NJCubScouter

No. Just one of those traditions, I guess. I think that if anyone ever suggested it, they'd get funny looks from almost everybody.

I think the only time the Cub Scout sign is "mandatory" is when you are in a meeting with Cub Scouts (meaning youths.) At a Webelos den meeting, after the Webelos have been taught the Scout sign, it probably makes sense to start using the Scout sign. At a meeting with adults, it's entirely up to you. I just have a small issue with something that BSA24 said: On the whole, all adults who register with BSA as leaders are saying that they sign onto the Scout Oath and Scout Law, and the mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to instill the Scout Oath and Scout Law in youth to prepare them for life. Therefore, it does make sense for all adult leaders to educate themselves as Boy Scouts and learn the Scout Oath and Law the Boy Scouts use as that is the core of the program. This is a tough thing for me to say, because I have known the Scout Oath, Law, Sign etc. since I was 11 years old and they have long since become "second nature" to me. But I am trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who was never in any BSA program until they register as a Cub Scout leader. What reason would they have to know the Scout Oath and Law? They are not on the adult leader application. They are not part of the program that the Cub Scout leader has signed up for -- Cub Scouts has its own promise. (And it doesn't even require you to promise "to be square", as it did when I used to recite it.) Saying that Cub Scout leaders should "educate themselves as Boy Scouts"... I don't know. It's not the program that they are in. Many of them will get there soon enough. On the other hand, since the Scout Oath, Sign, etc. are so ingrained in me, when I became a den leader and then an ACM, I probably gave the Scout Sign instead of the Cub Scout Sign sometimes without even realizing it. When it came time to recite the Cub Scout promise, I usually followed along with everybody else, because my brain kept giving the words to the Scout Oath instead.

So now the Scout Executive (or was it someone else like a District Exec?) called the SM and told him to tell the CC and CR... what, exactly? There are several parts to this. I am trying to envision the conversation in which the SE tells a Scoutmaster that he has to tell his father about his unregistered adult gay son attending multiple camping tips with his boyfriend. My head is spinning here. And by the way, how can you be so sure Grandpa does NOT know that Junior is gay? It seems that everybody else in the whole world knows, from the SE to everybody with a facebook account. Though as I said, I don't think his orientation is the main issue here. I realize the SE may feel differently.(This message has been edited by Njcubscouter)

I was sort of debating with myself about whether I wanted to comment on this at all, then I read concernedparent's second post in which he said: The COR is the SM's father.. SM doesn't want his father to know because he will more than likely not speak to his (SM's) son again... So are you saying that the COR does not know his grandson is gay, and the SM (son of COR and father of openly gay former Scout) does not want him to know? One thing you don't want to do is to allow this family's "issues" to become the troop's "issues." Just the fact that the SM is the COR's son would be something I would want to avoid... and the situation you have presented is one of the reasons why. As for who goes on campouts... although my troop is somewhat less strict about this than I would be, I prefer that anyone going on camping trips be there for a reason that benefits the troop. Registered leaders automatically qualify. A parent of a Scout who is on the trip is ok with me, but if the parent has reached his/her second or third camping trip I would like to see him/her be registered. Same goes for former Scouts in the troop. Unregistered significant others of an unregistered person? No. So those little rules (which aren't necessarily National's rules) would resolve your issue, and notice that I have not said a word (at least in this paragraph) about the orientation of those involved.

Fascinating, or at least very interesting. (To paraphrase Mister Spock.)

No mention of "Follow the Rugged Road", I assume. (For those who are not "that" old, Follow the Rugged Road was a BSA promotional slogan in the late 60's.)

Anyone else heard a BSA spot? Yes, in the 60s, when I was a kid, and probably into the early 70's. TV ads, too. Haven't heard or seen one since then, though.

