fred8033

Beavah ... Mellow out. All the kids know him. He's an active parent in the troop and effectively a committee member. He has helped our events and we've helped his sheriff's department events (forming snow blocks, etc). In the last eight years, we've only had one scout who we've asked to be visit with the troop committee because of behavior. We had talked with the parents before and they understood why and we worked out how to handle the situation. Visiting the troop committee was almost a formality to impress the seriousness of what was happening.

raisinemright wrote: "I had a little incident with a municipal youth group I used to help lead. We caught a kid with some pot, disposed of it and set up a meeting with his parents with the intention of letting them handle the punishment, besides being kicked out of the club. The other leader was a cop but the kid didn't know it. He showed up to the meeting in uniform. Seeing the kid's look of utter fear, I had a hard time keeping s straight face." That's an absolutely great story. We have an active parent who's a deputy sheriff. He helps our troop and our troop helps some of his police community activities. You can sure as bet we'll be doing that too if anything significant ever happened. He doesn't need to say or do anything. Maybe a friendly word of advice. But having him there in full uniform would say plenty.

Beavah wrote: "Yah, but in the end, what did the boys learn from that? Maybe somethin' about the fickleness or fears of adults, but certainly nuthin' about managing safety, exercising judgment themselves and all the rest." We never said no. We just said they should make sure they had adults to go with them and to find a few to commit early. They asked a few but could not find any willing to commit. It's a brutally tough hike with all your gear in good weather. But Feb can be -20F and I'm sure snow can drift above your head on the trail. Controlling a sled would be really hard. Plus, you might think your on the path and .... .... Beavah wrote: "Any way yeh cut it, just dumpin' it on 'em at Eagle isn't really fair. Da Eagle Project process in a troop should be functionally the same as the outing process." dumpin' it on 'em is a loaded mischaracterization. But I don't buy the 2nd part that "eagle project process ina troop should be functioning the same as the outing process." I just don't see that supported in any BSA materials. Doesn't say anything about eagle projects being part of troop meetings, PLC discussion or supported by troop committees. And nothing allowing troops to require eagle candidates to follow established troop policies and procedures. BSA does document that scouts are to be given latitude to strick out on their own and take responsibility for their project. For our troop, our scouts get plenty of experience coordinating, making decisions, taking responsibility, coordinating resources and following thru. Plenty of experience to succeed at their Eagle project. It's a solid program and don't forget the MB experiences too: Personal mgmt, Communications, etc. .... I will say that I'm intrigued by this discussion and the many ideas it has raised. I'm not sure what will happen, but I'm sure multiple points from the discussion will influence our troop.

Just reading more what BSA says about scoutmaster approval. GTA does say scouts can have any number of partials, use multiple MBC per badge, no time limit, etc. BUT with approval ... ???? GTA IS CLEAR AS MUD GTA section 7.0.0.2 ... It tries to be explicit with statements such as "Although it is the Scoutmasters responsibility, for example, to see that a counselor is identified from those approved and made available, the Scout may have one in mind with whom he would like to work. He may also want to take advantage of opportunities at merit badge fairs or midways, or at rock-climbing gyms or whitewater rafting trips that provide merit badge instruction. This is acceptable, but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve it if it is appropriate." "This is acceptable" seems to say the scout is allowed to use any counselor he wants. But then it says "but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve ...." So if it's acceptable, why the "but" and talking about still considering the recommendation. Maybe it's a typo and the scout should still consider the scoutmasters recommendation as the SM did the recommending and the scout the requesting. Or, it's the SM who is to allow the scout's choice if valid. I just have no idea. that paragraph is clear as mud. It's almost like it was written by committee and the committee had no conclusive agreement on the answer. ... BSA does address it in other ways too GTA page 76 Clause 12 Examination in camps ... seems to give leeway to camps to establish other standards "to give an intensive scouting program" ... not 100% unit leader signature but related but seems to open the door. ... GTA page 76 Section 1 Responsibility for Merit Badges, clause 13 ... says the the responsibility lies with the merit badge counselor and DAC. Doesn't really say what the responsibility is, but says it's the MB counselors or DACs. ********************** ********************** GTA 7.0.4.6 "Once a registered and approved counselor has passed a Scout on requirements for a merit badge, it cannot be taken away." - ONLY CLEAR STATEMENT ON THE TOPIC - So if a process was violated but the MBC approved the badge, this seems to say it's a done deal. You can't take it away just because the SM did not sign the card. ********************** **********************

