fred8033

Have your scouts already started the MB?  They can use the existing requirements.  Not the new ones.  

20 miles, yeah that's a long hike even on a flat level paved trail.   On a natural path with gravel, dirt, mud, ups and downs, that's 10 plus hours.

Nice.  Pricey, but nice.  ... I don't have one, but looks nice.

@5thGenTexan ... Use the explicit words in the requirements.  Unless it says "not used elsewhere" or "separate from" or "since earning" ..., then it's allowed.

We had a table with sign-up sheets.  A committee member would manage the sheets, permission forms and payments.  Often the patrol leader would help.

17 hours ago, seattlecyclone said:

I won't lie, participating in BSA events as a non-Christian can be uncomfortable at times. I remember as a youth being taken with the rest of my unit to Sunday-morning "non-denominational" (but still Christian / Protestant) services at camporees and also at Philmont. 

From what I've seen lately, camporee non-denominational services have devolved into extremely wishy washy and borderline offensive to those with a faith.  Our unit ended up making the scouts aware and encouraging those who's family practiced that faith.  BUT, it was always the scout's choice if they went or not.  Half went.  Half stayed in camp.

"can be uncomfortable at times" ... Reminds me of high school pep rallies for the sports teams.  I was not on a sports team and not really a sports fan.  Sitting thru those events were painful, annoying and offensive.  

14 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Unfortunately, in these parts, the district or council proposal reviewers are asking for more "planning" details in the proposal phase than are needed, IMHO.

This is before they will green light the project (with a signature.)

I think we should put in some way to restrict input/demand from the council advancement reps.  In my seven years here, this has always been the hold up... often with a back-and0forth of two or three times requesting "sufficient detail" on the proposal in order to grant approval.  So, the Scouts do the research... for example, drawing up specific plans for a 16 foot footbridge, including board dimensions and length needed, and the number of screws needed, along with a schedule of work, etc.  Again, these are Planning details, not Proposal details...

That is absolutely wrong.  Specific plans.  Itemized material counts.  Board sizes.  Number of screws.  etc, etc.  That's just wrong.  

There is a balance.  Perhaps a foot bridge needs a rough drawing to demonstrate understanding of what needs to be done and install enough confidence in the reviewers that the bridge will be good and safe.  Detailed drawings and precise estimates of wood, screws is absolutely NOT required.  In fact, I believe it is expressly stated that we can't expect that out of the scout in the proposal.

IMHO, this indicates volunteers that need to move on.

15 hours ago, PACAN said:

A bit of history...the current EP workbook was borne out of reviewers jerking scouts around because they didn't have enough detail.  Remember it was just a blank sheet of paper.  Scouts had up to 8 reviews before approval and some just gave up.  BSA Advancement said enough of this stupidity and we (and I helped) wrote the GTA and EP documents.   Are there still boneheads who jerk scouts around - absolutely unfortunately.

Thank you and your other volunteers.  I greatly appreciate it.  

I remember 2010 when I was livid and loud at a district meeting because the district advancement team had bounced our scout's project proposal a 4th time because it did not have a map and directions to the local hospital.  4th review and then asking for a map to the hospital.  The project was to rebuild an ushers closet at the church (tear it down to the walls, clean, paint, new shelving, organize, etc).

Then, they lost the workbook.  The real issue is the reviewers didn't think the project was big enough.  They wanted to get more effort out of the scout.   So, they put that effort in the proposal review.  

Procedures and policies exist because of problems in the past.  The Eagle project process was very inconsistent across units, districts and councils.  The GTA and ESP workbook are HUGE IMPROVEMENTS.  They will never be perfect because people are different with different opinions and goals.  I absolutely love the direction GTA and the workbook went.  Would I like changes?  Sure.  But it's drastically better.

Another huge improvement was the bi-monthly publishing of the advancement news.  Great guidance.  

21 hours ago, DuctTape said:

If I could do one thing at BSA it would be to 86 all workbooks. Scouts is not school. Even in school we don't use workbooks. It isn't 1982 anymore.

I'd ditch all the merit badge workbooks.  I have contempt for them.

