mds3d

Mine was two manuals previous to this one, but I think they are built similar. I actually had two books. My original book was placed into a leather cover my first year at camp. It was taken everywhere and is in still pretty much the same condition. I also have a Hardback edition that has also survived well and I still carry it around some and has survived two moves and much else. I recommend every boy put there book in a cover or get a hardback one.

Yes Lone Scouts is a real thing. However, this does not sound like the proper application of it. The LS is supposed to be used ONLY if there is NO troop near enough to the scout to be practical. I don't know where you live, but I really doubt that this is being used properly in this case. Anyone wishing to be a LS does have to be approved by council, so it is hard to say where the breakdown in proper use of this program was.

That being said... I never attended the session of the Eagle committee when my project was reviewed

Having read the thread and the comments, here are my thoughts.

First let me summarize. Lets say this is three different instances. One scout complaining about one scoutmaster in one unit, repeated for three separate units.

One scout filed a complaint about Bullying (by the Scouter, I assume)

One scout filed a complaint about Emotional Abuse

One scout filed a complaint about 1-on-1 contact.

ALL of these complaints should have been taken to the COR before the Council ever saw them. None of these things are crimes in and of themselves. If they were, the complaint should have been filed with the police not the scout council.

My understanding is that it takes A LOT for the council to remove a Scouter. I also am under the impression that the only thing council looks at in the light of a single complaint is if the incident could be Child Abuse that should be reported to the police. If it is not, then nothing is done.

Multiple similar complaints means a call to the COR of record so that they can deal with their own unit.

Scouts and Scout Parents should also remember than filing a complaint with council is burning a bridge. Either the Scouter will be removed from the troop (by the COR) or the scout will no longer hold the same place in the troop. Do I agree with removing them? Not really, but they probably should leave on their own if it is bad enough to complain to council about.

So what would I do?

Am I the SM of another unit? Invite them to my unit, where they can get scouting like it is meant to be done.

Am I a concerned COR of one of the units? Remove the leader who kicked a scout out for complaining about them and discuss the issue with the other COR's at a Council committee meeting.

Am I a parent? Take my scout to a unit who provides scouting like it is supposed to be done.

The problem with your situation is that there is a lot you haven't told us. Like were all of the allegations true? What role are we playing? What were the exact situations (is there room for interpretation)?

I would like to hear from you guys what you think the expectations you should have of a scoutmaster. Specifically I am talking about time. I know many people see the Scoutmaster as at every meeting, at every roundtable, and on every activity.

Is a good scoutmaster on every event/at every meeting, or is he able to be confident that his assistants can take care of things when he can't be there.

Here is the brief version of why I ask. What if you know the best choice for a Scoutmaster (he is willing), but you also know that he will unavoidably miss the occasional meeting and not be on each and every activity? Is he still a good choice, or do you go with someone who can be there all the time but might not be the best choice as far as delivering the best program/guiding the youth?

Thanks. I will try your advice. I would have posted this in a more appropriate place, but with out a "Forum Support" section, there didn't seem to be one.

A private message has told me that this has already irritated at least one other member, so if a moderator wants to lock or completely delete this thread, that is fine with me.

Hey guys. I have two questions.

First, does anyone know of a good way to get a hold of Scouter Terry? I tried using the contact form on the site but I didn't think he got my message. I wanted to talk to him about helping him update the forum to a more modern platform.

Second, I alreAdy have a working model of what the forum could be, but I wanted to see if there was anything particular those who used the forum the most would want to see in an update. Not new categories, but things like moderator functions, tapatalk support, avatars, a language filter, or anything you have seen elsewhere you wish we had here.

Before anyone asks I am wanting to do this for free because I like this place and have time to help make it better. I dont do web stuff for a living.

I don't think we are thinking of changing everything BACK. Many things that have been changed need to be reverted. For example, restricting membership does increase the value of membership. However, I was Called out and not Tapped out, but I see no benefit in changing this ceremony. Most of the changes need to be made to what the Order does and how it runs. These things are much more important than the specifics of the ceremonies.

