Beavah

Because people come here looking for advice, questionable advice ought to be challenged. 

Yah, I agree, @@TAHAWK.   The advice we gave @@SSF resulted in nuthin' but grief, eh?   Two, maybe three boys out of Scoutin'.   Lots of burned bridges. Even if the lad "gets" Eagle under disputed circumstances, he doesn't want an EBOR.

It was headin' that way anyways, but collectively I'm not sure we really helped.

Yah, and next time tell Michael that you're not involved in da troop or da council, you're askin' a question to make trouble on an internet forum and intend to post his answer there, eh?   It's only fair to the fellow since da BSA like every organization has rules for employees about Communications.  There are reasons why @@RichardB tries to point folks toward resources and get 'em to think, rather than make pronouncements.

I'm still not gettin' what yeh hope to accomplish, eh?  This is another unwinnable fight yeh want to pick.  Da church can simply suspend troop operations during confirmation season if it wants, or tell confirmation kids they can't do Scoutin' service hours if they want to be confirmed.  They can decide not to allow non-Catholic kids to join.   Ultimately if yeh pick a fight with da IH the answer is for him to rip up the charter... and then go sit with his bishop and suggest that all da other churches in da area do the same.

How do yeh think any of that is helpin' boys or Scouting?

B

If, however, there is going to be some sort of standard applied, it needs to be started at a specific time and all the boys that are under the old "rules" are grandfathered in on those rules rather than at the last minute dumping a big surprise on some 17 year old boy to make sure he doesn't get his earned Eagle. 

Yah, but even da BSA doesn't do that, eh?  The lad could have had all his MBs for Eagle done two years ago and had that requirement signed off, but he still wouldn't have been grandfathered in on da new Cooking MB requirement.   He'd have had to do the added merit badge.

The BSA certainly doesn't see that as unjust/unfair/evil.   The boy had plenty of notice and plenty of time to go do the badge, eh?   Seems like it was the same here in terms of da troop's participation requirement.    I'm just not seein' a big difference.  If yeh want Eagle, just do the badge.  If yeh want Eagle, just go campin' a few times.  In both cases you'll learn somethin' and it will be fun.

@@Beavah, I think we all are pushing back on this thread because we like to see COs, IHs, COR, CC and SMs saying we want to present this program as close as possible to what it was designed to be.

I hear yeh, @@Hedgehog.   I understand that there are some scouters out there who think that's da most important thing, eh?  To precisely follow da BSA program documents in all their unedited confusion.   If it works for yeh, great.

Just understand that's not the approach of the BSA itself.  We're providin' materials and support to organizations to run their own program, and we don't demand precision.  Quite da opposite, eh?  If you've ever seen da LDS materials, as an example, yeh know that we support organizations that make substantial modifications and "interpretations" of the program to mesh with their own goals and needs.   We support 'em even when they tend to leave us with higher accident rates and insurance payouts.

We are generally boy-led.  However, if our CO asks us to help out on something, the adults tell the boys that we are helping out.  Does that violate any rule?  No. 

Yah, sure it does if your metric is "to see the program implemented the way it was designed or as close as possible".    What you describe ain't the program.   In the BSA Scouting program, the PLC decides on the annual calendar and on the events, eh?  Their calendar then gets approved by the Committee.   There's nuthin' in da program materials anywhere that even suggests that the SM or other adult leaders can just tell the boys they're puttin' somethin' on the calendar.

So if yeh really value Precision Scouting, you're breakin' da rules, eh?   Besides, do yeh really have da right to sell other people's time?

Now here's a question for yeh.  Up until the most recent G2A, da SM had to approve the MB counselor, and approve the lad doin' the badge.   It encouraged some mentoring and direction as part of da process.  Do yeh think that a unit that's still doin' that is evil / bad?  Da kids are OK with it, da parents support it.  In some cases where da CO has more stringent background check or YP requirements than da BSA the CO may even demand it.   Is it really awful for a unit to keep doin' what was totally normal and effective Scoutin' for 100+ years?

Personally, I don't have any problem with a unit that says they won't take Camping MB from camp counselors, so long as they offer the lad good counselin' within da troop, eh?  In fact, it's a practice that's more consistent with da actual BSA policy on MB counselin'.  Not da program guide, da actual National Policy.

