andysmom

My son in 3rd grade last year had significantly more homework than I did in High School..... 

I don't disagree with your point (re. maturity level), BUT I would say that kids even 3rd-4th grade could benefit from good time management training.... especially in this day and age with so many controlled activities..... school, sports, band, scouts.... although it's not used for anything more than a homework agenda, they issue what amounts to a daytimer calendar to elementary school kids at our school!

They issue one to our kids too...... it would be nice if they took the time to teach the kids how to really use it

At almost all BOR for Star scouts and above it is asked of the scout what he has done to give back to the troop, specifically. Especially if they don't have a POR.

They are told at their First Class board that to this point they have taken and learned from the troop, now it is expected that they give back.  We expect them to be leaders, teachers and mentors.

If a scout fumbles and cannot think of a reasonable example of how they have helped out the troop in some way, a conversation is had about how that scout is living up to the oath and law.

It sounds like your PLs and SPL lack confidence that they are respected as leaders in the troop.  Planning and running meetings and outings during the PLC usually help with that unless there are older scouts who might not be showing them the respect that their positions deserve.  I have seen a couple troop guides come in and take over a patrol meeting, rather than mentor a younger PL.  That erodes their confidence and will continue to hurt them.  We had a top heavy troop for a bit and it took a while for the younger boys to grab the reigns, so to speak.  It sounds like a conversation is in order to see where their hesitancy lies.  If it is the cause of older boys undermining authority, they will probably need some advise about how to handle that.

As far as the scouts getting the POR signed off by another ASM especially when you sent them to the SM, I think it absolutely falls under scout sprirt.  How is that living the scout law?  A scout is trustworthy, a scout is obedient.....

Our troop "policy" is that the POR belongs to the scout.  He defines what his role is based on his understanding of the definition of the role.  You're PL what does that mean to you and what do you feel you should be doing to fulfill your expectations for advancement.

 

If he defines the role, then there's no misunderstanding at the end.  Either he did what he said he was going to do or he didn't.  

 

Then there are those who create POR activity for themselves along the way.  They might fill in for a PL doing sports for a month even though they wear the APL patch.  They're doing PL work, they should get credit for it.  Maybe they take on the CA's duties for the campout because he couldn't make it.  QM didn't show so he got the equipment ready for summer camp. etc.  He documents all this and turns it in.  Does he get advancement credit for all the work he's done?  In my book yes.

 

Extensive by-laws and policies are tor those who's politics have gotten in the way and the only next recourse for the troop is retaining lawyers.  That's really sad.

 

Ever notice the only ones who jump to the by-laws and policies are the adults????  

Sadly lawyers have gotten involved because some leaders decided they were "gate keepers". National has provided policies to protect the scouts and outline how the program is to be administered. As trained adult leaders it is our responsibility to know and follow these policies. The scouts may never open the guide to advancement or the guide to safe scouting, but they benefit from association with adult leaders you know and follow these policies.

Our troop is a very well run youth lead troop. The scouts plan all activities and seek guidance when required from adults. As adults we do not run the program, nor do we solve their problems for them. We help them solve their own problems by asking questions and helping them understand their choices. In the end it is their choice which determines what occurs.

The unit needs to have clearly established expectations that the scout understands for a POR.

4.2.3.4.3 Meeting Unit Expectations. If a unit has established
expectations for positions of responsibility, and if, within
reason (see the note under “Rank Requirements Overview,â€
4.2.3.0), based on his personal skill set, the Scout meets
them, he fulfi lls the requirement. When a Scout assumes
a position, something related to the desired results must
happen. It is a disservice to the Scout and to the unit to
reward work that has not been done. Holding a position
and doing nothing, producing no results, is unacceptable.
Some degree of responsibility must be practiced, taken,
or accepted.

