NACAP

FOS donations happen when people believe they are getting some value from the council.  When Customer Service (we are the customer, not the other way around) and Communications are unsatisfactory, Programs are substandard or get cancelled and the units are blamed, it is very likely these folks will choose to retrench and donate to their unit.   Since the unit is not allowed to look for a better service provider even in the adjoining council, they only use the council for the absolute minimum.

Contrary to what the council is telling you, they council won't be able to verify and enter the rank, and if they try to send it to National for manual posting, they won't be able to process it. And they will not issue credentials for a Scout who wasn't registered.

The national Advancement Team requested the four historic merit badges be taken down because some Scouts were continuing to earn them. They did not realize that the Internet Advancement software would also delete the badges from Scouts records. That wasnt supposed to happen. Since reprograming Internet Advancement isnt really an option at this point, they plan to add the merit badges back into the system. IA will eventually be replaced by advancement functionality that will be added to the new Unit Tools.

This is a serious issue!!! The only thing that would happen is that Twinkies would have to be made by another baker so we can take them on campouts!!!

2cub...I am of the same philosophy about the gate. I didn't mean to imply that I grab my scouts around the neck and force them through the gate. Your words...coaching etc are right on.

Our unit by no means checks the box and we have a number of scouts who take their own initiative to bring their books in every meeting, ask for blue cards, hit the library to get a MB Pamphlet and yes even request a SMC and BOR.

Advancement is clearly the most emotional of the scouting methods as it's probably the one that folks feel they can "control". You do not see this approach in the Cub/Venture program's advancement.

Have you sent your recommendations to advancement.team@scouting.org?

eisely...EBOR serve a great purpose to me. A great chance to sit with a stellar young man and have a conversation with him about goals he's achieved and goals on his horizon and beyond. In other words the EBOR makes me feel good about our country's future. Can it get to be a bit too much of an administrative nightmare with references, absolutely!

2cub...yes some of the GTA was worded in the way that favors the youth and gives them a chance against so-called leaders who think they are and should be barriers to keep scouts from passing through the gates instead of being on the other side of the gate pulling their scouts through. If you had the chance to see the large number of cases of so-called leaders who claim to be helping their scouts when in fact they are doing just the opposite, steam would come out of your ears. Scouts were sort of helpless if the SM said you can't have a BOR even if they had completed all the requirements and had a SMC until I say so and were extremely unlikely to take him on.

Please don't forget to read the rest of the sentence you refer to in 8.0.0.2...SMs can't defer a BOR or add to the requirements to keep the scout from having one. Since SMs are charged with determining if a scout is ready for a BOR at the SM conference, he is naturally the one who would pass this info on to the AC for scheduling.

If you have a better way to word any of the GTA, please forward them to advancement.team@scouting.org. Thanks.

(This message has been edited by NACAP)

Frankly, we should just drop the reference ruse completely. They mean nothing. Who's going to list a bad reference in the first place? And if one sneaks through, what could they say which would change the outcome. If the requirements are complete, if the boxes are checked, it's a done deal. Asking for reference is clearly adding to the requirements.

FYI...I did recommend that as part of my GTA review. I will say I received one so-so recommendation once...it was fromt he parents!! Go figure.

eisely...IMHO...you should never, ever get to an EBOR where the scout is there and defer a decision due to lack of something the scout has no control over.

In your 1st para, the procedure in that case is par 8.0.3.2 Requesting an EBOR under disputed circumstances. I'm in the middle of one of those right now.

eisely: While this might be a rare occurence, if you did what you are suggesting, you are adding to the requirements and the scout could appeal and he would win.

The Scout's requirement is to provide names/contact info on his application and that's it. Also you are not allowed to hold up an EBOR for lack of responses to the council's requests from his references. I've held EBORs with as few as one response.

Letters are not required to hold an EBOR. The Scout is only required to list his references on his application, hence no mention of letters or method of collection on his application. Don't know why you would think references would be mentioned in the Project workbook. Councils determine the method of contacting the references listed. GTA reference is para 9.0.1.7.

eolesen...not sure how old this young man is but if he completed all the requirements including his POR, he would not have needed to do that again at his new troop. Was there an issue on whether or not he had completed his POR??

If he completed all Eagle Requirements prior to his 18th birthday he is entitled to a BOR regardless if the SM signed off on it or not. Have him fill out his Eagle Scout Application and have him bring it down with any other documentation (project book etc) to his council office. Ask to see the Scout Executive and explain the circumstances.(This message has been edited by NACAP)

I do Mock BORs all the time except I call them Scoutmaster Conferences.

Yep..I disagree given echaney's posting of other unspeakable things (undefined) and the BSA defining bullying as deliberate and hurtful. If the scout left the troop over his treatment and if this guy is to the point that others are walking out, then maybe he is bullying. He is in the power position over the youth.

Disagreement over an extracurricular project? Sound like more than that to me but I don't have the entire Paul Harvey story here. Most times we do not. He's certainly can take any of our advice and proceed on his own.

What's the next thing this guy is going to do to other scouts? This is a pattern of behavior. It seems that if all the folks know about this guy, it's time to take some definite action. A friendly call or appointment with the SE is not an inappropriate action IMHO.

echaney...if all is as you said in your initial post, it is unfortunate and not a common occurence.

This is not an Advancement Issue, this is a Youth Protection Issue and the SM's bullying is a clear violation and you should inform the Scout Executive that you intend to pursue this to the National Office unless he takes the appropriate action he is required to do.

