fred8033

NJCubScouter - Perhaps you hit it on the head when you said you just don't see the point. I've been re-reading this forum's discussion threads and these exact same debates have been going on for 10+ years. Requirements versus guidelines. BSA control versus unit leader control. It's never ending and there are many hard headed people involved. Leaders asserting there's no real standard so units can create their own. The problem is that I'm mostly polite when I say that I think Beavah's example produces good results. It might but it also burns way too many scouts. I just don't want

Beavah - As always, justifying your own rogue interpretations by picking and choosing the generic to confuse and ignore the very specific. You confuse and ignore the specifics. BSA also writes... Charter & Bylaws, Article X, Section 1, Clause 5 - "The Boy Scout requirements for ranks shall be the basis for the Scouts advancement." Charter & Bylaws, Article X, Section 1, Clause 6 - "Section 1. Boy Scout Advancement, clause 6. Ranks. There shall be the following ranks in Boy Scouting: Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star, Life, and Eagle. The requirements shal

Beavah wrote: "If yeh feel for some reason that BSA advancement isn't workin' for yeh, then I'd say fix how yeh are thinking about advancement and ignore fred8033 or bnelon44. They represent to my mind a relatively odd viewpoint that's not in keepin' with what da Scouting program has been for 100 years. " Generally what Beavah said is good. But if you ignore what bnelson44 and I write, you better just recognize as Beavah did earlier today that you should just ignore BSA too. That's what it really going on. On the flip side, if your tired of representing an undocumented program that con

What do I expect of Eagle Scouts? Strong character. Respect for authority and rules. Never to use terms such as "tarnishing the reputation of Eagles" or any other better-than-thou term.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

GKlose - Sorry, that's how I view it. It's wrong to judge whether a scout earns eagle based on a separate agreement instead of the BSA requirements. I know you mean well and that your doing good things with your troop. But good intentions and good people still make mistakes and do wrong. You used current expectations and policies that were put in place significantly after the scout had his life BOR. Those policies also weren't enforcable until starting Oct 2011, 29 months after the scouts life BOR. He needed six months active. That's it.

And thus the advancement mess we will be eternally stuck in. We have many view points. - ends justify the means advancement camp very well represented by Beavah and others. - not really requirements as much as guidelines advancement camp very well represented IM_Kathy, NJCubScouter and others. - contract requirements advancement camp very well represented by fred8033, Eagle732, the BSA and others. All three can produce good troop programs and good results.

Beavah - The failure being refered to was the past weakly administered troop program and no expectations for active. The question on the table really is "did this scout fullfil the active requirement?" Life BOR on May 2009. Attended an outing in August 2009. Atended another in 2012. Three years registered and in good standing since Life BOR. Seven years (probably) actually registered and in good standing since joining the troop. BSA ACPP defined active as #1 registered, #2 not dismissed from troop and #3 leaders in contact with the scout. In 2009, troop had no p

(duplicate)(This message has been edited by fred8033)

(duplicate)(This message has been edited by fred8033)

This question is raised by another thread. Suppose the last rank advancement a specific scout was three years ago. Time passes. The scout starts participating at a much lower level for a year or two and that level is unacceptable. The scout needs six months active for advancement. QUESTION - Which six months do you use? The first six months after the rank advancement where he met expectations or the last two years where he did not meet expectations? If you choose the most recent activity, how do you justify ignoring the quantity of time where the scout met expectations. ...

GKlose wrote: "I've said all along, it is near impossible to improve standards in a troop (...) without actually improving the standards." Hard to argue against improving standards. Just don't confuse it with re-writing history. That's really the issue here. Two leaders are trying to improve things are still stuck recognizing scout advancement that was mostly done under the previous leaders who they view as having a less than stellar program. It's not fun putting your name on the paper, but that's really the fair thing to do. We don't penalize scouts for the failures of previ

GKlose wrote: "I've said all along, it is near impossible to improve standards in a troop (...) without actually improving the standards." Hard to argue against improving standards. Just don't confuse it with re-writing history. That's really the issue here. Two leaders are trying to improve things are still stuck recognizing scout advancement that was mostly done under the previous leaders who they view as having a less than stellar program. It's not fun putting your name on the paper, but that's really the fair thing to do. We don't penalize scouts for the failures of previ

Beavah wrote: "Almost makes me wonder if he's doin' it so that at he can stand up and say "this award is worthless, I was able to get it for doing nothing! Here, mom and dad. You wanted it, not me." Those do happen occasionally, more's the pity." That's a perverse interpretation. The more basic interpretation of the direct interpretation. It's called a disputed process because the two sides don't agree. In another words, I'd interpret it as someone who feels he's been wrong and now feels like he's standing up for himself. As for the three outing agreement, sometimes people

desertrat77 wrote: "- Past: As a scouter, scoutcraft proficiency and leadership in the outdoors were the hallmarks of success - Present: Outdoor skills are things to keep the scouts occupied...managerial science is the most important thing about being a scouter " Fully agree with this point. I've only been involved for ten to twelve years now, but I can see this point. In our city, there are many styles of troops. What I've seen often does not impress me. Good appearing troops, but very bureaucracy oriented. Teaching office management leadership instead of how to work with others a

Tuesday.

