fred8033

I must disagree. G2SS is close to the exact set of youth protection rules I'd promote. Of course, there are entries I roll my eyes at. My repeated example is playing laser tag or even paint ball. Those two games are the modern day version of playing tag. If when scouting can't help teach responsibility in games like that, then scouting is making itself an anachronism. Worse, our scouts have to pretend not to be scouts or not to be part of scouting at that moment to play laser tag or paint ball. But even as I get frustrated with those two entries ... and others ..., scouting is much better off because of G2SS.

That does sound like a good idea. Though it might be viewed as the grey area, it's about the amount of difference where it would be raising flags for me.

GOOD - Names and troop numbers were obscured to make anonymous. GOOD - Everyone created their own rank 1 to 10 and then we compared our numbers and defended our vote. Some people adjusted their number after. It was fairly clean. BAD - Many of the nominations were still easily identifiable even without names. But anonymous did clearly help. BAD - Nominations were strongly influenced by how much effort the person put into nominating the person. Reference letters. ... RECOMMENDATION - When a nomination is made, leave time to help improve / groom the nominations to the same level of polish, detail and references. This would help offset where the result is significantly influenced by the effort of the nominator.

LOL ... I've been on too many camp outs with scouts. Scouts are not angels. Also, SPLs are not angels; nor are SPLs usually long experienced leaders. Key point is G2SS is adult responsibility.

That was a natural response. Scouts (and all youth) learn very quick to give deference to adults. I can't speak for your troop, but most scout programs emphasize the difference. I'm betting each and every scout can tell multiple stories of where an adult used his position (or age) to put a scout in his place. I know that "adult interaction" is a method in scouts, but I really think we need to be more careful of when and how that occurs. In fact, we need to interact in such a way that the program grows the backbone of the scouts to stand up for what is right. I remember our first scoutmaster did the best. I swear he rarely told the scouts what to do. It was always a question. What's next? What's your plan? How did that work out for you? How do you think the other scout felt? Or it was an atta-boy. Nice job. That worked out well. Good job getting their attention. In addition, the scout-adult interaction was minimized. SM represented the adults. A few ASMs. Beyond that, adults mixed with adults. Scouts with scouts.

Bigger troops are not the issue. My ideal troop size is 35 to 50. Baden-Powell said 32, but corrected for society changes, I think larger troops of 75 to 100 are okay. One great benefit is to do more campouts / activities and a greater variety of campouts / activities. The issues are ... Not recognizing long-term existing BSA policies, etc. MBC is not a troop position and has never been a troop position. MBC has always been a council approved position. MBC app allows to say what troops to mentor, but also has bold stating counselors are encouraged to work beyond their troop. Troops encouraging parents in troop to council for their child's troop lessons the MBC availability for everyone else. It develops a mentality of Trump's "troop first". Discussion attitude reflects "too bad, so sad". Sort of like well maybe you should have joined a large troop then. Everyone else is out of luck. If large troops can take advantage of having a large pool of MBCs, maybe smaller troops then should also subvert MB program by allowing their adults to register for 10 to 20 MBs each. That way they have coverage too. IMHO ... the whole value of the program is getting the scouts out of their comfort zone and learning to reach out. Some knowledge benefit, but I see it more as about scouts taking control of their advancement. We are already have too many scouts that see MBs has jumping hoops without much benefit. We already have too many adults offering MB cards like they are hoops without much benefit. If troops maintain their own MB counselors, I really begin to question the value of the program. If I do have an issue with larger troops ... Large troops add bureaucracy to enable the size of the troop. I often see this as subverting the program. An example of this is I've often heard larger troop scoutmasters say they don't have time to work their own scouts. Or SMCs get delayed or scheduled because of the 80 to 100 rank advancements each year. Procedures get created for how to advance. Or an advancement chair begins to own the MB program instead of a friendly conversation with the SM. I often wonder if advancement should be majorly changed. Rank reflects number of camp outs / activities. Example --> First class scout requires 30 nights of camping. Eagle scouts should have 100+ nights of boy scout camping. MBs are fully troop sponsored. Example --> Canoeing MB is a canoing campout of 30 miles and two overnights ? Biking is a biking camp out with 50 miles and two overnights plus three pre-campout practice runs. MBs could reflect the program planning guides that suggest troop activities. No need for special MBCs for most MBs. Or troop can bring in special skilled adults and the troop adults have the registration / sign off. I've mostly mentored within my own troop too, but I've also bent over backwards, driven many miles and spent weekends helping other scouts with the same MBs.

Silence falls on the scouts as the brave young girl launches an arrow true, spearing the large troop, custom-wrapped, double-axle trailer. Hushed tones carry her name ... mocking jay.

This MB discussion is very disheartening.

No. I meant that exact situation. Scout's should be reaching out to MBCs, not handed to them on a silver plate. It subverts the program. Scouts should be experiencing MB programs in many different environments and styles. At some point, I question the MB program and wonder if troops should fully focus on skills at each rank ... plus nights of camping ... and plus leadership. Maybe every 5 more nights of camping could replace one MB.