@  There are some things that don't matter in the long run - but following this requirement would have the result of denying a boy who completed all of the requirements for Eagle the award due to added requirements. 

Nah, assumes facts not in evidence, eh?   It seems from all da postings the lad has had plenty of time and opportunity to go camping.  Two weekends plus summer camp and he's done.   If he's anything like typical it'll require less effort for him than fillin' out all da Eagle paperwork .

Besides, we don't "deny" boys for Advancement, eh?  That implies da recognition of others is somethin' a lad is entitled to or owed.   Advancement only works as a learnin' technique when our awards make explicit da recognition and respect they have already earned with their peers and compatriots.  Done well, Advancement is like a suntan, eh?  It's somethin' that just shows on yeh as a natural result of your participatin', learnin' and givin'.

Would I encourage da SM to let this one go?  Yah, of course.  It's not a fight worth havin'.  Give the boy the Eagle for cryin' out loud and stop with all of this.  Yeh aren't helpin' the lad learn, and while there's merit to settin' the right example for da rest of the boys that applies equally to acknowledging da troop's own fault in the matter.   If yeh don't like da outcome of your program, yeh can't fix it at the Eagle approval point, yeh have to fix it way earlier on.   Focus on that, eh?   Da expectations for First Class and Star and Life.  

Plus, if participation is what yeh value, yeh should just drop the kids who aren't participatin' from da roster rather than carryin' ghosts.  

I'm not talkin' to da Scoutmaster, though.    I've got no way to get through to him, eh?  All I can try to pour water on da fire and hope to keep da parent from blowin' up his own kids' experience (often with other kids as collateral damage).   And I reckon we all failed at that.

Beavah

Yah, this seems to be goin' on in two different threads, eh?

Estimates are that Facebook has over ten million kids under age 13 as users.   Probably more.   So this is a fairly common thing for parents to allow.

Whether an adult should "friend" a youth via Facebook is an open question that each adult should answer for him/herself.  I'm not sure why I or anyone else in da unit or da BSA should have a say.   There are good reasons to do so, and good reasons not to.  As I said in da other thread, either way yeh should be aware of the potential benefits and problems.  

If yeh make it a habit of "friending" kids yeh should be aware of their parents' feelings (though parents who allow FB accounts are probably fine with it).  Yeh should be cautious of "playing favorites" in friending some kids and not others, or having more interactions in your unit with those who are FB friends than kids who don't have accounts, just because yeh know more about 'em.  Yeh should be mindful of your own "friends" and what adult content shows up in your own feed that the boys may be able to access.   Yeh should be mindful that some adults fear new technology and might think poorly of you as a leader.  Yeh should expect at some point to be caught in an ethical dilemma, like whether yeh should alert the lad's parents to some post or behavior.

At the same time, it can be a great way for Webelos-aged lads to feel a part of a group with their den-mates, to keep in touch with extended family, to learn about and get used to technologies that will be a part of their life,  and to really build Scouting.  The presence of lots of adult "friends" also reduces opportunities for predators and other bad actors to get access to the boys and helps model good online behavior in ways that just havin' kid friends does not.

On da flip side, not friending kids can be viewed by the boy as not caring or as a form of social rejection; being "unfriended" is a bullying sort of thing for da upper elementary and middle school crowd as I understand it.   If yeh choose not to friend a kid, you should be sure to seek him out and thank him for the invitation and explain your reasons why not, lest he feel yeh really don't like him.  You'll lose access to a unique window into da lives of your scouts that can help you as a mentor for the boy, even if it's as simple as commentin' on his new addition to his stamp collection.  You'll be leavin' the boy to go it on his own when he's dealin' with challenges that he shares only online, because sharin' online is easiest.   You'll be losing opportunities for meaningful interaction with da quiet/shy/introverted boys in particular, who prefer online interactions because they find it hard to get your attention and time in person.

At the same time, some of your parent community may feel more comfortable with your keepin' a wall there, especially folks newer to da program who don't know you well.   You'll be avoidin' da impression of potential impropriety.  You'll fit in better with us oldsters, who don't trust these newfangled advertising-funded services. 

Personally, I don't have kids as Facebook "friends", but I reckon that's more because I'm an old fuddy-duddy who doesn't really do much with Facebook, eh?  

Beavah

Regardless, condoning lying is not what I would do.

