think about changes we could make. Or better ... to have the SM discuss with the SPL and then have the SPL work with the PLC to see what they want to change. I can't see going as far as having scouts reserve camp sites, but there i

IM_Kathy wrote: "I think there is a difference between boy-led and boy-done. To me boy-led means they plan: they decide what they want to do at a campout, where they want to camp to be able to do that, how long they want to stay there. It means they lead: they lead the younger scouts in all the "how to's" of scouting... knots, tents, packing, hiking, reading maps. It means they work together: John wants to canoe, Pete wants to bike, Luke wants to just chill... they agree to have a campout for canoeing, a different one for biking, and either make sure their is chill time at these as well or th

Oak Tree wrote: "I'll say these seem like pretty rhetorical questions, Fred. I suspect you know that most troops operate the way you describe - especially the larger ones. Are you trying to generate a ground-swell of opinion?" I'm not looking for a groundswell of opinion. I don't really care about being the nail that sticks up. And yes, parsing the original statement phrase by phrase is over the top. I'm just trying to see if I've missed something so key to the program. When someone so experienced says something so different than what I've seen, I do get confused. I'm just won

okay ... So I received a pretty negative reply by a very well respected scouter who suggested the problem with our troop is that we're not boy led. Personally, I hate that phrase as it's often used in a mean way. It communicates a truism without any concrete details that everyone agrees on. AND, it almost always leads into a put down of another troop. Spoken - "Join us because we're boy led." Unspoken - "Don't join them because they don't really understand the program." Enough on that though. Here's the quote. "The problem, though, is with the adult-run nature of da rest

Ya know I'd give the scout the benefit of the doubt here. #1 Working camp is more like volunteer service than a high paying job. Usually, the scouts earn much less than minimum wage. Plus, there is often plenty of down time and/or waiting time. A driven scout could easily get done several merit badges a week. I know when my son became camp staff, he also got registered in that camp's crew with the camp ranger as the crew adviser. #2 The reason for the SM signature on the blue card is #1 to make sure the scout has a qualified instructor and #2 to know what's going on with th

Twocubdad wrote: "Honestly, Fred, you're grossly over thinking this. There has never been a BSA policy intended to withstand this level of parsing. But if you insist...." It's interesting that I'm over thinking it when I'm just advocating for the simplicity of the process as BSA wrote it. I think BSA did a great job. But adult scouters as always will look for cracks in the process that they can manipulate to inject themselves into the scout's project. The real sad part is that most scouts won't know better and will then later repeat the mistake when they grow up and mentor other scou

Twocubdad wrote: "... but on the other hand now makes Eagle project work sessions official troop activities." They are official troop activities from the view of risk management and interpretation of policies and procedures. The eagle workbook says "Risk Management and Eagle Scout Service Projects All Eagle Scout service projects constitute official Scouting activity and thus are subject to Boy Scouts of America policies and procedures. Projects are considered part of a units program and are treated as such with regard to policies, procedures, and requirements regarding Youth Prot

Beavah ... Just because eagle projects need to be G2SS compliant that doesn't mean the youth needs to take youth protection or read the whole G2SS. That's a world record jump to conclusion. Simple coaching by the DAC or by his eagle coach or unit leader should be fine. A little assistance filling out documents is fine too. It should be as easy as at the DAC proposal sign off, the DAC rep can simply remind the scout that holding events requires either needs two registered leaders or one registered and one parent of an attending scout. Same with power tools ... "When you plan, remember that

Here is where I need to better understand how this will work.... From my understanding, the scout is responsible for his project. He would need to secure the tour plan. He'd fill it out and approach his leaders for signatures and then get it submitted to the scout office. It's his project. It would be the job of the unit leader and the DAC when they review and approve the proposal to say to the scout "Remember to secure a tour plan. If you need help with the paperwork, talk to your unit leaders. They can help." The unit leader and DAC would probably also need to say "Reme

Eagle92 - Of the EBORs I've been on, it's almost always asked (not by me) ... "what if we told you that you haven't earned Eagle?" It's a very standard question. I hope that's all that happened to you. If you got stuck between old and new DACs with different visions, that was bad. ... AvidSM - GTA 9.0.2.13 is part of beneficiary or unit leader not approving it. But it hints at the EBOR also having discretion. GTA section 9.0.2.7 explicitly says the EBOR has discretion. It's to be rare. The EBOR is to focus first on the benefit of the project and then on the leadership and pl

Twocubdad: - I think the reason the GTA says in "8.0.0.2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met"... "Scoutmasters, for example, do not have authority to expect a boy to request one, or to defer him, or to ask him to perform beyond the requirements in order to be granted one." ... is that troops were going so overboard with forms, checklists, processes and procedural diagrams. It's one thing to ask the scout to put his name in a notebook to ask for a BOR ... or to ask him to walk accross a room to request a BOR. It's very much another to send him home to

Eagle732... What's this pre project final write up with signatures? It is not in the bsa eagle workbook.