4.2.3.4.4 Meeting the Requirement in the Absence of Unit
Expectations. It is best when a Scout’s leaders provide him
position descriptions, and then direction, coaching, and
support. Where this occurs, and is done well, the young
man will likely succeed. When this support, for whatever
reason, is unavailable or otherwise not provided—or
when there are no clearly established expectations—then
an adult leader or the Scout, or both, should work out the
responsibilities to fulfi ll. In doing so, neither the position’s
purpose nor degree of diffi culty may be altered
signifi cantly or diminished. BSA literature provides
the basis for this effort: the Scoutmaster Handbook,
No. 33009, (“The Boy-Led Troopâ€); the Patrol Leader
Handbook, No. 32502 (“Your Patrol and Your Troopâ€);
the Varsity Scout Guidebook, No. 34827 (in explanations
of team organization); the Venturing Leader Manual,
No. 34655 (“Leadership in the Crewâ€); and the Sea
Scout Manual, No. 33239 (“Offi cers’ Responsibilitiesâ€).
Under the above scenario, if it is left to the Scout to
determine what should be done, and he makes a
reasonable effort to perform accordingly for the time
specifi ed, then he fulfi lls this requirement. Even if his
results are not necessarily what the unit leader, members
of a board of review, or others involved may want to see,
he must not be held to unestablished expectations.

4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met. If a unit
has clearly established expectations for position(s) held,
then—within reason—a Scout must meet them through
the prescribed time. If he is not meeting expectations,
then this must be communicated early. Unit leadership
may work toward a constructive result by asking him
what he thinks he should be accomplishing. What is his
concept of the position? What does he think his troop
leaders—youth and adult—expect? What has he done
well? What needs improvement? Often this questioning
approach can lead a young man to the decision to
measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the
service time should be recorded.
If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance,
then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his
position. It is the unit leader’s responsibility to address
these situations promptly. Every effort should have been
made while he was in the position to ensure he
understood expectations and was regularly supported
toward reasonably acceptable performance. It is unfair
and inappropriate—after six months, for example—
to surprise a boy who thinks he has been doing fi ne,
with news that his performance is now considered
unsatisfactory. In this case, he must be given credit
for the time.

If a Scout believes he has performed his duties satisfactorily,
but his leaders disagree, then the possibility that
expectations are unreasonable or were not clearly
conveyed to the youth should be considered. If after
discussions between the Scout and his leaders—and
perhaps including his parents or guardians—he believes
he is being held to unreasonable expectations, then upon
completing the remaining requirements, he must be
granted a board of review. If he is an Eagle candidate,
then he may request a board of review under disputed
circumstances (see “Initiating Eagle Scout Board of
Review Under Disputed Circumstances,†8.0.3.2).

Our council advancement chair told me that under disputes like this, the council advancement committee always sides with the scout.

POR are issues in many troops.  Boys are troop historian in name only.

This year, for the first time in many years, the boys in those type of positions were given a description of the position and they sat down with the SM and together they came up with goals.

When the goals were met and time was served, the POR were signed off.  We had a scout who hasn't met his goal.  SM has had discussions with him about how he has a goal he needs to meet,

asked what his plans are with meeting the goal, if he needed assistance, etc.  Sad to say, that boy won't be getting his POR signed off.

He and the SM made the goal so he knew what it was, he was asked if he needed help, he was monitored and reminded that he had a goal yet he still didn't meet it.  It is on him.

In our troop it is small enough the the SM is the only one who signs off for POR and scout spirit for just the reasons as you listed.  He knows what they had agreed to as fufilling the POR. and he signs off scout spirit during the SMC  In a larger troop I don't know how it would be handled.....

I do believe that once it is signed off it it can't be taken back, but it  could be discussed at a BOR about why the scouts are going around the SM to get the requirements signed off.

The SM is there to support the PL, provide a list of qualified MBC's, etc. share records of what the patrol members have and need for MB's, make suggestions on what might be appropriate for the members, BUT the final decision as to what's best for their members is in the hands of the PL.

