fred8033

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. There's the "Board of Review Date" box. AND, each line has a scout name and a date earned field. So which date is the BOR date. If the box, the report is really only good for one BOR date, but multiple scouts for MBs on different days and such. If the individual line for the BOR date, then why the big box. Doesn't make sense. I think that's why no one ever took those signatures too seriously. Online is much cleaner.

We've been submitting online advancements for a few years now. Works great! Records are accurate and not lost. Only need a printed report for shopping at the scout store. And I believe we can even feed the online report directly to the store to have the piece parts pulled and ready to purchase. Moving paperwork is a major cost, a major delay, a major headache and a major failure/error point. I think the only place where you need a physical signature is inside the unit. And then, just sign the scout handbook. I hope as much paperwork as possible moves online. I'd love to reduce my drives to the scout office. Expensive in gas and time. Expensive because I visit the scout shop at the same time. ============== Also, the advancement report never needed the BOR member signatures. Just the signatures of two committee members. As far as I'm concerned, that can just go away. Those signatures are never really used anyway. =============== If done right, I could see the registrar role going away. Submit online. Have the DE review and approve. Then be done with it.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Taserdoc quoted: "Emotional abuse occurs when a young person is continually berated and denigrated, severely jeopardizing his self esteem" SM handbook PG. 136." I'm one who does consider it emotional abuse. I've seen it. I hate it. The trouble is that unless its really really bad there's not much one can do about it. Also, I can imagine some parents not minding their sons getting a verbal whipping. They'd call our attitude coddling the scouts. BSA just can't do much. They don't see these leaders day after day. And, they've probably never heard the yelling or derogatory comments. Legally? It needs to get extremely bad before the law steps in. So it's really up to the charter organization to choose, screen and monitor the leaders. Charter Exec --> COR --> CC --> .... ... For berating, denigrating and self-esteem abuse, the only effective enforcer is the scout's parent and the other parents in the unit. If they see a leader that can't keep his cool, they need to step in and/or get their sons out of there. In scouting, I've seen scouters loose their cool and start yelling and berating scouts. It's not fun. I sort of view it as much job to step in at those times. And it happened to my son on his Jamboree trip. And I'm still livid about it. ... But what your described had multiple scoutmasters (different units). It's hard (not impossible, jamboree) to imagine it. And it's hard to imagine what the council can do about it. They'd probably need a repeated pattern established across troops with lots of visibility.

Beavah ... great article. Love The Atlantic. It's one of a few magazines I read. Right up there with Foreign Affairs and The Economist. Detailed, educational, and fairly balanced articles.

Ya know, I flip back on forth on what's "routine maintenance." Our local DAC says an aggressive interpretation of "routine maintenace" would eliminate most Eagle projects. Giving leadership - To decide what is or is not "routine maintenance", I'd try to decide from how the project can be used to demonstrate leadership. If it's routine maintenance, it's probably effectively scheduled, such as it gets painted every two to five years. It's probably a well known process with well known steps. It's been done enough times that volunteers can almost do it "automatically". There's probably a storage closet at the site with supplies from the last time it was done. But how can the scout show leadership? And thus decide if it's "routine maintenance"? - Making a difference Will the Eagle candidate drive the project? If he wasn't there, would the project happen anyway? Would the project result look the same? Would the project happen in the same way? - Influence Does the Eagle candidate's leadership role have any choices or options? Or is the project obvious and it just needs bodies to get it done. - Challenge Does the Eagle candidate need to learn OR teach anything to get the project done? Do people have to grow to get it done? - Coordination Does the Eagle candidate need to schedule the work? Coordinate the facility? Coordinate volunteers? Orchestrate the resources to get the job done? Or, is it pretty much laid out for him in advance. - Ownership Will the Eagle candidate have something he can look back on and take pride for making it happen? And it wouldn't have happened without him. - Perception Will non-scouters look at the result and think that the Eagle candidate made a difference in his community? Or was he another cog in the wheel that makes things happen for the community? So, I think painting may or may not be okay. - Probably okay - Painting that has not been done recently or routinely and that needs someone to make it happen. - Probably not okay - Painting a wooden boat to fight off salt water decay ... that happens every two or three years ... using the same paints as last year ... with supplies stored in a closet ... coordinating and handling the boat ... THE SAME AS THE LAST TIME IT HAPPENED. .... and IF IN DOUBT, FAVOR THE SCOUT.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ya know... I'd put this on a higher priority level. Call him on it. Ask him to explain himself. Ask him not to text you. Depending on the level/type of threats, (passive/aggressive versus physical versus slanderous versus intimidation versus ...), I'd take action. I think it's similar to teaching our scouts to confront a bully. I'd also #1 document it and #2 coordinate with the parents. If the parents are not helpful, you won't get far. If he's not willing to change, suggest to the scout to take a break from scouting until his behavior is compatible with the boundaries of scouting (if that's the case). Similar to having a scout that swears all the time. At some point you just have to identify the behavior, indicate it's wrong, ask him to stop. If he won't, suggest that he finds somewhere else compatible with his values. But that he'll be welcome back when and if he can function within the boundaries of scouting.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Taserdoc - Vague hypothetical questions get vague answers. Units leaders see a lot over the years. All scouts push limits. All. Some scouts get attitude and might push limits in a bad way such as blaming others for their failures or accusing scout leaders. It does happen. That's one reason for two deep leadership. So that one leader can stand up and defend another leader. So don't get offended when we ask about someone stirring the put. To be honest, some of the worst stir'ers are parents of scouts who think their scout was slighted. Best way to get a good answer is to give more specifics.

