qwazse

No plaques, please! But, that's just my pet peeve. I think it is important to get on the phone or talk face-to-face with the CC before bypassing him. If there are strong opinions contrary to yours you may re-think how you all approach this. But, assuming it's just lost paperwork, the CC met the love of his life and is on an extended honeymoon in Tahiti, or something else innocuous, follow Ken's advice.

Welcome! And, as I've said it before, I'll repeat it again: the best scout I ever met advanced as far as 2nd class. He's the one who invited me to his troop. If your son ever brings it up, tell him you have a story from some stranger on the internet!

From the time the term was presented to me (at son #1's 8th grade graduation), I hated the term millennials, because it makes it sound like this group of youth are like the Jetsons with robot maids and jobs behind monitors at the Sprocket factory. That said, the boy is taking a continuing Ed course in Visual Basic, and his wife getting an online master's degree from a traditional school on the opposite side of the country. That's why I use "post-modern nomadic." Because, if you're not spending an hour or more in a tin can getting to a job where someone will pay for your work, your spouse/friend is. And kids born into this culture are working far longer (albeit somewhat less back-breaking) hours than any I've known. But, because of that, they have less patience for advancement requirements that are self-aggrandizing (e.g., "troop camping only", "talk to a friend about being a scout", "log your service hours", etc ...). So, by "classic", I'm thinking of merely lest pretentious. (Edited Note: I'm not entirely sure "pretentious" is the right word when I'm talking about these meticulously worded requirements. But maybe you all have seen the look in a late-teen's eyes when they stumble upon a "busy-work" rank requirement that isn't necessarily there in younger teens.)

I think you have a point about what seems to be a cradle-to-grave mentality. The program in the first few decades seemed focused on engaging 11-14 year-olds ... and their fathers. If a boy had the time to hang around after that, he was welcome to contribute, but there was an acceptance that most boys would move on to other things. Heck, my SM in the 70s just accepted that football players didn't make Eagle ... until one or two did.

I suppose that's why Dad had us working middle school summers with a driver delivering beer in and out of every bar in the county. One summer was enough for me ... after that I lined up back-to-back camps and home-improvement projects. When we meet at the sportsman's club for training, the RSO (a former SM) asks to clear the bar so the boys can sit there. It's much easier to instruct the boys while they are seated at the stools around the "U".

Understood. My point is, I have heard volunteers at area and regional levels putting forth ideas, and they are all over the map. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of scouts and volunteers like the way things are. Even the expansion of Eagle to other BSA organizations who happen to hike and camp and sometimes use the patrol method gets no traction. Heck, it's a small miracle that the image of an Eagle was kept on Venturing's Summit award. http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/05/23/leave-your-feedback-on-these-venturing-award-prototypes/ Some of the links to proposals https://www.sageventure.com/venturing/VenturingAwardsDesigns.htmlhave expired, but this is as close as we've come to crowd-sourced development. Some folks, at the time - myself included, felt inclined to respect venturer's desire to be distinct. Others wanted more continuity. But, at least we felt that our views were respected. My crew? Having no interest in bling, they felt it all was a tremendous waste of time. I suspect our best program revisions will come about when every active member has a secure line to an otherwise open discussion and is incentivized to up- or down- vote proposals in a way that we'd know how many parents vs. scouters vs. scouts, etc ... favor one thing or the other. That's a long way off.

In a multitude of scouters, there is chaos. I've heard venturering commissioners suggest Boy-Scouts (and possible a co-ed version of the same) be age 10.5-13, and Venturing be 14-20. If you've only seen troops where older boys don't invest much time in younger boys, I guess that makes sense. But, in spite of potential grumblings, most of our older scouts interact with the younger ones. So, as far as I'm concerned that's a non-starter. On the ground, there is a lot of enthusiasm for the status-quo. Plenty of disdain for innovators (and I've seen some of that directed toward venturers), so I'm not expecting change anytime soon.

BSA asked BPSA in the US to replace "Scout" with "Service", I have only seen their web presence. Never met any in person.

I knew about that regulation when I was a scout, and -- although our troop had no interest in anything but one of the standard issues -- always wondered about it. Did council have a record book of custom designs? (I mean, they had a book of Eagle's names, and we could visit and sign it, so it stood to reason ...) Apparently not. About that other part of the rule. Say you have an Eagle who wants to wear his special neckerchief ... does any troop anywhere have an actual approval process?