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 registered as "crew" members. Hopefully, unit leaders can work together in those situations. ... Trek leaders and camp staff leaders are not "officially" allowed to approve, but why sweat it? The trek leader is the one responsible for that scout at that time and will be on-hand to deal with flu, broken bones, dehydration ... and emergency blue card signatures. In your case, the camp director / ranger had responsibility for the scout. Yeah it's different in that it's employment. But the youth still is housed and fed there. I do view that as accepting some responsibility for the youth for months at a time. Often they get to know the scout better than the home unit leaders. ... I have seen where the signature is important. 2nd year Webelos were done with the Webelos program and wanted to start working on MBs when visiting the troop. Their future scoutmaster was able to catch it and explain the situation. ... Eagle732 wrote: "Well if a boy is going to be halfway across the country he should know before he leaves what MBs he'll be working on ..." Really? We've camped at state parks and met up with other troops working on MB. If invited, should our scouts turn down a chance to work on a MB just because our scoutmaster isn't there and we can't reach him on the phone? ... Eagle732 wrote: "Seems there's lots of differing opinions. " That's because we're dealing with registered scouters who didn't follow the BSA procedure. Most procedures focus on the planned "GO" path. It's hard to document how to handle every screw up. Though this is a pretty common MB screw up. Strictly speaking, the counselor should have told the scout to first get his SM approval and signature. That's the documented process. Until then, he doesn't know if he's teaching a qualified (registered boy scout) scout. He and the youth could be wasting their time was the youth might not be registered or might be a cub scout or girl scout. BUT ... I've never seen a MB counselor wait for the unit leader signature. At summer camp, scouts routinely sit through MB sessions and the counselor says at the end ... "Don't forget to bring me a blue card tomorrow." or even just gives the scout a new blue card and ignores the signature part. That's pretty common. IMHO the BSA rule to apply is where BSA says that we are not to penalize the scout for leader mistakes and in other places to not be overly legalistic with advancement. (new eagle process GTA documentation for example.) So the camp director said the cards are signed by registered MB counselors. So either the camp director and/or counselors need better training. OR they view this as a legalistic thorn that they don't want to deal with in a summer camp setting and until you can make them "care" your going to deal with a screw up that BSA doesn't address.

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 ever been explicitly to his face been told the expected behavior. That his behavior is not within those limits. (Specific incidents). If he can work within scouting boundaries, you are glad to have him in the troop. If not, he should look elsewhere to find a place to spend his time. We had a youth who really needed scouting because of the ugliness in his family life. But, he could not work within the scouting boundaries. We tried for too long to make it work and longer than he was willing to invest. It drove scouts away and damaged the troop. We waited too long to make the final "come to Jesus" moment. And then he left the troop. I've seen him for a few years after, I think he learned from being asked to step away until his behavior changed. ............... I would 100% separate his age and Eagle rank progress from the decision. That's his issue and a result of his behavior. ............... IMHO, those scouts affected by his behavior need to know they will be safe and all the scouts need to know the behavior is not acceptable. ............... I hate cabin camping for this reason too. ............... Flip side of all this is that we had an older scout hit a younger scout around seven years ago. Just wacked him. Heard later from the adult leaders that the older scout was just trying to sit quietly by the fire by himself. The younger scout would just not leave him alone. The adults were watching most of the afternoon and the feedback was ... yes it was 100% unacceptable, but they could not blame the older scout. The younger scout later became SPL and an eagle scout. Funny how things can sometimes work out.

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 is much we could change.