Beavah - "That's just da reality. There is no standard." Ya just scare me Beavah. Ya just scare me. Saying there is no standard is justifying doing what ya want. Selectively interpreting "proficiency" to establish your own higher standard and thereby ignoring so many other BSA sources. It's not that there is no standard. It's that BSA has so little to actually keep leaders in check.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

DANG ... There is so so much bad attitude in this thread that it's almost impossible to respond sussinctly. Yet another BSA program bashing thread. ... SeattlePioneer - I guess it's point of view. What some see as legalism, others see as clearly stating expectations so that scouts can control and be responsible for their own advancement. The GTA is entirely needed to protect scouts from bad leaders. --- Bad leaders that just don't get it. --- Bad leaders that sit in their starched underwear pompously stating things such as "protecting the eagle rank", "paper eagle", "

Beavah - The "advancement" race is not measured by time. Otherwise, the smartest eagle scouts are the ones that close-out eagle by age 13/14. Advancement is measured by completing requirements and those completed requirements don't expire because too much time has passed. As you well know, the 2009/2010 effective BSA ACPP (advancement committee policies and procedures) had three criteria for (1-registered, 2-not dismissed from troop and 3-engaged by his troop leadership). Unfortunately, it's not Beavah's active definition as the whim of the scoutmaster. So, here's a scou

JoeBob - I'm sure your a good unit leader and a good person. But I must admit your reply reflects the exact attitude that I hope I can shield from my sons and the scouts in my troop and pack. Beavah - Connect back with reality and the case-in-point. Real expectations occur during the scouting experience. It's been two and a half years where this scout has been registered and in the troop. You've got a scout here who has (or is about to) meet all the explicit eagle requirements. Ya want real expectations, make it part of the program. Don't blame the scout after the fact and t

JMHawkins - I only applaud Guy & Chris in that they are trying to figure out what the right thing is. In scouts, it's sometimes difficult to navigate the path of BSA versus Scouts versus parents versus other leaders. Doing the right thing is not always easy and very often not clear. "Head that arguement off at the passs" - huh? Ya know ... there are some agreements that you can't ask people to enter into. There are definitely some things we should not ask of our scouts. Is this one? I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure it does NOT reflect anything related to being active. I certa

I'm not 100% sure which side I'm on with this one. But as to his last Eagle rank requirements.... Eagle Project --- Clear cut. Either gets them done or not. 5 MBs --- Clear cut. Either gets them done or not. scout spirt --- see below Be Active --- see below POR --- see below The two interesting ones are the POR and "Be active". If his life BOR was May 2009, Scout spirit - that's about how the scout leads his life. It is not about a certain number of meetings or how involved the scout is with the program. It's mainly something the scout himself answers. BE

I replied earlier in the other thread about measuring it straight by if the scout met the eagle requirements. If he did, sign off. I also have another perspective. If the scout is turning 18 in a few months, he's been in the program for 7+ years. Probably cub scouts before it. Scouting represents probably over half his life. BUT ... most of his friends have probably moved on. A few might be left. The majority of his scouting experience was from when he was 10/11 years old thru probably 14/15 years old. It's a pretty common pattern. Scouts begin to discover girls, start working at

Eagledad wrote: "Do you have any mentally retarded scouts in your troop that want to earn BSA Life Guard before earning the swimming MB?" Actually, we have three such scouts out of our troop of 35 to 40 scouts. One of them earned his swimming merit badge this summer. I am so impressed with that young man. As far as Swimming or Lifesaving MB first? It's the same decision as for any scout. It's a non-issue. BSA did not make swimming MB a pre-requisite or a requirement for the Lifesaving MB. In fact, I've yet to see a true "pre-requisite" and the SM does not enforce individual

I was trying to find clarification in Scouting Magazine. Often they clarify big issues like this. Well, I found something else REALLY INTERESTING. It's from an Ask Andy column. http://netcommissioner.com/askandy/2012/08/issue-323-august-1-2012/ The BSA Blue Card is going thru revisement. The scoutmaster signature line is changing. Current proposal is "I have discussed this merit badge with this Scout and recommended at least one merit badge counselor. I look forward to that change but I hope they update the GTA to clean up the wording.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagledad - Beavah's points are well argued and he does use "parts" of the GTA, but it ignores the other parts of the GTA and the BSA published clarifications both in the Advancement News newsletters, the BSA video from the BSA annual conference and many other sources. - 7.0.0.2 quote ignores "any scout can work on any badge at any time" ... scouting choosing a MBC -> "That is acceptable" The wording on approving the scout's MBC choice is more about making sure the MBc is a real MBC. Less about controlling the scout's MB experience. - 7.0.2.2 is about privacy. We are not to broa