With the talk in this thread about Tigers, I was wondering when someone was going to bring up Lions (a Kindergarten program which, as far as I know, is still being run in some packs in some places on an experimental basis, and I also have heard about one Lion program under the LFL umbrella that does not seem to be associated with a pack.) Now someone has brought it up. I hope this program is either kept totally separate from Cub Scouting, or is allowed to drift off into the sunset. I agree at least partially with Eagledad, I think SOME Tigers are "too young", or to be more accurate I think that first grade is when most boys are just barely reaching the maturity level needed to make a program like this work. I had very mixed feelings about based on what I saw as a parent and Cub leader (I was never a Tiger den leader.) Bringing it down a year to the Kindergarten level, when many of the boys really ARE still toddlers... I can't imagine it. I don't think it's the right way to go. Unfortunately I know the lure of "more members" is powerful stuff for the folks in Irving, and may sometimes overcome common sense. So does anyone here actually know what the status of the "Lions" experiment is? (For me, "Lions" still reminds me of the den for 10-year-olds that was "merged" into Webelos about two years before I would have been in it. That was a long time ago. Somewhere I still have a "Lion-Webelos Handbook", though I never actually used it.)

Not to change the subject, but Bobwhite89 mentioned "major changes in advancement" for (he thinks) the 14-15 year, that were announced at the recent annual meeting. Maybe I missed something, but what are these changes? Or was it just announced that there are going to be changes, with no specifics? I looked at the BSA web site for an announcement, but did not see it.

I don't know, BDPT00, I see and hear the expression "LGBT" a lot these days, which makes the distinction. In any event, I don't think bisexuals really present a different policy issue, so in this context I don't think people discuss them separately. (I other words I think the BSA would regard an "open or avowed bisexual" as the same, for purposes of the policy, as an "open or avowed homosexual.") I'm not sure what the BSA policy is on transgendered persons, if any.

OGE, at this point I don't think anyone is saying that the First Amendment (or any other law) "keeps private organizations from having membership policies." What an increasing number of people are saying is that, having the right to choose among different policies on "avowed homosexual" leaders, the BSA has chosen the wrong policy. So this is not a legal issue, it's a "moral" issue if you will - the "immorality" being the continued exclusion of people simply because of their avowed orientation. In other words, it's not a question of whether the BSA "has the right", it's a question of "is the BSA right." I found a couple of other things interesting in this thread: The article that RememberSchiff linked to, from MSNBC, is the first time (that I can recall) that I have ever seen a major media outlet emphasize the "local option" issue, which to most of us on "this side", is the real issue. The vast majority of media articles present the issue as a black-and-white question of "should the Boy Scouts allow openly gay leaders", without acknowledging that no unit would be required to appoint an openly gay person as a leader if they did not want to do so. It is nice to see an article from a major web site that says what the issue really is, and they have it right up at the beginning of the second paragraph and then repeat it later. In perdidochas' post, I see the BSA using a phrase to describe the persons in question as "open or avowed homosexuals." That is slightly different than in the past. For many years, the term the BSA has used is "avowed homosexuals." Now they have added "open" to the "list", though that is what I think they really meant all along. There have been some debates in this forum over what "avowed homosexual" means. I have always thought it was the same as someone who is "openly gay," which is the more common expression these days. So I interpret this change to mean that I was correct, and that the BSA is merely updating its terminology. I don't think it changes the meaning of the "policy".

So what I am sort of picking up about the knots is that the "real story" relates to the consolidation of some of the "leader", "training award" and "key" knots (which I believe had been announced previously), and that there is not expected to be a general elimination of knots. So knots for Silver Beaver, District Award of Merit, Arrow of Light, Eagle, will all remain. Right? I personally could take or leave the knots, although I do wear my modest little single row of modest little knots (Arrow of Light, Cub Scouter and Scouter Training Award.) I think it's kind of neat that I get to wear a knot at the age of 50-something for an award I earned at the age of 10. As for DE's, I don't think anyone in my troop would notice if they were gone, but I think they will remain.