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 they plan another campout that is just a chill out campout. our last campout was a chill/rank campout. Some of the boys chilled out and played games - some worked on rank advancement but also chilled out." That pretty much reflects our troop. Boys led - planning and leading activities, camp outs, etc. Boy-done - while at meetings / activities and where scouts can easily coordinate. adult-done - off meeting tasks critical to making sure events happen and to support the troop. For example, adults receive permission forms and money directly from the scouts. It doesn't get handed to the PL, then to the SPL and then to the adult camping coordinator. Adults reserve the sites and pay the bills. Scouts deal with attendance lists during meetings and camp outs. Adults deal with them at other times. Same reason given by IM_Kathy. Scouts are busy and it's hard enough to depend on adults to get things done away from troop meetings. Scouts often have sporting, school, church or personal conflicts. ------------- We do have a PLC(SPL) report to the troop committee. It's a great chance for the adults to get to know what the scouts are thinking and will need in the coming events. The troop committee knows to not debate or hassle scouts during the report. We provide any critical feedback through the SM. The only schedule plan we ever had an issue with was a February camp out where the plan was to hike "DOWN" a mile long steep uneven rocky path to that would be covered with ice and snow. Oh... and the path has a sharp drop off (when you can see it ... not a sheer cliff, but still a sharp angle). We don't mind winter camp outs. That's fun. We just mind risking our lives. We were willing to schedule it if the scouts could find registered qualified leaders who would go with them. Oh and to get to the hiking trail, you have to drive on an un-marked, un-plowed raw dirt trail for two miles ... if you can find it. Not so cool. ------------- qwazse: - mentioned that you want to leverage boys talents. I like the term "progressive responsibility" to give scouts opportunity to grow with a good chance to succeed and to get out of their way when they already know what they are doing. ------------- Thanks everyone for your responses. I has given me much to think about. It's always amazing that "boy led" means something so different to everyone who hears the term. I'll have to look for a local troop that has patrol leaders managing attendance lists, budgets and where the scouts reserve sites, etc. It would be very interesting to learn more.

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 wondering if there are troops that do what was written. A good example is about five years ago I was at a Univ of Scouting session and the trainer had run NAYLE for a few years. He started making BOR recommendations to the class that directly conflicted with BSA documents. I was confused. I asked and he said he preferred how BSA had done it 30 years ago. I was not in BSA thirty years ago. I had never read it or seen it in practice. So it was confusing to me. SO is the above quote. It's so different than my experience. I am confused.