 

My PL sat down with his patrol, found out what each boy wanted to take, then went back and created a schedule so that guys could buddy up and if not have MB sessions close to each other so they could get back to the campsite with a buddy, etc.  He did bring to me the fact that the new Webelos boy wanted to take 4 Eagle Path MB's the first year and asked me to talk with him about it.  I did and he went back and worked out having at least one really fun MB to go with the 4 Eagle path ones.  Neither of us said no because we both believe that what the members pick even after being warned is a respected decision.  If something goes wrong, the PL or the PL and SM will work it though with the Scout.  Everything is a learning opportunity.

For summer camp our boys pick up the list of merit badges that are offered and each scout circles what they want to take, the boys know the layout of the camp so they know about how long it takes to get places, they don't need help with that.  It is highly recommended that first years take the "Pioneering Program" but we don't hang them by their toenails if they choose not to.  SM talks to the scouts when they hand in their choices.  If a tenderfoot wants to do a trek, he is told that he doesn't meet the camp's requirements.  We did have a 2nd class this year want to do the trek (1st class is required) so an older scout is spending time with him to try to get him to meet that goal.

Yes, but you admitted there was nothing you could really do as the SM. Now in truth, I have had the same experience, so I always advised scouts away from the counselor. But, what if the scout could rate and provide comments on an electronic list.

 

 

 

Barry

I have found that too many times a scout and leader have different opinions about how they would rate counselors.....scout's opinion, 5 stars easy, let me get away with completing a badge without doing the hardest requirement,, I ma sure most SM would not rate that particular counselor as 5 stars. 

I do know that many councils have MBC lists online, ours does not and we get a strict note with the list that we get each month that the list is NOT to be made public.  Even in the guide to advancement it states that scouts should not have access.

7.0.2.2 Web-Based Counselor Lists

Online counselor lists present a number of challenges.

They should only be placed on offi cial council websites

that conform to the National Council guidelines at

http://www.scouting.org/Marketing/Resources/

CouncilWeb.aspx. Give attention to protecting counselor

privacy. Limit access to those who have merit badge–

related responsibilities, such as advancement committee

members and chairs, or unit leaders and selected

assistants. Scouts should not have access. Their

interaction with the Scoutmaster in discussing work

on a badge, and obtaining a counselor’s name,

is an important part of the merit badge plan.

And everything the SM does besides providing a signature could be construed as adding to the requirements.  Maybe the SM doesn't like the MBC, but if that person is vetted, trained and registered with the council, what good is denying a signature?  If the MBC isn't fulfilling his responsibility, what's that got to do with the SM's signature?   Nothing!  Don't talk to the scout, talk to the council personnel, camp director, MB activity chair, etc. and resolve the problem.  That's not the fault of the scout and doesn't need a signature. 

 

PL knows the MBC, recommends him to his member that wants to take the MB class.  PL has MB's of his own.  He knows how to teach the boy to use the phone to contact the MBC and set up instruction.  PL doesn't know of a MBC, then he goes and calls the scout office for a list of qualified MBC's.  Council doesn't give out the list to the boy.  He need support so he contacts SM who gets the list and gives it to him anyway.

 

Boy shows up with a MBC signed Blue Card.  SM or AC check out the name and it's not on the list.  They further research and the MBC is not registered as such.  Boy is told and he learns a valuable lesson in doing it right next time.  If he learns this early in his Scouting career he won't be pulling this stunt two weeks before his 18th birthday with this being the last MB needed.  It's called taking responsibility for oneself and no amount of SM signatures are going to make that any better.

I don't think talking to a scout while he is signing a completed blue card would be considered "adding to the requirements"  I never said that a SM should deny a signature.  I was pointing out WHY a SM should be meeting with a scout before starting and after completing a MB.  It is a way of starting a conversation.

In our troop the PLs do not "know" the MBC, especially the ones that he has not worked with and even more especially the ones outside of our troop.  We fully expect the PL to work with the boys to teach and practice how to call a MBC to set us a meeting.

