NJCubScouter

Encouraging? Well, it's nice to see someone with a positive outlook on life.

For once I am left speechless.

Without writing too much of a book, and this is really just a compilation of things I have written over the past few years: Generally BSA is afflicted with what I call "good idea syndrome" in which everything that occurs to someone in control as being a "good idea" is put into place either as an advancement requirement or a new "award" without adequate consideration of the consequences. Some of the consequences of this regarding advancement are: There are now 13 Eagle required MB's out of the total of 21, it used to be 11 and maybe even 10 depending on how far back you go. I think this is out of balance, and it results from the fact that everybody has ideas about what to add to the list, but nobody wants to remove one because they are all "good ideas." Cooking was a good addition, but BSA National should have made the tough decision to remove one, or two. (Which ones can be discussed in the Advancement section, and it would not be a new discussion there. Usually those discussions end up ADDING to the list, not reducing it.) I believe the BSA literature still emphasizes the fact that many Scouts get introduced to their future career through the MB program, but I wonder whether this is as commonplace as it used to be; after all, most of the career-oriented MB's are non-required. What is the motivation for a kid to earn Journalism or Law MB, for example? (My son did earn Engineering MB, but he was already pretty much set on that as a career already.) In my opinion, the lower-rank requirements have gotten a bit too lengthy, particularly with the 2016 rewrite. The only example I can think of as I sit here is that for the new Scout rank, a brand new Scout is expected to know the structure of the troop and patrol, different types of patrols, the merit badge system and some other things. Can't we let the kid get in the door and experience how things work before we make him explain them? What's the rush? It's not a BAD thing, but it isn't really necessary in my opinion. This is closely related to my first point, and it is summed up in a phrase often seen here, "homework badges." Citizenship is very important. Personal finance/management is very important. Communications is very important. But when you add together all these "good ideas", the "outdoor badges" as well as the non-required hobby and career MB's get overwhelmed. We recently had a comparison of the 1911 and 2017 requirements for Camping MB, which showed among other things that there has been a massive addition of verbiage without a corresponding improvement in how much you know about camping when you're done. (And arguably a negative impact since the number of nights camping has gone down from 50 to 20, and as we have seen in recent threads, there is quite a bit of amateur lawyering done about how you count the 20.) I am not saying we should go back to 1911, but I do think some of the required MB's could use some simplification. Again, almost all the requirements are "good ideas", but are they all necessary? I could go on but I think I've made my point, and it ended up being a book anyway.

Apart from getting out into the "field", I would like to see the CSE and other top people actually read the full set of current advancement requirements, including MB requirements for at least the Eagle-required MB's, and maybe they will see that the BSA has tried to become too many things to too many people. Perhaps resulting in not enough people. Presumably there is someone in charge of advancement who reads everything, but I mean the very-top people. Perhaps they read them years ago, but I think a read of the current requirements would help. At the very least maybe they would see that some of the requirements are too vague.

This is all hypothetical of course because it assumes that the LDS drops the Boy Scout and Cub Scout programs at some point in the future. If that were to happen, I think the BSA would be so concerned that other major religious CO's (such as the Roman Catholic Church) might also withdraw that the BSA would not want to impose MORE requirements on those CO's that the CO's would be unhappy with. I think they would leave the policy as it is. I also think James Dale incorrectly assumes that the sole reason the BSA did not adopt the policy that he favors (no exclusion by any CO) is pressure from the LDS Church. I do not believe that is the case. I don't think there was ever any way the BSA would adopt the policy he favors, with or without the LDS Church.

I don't know what the numbers are now, but I agree with you that there would be substantial loss of CO's and membership if they dropped the local option. Local option is really the only way to go. I was advocating for it in this forum for more than 10 years before they did it. It is also what my council's SE, and I believe most of the other councils in the Northeast, were advocating for in 2013/2015. Conversely, very few (if any) people INSIDE the BSA think that units with religious CO's should be required to accept openly gay leaders if it goes against their beliefs. For that reason, I see no chance of it happening.

It couldn't hurt, especially if you could somehow compel everyone to ignore the fact that it is the CSE (etc.) who is around. Whether this happens at summer camps, overnight camps or at meetings is a secondary detail, especially since none of this is going to happen anyway. There is of course precedent for this, from King Henry V's in-disguise mingling with his troops on the eve of battle (as imagined by Shakespeare) to the previously mentioned Undercover Boss.