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 of the program. Why would the troop treasurer produce financial statements for any outing? Didn't the boys budget it and manage the expenses? Why in the world is the committee dealin' with signup sheets or tracking attendees? That's the responsibility of the Patrol Leader. Why in the world would the committee be approvin' the dates and locations selected by the PLC? And good heavens, why are they making reservations and reviewing what should be done each day?" So this draws out a few specifics that I'm really interested in. Our troop tries to follow the Scoutmaster handbook, Troop committee guidebook, GTA, G2SS and other official BSA documents as our guide. Or as others say our "true north". If there's debate, we use both common sense and these documents to find the answer. But the above quote reflects a venturing concept more than Boy Scouting. When I look at youth leadership roles from the scoutmaster handbook or troop committee guidebook, it doesn't match. Of the three troops I've seen in detail and the five or six that I chat with, I've never seen the scouts doing detailed financial management, reserving facilities or even collecting sign up forms / health forms. So I'd like to ask... ... .... FOR BOY SCOUTS .... NOT VENTURING .... .... Standard operating procedure type of replies please ... "for every camp out" ... not special oh we did that on a camp out two years ago answers ... MONEY QUESTION - Do your scouts create a budget for each camp out? QUESTION - Do your scouts manage the camp out budget on an on-going basis? ... beyond knowing how much they can spend on food per person and managing it while shopping and filling out an expense report QUESTION - Do your scouts research and cost out buildings and other price points? QUESTION - Do your scouts produce financial summaries for camp outs? QUESTION - Does your adult troop treasurer NOT produce financial reports for events? And if not, should they be doing it? ... ATTENDANCE QUESTION - Do your patrol leaders manage event sign up sheets? QUESTION - Do your patrol leaders record attendance info? ... Not including the troop scribe taking attendance at troop meetings and patrol leaders organizing scouts forming patrol lines at different times and reporting their attendance while in those lines. QUESTION - Does your adult troop advancement chair NOT track attendance in troopmaster or similar? QUESTION - Does your an adult leader in your troop NOT track who's signed up for camp? QUESTION - Does your troop NOT have an adult generated sign-up list used by the scoutmaster to know who should be there when leaving for camp? ... CALENDAR, RESERVATIONS and ACTIVITIES QUESTION - Does your troop committee NOT approve dates and locations chosen by the PLC? QUESTION - Do your scouts make facility reservations? QUESTION - Does your troop committee (or at least the scoutmaster) NOT review and approve the major activities the scouts plan to do? QUESTION - Does your troop committee NOT provide feedback to the scoutmaster after SPL give the PLC report?(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 the scout. Okay, so ya didn't get the opportunity to get grow in knowledge about the scout. It's an opportunity lost. Water over the dam. Now what? Per what you wrote, the camp director said he took the MB from registered MB instructors and received their signature. --- Option - When he gets the badges, he has a good story to share and can motivate other scouts to earn MB and work as camp staff. --- Option - If he somehow doesn't get them, his hard work will be thrown away and it's a lesson in why even try. #3 For Jamboree, they sent a letter announcing which merit badges the scouts had earned. There wasn't really a question of accepting them or not. Plus, his Jamboree SM was his SM for that time. It wasn't really a pretend situation. Essentially, the scouts had their long term SM and their Jamboree SM. There was no difference for advancement. Though it is hard to be active in a jamboree troop for four or six months. Maybe serve in a POR for four or six months... .... dg98adams ... Agreed with what he wrote. The camp ranger / director can be viewed as the provisional leader of the scout. And the scout was essentially in a six week merit badge midway. I know at my son's camp, the camp director AND camp range would have chewed their ##### off if they were slacking off chasing merit badges. If the camp director supports the scout, I'm impressed with the scout. He's motivated and driven. I'd be much more impressed with his MBs than those from say a MB Saturday event. .... My recommendation ... #1 congratulate him and #2 ask him to call you the next time, out of courtesy. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 scouts. The workbook paragraph was written because previously scouters were interpreting that G2SS did not apply to eagle projects with the reasoning that they were not part of the unit programs. And thus, two deep and other issues were not necessarily followed. I'm pretty sure of my interpretation and the "AND" says how to interpret the statement of it being part of the unit program. If it's "part of the unit program" per your interpretation, then it will be interesting to see the updated scoutmaster handbook, committee guide book and other documentation that reflects how to integrate eagle projects into the monthly PLCs and adult committee meetings. That's where the unit program is coordinated. So I'm sure by your interpretation it would need to be addressed in those. But we won't see that as it's not really part of the unit program. It's only part of the program so as to know how to apply the risk management issues. ... If I'm over thinking it it's because I get mad for the scouts that deal with adult leaders that will use the "AND" as an authorization to hold their projects hostage just as projects were previously held hostage to over reaching DAC expectations. "I won't sign the tour plan or fundraiser proposal until I see and review the final plan". It's the whole reason BSA added pages 20 and 21 to the workbook with such great quotes as "Councils, districts, units, and individuals may not add requirements or ask you to do anything that runs contrary to or exceeds the policies, procedures, or requirements of the Boy Scouts of America. ... ... ... Though it is a Scouts option ... ... ... but coaches shall not have the authority to dictate changes, withdraw approval, or take any other such directive action."

