qwazse

@mrkstvns, this "modern scouting culture" that you speak of ... what membership increases has it yielded? Here's the mentality that is "where it's at.:" First Class First Year is a lie. The skills therein are difficult to master. I say it to everyone who'll listen. As a result, the boys in my troop have SMs who aim for skills, not bling, plus a committee who stand behind them.

Yeah, when I think of "Top Scout" I don't think of extra bling. I do not consider earning 1st Class Rank and living up to everything that is implied in that oval as "just getting by." We scouters really need to have that mentality. Sure, obtaining Star, Life, Eagle, or more should be in the cards for some scouts. But, if we treat 1st Class seriously, then we are showing the world a "finished product." From there we get the helpers of old ladies across the street, the builders, the rescuers, the honor guards, the public speakers, the (borrowing from another thread) truly epic scouts ... some of whom obtain further awards and recognition.

Looks like the marketing doublespeak will continue: Can we please get a CSE/CEO who will plainly say that what 21st century BSA did was 1) end the interstate witch-hunt of homosexuals, 2) said "Yes, but safely" to the girls who wanted to work our programs, 3) remove previously sanctioned independent youth meetings and activities -- including 18-20 year olds ASMs as "2nd adults" -- for the sake of stricter youth protection. There is no "US family." There were American families. They never fit one mold. But for the longest time, the majority of our fellow citizens found a particular nuclear structure wed to a particular location essential to assuring their offspring's future. We have a rapidly evolving post-modern nomadic generation. BSA turned its back on families who hewed rigorously to a narrow set of patterns in order accommodate what they hope will be a burgeoning majority of post-modern nomadic families. We can debate the soundness of that bet, but the whole "changing to reach the rapidly changing US family" is, to use Mosby's words, "aspirational" at best.

I guess it's a bit of a marketing gimmick to impress scouters like @mashmaster before they become all jaded. Fact is, we already have top scouts: they are called "1st Class." Period. Which gave me an idea. It would be awesome if the SE personally wrote every scout who is awarded 1st Class within a month of them completing their board of review. In return the SE could ask that scout for "one small favor." Perhaps to sign a thank-you card to a local FOS donor. The troop's UC could run point on this. Imagine the impact of a letter from council office like this: "Dear Sir/Madame, My name is ___. I have been a scout for ___ years, and recently earned 1st Class Rank. I was recently informed by our council scout executive, Mr./Ms. ___, that you contributed to Friends of Scouting. I wanted to thank you for helping scouts like me get the most of what our BSA has to offer through ___ Council. Sincerely, ___"

You must, if not for your sake then for those of us who no longer have Momma to talk to about such things.

Our boys and my daughter also liked to be four to a tent. They started using smaller tents as they got older once they realized that they could manage quiet hours if it was just one buddy or just themselves. The real goal was to separate the owls (late nighters) from the larks (early risers). Nothing ruins a decent coffee more than some scout walking the 100 yards to your campsite just to complain about their bunk mate keeping them up all night or leaving the door to the tent open early in the morning.

In other words, "Yes, but safely." The gist of the flight plan seems to require three things: A credentialed pilot. A credentialed aircraft. Insurance. The key is to recognize valid credentials. (The FAA has specific certifications of flight-worthiness. I found this for fixed-wing sailplanes: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/22059 . From a consumer perspective I can't make heads nor tails of it.). The BSA Flight Plan is basically putting it on you to check certifications. Not necessarily a bad thing, but obviously a challenge.

I've been on the recipient side, so I might not have the perspective that you need. But my impression is that the biggest challenge for our committees was getting the nominations in the first place. We scouters on the ground don't always take the time to nominate good candidates, so a point system seems like overkill. Maybe your culture is different than ours. Are you all are getting more candidates for awards than you actually have awards to offer?

