NJCubScouter

I'm sure it doesn't always work out well. It seems to be intentionally creating a political situation right out of the starting gate. It's like a coalition government, with representatives of different "parties" included in the "cabinet." But there aren't supposed to be parties. In fact, the SM and SPL are supposed to be working with each other, with the SM guiding the SPL. Here it sounds like they are set up to work against each other.

Still working on getting an answer, thanks for your patience.

From zuzy's post it sounded like she was briefly meeting with the board on her own, before her son entered the room or sat down at the table or whatever the arrangements were. Vclose and I seem to be wondering about that.

Personally I think it's helpful to first look at what the BSA says and then look at how some troops do it differently. Then you can decide whether you want to do things the way the BSA suggests or the way some person who you don't know on the Internet says they do it. Which is not to say my troop does everything 100% by the book, but I think you should at least know what the book says first before deciding to do it a different way. The only elected positions (according to the BSA) are SPL and Patrol Leader. (You mention PLC, but that is the Patrol Leaders' Council, the Patrol Leader is PL.) Each then appoints their "staff", with the SPL appointing the ASPL and the troop Scribe, Quartermaster, Librarian, etc. and the PL appointing the APL and any patrol positions. I can think of several reasons why the BSA might make this distinction between elected and appointed positions. For one thing, it gives a newly elected "leader" experience in trying to select the best person for each job. I think it also makes sense in light of the fact that the appointed positions are "staff" positions. thrifty, I am not sure what your issue is in selecting the Patrol Leaders. I have seen troops where the troop elects PL's and the patrols are (if necessary) re-formed around these PL's, but that is really not the patrol method. The patrols are supposed to be continuing "units" that continue along from year to year and elect a PL from among themselves. The BSA does not impose a minimum number of patrols before an SPL is selected. Obviously there is no need for an SPL if there is one patrol. It is up to the troop whether there should be an SPL with two patrols, and there have been a lot of discussions in this forum about that. I think most people would say there should be an SPL if there are 3 or more patrols, but some people disagree with that.

Congratulations to your son! You don't mention the words "Board of Review" but I assume that's what this was, your son's Eagle Board of Review. That being the case, I don't understand why they were asking you any questions. As for the sash, if the Board was following the rules, your son did not need his sash. Based on the EBOR's I have participated in, in our district it seems about 80 percent of Scouts do wear the sash, but they can't fail you for that.

According to the Wikipedia article on BPSA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden-Powell_Service_Association): "Today the BPSA consists of 80 groups, with over 1,000 scouts in 35 states." The source for this is a podcast apparently from April 2016, so it is fairly recent. (I did not listen to the podcast.) There is no indication there of whether their numbers were higher or lower in the past. But either way, it's a pretty small organization and it does not seem to have "caught on" with very many people. (I have never heard of it outside this forum and the Wikipedia article I just looked at.) I believe that their membership number probably does not tell us very much about what might happen if the BSA "went coed", whatever exactly that means. For one thing, if the BSA "went coed" it would be in every newspaper (or online equivalent) in the country the next day, so everybody would know about it - many more people than have even heard of BPSA in the first place.

I think it's more than just a question of what is more constructive or less constructive for the Scout. If you push a Scout too far, you can easily push them right out the door. Then they don't get the benefit of Scouting at all. Doesn't your troop have kids who quit? Ours does. They quit because they aren't having enough fun, or because they have something else they would rather be doing, or a number of other reasons, but they mostly boil down to, the program isn't giving them what they want, relative to whatever else they could be doing. Sometimes what the Scout "wants" is unreasonable, and maybe what they want to do instead is to sit at home and play video games, but nevertheless, it's their decision. (Unless their parent(s) won't "let" them quit, which also happens sometimes, bu my experience is that eventually the parent gives in.) So I don't really understand the attitude that "you have to push them." The Scout does not have to be there. They don't have to be in your troop, and they don't have to be a Scout anywhere.

