fred8033

Google sites (https://sites.google.com) is a good solution. When you eventually have a budget, I strongly recommend http://www.soarol.com.(This message has been edited by 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 activities during free time, but it was totally optional for the scouts and the scouts had several hours of free time each day.

I much preferred only using the camp schedule with the free time. Some of my best memories are walking through camp and seeing the scouts play catch, chatting, heading to the beach, playing cards late at night or just hanging out.

"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. That's the only type of exception I've seen.

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 connections. You mentioned you were an Eagle scout and an NCO. So you've got the skills. You also have the knowledge of the program from a youth and a military standpoint. But, an adult leader role is different than being a youth and very very different than the military. People often say it's hard for a Cub Scout den leader to transition to a Boy Scout leader. I think it's just as difficult for a military leader to transition to Boy Scouts. (i.e. letting go of control, being a friendly coach, rarely stepping in, letting mistakes happen, ...).

As for IOLS, I did get some out of it. Medical issues. Epi-pens. Compass game. But that's about it. The rest of my learning was more general philosophy approach.

So yeah, alot of BSA training is essentially checking off boxes. But you can still get alot out of it.

"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, Optimists and such. All those groups specialize with citizenship and very actively support scouts. If no one else, I'm sure a KofC would charter you and have some cool special service opportunities (special olympics, ...).

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 a WDL around mid-March. Nine months late for a knot that requires one year tenure.

#4 The Cub Scouting years are the BSA "learning" years for most leaders and they are taught "Do your best". Odds are they've never even read the scouter knot requirements as they are trying to just keep up with learning the cub program.

My own registration is a good example. Ten years ago I knew nothing of BSA paperwork and never heard of the accursed ScoutNET. I became the Webelos den leader at the same time the committee chair left. I didn't want to do both, but said I'd be glad to be CC when the webelos den graduated (18 months away). So the pack membership person changed my position to CC because she needed one for re-charter. She had enough den leaders on the membership list.

Now, I cleanly fulfilled all WDL knot requirements including consistently being at roundtable, attending UofS, fully trained, advancement, transitioning, planning, .... Should I get the knot? I think so, but I am not sure if it would go through as I've yet to apply for it.

As long as the person is registered with BSA, there should be flexibility in which title they are registered to earn the knot.

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 troop and leader can pretty much do as they see best and handle the situation differently.

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 most of the tenure of the den. He was not just lurking in the background as a shadow of the DL. She said to sign'em off.

I'm glad that was the answer. These people stepped up when no one else would. The last thing I want to do is get overly legalistic with volunteers.

So my suggestions...

#1 Talk with your council advancement director

#2 Always register ADLs as DLs.

And yes I do view adult recognition as very different than youth advancement. One is about youth setting their destiny by fulfilling specific requirements. The other is saying thank you to someone who could easily have done nothing instead. Adult recognition is not a competition. It's about being polite.

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 glue together to make four or six months as necessary). But after that time window is done, there's no "advancement" enforcement again. Unit expectations can exist, but how to enforce?

I'm scared suggesting this (because I don't want it in my troop) but how about applying unit expectations to events (camps, activities, ...). Something like ... "Successful events (trips, camps, activities) depend on scouts being prepared. The troop expects scouts to sign up at meetings, attend 50% of the meetings and attend the meeting immediately prior to the events. Scouts will not be allowed to attend events if they failure to attend the troop meeting immediately before the event and fail to communicate in advance that they won't be at the meeting."

....

Beavah ... you must be reading a different set of BSA books than I can find at the scout shop.

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 counting meetings and outings attended. It is indicated, instead, by the way he lives his life." Spirit is about how the scout treats others. Not signing off is telling the scout he does not treat others well and is against BSA documented instructions.

To preemptively drop a scout is killing the patient to cure the disease. And it's just plain mean and promotes dishonesty by the adult leaders. If I heard of any troop doing this, I'd tell the scouts and parents to run and run fast.

I'd be glad to accept a transfer application from any scout in such a situation. We've done it in the past and will again in the future. In fact, I'd give them the application and help them fill it out. Our troop doesn't play those childish games. We feel duty to deliver the BSA program and with compassion and support for the scouts in our troop.