And that's fine for your son(s), eh?  But tryin' to make an issue of it for other families just ain't Courteous.   Da OP seems to want to make an issue of it for other families, and that's a sure way to cause unnecessary ill will in her cub pack.   Far better to go help organizing da popcorn sale for the fall than worry about Billy Otherkid havin' a Facebook account. 

Beavah

Again, it is interesting that those adults who decry rigid adherence, or even colorable adherence, to B.S.A. rules also demand strict adherence in their units to rules that these adults have created.

Yah, hmmmm...

I'm not sure what you're askin' for here, @@TAHAWK.  Are yeh really suggestin' that da BSA start an argument with da Catholic pastor (IH) over his confirmation and Scoutin' programs?   How do yeh think that will be good for da BSA or for Scouting?

That's not the way we work, eh?   Da BSA has spoken.  It's given them a charter, and da BSA will live up to its duty to support the church in its mission and goals.   End of story, really.  Besides, da parents who have chosen this school have chosen to enroll their kids in a Catholic program, and da school and unit have been up-front about expectations. You're imaginin' problems that don't exist.

And of course if the lad is Catholic and in da confirmation program, then da CO is "the organization or group with which [he] is connected", eh?   As I understand that faith, "Duty to God" is something between the boy and his Church, not just his family.  They absolutely can and should have two-way conversations with the lad, and expectations as to da religious obligations which he himself is confirming.  As the BSA, we support 'em in doing so!

Beavah

Yah, we're wanderin' pretty far afield, eh?   Perhaps we should take a pause and see if @@SSF has any updates for us. 

OK.  The provisions that BSA says are mandatory are merely suggestive.  ""[O]ur job is to act as da BSA intends us to act," means do whatever we believe is better, regardless of what B.S.A. says. 

 

The "we" here is us, eh?  Folks who are not part of the unit, who are tryin' to be friends and resources to the unit.   We're all actin' as informal online commissioners of a sort, so we should behave like good commissioners as da BSA envisions that role.   We should support COs in their mission, we should encourage da growth in Scouting, we should try to pour water on fires rather than gasoline.  Da BSA isn't interested in us bein' Precision Scouters.  They're interested in us providin' thoughtful and cheerful service.

Da BSA certainly ain't served by us badmouthin' fellow scouters or units, eh?  A bit of friendly rivalry is fine, but no more. 

Besides,  if we really wanted precision Scoutin' we'd have better editors for our materials .   Yah, yah, da precision scoutin' folks all seem to congregate in adult-run Advancement so da G2A has taken a turn that way in the past few years.    What's funny to me is how that crowd resists any effort for the same sort of rigor and detail in Outdoors Method or any of our other instructional methods?  Those it's OK to treat as kid program elements, but Advancement must be all precise.   Blech!   Takes all da fun and adventure out of it for the boys.

Beavah

 

So teach me.  Point out the enabling language for this sixth test for an acceptable Eagle Service Project.  Please.

Nah, you're thinkin' about this in entirely the wrong way, eh?   Da owners of the unit don't need "enabling language" to allow 'em to pursue their goals and mission.  Heck, if they want to they can shut down the entire program during confirmation season, the way some troops and most packs shut down durin' the summer.

Stop tryin' to lawyer a kids' program!  And for goodness sake, stop tryin' to undermine chartered relationships.

@@David CO's unit is a great example of what we want in partners, eh?   A stable, youth-focused organization that wants to use Scoutin' as part of its mission for youth.   If we maintain that relationship, we'll have kids from that organization in Scouting forever, eh?  Way more stable than small "Friends of" chartering partners. 

Simply put, nobody's goin' to deny @@David CO's school a BSA charter.

By contrast, I reckon most of us would drop da council registration of a fellow who took your approach with a partner.     Holdin' on to Catholic units has gotten more shaky in some areas, and the last thing we need is some fellow tryin' to start a fight over their confirmation program.  Now, were I servin' @@David CO's unit(s), I might work with 'em to try to integrate da confirmation program more tightly, eh?   There's no reason why service hours shouldn't overlap, with Scoutin' supporting the church and vice versa.  Maybe work Ad Altare Dei in as well.

