qwazse

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.

It's not a retest if the scout has no credible evidence of passing in the first place.

Actually, @ianwilkins, we have volunteers who do apply for grants for their council. If you propose to have your council do great things with it (e.g., reach a thousand scouts announcing a special program put on by the funding agency) $2K in that direction could be readily forthcoming. It just depends on the agency. Some want to distribute small amounts to small individual units, others want to distribute large amounts regionally or nationally. But you are correct that the notion of a grant being "passed on" to anyone other than the grantee does not sit well.

IMHO, a grant or award is not a contribution. It is $ given for something the grantee will do or the awardee has done. Your pack will tell a funding agency that you all would like to do something for your community. If that community and what you proposed to do is of interest to that agency, they will grant you resources accordingly. That's where my previous comment comes from. If council will fulfill the goals of the grant, they can apply for it. Your beef with the council and popcorn sales is irrelevant. The UC should not be linking that with how you apply for public funds. It may be within his right to point out anything that the council does for your unit and appeal to your good graces. But, telling you that because of your choices, you have to do things in a way that is not documented anywhere ... that is going overboard.

True, contacting the former unit leader would be a good idea as well. I'm pretty sure we're talking about the scout's portion because they had the side with partials.

If council gets it, are they gonna pay for the guest speakers?

@Jameson76, I think the OP was given the applicant's portion.

Think in terms of what your patrol would take backpacking, and you'll be pretty close.

I'm an ASM, and I didn't know a thing about my son's MBs or blue cards. I might have known a few of their counselors, but that's about it. By the time they were Star scouts, they were operating independently. No harm in asking though. I'd call the counselor ... especially about what is on record for the crossed out badge. No ham in the scout learning that sloppy paperwork gives people pause.

Obfuscation starts at the top. Do you all realize that this decade's membership stats are buried in an annual report ... in .pdf format? It would be no trouble to list those stats in a single page in a plain text table by year -- current year on top row. Date and auditor's reference in the header. If I were in congress, I would move to reject any report that did not have that on page 1 of any Title 36 organization. For a model, consider the US Census' opening page. Just saying, for any of you whose SE's have fluff as a top priority, a servant is no greater than their master.

We also need to accept the fact that there may be a reason a parent won't register (not in a no-cost position). Something might come up in a background check that a parent would not discuss. In certain of our families, that might apply to both parents. On occasion the problem might involve something that would be a serious red flag. We've seem some serious messes come through the door. Still, we want such parents to know what to expect from us. That pamphlet in each handbook is a good start. But, it won't work for most. Frankly, I don't think there's a one size fits all. The best I can think of is a senior scouter (CC or MC or ASM) who invests a lot of time orienting new parents. Call them informal YP tutors. Getting your older scouts into the YP game is important too.

I'm aware that things at Philmont are a little weird. I would think that after the incident where a scout couldn't escape his tent in a flood, they would have backed off that a little. There's surely a point at which are certain amount of stitched edges transitions a tarp into a tent. But, no doubt: cheaper is heavier. Untreated netting isn't too expensive, the treated parachute cloth (my name for UL tarp) ain't cheap. But, if you're grabbing a tent just to toss its poles because you're counting on using hiking sticks or finding decently spaced trees, I suspect you'll hit cost parity quickly. Questions: Has anyone used poles that double as pack frame? Do adults on Philmont crews share a tent? If so, does the advertised capacity from REI work for you?

This falls apart on multiple levels. Uncle Jack, who has been taking his nieces and nephews to his favorite fishing hole since they could walk, is not going to stop just because they are now scouts. Bobby the babysitter with a driver's license is not going to stop driving the kids to events just because they are under the auspices of the BSA. And certainly not when she turns 18. Jane, who is in college someplace awesome to hike is going to invite her younger brother and scout buddy to stay at her dorm the night before some cool scouting expo on her campus. A half dozen boys are going to meet and apply their skills to spend a night in Gramp's' cabin near the state game lands. Gramp's will toss them the keys to the cabin and maybe the pickup to haul their gear there. That said, I think it's a really good idea to encourage parents to get a scouting.org account and take the youth protection training online. I usually tell them that they are better served when they know the standards we scouterr are holding ourselves to. Before departures, I'll have drivers circle up and give them a thumbnail of risk zone and buddy system. At camp, I'll have new adults gather by the moka pot and give the. A thumbnail YPT.