The focus of the Order must be outside itself. It must offer something to the Arrowman and it must offer something to the Scouting community. Right now, the Order offers little else other than Ceremonies (some lodges have gotten rid of Dance altogether). Yes there are a couple of service opportunities per year, but most of these revolve around Ordeals and are not visible to the Scouting Community.

The OA does a lot to get our Scout Camp ready for the season, but if you ask most non-OA scouters who does all of this work, they will usually answer "staff" or "the ranger."

Lodges should get much more guidance than they do. I think that a Journey to Excellence award for Lodges would be in order. Deciding what requirements to have would be the challenge, but there is currently no system to gauge the success of a Lodge.

So do you have the new Microfiber shirt or are you still using an ODL?

So... Have a question for everyone. My ODL uniform no longer fits. I currently have a Centennial uniform, the Poplin one I think. I don't dislike it, but some of the things annoy me. I have the opportunity to buy a new uniform shirt and donate this one to the uniform closet. I am looking at the new microfiber shirts. Is this really the best option? Does anyone actually prefer the Centennial?

Regarding: Vigil Honor.

The OA has stated that Vigil is bestowed on an Arrowman that has demonstrated exceptional service to the Lodge, the OA, The Scouting Community, or his Scout Camp.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that an Arrowman that has never been to a chapter meeting could be eligible for Vigil Honor.

This is the way it SHOULD be. The focus of Service in the OA has always been service to the UNIT, not to the lodge. The scout should be taking something back to his unit. If this is what we were contributing to scouting, then people would still see benefit in the OA.

I don't understand the Restricted flaps. Both of my lodges have done the same thing. Flaps were available for sale 100% of the year through the Council service center shop. You have to have a current OA membership card. My old lodge had lots of special event/service flaps that satisfied the traders.

As for borders, my new lodge is a merger of lodges. So there has never been a flap with different color borders for this lodge. No big deal.

My original lodge still does the different color flaps. White for ordeal, Red for Brotherhood, and Gold for vigil. There are so many white borders on people, that the patch cannot possibly be much of a motivation to go for brotherhood. Looking around at a camporee, most of the flaps are white bordered. At an OA chapter meeting almost all are Brotherhood. At least in that lodge, it is a good indicator of at least moderately active vs just a flap-wearer.

I like the borders, but I won't cry when they disappear for good.

I am sorry if I have missed something here, but I wanted to offer my perspective and so read the previous posts quickly.

The original question - I have no problem with the SM not being part of the OA. Adults should be part of the OA for two reasons: 1. They were inducted as a Youth - This reminds arrowman that this is something you are, not something you do as a youth. 2. They have something to offer the Order. Many SM's do not fall into this category because they simply do not have time. I would hope though that at least one adult in each troop is an Arrowman because then they understand the program.

As for the more recent discussion. I am often extremely turned off by a troop telling me "We don't do OA." Honestly, it is really not your choice. OA is part of the national program. Can you get away with turning the election team down year after year? Yes. Are you doing a disservice to your scouts? ABSOLUTELY!!!

The Order is only what is made of it by the Arrowmen in it. Every lodge and chapter I have been a part of is extremely boy run. That means that your troop will get out of the OA what it puts into it. The order stresses services to the Arrowman's unit. If you have no Arrowmen in your unit, you are not getting the full benefit of the OA.

Scoutmasters who do not allow OA election teams to come to thier unit are denying their scouts an opportunity.

For any Commissioners out there, make sure you are asking your Troops... So when is your OA election? They should be providing this opportunity. Make sure they aren't blocking it for the wrong reasons.

Give the OA their chance to make the pitch to the Scouts. They haven't heard it unless you are passing on a biased version to them.

Because this has not been stressed enough...

Now that the COR and IH are involved and if you are not exaggerating and it is really as bad as you say...

If this is not resolved to the satisfaction of you and your supporters... here is the best advice anyone can give...

GET OUT, GET OUT, GET OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes that is shouting, with arms flailing)

If the COR and IH do not fix this, there is nothing you can do. Take yourself, any sons, and anyone willing to follow to a new pack. Don't hesitate!

First and foremost, do what is right by you and yours. Do not hold on to a sinking ship.

That being said, hope it works out.