Troop MBCs make me question the value of the merit badge program. I'm okay with the troop having some MBCs and such. But when a troop has an inventory of MBCs for key badges, ... imho ... it really hurts the value of the MBC program. The MBC program is about getting the scout out of his comfort zone and learning something new ... AND working with someone new. When the scout mostly works with troop MBCs, the MBC program really changes from an individual scout focus into a troop run program. IMHO, it fully subverts the program.

I hope that's not the future, but I understand the fear.

District camporees are only going away in name only. Camporees will still exist. It's just that council activities team will host camporees. IMHO, this is better because camporees were never well coordinated between districts and some districts did not do them well. IMHO, this is also good as you will ... hopefully ... get better attended camporees and a larger mix of camporees from which to select. Also, this might better leverage council camps. For example, our council has six camps. Three local. Two within reasonable drive. One that is three to four hour drive. Instead of each district reserving part of the local camps and running separate camporees, the whole camp could be leveraged for a camporee. Instead of a strong inference that you attend your district's camporee that happens once a year on a specific weekend and usually at the same place, you can now select the right location and right weekend that would be a better fit.

I disagree. Much of the district structure has been broken and broken for a long long time. People expect quality and it's not there. Today, you can one chance. Maybe two. Then, people move on. I often think about why I attend round table. I really do it to see my friends. Beyond that, there is no reason to attend. In fact, I have several reasons to NOT attend. One main reason is it can be a monotonous, re-hashing of the same content. ... Years ago ... 18+ years ago or so ... I did anything I could to avoid going to cub break outs. They were bad. Bad created poor attendance. Poor attendance meant if I left the room, 25% to 50% of the audience would be leaving ... in a district with 20+ packs. What some may call a power grab, I see as addressing quality failures. ... in fact ... the most important district role is done the worst: unit commissioner. Eighteen years as a unit leader (in different roles) and we've never had a unit commissioner visit. Maybe a slight interaction, but absolutely zero useful. IMHO, districts should be relieved because for far too long districts have looked for warm bodies to staff roles, training, activities, advancement, etc. IMHO, that was just wrong. We need to look for quality or re-engineer to create structures that promote quality. From what I see, districts are not going away. It's just that everything in the district will be targeted at direct unit support. aka commissioner service. http://www.northernstar.org/Portals/2/Documents/2019-11_Putting-Units-First-Presentation.pdf

Post deleted. It was started days ago and is now out-of-sync with the thread.

Post deleted.

It's the first required reference on the Eagle app. Plus, parents spend more time than anyone else with the scout. They often can provide useful insight.

As a parent of four sons, I can very much understand the urge to not write a reference letter ... at times. Sadly, I've seen this too. Often, it's a parent who really wants the kid to earn Eagle and exceed and pursue every goal. It damages the relationship between kid and parent. IMHO, parents are much more happy with their kids when the parent backs off and lets the kid find his own path.

Our patrols have periodically sampled remaining electives to help individuals advance, but it's always been by reviewing the scout handbooks.

I used the cub scout advancement poster-boards multiple times. It worked well ... or as well as the den-leader worked. For troops, advancement is personal. Individual. I would not encourage sharing detailed progress. Advancement is not competitive. ... Leave the detailed progress to the scout and his scout book. ... BUT ... our troop does have an advancement board. During Courts of Honor, scouts move their own name to the next rank as part of receiving their recognition. This is NOT our board, but we have something very similar. Ours was a family wood working project and is more portable, but also uses the large patches sold in the scout store. Our troop name, city and numbers were hand-cut by a scout using a jig saw. ( ... ummmm ... Wood was cut by hand with a jig saw ... not the scout's hand cut by the jig saw....) ... Our board also keeps a name tag on for all our recent Eagle alums. Scouts really liked moving their names. Adults leaders really took pride in all the scouts and where they were on their journeys.

Great phrasing. Expect a higher bar, but don't turn the bar into a wall.

I agree that you should not "flex" on the troop committee. This is not a fight worth fighting ... if the troop is running well and your son will be able to advance. I'm writing as it's worth knowing the intent. This is where I have the issue. Who contacts the CC for review? Your scout. When does he contact the CC? As soon as your scout thinks he's ready to contact the CC. In fact, your scout should talk with the CC early and let the CC know the proposal is coming. ... To grease the wheels for smoother approval. I really don't like the "slow to respond". In that case, the troop should have a different Eagle Coordinator or let an adult that can respond find a time slot that works with the Eagle Coordinator. The number one thing an Eagle coordinator needs to do is be available to the scouts in the troop. I really don't like the "this month" as it puts major delays into the paperwork and it's just not considerate of the scout. We are trying to encourage the scouts to give service and be leaders. We are not teaching them beaurocracy. "Eagle coordiantor says it's ready" ... BSA GTA 9.0.2.7 does say "Every attempt should be made to complete the approval process in one meeting." ... This is repeated throughout BSA advancement news. I'd strongly argue that if the troop has an Eagle coordinator reviewing proposals and giving the scout feedback, then that's the first review meeting. Most scouts should leave that meeting with a committee signature. There should be no CC waiting to schedule the review until the Eagle coordinator says it's ready. I'd also argue it adds another invisiible signature (aka a multi-phase committee approval process. It's exactly what is not intended. IMHO, if you have an Eagle Coordinator, give him the power to approve the projects. Or let scouts directly ask the CC (or advancement chair) for ten minutes at the next committee meeting to present his proposal. Or let the Eagle coordinator directly schedule the troop committee reviews.

