qwazse

Was at a council venturing meeting last night, and 2 out of 6 had not got the memo. One still was under the misconception that a plan was necessary for unit accident insurance to work. As one would expect, it seemed that the folks who are managing active units or program were on top of this.

LOL, I'm on soft $, so ... every election cycle and budget crisis... Requirement 5 on the application does not say in bold "only" as in "must only be approved by the project beneficiary". In fact the wording places emphasis on "plan, develop, and give leadership to others". Like I said, it's entirely possible that 10 Life scouts in 100 did not make clear on paper how they fulfilled those parts in bold. It's the BoR's responsibility to find out how the boy did fulfill the requirements. Then it's possible that 1 in 100 did not do the parts in bold in spite of sign-offs. If I hadn't seen this happen myself, I wouldn't believe it. (It was regarding MB sign-offs, and the CC put his foot down not the DAC, but same principle). I'm glad I've only seen it once among scads of Life scouts in the past couple of decades. Our DAC has seen it more than once in more than one way. What would you expect him to do?

Do you realize how patently ridiculous that sounds? "Add so many hoops that Little Johnny need never fear of embarrassment at the EBoR ..." 1. A tremendous percentage of young men do just fine with the requirements as written down in the handbook and a modicum of guidance. Some of them don't communicate what they did very well, so we have to account for that by pleasant conversation at the BoR. 2. Others will, in spite of any and all admonitions, will simply do less than they should, and their leaders will sign off anyway, kicking the can down the road. It might involve a service project, it might involve an MB that falsely signed. Whatever. That can only be handled by a BoR laying out what must be corrected. Discerning between the two is the district volunteer's responsibility. Maybe on some Big Rock Candy Mountain he/she wouldn't have to. But ... It is not the responsibility of every scout who hustles up and navigates Eagle requirements successfully to jump through increasingly laborious paperwork for the sake of those who may choose to ignore the plain language of the requirements in their handbook and on the Eagle application.

I have a vintage pocket door hanger that's been reminding me for 3 months that things don't go as planned. But then, I've only put in maybe 18 hours max of effort ... A few hours every weekend. I guess it boils down to: did the boy go through enough twists and turns to push through a plan? Sometimes that effort doesn't get put down on paper, and that's why we need BORs.

The process is certainly beyond the average teen. But we're not out to award average. Or, are we?

i disagree. I've seen 16 y/o's projects scuttled because of too many discouraging words about their plan. What really ticked me off was the boys who were showing the greatest independence and creativity were the ones getting brow-beat. That just didn't happen when I was a scout. Or maybe it was where I was a scout (more rural than sons' and daughter's district). Half my job as a volunteer is coaching parents to back off. The other half is simply telling boys that whatever project is on their heart, we will stand by them.

Welcome, and thanks for all you do for the kids! One of my aunts is possibly the oldest living Campfire Girl. She was one of my inspirations for promoting our Venturing Crew.

The EBoR is the "check" that you're asking for. There's this ongoing perception that every BoR should be completed the night that it is opened. Therefore, there's this constant build-up of literature and obligation of adults to avoid the positive experience of a BoR declaring that requirements have not been met. You are hopefully going to hold hundreds of boards. If 99% of them approve their candidate, how is that a problem? As a practical matter, our DAC occasionally has the floor at the boy-scout breakout session of round-table and gives us a general run-down of what types of applications have and have not been accepted. Getting the word out that you do reject applications from time to time is the best ounce of prevention that I can think of. The only "structural" thing that I can think of to guarantee a scout an eventually successful BoR, if that's what he really wants, is to remove the age 18 deadline. (Sorry to those of you who are tired of my soap box.) Then reviewers can, without remorse, turn down a 17.9 year old, give him an adult application, and invite him to keep trying as an ASM until he gets it right. There will be no more farming out agency to adults, no more disputed circumstances, no more parents whining about how Little Johnny's career is ruined. If it really matters to him, let him get it done as Big John. I wonder how many thousands of these "rush under the wire" applications would ever even get submitted if nobody felt that deadline approaching.

The only way to know who let whom down is to hear from all parties. Having never had an Eagle coach (and having done very little as a coach for son#2) I have no a priori reason to blame adults.

Speaking up at round table might help. I'm still patting myself on the back for calling out our DE when he told us to file tour permits/plans for meetings at coffee shops (or anywhere away from the CO)! Six years later, and the whole Byzantine process has imploded. You're welcome. This program roll-out is a different animal, however. So, don't count on the pro's to be at liberty to go quietly into the night. But, it would be good to sound off and get the opinion of other scouters in your district.

I think the Congressional Charter also carries a bit of a "what's best for the country" obligation. But, that obligation can be met through a broad array of decisions -- organization and membership being motivation for some of those.

To follow-up on Flagg's interpretation. It sounds like the BoR is set to proceed. So that meant that council did "verify" the paperwork. Still, I think a good DAC would do the boy a service by giving him a "heads up" that there are deficiencies, and he will have to discuss those with the board. The unfortunate thing is this pits the unit against the district. It's one thing if the CC tells the SM that its time to take the BS out of the BS of A. (Happened to one of our Eagle applicants once.) It's a whole other can of worms when the DAC has to call everyone to account.

