fred8033

churning out paper woodbadgers ... LOL.

Stealth advancement? I always thought that most of what scouts do can somehow be tied to advancement. Camping counts toward the camping merit badge and to rank requirements. Creating patrol menus, aquiring the food and cooking on the camp outs can be just to have a good camp out, but can also be used for rank advanement and the cooking merit badge. Preparing for a canoe camping trip can contribute to the canoeing merit badge. But the scout still needs to contact and work with a MBC to complete the rank requirements as published. One of the challenges we've always had was to make the troop meetings meaningful beyond announcements, sign-ups, meal planning and cleaning out the troop gear yet again. I'm glad if the SPL/PLC can use the TPF to start planning.

Peregrinator wrote: "Why would you have to ban them for adults if you have to ban them for youth?" To not be a hypocrite.

During our annual planning, the scouts choose six topics that span two months each. Usually, they choose from the Troop Program Features (BSA pubs 33110, 3111, 3112) because then they can use borrow / modify the contained meeting plans. We've never used one 100% unmodified, but it's a starter. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33110.pdf http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33111.pdf http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33112.pdf I only mention it because each topic includes documnted "advancement opportunities" both for rank and for merit badges. Also the program features strongly aligns with merit badges. So it's hard not to pick one without sort of picking a merit badge too. But it's still up to the scout to pursue the MB, get the card, contact the counselor, etc. It's just that the troop is working on some of those topics too and our outings are probably aligned with the topic too.

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 my sons or their friends or anyone that I'm responsible for near that type of leader or that type of program. I want them involved in the program as BSA documents it. No more. No less. I'm just sad when I see such misguided comments and advice as I often see published in this forum.

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 shall be those authorized by the Executive Board and set forth in the official Scouting publications. Eagle palms may also be awarded on the basis of requirements authorized by the Executive Board and set forth in the official Scouting publications." Those official publications are BSA Pub 33088 GTA and BSA Pub 34765 Boy Scout Requirements. Don't have 34765 with me now. My version was older and put into troop library. GTA 1.0.0.0 "The Guide to Advancement is the official source for administering advancement in all Boy Scouts of America programs: Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Varsity Scouting, Venturing, and Sea Scouts." GTA 4.2.3.1 Active Participation ... specifies how to interpret advancement. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf ACPP page 24 (for before Oct 2011) "A scout will be considered "active in his unit if he is ..." http://scoutmaster.typepad.com/2008AdvancementGuideBook.pdf Those are the specifics. The Bylaws that you committed to follow even says BSA will publish and approve the specficis. The scout was not "wholly absent" and ya don't punish scout for failure by the leaders. Heck, it sounds like the leaders did stay in contact. Not as much as ya want, but still some. That's the clear cut answer. Advancement is meant to be fair and under the control of the scout, not the whim of the scoutmaster. ... It's funny because as part of looking this up, I found a scouter.com forum thread in 2007 that pointed out it's been published that way by BSA since 2006. http://www.freewebs.com/activescout/activescout.htm Here's a funny quote from that thread that is still applicable today. ScoutNut wrote: "This is great, but I don''t think this will really change much of anything. This has been on the National Web site for a while now and has been pointed out to those who do their own thing. They still did their own thing. ... The folks who do their own thing don''t read the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, or if they do read it, they don''t really care what it says because they will always find a way (any way) to justify doing things their way. " And Beavah Beavah was right in the debate back in 2007 confusing and distracting the debate to justify leaders doing what they want instead of what BSA publishes.

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 contradicts what BSA publishes, you should just ignore most of what Beavah says.

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 published policy on being "active". In 2009, BSA did not accept troop policies to establish "active". Scout only needed six months of last three years. I don't even know why this is being discussed. It sounds more like two very good, but frustrated leaders dealing with a mess caused by a past weak troop program. I don't even see where this is even debatable. Completed his eagle project. That itself requires significant activity, leadership and service. Eagle projects ARE unit activities. Always have been. So he completed an eagle project (unit activity, significant scope, leadership, service), but was not "active" enough ? Really? Completed his POR requirement. How do you complete a POR but not be "active"? Scout was under scruity to meet minimum POR expectations. So he met POR expectations without being "active"? Completed the remaining merit badges. Needed SM signature to start Had to work with MBC(s). Had to spend signficant time to complete them. Fulfilled BSA's active definition. ACPP - (May 2009 - Sep 2011) - Fulfilled by being registered and not dismissed. He was registered for three years in the troop, was at some meetings and did at least two camp outs in that time. GTA - (Oct 2011 - current) - Fulfilled by having outside activities. Doesn't matter if he could have participated more during his less busy times. He could have slept less too. The point is he had GTA qualifying outside activities too. For Star, Life and Eagle, there has never been a BSA requirement to camp or go on outings. Your troop may have one and it could be marginally enforced from Oct 2011 to current. I say "marginally" because then you get into the outside activity debate with the scout and, I hope, the margin of doubt favors the scout. I'm glad the unit leaders are willing to congratulate the scout if he earns it. I hope they are willing to offer him an apology too. The simple fact is the troop should not have asked him to enter into this "agreement" earlier into the year. The scout is fully justified pursuing a disputed EBOR. I wish him the best.