The Eagle project workbook though is different.  The proposal is very much a contract between all the parties.  The rest helps create evidence.

The reason I like the workbook is because of what was going on before 2011 when the workbook was created.  Councils / districts were requiring large proposal submittals that were effectively large three ring binders of detailed project plans.  Way, way, way beyond what was needed. 

KEY POINT - The Eagle project workbook exists not to force the scout down a path.  The Eagle project workbook exists to protect the scout from the scouting adult volunteers (unit, district, council).  

4 minutes ago, malraux said:

Also, for my district/council, the only time the completed form is seen is at the EBOR, it isn't turned in as part of the request for a BOR.

Wow.  I guess I should have expected some councils don't require a thick packet submitted.  Our council collects all paperwork expected for the EBOR.  That includes all sections of the project workbook, references, statements of ambition and purpose, etc.  

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The Scout, working with his project coach (not me) and the beneficiary, satisfied the beneficiary with enough detail in his project proposal and through discussions and site visits that the beneficiary did not request a more detailed plan, and gave the Scout the green light to do the project (last summer).

Normal.  Beneficiary usually never sees the "plan".  If the beneficiary wants to see more, that should be in the proposal.  Now, the proposal might result in "we want to be involved in ... "
 

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Scout turned in his ESSP Workbook with that Plan section blank, as it is not required (although "highly recommended")

That's the scout's right, but it's also the EBOR's right to then grill the scout to get the planning details.  I've told scouts to fill out the plan to create evidence of planning.  That's part of the rank requirement:  develop, plan and lead.  Without it in the workbook, the EBOR at first-glance sees no planning.  That will be motivation to dig in to confirm the scout's planning.  That's the EBOR's job. 

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Now Scout is getting pushback from Council Advancement rep that he has to fill out that section.

Really good ideas get cemented as rules until someone pushes back.  The Council Advancement Committees are almost all volunteers.  That volunteer enthusiasm can result in drift from the published written rules.  

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I have advised the Scout that, if the question comes up during his EBoR about why he did not fill in that section, to simply explain that the beneficiary was satisfied with his level of planning, and that he was thrifty with his time in not filling out the unrequired section of the workbook.

EBOR has the right to confirm requirements were met; including evidence of planning.  The EBOR can't require it in the workbook, but the EBOR has the right to question the scout on the planning.  

I'd tell the scout to choose.  Does the scout want to fill out the planning section to reduce red flags for the EBOR?   Will the scout be ready to defend the planning in the EBOR?  It's not really an either-or.  It's about how to give the scout the best Eagle rank experience.  

IMHO, let the scout pick the battle.  It's a real choice.  The scout has to live with the choice. 

24 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

... Personally, if I were informed by just about anybody that my services were no longer needed I would just gather up my tea set and teddy bears and find something else to do and somewhere else to spend my money.   Just sayen🤔

I think that is the right answer.  We are all so personally invested in scouting that we forget we are only volunteers.  If the situation sours, move on.  We only get one life.  Enjoy it.

On 3/6/2023 at 11:43 AM, IndyDad said:

Did this family per their Scout registration/dues for the 2022 calendar year? If so, then they were paid up till Dec31, 2022 and were delinquent by 2 months at the time of Blue & Gold. We generally treat B&G as an end of year celebration, so if they were part of the Pack until Oct, they still had some activity they participated in that the B&G dinner would cover, date-wise.

In that situation, I would have let them come in and attend. I'd also approach them separately and find out what their intentions were for the rest of the year and also remind them of the annual dues that are required (if nothing else, they need to pay the required national + council dues to be on the roster and covered by council insurance). If they didn't plan to attending any further, then you could drop the case.

Did this family per their Scout registration/dues for the 2022 calendar year? If so, then they were paid up till Dec31, 2022 and were delinquent by 2 months at the time of Blue & Gold. We generally treat B&G as an end of year celebration, so if they were part of the Pack until Oct, they still had some activity they participated in that the B&G dinner would cover, date-wise.

In that situation, I would have let them come in and attend. I'd also approach them separately and find out what their intentions were for the rest of the year and also remind them of the annual dues that are required (if nothing else, they need to pay the required national + council dues to be on the roster and covered by council insurance). If they didn't plan to attending any further, then you could drop the case.