Hypothetically... - Were laws broken? - Was it hazing or emotional abuse or some other type of abuse? - Was it a safety violation? - Did the SMs set-up the situation or responding to a situation created by others? To be honest, specifics are needed.

The hypothetical question asks for a conclusion based only on outside actions without any specifics to analyze. - This could be a case of someone stirring the pot. - This could be a case of society changing but old time scouters not changing. - This could be a really significant or just noise or people with hurt feelings. In any event, this forum can't help without more details. Ask your own conscious. Do you believe it merits further action? If so, as a citizen, as a scouter and as probably a parent, you should pursue it with the appropriate authorities. The problem at Penn State was everyone passed the buck and no one wanted to be the person who escalated the situation. Penn State should have been a clear cut. Use your conscious about this one. But if you don't want to pursue it, just leave it be and don't complain that others didn't take action.

Just to give a voice of dissent. We form new scout patrols from the incoming scouts. Once they gain a few months of experience, we let them choose. Radical yes, but it works. If the scouts want to stay together, fine. If they don't, fine. We just want scouts to believe in their patrol and not disappear to find their friends all the time. My oldest son came into the troop with most of his cub scout den and received a few more scouts to become a patrol. They stayed together for seven years. Thru scouting, they became best of friends. Those guys served as SPL, TG, QM and just about every other position in the troop. And after their term of service, they always had their own patrol waiting for them. Personal opinion ... I don't care for dictating patrol membership or breaking up friendships to make sure each patrol has mixed ages or mixed experiences or .... Let the scouts choose. Plus, if there is a leadership void or skill void or ...., that's a great chance for one of the scouts to step up and grow. If they need help, there's always the TG or ASPL or SPL.

Engineer61 wrote: "I don't think it's "designed into the process" at all ... you can't have a BoR at the drop of a hat...if you don't have the people there to do it." Cool. I'm okay with it occurring naturally. "Sorry Timmy, we don't have three committee members free right now to do the BOR. How does next week work for you?" I'm even okay if troops hold BORs at a designated time/date (at least once a month and with a bit of sympathy/flexibility for the scout). Engineer61 wrote: "But I'll challenge the notion ... name those "multitude of poor lessons"." The following are the type of poor lessons that I think come from establishing rules such as "we don't do BORs the same night requested." - "People exist to serve processes" instead of "processes existing to serve people." - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes to box in options and teach a lesson instead of supporting those they are responsible for. - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes that damage their followers if it's only a really small amount. (Small effects add up and can cost scouts future ranks / opportunities.) - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes to address a problem that may or may not exist. - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes based on the worst view of those they lead. - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes based on a "tough love" concept. (i.e. we gotta wipe this boys into shape.) I'm 100% okay with saying we do our BOR's once a month because it helps keep the meetings more structured or eliminates distractions during meetings or because we don't have enough committee members normally. I just don't like it when I hear things such as we don't do BOR's the same night because we want to teach scouts a lesson. I think it's cold heart'ed and I don't want to be associated with it. Our troop does BORs on request if the situation and the people allow.

Engineer61 wrote: "I, in fact think it imperative this not be the case... it's a bad lesson to teach that the world revolves around an individual. Most of our politicians have that view." Yeah, that's where we differ. IMHO, object lessons, such as people not being available to do a BOR, should be a natural situation and not structured into the process. Designing it into the process penalizes all scouts and teaches a multitude of poor lessons both for the scouts and the adult leaders.

