fred8033

Just like adults, I think kids need free time to relax and build friendships. I've seen kids drop from scouting because summer camp was just not much fun. I've seen two different troops do summer camp. One troop "published" their own troop schedule based on the camp schedule filling free time with troop elections, annual planning, service projects and other items. Time was filled most of the week from 7am to 9pm. They did a lot at summer camp, but I'm not sure how great of a time they had. The other troop used the camp schedule and that was it. They did sign up for troop activ

"Call me sanctimonious but I would encourage you to take the time you spend judging fellow Scouters and put that time into serving your unit." Fair enough. Knots are definitely not a negative thing. Good and bad scouters come in all flavors ... with and without knots. It was a cheap shot. My apologies. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

Devices ... If they are those pin with a backing ..., I'll be going from watching out for russian generals to watching out for scouters wearing devices. Either they don't wash their clothes or they have too much time on their hands.

Sorry about that. The simple answer is that I've never seen an obviously qualified person waived from required BSA training. Perhaps the Red Cross would just give a doctor credit for Wilderness First Aid. Not sure. I've just seen no provision in BSA or our counsel for doing that. And, I've asked. I have seen credit given for a new required course when a person took the earlier course. A local SM became SM in 1990 and took training in the 1980s / 1990s. One of his courses was replaced with IOLS. So the counsel gave him credit for IOLS training as he took the other course already.

Alot of BSA training is essentially checking off the boxes. Heck, I just did COR training this weekend after being the COR for five years so that I can get a "Y" on the unit training report. Specifically, I didn't learn a darn thing, but then again I could probably have taught the course. Generally though, it made me think a bit about the COR role and our CO in general. The usefulness in the training is rarely the skills or specifics that are taught. Those can easily be picked up. It's the scouting attitude and how to work with the kids that's important. It's the associations and co

"The school where most of our boys attend lets us meet there and we do some service projects for them. So at least we do have some support. " Sounds like a good situation. Most CO's would expect a benefit of people coming to their place and/or meeting there. If you don't meet at the CO, then there is no real relationship to start. If you want to continue meeting at the school, I'd talk to the PTO or create a "friends of" group. Heck, I'd bet you could get a good relationship going between the PTO and the scouts. That would be pretty healthy.

Replacing trails end? They should. The whole program screams of needing a total revamp. The price/product value ratio is totally unacceptable. The $50 purchase is more like a $42 contribution with a $8 comparative value. Some of the items are worse. It's hard to pitch with a straight face other than to say it's really a donation with a thank you gift.

I've seen several charter orgs over the years. None are actively involved in their units. The best is good at offering space, storage and a smile. We do service projects for them once or twice a year. Another only lets us in the building if they have a janitor there to secure the building (not entirely unreasonable). Another bounced our meeting room time for an inside church mens group with higher priority. That unit got chartered through their school PTO, essentially no different than a "friends of" charter. Suggestion - Try your local VFW, AFL, Knights of Columbus, Kiwanis, Optim

With scouter awards, if there is any flexibility, it should be with the "position" of registration. #1 The CC or membership chair is in control of registration process. Most den leaders and MC's never see a ScoutNET roster or even know who the registrar is. #2 Position assignments are often only fixed at "recharter" ... if even then. It's common for the Webelos Den leader to still be listed as a Tiger Den Leader four years later. #3 Our recharter is Feb/March. So it's typical that the Webelos den leader has been a Webelos den leader since June, but only gets updated to

If an old friend that I've not seen for a year comes up and reminds me that I owe him five dollars, I'm going to greet him with a smile and give him his five dollars. If a scout returns after being gone for awhile and reminds me that he's completed his requirements, I'm going to greet him with a smile and give him his SMC/BOR. I'll probably also encourage participation and show concern for why he's been gone. Holding the scout back to fix participation is redundant as the next rank requires another six months of active / POR to advance. But this is BSA scouting and every troo

I had the same questions a few years ago and for the same reason. Explicitly, several of our very best den leaders did not qualify. So, I called our council (3rd largest in country) and talked with the director of training and advancement. Her comment was if they are close and they did the work, sign'em off. We discussed the specifics... - One den leader had two round tables and another leader had three but they were trained and doing a great job. She said to sign'em off. - Another den leader was registered as the assistant but pretty much had been a co-leader / leader for

5yearscouter ... Your 10/26/2011 1:09:06pm response ... Example scoutmaster conference ... Perfect. That's how it should be. 5yearscouter ... Your 10/26/2011 1:15:52pm response ... Bylaws for active ... I don't have a problem with setting unit expectations. The challenge is enforcing. Ranks T21 already have some measures for involvement and no where to cleanly apply additional unit expectations ... or that I understand. Star, Life and Eagle have four and six month active expectations. GTA now allows unit expectations for those four and six month qualifying time windows (can gl

JMHawkins - Nicely worded.

"And that's honorable??" Abolutely 100% honorable. And don't imply anything different. The kid did what was asked. If your disappointed by the expectations, contact BSA, NHS, FFA, churches, rotarians and get them to change their requirements. Just don't lay a guilt trip on the kid for doing what was asked.