Recognize that Advancement, includin' the entirety of da Guide to Advancement, is just an instructional method in a kids' program, eh?  One of eight Methods, in fact.   Stop thinkin' about it like it's da United States Code.  Besides, we're talkin' 8th graders here, eh?  Thirteen year olds.  You're imaginin' a problem that doesn't exist.

Beavah

Beavah,

 

The law isnt the problem. If Fb wanted to, the TOS could allow younger than 13 y/o users.

Nah, it can't under the law, eh?   Not without a means of gettin' verified parental consent.  That's the issue.

Zuckerberg would love to allow it formally.  He just can't given da current legal environment.  So parents exercise their rights and make their own decision, knowin' that da chairman and CEO of Facebook agrees with and supports them.

All that's just background, eh?   Da real answer is that you will not help Scouting by calling fellow parents dishonest, or tellin' 'em that their kids can't/shouldn't have social media accounts.   So don't even go there!   Accept that the kids have accounts with da permission of their parents and that older boys and adults will have their own accounts even if yeh disagree.   Welcome to the new century!

Then move along and do somethin' more fun!

Beavah

 

I tend to stay away from any "rules" if I can avoid it.  We could easily put in adult dictates that the PL's provide a list of requirements signed off on over the past month at the PLC meeting (ugh more paperwork).  We've tried gently encouraging the PLs to pay attention -- which was ineffective and brought @@Stosh's wrath as being top down adult management. 

Yah, sorry.  Often my furry accent makes me hard to understand.   Either that or my silly word choice. 

I didn't really mean "rules" the way yeh took it here.  I was thinkin' more in terms of "rules for the game", like how yeh score.    Perhaps a better way would be to say "set up the environment".   

Scoutin' is all about settin' up the environment for kids to play in, so that they learn from playin'.   We're like video game designers, eh?  We don't get involved in the play, but we try to tweak the game to make it addictive and make the lads learn something.

Right now what you're sayin' is that in the game your kids are playin', they aren't valuing gettin' the cloth patches (or helpin' their mates get the cloth patches).   Yeh could try to encourage 'em as an adult to do that, and a few might try for a bit because of their relationship with you.  But after a bit they're goin' to go back to playin' the game and "forget".   Yeh could try to make a micromanagin' "rule" like what yeh suggest.  Then you'll get grudging compliance with da rule without any real advancement, and the boys will go back to playin' the game.

I'm suggestin' that yeh just up the value of cloth patches in the game somehow.   Then the boys will pay attention because it's part of their game, and they'll work out how to get 'em.  

First, consider makin' 'em harder.   Levels are only worth blastin' away at if it takes yeh real effort to overcome them so you can brag to your mates.   Lots of troops have taken "no adding" well into "actively subtracting" land.     If yeh just breeze through a level with no setbacks, yeh can't brag about it.   If your character gets eaten by giant spiders a dozen times, and then it takes yeh a month to get past the flaming lizards, then yeh have braggin' rights.  Same with advancement, eh?  Boys will value it more if it's more challengin'.

Second, find ways of incentivizing patrolmates to help each other, eh?  Advancement is an individual game in a lot of ways, which is why too much focus on advancement at camp breaks da Patrol Method.   So yeh have to find a way to give a whole patrol "credit" in the game for when one of 'em advances. 

Third, try to limit da paperwork chase.   Kids hate that.   I always say the best way for a lad to earn Canoeing MB is just to go canoeing, eh?  With a counselor or friend around to give a few pointers or issue a few challenges here and there.   No need for blue cards or worksheets or books.  When the lad demonstrates all da skills and knowledge, he's done.    Maybe yeh can even steal a march from da martial arts programs and just have a "belt test" every quarter or so.   Havin' to prepare for an upcomin' Tenderfoot "belt test" gives both a lad and his patrol leader somethin' to focus on.  

Personally, I think patrol competitions work best and are da most traditional way in scouting.   If a lad can demonstrate a skill under fire in a competition, I reckon he's got it down, eh?  Plus his friends get to see he has the skill and he gets to feel confident, which is what we want in Advancement.  For a patrol to win, its older boys have to teach the younger ones.  

What yeh choose depends on your troop, eh?  But yeh have to figure out how to get the adult agenda off of Advancement and make it a part of the kids' game again.  No managers or leaders or job descriptions, eh?  Just playin' the game.