The current requirements are 13 + Completed 8th grade, or 14 years old. I don't know where 13 1/2 comes from... There may be some confusion from the Commissioner because this information was in the Summer 2011 edition of "The Commissioner." However, the requirements have been in place since May 1, 2010. I have heard rumors of them dropping it to just 13, but it hasn't actually been done yet.

Is everyone treating these new uniforms like the ODL uniforms as far as patch placement goes. I have a physical copy of the Insignia guide that refers to the Centennial and classic(ODL) uniform and wanted to make sure we were just going back to the sleeve patch placement I grew up with.

Just want to point this out. Some have referenced the Journey to Excellence one rank each year requirement. Remember that 1 rank per year is very different than FCFY. One rank per year means 6 years to eagle. That is a 16 or 17 year old Eagle scout. That is very different than the 14 year old Eagles people are complaining about.

Also think about this... FCFY fits a plan for a boy to move into Venturing at a younger age without having to complete his Eagle once he moves to a Crew. I think that this may be the direction that National is heading. Boy Scouts being 11-15 year olds and Venturing being 16-21 year olds without having the two overlap very much. No real source for this, just my impression.

I did not read each post for memory, and I cannot find the actual National Policy on FCFY... BUT

As a UC I have been taught that FCFY is supposed to be where a troop has made it POSSIBLE for a scout to get to First Class in one year. The concern that created the policy was that Troops were making it so that the advancement of a scout was slowed by limited opportunities instead of pacing his advancement based on his own motivation.

This is at least what I tell my SMs. If they can show me it is possible, even if all scouts do not do it, then I say they have achieved the goal.

As for actuality, I think that First class in 18 months or so is appropriate. Especially since we expect merit badges are also being worked on during this time.

As an Eagle Scout who did not come from an "Eagle Mill" I offer my opinion on the subject.

Advancement and non-advancement related recognition has a purpose, and it is a good one. Easily attainable short term goals that build up to a long term goal keep boys interest. Sometimes they may not understand that what they are learning is a valuable life lesson, but they can understand that it is a requirement for that next rank or the merit badge they want.

Advancement is an important method of scouting. We should not wish for the scouts that desire that next rank more than anything to be left out of scouting. As long as it is their desire, it is healthy and will teach them many lessons along the way. I think that we might not be so jaded against advancement if it were not for those pushy parents we have all met who want their son to be Eagle at least 10 times more than their son does.

Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater...

2 comments...

First I will have to agree with others that the Scout Oath and Law, LNT, and the Patrol Method do more to resolve this situation than any other rules. If "Scouters" don't follow our highest Law they will not abide by any other rule set by national.

Second, On the subject of complaints. I will tell you that if anyone calls the Council with a complaint, it is at least discussed. They are always passed to our Council Exec and Commissioner. If the complaint is about a specific district activity it is passed to the District and discussed at the Commissioner and Committee meetings (I always share these with my SMs). If it is about one specific unit it is passed to the UC specifically. I have had 3 meetings thus far in my career with the SM, CC, and COR of a troop that had a complaint lodged about their unit. One was a misunderstanding, one led to some re-training, and one led to the removal of a Scouter.

I am really shocked at the idea that anyone would reject an application based on age alone. I am especially shocked that any troop would turn away their own Eagles.

As background, I am a 26 year old Unit Commissioner who was once an 18 year old Assistant Scoutmaster.

I wholeheartedly believe that you potential and current Scouters be judged solely based on their demonstration of the Scout Oath and Law in their own lives.

I my short tenure as a UC, I have seen more ineffective, unqualified, and destructive leaders that are 40+ (and more often than not, a parent) than I have in the younger, non-parent group. Younger leaders identify with the scouts more, communicate with the scouts better, are more likely to do what is best for the whole of the troop, are more enthusiastic about training, and are more likely to be willing to correct what they are doing wrong.

I will give you an example. On my first visit to a troop that I was new to I was unable to meet the SM (he was sick). Two months later was the first time I saw him. This man was 50ish, had been SM for several years and an ASM before that, and had two boys in the troop with one already eagled out. He was also an active member of the Chartered Org. I won't be specific, but I only had to see the way he acted at one meeting before I responded. I left that meeting and called my DC and then called the COR and CC for that troop. Two weeks later I attended a meeting with the DC, our DE, the COR and CC for that troop. Two weeks later he was replaced by a 24 year old SM who was an Eagle from that troop. That troop is now one of the best in our district and I am continually proud of them.