What if your PL "knows a MBC" who has let his YP lapse.  How is PL supposed to know that.  Poor kid under him completes the MB and finished it, then when it gets checked finds out that MBC has fallen off the MBC list, how is that teaching him anything.  Taking responsibility for oneself means doing things the way they are supposed to be done, which is how it is spelled out in the GTA.  Scouts talks with SM about merit badge, gets a signed blue card and a few names of counselors, completes the work, turns to blue card back into his troop to be signed by the SM

After what heppened with my son and one MB he took at a local MBC, I understand why some SMs want to be "gate keepers" and make sure the Scouts are getting quality MB counselors. Son took a MB at a MBC  that the MB Counselor not only used out of date requirements, try about 10 years out of date, but the Scouts didn't do all of the old requirements even. As a Scouter, I could do nothing about it, he "earned" the MB because it was signed off as completed.

 

But as his dad, I talked to him, and made him realize why it's important to do all of the requirements. Maybe I was wrong in letting work on the old requirements, but officially he had already earned it. Besides he had fun doing the rest of the requirements anyway.

I don't see it as being a gate keeper.  I look at it as getting to know the scouts and wanting to be sure they have the best experience they can.  A scout won't walk up to most adults and start a conversation, but if they need to request a blue card and signature to start a merit badge and that leads to a conversation about what their goals are in life and what challenges they might be facing or even discussing what their favorite subject is in school I guess I don't see where that is a bad thing, but what do I know, I'm just a mom.

 

You lost me, what is the reason a signature is required to get the scout a list or discuss the scouts experience? The list can be on the internet and the SM does have the tool of a SM conference.  

 

I'm just playing devils advocate to force us outside the box. Honestly I'm in a weird place here because I was making the same arguments in the original discussion. 

 

Barry

 

The signature it is the SM's acknowledgement that he gave the scout names of approved counselors from a list that has been provided by district who have completed youth protection.

When the merit badge is completed the SM discusses what the scout learned and how the process went.  If the scoutmaster learns, for example, that the counselor did not comply with youth protection guidelines or if the SM sees that the scout did not complete requirements as written he will know not to give that counselor's name to another scout.

Our district does not put the list of counselors online, it is provided only to the SM and AC of troops. 

The reason SM sign blue cards before the merit badge is started is to facilitate conversation.

"7.0.0.3 The Scout, the Blue Card, and the Unit Leader

A few merit badges have certain restrictions, but otherwise

any registered Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or qualifi ed

Venturer or Sea Scout may work on any of them at any

time. Before he begins working with a merit badge

counselor, however, he is to have a discussion with his unit

leader. That a discussion has been held is indicated by the

unit leader’s signature on the Application for Merit Badge,

No. 34124, commonly called the “blue card.†Although it

is the unit leader’s responsibility to see that at least one

merit badge counselor is identifi ed from those approved

and made available, the Scout may have one in mind with

whom he would like to work. The unit leader and Scout

should come to agreement as to who the counselor will be.

Lacking agreement, the Scout must be allowed to work

with the counselor of his choice, so long as the counselor is

registered and has been approved by the council

advancement committee. However, see “Counselor

Approvals and Limitations,†7.0.1.4, for circumstances

when a unit leader may place limits on the number of merit

badges that may be earned from one counselor.

The Scout may also want to take advantage of

opportunities at merit badge fairs or midways, or at

rock-climbing gyms or whitewater rafting trips that

provide merit badge instruction. This is also acceptable,

but the Scout must still discuss the merit badge with the

unit leader and get a signed blue card. Should a Scout

want to change counselors, he should once again speak

with the unit leader to verify that the counselor is properly

registered and approved. Whatever the source, all merit

badge counselors must be registered and approved for

the merit badges they counsel. See “Counselor Approvals

and Limitations,†7.0.1.4, and “Registration and

Reregistration,†7.0.1.5.

A unit leader should consider making more of the process

than just providing a signature. The opportunity exists,

then and there, to provide inspiration and direction in a

young man’s life. Preliminary merit badge discussions can

lead to conversations about talents and interests, goal

setting, and the concept of “challenge by choice.†The

benefi ts can be much like those of a well-done

Scoutmaster conference.