This opinion column by James Dale does mention the "girls" and "godless" issues, but it only mentions them once, in passing, and I guess he does imply that he thinks those policies should change, but the column isn't really about that. It is about the fact that he opposes the BSA's current local-option policies on openly gay adult leaders. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I disagree. I support the current policy on that subject. Dale also thinks that the recent action by the LDS Church makes it more likely that the local-option policy will be abandoned in favor of a policy requiring acceptance of openly gay leaders in all units. On this point he makes several factual and logical errors. For one thing, in light of the discussion in the thread on the recent announcement, it is questionable how much impact this will have on the BSA, in any direction. Even if the LDS Church did eventually dis-affiliate with the BSA someday, I think that would make the chances of the BSA adopting the policy favored by Dale less likely, not more.

Including, I hope, the original poster, with us.

I guess, but it's kind of foreign to me coming from a troop where the "setup" usually consists of the SM saying to the Scout who has just completed his SMC, "Go talk to Mr. _____ about your board of review." (Possible variation for a younger Scout, "You know who Mr. _____ is, right? Go talk to him about your board of review." Or for a really young and/or shy Scout, the SM and the Scout will arrive together at the place where I am sitting or standing, and we will have a conversation, at the end of which a BOR will be scheduled.) Very little learning curve required for anybody. That is one reason why a few posters here, including me, have wondered whether Carbanez is actually talking about setting up an SMC rather than a BOR.

About half of our committee members don't own one. For those who do it is usually "left over" from a past role, for example our CC was formerly an ASM, Lodge Advisor and other things, I was an Assistant Cubmaster (which means my uniform is rather elderly at this point), one of our past CC's was a former SM, etc. But more important than the "Trained" strip is that a committee member actually take the Troop Committee Challenge. Most likely none of it will be new to an experienced committee member, but it can't hurt to be trained for one's position.

A unit committee member (CC or MC) who wants to wear the "Trained" patch (as I do, although these days I don't wear the uniform except on special occasions such as COH's) would take Troop Committee Challenge. It is available online and makes one a "trained" committee member (along with YP of course) regardless of role on the committee.

That's right. As I said before, if this actually is about a BOR, this Scout has had at least 4 BOR's and they have all been in the past 2-3 years since he is 13, so he has to know who the committee members are who do BOR's. He may very well know who schedules the BOR's, or that they are on a fixed schedule, or however else the troop does it. Every Scout who has made Star in my troop for at least the past 15 years (and probably far longer) has known that information.

This thread has gotten to point of speculation about what is going on here, which people are of course free to do, and we are trying to help the original poster, but I'm not sure how much more we can help at this point. Maybe @@Carbenez can fill in some of the blanks that have been discussed by various people. We don't even know for certain whether it is an SMC or a BOR that the Scout is trying to schedule. The post says it's a BOR, but the SM isn't even on the BOR, so...? The SM asked your son to call him, so... did your son call him? Or is he going to call him? If we are really talking about an SMC here, maybe this could be resolved with one phone call. If it really is a BOR, and the SM really is the bottleneck, then someone really needs to talk to this new SM about the proper procedure when a Scout is ready for a BOR. But as it is, we have so much uncertainty that we are just guessing at this point.

That seems reasonable, the "safe" doesn't do anyone much good if a couple of guys can just carry it away and figure out how to get into it at their leisure.

I think it's worth remembering that in the specific case being discussed in this thread we are talking about a Scout who is going for Life, so he has had 4 or 5 SMC's and 4 BOR's already, and that is only counting the ones required for advancement. We are apparently also talking about a new SM. We don't know what the SM's background is, but it is possible that the Scout has more experience with the Boy Scout advancement process than the SM does. At the very least, this Scout managed to get from an SMC to a BOR multiple times under the former SM, and whatever that process was no longer seems to be working under the SM. That is of course assuming that there are no other relevant facts other than what is in the original post.

Very sorry to hear of this tragedy, my thoughts are with the troop and family.

Repeating the Outdoor Code from memory is a Scout (rank) requirement, but it was not before Jan. 1, 2016, so anyone who became a Scout before that date would never have had to learn to say it from memory. (I couldn't do it either.) So even apart from what is appropriate or inappropriate at a BOR, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect someone who is currently an "older" Scout to know it from memory. On the other hand, asking a Scout to do something at a BOR is one thing, the consequences of getting it less-than-perfect is another. In our Troop BOR's (Tenderfoot through Life) we generally do ask the Scout to recite the Oath and Law from memory, and I have seen Life Scouts who miss lines of the Oath or a word of the Law. We do not "fail" them for it. They know the Oath and Law, they recite them during opening/closing every week. They just get nervous. For that matter I have seen adults who have been reciting them for 50 years stumble occasionally. When it happens at a BOR, we gently correct the Scout and the BOR goes on.