I would have let them attend too.

... BUT ... Pack registration and BSA/council registration are often different.  Most packs do their finances school year to school year.  So the cub might have been good with the council, but not the pack.  I've seen this before where the people are overly watching where their money goes.  So, they try to save a few bucks by waiting to register thru the troop or registering early with the troop.  ... It saves the family a few bucks.  ... BUT, it shorts the pack and the family knew that's how the pack finances the events.  It's very self-serving to save themselves cost at the expense of how the pack has been financing things.  IMHO, it's not scout like, but people behave weird when money is involved.

Perhaps the real answer is the pack should never charge a 5th grade scout any funds to be active that year.  Instead, the cost should be fully covered by the previous years.  Then, there is no question about transitional years and everyone gets treated the same.   ... BUT, this is really a rare, one-off, situation where a family messed with the finances for their own benefit.  Do you re-design all the pack finances for a one-off problem that occurred one year?  IMHO, pack should swallow it's pride and move on.  

FYI ... I am making many assumptions.  This is based on what I've seen before.  

@skeptic  Wishing you the best.  It's not easy.  I fall on both sides of this.  A lone scout has access to council camps and activities.  If they were previously a concern, how does the council not know they will be a concern again.  My heart goes out to these scouts.  

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

The real issue is the personal conflict.

Absolutely.  

I'd highly suggest you sit down with the CC and SM to have coffee.  You might be the COR, but they see the day-to-day issue.  

Build relationships.  Let them do their jobs.  If they can't, then it's not just a member of committee issue.  

Love hearing your giving it a second chance.

I've often described it as needing the magic mix to make scouting great.  When that magic mix happens (people, events, experiences), scouting can really shine.  

2 hours ago, nolesrule said:

As a female Jewish person in organization comprised mostly of white Christian males she wonders (and so do I) why people afraid of having conversations about differences?

What are they scared of?

Because it's wrong to use race and gender to claim more knowledge, rights and privileges than others.   Go figure.  It's fundamental to the political hypocrisy of these issues --> Using the differences of race and gender to justify why the other person is less informed.  

18 hours ago, nolesrule said:

And the fact it is a merit badge means it can't get skipped over by the people who think they know better and that having in depth discussions about applicability of the Oath and Law is a 4 letter word.

Won't get skipped over by people who think they know better?  Any merit badge can be subverted easily.  I often think the Family Life MB where many of the requirements are often subverted.  

This badge is controversial.  Quality might be better now while we have strong focus, but over time it will be subverted because many simply believe the content is political.

18 hours ago, nolesrule said:

And for a data point, my daughter at her Eagle Board of Review 3 weeks ago stated it was her favorite merit badge of the 53 she had earned (I know because she told me afterwards... I was not in the room).

That's your scout.  Few scouts would ever list any Citizenship MB as a favorite.  

This may be only best judged in hindsight.   Twenty years from now ... after focus, intensity and politics reduce ... will this badge exist?  Was it effective?  Will it be quality? 

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

... one Scout even said something like (I'm paraphrasing), "it seems like a knee jerk reaction to have this badge to tell us about who we already are."

...

2)  This stuff ought to be in the other Citizenship badges. (Their words, not mine...)

3) Everyone in our community is not on the same sheet of music when talking about the definitions.  They mean different things to different people, and that causes confusion for them. (Their observations, not mine...)

4)  They feel are being told "what to think" on some of these things, and they appreciate exploring them together without judgement or "correction".  ...

... our education system and our communities are not fostering critical thinking skills, rhetoric, debate, and ethics.  And that they are genuinely afraid of expressing or exploring different ideas because they get chastised for thoughtcrime (my word (well, Orwell's), not theirs) at school and, yes, at home. 

 

Very real comments.  

On 12/30/2022 at 10:04 PM, xinaDeRockie said:

We did CIS as a troop and I believe it was really good for the scouts and adults.  ...

Sensitivity is important.  Not offensive is important.  Being kind and considerate is important.