The discussion a Scout is to have with the unit leader is

meant to be a growth-oriented and positive conversation.

The unit leader should discuss any concerns related to

working on the merit badge and provide appropriate

counseling. It is then the Scout’s decision whether or not

to proceed with the merit badge. The process is intended

to inform the Scout about what he may encounter along

the way, and perhaps to give him suggestions on how the

work might be approached. It also has the purpose of

keeping the unit leader up to date with what the members

of the unit are doing.

Because of the counseling opportunity involved, it

is the unit leader’s responsibility to sign blue cards.

In the role of giving leadership to the delivery of the

troop program, a Scoutmaster, for example, has a

better opportunity than other leaders to get to know

the youth. This background with the Scouts allows a

unit leader to add greater value in the discussion and

counseling intended to take place with the signing of

the card. However, in circumstances when this may

be impractical—for example, in large units or when

the unit leader may be absent—the unit leader may

delegate authority to sign cards and conduct the

discussions. This authority should be entrusted to a

knowledgeable assistant unit leader.

If a Scout comes to me with a blue card and has already started with a counselor, I'm going to ask how he found that person, and how that person is working for him.  I may need to suggest that person to another Scout.  I'm not going to petulantly decide I'm not going to sign the blue card because the Scout didn't come to me first.  Seriously, if you're an SM and your ego is going to be that wounded because a Scout didn't think to bring you into the process at the start that you refuse to sign the blue card, then maybe you're just not cut out to be a Scoutmaster.  We all know that the BSA is notorious for being inconsistent in their statements from one document to the next - heck, the BSA website on Merit Badges that was kindly linked to here contradicts itself on this very issue.  The BSA is a game - the Scouts are the players - we are not the goalkeepers, the gatekeepers, the umpires or the referees.  We're the coaches or the folks at the fork in the road encouraging the Scouts to take the correct fork, to give them the tools they need to play the game.  It's really not our job to stop or pause the game unless there are serious issues of health and safety to be addressed.

Absolutely agree.

Having the SM sign the card after the MB is completed gives the SM a chance to discuss with the scout what he learned during the process and if the counselor "skimmed" through requirements, etc.  That will help the SM narrow down the list of names he gives to the next scout looking to work on the badge.  You have to award the scout the badge, but you don't need to give the name of this counselor to another scout.  By the SM signing  and giving a scout a list of counselors that the SM knows follow the requirements it keeps the integrity of the merit badge program.

This year our dues were $150.  We charge $5 per attendee for food for camping and the troop pays the difference up to $12 per person for food.  We started charging only $5 for food because we had a surplus of funds and didn't think it was right to carry that much money from year to year.  We charge extra for "big trips", its an extra $60 this year if a scout chooses to participate.  Summer camp is $375.  Class B shirts and troop caps run 30-40 extra depending on what type is ordered. 

We provide handbooks, neckers, slide and epilets upon crossover.  The troop pays for merit badges, awards and rank patches.  We are in the northeast so we camp in cabins for part of the year and it is quite a bit more expensive than tent camping but we cover that too.  We camp 10 months of the year, not counting summer camp.  We also provide an end of year mini golf outing with ice cream.

We currently only sell popcorn as a fundraiser, but our top seller will be aging out so I am sure we will need to be looking into other fundraising options.  I have also redeemed about $800 in bottles that I have collected from a local business for the troop (don't get me started on why *I* am the only one doing that).

We only lost 1 scout this year because the the dues are "way too much money",

I disagree. That workbook is so convoluted and the process so disjointed I have parents that have extreme difficulty in understanding the process. We are here to advise and counsel. As with everything we do, we don't simply throw guys in the deep end...we teach them to swim and THEN throw them in the pool.

 

As far as guidance is concerned, even the workbook mentions that "Guidance that maximizes the opportunity for completion of a worthwhile project will be readily available and strongly recommended." Seems even BSA suggests adult guidance of a sort.