(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. ... Follow on ... during those three years, the scout has at least six months of outside activities, on a now-and-then basis. Say three months of band here, a month of church service trip and three months of lacross. But the scout has at least two years where he was not as active. QUESTION - Does that meet the six months of "active" per the new GTA that allows outside activities to qualify for being "active"? He only needs six months of active and he can show six months of outside meaningful activities. Or do you say that well he could have been more involved in the troop for the other two+ years and ignore those six months of meaningful outside activities that qualify under the GTA.

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 previous leaders.

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 previous leaders.

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 make agreements out of pressure or the quickness of the situation without thinking thru it. I'm just saying the scout probably does not feel as bound to the agreement because he might hold the opinion that he should never have been asked to make that commitment. I tend to hold that view myself. Of course, this is all just supposition. I agree the scout is rolling the dice and taking the harder path. But sometimes the harder path is the right path. That's for the scout to decide. In any event, I'm glad this situation is being used as an opportunity for reflection. ... Did you have the troop policies written, approved and communicated in 2009 and 2010 when the clock was ticking on the scout's "active" requirement?

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 and get out and do things.

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", "unworthy scout", "eagle mill". --- Bad leaders that label "the requirements" as "the bare minimum" and then libel the scout for only hitting the "bare minimum". --- Bad leaders falsely asserting it's once-and-done versus "actually learning something". --- Bad leaders falsely asserting it's a choice between GTA requirements producing poor quality and troop empowerment needed to produce high quality. --- Bad leaders that penalize scouts for long running unit failures. --- Bad leaders that package plain old meanness as teaching a life lesson. Simply stated, BSA's advancement program has become what it is because there are many leaders with their own agenda and damaging scouts to achieve that agenda. ... Eagle732 - "There's also plenty of room for a troop to determine if a candidate is "active" and has appropriate "Scout Spirit" to become an Eagle." Yeah, but if you think BSA appeal would over-ride you, then I question if you have as much "room" as possible. ... Lisabob/rismith - IMHO, district versus unit EBOR is just a scheduling and staffing issue. The district representative on unit EBORs is just to ensure quality and that EBORs are done right as eagle ranks are very visible and well known. But this goes to my next point ... Eagle is a national awarded rank ... but all ranks are really national awarded ranks. It's just that Eagle is treated significantly more special than any other rank. IMHO, this is a key problem. Ya have all the requirements for (S),T,2,1,S,L opportunities to hold scouts accountable and BORs for T,2,1,S,L to check that things are being done right. I get extremely sensitive when I hear some scout has made it all the way thru that process to only have others judge him unworthy of Eagle after completing the eagle requirements. I think rismith's example of the scout who used mostly family MBC. Yeah, the scout was wrong. But the troop ignored the problem way too long. You don't penalize the scout down the road for something you choose to ignore in the past. You hold to high standards during the whole journey, not just at the finish line. ... I am so glad that national has setup a strong eagle appeal process that has been supportive of the scouts because, IMHO, scouts need that support. There are way too many adults with their own agendas and their own failings that get between scouts and that final rank. ... On a side note, I always find it funny that it's a discussion of Eagle. Where's all the outrage at unworthy tenderfoots, 2nd class, 1st class, star and life scouts? IMHO, there's many more things to learn and achieve going from a new scout to 1st class than going from 1st class to Eagle scout. Plus the step from Life scout to Eagle scout is really not that much. Ten MB versus the already earned eleven. But the first eleven were probably harder as MBs were a new idea back then. .... Six more months in a POR? No problem, already have done 10 months of PORs. Just six more months. ... PLUS ... If you complete six months in a POR, you are automatically "active". So the big difference is an eagle project. The big effort there is usually the self-starting effort. I'm just saying, Eagle should NOT be respected that much more then all the other ranks.