Beavah

I would agree with Beavah if the terms of use explicitly stated under age kids with parental consent, which I understand would be allowed under the law (poorly written or not). Fb is mandated to follow the law, but still may have additional restrictions. There are plenty of online forums and such designed for kids which allow for young kids to sign up with parental consent. Fb is not one of those. Thus, the scout is being dishonest by entering a false DOB and clicking they agree with the TOS.

Yah, da problem for Facebook is how do yeh verify that the online "parent" is really the parent, eh?   Across 190+ countries?   The law was written back in da late 90s and passed in 2000 or so.  Pre-social-media.  It hasn't been updated since,  which leaves Facebook with a liability conundrum.   It's clearly OK under the law for parents to allow kids to have accounts, and it's clearly impossible for a service with a billion odd members to vet whether an online person is actually the custodial parent, eh?   Smaller, US-only English-only sites try if they're education-related, but that's not da same.   Most of those sites would just go bankrupt when hit with any liability.

So parents exercise their rights, and Facebook winks.   Someday if da Congress actually decides to do its job, perhaps they'll get around to updatin' the law. 

Anyways, tryin' to tell parents what they can do with their kids is always a losing proposition for a scouter or a scout unit.  It's even more of a losing proposition if yeh start accusing other parents of lying and cheating.   Yeh just never ever want to go that way.

Beavah

Interestingly enough, B.S.A. does not say that.  Instead they have written rules that they require a CO to formally promise, in writing, to follow.  

 

Yah, yeh should sit and read 'em sometime.    They don't include everything yeh think they do.

Again, it's da BSA's role to decide who is and isn't a BSA unit, not yours.  

I reckon da youth should learn about rules, sure.  Learnin' about rules also means learnin' about da scope of rules, and the limits of rulemakers, and an understandin' that if you are goin' to pretend to be a proper interpreter of da rules, your job is to be an agent for the rulemaker, eh?   Not a grammarian. 

So when we're in councils providin' friendship and guidance to units, our job is to act as da BSA intends us to act, eh?  To build up Scouting, not to tear down units and leaders.  To serve our Chartered Partners, not to try to throw 'em out because they want us to leave some space for their confirmation program.  

Scoutin' is about relationships, not rules.   We need our Chartered Partners, eh?  They don't need us.  I don't know what you're describin', @@TAHAWK, but it isn't BSA Scouting.  In da BSA I know, we're spendin' a lot of time and energy worryin' about how to keep kids and units and grow new ones with new partners, eh?   I'm not seein' any metrics in professional evaluations on throwin' out the impure.

Beavah

I guess one thing from all of the comments that really stuck with me is the comment by BSA Heretic regarding honesty.  These Cub Scouts are 9 years old.  The absolute minimum age for Facebook is 13.  So, the parents, in allowing this, are sending a message to the Scouts that it is "ok" to lie to accomplish what you want. 

Yah, hmmm....

Just so you're aware, the only reason Facebook and other organizations have this rule is because of a federal law that was poorly written, eh?   The COPPA Act. 

Da regulations for the COPPA Act allow for parental permission for younger kids, so the parents are perfectly within their rights and the intent of the law.   One could also argue that excessive regulation that interferes with a parents' right to protect or make educational choices for their kids is quite a bit of overreach, eh?

Either way, they're doin' nothing wrong.  The law explicitly allows younger kids with parental consent.   And as things go, in a world where families are often spread across a wide geographic area, Facebook allows kids to keep in touch with Grandma and Grandpa, and Cousin Fred, and Aunt Petunia.   It's a kindness, and it helps keep families strong.  

Beavah

Why bother to do any training?  If everyone is just going to make up their own rules as they go along, I don't see any use of training on a program that no one is going to use anyway.

Good training hopefully helps yeh understand the Aims of the Scoutin' program, and how various tools that we provide help yeh get to those Aims, eh?

It doesn't mean that yeh have to use all the tools, nor does it mean yeh can't use any other tools.   Mrs. Beavah's school has professional development & curriculum training for teachers in part so that they know how to use and modify da curriculum to meet the needs of their kids, eh?  Same with Scouters.

Once the units start making up their own rules, it pretty much ceases to be a BSA unit.

Nah. I reckon da BSA gets to define what "a BSA unit" means, eh?   A unit ceases to be a BSA unit when da CO chooses to drop its charter (or da BSA does, but we all know that's vanishingly rare).