 

 

 

Actually, you can save signature until the draft plan is done and review both. There's nothing in the workbook the precludes any reviewer from seeing a draft copy of the final plan at the same time the proposal is done. All it says is, "Once your proposal is approved, you are strongly encouraged to complete the final plan form in this workbook." It think BSA does the candidate a disservice not REQUIRING the plan to be done along with the proposal. Let's face it. The proposal usually takes a certain level of work. The logical extension of it is the plan.

 

In the business world you don't review a proposal, sign it (which authorizes work) without a plan on how to implement the proposal. All too often scouts are getting the signatures and then running off to implement their proposal without having an effective plan in place. I have seen FAR too many projects fail because there was no effective plan. Reason? The workbook does not require one.

 

And how do you draw up an effective plan? The workbook seems designed by people who don't have the first clue about project management. Scouts need a bit of guidance on how to do that. I'm not suggesting we do a PMP-level education effort here, but teaching the boys the basics of project management and how to execute a project is a service well worth the rank of Eagle.

 

Given all the stuff BSA screws up on, I am not willing to accept the adage "that is how it is intended to be" as a good excuse for a poorly designed process and ambiguous materials.

 

I'd want my son to get the training and the guidance to do his best, THEN let him loose to see what he can do. That's what we are here for as Scouters.

When the new Eagle Workbook came out that did not require a scout completing a final plan before the project started it caused a big firestorm in our troop.  When our committee sits down with a scout to approve his project we ask him questions about how the project will be run, what his timeline is, how he intends to "provide leadership", basically all the details that would go into a final plan.  Anyone can come up with a basic proposal, we try to use our collective experiences to help the scout see his proposal from different perspectives and to prepare him for things that he might not have considered.  We ask questions, alot of questions but we don't give him answers.  We want to approve a well thought out plan.  In my mind, a proposal is not a well thought out plan.  The scout often does not have answers to our questions but when he comes out of that meeting he usually isn't wearing his rose colored "this is going to take 4 boys 36 hours and 2 wheelbarrow perfect scenario" glasses.  We just saw a boy who's project included spreading a dump truck full of mulch on a newly formed trail. He thought that part of his project would be completed with a couple borrowed wheelbarrows in a couple hours unill we made him get out a calculator to realize how many wheelbarrow loads of mulch it would take to spread a dump truck full.  He quickly realized he would need more wheelbarrows, more boys or more time.  I don't look at that as doing the project for the scout, I see that as mentoring and guiding. 

Our scouts do community service projects as patrols and as a troop but planning and running an Eagle Project is beyond that.  Regular service projects don't require a single scout to coordinate every aspect of the project from feeding volunteers, making sure there are proper safety protocalls in place, providing water, equipment, getting approval from municipalities etc.  An Eagle Project is a bigger deal than a troop service project and it generally IS the first time our boys are doing that sort of thing.

Andysmom, many of those characteristics you describe of problem adults are true, or can be true of adults with boys in the program as well. Thus the issues with adults are not related to whether one has a boy in the troop or not.

Very true, there are good leaders and there are not so good leaders whether or not they have boys in the troop. 

Wouldn't that hold true for any two leaders regardless of whether they had kids or not?

It absolutely does hold true for any leaders. 

I stated what I see in our troop are some issues.   We also have an adult leader who has never been married and have no children, he is one of our best leaders.  He is a committee member and is greatly respected by our leaders as well as the scouts. He takes the time to know the boys, he knows what they do outside the meetings, he talks TO them. Many of our committee members have scouts who have aged out and are on the committee because they truly believe in the scout program and see the benefits, they stay on because they mentor Eagle Scouts or just want to keep the troop strong.  I am not saying that ALL leaders who have no scouts in the program are problimatic, I am saying that SOME are.

