fred8033

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.

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 an advancement form that includes a statement of life goals and a history of PORs they've held. No form = no BOR. OR ... #2 Scouts need to go to the adult in charge of TroopMaster to get a print out of their advancement records. Review it and get it signed off. Then go to the person in charge of scheduling BORs. OR ... #3 Go to the SMC scheduling person and jump through the following 20 step SMC/BOR process. BORs are to supposed to be simple and easy with the goal to make sure everythings done (administrative really), to encourage advancement and to evaluate troop performance. ... Of everything written in this thread so far, my favorite is the example where the scout asks the SM for an SMC. When the SMC is done, the SM walks the scout over to the advancement committee person and says "this fine young man needs a BOR" and then it gets done or gets scheduled to be done. Nice and simple.

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. 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.