Maybe I have been assigned to the wrong "camp", because I have no problem at all with BrentAllen's approach. We do not do that in "my" troop, and I noticed one specific difference because our SM tells parents and Scouts that school (including homework) DOES come first. (I think either approach to homework is acceptable, although I think at least some flexibility is in order, and I am sure that Brent's troop would have some flexibility on that in an extreme case.) I also think that the activity level (including "giving notice") of almost all the Scouts in our troop meets Brent's standards anyway; at most there may have been a couple of Scouts over the past few years that would have ended up on the "inactive" list (not counting those who were actually quitting the troop and were removed from the roster at the next recharter anyway.) It should also be noted that we don't actually know whether the Scout discussed in this thread has missed four activities/meetings in a row or not, and whether he "gave notice" before missing them. All Spencer said was that he attends "less than 30 percent" of troop meetings and doesn't go on outings. If you assume "less than 30 percent" means he averaged one meeting a month, and there was one outing a month and he missed that, it would depend where in the month he attended the meeting as to whether he missed four in a row. We also don't know what he said to who, if anything, before missing any specific outing or meeting. If I had to guess, based on what we do know and general "tone" of Spencer's posts, my guess is that this Scout probably would have fallen off the "active list" under Brent's system on more than occasion. But again, that's a guess. We should also remember that in this particular case the Scout had already passed the 6-month "active" requirement. Beavah, based on Spencer's posts, it does not seem to me that, even after more than three years, they did what they should have done -- or even what you believe they should have done. What Spencer says the SM tried to do is to impose additional, specific requirements, namely organizing outings. I cannot help but believe that some effective counseling of this Scout would have prompted him to step up his participation in the troop to at least an acceptable level, even apart from any advancement considerations. That's just speculation, of course, but nobody will ever know because it wasn't attempted in this case. Spencer admits that the troop leadership missed several opportunities for positive interaction with this Scout, not to mention the three years in which the troop seems to have let him drop off the radar entirely. I find it mildly amusing that Spencer is being objectively critical of his own troop, to a much greater degree than you are.

BOR's have a limited purpose, but I would not go so far as to call them a "rubber stamp." If the issue is "rude comments", I think it depends on what the comment is. If a Scout said something like "Some of our camping trips (rude verb deleted)", I would probably thank the boy for his candor in addressing flaws in the program but would counsel him on ways of more constructively expressing his opinions. He wouldn't "not pass" just for that. If on the other hand, the same rude verb was applied to Scoutmaster Jones, that would be a different story. Of course, I am just making up examples here because you have not been specific. Whether a statement by a Scout in a BOR "crosses the line" is probably going to be determined by the "know it when I see it (or hear it)" test. Here is what the Guide to Advancement says about a Scout's "attitude" in a BOR: "A positive attitude is most important, and that a young man accepts Scoutings ideals and sets and meets good standards in his life." Guide to Advancement 2011, 8.0.1.2. It does not specifically say that the lack of a "positive attitude" as expressed during the BOR is sufficient reason to defer advancement, but I suppose if the comment was "rude enough" (and especially if the same Scout had done the same thing at an earlier BOR and, having been counseled against doing so again, did it again) the BOR could legitimately withhold the advancement for that reason. But if the boy asks for another BOR and acts appropriately, I think that resolves the issue. As for being one rank badge behind on the uniform (such as wearing the Scout badge at a Second Class BOR), I think it is worth reading the section on uniforming in the Guide to Advancement. I wish it said something slightly different than what it says, but here is what it says: 8.0.0.4 Wearing the Uniformor Neat in Appearance It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review. He should wear as much of it as he owns, and it should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. It may be the uniform as the members of his troop, team, crew, or ship wear it. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in his appearance and dressed appropriately, according to his means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit expectations or rules, boards of review may not reject candidates dressed to this description; neither may they require the purchase of uniforming, or clothing such as coats and ties. Notice the word should, not must. The uniform should be worn, but the advancement cannot be deferred just for a lack of uniform. The correct rank badge should be worn, I think you can certainly ask the young man why the correct badge is absent and when he uses the "Mom didn't get around to it" line, remind him that it's his uniform and not Mom's, but ultimately you don't hold him back for that, either. I would say that about one-third of the boys in our troop are behind at least one rank at any given time. It's not the biggest thing in the world but it does baffle me a little; I seem to recall that when I made the next rank, I wanted that badge on there ASAP.