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 scout that waited until 17. He completed the active requirement Dec 2009. It's too late now to use BSA requirements to justify asking for more. The situation is a remnant of lower expectations from years ago. But that's water over the dam. That requirement is complete and advancement is measured by completing the requirements. ... JoeBob - Keep your high expectation for the unit program and it's leaders. Don't penalize the scout at the end-game for past failures of the program and it's leaders.

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 then pompously strut a meaingless diatribe not supported by BSA. ... rismith - Not sure about 20 years later. I know a guy who at the next roundtable bragged to me (friendly discussion) about how he refused to sign a scout's eagle paperwork because he just didn't have the right attitude and behavior to be an eagle scout. He knew he'd be over-ridden, but he wanted to make a point. I asked him what happened to create the bad attitude. The SM said the scout always had a bad attitude. I asked him why he signed off on Tenderfoot, 2nd class, 1st class, star and life. He said he shouldn't have but he always hoped things would improve. .... Well, the scout is an eagle scout now and the guy lost alot of my respect. High expectations occur during the whole journey, not just at the finishing line. ... The simple facts.... It's not our job to spend time ... thinking about "Not the type of 'Eagle' you want to fly." It's not our job to spend time ... protecting eagle from being worthless. Our job is to support every scout and execute the BSA documented program.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

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 certainly hope it does not reflect quid-pro-quo (i.e. do this and then we'll support your eagle). Scout leaders are to support all scouts in their troop. The big challenge is that the scout met the BE ACTIVE requirement in December of 2009. Well before the "reasonble" expectations were added to the GTA. Even with the new GTA, it sounds like the scout could strongly arguement for active via involvement with other activities (band, school, etc). Could you use the negotiated agreement to measure POR completion? If anything, that's the place where you could hold expectations and then it would be hard for council or national to over ride you. *** BUT *** if the scout completes six months in the POR and can argue he did anything, I don't think national or council would support you. The only sure way would be to remove him from the POR before six months is up. And that assumes he did not have any partial time in a POR from just after May 2009. I think key here is the scout should not have been re-registered in the troop. Though it is difficult (not impossible) to defend participation standards for advancement, you can have standards for troop membership. But to keep him on the roster and the later expect more when he wants to advance is not really kosher. ... Guy & Chris - Good luck. Your trying to resolve a less then idea situation. Strictly speaking, if the scout meets the Eagle requirements, he deserves the Eagle. It's that simple. ... I also agree with Lisabob in that don't shield the scout from the debate. Bring him into it so that he knows what's going on and why it's so difficult for people. When we talk life lessons, I think this is key. I think there is a poor life lesson if this scout has to challenge it at council or national to receive his eagle. I think there is a worse lesson if he does not get his eagle. You might be creating a future family that avoids scouting or yet another family that has bad taste for scouting. The life lesson to talk with the scout about is by not shielding the scout from the debate and then by the leaders in his troop doing right by him even though there is such a strong debate. If the scout can participate in a process that was fair and true to expectations, that's a HUGE HUGE lesson. Participating in a lesson where his own scout leaders are over-ridden later (or could be), that's a lesson about not trusting others and that some people who are there to "support you" are not always acting in your "best interest".

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 ACTIVE - This scout is not subject to the new GTA "reasonable expectations." His active tenure was completed six months after his Life BOR. So if the life BOR was May 2009, he completed the BE ACTIVE requirement in December 2009. Under the advancement guide in effect at that time which measured his advancement, he was active per BSA published "active" requirements. You can ask him to do now more (certain number of camp outs, activities, etc) to demonstrate his desire to be an eagle scout and dedication to scouting and your troop. Fine. That's your personal choice. But it's not something that he is strictly accountable too. I don't think national or district would support you. I don't think you can create an arguement to stand that he did not already fulfill the active requirement in December 2009. POR - I do not fully follow the POR issues written earlier. But ... if he currently has a POR and he's doing the minimum expected (i.e. you have not removed him from the POR), he gets time served credit. When six months pass, he's completed the requirement. You can remove him from the POR if you don't think he's meeting minimum POR expectations. ... Your really only option is to just not sign his Eagle application because you don't think he deserves Eagle. Some would see that as petty even though you might feel your justified.