NJCubScouter

Calico, it sounds like that young man brought back the Skill Awards method all by himself, only without the belt loops...

Basementdweller, that form looks different from the "blue card" that we use. I don't have one with me, but we definitely regard one of the copies as being the "unit copy", whether it says so or not. And the form you link to says the "council copy" is to be sent to the council with the advancement report. I have never heard of that. I can't imagine that our council would want a separate piece of paper for every merit badge earned in the council. They'd lose them, either by mistake or on purpose. In our troop, the "unit copy" (whatever its official name is) is kept in a binder with what I have seen called "baseball card holders" (the plastic sheets with pockets.) The binders are kept by our "advancement records person" (the person who does the computerized recordkeeping and advancement reports, not the advancement coordinator, which is me.) (Oh look, I actually answered the original poster's question, though it's not an official answer.) The cards are kept mainly as a backup in case the Scout loses his copy of the blue cards, which ARE REQUIRED by the District at the Eagle BOR. So regardless of what is supposed to be the "real record" according to someone in this forum or according to National, the "blue card" is the real record according to my council. Anyone is free to go argue with them if you desire. In fact, one of the things on the District's "Eagle checklist" (the last time I saw one) is to look at the cards and make sure the Scout had a "variety" of MB counselors. There's no way they could do that with just an advancement report. (And I realize that what I just said opens a big can of worms, but it's not my can or my worms. Before his Eagle BOR my son made sure he had every blue card, including a couple that he did have to get from the "backup binder," and everything went fine.)

Kudu, yeah, that was a pretty silly thing for him to say. I'm sure you've never said anything silly. But now he's retiring, so all the Scouts will know how to catch runaway horses, right?

OGE: Push him where?

I've never had this actually occur in real life, though there have been a couple of times when it has been close. I just chaired a 2nd Class BOR for a Scout who only has a couple of requirements left for 1st Class, and they can easily be done on one camping trip, so I suspect that before the summer he will have another BOR. But if it did happen, I see absolutely no reason not to have a single BOR for both ranks -- or even for all three ranks, T-2-1. There is nothing in the book, nor in logic, that requires that they be separated. It is needless bureaucracy that does not help the Scout. Same goes for the SM conference, though that's someone else's department and decision.

I have never been any kind of commissioner for any length of time, so I will not comment on what the Unit Commissioner's role may or may not be here. (Well, maybe a little; see below.) I am, however, advancement coordinator for my son's (former) troop and have chaired almost every BOR in the troop from Tenderfoot through Life for the past (almost) two years, and served on many boards before that. In that position, when the new Guide to Advancement came out last year, I made it my business to read it, and I know where to find things when I need to. Section 8.0.1.5 (I hate the overly bureaucratic numbering system, but so be it) is very clear on what is supposed to happen when a BOR does not approve an advancement: In any case, a follow-up letter must be promptly sent to a Scout who is turned down. It must include actions advised that may lead to advancement, and also an explanation of appeal procedures. (See Appealing a Decision, 8.0.4.0 Apparently, that was not done in this case. The Scout was entitled to be told, in writing, what the appeal procedures are, so that he and his parents can decide whether to appeal. So that needs to be done, and I don't see anything wrong with a helpful and friendly reminder from the UC to the CC that this is what needs to be done. And then it's the decision of the Scout and his parents as to whether to appeal or not. I am not big on appeals in the advancement context, because it does lead to hurt feelings, but in this case I think the BOR needs to be overturned, both for the sake of this Scout and those who come after him. (Based on the facts presented in the post, that is.)

So he will have been in the job a few months short of five years, assuming Wikipedia is correct. That doesn't seem very long. Does anyone know how that tenure compares to the last few CSE's? On the other hand, he is 65, so this isn't really an "early retirement." Maybe they should pick someone a little younger this time. Anyway, I wish him well. I think he does get more flak than he deserves from a couple of members of this forum.

I don't think you tell your son it is time to find a new troop. I think you ask him whether he is having a good time, what he is learning, whether he would like to go camping more, etc. If he is perfectly happy except for the delay in merit badge cards, maybe you should leave him be. If he has concerns, I think you can share some of your concerns with him as well, and tell him there MAY be another troop nearby that would be better. (Which you don't really know for sure until you start visiting troops, but chances are there is a troop around that goes camping more than twice a year -- hopefully much more.) And then ASK him what HE wants to do. Just my opinion.

