fred8033

... some ... it can be noticed fairly quickly. SM should adjust as things are noticed. My point is this should be treated as a situation to address, teach and grow. The possibility of this happening should not be used as an excuse to insert adults into the youth program.

I've found some very good comments here. My sadness is the ideal is hard to achieve and hard to maintain. Leaders change. Life happens. Adults don't always agree. More importantly, I truly believe the scouting program that I want my son to be part of rarely looks like the ideal troop.

I agree. At some point a measure of reasonableness needs to be applied. Here is my thought process. Two - So that a single person can't act in issolation. Registered - So that background checks are done. 21 years of age - Creates separation between the scouts they are protecting. Including meetings - To make it clear that when scouts gather, we want two leaders. My reasonable view is based on a common scenario that has happened multiple times. If we take the 20 scouts camping with two valid adult leaders, then we can't be everywhere at all times. Scouts go get water. Scouts go on day hikes and explore. Scouts find activities to do. This is something we want. We want scouts to go off independently. IMHO, this is just like a meetings. We need two adults to open the building to enable scouts to gather. But it is ridiculous to expect those two adults to be everywhere at all times. Instead, apply the G2SS rule prohibiting one-on-one contact. It's okay for one adult leader to go into a meeting with the PLC (multiple scouts). It's also okay for two adult leaders to meet privately with the SPL. It's the one-on-one situation to avoid.

Two adults do not have to sit in the PLC. The troop may need two adult leaders to open the building and have the scouts gather, but you don't need them in the room with the PLC. That would be like going to summer camp and two adults have to escort each and every set of scouts everywhere. It's not the point or the expectation. Have a special room for the PLC. Adults and other non-PLC scouts stay in the main area or another room. Troop committee could even meet in yet another room if you have that running concurrently.

I've seen different ways that PLCs are run. In my view, the best PLCs are where the SM guides the SPL outside the PLC meeting and doesn't even attend the PLC. Essentially, PLC is for youth. Troop committee meeting is for adults. Before the PLC, the SM meets with the SPL and asks what is being covered, what needs planning, etc. He also asks the SPL what the scouts need from the troop committee. Then, the SPL runs the PLC and the SM listens into the troop committee meeting. Sometime during the troop committee meeting, our SPL reports to our troop committee that is meeting at the same time as the PLC. When the SPL is ready, the troop committee simply pauses their meeting to hear the results of the PLC. Ideally, the adults have been coached to stay as quiet as possible during the SPL report so that the adults don't take over the SPL report.

If the PLC voted on it, it seems like you need to respect their wishes. Sort of boxed in. The question is the dynamics of the situation. You can expect people to listen for a few minutes to something they are not involved in. But if you ask them to spend 20 to 30 minutes, you waste their time. Wasting their time can result in bad behavior. IMHO, respect peoples time and they will respect yours. Waste their time and it comes back at ya.

Had a scout who liked to bring metal working equipment and brought a hatchet to camp. It's not that he brought the hatchet. It's that we didn't take it away when we returned at 1am from the ER. On the positive side, we had ice and clean cloth.

Dry ice. Don't pack Friday's COH ice cream in dry ice. You will have concrete and not be able to eat it. Bicycle. Scout disassembled and had each of his friends pack a piece of it in their gear. Then it was reassembled at camp. Hard to hide.

I agree trailer has more issues, but COs are reluctant to let scouting units build sheds. Some are very supportive. Most are not. It's something about treating charter orgs as the church doing a good deed for the community. That the scouting unit is more of a community group than an integrated part of the church. Perhaps other units are more lucky. My experience is churches are willing to let the trailer be chained up in the parking lot, but not willing to build a shed. ... but that's my experience.

A shed is a great solution. Our troop proposed one. Our troop had the money. The CO said no. Even if we built one, I suspect it would be quickly filled with church stuff. The challenge is a shed is a permanent structure that requires someone to take serious ownership. Charter Orgs are often only someone involved with the troop. When the troop asks to build a structure, the alarms go off and eyes open.

For me, it was a scout from our troop. Reviewers met monthly to review submitted proposals. He got bounced five times. Five months to get the proposal approved. They lost the project book one time. Fifth time it was bounced because they wanted a map to the nearest hospital added. Project was organizing an usher closet and adding shelving. Of everything I value the most in Eagle projects, it's the hand-drawings and items that help convince me that the scout was in charge of his own project. If you require CAD, you get adults doing the project.

I'm not sure what it makes us look like, but the intention is not to limit the scout or make his job harder. The intention was to put more constraints on the adults that approve the projects. The workbook was created to enable the scout to focus on doing his project and less so on the paperwork. For example, ... if we didn't have the workbook ... I could easily see a return to the past where adults only approved project proposals with multi-page descriptions and detailed plans and detailed cost and .... The constraint / inferences was never meant to be a constraint on the scout.

So ... not to be the slow guy but ... I'm assuming you're joking. ... I'm asking because it would be really cool to regularly camp with horses.

Reasonable answer with caveats. #1 Uses the same outline. The delivered result should be easily recognizable as what is expected. #2 It looks like a quality product that reflects the quality in the scout and the quality in the project. One benefit of the form is that it constrains the adults involved in coaching the scout or approving the proposal. Another benefit is it promotes the scout seeing his writing as a quality product. I fear plain ASCII document would cause scouts to deliver a shoddy product that would not promote pride in the scout or confidence in the EBOR.