Congratulations, you are a victim of your success. There are basically two considerations: Will you perform well and enjoy he position? Would you enjoy working with whoever takes the position if you pass on it? As to communicating your concerns, be plain spoken. Say what you think your fellow scouter should be doing less of and what you think he should be doing more of. As RT commish, you could encourage your team to do a 360 evaluation.

Not sure if it's any different than a small engine plane ride. Have you given the Guide to Safe Scouting a once-over?

And that's the crux of the matter. The G2SS claims to lower the olds of abuse ("barriers" is a slight misnomer) based on the most general of observations. It hasn't seen your camping conditions nor does it know your youth. For example, I can imagine pairs of 13 year old boys who if I can help it will be assigned different camps, let alone tents. And I can imagine a half dozen 10-11 year olds would benefit from being in the same room as a couple of scouts two years older. I think the G2SS gives you the latitude in this case to make arrangements that will best serve your scouts.

Lean on the "modifications may be made" bit. When we had one female adult with a troop in one cabin, she'd have a bunk with a tarp hung for privacy ... adults on one wall, boys on the opposite wall. (I actually, slung my hammock outside that night, and that's what I'd likely do if I were the sole male in this situation.) All the youth will be fine in their yurt. The tenting scenario applies to the more typical situation where you have 2-man or 3-man tents. Basically, abusive situations seem to be more likely when pairs or triples are too far apart in age. That said, be prepared with a spare tent.

Of course that's not enough said! I'd have this conversation with the scout: Me [in my sternest stop-wasting-matches voice]: Scout, did some of my money that I spent on your popcorn actually go to some old folks so they could party up at Christmas? Scout: Sir, yes sir. It did. But that was before strangers on the internet accused me for misappropriation ... Me: Keep it up. And double my order for next year.

In this town, there's a special word for such armchair crumudgeons, I won't waste it here. The day that scouting serves only scouts is the day I turn in my Fleur-de-lis. 'Nuff said.

Son #1 [sometime between 4th and 6th grade while we were walking to see fireworks]: Why did you make us read the whole Declaration of Independence before we could have dessert? Me: Well, it is Independence Day. Son #1: But we read this stuff in school. Me: So, did you read it in school this year? Son #1: No. Me: I like when you answer your own question.

Best thing about World Jambo: hearing the contingents (Germans and Finns stick in my mind) sing as they hiked.

I really hate that deadline. Without it, a scout like this would just keep putting off earning the badges until maybe his was 40 and an ASM himself. Sure, it's kicking the can down the road, but it will be at someone else's intersection. I tried to get one of my scouts who was into theater to draw up a skit that would follow a scout as he goes about earning a fictional MB -- one with two simple, but theatrically funny requirements.For laughs I considered making a prop of the oversize card by painting old dry-erase boards and hinging them together -- and an even larger MB pamphlet! At least make it a little fun! The scout passed, and I'm still trying to get a scout to take it up as an SM--assigned service project. If anyone takes me up on the offer, I'll post the results. Your younger scout's not wrong. We old-school scouters grew up with the list of district MBC's pinned on the bulletin board. They were all someone somebody know personally because it was a small district. Some of us chose our next MB based on if the councilor was just down the road from us. (Or, in my case, a customer at Dad's beer distributor.) Your scout is a victim of shrinking membership, districts the size of councils, councils the size of areas, and perverse individuals who've destroyed the general public trust. As far as geographical searches go, ScoutBook's list works quite nicely -- when it works. I get a page with a few counselors for a particular badge, and the cut-and-paste into an e-mail ain't bad. Some of my leaders are MBCs, but they aren't showing up yet. If and when it reflects real life, the whole process will be much more satisfying.

I think @SSScout got to the gist of it. You don't really have a difficult message to tel the scout. At some point the SM should have a chat with him and ask why the rush all of a sudden in November? And what's the deal with the bait-and-switch? Why didn't the original counselors work out? I halfway agree with @DuctTape, that everyone could stand a little coaching on the MB system. But, even so, a troop will still get cases like this.