I have never heard of this question being asked. I hope nobody was ever really "failed" for the answer they gave to this question. It's not necessarily an unfair question in the abstract, but using it is the basis of a "fail" seems unreasonable. In fact I cannot think of a question that could be asked that should, all on its own, be the basis of a "fail" unless the answer somehow reveals that the Scout has not actually passed all the requirements. Or some other huge "character" question like the Scout starts telling you about the bodies of his victims that are buried in his backyard. (That's just a hypothetical.) As far as "back in my day", I know I wore my Cub Scout uniform to school on den meeting days but I have no recollection of having worn my Boy Scout uniform to school. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that I don't remember one way or the other.

It's funny, I remember so many things from when I was a Scout, but I do not remember whether BOR's were done at troop meetings or some other time. I don't think they were done at committee meetings because the PLC always met in the same building at the same time as the committee (with the SM shuttling back and forth), and doing BOR's of PLC members would have been kind of disruptive. Also, during "my time" is when the BSA decided that BOR's for T-2-1 would be done by higher-ranking Scouts instead of adults, so those must have been done at the troop meetings. My guess is that Star and Life BOR's were done at the troop meetings too. (Ok, at the time (after 1972) they were called Progress Awards instead of ranks and Personal Growth Agreement Conferences (or something like that) instead of BOR's, but of course everybody called them by their old names, and probably did so until the BSA changed them back.

We ask the boys to either send an email (hopefully by 3 days before the meeting although I don't know if that is ever stated, it's just sort of understood that a little advance notice is helpful and friendly, not to mention courteous and kind) or to ask a committee member at the troop meeting BEFORE the one where the BOR is to be held. The advancement coordinator then either emails or calls other committee members on the "BOR team" to make sure enough people will be there. There are often at least 3 committee members at a troop meeting anyway. If the request is made at a meeting where there are enough committee members present, and it is early enough in the meeting, the advancement coordinator will often ask the Scout if he wants to have the BOR on the spot. I think we make fairly clear that it is the Scout and not the parent who is supposed to request both the SMC and BOR. If a parent makes the request, it will often be gently suggested to them that the Scout needs to tell the appropriate person that he is ready for the SMC or BOR. But I will admit there are times that we do not "stand on ceremony" on this point.

UncleP, in addition to the question I asked earlier about what rank your nephew is, I have another question: Is your nephew having fun being a Boy Scout? If he is having fun, the chances are that he is also learning useful things, maybe very gradually and maybe without even knowing it - and even without getting checked off for it in his Scout handbooks. Chances are also that given time (he's like 12, right?), other things that are "expected" of him will fall into place, like advancement and leadership and other things. But if, for right now, he is having some fun and learning a thing or two, and getting experience in dealing with other people, and nothing else, that is still better than how he was spending his spare time before. Right?

"Zero tolerance" sounds good, which is why it became kind of a "fad" about 20 years ago (I guess.) "We're going to apply the same penalty to everybody who does a specific act, without taking any of the surrounding circumstances into account" doesn't sound so good. The problem is that they are basically the same thing, which is why "zero tolerance" never really worked out. And I can tell you that when you are involved in the enforcement of government rules and policies - as I was (in an oversight role) when I was a school board member - "zero tolerance" usually isn't even legal. I remember the board attorney making clear that courts and administrative agencies all over the country had struck down disciplinary rules and actions that failed to take all relevant circumstances into account. Of course, in a private setting where the government is not involved, and where you don't have a legal "right" to be there (say, in a program chartered to a religious institution), the people in charge can usually be "zero tolerant" if they see fit, and those who don't like it can leave. I take it that is DavidCO's situation. Whether it "works" or not will always be a matter of debate.

Of course, as you say, it really depends on the counselor. My son got Computer MB with one of the adult mentors on his FIRST Robotics team. There were about 5 Scouts from 3 different troops working with this guy during breaks in building the robot, writing the code, practicing the driving controls, etc. during "build season." The guy is a software developer for a big company and his role on the FIRST team was teaching coding to the kids, beyond what they could ever learn in a high school class. He really knew his stuff. He was actually way, way overqualified for the requirements of the Computer MB, at least as they were at the time. It is my understanding that that badge has been "retired" and replaced by 4 or 5 other computer-related badges that cover specific parts of the topic.