Until that point, they are brother scouts and scouters.  Maybe even after that, if they join another organization that's part of da worldwide Scoutin' movement.

Stop tryin' to make us a smaller organization than we already are, eh?  BSA membership is not a reward for da perfect, it's a service for youth and adults and organizations who are strugglin' and tryin' to do good things.

Beavah

No matter how I look at it (even after considering cash flow and the timing of physicals as Bevah points out), I can not seem to accept that only half (remember, that's over 30 people) are turning in their paperwork in complete and on time,  leaving the person "who volunteered for a service position" to scramble for paperwork.  I totally get a few special cases, but 50%...over 25 families??.

 

Yah, @@shaner, that's pretty typical, eh?

One of da things that often happens in troops is that the volunteers who are selected are the parents who are more engaged and responsible, eh?   Most new troop treasurers are a bit appalled by families that don't pay their bills on time, and most new folks in your position are similarly frustrated.   Recognize that families who are under stress or just aren't payin' as much attention are at least a large minority in almost every program. 

At this point, and based on all of your input, I think I will have to go to the committee with requests for:

• Troop enforced missed deadline fees.
• More of the onus be put on the scouts...the SPL should be hearing from the coordinator a lot.
• That the committee, SM, and ASM's completely take over the paperwork collection process after the deadline has passed.   Like I said, I partially blame the committee, SM, and ASM's for creating this culture in the first place...let them taste it for a week or two and I bet there will be changes.

 

So you will all know:  I have already volunteered to do this job again next year.  I can guarantee you there will be changes.

 

And tons of thanks for the input...good stuff.

Yah, hmmm....

I wonder... in Scoutin', do we think it's a good idea to punish boys for their parents' behaviors?   I wish the lads were responsible for their own paperwork, they might be more responsible!   But they aren't, eh?   So in the end, it becomes hard to throw Billy Patrol Leader off the trip when his patrol needs him just because his family is feelin' financial stress and can't get it together, or toss Tommy Firstyear because his single mom is havin' a hard time gettin' off work to take him in for a physical. 

These are da sorts of things that cause good SMs and Committees to be more lenient, eh?     It's hard to take scatterbrained parents out on their kids.... the lads are already feelin' it, after all.

The SM is probably puttin' in 10 times the time, effort, and $$ that you are tryin' to get the boys to a great camp experience. Da SM and ASMs are payin' to give up a week of their vacation to take someone else's kids to camp, on top of all the rest of da prep and trips and conferences and meetings.  They need help, eh?

Now I can't speak to your local area or your unit, eh?  Maybe a year of tryin' strict two-week-before deadlines and leavin' some bodies on the floor is appropriate or might help, even if yeh loose a couple of lads from Scouting.  In the end, though, it won't change your job much, eh?  You'll just be dealin' with da same exact thing two weeks earlier.     

So what it really comes down to is either yeh choose to take one frustratin' job off the SM's plate so that he and da ASMs can spend more time helpin' the boys or yeh don't, eh?   If yeh shove it back on them, then they'll do it because they care about the boys, but it'll push 'em that much closer to burnout.  What yeh do is annoying, but it's a real contribution to kids and families.

Service is service, eh? 

Personally, I think da best version is to have one and only one paperwork & payment & signup turn-in for camp about a week before whenever the camp needs the count.   The week gives yeh a little family disaster slop, but yeh don't sign boys up unless it's all there.  It at least reduces the need to track lots of different lists and papers if yeh can pull it off.   Takes a few years to get people on board with, particularly because of da physical thing.

Beavah

Yah, hmmmm...

@@Hedgehog, it seems like da troop is runnin' fine, eh?  The boys have real patrols they identify with.  Your retention numbers are very good (way better than @@Stosh's this year ).  From what yeh say, the lads are learning things.

I'm still wonderin' what da problem is?  

Let's face it, Advancement is often exactly what your lads describe, eh?  An "adult agenda" item that they're not interested in, especially when it doesn't relate to their fun and adventure, or involves a lot of paperwork.  Rather than create a bunch of adult-assigned PORs to try to get reluctant boys to adopt the adult agenda, why don't yeh take a Saturday BBQ with your youth leaders and talk about what they think.   It might be enlightening.