My experience suggests that this was more common to do when districts were smaller and Eagle applications -- especially at age 17.9 -- were rarer. Then, registration constituted a handshake by the district commissioner, and an "until death do we part" phone list. Our council advancement chair does tell us that applications are flagged when the counselor has the same last name as the scout for too many MBs. Having MBCs registered is quite new, and the purpose of registration is for background checks, not Eagle applications. The "gate" for scouts is supposed to happen at the time of issuing the card. But even then, the GTA has allowed the scout flexibility to use an MBC other than the one suggested by the SM. And, until now, a scout has not had a good way of checking if an MBC is registered and YPT current. Most MBCs don't even know that they can check their own registration ... they might not even know about Scoutbook. So, in this case, there is no way of telling which counselor the prior SM or advancement chair suggested for each of these badges, no way of knowing if this counselor was registered and the paperwork got lost, no way of knowing if this person counseled any other scouts. The only actions are to 1) call the counselor, and 2) let the scout know that strangers on the Internet think his blue cards for these badges will get his Eagle application flagged. The scout needs a do-over. It's that simple.

So, under normal circumstances -- which this is certainly not -- I strongly recommend that the applicant's record always stay with the applicant. As soon as the scout presents the card with the counselor's signature, the SM signs it, separates the portions, and returns the applicant record to the scout. Then, as soon as the SM or designee records it in the unit's records, he signs the unit copy. That's the point of that final signature. That's how I believe we can maintain the triple-redundancy intended by the blue card system. None of that would take away from the serious deficiency in the scout's cards. That is, they lack an MBC's signature until that person can prove his/her credentials. It's possible to be registered in a council outside of your address, but that council should be able to verify it. With or without the unit leader's signature, you need to let the scout know that you can't in good conscience process those cards.

My supplier had the gall to go off to college a year early. But, I have not seen anyone with samples. There's always that percentage of customers that will try something new from a product line. So that's the market that this sort of thing is meant to target. I suspect one has to make a bet as to where the most novelty seekers will be. I'm a novelty seeker when it comes to jerky and salsas ... mainly because I frequent a street in town where importing new ideas for agricultural products is a way of life. But, I'm not that way when it comes to chocolate, baklava, or coffee. Mainly because I've found variation from my preferred brand has met with disappointment while others who've tried my preferred brand have found enlightenment. Thin Mints and Samoas have me in their thrall. So, lacking a sample, I'm sticking with those.

@David CO, I have a stinking suspicion that this counselor was so close to the scout's former unit that nobody ever thought to ask if he/she ever registered! I'm tempted to take a guess that the CO of the scouts former unit ... betting that it's "former" based on a recent decision of the CO's parent organization ... but that might come off as stereotyping.

Every funding agency sees the activities of its grants through different lenses. So, while to us it sounds general ... I can very much envision a grantor who sees reducing the cost of admission to scouting in a particular area to be directly in line with its mission and vision. For that agency, a beneficiary more narrow than a district or council may be paramount. For others, if they ain't donating their strip mine to attract scouts across the nation and world, they ain't writing the check. @Momleader, that brings up a fine point that I trust your committee has reviewed. Pay attention to the fine print. A grantor may expect you to commit to certain activities or objectives that, while noble, could have you wishing you had sold popcorn instead.

Okay, I'm re-reading. So, you're saying for each MB ... The scout turned in his copy and the unit copy. (We assume the counselor has 9 of his portion of the application.) The counselor signed the scout's portion and the unit's portion. You or another SM signed once? Was that the applicant's portion? And now the scout is giving you the unit portion? And you're trying to decide if you should sign-off on "checked and recorded"?

I will note that MBC applications are the most easily lost pieces of paperwork. But, if the scout doesn't have his former SM's signature on the card, then he really does need to square away with a recognized counselor. If he's asking his current SM to sign, the SM better be comfortable with what happened with each badge.