This sounded familiar, so I did a search on the forum (married couple two-deep leadership) and found a number of threads and archives that mention this topic. I looked at two of the threads, http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=91920 and http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=202533. One is from 2005 and the other is from 2008 and they deal with the exact topic that has been raised here. It appears that in the 2005 thread the consensus was pretty much that it's ok, though I didn't read every post. In the 2008 thread there was a difference of opinion, and I was one of the people who said we did not think it was a good idea. I notice that I was joined in that view by Bob White and Rooster7. Long-time readers of this forum may understand why I don't want to look out the window right now for fear I may see the world coming to an end. Here is what I said back then: One of the major reasons for the two-deep leadership rule is that if a false accusation is made against one leader, the other leader (who hopefully was in a position to see or hear what did or didn't happen) can verify the first leader's statements. If the two leaders are married to each other, I think that would raise too much doubt as to the objectivity of the non-accused leader. Skimming that thread now indicates that a majority, but not a large majority, disagreed with me and thought that it was acceptable to have a married couple as the two leaders. Several also mentioned that while the BSA would "count" the married couple as two leaders, a unit's CO may impose stricter requirements. To be fair, the fact is that there does not appear to be any statement from the BSA indicating that a husband and wife should be treated differently from any two other leaders/parents for purposes of "counting" two-deep leadership. (They are treated differently for purposes of sharing sleeping accommodations, unlike others of opposite genders.) My personal opinion that it is not a good idea, and my inclination that I would probably cancel an outing if there were no other alternative, is just my personal opinion, and based on the past threads, others disagree.

In my profession, those pages have "This Page Intentionally Left Blank" printed on them, so there is no mystery at all. Meanwhile I think Knight and JMHawkins were trying to find some humor in this, but the rest of us have spoiled it by taking it seriously.

Counselor's discretion. (Gee it's nice that all of us (or almost all) can agree there is local discretion about something, for once.) It also sounds to me like the correct result occurred with this Scout. He got to go canoeing. (I assume when you say he "rode" you mean he paddled too, right?) In my day nobody simply "rode" in a canoe. He is 11 years old. He will grow older, larger, stronger and more confident in his swimming abilities, and when someone asks him to swim 100 yards it will be something he wants to do and not some dreary task. And then, in a year or two, he will earn Canoeing Merit Badge.

Beavah, let me ask you a couple of questions: One, apart from vague statements about choosing "an approach that recognizes the interests and decision-making structure of the person or group yeh want to influence", what exactly do you think this young man should have done, that would have brought about a change in the BSA policy in question? Two, if he had done what you suggest, how long do you believe it would have been before the BSA changed the policy?

The PDF version at that link has page numbers. There is no page 20, but there also is no page 26, 28, 36, 38, and I stopped looking after that. All of these pages are between chapters, which suggests either that they left room for future expansion of some (but not all) chapters without re-numbering the whole thing, or that there are graphics on those pages in the paper version that are omitted online for some reason. Or both...

In this situation, nothing is likely to bring about immediate change, so faulting this young man for choosing a petition, over some equally (in)effective means, somewhat misses the point. In any event, I don't think it hurts for someone to occasionally remind people (including the current BSA leadership) that this issue is still out there and remains of concern to a lot of people. As I have said before, this policy will eventually change, although it will take a new generation (literally, probably) of BSA leadership to change it. It is possible that things like this may make that day come a little sooner, but of course it isn't (and won't be) possible to prove that, either way. And I find the criticism of the young man's merit badge counselors and troop to be a little bizarre.