That's one more thing that's appealing about the original Camping requirements. There's no pretense about "Boy Scout Camping" or "only one long-term." It's quite clear with 50 nights that camping one week every summer is not gonna get you there, so go ahead count as many of those as you can fit in and still you gotta free up a good many weekends to get it done. But, if you convince your family to start camping (as son #2's best friend did) you can report that to your counselor as well. Think about that for a second. If your buddies are the odd ducks in your troop who are all about co-ed, go help some girl scouts camp. Earn the badge. If religion is your thing, go sleep under the stars at your church's retreats/missions. Earn the badge. BSA isn't trying to herd you into their corner to bump its participation numbers. If there's a school activity where you could camp at, go for it. Earn the badge. From recruitment requirements to all of the service hour counting. All that "do a favor for your BSA" rhetoric gets pulled.

It sounds like you've read everything that I've read. Your actions were prudent. That should suffice.

I guess I never worried about the "glamping" much because it was completely foreign to my upbringing (lots of cold nights falling asleep watching the smoke coming out of some city-troop's cabin), and somewhat foreign in my sons' troop. SM's didn't worry much because the elections were a serious hurdle, especially in my boys' troop. If a genuinely cheerful and helpful scout needed to count some hard-roof outing toward O/A nights (and they all seemed to have a good idea of what was going in those tallies), the boys would let it slide. Foul-mouth cusses and practical jokers could camp topside in the rain/snow 40 nights a year and lose consecutive years in a row.

Of course not. Earn it as an adult in your troop. Maybe den chiefs could sign off pack leaders! Every scout deserves an accountable leader.

Flagg, no problem. Pull out the plain English rules that the software is based on. Heck the software should have the link to any rule it applies (ideally with publisher and copyright date). References = first step in teaching a skill. Does O/A have a policy that says the MB definition applies, or does it have one that references the JTE definition: You and I might think that's a stupid rule made to accommodate point-grubbing scouters, but it's official. If someone like @@Chisos read the O/A requirments, then looked in a boy's book, and had just tallied up the year according to JTE ... could anyone direct him to a source that says he should not make that association?

As a biologist at heart, I do believe bird study should be required. In recent years, national and local debates about environmental issues are lost on many, simply because they aren't watching the flora and fauna in their community. Any required MB's should focus on mindfulness and observation, less on regurgitating facts. I do believe that this shenanigans about the age 18 deadline should end. I don't think we should encourage scouts to procrastinate or nudge adults to earn eagle, but if after earning 1st class at any age, they should not be discouraged if they are so inclined. Wood badge should be open only to scouters who've earned 1st class rank. I guess that means that cub leaders and such will need to master some outdoor skills ... pity that. I'm ambivalent about the service project. (Which wasn't required early on.) I think it should be turned into a "project management" or maybe "grants and contracts" merit badge. Should it be required? Likewise, there should be a required "pedagogy" (a.k.a., EDGE) MB rather than all of these scattershot requirements. Maybe require it for Star, and fold in that 2nd cyberchip requirement. I think homemaking will need to be added as fewer young adult men are getting married, nor are they going into the military and learning about living an orderly life. Again, not sure about requiring it. I'm not that bothered about the three ranks at once schema. Depending on what your troop/patrol does, it may need those tenderfoot scouts mastering selected 1st class skills before ranking up. But that should cut both ways. If a 2nd class scout seems to have forgotten a skill for his next rank that he had mastered the year before, he should be requested to demonstrate it again. Regarding BoR's and testing: we need to accept the fact that there will be variation, and not brow-beat scouters who do things differently. Recommendations of when and how.

The byline is "National honor society of the Boy Scouts of America." So, without further documentation to the contrary, there's no reason that the different requirements would share the same definition. Regarding software, I try not to let the tail wag the dog.

We need to remind ourselves that it's a big country ... http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/08/21/scout-neckerchiefs-now-approved-wear-nonuniform-clothing/ ... and fashion is fickle. Following the photos of youth giving BSA's Report to the Nation this year, I see 2 of the 5 boy scouts and 1 of the two venturers wearing neckerchiefs.

Nice link, CF. But that's about camping merit badge, not O/A. I tried looking for "outdoor" here http://www.oa-bsa.org/pages/content/membership-and-induction, not on that page. Anybody have a better source? I have no problems reading only self-raised shelter or open sky into O/A's membership requirements, if someone can provide a reference to experts addressing that specifically.

I'm not sure. The emphasis, unlike camping MB, is on overnights with a troop or a team (not a crew or a pack). If those were the activities that the troop provided, then it seems that we'd miss honorable scouts by not counting those nights. That sense of fellowship is what we seem to be after here. At the same time, "camping" is used repeatedly. So, if these were boys who always dodged every outing under canvas or stars, I suppose that's where 'approval of SM or Varsity Coach' comes into play. When in a jam like this, I always recommend to bring it up with your scouts. They are the ones who will be voting. Their interpretation should matter.