Or somewhere in between? The consensus in our troop seems to be that the time to go for the "Cits" is age 14 or 15. Of course, that wouldn't work very well in a troop where people are zooming to make Eagle at age 13, but that's not our troop. While the "book work" required for the Cits can be done at any age, there are a few requirements in there (I don't remember which badge(s)) that require some initiative and willingness to talk to people you don't know that may make it a stretch for an 11-year-old.

"Promotion", or advancement as the BSA calls it, is as important as your nephew thinks it is. It depends what he wants out of the program. Most kids I have encountered are interested in advancing in rank and eventually making Eagle. Some are not and are really there just to go camping, although I have found that most of those Scouts end up quitting somewhere along the way. So the real question is, What does your nephew want to do in Scouting? Also, the First Class rank is a recognition that the Scout knows (or is supposed to know) and can put into practice the basic Scout skills. What rank is your nephew?

Hopefully CaliGirl will let us know how things turned out with council and/or the new troop though.

Couldn't you be "nationally recognized as a Venturer" just by wearing the uniform shirt? Since the official BSA web page linked by the original poster says that "each crew may determine what, if any, specific uniform pants or shorts they will wear based on crew activities." (It doesn't mention a belt in that section.) So if the crew has decided that they are just going to wear the uniform shirt and everybody can wear whatever pants they want, wouldn't the "uniform" for them just be the shirt, and they would still be "nationally recognized as a Venturer"? I suppose that a Boy Scout wearing just the uniform shirt also would be "nationally recognized" as a Boy Scout, but they would be recognized as a Boy Scout not wearing a proper uniform, which would not be the case with the Venturer. (Although if you saw 12 Venturers together with the same unit number and 11 were wearing charcoal-grey pants and one was wearing blue jeans, you could make a pretty good guess that that crew had adopted the uniformed pants and that the jeans-wearer was not wearing the proper uniform.)

It hasn't, but I don't think that is really the relevant question. I think the relevant question is, what was the goal when the change was made? Was it to end up with the same number of members in total? (In which case you have achieved the goal.) Or was it to keep the same number of boys and add some number of girls? (In which case you have not achieved the goal.) We don't know what the goal would be, because at this point there isn't even a proposal. (See my post above.) All of this is hypothetical.

There is nothing wrong with discussing the potential consquences of somthing that could potentially happen at some point in the future, but I think it should be kept in mind that there does not appear to be any actual proposal being considered by National that would make Cub Scout packs and/or Boy Scout troops "coed." I don't really see any likelihood that it will be seriously considered in the near future. Over the summer there was a statement by the Chief Scout Executive (https://voiceofscouting.org/chief-scout-executive-asks-us-serve-entire-family) that spawned a thread in this forum in which some people thought the BSA is heading in that direction. However, the CSE's statement does not include a proposal to go "coed." Instead it spoke vaguely about how the BSA should "begin exploring how we can serve the entire family." The one actual example it gave was of several areas in which troops have formed a "partnership" with the GSUSA to create "programs" for the "entire family." One forum member spoke of a similar program in his/her area. But this is not the same thing as a "coed unit." In that statement, the CSE asked for a sharing of ideas about how the BSA could serve the entire family, but I have not seen any follow-up articles about what kinds of ideas were presented and what the next step is, if any.

No problem.

The fact is, we don't really know why this SM is doing what he is doing. We only know WHAT he has done, as reported by the original poster. We could speculate about the reasons until the cows come home. Here are a few possibilities: It could be that he is "clueless", which I would take to mean that he does not know what the rules are. It could be that he has a vague idea of what the rules are but is filling in the blanks with what he thinks is his "authority" as SM. It could be that he knows perfectly well what the rules are, but "this is how we've always done it" and if it's worked for us for the past x years, it works for us now, regardless of what the BSA says. Or it could be he is "at the end of his rope" dealing with disciplinary problems. And even within that one, there are different possibilities. Maybe he can no longer tell the difference between a serious infraction and a minor infraction and has decided that the penalty for all of them includes making a Scout wait at least 3 months (or whatever it is) before the troop will submit an advancement report for a rank that has already been earned. Or it could be some combination of these things, or others I haven't thought of. wh Bottom line is, I don't know why this SM does what he does, nor does it necessarily matter to the limited question of whether this Scout should be getting his First Class rank. Depending on what the answer is, it may tell something about whether this person should be SM anymore, but we just don't know enough. I think this is what often happens in this forum, someone asks a relatively simple question and many of us (sometimes including myself, though I try to keep to a minimum) find it necessary to add in why we think a person (who we don't know) is doing what he is doing, and all kinds of other speculation and conjecture, and then we get into arguments about whose speculation is correct. If I recall correctly, the original poster asked whether the SM could do what he did. No, he can't. I think we have helped the original poster. That's pretty good.