I say all that to express this - Age and parental status are not always good qualifications. I often tell COR's that they should view these two things as negitives when choosing unit leaders. I know that there are good parents who are good leaders, but I think it is in spite of being a parent and older instead of because of it.

Those with a "no-young, no-nonparent" policy should really rethink their position.

Without having conducted a "performance review" or at least being told "You need to to these 3 things from now on if you want this to count" I would say that the Scoutmaster is acting VERY inappropriately. First, AN EMAIL!!!!!!!!! Wrong on the first count! Should have been a SM Conference at least! For everyone else listening, this kind of thing should NEVER EVER be done through email! Second, "Failed at one leadership role" If anyone failed it is the Scoutmaster!!! When our scouts fail in their leadership role it is our failure as well!!! (Yes I am yelling at my computer screen)

The very first thing I would do is call your SM and ask him for a further explaination. Remain calm and express your concern at the way this is being handled. If that doesn't satisfy you (and I expect it won't). Start calling the other leaders you have for advice (CC, COR, UC, DE -maybe in this order). They know the Scoutmaster and can give you further advice.

I will let others give the rest of advice. Trust me, many have gone through similar confrontations and will be great help to you.

Just what the title says. As it is, BSA chaplains are un-registered/registered in another position. There is very little guidance or organization to what a chaplain is supposed to do other than a short page on the national website.

What I would propose is that Chaplain be a unique registration code that allows for dual registration in any position except SM. This is essentially the way it works now, except it would allow leaders to register as just a Chaplain. I would also propose that there should be district and council chaplains as well.

This is the purpose that directed me to this conclusion. In the other thread we have been discussing religious services at events. If an organized Chaplaincy service was in charge of such a service then multiple accommodations for all represented beliefs could be established.

Ex.

Majority is middle of the road protestant - A large service can be organized for them.

Ultra-conservative protestants object - Representative Chaplain organizes separate service for those troops and any individuals in other troops.

No Jewish troop/Chaplain, but 5 jewish boys and their fathers in 5 different troops - District chaplain contacts local synagogue and asks Rabbi to volunteer a solution for these boys. (not necessarily on Sunday).

Repeat for all represented beliefs.

---Maybe these arent always the best solutions, but problems are always best solved by an organized group of interested people instead of as afterthought.

Personally, I feel that Generic "Nondenominational" worship services are vain, mildly offensive practices.

We cannot worship in everyone's way at once.

First off, Nondenominational services are just that. They automatically exclude all non-Christians. They also usually exclude many Christians as well.

There is no way to be both collectivity religious, and all-inclusive.

For example, How do you start a prayer?

Let us instead, allow each scout and scouter worship in the way that pleases his deity. If scouts/scouters want to worship together, let them. However, don't make them sacrifice their worship to include some belief they do not hold.

The only one who should be regularly planning worship should be the CO appointed Chaplain and his Aide. Even then, everything they do should be OPTIONAL.

I am a conservative Christian and have never attended a worship services that was put on by Council/District that did not exclude and sometimes offend my beliefs about worshiping God. So, after two years early in my career I have never attended such an event since. I quietly worship on my own or with those who I know share my beliefs.

Often when we conduct worship service that tries to include as many people as possible, we actually include no one and are only fooling ourselves.

There has been a lack of true scout spirit in the last few pages of this thread.

Would everyone please take a moment and repeat after me...

A Scout (and Scouter) is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

Now, as to my opinion on the original post.

Any boy or parent who can look at the Scout oath, law, and DRP and say "In my mind, my beliefs fit in these principles without alteration or qualification" can be and is welcome in Scouting. PERIOD.

Why some are so intent on keeping BOYS out of Scouting I will never know...

An overly important sounding title I know.

After some recent discussion about the loss of the different border flaps another adult Arrowman brought up another issue.

That is, he believes there should be a way to tell which adults were "selected" to serve as Scouters, and which were "elected" as Youth.

We never could agree on whether this was a good Idea or not and what would be an appropriate distinction but I thought that I would get your opinion on the subject.