GTA says ... "Section 8.0.0.2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met A Scout cannot be denied this opportunity. When he believes he has completed all the requirements, including a Scoutmaster conference, it is up to the unit leader and committee to assure a board of review is held. 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." In our troop, a scout asks the scoutmaster for a conference. Right before the SMC or right after the SMC, the scoutmaster will let the committee members present know that a scout needs a BOR. We then do our best to get it done the same night. Almost always, scout willing and scout's parents willing, we can get it done the same night. The BOR process (requesting and scheduling) is not a scout responsibility and definitely should NOT be used to teach the scout a lesson in responsibility and accountability. I should note that, in our troop, the scout handbook is the ultimate authority. Now and then we might borrow the scout handbooks from the scouts to double check TroopMaster. But even then, it's more of a double check as the list of MB completed is driven by advancement and council records. The camp attendance is from event records. We don't track individual rank requirements in TroopMaster such as "Served as cook ..." Ultimately, many troops find reasons to add steps to the process. Does BSA allow it? No. Should they? I don't know. I'm just following what BSA publishes. Is it really that big of a deal? I'll also leave that to your troop leaders and your scout parents to decide. For me, yes it is a big deal. I've seen a situations and attitudes that just make me cringe. As such, I'd rather let BSA documents set the rules. Buffalo Skipper: So cool. I was really happy when I read ... "Last summer, our Chaplain (committee member) was also at summer camp, so we had 4 Tenderfoot BoRs at summer camp. Immediate recognition was given to the scouts at flags the following morning. Two sewed on their patches before dinner that evening. Good summer camp." That's how it's suppose to work.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

The problem is not price or fit for me. I've had three pair rip. Yeah, I exchanged them, but it gets old. Very old. The old official pants NEVER torn or worn out. They went for years and years. The material in the new pants is just not that durable. I've given up on the official pants.

TroopTrack.com and ScoutTrack.com are not related at all. ScoutTrack.com is an old fashioned interface once you start using it. Think IBM mainframe. TroopTrack.com is a new company. The confusion is because the two companies bought their graphics from the same person. ScoutTrack.com only uses the graphics for their marketing pages. I feel very bad for TroopTrack.com as they are the new product and have been burned by it. ----------------------- SOAR is very good. If anyone wants a google app script to print out their SOAR calendar in a nice usable layout, message me. I've tried to get SOAR guy to implement such a page but he's blown off my requests for four years now. Not the nicest experience at all with that. But SOAR is still by far the best product. ----------------------- Advancement .... SOAR does not do advancement. We combine TroopMaster.Net and SOAR for advancement. SOAR & TroopMaster is a very good solution. If you want an integrated solution use, try TroopTrack.com. TroopTrack.com is a newer product. I'd be interested to watch how it develops. I had a chat with the owner and he sounds very supportive.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle69 wrote: 'The only part that will cause us a bit of headache is the fact that it is now an "official" troop function.' There's no change in how troops work with eagle projects. It's the candidates project. It's only part of the troop program from the view of policies, procedures, G2SS, etc.

SOAR is the best match I've found so far. They lack a few key features such as a printable calendar, but I've written google app scripts to get around that shortcoming. - Generic Google or Yahoo solutions lack the benefit of scouting specific features. Such as multiple automatic mailing lists generated off the roster for patrol/den specific emailings, leader specific, everyone, etc. - ScoutTrack.com is great for managing advancement. But it means not using TroopMaster anymore. Good and bad. We've used it for years to manage the cub scout pack. - The one I'm watching with interest is TroopTrack.com. Love the interface. But, I need to figure out if the feature set and usability are better than SOAR.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

hicountry: Your advice is very practical and it gets the job done. And in every day life I might even do that. But it's a classic ethics lesson. I'd have a real hard time coaching the scout to keep two sets of books. That's really what's being suggested. An official statement that you actually sign your name on saying the info is true and accurate. The scout's putting his word and character on line saying the numbers are right. And a second set of books that tracks the actual donations. Not cool. It may work and it's just a little omission, but it leaves out the scout oath and law. At that point, it's better to just not do the project. Seriously. (Plus if this was a real business or non-profit with real size money, doing something like that is fraud. Yeah people might do it all the time, but it's still mis-reporting donations/income and creating a false financial statement. ) The better solution is to teach the scout what's right and to tell him to do what's right and to tell him that you'll be there to take the heat if someone has a problem with it. Then be there for him and work to get things fixed. That's our job as adult leaders. Shield the scout from the stupidity of other well meaning, but misinformed adult leaders. The scouts job is to work the obstacles and headaches of his project. Our job is to work the obstacles and headaches of other adults.