Yes and no. The troop committee does have great latitude to decide how. The scout can provide the Eagle Project workbook proposal section to the committee and meet with the committee ... if that's the troop's choice. But the troop can't require additional presentation materials or powerpoint slides. The real challenge is "intent". I often read BSA's advancement news published by the BSA national advancement committee for clarification. https://www.scouting.org/programs/scouts-bsa/advancement-and-awards/advancement/ A consistent narrative exists in BSA's explanations / clarifications in articles such as "jumping the gun" and "Eagle Project Proosal Approval: Keep it Simple, Make it Fast". For example, the jumping the gun article empahsizes it's the project that is required. The signatures and paperwork are only supportive materials that enable the project, but signatures and paperwork are not what is required. It's the project that is required. (Nov-Dec 2017) ... https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/2017_Nov-Dec.pdf The keep it simple, make it fast points out that the approval should be done in one sitting ... if possible. If there is truely content that is important that the scout has missed, then let the scout write it in during the meeting. (Aug-Sep 2013) says "Therefore, reviewers at all levels should strive to approve proposals in one meeting if at all possible. If there is something truly important the Scout has considered but failed to write down, let him add the information right then and there. Give him a couple of minutes to handwrite the necessary information onto the proposal form, and then give him the approval. This way the Scout can get on with more detailed planning, and then execute his project. In the event there is a valid reason the proposal cannot be approved in one meeting, and it is necessary for the Scout to go back and put more effort into it, then the reviewer should provide a clear explanation, preferably in writing, of what needs to be done to gain approval." Also, BSA GTA 9.0.2.7 does explicitly say ... "It is important to be as considerate of an Eagle Scout candidate’s time as we expect him or her to be of ours. The Scout is probably just as busy. Every attempt should be made to complete the approval process in one meeting." ... BSA also suggests examples of the troop committee assigning approvals to the advancement chair. The very thing that BSA is trying to avoid is having project paperwork be a major delay or a factor that puts the scout's project at risk or the scout's advancement at risk. So, yes troop committees do have flexibility to require the scout to present to the "committee". It's just not the intent of the process. It can definitely have positives, but it also risks negatives. I'd also strongly argue that to meet BSA's intent, the troop committee should make itself available to the scout for presentation fairly fast. I'd argue on a weekly basis or so. Introducing a month of delay for proposal approval is wrong. BSA does say in BSA GTA 9.0.2.7 to be considerate of the scout's time as the scout is probably just as busy as the adults.

This is a non-issue to me. I'm not seeing any significant change. So PTC has family activities. Great! Maybe more scout leaders will get trained. Packs have always had parent/child and often family based activities. Normal Rockwell often painted the family in scouting pictures. ... It's really nothing new. .... The issue is really if this continues into the troop ... or if there is an official BSA change. IMHO, cut BSA some slack. We need to recognize that the current new generation of parents (30 year old parents) and their kids have not been outside (camping, hiking, fishing, etc) like previous generations. This is a big hurdle. It means BSA has to be the ambassador of outdoor activities and introduce very basic things such as ... out houses, gas stoves, sleeping under-the-stars, etc. So, I'm just not opposed to references of family camping ... if it introduces the adventures and promise of scouting. ... I always think back ... My mom's family did not have indoor plumbing until she graduated high school and they were in a suburb ... not at all the country. .... Society has evolved drastically since BSA was created in 1910. Experience of 100 years ago are now very foreign. It's fine if BSA tries to be more "friendly" to the family. And, I just don't see a signficant change. It's hard to keep a 100+ year old program relevant.

BSA is very guilty of chasing the next hot-button idea.

Personally, I like the idea that the scout has to present his proposal to the troop committee. It's a nice touch. BUT, it's not officially required and I'm not sure troops can "require" it. It's just a nice tradition some troops do. In our troop, the scout has his proposal and finds any way possible (phone, email, face-to-face) to ask the person to look at his proposal. If there is time immediately available, they do it then-and-there. If not, then it's a scheduled review. District approval in our area is fairly quick with a phone call. I do find it funny when the troop has a large committee presentation, but does not take the district approval as seriously. I've finally become fully accepting that the troop and committee can approve, but the district can say no.