Beavah ... Good points. Well taken. And no, I've never seen the national camp standards book. I've got several for shooting sports and they are very detailed with plenty of rules. And I have been through many years of Sundays with health form inspection, camp drills, 100 page camp manuals, and such. So point taken. Perhaps it's just the weekend camps where the camp ranger tells the scouts to use the Scout Oath and Law as their guide. ... Agreed that some procedure stuff is needed. In our troop that would be things such as permission form needs to be in by the last troop

I think there's a confusion between the past and the present. The approval is for a proposal and not the final plan. Whereas the old Eagle process required pretty much everything be known before project approval, now only the proposal is approved. Much can change during the final planning and execution. The project itself might turn out to be much easier than thought. The new GTA says in 9.0.2.13 Evaluating the project after completion "One or the other may determine modifications were so material that the extent of service, or the impact of the project, were insufficient to

Beavah wrote: "Others like artjrk like the consistency and order of havin' a simple notebook procedure. I think that's a fine way of doing things, fair and keeps things organized. 100% okay with it. I bet the scoutmaster makes a good number of the entries in it himself. But, I don't view that so much as a troop process / procedure as much as the SM way of managing troop chaos. I'd be very okay with that. I'm pretty much even okay with saying "walk over to the CC and ask for a BOR" or write your name in that book to request a BOR. Yes adding requirements, but fairly innoquio

Beavah wrote: "That's when puttin' in place formal processes and procedures helps. It helps folks learn and adjust and helps the group improve." I can agree with you but tend very strongly away from that fix. The reason is that the new folks start seeing processes and procedures as the normal Boy Scout way. They don't realize it's a troop decision to handle a transition or teach a lesson. As such, those new processes and procedures tend to be permanently installed. My experience is that it's very easy to add a process or procedure. BUT, it's very very difficult to eliminate as other

From what I've read here, the issue is proposed projects that are inadequate for showing leadership and not the new eagle advancement process. Nothing has changed in the BSA expectations for the eagle rank. The changes have only been in the paperwork side to standardize and simplify processes that were never part of the published BSA requirements. From the above example of one cemetery sign or the lone scout, let the scout know that the EBOR can reject the whole project if it does not show sufficient leadership ... after-the-fact. Doesn't matter what is signed off at the proposal phase

Beavah wrote: "Advancement is just one tool, and yeh have to use it in different ways. If yeh have a bunch of lads who feel like they're entitled to adult attention and time and that's showin' in their behavior, then I reckon the proper lesson is to teach them patience and courtesy." Agreed. But it's often a lesson that can be taught without establishing formal processes and procedures that penalizes everyone.

twocubdad wrote: "Is it really adding a requirement?" Unfortunately, yes. I can fully understand your position. And it might not be that big of an addition for how your troop would do it. BUT... it opens the door to scouters who want to make sure scouts "earn" their rank. Or that want to protect the integrity of their troop advancement. Or that view BSA advancement as too easy. Or that want to hold a higher standard for scouts. AND thus cost scouts advancement when they've already completed per the BSA requirements. I've seen a few such as... #1 Scouts need to fill out

Feb - Blue and Gold - Cross the bridge to Boy scouts Mar - 1st troop meeting Mar - pinewood derby. 2nd year Webelos den and especially the leaders don't want to do yet another derby. Let 'em focus on becoming a boy scout.

Huh. Ya know I've seen that form for years. But we've never tracked who sat on the board. If we needed specific names, we'd go to the scout handbook and see the initials. Even back in the paper days, we would submit one form for multiple BORs that happened on different days with different committee members. No one ever looked up who the committee members were or cross referenced that sheet. We'd just find two committee members to sign it. And even then, so members would tell another "you have permission to sign my name" for that form. The form has always sort of been junky.