Okay, so as not to offend EM, let's be clear. The highlighting is mine ... So, you're not discussing a change in uniform policy where the standard would not include neckerchiefs. We're not discussing how excuses like "dorky", "uncool", or even "non-utilitarian", etc ...comes off as "whiny" and possibly irrational. Okay. I guess that means we can't discuss how some think it is that a simple piece of fabric worn as described in the BSHB connects them with scouts around the world, and scouts of yesteryear ... (and maybe some chefs, cowpokes, sailors, etc ...). Because all of that is irrational emotional or doesn't happen in everyone's neck of the woods. Let's just talk about how some boys are having fun with neckers, while others are not. Open questions in my mind are: 1. How do we give boys a fair picture about neckerchief wear and use? 2. How do we overcome BSA's slips in the production and sale of pre-printed neckerchiefs? 3. When should a troop who has opted-out of neckerchiefs as part of their uniform be asked to reconsider their decision? 4. When should boys who don't usually wear neckerchiefs be prepared to wear them? 5. What about camporees with neckerchief challenges? 6. What about that scout who comes from a jamboree, conclave, or moot and insists on donning a neckerchief (or more, it can get absurd) at meetings/CoH's in a troop who has opted out of them?

Maybe this is where BSA went wrong: selling pre-printed cloth instead of design kits. Imagine a scout-shop with rolls of fabric, silk screens, dyes, and inks ... maybe even with craft tables in the back for patrols to schedule so they can purchase materials on site. Put down a deposit, get it back if you leave the room as clean as when you came. If not at scout-shops, then at major craft suppliers.

I think we'll find more parents who do need that "push" to support their boys attending meetings. It's a side-effect of the interweb: providing a delusion that we all can get by without physical contact.

As a parent, I would be concerned that reasonable precautions have been made to secure the liquor. Probably, it wouldn't hurt from time to time for the older scouts to hear from one of the bartenders about state regulations and the problems that could arise from a youth "raiding the cupboard." But, it is healthy for the boys and parents to know who their CO is -- that includes the good, bad, and ugly. In fact, if the club has a range safety officer who is good with youth, it might not hurt to have a kids' shooting night one night a week. Members would be informed that the bar will be closed that night. But if stuff isn't going to be kept under lock and key, and a good faith effort is not made to educate the older youth, I wouldn't use the club as a troop meeting place.

I quoted you exactly and then paraphrased ... my apologies if my word choice touched nerves. But if your boys were to speak freely, which word would they choose? You wanted to know what people thought of a national BSA rule of abandoning neckerchiefs. It's a big country. I agree that the smaller sizes undermined their universal use. But given the full size, the "non-utilitarian" argument falls flatter than our epaulets. I'm sure boys and adults share responsibility for their culture. And in this current troop, I leave the SM and the PLC to interact on these issues on their own. But ... Before patrol break-outs tonight, ASPL was presenting on backpacking, and one of the first years asked about wearing his uniform on a trip. ASPL suggested to bring his activity shirt and neckerchief. None of the adults gainsay-ed him one way or the other. Looking around the room of two dozen boys, about 6 older scouts did not have their neckerchiefs on. The ASPL had his on, as did the SM and I. The ASM did not. Then at the crew meeting, they were going over first aid, and I demonstrated making a sling on a victim using my wood badge necker. I made it clear if they weren't going to wear them, they should keep 3'x3' clean cloths in their kits. So, I'd say if your boys are sticking with the neckerchief, do make sure they practice getting some utility out of the thing. And, cut the older boys some slack if they don't bring theirs.

CF, maybe I'm wrongly taking @@EmberMike at his word. Let's see ... Here, we have an adult. One whose past association with neck-wear was negatively jaded. Unlike you, said adult is now surrounded by boys who don't seemed to be bothered by their necker policy. At least, not enough to vote it down. Said adult has rumors of other boys opting out of this erstwhile national standard, and seems to be projecting his angst on boys who have not exercised that option. Said adult wonders, if the boys aren't opting out themselves, maybe the adults should do it for them. Said adult refers to the actions of other adults for justification. And in case we were unsure of his opinion ... ... he let's us know that we should be concerned about looking excessively gay, as if that's a bad thing. You might think this is about deconstructing our notion of what visually distinguishes scouts from members of other noble groups, but no, it's about squelching the fun that many are having for the sake of the few who are embarrassed by said jamboree.