Not so. Something could be signed falsely. Or the signer may not have understood what was being signed. Or the implications of the signature might not completely fulfill intent of the requirement. Using a less nuanced example, if a PL signs off on compass requirements after his scout completed an compass course at a local club, but the course merely crisscrossed flat open land and did not involve measuring the height of a tree or breadth of a ravine, the board must conclude that the scout is not yet a first class scout. They must suspend the review, put in writing why. and tell the scout what he will have to do (i.e. in this case, measure some objects). In @@dfolson's case the troop's SM should not have signed the application because the bold section of requirement 5 was not done. If not the SM, then the CC. If not the CC, then local council should deny verification. Call the scout and unit leader right away, and explain what's missing. The boy has one week to correct it. There may be more to this than what the boy wrote down. It could be that this beneficiary had a lot of political pressure to cut corners. If that's the case, the boy should make that clear. That would be a productive discussion point in an EBoR, as I'm sure many reviewers have been in the same position in their career. But, to rubber stamp the application and let the kid be blind-sided at the BoR goes directly against the letter and spirit of the GTA. I feel for the kid. This is a nation of deadlines. Which I hate. It leads to these crammed and crimped projects that deny the boy agency. I do think that the recent changes in the process help most boys, in principle, but sometimes we compromise pride to achieve punctuality.

I disagree. By not getting an award when failing to meet requirements, the scout wins a valuable lesson. The board wins its dignity, and the award gains real value. However, like Matt says, there may be more to this than what you see on paper. So, communicate. But never say sorry. A spade is a spade.

Why avoid the issue? Tell the boy and his SM that his project had shortcomings and the board will not convene to approve his advancement, but rather to outline what he should do on his next (and first real Eagle) project. Put it in writing. One of two things will happen, the boy will attempt to do a better job next time, or he'll file an appeal.

Close. 462 ways to have 5 + 6, plus 330 ways to have 4 + 7. However, it sounds like @@sheilab's boys have made up their mind. So, the question becomes: how to help them succede in their desired configuration? I've already suggested ditching the SPL/ASPL positions until the troop is three times as large. If the boys keep the patches, fine. But their real duties to the troop will fall along these lines: A guide for the new scouts. Not knowing your Eagle, it would be hard to say if he's the right person for this. But if he has another 5 months in the troop, this would be a great way for him to earn a Palm. A quartermaster. This will involve teaching the new scouts how to take care of gear as well as getting the older scouts to inventory supplies and figure out what you all need for the upcoming year or two. A scribe. This boils down to recording motions and filling out a calendar. Maybe even filling out meeting plans, and recording which patrol was assigned to duties like contacting a speaker for special meetings, set-up, and clean-up, etc. Collectively, the older scouts should be tasked with identifying activities that interest them, then figuring out locations where they can pursue those while the younger scouts camp in the vicinity and build their First Class skills. As the boys get to know each other, they can start asking younger scouts to fill positions of responsibility as a need for them arises. But generally, I would be content if those new scouts just pick a PL and learn to collectively become responsible for their gear and tracking their own advancement.

Really important: Folks often bring ground tarps to set their tents on. Those tarps have to be completely folded under the footprint of the tent. One exposed corner will ship more water into the middle of the tent than if a rain fly door was left open.

As long as the boys work well together, and are willing to loan one of their members for a while to guide the other, younger patrol, support their plan. I would, however, try to disavow them of the notion that a troop of two patrols needs an SPL/ASPL. If each patrol fields a PL and APL, these four come together to form your PLC. If another boy is good at being scribe, he joins them to take meeting minutes. Don't rush advancement. Focus on helping each patrol find skill-appropriate activities. Have fun.

Yeah, I usually manage to keep my college-age venturers connected for about a year, then their free time is swallowed up. Glad to have them regardless.

Yes. Although we try to encourage scouts to involve other scouts as well as classmates and members of the community in their projects, sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. If the "club" included other students, make sure the scout sends thank-you notes recognizing the hours they served. That may be important for the student's nomination to honor-societies or for senior projects.

Nobody's stopping Chevy owners from buying Silverados. Any Chevy owner can proudly own a Silverado as long as he tips his mechanic to be on call 24/7 because, after all, it's still a Ford . It's no less an award designed for boys if we permitted the the occasional female (or adult leader) to earn it, because after all, it's produced by the Boy Scouts of America. The real question still boils down to: will we in the US serve more boys (or the same number of boys, only better) by catering to special interests? All evidence to date suggests the opposite.

On one level, I agree with @@Stosh. I thought our crew blood drives were something that every crew in council should replicate. Mainly the youth were at the age where they could consider becoming donors. The theme "Venturing for Blood" came to mind. Only the first one or two required some serious leadership development. The rest were boiler-plate, and in fact youth in the community happily imitated it once they saw how it was done. The fire safety campaign, getting thousands of people to change their behavior and install and test alarms (not just for function, but actually to see if family members will respond effectively) is serious work. I am wondering if this year's young life lost in our community could have been spared had such a campaign been more successfully implemented. That's a project that is not easily imitated and every roll-out requires creative planing and leadership.

Last day of Son #2's cub resident camp (I think his first year). Very wet day. The boys dashed from the last afternoon activity to camp and set up a perfect teepee lay from carefully found/sequestered dry twigs. They asked if they could light it. (Camp rule said no cubs with matches ... for the usual reasons.) Some parents looked askance as I said, "He who stacks the kindling has rights to strike the first match." The light in their eyes was priceless. Their fire was pretty bright too!