The YPT link is provided. From what you've said, I found more than one policy that is not being followed by this so called leader.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx

As stated by others, there are other remedies for the EP if it was approved by all signators before he started.(This message has been edited by NACAP)

I know there are some items that need to be reworded/clarified. The Advancement team's Twitter Account has been used to send out some of those until the 2013 update.

Suggestions must/shall/should/could/may :-) be sent to advancement.team@scouting.org

DUP(This message has been edited by NACAP)

DUP(This message has been edited by NACAP)

Actually if you look closely at the requirements (particularly 9B), it will be readily apparent to you that long-term camps a.k.a summer camps do not afford the scout the ability to complete all the requirements so using more than one long-term camp makes no sense so it is not allowed. Some BSA historian might point out that the req used to be 50 days/nights with no long-term camps.

http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Camping

9A was essentially reworded to take out the term "days" of camping because folks wanted to argue that Saturday AM or departure day should count for the MB.(This message has been edited by NACAP)

Moose...I wasn't 100% sure where you were going with the "may not" post.

Take it back to the purpose of the BOR...It's the Committee's responsibility. It's to give the scout a chance to speak honestly about his scouting experience and for the CMs to have a chance to assess how the troop is meeting the Scouting Program's goals. Chapter 8 Particularly 8.0.1.3 of the Guide to Advancement lays it out pretty well. The Committee then can provide feedback to the SM about the scout's statements offline.

ASM, SM, parents, observers etc in attendance or sitting on the BOR itself detract from the Committee's job and may keep the scout from giving forthright answers.

For the EBOR, the approach is a bit difference since the Eagle project requirements involves people outside the scouting program. I've seen the project sponsor sit as a member of EBORs

Fish....I don't call it torture but mock or practice BORs for any rank are just plain unnecessary if the SM has properly done his job to prepare his scout. A confident scout who has completed all the requirements for Eagle Rank will never have a problem with a BOR. Tell them to relax and show their stuff. Nothing wrong with "locking up a bit". I've done almost 100 and with the exception of one where it was determined he didn't meet the project requirement, all did well and never had to practice.

Your #1 sounds a bit harsh and puts fear into a scout that is unwarranted

Your #2 is adding to the requirements as the scout is not required to have scout socks to have a BOR

NJ: How about:

Policy on Unauthorized Changes to Advancement Program

No council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to

add to, or subtract from, advancement requirements

Making a scout go through a Mock EBOR is adding to the requirements and therefore not allowed.

Seattle: If they had 3 ULs there (which I hope were Comm Mbrs and not ASMs) why did they need you? The non-CM rule is not for convenience but for the necessary reason I listed earlier.

When you go to the Comm Meeting, no need to be confrontational but take along the Guide to Advancement and have them look over Chap 3 AC responsibility, 4 Active/POR guidance, 7 MB info, 8 BOR rules, 9 Eagle rules. I think the "experienced" Advancement Chair and the whole committee need to get up to speed on the rules.

The Eagle Coach question/solution is in chapter 9.

For Scoutfish: Mock EBORs are neither required or desired by the BSA.

This subject has recently been on the BSA Advancement Twitter Account:

BSA Advancement Team ‏@AdvBSA

Using unregistered adults for non-Eagle BORs is the exception not the rule. If you have MCs schedule BORs when/where they can attend.

BSA Advancement Team ‏@AdvBSA

The alternative of using unregistered adults for non-Eagle BORs does not mean "grab any parent if an MC doesn't happen to show up."

AND in the Ask Andy Issue 309 May 18th:

http://netcommissioner.com/askandy/2012/05/issue-309-may-18-2012/

Here's the reasoning where you may use non committee members...

Troop has minimum to qualify as a unit....5 scouts, 1 CC/COR, 2 CM, a SM and and ASM. Scout A is son of a CM so you need a 3rd for a BOR so it would be acceptable to find another adult or even a SM or ASM from another troop to serve. Scout B could have Mom and Dad as CMs so you would need 2 others

KC...there is a difference between being unhappy and making a cogent argument and sending vile and sarcastic comments. I speak to the latter.

At the risk of being hammered and through the encouragement PMs other members have sent, I thought I would share some information from my discussions with National on Shortridges concerns.

Yes scouting.org needs to be completely reorganized and it is recognized as an issue and in progress. To suggest National "kick butt" is crude and un Scout-like. That approach doesn't work with today's employees. There have also been significant operational changes at the national office over the last few years and feedback suggests that most people these days, are thinking twice before they declare the BSA incompetent. The mere fact that there are email addresses to send in questions on advancement and merit badges is good news. Also this months Advancement News survey specifically targets BSA publications and asks how they can be improved.

Your comments about the use of third party systems are short sighted. The other methods you mention are used but for the sake of the BSAs aims and mission why on earth would National NOT want to take advantage of outside resources? BSAs market covers the generations from young to old, and a wide variety of cultures. Roundtables? They most certainly are used but volunteers must take the time to attend, and in too many cases roundtable programs are so poor they drive people away (separate thread needed). Some will read newsletters, but many won't take the time. The Twitter experiment started to help to fill in the gaps with specific short messages and they are limited in length. Most of those who will follow the new twitter account such as yourself I see are engaged in the advancement processes. The Twitter experiment is not intended to be interactive--just another way to push information out. Keep in mind that there are exactly 3 persons who work in BSA Advancement not the hundreds of posters each on the number of different unofficial forums who want immediate feedback.

Messages sent to advancement.team@scouting.org are the primary method to get a response. I would suggest those that are BSA bashers will get the lowest priority in getting any response.