...

Your final comment is a rejection of precision scouters and an emphasis on helping scouts and on the whole program. Interesting, but I just don't buy it. Denying a scout their due to correct other issues is wrong and gives scouting a bad name. The best way to help scouts is to deliver the program BSA documents, no more, no less.

And guess what, that means understanding the BSA program in detail.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 badges or other requirements, then the scout probably needs his reality corrected. We'd still support him, but we probably doubt his committment.

...

The original question came up because I was wondering about "unit expectations" for the "active" rank requirements. From what I understand, the unit expectations only affect advancement during the time windows used to fulfill the four or six month "active" requirements. After that window, the requirements are completed. Then, unit expectations can be expected, but not used to block advancement.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

"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 question raised and pretty obvious, but thanks anyway. At least twocubdad addressed the question.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 on his rank advancement?(This message has been edited by fred8033)

"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 after he's done something nice for someone else. I expect all leaders in my troop to respond with nothing less than "wow, that's great" when a scout starts talking about service he did for others.

It's not our issue whether a school, NHS or church cares about double dipping. That's their issue, not ours.

You might be disappointed that BSA does not expect more, but that's not the requirement and it's not our place to look for ways to make the program more difficult. That's just mean.

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 both BSA and unit expectations. But, the scout's been gone for months and essentially not currently meeting "unit expectations". Do you advance them?

We've had scouts that for periods of time don't attend camp outs, bike to one meeting a month and then cut out early. Lots of different twists. Some also just gone for several months, but when you ask they say they want to stay with the troop.

The question is if a troop has unit expectations of say 50% or more of meetings and 50% or more of camp outs, could they advance? They previously fulfilled the BSA requirement and the unit expectations. But, they have not met "unit expectations" recently.

IMHO, they advance. They met the requirement. Requirements can not be un-completed. "Unit expectations" are only for the time period of the requirement time.

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 capture-the-flag events that run late into the night. They are helpful and I am very proud of them. I want my sons in a troop that focuses on doing things and on setting a good example. I just don't want my son in a beurocratic troop that spouts their own made up rules. My apologies if that sounds harsh.

...

QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION

EVERYONE EVERYONE EVERYONE ...For Star, Life and Eagle, the "active" requirement is for a time frame. Four or six months. As people often say, once a requirement is completed it's always completed. So do you see UNIT EXPECTATIONS of "active" to be for the requirement stated time frame or something different? BSA says units can set their own expectations. It doesn't say anything about setting time frame or it must be the last X months.

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 both BSA and unit expectations. But, the scout's been gone for months and essentially not currently meeting "unit expectations".

Do you advance them? They fulfilled the BSA "active" rank requirement in May. They also met the unit expectations in May. Or do we "undo"/"not credit" the completed requirement because they don't currently meet unit expectations?

...

Related ... If you have 75% attendance requirement, can a scout in December use the 75% attendance in April and May and then also in September and October? Or do you expect it to be a consecutive time frame since the last advancement? For BSA's active, they let you glue together time frames.

...

Probably the reason I don't like unit expectations is that it feels like it's giving more control over advancement to the adults. (i.e. adults weighing scout attendance and other noble activities) I've always been a firm believer in a scout controls his own advancement. Now adults can say "oh your attendance is not good enough" even though the scout meets BSA requirements and is doing the best that he can.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 intended) best left to Norm and Cliff Claven. School clubs and sports are tightly focused on goals (winning a competitive game, putting on a play, ). Seasons start and end. Scouting is about the whole person and is more of a lifetime commitment. Advancement is only one aspect of many that includes adventures, service, character, friendships, citizenship, ....

Perhaps if we only camped ... and camping was a competition ... and there was a championship of camping ... and there were trophies ... and winners and losers ... and the camping season was August through November ... and ..., I might buy into attendance percentages.

The BSA rank requirements are the BSA rank requirements. Perhaps, the real question should be "should BSA make star, life and eagle more difficult?" I just don't view it as my personal job in my unit to make advancement more difficult than BSA requires.(This message has been edited by fred8033)