The problem adults that we have (and that I have seen) use their position often times to boost their own egos.  Our troop is over 100 years old and many of our Eagle Scouts and their porjects have garnered quite a bit of publicity in our area.  I have heard one of our leaders tell new parents that he had a single conversation with a scout that "changed that scout's life".  We have a leader who isn't "good with email"  If he needs to know about anything going on he requires a phone call and doesn't understand why that is an issue.  We have leaders who don't think we need a troop website.  We proposed a troop twitter account and one committee member didn't know what twitter was.  I have seen a leader schedule Eagle Scout Board of Review the at the same time as a scout's High School graduation because they din't know what is going on outside their own life.  Some leaders who don't have son's in the program  don't agree with the new policies or priorities of BSA and they want to hold onto "their" idea of what scouting is, and they have been leaders for however many years, so they know.  The ONLY training our current CC has is youth protection and he was the SM 12 years ago!  I am more trained than he is (in my far shorter tenure as a leader) and he doesn't care.  There is another troop in our town that has had the same SM for 30 years.  They don't do district camporees because he doesn't like them, the scouts in his unit don't even know there are district camporees.  They do the same thing year after year because that is wat they have always done.   Again, I am not saying that all leaders without scouts in the program are like this, and I apologize if that is how my post came across, but sadly, I know some that are.

On another note, I am trying not to be insulted by this

"Let me tell you one thing, kids of Scouting age hide a lot of stuff from their parents that they don't get away with when dealing with people who don't think this kid is the greatest thing in the world."

Most of the time, at any troop event, no one would know which kid is mine.  He doesn't deal with my husband for any of his advancement requirements, my husband does not do his scoutmaster confrences, I do not sit on his boards of review.  Most of the time the only way you could connect him with us is because he rides with us to meetings.  I am counceling him on 1 merit badge and it has taken him far longer to complete than it has taken others because he has not done some requirements to my satisfaction, believe me, he is getting no easy ride.  Yep, he is pretty amazing, but so are all the boys in our troop.  He is certainly not the "best" scout and there are things he struggles with, just like every other scout in our troop.  He has more challenges than some other scouts in our troop because he has some special needs but he certainly does not "get away" with anything because he is our son.

In our troop the SM and ASM generally have boys in the unit.  When their boys age out they join the committee or move on to positions in the district or council.

One of the problems that we have when leaders don't have "skin in the game" is that they loose touch with what is relevant to the boys, for example, time commitments  for school and other activiites and methods of communication etc.  When you have a boy in the program you know what else goes on in the lives of the boys, when your don't you tend to forget how busy they are or what you can reasonably expect from boys of that age.  I have heard more stories about the "glory days" that I care to admit.  I will advise you to keep training, just because you have done SMS 10 years ago you can (and should IMO) do it again.

My son has multiple food allergies (egg, dairy and tree nut).

We pruchased him his own cooking and cleaning equipment. 

We get the patrol menu and make him a menu that is as close as possible to the patrol menu.

We provide all of his food and he cooks it all himself.

SSScout, totally agree. This was a while ago and I do know if they still do it or not. I didn't know that this was wrong until I changed troops and took training so I was the newbie. However, when I did mentio this stuff to leaders that were still in the troop it didn't matter. This was one of those troops where the CC and a lot of the committee had been with the troop for years and years and they were "large and in charge" so to speak. Again it has been quite a while since I have spoken to people in the troop so I hop things have changed.

This is what had been going on in our troop (some of you will remember my thread about a "deferred" BOR)  We had to contact district and council to get these individuals educated about BSA policy.

Coffee stays in the adult chuck box, syrup and condiments will go home with SM to be brought back out at next campout, if something has been opened but not used up it goes back to the family that did the purchasing.  If we have something leftover that hasn't been oppened it either goes home with the SM to be saved for the next campout or dontated to our CO food pantry.

Good question, we have discussed having the troop provide condiment packets and all paper products (our scouts go through an absurd amount of paper towels).   We often have 3 bottles of ketchup open at a time depending on who is doing the buying and it is a pain for the SM to keep all the extra stuff.  We have a troop room where we store equipment but it is in the basement of a church and they discourage us from keeping any open food or anything that might attract mice.