That's not good. That sort of thing is not inherent in being a professional Scouter, however. Anyone can marry the wrong person. I went to law school with a woman who had made a deal with her husband, he would put her through law school and after she graduated, she would put him through medical school. One guess what happened shortly after she graduated. (Fairly obvious, otherwise I wouldn't be telling the story.) I suppose it's a matter of perspective as to which of those stories is "worse", but neither one is very good.

Just a note, all of the posts above the last one are from more than 10 years ago. Before today this thread was "active" for 4 days in April and May of 2006. Not that there's anything wrong with responding, at least not in my opinion.

And even beyond the statistics, most of the former DE's on here have indicated in various ways that for all their hard work, no time with their families, low pay, they generally got treated like, um, dirt. Yes, that's the Scoutlike word for it. I also recall some talk that being in that position tends to wreak a heavy toll on a marriage. This is just an anecdote and not scientific data, but my district has had 10 or so DE's in the past 15 years, and the BEST one (in the opinion of myself and other unit Scouters who I have spoken with at district events) was a guy who, after however many years in the DE/SDE/DD cycle, decided he needed to have a little more stability and took a position in the Scout Shop in the council office. Some stability, he got caught up in a round of layoffs and found himself, in his late 40s I would estimate, without any job at all. I don't know whether he got a job with another council or not. I do know that our council's chance to give a good man a rest for a few years and then bring him back into the "direct line" (maybe as an FD) is probably gone.

I looked back at the announcement from my council and it also says this (the bolded portion is what is relevant but I am including the entire paragraph for context): An increase in the number of professional staff (which presumably includes the new District Associates) does not seem to fit in with the whole cost-cutting theme here... unless the salary of the new DA's (that is usually an abbreviation for something else, in my line of work) is so much less than the DE's that you can have more of them for less, or for the same amount. Of course, the "increase" could be by one position, so it may not be that big a gap to make up. Still, it is all somewhat puzzling, and it leaves unanswered my earlier question of what they are going to do with existing DE/SDE/DD's. They say it is going to be one-year phase in, but is there going to be enough attrition to take care of all these people in one year? Multiplied by all of the other councils that are presumably going to go through something similar? If (and this is just my speculation based on what I am seeing) the idea is to have DA's reporting to a Field Director and nothing in between, there are only so many FD positions to go around. I suppose the BSA could offer an "early retirement package" to increase the rate of attrition, but I don't know whether the BSA ever does that (calling @@Eagle94-A1 ) and it does not fit in with the whole cost-cutting theme, at least not in the immediate-term. (Just as an aside, based on years of reading posts by current and former professional Scouters in this forum, and knowing what happened to a couple of pros in my council, my suspicion is that the BSA's "early retirement package" is something like, "We no longer have a position for you, goodbye and good luck." Hopefully my impression is inaccurate.) (And another aside: The information I mentioned above from my council's web site suggests that in addition to whatever the FD's do now, which I assume is supervising the professionals in their districts, their job is going to be expanded (with no extra $ ?) to include being a point of contact for the volunteer members of the Key-3 for 3 districts. And, I suspect, a portion of the unit Scouters who would have called the DE with a question or concern will now call the FD (whose name is right there on our district web site, and the official phase-in hasn't even started yet) rather than try to figure out which one of 4 subject-matter brand-new DA's is the right one to call. I am sure the FD's are pleased with that, he said sarcastically.)