My issue is the yet-another badge that should have been covered in at least one of the Citz of community, Citz of nation, Citz of world or Family Life (Citizen of the family).  

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

1) The franchise agreement isn't clear. Some have argued that the BSA trustee could pull all LC charters.  If that charter is pulled, the agreement states National owns the remaining assets.  LCs could fight that but that would be a court fight.  In the meantime, they couldn't use the trademarks or program material.  Why did BSA include a full national (including LC) liquidation in their analysis... Because of this theory.

2) How much would they pay for the trademarks and program material?  $100M?  $400M?  The trustee would drive that price up as high as possible.  

3) It is estimated that 1/3 of councils would immediately face bankruptcy due to lawsuits. COs would also be directly hit and many more would flee.

4) Remaining LCs would face decades of future lawsuits.

5) Insurance companies would avoid BSA or jack up rates until the situation is resolved.

6)Donations would dry up as no one would want their money going to bankruptcy payments. National already sees this... Once their protection is gone, FOS would be hit.

BSA knows it is a disaster which is why they never even seriously considered the mini Ch7 offered by TCC (national only bankruptcy+ buyout by council).  A full CH 7 could be the end. 

I agree with most if not all of what you write.  Franchise agreement liability is not clear.  Legal sources have argued there is strong separation due to land ownership, taxes filing, etc that has been historically done.  But then again, courts often find a nuanced decision.  I would not be surprised on any final result.  

17 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Wouldn’t the LCs then be looking for bankruptcy protection individually as the lawsuits against them would move forward? I don’t think it’s quite like a non-culpable franchise member. 

Agreed, but not all state laws are the same and not every LC had the same number of incidents.  A good number of LCs could survive and/or go thru chapter 11 also.  ... and then chapter 7 if needed.

25 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Ch 7.   ... I think it would be bad for everyone excluding those who simply want BSA to die as they would likely get their wish. 

Don't be that sure that chapter 7 would kill BSA. 

LCs could form an alliance to purchase the BSA national trademarks, property, etc and re-open BSA.  LC's have a business relationship with BSA national; not a suicide pact.  Very similar to a franchise.  If the franchise corporation bankrupts, that does not automatically doom the franchise members or transfer franchise corporation debts to the individual franchise members.  

The one thing Chapter 7 guarantees is re-starting the abuse lawsuits; new massive legal costs; and, years and years to resolve NEW legal questions.   We could be looking at a decade of new legal issues with chapter 7.

26 minutes ago, ScouterDavid said:

My understanding is that if BSA files Chapter 7, it is essentially over for survivors, meaning no payouts for anyone.

The pension plan would be taken over by the PBGC and hundreds of millions of dollars would be sought by the government. It is also my understanding that the government is first in line for any assets. Finally, since the plan is a single employer plan, every LC could be held liable for the pension underfunded shortfall. A complete disaster for scouting in general if BSA has to file Chapter 7. 

I'm not an attorney so if someone has better information, please correct me.

I am not sure it's that cut and clear.  I agree on PBGC priority over lawsuits.  To what extent LCs are pulled in, I'm not sure.  To what extent that forces LC finances, I'm not sure.  It is clear, Chapter 7 would be a massive shift / delay / new cost / etc.  

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So is this the new trend, or something just in my area?

The council vetting has continued to improve.  At this point, I'm not sure national even does a review beyond what is done at the council level.  In fact, is the council level check done by a registrar, who is a national employee and makes it effectively a national check?  If a scout is cleared for an EBOR, pretty much all the national checks have been done.  There is very, very, very little that would block the scout.

38 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

They either secure loans, donations, sell more assets, etc. (some form of cash infusion),  or file Chapter 7.

My tangent - Already discussed probably over a year ago.

Chapter 7 now is a path that few would "financially" want as it makes all the money spent to-date on chapter 11 mostly wasted and restarts another legal spending spree with many, many new complexities.  Different priority sequence for debt holders.  Chapter 11 negotiated third party (insurers, BSA councils, churches) releases that provided a lot of cash become new independent litigation.  

"I think" (my opinion) is that Chapter 7 would reduce the amount injured parties receive and delay the payments for years.