Sigh. I know I said I'd stay out of this. But I'm only going to deal with the last two paragraphs of Beavah's post. Beavah, I really think you are making up new facts in order to support your arguments. That to my mind is what SpencerCheatham's troop did. The standards were in place before, which is why all of the adults (and I expect youth) in his troop realized they weren't being met in this case. Where exactly in any of Spencer's posts does it say, or even imply that? I do not recall a single word about establishing or announcing any "standards." The only thing Spencer says about the Scout's first 3+ years in the troop (other than his absence at outings and at least 70 percent of troop meetings) is: "We did let this scout down in the sense that we were not in contact with him until the last year." He's right. They let the Scout down. And the Scout let them down, and himself, and his fellow Scouts. So as Spencer has said, the troop learns from this, hopefully someone will now have a discussion with the Scout from which he can also learn, and hopefully it won't happen again. (In fact, it would not be out of line to let the BOR know that while the Scout passed the requirements for Eagle, he chose not to go on any outings for four years and missed 70 percent of the requirements. Let him explain that, if the BOR so chooses. That would, hopefully, be a productive and educational experience for the Scout.) Those standards were accepted and personally adhered to by the other active scouts in the troop. Again, no evidence of that, although even if were true, I don't think it's dispositive, as those lawyer-folks say. Yeh just have to have a common sense of character and commitment that's consistent. Ah, consistent. I like consistent. But all we know about consistency in this case is that the troop leadership consistently failed to "connect" with this Scout until he was already 17 and had been in the troop more than three years. Now I will say that one of da biggest sources of contention in Scouting is when youth and parents from one "camp" transfer or join a troop of the other "camp". As I have said before, and I agree with fred8033, I don't think these two "camps" really exist. Certainly there are different philosophies, but nowhere near as simple as two "camps." So I think the ideal thing is to have a very explicit version of that conversation up front with the youth and parents, before yeh accept an application. I have said before that there should have been, essentially, a Scoutmaster Conference (not for advancement purposes) once it appeared that there was a participation problem, say within the first six months. But you're correct, the troop's reasonable expectations for participation should be explained up front. In our troop I think that happens most of the time anyway, but it's probably not done as consistently (there's that word again) as it should be. In particular, "transfers" are sort of hit-and-miss, but there really should be a non-advancement SMC when someone transfers into the troop, and this should be one of the topics. That may or may not have happened in this case; it was before SpencerCheatham's time. I would say Spencer's posts are less than crystal-clear about what he knows and doesn't know about the Scout's first two years in the troop. There's certainly no evidence that it happened, and the "no contact" comment suggests that it did not. But actually, if it did happen, then it seems to me that it's even worse that the troop then dropped the ball for the next three years.

Ok, so if summer camp is six nights, that means 14 nights of "weekend" camping are required. In our troop, we probably average about 15 nights per year (9 or 10 weekend trips but some are one-nighters) plus the six at summer camp, so there's 21 right there. Of course, very few go on EVERY weekend trip. But even if a boy goes on half the trips, they should have the nights for Camping MB in less than two years. I think most of the boys in our troop (at least those who stick around) end up with more than 100 nights camping (including summer camp.) Some do more than that, of course. This year there is one boy who is going to Philmont, a week of NYLT and one week of "regular" summer camp, so what is that, 25 nights in one summer? Of course, not all those nights count for Camping MB, but I think he's got that already anyway.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

On the equipment issue, I think OakTree asks the right question. The equipment is owned by your "parents of" organization. Hopefully that organization is either a corporation or some kind of other entity established in accordance with the laws of your state. The entity presumably continues to exist under state law, even if the BSA no longer permits it to be the CO of a troop. (Although I would consult with an attorney in your state about whether any documents need to be amended because the "purpose" of the entity is changing; and nothing in this post constitutes legal advice, I am just an anonymous person on the Internet.) Assuming all of this is correct, the entity continues to own the equipment and can LEND it to the unit. There is no reason why the entity should just give away its property. The idea of a written agreement with the new CO (if any) sounds good. (And if you really want to button things up legally, you should consult with an attorney (again) to see if anything needs to be filed with any government agencies to protect the entity's rights in the equipment.) It is a shame that the BSA (or just some councils) is making people go through all this, apparently based on issues that have arisen with some, but not all, units chartered to "friends of" or "parents of" entities.