Definitely there are cultural differences. In this town our urban youth tend to be more outgoing than suburban youth. And that is almost to the point where they undermine their own education ... talking back to teachers, treating homework as a suggestion instead of a demand, etc ... On my side of town, the suburbs do represent some flight of the upper classes. But it's not entirely a class difference. There seems to be more of a "children should be (barely) seen and not heard" attitude among suburbanites, where as the urbanites have more of a tradition of kids out on the streets patronizing businesses, etc ...until the streetlights come on.

@David CO, the scenario you describe with your teachers is precisely the one we are preparing our scouts for in case they are the first to respond to an emergency. In your teachers' case, students are attempting to use their "rank" as a civilian or fellow citizen to justify their petulance. It's a different side of the same coin. 'Skip's scenario is being practiced by 14 year-olds. However, they might not encounter an actual scene for years, and they are adults in 4 years (well, in the UK, I think that's the case ... the US has these bizarre stages of arrested development: 18 for cigarrettes, 20 for alcohol, 26 for no longer being on parents' insurance). So, the issue is not really "facing down unqualified adults" when you are just a kid ... it is facing down peers when you know what's right. I.e., Be prepared ... for life.

In its original application of attempting to understand PTSD in veterans, I believe you are correct, the authority was deemed to be legitimate. Applied to healthcare in this decade, I think "legitimate" is in play. The legitimate authority in the past had been medical boards, but in currently physicians are perplexed my mandates from third party payers, and even the new electronic medical record which some of my physician friends find constraining to the point that patients are harmed. The moral injury comes when actors whose interests aren't always aligned with the Doctor-patient relationship. (Mrs Q and I are dealing with some elder-care issues that smack of this sort of thing.) Obviously, we train scouts to cede control to trained EMTs and physicians, but that's not merely because we think they have legitimacy in terms of chain of command. It's because we expect their training to complement the care the scout would have given up to that point. In the unlikely event that the person the scout gives control to is a malpractionor and leads to the patient's unnecessary death, that could be a kind of moral injury. But the common scenario is somebody using their age (sometimes sex), absent any other credentials as justification to interfere in effective patient care. So the moral injury in this context comes from a misapplied legitimacy. So, the term is not a perfect application to the civilian scenario, but I think it comes close.

I dunno guys, even after a 40% discount on the tent, I can buy a lot of tarp, netting, parachord, and stakes.

We all know now that this demeanor -- while essential for elementary education, religious sensibility, functioning families, and long term personal growth -- has boundaries and will backfire in certain contexts. Specifically when an abuser takes advantage of a culture's willingness to think "an occasional mishap is a small price to pay", the youth in his/her sights no longer becomes a charge and becomes a victim. Some in the medical field (especially here in the US where healthcare is under strain) describe a situation called "moral injury" where pressures are put upon a doctor or nurse to become so efficient that they feel their prime responsibility to their patient is undermined. In lifesaving scenarios, having to cede authority to someone less competent is heart-wrenching. When we teach the next generation how they may forestall death, but don't teach them how to stand up to someone who may abuse their age or some other false authority to undermine a rescuer's ability to spare loss of life and limb, we put that generation at risk of moral injury. What happens to a morally injured first-responder? Well, in @Eagle94-A1's case, he chewed on it and made sure to never let that happen again. Others will commit to never putting themselves in such a position again -- pass on the other side of the road, leave it up to the professionals, never take next level training, or do enough to pass the test and never engage the lessons, etc .... Folks, that becomes a whole lot of training for naught. On the positive side, teaching first aid students crowd control -- or teaching a life guard to not suffer fools at the waterfront, also has the side effect of giving them a tool that may defend them against abuse.