NJCubScouter

Yes, at every meeting, including the "Old Goat Patrol".

Could the BSA really be considering doing something that would cause that much chaos? By having programs for girls age 5-10 and 13/14-21 but with a gap in between?

I remember making those calls to my PL and receiving those calls as a PL. I think that is mostly a relic of the past unfortunately.

On the term "cover", being a non-military person myself, the first time I ever heard that term used to refer to headwear was about 12 years ago when our troop first attended "Scout weekend" at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, and the very nice and professional 20-year-old-ish midshipman who led us on our tour of the Academy referred to taking off our "covers" when going into a building. He was also an Eagle Scout if I recall correctly. That was a great trip, even if it did get pretty chilly at night (I guess it was in early November) and in the football game, Navy beat Rutgers, my alma mater.

Well, at least your council was willing to put some "truth in advertising" into their email. I'm willing to bet that the majority of unit Scouters in my council have no idea what "Making Scouting Accessible for Families" really means, and therefore they do not know what the meeting is really about. Which probably means they would have no interest in attending.

Our Scouts wear them at meetings indoors, nobody has ever raised an issue about it.

So moved.

My father was a JASM in the early 40's (I have written proof in some of the memorabilia he left behind) and I was a JASM in the mid-70's, so it's been around since before any of us here were involved in Scouting. (Although I realize TAHAWK's official BSA records have him earning awards more than 100 years ago.) Someone else mentioned the Leadership Corps, which was introduced while I was a Scout. I don't think the JASM was a member of the Leadership Corps, which was made up of the SPL, ASPL's and other older Scouts (not including PL's). A JASM (who, in my old troop, was usually a former SPL) was "beyond" the Leadership Corps and basically functioned as an ASM to the extent possible.

Look ma, I'm famous.

I decided to google "Making Scouting Accessible for Families" and the first page of hits gave me six councils. Counting the letter from my council (quoted in post # 1), that's seven. Four of the seven (including mine) used basically the same statement with no substantive change. (This statement obviously was written at National and sent to the councils for their own use; these four councils used that statement almost verbatim except, obviously, for the date, time and place of the meeting.) One, the Samoset Council (mentioned above) uses the same basic statement but clarifies it by adding "(boys and girls)" after youth, which gives at least a strong hint at what the meeting is about. The other two councils just tell you there is a meeting about "Making Scouting Accessible for Families" and the date, time and place, but don't even use the explanatory statement from National. So in all but one of these seven councils, the average Scouter (who probably isn't even aware that there is a decision-making process underway on this subject) is really given no clue that the actual subject of this meeting is to discuss expanding opportunities for girls in the BSA, including the possibility of coed packs and troops. Added note: I decided to go a little further with my search. I have now found 11 councils' messages on their "Making Scouting Accessible for Families" meetings; 10 web sites or Facebook pages, and my council's emailed letter. Of these 11, eight (including mine) give no clue what the meeting is really about. Of the three that do, Samoset Council adds "boys and girls"; Heart of Virginia (which I put in the wrong category above) adds a sentence that says "Across the country, conversations are happening about how the BSA can serve all members of the family", which arguably is at least a hint; and I am also counting South Georgia Council because it uses a different name for the meeting, calling it "Whole Family Scouting." The latter also includes a slideshow of three photos, all of which show both young men and women participating in Scouting-related meetings or events, but in looking closely at the photos I am not sure why they are relevant to this subject. In two of the photos the women in uniform appear to be adult Cub Scout leaders, and in the third photo none of the participants are in uniform, and it looks like all of them could be Venturers.

I'm going to try to go to mine, although the scheduling is not very convenient. If we both go to our respective meetings, we can compare notes afterward.