To bring it back to more of a kid game, yeh need to get off the field and stop directing the game, eh?  Yeh just need to set up da rules to incentivize what yeh want from the lads.  Put up a poster so they can see advancement in each patrol and (naturally) compare.  Give 'em patrol points for advancement or whatnot.  The boys' strategies should be up to them, eh?  Maybe the Beaver PL takes it on himself; maybe da Bobwhite PL assigns advancement to a Patrol Signer-offer, maybe da Eagle PL decides to hold separate patrol advancement nights or day trips.   Whatever!   Advancement is part of the youth game, it isn't an adult goal.

Maybe after yeh talk to the boys, yeh discover all yeh need to do is find a way to streamline the bloody paperwork.

If your boys are growing in character, fitness, and citizenship, then things are fine.  They're enjoying things, the young lads are staying, the old boys are staying around, they're all learning.   You're doin' great.

Beavah

Nah, not national BSA policy @@Petey091.

It is the policy at some BSA summer camps, as a local rule.

B

Yah, I think your approach is right on, @@UncleP.  Uncles are special people, eh?  Thank you for bein' there for your nephew.

All the advice you're gettin' is very good, eh?  Da one thing I'm goin' to suggest is that yeh let da Scoutmaster know about the lad's temperament when he gets overtired.  Camps can be a bit of a sleep deprivation experiment, eh?  Lots of folks around to late at night, early mornings with reveille, lots more physical activity than in a boy's typical day. 

Sometimes it helps for first year lads to get "strongly encouraged" to get more rest, and for da youth and adult leaders to know about overtired behaviors.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Beavah

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

 

~Edmund Burke.

Yah, sure.  But do yeh really want to be the one callin' fellow Scoutin' volunteers whom you've never met "evil"?

Da SM and the Committee Chair are standing on principle.   The parent is standin' on principle.   The boy is standin' on principle.  The Committee is standin' on principle.  You're standin' on principle.  I'm standin'... Yeesh!

Somewhere there's probably a poor old unit commissioner who'd just like 'em all to sit down around a campfire with a cup of coffee, and let the lads get on with playin' the game.

Fortitude is a fine virtue, mate, so long as it is tempered by Prudence.

Beavah

 

I can't disagree in theory, but I don't see it happening in practice.

 

I can walk down to da church at the end of my block and see it happen every week.      This isn't theory, mate, this is what lots of troops do in practice.  The boys get it pretty easily, because it's natural.  No special trainin' on job descriptions or organizational charts required.

If I could mandate patrol competitons every week, I would.  The best I can do is to encourage the boys to plan interactive activities where everyone is doing some scout skill or another..... However, advancement is an adult defined structure, I'm just trying to come up with a boy-led solution.

 

 

Nah, not mandate.  What self-respecting lad ever cheerfully did what an adult mandated that he do?     Just seed and encourage, eh?   Boys are naturally competitive.

There's an old story about a factory manager who was tryin' to get better performance out of his shifts.   So he came onto da floor at the end of the day shift and asked how many widgets they completed, and he was told "6".   So he got out a can of paint and a paintbrush and painted a big "6" on the floor.

When the evening shift came in, they asked what was up with the "6"?  Someone said the boss came in and painted it there, because it was the number of widgets they had completed.  

The next morning when the day shift arrived they saw that the evening shift had painted over da "6" with a "7" in a different color.  "What, do those guys think they're better than us???".   By the end of their shift, they'd painted out the "7" with a "10" of their color.  And so on.

Your job is to be that factory manager, eh?

Beavah

Yah, @@shaner, I reckon we all feel your pain.   Da BSA paperwork chase is somethin' we all hate.

Remember, yeh volunteered for a service position, eh?  Just keep sayin' that to yourself.     Service isn't always easy and often requires patience.  It means sometimes you're on da timetable of those you are tryin' to serve.

I'd encourage yeh to think about the sort of things that go on in a family's life that can hold things up, and what yeh can do to be supportive.

One of da things you'll find is that insurers will only pay for one medical exam a year, eh?  Dependin' on the need for sports physicals for school or camp physicals or whatnot, the family's health care cycle might not line up with da troop's paperwork needs.  Can yeh do anything to help with that?