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 Protection, two-deep leadership, etc. The health and safety of those working on Eagle projects must be integrated with project execution. As with any Scouting activity, the Guide to Safe Scouting applies. The Sweet 16 of BSA Safety must also be consulted as an appropriate planning tool. " It's called out to intepret how to apply policies and procedures. There is NOTHING written anywhere that I've seen that integrates eagle projects into the unit programs.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 only adults are allowed to use power tools. Or if you can, find a way to avoid using them." Beavah wrote: "Yeh run it just like yeh run a regular troop or patrol outing. That's where I hugely disagree. First though, I assume when you wrote "yeh run it" you are refering to the scout running it. As we both know the eagle scout candidate runs his own project. And it would be very wrong for adults, troops or patrols to run eagle projects. It's hugely different because it's not a troop or patrol outing or activity. Eagle projects are individual advancement. Some projects may have portions that reflect "outings", but not necessarily. Once you make it a troop or patrol outing, it opens a pandora box of other topics. Is the troop treasurer to produce financial statements for the Eagle project? Review and approve budgets? Is the committee to have signup sheets and track attendees? Is the committee to approve work dates and locations? Reserve the sites? Review what's to be done each day? Then there's the next natural step that DOES HAPPEN ALREADY. Committees that start asking "Who's our next eagle?" Committees throttle and control who does eagle projects when. "Oh, we've already got three Eagle projects under way and we're now planning summer camp. You need to wait until the fall to start your eagle project." ... The Eagle workbook has three approvals (signatures). Project proposal. Fundraising proposal. Final Report. In between, BSA tells the scout he has responsibility to run his project and latitude to make decisions. Troops doing anything else moves the "Final Plan" from a document useful to the scout to organize his planning to a required document that gets distributed all around and reviewed / approved by everyone at every step of the process. I absolutely cringe and thank heaven for our troop and our scoutmaster when I hear things such as I wont sign a fundraising proposal or tour plan until I review the project final plan. That is just adults gaming the system to keep control and to circumvent BSA concepts, processes and procedures. Ya gotta stop hovering. Let go. Let the scout take responsibility. ... For me it's a big issue because in our troop for years and years ... eagle projects are separate activities. Usually by the time an Eagle candidate is ready for his project, he and his fellow scouts have run things for years in the troop for years. Now the eagle candidate should be allowed to run it on his own. Especially as it's his individual advancement. Similar to merit badges. Troop committee doesn't discuss who's working on what merit badge when ... or manage events ... or track merit badge attendees. In the same way, the troop doesn't manage the execution of eagle projects. ... After a few years of drought, we've had five eagle scouts in the last two years. And I've been at every committee and planning meetings. We don't coordinate Eagle projects. We rarely if ever even chat about eagle project progress. And I've known the scoutmaster for years. He doesn't get involved after the initial signature ... unless asked. I asked him once about his not tracking eagle projects and I still remember his puzzeled response. "Why would I?"

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 "Remember to follow the G2SS rules for youth protection, etc. Your unit leaders can advise you through this also." .... IMHO, the DAC approver needs to have a script to go through when approving proposals. - G2SS ----- youth protection ----- power tools - tour plan - STRONGLY RECOMMEND the scout to complete the final plan - log all time. my time. your time. parents time. driving time. planning time. reporting time. etc. - keep receipts - keep donation log - avoid doing all the work yourself - demonstrate leadership - Maybe have a section for special cautionary warnings given the scout.

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 planning. But I really like how the GTA is written ... "virtually impossible to forecast every contingency, candidates must be allowed a level of flexibility ... the Scout should consult his project coach or unit leader for advice. ... cautionary advice is in order ... If the young man decides to strike out on his own, this is his prerogative. At some point, responsibility must take over. The board of review decides whether planning was sufficient and if the requirement was met." It's only dealing with problem cases and they do occur. This section gives the scout the ability to take responsibility. It advises scouters to warn youth. It gives the EBOR authority to challenge problem projects. I think this is generally good. It gives EBOR ground to stand on if they ever need to reject a project or to say no.