We gained 4 of the 5 crossovers this year! We had none last year. One pack had no Webelos 2, another pack NEVER has scouts come to us and the third pack's den leader older son went to the other troop 2 years ago, we expected this year's den to follow. Turns out the other troop turned the den leader's son off so much he dropped so we got most of the den. Yeah us!

Wow! I second what qwazse said.

She is brave for saying something for sure and she will need support.

Will keep you all in my prayers.

Our troop's policy is no merit badge work during troop meetings. Our scoutmaster is at 99% of troop meetings 1 hour early for scouts to work on merit badges or advancement. It makes it easy for scouts to have a place to work and MBC know there will be atleast 2 deep leadership. We have had, on occasion, a scout organize a merit badge "class" for a few scouts, but it is up to the individual MBC if they will council a group (I will not council more than 1 scout in a meeting for Family Life). We have a few "in house" counselors, but not all scouts even use them. We feel very strongly that a scout will be better prepared for life if he contacts and sets up merit badge sessions with people he may not know. That being said, we loose MANY crossovers to the troop up the street who does all required merit badges in house during troop meetings, it is easier. IMO easier is not always better.

 

Qwazse ... Very well said. I've marked out any specific name because "I think" this is a pattern we see repeatedly in scouting. Scouts being used as leverage because people disagree on how the program works.

I absolutely agree! Or, they don't know that there have been changes.

In our specific situation, the two committee members might not have realized that the wording has changed in the requirements for Star and Life that as "scout needs to serve in a position of leadership" to "a scout must serve in a position of responsibility"

A quick update on our situation, due to weather issues we have had to cancel our troop meetings on 2/2 and 2/9. There will be no meeting on 2/23 because it is during school vacation week. DAC will be out of town for "a few months", we reached out to council, they want district to handle it. We told them that it was unacceptable to wait months for this to be resolved. Our DE was supposed to be at our last meeting to sit in on the BOR, but that meeting was cancelled. We got an email from the DAC letting us know that we have an Eagle package back from national to pick up, so SM is eamiling his again right now to see what is being done. He is also going to insist that someone come to a committee meeting to explain what BOR are for and how they are to be conducted. My problem isn't so much the retesting, but these committee members holding the boy back because they "don't feel he is ready" for the next rank.

I have heard from a parent that his son and another scout were held back from Life for a year because the committee chair didnt think they were "ready" and another scout dropped out of scouting all together because the committee chair found reasons to not approve several of his Eagle service projects. These events happened before I was involved in the troop so I don't know specifics. I will admit that our Eagle Scouts are pretty amazing (tops of their graduating classes, current leaders in the community and local businesses, etc.) but that is not required to advance to the rank. Our committee chair is trying to hold scouts to that standard.

Forward your offending committee members this video from BSA National "Guardians of the Gate"

I love this video, thank you for sharing, sadly I doubt either committee member would watch it. After telling the DC that he understood the no testing rule and promised that it would never happen again, we offered to give "new CC" my copy of the GTA and the committee guidebook because he is taking on this new responsibility, he turned him down flat and said that he has every intent of having the scout set up a tent. Maybe he didn't want my obviously used copy with my notes from the last 3 years of committee and advancement training that I have taken, but I doubt it.

We sent several emails asking district and council if we are missing something, if we are in error. If we are we will give a sincere and heartfelt apology. We do not know everything about the program, maybe we interpreted the rules incorrectly, maybe we still are, but I really don't think so. The way I handled the incident was not my finest moment. The District advancement chair spoke with me yesterday and told me he had received a call form the "old CC". I explained my view of what happened and urged him to speak with the "old CC". The district advancement chair knows the "old CC" outside of scouting so he admitted that it put him in an uncomfortable position so he planned to discuss it with council. The council advancement chair knows my husband very well as they served on wood badge staff for the last 2 courses, he was also the merit badge counselor for the 2 citizenship merit badges that the scout put together and completed with a small group of scouts.