I think da fundamental difference in philosophy is that some folks for all practical purposes view "the requirements" as the goal. And who might those "folks" be? Not me. Not anybody who has commented in this thread, I suspect, and a number of them have agreed that this Scout earned Eagle. Others have agreed with you, even before your first post in this thread. There isn't a clear philosophical schism here, although you and I clearly have different philosophies on a lot of things, and I like mine a lot better. So their response is to want discretion removed as much as possible, and want "the requirements" interpreted in da strictest, easiest, most legalese sense. "Legalese"? This from the guy who quoted national rules and regulations regarding interpretation of advancement requirements, and twisted that into a defense of adding to the requirements? Beavah, ask not for whom the legalese tolls... And there's that word "strict", no I don't think that describes my "philosophy" the way you are using it. I want the requirements to actually be passed, and sometimes they aren't, and sometimes the Scout is allowed to just go through the motions and forgets the skill the next day. I want something more than that, and that becomes a matter of legitimate interpretation. Saying that a Scout needs to be "active" for 18 months, or 24 or 36, instead of 6, is not a matter of legitimate interpretation. (Assuming he does what is needed to remain on the roster.) So long as the paperwork is complete, the requirements are complete, the advancement is complete, nothing can be done, the boy has "earned" advancement, and we have succeeded. We haven't necessarily succeeded. If the requirements have been completed, I do think the boy is better off than he had been before, and maybe he has actually achieved some character, fitness and citizenship by doing the requirement. But anyway, what's your alternative? Allowing every SM to decide on additional requirements that the boys in their troop need to meet? I know this word is somewhat out of style these days, but is that "fair"? This is supposed to be one program, with one set of advancement requirements. A smart lad in such a system should pursue the fastest route to a signature. Well, let's take a troop I know about as an example, and currently I only really know about one. I'd say we interpret the requirements in the way that you don't like, that is, the requirements are the requirements. What I see in our troop is that most of the boys are there because they like to go camping and hiking. When they join, most of them seem to be barely aware that there even is an advancement program. Consciousness of the advancement process and what "signatures" they are supposed to be getting sinks in gradually. In the meantime, what are they doing? Having fun, learning skills, meeting challenges, learning how to deal with other people, participating in group decision-making at the patrol and then the troop level, taking part in service projects, etc. Is that bad? Along the way, they are building character, fitness and citizenship -- those goals you seem to think some of us have lost sight of. I haven't known any boy who was "just" there for advancement. Sure, there have been a few who have moved along pretty quickly, First Class in less than a year, Life by 13 (although I think our youngest Eagle in the past 10 years has been 15.) But they are also the ones who actually take the initiative, they read the handbook, see what they need to learn, learn it, do it and pass it. I also find that these are the ones who do not quickly forget what they have learned, partly because they soon reach a level where they are teaching younger Scouts. They also seem to be the most "engaged" with Scouting and what it has to offer. A few of them are going to Philmont this summer, which I would say is a "character-building experience" that is not required for any rank. For the rest of us, the goals really are character and citizenship and skills development, eh? All of us, I'd say. The advancement program is a means to an end. All of those things are included, some mostly explicitly (like skills development), some mostly implicitly (like character.) So us folks in da second group are more comfortable with a non-legalistic interpretation of "the requirements", because in the end we feel that skills and character and citizenship are not a matter of law. See above, Mr. Non-Legalistic. Plus, you are drawing a distinction that does not exist. Every Scout is held to some standard, or if you will, rule, or law, however you wish to phrase it. It may be the "law" that if you pass the requirements, as written, you get the recognition prescribed for those accomplishments. Or it may be the "law" that in addition to the requirements, if you move to a new troop you need to pass the active requirement again, and maybe you actually need to be active for four and a half years instead of six months. Why? Because the adults in a particular troop say so? That doesn't seem reasonable to me. If National wants to change the requirements, fine, then everybody is held to the same standard. At least in theory -- as I said earlier, sometimes a Scout gets signed off for something when he shouldn't be. Nobody is defending that. That makes the goals difficult if not impossible to attain. But that is not what this thread is about. Those two philosophies aren't compatible, eh? Folks will never agree. I'd say it's more of a continuum. I personally think the latter is more consistent with the long-time scoutin' program and the Rules, which define the purpose of Advancement (education), the standards for advancement (proficiency), the proper way to interpret guidebooks and requirements (must harmonize with the Aims), and the definition of active (commits himself to regular participation). Those goals are built into the requirements and the procedures for determining who has passed them. As for the definition of active, it appears that this boy was active by any standard... in another troop, for at least six months. That's the requirement. Maybe it should be more, but it isn't. You don't get to add more months or years because you think it will build more character. SpencerCheatham's unit did meet with the lad well nigh a year in advance, explain that he hadn't yet met and wasn't meeting their active and Scout Spirit requirements, and spelled out clearly what the expectations were. I'm not sure Spencer specifically said anything that's in the middle part of that sentence. And you can focus on the "well nigh a year" (which means less than a year) if you want. As I have said (and Spencer agrees) there was a failure of communication (on both sides, but the troop was one of the sides) for more than three years. And it sounds like the troop's primary response, when the Scout was already 17, was to try to add more and specific requirements for Eagle. Would it have been so hard, when the boy was 14-ish and had been in the troop for six months, for someone to say "Hey Johnny, I notice you haven't been going camping with the troop. Oh, you have choir practice and school newspaper (I made those up) that take up a lot of your time? Well, let's see if we can look at your schedule and find some time for you to go on some outings with the troop. By the way, since you're so interested in writing, maybe your patrol could use a new Scribe. Oh and by the way, I think Bobby is going for the Music merit badge, since you are so interested in music maybe you would like to work on it with him." And like that. Is that so unreasonable? There is no indication that anything like that took place early in the boy's time in the troop. Instead there was "little or no contact" or words to that effect -- until somebody noticed that he's been 17 for awhile and had never been camping with the troop, and suddenly there was an emergency. That is a failure on the troop's part. From where I sit, they met all of the unit expectations detailed in the current Guide to Advancement. Only if you ignore the fact that he had already met the "active" requirement in his old troop. Da real point though is "Who cares?" Who cares what the council or national office does? They're a big corporation, with monetary and other incentives to pass out awards, eh? They'll do whatever they do. The CO shouldn't care, it should act accordin' to its own mission. The unit scouters shouldn't care, they should act accordin' to their own conscience and understandin' of the CO's mission. The CO didn't set the advancement requirements, national did. You don't get to ignore them and establish your own. As for who cares, well I guess I care, up to a point. Do I want to enforce an interpretation of the requirements at a BOR when I know that council is going to award the rank anyway, and put the boy through a whole process for nothing? If I feel strongly that the boy has not met the requirements, maybe I will take that action regardless of what I think council or national might do. That wouldn't be the case in this situation, though. And now, after all that, I am really done with this subject, so say what you want, Mr. Non-Legalese.

By the way, on SSScout's point (which initially seemed to be off-topic, though after his second post I am not so sure), I don't think it would be a bad idea to change Requirement 1 for the First Aid MB from: Satisfy your counselor that you have current knowledge of all first aid requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class ranks. to something like, "Before beginning work on this merit badge, pass all of the First Aid requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class ranks." And then Satisfy your counselor that you have current knowledge, etc. The problem with the current requirement is that requirements for a merit badge do not have to be done "in order" (although maybe the MBC can require that they be done in a certain order? Not sure about that and the subject has never come up.) So in theory a Scout can begin working on First Aid MB having not yet passed a single first aid requirement for the first three ranks, and while working on the badge learn and demonstrate knowledge of those requirements. It seems to me that there should be a progression in learning these skills, but it is not currently required.