Here is an article about a "Jersey Jamboree" in 1999: http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/9910/a-dree.html I knew nothing about it at the time, since my son was a Wolf (or so) and I was not even a den leader yet. I have seen people wearing patches for it and I believe they did have the year "1999" on them. I do not believe it has been a recurring event, or I would have heard about the later ones. Based on the article, this use of the word "Jamboree" does seem to have had National sanction, since the person "cutting the ribbon" was the CSE. And I never realized that they had it at Waterloo Village, which is adjacent to Mt. Allamuchy Scout Reservation.

Seattle Pioneer for Governor! As long its several thousand miles away from my state; you're way too conservative for me.

bacchus, SP did not say that Santorum is joining forces with Gingrich and Paul. He said that Santorum wants to maximize his delegates at the convention. It sounds like the Washington State supporters of Santorum are trying to do this by teaming up with the other candidates' supporters and each getting some delegates to the state convention, while denying Romney any delegates. That way, at the state convention, they can try to have some Santorum delegates elected and minimize the delegates for Romney. It doesn't sound like it has much to do with ideology to me, it's just strategy for the national convention. And what would be the goal of that strategy? Maybe Santorum is angling for the VP nomination. (Unlikely he would want it, even more unlikely he would get it, but stranger things have happened and it would be understandable strategy on Romney's part, see Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 1980.) Maybe Santorum wants to influence the choice of VP, if he doesn't get it himself. Maybe he would want a cabinet post to position himself for a future run for President. (Santorum has time. He turns 54 next month; if Romney won two terms and Santorum ran again in 2020, he would still be 10 years younger than John McCain was in 2008.) Maybe he (and the other non-winning candidates) want to influence the party platform at the national convention. Maybe he wants louder applause when he speaks at the convention. Or maybe it is some combination of the above, or something else I haven't thought of. Every delegate that Santorum has, and Romney doesn't have, potentially increases Santorum's chances of advancing his strategy, whatever it may be.

Sorry to reopen this thread, I just noticed it. Just wanted to add one: 1 to comment that he heard from his friend at National, or a trainer at Philmont, that National is definitely about to introduce a new award for changing lightbulbs, but five years later it still hasn't happened. You know, maybe I've been reading this forum for too long...

SP, I probably didn't word the question directly enough. I really just meant "Do you think you will be elected to go to the RNC", which you have answered. I didn't mean to focus on the word "chance." The process does sound like fun, if you're into that sort of thing, which I am.

rldavis, I have one more thought (or set of thoughts) on this: Do you think the boys are getting a good Scouting program in your troop? Is there a good program of outdoor activities? Are troop meetings productive, in terms of instruction, building Scout skills, having fun, etc.? Are the boys happy? Do they stay with the troop, or do you have a revolving door? Do they have the opportunity to advance at their own pace? Do they have meaningful leadership positions and positions of responsibility? (Add your own questions here.) In other words, how is the troop working out FOR THE BOYS? If it is working out well for them, in my opinion the issue of "who does what" among the adults becomes somewhat secondary.

I agree with Fehler; you should focus on doing the job of the SM, none of which involves handling the checkbook (which really should be done by the troop treasurer, a committee member), rechartering (should be done by the CC or another committee member), keeping the advancement records (can be done by anyone but often is done by a committee member), and some of the other things. Anyone can store the troop trailer or drive Scouts to camping trips. A newsletter (weekly? really? That's actually pretty impressive) can be done by anyone, though actually I would think the Troop Scribe (a Scout) should be doing the bulk of the writing. It occurs to me that maybe your former SM should have the position of CC instead of being an ASM. Even then, he should be delegating some of the things he does to other committee members. As for your own role, maybe you should sit down with the Scoutmaster's Handbook and make sure you are clear on what it is a Scoutmaster should be doing (and not doing.) If after doing so, you are convinced that the former SM is infringing on your role in an unacceptable manner, THEN it is time to sit down with "Mister Everything" and have a talk.

I find it fascinating. Of course, I majored in political science, have basically been a "politics junkie" since I was in 9th grade or so, and served on my local school board at one time. SP, do you have a chance at being elected to be an RNC delegate yourself?