Mad Max wrote: "No wonder BSA wants these things to become Unit events." Only in terms of following BSA policies, procedures and Guide To Safe Scouting. Not in terms of coordination and planning.

twocubdad: Agree with your comments. Perhaps one area that's not 100% clear that I'm still trying to understand is ... "While it is now explicit that Eagle Projects are fully considered troop programs". I think that overstates the new situation. The eagle workbook has it on page 22 under "Risk Management". It says ... "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." I think this is a reaction to the past where some argued that G2SS, youth protection, two deep and other BSA safety requirements did not apply to eagle projects. The argument was that eagle projects were not part of the unit program. I think this is a good change. But, ... IMHO ... eagle projects are not "fully" part of the troop program as troop committees won't be monitoring eagle projects. Also, we don't need to show them on the troop calendar or have the troop make announcements about them. Yes, it's fully part of the program for policies, procedures and safety rules. No, it's not fully part of the troop program as for planning and coordination. It's up to the eagle candidate to coordinate and run his project. I think it's more of a statement that unit leaders are expected to coach the youth about safety issues and be prepared to yell STOP if needed to protect the youth. ... What I need to learn is how to coach and yell STOP if it's not being coordinated in detail with the troop. IMHO, it's up to the unit leaders to be interested in the project and ask questions. I guess I'm okay with that. Just need to see how things really work out.

Beavah: Very well said. "So the way I'm tellin' people to think about it is that they should go through the same planning process they do with regular troop outings. I think that's accurate and it's a good way of explaining it. The old system was far far beyond what we'd do for any troop event, summer camp, high adventure, fundraising or court of honor. The new eagle workbook "proposal" is the same level of detail we do for our standard outings, even the week long summer camp. I also like statement from the view of eliminating a double standard that events administered by adults have very little documentation and those by scouts need a research paper written.

eisely: Great job! Sounds just like what our district does. Our guy doesn't do just Mondays, but he does protect his calendar, his life and his marriage. I should mention I've heard a few of those conversations when they are face to face. His first question is also ... when do you turn 18?(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Mad Max: Just to be clear, are you saying your scouts will be required to do the final plan? You wrote "cover to cover" and "for lack of a final plan" and "I got no pushback at all". But you also wrote "is to do it just like the (BSA) book presents it". So, I'm confused. I'm just not sure what you would get pushback for if your doing it just like the book presents it. I know TwoCubDad said his unit won't sign Eagle Proposals or Fundraising Plans without a detailed budget. Essentially establishing unit expectations that are beyond the BSA book. Are you saying your unit won't accept proposals or projects without a final plan? When would the road block be put up? Proposal sign-off? Fundraiser sign-off? Project report sign-off? Mind you, I'm not arguing against the need for a final plan. Any significant work needs planning. And I'm betting I won't see an eagle workbook without most or all of the final plan filled out. I'm just interested in how many units or districts are planning to implement their own expectations. ... RememberSchiff: Nice analysis. I yearn for what you describe (i.e. eagle scout reflecting scout spirit and not an uber-leader). But that gets back to scouting emphasizing citizenship instead of leadership. Yet another different discussion. It's one reason I like the new workbook and process. Gets back to the scout doing a good deed and less of being a master bureaucrat.

Eagle92 wrote: "... but I beleive it is council wide. " In our council, every district can be very different. I've been amazed just how different. Our district runs the EBORs at roundtable but a neighboring district has troops schedule the EBORs and only supply a district advancement rep to sit on the EBOR. Others districts schedule them ad-hoc. Even year to year it changes greatly as people change. Before it took a committee approval to approve an project proposal and took months. Now, it's one really knowledgable scouter and he can usually meet with you the same week. I don't think there's a district standard "process" ... even within one council.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle92 wrote: "They meet once a month to do EBORs and approve projects." IMHO ... once a month approval is not showing much support for the scout. Though there may not be a rule against it, IMHO that's just not cool. EBORs once a month ... fine. It should NOT affect eagle rank. BUT approving projects once a month adds headaches and delays for the scout. What if they want changes or won't sign, then it's two months to get a signature. Project approval should not take more than a week ... excluding scout effort and scout time to make corrections. For my son's project, the project was reviewed two days after he called the DAC and approved at that meeting. (I was expecting it to be bounced to make improvements, but it got signed.)