Beavah... Your disdain for "precision scouters" is a reflection of scout leaders that will do what they want and find a way to run their own fiefdom under the BSA name. Shame. Shame. Shame. You assert solutions #1 to not sign off on scout spirit or #2 preemptively drop the scout from the roster and handle it as a re-admittance issue. Scout spirit not signed because of attendance is wrong and mean. Completed the "active" requirement but not scout spirit because of attendance. Huh?? BSA says in the GTA "We can say however, that we do not measure Scout spirit by countin

Eagle92 ... I fully agree with you. If you met the requirements, you "EARNED" your advancement. My example was never a scout fully gone. Just a scout mostly gone and not meeting unit expectations. But to be honest, that's just noice. IMHO, if a scout met the requirements, he advances. twocubdad wrote "But 8 months is a different deal. " ... To me, absence/low participation is not a question of recognizing past achievements. If a scout's done the work / met the requirements, give them their due. Now if a scout shows up and expects us to jump to help help him with merit badge

"Choices are part of life. ... Doesn't do a lick of good to let 'em by with less by double-counting. It's da wrong lesson. " Huh. You made a choice to be a registered leader in the BSA. As such, you made a choice to support BSA advancement. What your promoting is not the BSA program.

eisely ... I agree. How about for star? It's another rank. Not as well know as Eagle, but on the same advancement ladder with requirements documented in the same way. If the scout completed all requirements including "active" and then less than ideally active for six or eight months, would you deny him advancement? To be up front, I hope not. He earned advancement and deserves recognition. Plus, the heart felt conversation should be about moving forward and not about re-earning what he's already completed. Beavah ... Thank you for your point. It's not at all addressing the quest

Okay. I take that as a yes. You would deny rank advancement to a registered scout who's completed requirements because he's been gone for a period of time. Interesting. eisely - I've heard horror stories like you've described. Sort of related, but not entirely. Change your example slightly. What if the SM and district had reviewed and signed off on the project earlier; the project was cleanly executed and all pieces of it were closed out. You even had the post-project write up in your hand. ....... Then the scout disappeared for nine months. When he returned would you signed off

"I reckon a SM might well sit down with 5yearJr. and talk about no matter how many hours yeh put in in service durin' the week, an honorable fellow still does his duty to God and puts in his hour in church on Sunday. No matter how much work he did for client X, an honorable fellow wouldn't charge that to client Y. " "The double-dipping lesson isn't about service. ... It's about personal honor and integrity." Ya know, that's just plain old wrong. I'd use other words, but it would not be polite. The last thing I'd do is lay a guilt trip on a scout about being less than honorable

I'm just trying to understand how to interpret the new GTA. I've seen multiple cases that are pretty close to the example. I agree there's many tangents and many directly related topics. And most of those topics come first when dealing with a real live scout. I just want to understand how to correctly interpret the GTA. About once a year it comes up for debate. I just want to make sure I'm relaying good information.

Beavah - Please don't throw out the example. It may not be perfect, but I'm trying to understand the boundary of "unit expectations". And I did say mostly, not completely absent. Happens all the time in scouting that one or two of forty scouts in a troop has attendance problems for a period of time. TEST CASE EXAMPLE ... Suppose a scout advances in January to First class. Active for four months as quartermaster and then mostly gone for six months. No reason discussed. In December, the scout asks for a SMC and a BOR. In May, the scout fulfilled the "active" requirements for Star per b

Twocubdad ... I wrote "IMHO, the "active" requirement is noise." because of the sentences that I wrote that followed it. The active time frame exactly overlaps the POR requirement time frame. I can see zero cases where I'd consider the POR requirement fulfilled when the active requirement is not fulfilled. ... Twocubdad ... Warm and fuzzy troop? I just don't see that. I'll put the shooting skills, camping skills, hiking skills, canoeing skills, adventurous nature and good character of our scouts against any. Our scouts are often the ones that organize impromptu football or cap

Beavah wrote: "Remember, da "active" requirements are almost all associated with matching POR requirements, eh?" I think Beavah's point is key. IMHO, the "active" requirement is noise. The real debate should be: "did the scout do his POR?" It's like a logic truth table. I just don't see it possible to have a combination of FALSE for "active" and TRUE for "POR". I wish BSA would either drop the active requirement or rewrite it as "... is a BSA registered scout". ... As for the comparing scouts to sports or school clubs, I view that as a purely academic debate (no pun inten

For our troop... IMHO ..., program produces participation. Requiring and debating participation is a distraction and a bad frame of mind. "active" - We're not going to add unit expectations. That's putting a gate in to block scouts advancing. Our unit's leaders role is to help scouts succeed. We'd rather focus our energy on supporting the scouts completing the requirements as published by the BSA. "POR" - POR participation is about keeping the troop running. We will work with the PLC to clean up POR expectations and get mechanisms in place to hold scouts accountable. Probab