I received an interesting email today from my council. Presumably it was sent to every Scouter in the council who they have an email address for. The subject line of the email was: Making Scouting Accessible for Families What followed was a letter, on council letterhead, that read as follows, with all names and locations removed, and bolding from the original: Now, if I were not a member of this forum, I would probably have no idea what the SE is really talking about here. If I saw the word “accessible†and took it literally, I might think that maybe he was talking about expanding opportunities for disabled families… but that doesn’t seem quite right. So let’s be a little less literal; maybe they are going to make Scouting “more accessible to today’s families†by reducing the cost of Scouting… cutting the price of uniforms, handbooks, etc. etc. Well, I have been around long enough to know THAT is not happening. And I AM a member of this forum, and therefore I am aware of discussions taking place within the BSA, and therefore I am pretty sure that what the SE will be discussing at this meeting is the admission of girls to Cub and Boy Scouting. But it’s not like the letter actually says that or anything. I think many of my fellow nearby Scouters are going to look at this and decide they do not wish to spend a couple of hours in the middle of the summer (when they might be on vacation and/or at summer camp and unable to attend anyway) discussing “how to make Scouting more accessible to today's families.†But if it said we going to be discussing changing the gender requirement for youth membership, there might very well be a different reaction (but again, that doesn’t help those who will be on vacation or at camp.) It doesn’t seem to me that they have gone out of their way to maximize attendance at this meeting, either in the timing of the meeting or the description of what is going to be discussed. Another thing that comes to mind, are they really interested in “gaining my perspective†(on a topic that they are not actually identifying before the meeting), or is this really part of a nationwide rollout of a decision that they’ve made already? Do they really want my opinion, or are they just going to try to sell me on what they’re going to do anyway? (These are mainly rhetorical questions.) Has anyone else heard of anything like this happening in your own councils?

Qwasze, it seems to me that you are looking for logic and consistency where only arbitrariness exists. The reason they decided there should still not be a BOR for Scout even though it is now a rank is that that is what they decided. If any thought went into it, it was probably "let's give the new kids a break." Nothing deeper than that. I don't think people at National sit there and worry that it's inconsistent to have a BOR for the second through seventh "ranks" but not for the first "rank". You have probably spent more time thinking about this than all the people at National have ever spent thinking about it, put together.

I just realized that we have a Scout in our troop (well, actually now he's an ASM) who may qualify for this depending on exactly when his EBOR is held. He turned 18 the first week of July and as far as I know he completed all of his requirements before that. (Probably a day or two before that, but before that.) I don't know how many MB's he has but I suspect he has at least 26, so if the new rules apply to him he would get at least one palm. As far as I know his EBOR has not been scheduled yet, in which case it seems likely that his EBOR will be held after August 1, when this goes into effect. I read the info on Bryan's Blog to see whether the key date would be his birthday or his EBOR date, and it isn't perfectly clear, but it seems to be the EBOR date. Which is interesting because he couldn't "earn" any advancements after his birthday, and at that time you needed the three months after the EBOR to get a palm. Keep in mind that I don't even know for sure whether he has enough merit badges for a palm, but if he does, I think he gets it if his EBOR is after Aug. 1.

I think the problem was that the BSA was unable to tell the difference between a "cause" and an "effect." Which is ok, a lot of people can't, but it does create an issue when you turn an entire program upside down because you drew an incorrect conclusion from the data. They saw that there was a correlation between Scouts who made FC in 12 months and Scouts who stayed in Scouting (let's call those two things A and B), and they drew the conclusion that A caused B. It probably didn't, and doesn't. In all likelihood, C causes A and B, where C = A highly motivated and interested Scout, especially one in an active unit that follows the program. In other words, if you have a highly motivated and interested Scout, in an active unit that follows the program, it is likely that that Scout will make First Class faster AND will stay in Scouting. A forced-march through the ranks by a Scout who would rather move at a slower pace is not good for anybody. We had a couple transfers in from a troop that took FCFY literally, 11 or barely-12 year olds who had been "advanced" to FC in a year, and I think it took all the fun out of it for them. One of them quit within a year after transferring, the other one kind of moped along through Life and quit at around 16. And then we had 3 kids who crossed over together, one made FC in 6 months, one in about 8 months and the other in about 9 months. Nobody told them they had to. They wanted to. (And ok, maybe they were in a friendly competition with each other, just a little.) And they all made Eagle and were either SPL or ASPL, for whatever that's worth.