When someone starts a thread asking for help or advice, is it really necessary for someone else to post snide comments? (Not mentioning any names.) How does that help the person asking for help or advice?

Very interesting SP. Please keep us posted on how it all plays out for you. Our system here in NJ is much more mundane, just a primary that chooses delegates by Congessional District and then I think those delegates elect some statewide delegates, or at least that's how it was the last time I checked, which was not this year. That's for the Democrats, the Republicans may do it slightly differently, but it's a primary for both parties.

Hmm, I think Peregrinator may be the only person in the country who thinks the American Heritage Girls has too wide a tent.

I think the original poster was specifically asking about a Boy Scout troop, and about how the Troop Committee interacts with the calendar (or list) of activities created ("proposed"?) by the PLC (which, we should remember, has the SM advising it, so there should be adult input even if there is no Troop Committee involvement.) In a Cub Scout pack, there is no problem with the Pack Committee either doing all the planning itself, or approving a plan drafted by the Cubmaster or other leaders, because Cub Scouting is not a boy-led program. A Venturing crew, on the other hand, would (as I understand it) have less adult involvement in the planning process than a Boy Scout troop, but exactly how much I am not sure, since I have never been involved with Venturing.

Except for this one: For Thrifty: http://www.jumpstart.org/ It is called the JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. I have never heard of it myself, it just came up in a Google search. It says it is dedicating to educating youth about financial literacy, which I think would include "thrifty," although few people (besides those of us who recite the Scout Law) actually use the term "thrifty" much anymore. JumpStart calls it "successful financial decision-making." Same thing.

Well, I do try to get to the root of matter. It looks like you are looking for an organization that is particularly known for each point. In that case, the first point may not be so easy. Almost every organization has "trustworthy" as either an express or implied principle, but what organization specializes in being "honest" or "trustworthy"? One is not coming quickly to mind. The 12th point may be the easiest, perhaps very easy, depending on who your chartered organization is. Or you may just want to point the boys to their own individual places of worship as examples of "reverent." The points in between I will leave to others.

Are you specifically talking about organizations that Scouts can get involved with themselves, or just organizations that could be pointed to for examples? For example, for "brave" you can talk about your local volunteer fire company or a local National Guard unit, but these are not things an 11-year-old can really get personally involved with. (Some volunteer fire companies may accept youths of older-Scout age as "cadets" or the like, but I assume you are looking for something for younger Scouts as well.)

Beavah, I am wondering how, in practical terms, the committee approving the annual calendar of events is different from the committee approving individual trips. After all, the calendar is simply a list of individual trips and other activities. This assumes, of course, that in each case the power to "approve" carries with it the power to disapprove. I know a troop where the committee does approve the annual calendar, and they are looking for a "balance" of trips that are "close" vs. out-of-state (especially when gasoline costs what it does now), different kinds of camping, some backpacking, a few trips that may have a significant cost per boy (e.g. Scout Weekend at the Naval Academy including cost of ticket to football game) but not too many of those; and all those sorts of issues. In my troop it is a little less formal than that; the activities coordinator and troop committee review the calendar, and there is occasionally a discussion with other committee members prior to reservations being made. In both these cases that I am aware of, it is very rare to have an outright "disapproval" of an activity -- and I am sure that part of the reason is that youth leaders who choose the activities are generally aware of what the adult leaders are looking for. Some might view that as a good thing, some might not. I personally think it's not a bad idea that the boys are aware that if they create a list that consists entirely of trips that are four hours away from "home", and all cost $50 (or whatever) per boy for a football ticket or a kayak outfitter or whatever, it's probably going to be sent back to them for revision.

I understand what people are saying about supporting the SM, but the new advancement book is pretty clear: If the Scout believes he has passed the requirements, he is entitled to a BOR. It doesn't necessarily mean he passes the BOR. I didn't find anything specific in the book about consultation between the SM and BOR members before the BOR, but there is no reason why the SM can't make his case to the members. Then it's up to them, and if the Scout is not approved for advancement at that time, he can appeal to council or work on the deficiencies identified at the BOR. Is this all a bit too legalistic and procedure-driven, considering the close relationships that exist in many units between the SM and committee members? Sure. But there really does have to be a procedure in place when there is a dispute, and hopefully those disputes will be very few and far between.