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 print out a BOR request form from the troop web site, fill it out, submit it at the next meeting to schedule the BOR and then wait for yet another meeting to get the BOR done. IMHO, SMC and BOR is to be a simple way to see how things are going with the scout, with his scouting experiences and with the troop. Adding beaurocracy onto of that defeats the purpose. Adding hoops to teach the scout a lesson is also defeatist. It's obvious at the end of a SMC that the scout needs a BOR. Why not follow the GTA and make it happen? IMHO, the perfect solution is the scoutmaster, at the end of a SMC, walks the scout over to the advancement chair and says "this fine young man needs a BOR." I'm even okay with (though technically adding requirements) the scoutmaster telling the scout to walk over to the advancement chair and ask for a BOR. Or even to have the scout write his name in the book to be the next in line for a BOR. ... BORs are like quality control on a manufacturing line. Manufacturing quality control processes need to not affect throughput, to not inject defects and to not mask real defects. That's why SMC / BORs need to be kept simple and easy. BOR processes to make BORs fair, orderly and to minimize impact on the troop and volunteers, ... fine. BOR processes making the scout jump additional hoops or to teach additional lessons, ... not fine.

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 meeting before the camp out. To get reimbursed, you have to fill out the reimbursement form. ... Beavah wrote: "And we have to be wary of the tendency of thinkin' that just because we wouldn't do things that way that it's necessarily a bad thing for other people in other situations to do." Your right in that some groups can make such examples work very well. BUT ... what do we represent as the scouting program: What do we teach as best practices? Example: There's a local troop that has 17+ forms for one camp out. And they teach the scouts when to apply each form and who uses each form. AND IT WORKS. They are an outstanding scouting unit. The leaders are outstanding mentors, great examples and good people. BUT ... IMHO ... from my experiences ... from what I've read ... that's not scouting. They make it work, but I don't think that's an example we should promote.