Either is correct, though in our case going to the CC would only result in the CC speaking to the AC (me) which brings an unnecessary person into the loop. The Scout does not need to talk to the CC, they talk to me. (Most of the time I will then talk to the CC, not because he is the CC, but because he is a committee member I am asking to join me on the BOR.)

Well, that last part is where the difference is. We hold BOR's when a Scout needs one. That means we could have them several weeks in a row, or go a couple of months without having one. But the "on demand" method involves a tradeoff: More communication is required because every BOR is specifically scheduled. Our way works for us.

Right, I just think the part about the Scout not having to request one can be misinterpreted. First of all it says the SCOUTMASTER cannot expect the Scout to request one. SOMEONE needs to approach me (as Advancement Chair) to schedule the thing, and at some point the Scout needs to be brought into the conversation to schedule it. It doesn't do anybody any good if I decide the BOR is going to be next week but the Scout knows he is going to miss the meeting because his parents want him to do something else that night, or whatever. He can have the BOR when he wants, as long as enough adults are available, and there almost always are. Sometimes the Scout will come to me and say, very politely, Mr. T., may I please have a Board of Review for First Class"? Am I supposed to say, "You shouldn't be requesting one, we should just be discussing scheduling?" I am not going to do that. My response is always, "Yes, when would you like to do it?" and we go on from there.

Carbenez, I agree with Fred Johnson's Steps 0 through 3. If the SM wants a call, your son can give him a call, even though "by the book" that should not be necessary (more on that below.) Hopefully that will get the job done. If not, I would then follow Stosh's advice (did I say that?) and sit down with the SM over a cup of coffee or other suitable beverage and figure out what the problem is. If its a matter of the guy being overwhelmed with the new job, and you are not already a registered leader, perhaps you want to volunteer to become one and help him out. I am not suggesting a quid pro quo here, but maybe there is some mutual benefit possible here. I am guessing that when you refer to "a highlighted copy of the Guide to Advancement", you mean the sentence in the section on BOR's that says "Scoutmasters... do not have the authority to expect a boy to request or organize one, or to "defer" him, or (other stuff not applicable here)" So technically a Scout does not have to "request" a BOR from the Scoutmaster, but in practice there does need to be a discussion of SCHEDULING the BOR after the SMC is signed off (or other final requirement, if the SMC is not the last one, but in our troop the SMC is always the final requirement to be signed off, and nobody has ever challenged that.) I am the Advancement Chair in our troop and I do the scheduling of BOR's. Before I can schedule a BOR, SOMEONE needs to tell me that the Scout is ready for a BOR. Sometimes the SM tells me, sometimes the SM sends the Scout to tell me, and if I am not there, they will tell the former Advancement Chair who is now the CC. One or both of us is present at virtually every troop meeting, and if not, my email address is posted in our equipment room. (The BOR will be scheduled for either the next troop meeting or the one after that, though we have been known to do the BOR on the same night as the SMC if enough committee members are hanging around and the Scout wants to do it right then. Or the Scout, SM and I can have a conversation at a meeting in which we schedule both the SMC and the BOR for the following meeting.) My point is, the SM doesn't necessarily even need to talk to me to get a BOR set up, because the Scout can deal with me directly. If, in your troop, the SM becomes a "bottleneck" to the scheduling of a BOR, that's not supposed to happen and maybe you do need to show up with your highlighted GTA, after you try a cup of coffee first.

You say this is about a board of review. Has your son had a Scoutmaster Conference for Life yet?

Wait. It was my understanding that the 11-year-old patrol in LDS Scouting do not do overnight camping. Under the current requirements, you must have at least six overnight camping trips for First Class. So how do you make First Class during a year in which you can't go camping?

Well, it's good that you are going out on your own timetable and with the respect of your troop. We have had two major adult leadership changes in the past year, both the result of people being in a position for way too long and being the only one NOT to realize it was time for them to go. Eventually the changes were made but not until after a good deal of pain and anguish. Now a new leadership team is picking up the pieces but if the same changes had occurred three or four years earlier (when I wanted them to), there would be fewer pieces to pick up.