Does that work?

Me too. Or me also. Whichever.

I think there were so many changes made at the same time that the discussions got kind of "scattered" among the different changes. I recall raising concerns about a few of them, but not this one, which I thought was a good idea. As for First Class First Year, I think that is mostly a relic of the past anyway. When I see it expressed these days, it is usually a "softer" version along the lines of, a troop should have a program that gives Scouts the opportunity to make First Class within the first 12 to 18 months, as opposed to a "forced march" to make it in a year. I don't think 18 months is unrealistic. We have had kids make First Class in 6 months (not many) and kids make it in 2.5 years, and everywhere in between, so 18 months is right in the middle.

As Ken says, the answer is most likely in Aquatics Supervision (# 34346) but I don't have it, it doesn't appear to be online for free and scoutstuff.org wants $29.99 for it, so...

I think "the dog died" and "Mom and Dad are getting divorced" can wait until the Scout comes home at the end of the week. Unfortunately I once had a situation that couldn't wait, although no letters were involved. When my son was 14, his grandfather (my father) passed away. Of course it was the week my son was at camp. I was not at camp. This happened on Wednesday morning, and in the Jewish tradition, the funeral was set for the earliest feasible date, which in this case meant Friday morning. I wanted my son to have as much of his week at summer camp as possible, and I wanted to tell him what had happened in person and pick him up at the same time. So after getting word to the SM on Wednesday (but asking him not to tell my son anything), I showed up on Thursday night and gave my son the news, and asked him to get packed up but he didn't have to rush. He handled the whole thing very maturely. Sorry to be a "downer" but that's what came to mind.

Well, if you wish to try to predict the opinions of people about the BSA about something that hasn't happened yet, and we don't even know exactly what form it will take if and when it does happen, that of course is your privilege. Maybe when everyone can earn it, it will enhance the esteem of the award in the eyes of the public. Maybe not. Who knows? (That was a rhetorical question; I understand that you think you know.)

If pre-change Eagle has the same requirements as post-change Eagle, and they are applied in the same way pre- and post-, and if (post-change) the requirements are the same (and are applied the same) regardless of gender, it is all Eagle. Not "Boy Scout Eagle", not "Scout Eagle" if that means something different, just Eagle. The fact that more people will be able to earn it will not change what it is. (Note I do not use the word "coed" because it appears the current proposal is to have both all-girl troops and "coed" troops, and girls could earn Eagle in both.)

We have had this in my troop as well. We had a Scout in a wheelchair with cerebral palsy go all the way from Scout to Eagle (actually all the way from Tiger to Eagle), and at all levels the kids and adults helped him as much as they could, or as much as he needed. And for about a year during that period, we had a second boy in the same situation, with the added problem that he could barely speak. Again he received the help he needed from his fellow Scouts and adults. Helping a Scout (or other person) in that situation is being a good person, being helpful, friendly, kind, etc., and as you say, it can involve leadership as well. But it is not an Eagle project.

While I think it is admirable for Scouts to volunteer to do this, and would give them good experience (although it may not seem so at the time), I don't see how it meets any of the three parts of the requirement. Just because some planning might be involved does satisfy the planning requirement - the Eagle candidate has to plan the whole thing, the entire project. Here someone else is deciding what has to be done and how it is to be done, the Scout is basically just doing what has to be done. "Develop" presents pretty much the same problem. I don't see "leading others" here either. In most case the Scout will probably be providing services to the campers under the supervision of someone else. Even if it is an older Scout and he is supervising some younger Scouts, the older Scout is still under the supervision and direction of an adult staff member (and/or the director of the program.) In an Eagle project, the candidate must lead the whole thing. (There's that phrase again.) The Eagle candidate must be THE boss. Maybe the more fundamental problem is that there is really no "project" here. There is work, for an existing program. Again, it's good and admirable work, but it is not a project.

The OP said it was not council property. But it was a council event. From the various posts I get the impression that the Camp Director told the OP one thing and the council something else. In other words he told everyone what they wanted to hear. That sounds like the problem right there.