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 warrant approval. The candidate may be requested to do more work or even start over with another project." An eagle project proposal might have looked great during initial approval. If somehow through learning or thru the method of doing the work, the project got much easier or the benefit to the non-profit became less, the EBOR has the right to reject the project. I'm not saying that's good. But it can happen. And probably more so now that proposals are approved instead of final plans being approved. Another GTA relevant section is 9.0.2.7 Proposal must be approved ... before you start "Because it is virtually impossible to forecast every contingency, candidates must be allowed a level of flexibility in carrying out proposals and planning action steps. But essential elements of a proposal should not be changed without good reason. If this must occur, the Scout should consult his project coach or unit leader for advice. It is appropriate to strongly suggest he share substantive changes with the project beneficiary, and also with those involved in preapprovals. "If it appears changes will cause results to fall below what is required, then cautionary advice is in order. Except under extreme circumstances, it is not acceptable for unit, or council or district, approval to be withdrawn. If the young man decides to strike out on his own, this is his prerogative. At some point, responsibility must take over. The board of review decides whether planning was sufficient and if the requirement was met." .... So even though it should be very very rare, EBORs can reject projects for - Insufficient benefit to beneficiary - Insufficient demonstration of leadership - Insufficient planning .... Given my experiences with the past Eagle processes, I'm very thankful for the new GTA and the updated Eagle project workbook. With a few significant exceptions, I really like the new BSA publications. I'm just saying that an approved proposal with a successful project does NOT guarantee a successful EBOR. I probably does, but it's not a slam dunk.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 innoquious and exists to simplify or organize thigns. I'm okay with simple steps to keep large troops organized. ... BUT, it's very different than what I often find on troop web sites, eagle adv committees, etc. Person after person establishes the next improved process. Scouts are expected to read their Boy Scout handbook, BSA advancement materials and then also the local custom stuff. If it gets rough, then a checklist is added. Or a process diagram. Or another form. Or a .... I'm fine with that for business, engineering and ISO type of environments. You must do it there. But this is scouts. We are trying to promote human interaction, adult mentorship and good character traits. ... The second is believing that others will always respond appropriately to that sort of interpersonal approach. Generally speakin' it only works when there's the sort of person Eagledad talks about - the long-time, well-respected person in the unit who is alpha-dog "keeper of the vision". The trouble then is that the new troop specific procedures become the long-time, well-respected procedure in the unit who is the alpha-dog "keeper of the vision". I'd much much rather have it be a person and not a procedure. ... I don't think we are that far apart. I'm just generally against advising that special troop procedures are even necessary. Buf if really needed or if all else fails, fine. But minimize them. artjrk has a good practice. I'm 100% fine with it. It promotes fairness and organization. BUT I've seen many other troop processes that I just smile at and quickly walk away from. Especially when justied with some reason similar to producing a better scout. ... There's plenty of examples out there. Google finds them quickly. - "Print Board of Review Request Form" ... "When item 1 above is complete, a Scout shall access the Troop website and print a 'Board of Review Request Form,'" ... "Complete this form prior to requesting a SMC and BOR." ... IMHO, the only "form" the scout needs to bring to a SMC is his Boy Scout Handbook. ... Also think about the timing... Complete the requirement (usually at a scouting event). Go home to print form and fill it out. (week delay). Bring it back to schedule review. (2nd week delay). SMC. Schedule a BOR. (3rd week delay). - "The Advancement Coordinator will fill out and sign a Request for Scoutmasters Conference and Board of Review form for you." - Pretty common practice. A little formal. - "When all requirements for a rank are completed (other than Scout Sprit, Scoutmaster Conference, and Board of Review) you must bring your Scout Handbook to the Advancement Chairman, who will review your handbook and give you an Advancement report authorizing a Scoutmaster Conference" ... huh? Need permission to talk to the scoutmaster? Really? Also, isn't the BOR to review the handbook to see things are completed? That's why BORs are there. - "Your Patrol Advisor will conduct your Scoutmasters Conference. Contact him 2-3 days in advance for an appointment. ... The Patrol Advisor is to complete the Personal Growth Agreement Worksheet" - The what ???? - STAR & LIFE - "Obtain a Pre-Service Project Checklist and a Service Project Report Format from the Scoutmaster. Complete checklist and have it approved by the Scoutmaster before you start work on your project." - For star and life ???? - "Complete a Scout Law paper...." - - "Scouts are required to use a "Leadership Card" to document that they have completed the necessary requirements of their position. These "Cards" are available from the Troop ## Leadership Coordinator and/or the Troop 10 web site: Leadership Position Web Page. .. TO RECEIVE CREDIT THESE "CARDS" MUST BE RETURNED TO THE LEADERSHIP COORDINATOR WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER A (6 month) LEADERSHIP PERIOD ENDS. NO PARTIAL CREDIT WILL BE GIVEN AFTER THE 60 DAY PERIOD." - "It is the policy of Troop ## to not accept or make changes to our attendance records after 60 days have passed from the date of the activity." - "When complete with all other requirements, (including leadership credit), the Scout should see the Advancement Chairperson to get a participation report that indicates his current involvement in the Troop (Scout Spirit Card)." - Many refer to filling out a form or other document and that SMCs/BORs will NOT happen at the same meeting when requested. It automatically builds one, two or three weeks delay or longer as scouts get the paperwork, fill it out, submit the request, wait to hear when it's scheduled for and then wait for the actual review. - "Troop ## does not allow a Scoutmasters Conference and the Board of Review to be held at the same Troop Meeting." ... I always find it interesting that most scout camps have the rules as the scout oath and law. A few big rules such as don't feed the bears, no flames in tents and don't walk on the frozen river. Otherwise, the whole camp runs under the oath and law. But for advancement, we need to document and control every nook and cranny.

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 others will see the process / procedure as a safety blanket. Not to mention eliminating a process / procedure often takes updating documents and group consensus. At the slightest hickup, adult leaders will recall the process / procedure and add a bit more to it. A good example is a local troop that boasts proudly of their detailed BOR process diagrams and procedures. Yeah they really thought it out and yeah the scouts that survive really grow. But, it just lacks friendly, kind and thoughtful aspect that I associate with scouting. Instead of adding a formal process / procedure, I'd tend instead to discuss with the committee the need to focus on organization and getting things done. Though still trying to support BORs as requested, I'd remind them that it doesn't mean you need to jump and drop everything. Or be just waiting to do a BOR at any moment. There's creative ways to deal with group dynamics that avoid creating processes and procedures.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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. If the project didn't demonstrate the candidate's leadership skills, the whole project can be rejected by the EBOR. A smart scout (and his family) should get the hint that wasting time on an inadequate project is too big a risk.