I'm a fan of the 2011+ era Eagle Service Project Workbook, but lately I'm seeing a lot of issues. Confused about saving the PDF to the hard drive before they can see the form. Many scouts have chromebooks that can't run Adobe Acrobat Reader and thus can't edit the PDFs. Many scouts find web sites that cache PDF files and end up using those old instead PDFs instead of the current workbook. Some scout families don't want to run Adobe Acrobat reader due to security concerns. I'm not sure those are currently valid concerns. There may have been security concerns with older versions. There is no Word document version. there is no Google Docs version. There is no other format. It seems that BSA should Have a Microsoft Word version Have a Google doc / form version Remove PDF restrictions blocking non-Adobe PDF editors Create a web site that enables form-based authoring. Another solution? Are other leaders seeing scouts having trouble using the current PDF version?

Very true. Focus on the intention of the rule. IMHO, rounding issues are noise. ... Also ... ever use a one person tent? Nothing bad happens in a one person tent. A two person tent or three person tent, yes. One person. No ... because two people don't fit in a one person tent.

Keep it simple. One method, ask the year they were born. If two or less different, fine. If more than two, see if it's a minor difference such as Dec 2016 to Jan 2019. Another method is that everyone brings a single person tent. Our troop doesn't worry about this much as they camp by patrol and the patrols are close in age as they were formed when the scouts joined. Scouts move around, but it's easy to track one or two situations versus the whole troop. I should note this our troop always watched the age of scouts sharing a tent (or at least for the last sixteen years). We viewed big age differences as a power differential. If an eleven year old had to go somewhere, then two sixteen / seventeen scouts would go. Not one. We always tried to keep tent partners closer in age. But then again, it's more a power issue and maturity issue.

Ours too. And it can sit in the rain without warping and keeps everything dry inside. Biggest benefit is the smallest scout can carry it.

The lawyer in that article is a well known ambulance chaser. He's chasing money. He stirs the pot looking for victims from decades ago causing people of today to be damaged. I've seen no good in what he does.

If that is what you need to make a meaningful MB experience, then I agree. Others might with help be able to do something else and make it meaningful.

If MBUs were the only way, then yes I'd be against. I'm okay with MBUs if there is a distribution of different MB opportunities. Some where the scout reached out to the counselor and drove it. Some where the troop ran a MB session Some where they are done at summer camp Some where it's a MB university. Some where the scout has a family member who's an expert or able to cover it. In my mind, every MB opportunity needs to bring something to the table. I've seen PhD Oceanographers and Navy submarine captains jointly teach Oceanography at a MBU. Cool. I've seen medical doctors teach at MBUs. Cool. I've seen PhD chemists with some "unique" experiences teach chemistry. It really depends on what is brought to the table. If it's death by power point or a generic person so scouts can complete a MB, then I want my scouts out of there. It's just worth a patch at the cost of their enthusiasm, trust and time. If we waste scouts time too often, then scouts will not see the program as valuable. But if MBCs do something cool, then scouts will be glad they were there. I remember at college years ago. One of my best ever classes had 1,000 people in it. The teacher was outstanding and there were 1,000 people in it because the teacher was outstanding. IMHO, numbers and ratios of scouts to MBCs do not define the issue at all.

I really meant this thread to be discussion on the assertion that we could eliminate the Eagle application. It's just not needed anymore. But ... you wrote "no text in the G2A showed hat it had to be completed and so we deemed it optional". I fear this is a stretch interpretation. The G2A flexibility is dealing with scouts that don't follow the required process and go off on a tangent. My interpretation is your district is using the BSA G2A remedy for a Eagle application defective situation as your district normal. (defective in that the scout does not submit a project workbook with signatures on the proposal and report). BSA does say ... BSA GTA 9.0.1.2 Prepare the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook ... "The most current workbook must be used. It can be found at www.scouting.org/advancement. The workbook shows the project proposal was approved ahead of time, and then properly accepted by all parties when finished." BSA 9.0.1.3 Complete the Application ... "Pay special attention to the following red-flag items. .... 6. Attachments: Service project workbook" BSA 9.0.2.0 The Eagle Scout Service Project ... "You must use the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook, BSA publication No. 512-927, in meeting this requirement." BSA GTA 9.0.2.8 Use the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook ... "While the use of the workbook is required" BSA GTA 9.0.2.8 Use the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook ... call out on page 70 ... "The requirement that Scouts use the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook means they must use the official document as produced by the Boy Scouts of America. Although it is acceptable to copy and distribute it, and even to transfer it to a different software platform or operating system, it must maintain the same appearance. No council, district, unit, or individual has the authority to require additional forms, or to add or change requirements, or to make any additions, deletions, or changes in the text, outlines, graphics, or other layout or informational elements of the workbook" I really don't think BSA could write it any more clear that the workbook is required. Not using it is a defective situation that BSA has provided remedies for supporting the scout. Now the scout can hand in a blank Eagle workbook except the signatures. The signatures are REQUIRED to prove the proposal was done before the project and the report signatures mean the project fulfilled commitments.

I'm sad when I see that happen. Our current EBOR chair does a great job as keeping the focus on getting to know the scout. It's great to see that. I have seen previous EBORs have the wrong tone that really alienated people.

I don't view the PDF workbook as a preparation for the real world. I view it as a constraint to control previous paperwork process abuses. Though it has hoops, the three page proposal s about as short as I've seen. The plan and report are pretty short too. The key point is the workbook is not the learning objective. The key is that the developing, planning and leading a project is the requirement. The paperwork is an enabler to the process, but not the requirement itself or even the core learning objective. I'd agree that an online system would be better. I'd be glad if we could upgrade. But still I'm happy with what we have. It's way better than the pre-2011 situation. And this PDF in a printed version could still be available for those scouts not fully online ... which is amazingly not as rare I I thought it would be.

I wasn't trying to comment on the project workbook. There's lots of good and bad in any choice. I'm glad to have the workbook constrains the hoops scouts have to jump. The past had too many paperwork abuses. Plus, the workbook is hardly a waterfall structure. It more just solicits the basic questions that come with any project.