Maybe yeh can make health forms available throughout the year, to be taken in whenever the family does its physical, and then you collect it and store it.  Maybe yeh can get a friendly physician parent in the troop to do physicals on a couple of nights for the boys who just need 'em for camp.   Maybe yeh can help fill out new forms with last year's information so the parents just have to check "no changes" and re-sign, rather than wade through the form again.

If permission slips are the holdup, maybe yeh can switch to one annual permission slip and get it at the same time as the health form?

Sometimes families have cash-flow issues, eh?  They don't want to turn things in "incomplete", and they don't want to admit their financial circumstances to other families.   Can yeh work with da Committee Chair or COR to come up with a way to separate the two things, or provide support?  Sometimes there are custodial issues with divorced parents, eh?  Often not much yeh can do about that one, but maybe includin' both parents in copies of da paperwork can help move things along.

Ultimately, recognize that departure day for camp is da real deadline for things like health forms, and everybody knows it.   Unless da troop is willin' to create a different Absolute Deadline where they absolutely drop kids from participatin', there's nothin' you can do about this.  Suck it up and get on with the job.    Sometimes tiltin' at windmills will only leave yeh frustrated.

Beavah

@@Beavah you are not the first person in my life to criticize me for standing up for my principles.  I've stood by my principles even when I knew the outcome would be better if I just "got along" or "went along."  I will always take the side of a child when an adult uses their position to disadvantage a child.  I will always take the side of following the rules even if it means damaging relationships.  I will always speak out when I see something that is wrong regardless of who I'm speaking out against.  I will never just stand by when I see an injustice - no matter how small.  

Yah, hmmmm...

I was more tryin' to inform yeh of the way da BSA looks at these things, @@Hedgehog, and how all da various levels of da BSA are goin' to react, eh?  Nobody is goin' around enforcin' every jot and tiddle of da G2A or any of the other documents that are part of our instructional Methods.   They're just instructional Methods.   When there's conflict, we don't get all up in arms about "injustice", we just have mechanisms to proceed under Disputed Circumstances.  Maybe at some point a good friend to da unit has coffee with da SM and says, "hey, have yeh thought about tryin' this?...".

So at some point a fellow might ask himself whether doin' things that da BSA itself isn't doin' and isn't interested in doin' is really being obedient, eh?

It's every fellow's right to follow his conscience and principles, but like we tell the boys every "right" comes with a responsibility, eh?  Da responsibility in this case is that we have an informed conscience.   After all, if everybody in da world stood their ground on every personal principle and perceived insult or injustice, we'd have never-ending conflict and war.   Simple obedience is da proximate cause of many of da worlds horrors.

From da point of view of those of us who work with a lot of units on da BSA's behalf, I can tell yeh that adult conflict in units harms a lot of kids.  It costs us units, it costs us members, it wrecks kids' scouting experience.  Not just one boy, lots of boys.   Scouters badmouthin' other scouters and units costs us reputation, it costs us kids and families, it impacts our brotherhood.  It harms kids.

Fannin' da flames of conflict isn't sidin' with the kids, eh? 

Some years back I confess I was in favor of da Iraq invasion.  Standin' on principle, I suppose.  I wasn't in favor of cutting taxes goin' into that war, that was other folks standing on their principle.  How'd that work out, eh?   Can't say it was anything but worse for both us and da people of Iraq.   Reflectin' on da outcomes of our choices is how we inform our principles and learn to make better choices.

Da outcomes for @@SSF's family and troop should cause us to reflect and inform our principles, so that we all can make better choices.  Me for sure, at least.

Beavah

And that seems to be the problem, Gunship and I. SM isn't doing everything he's suppose to, and both of use, as well as others, are picking up the slack. Problem is we both have two opposed methods to achieving the  same objective. And the other leaders are in the crossfire.

Yah, yeh know yeh need to resolve this, right?    Preferably by becomin' Scoutmaster.

Yah, @@Hedgehog, da key is in da title, eh?   Troop Guide.   Da position is part of the Troop Method, not the Patrol Method.  Or put another way, TG==Den Chief, ASM-NSP==Den Leader, in da Boy Scout Webelos III approach.

Since yeh have a functioning Patrol Method in your troop that the kids have bought into, yeh should work that instead.   Make the Patrol Leaders and the rest of the new lads' patrols responsible for helpin' 'em with advancement.   That's their role, eh?  To take care of their guys and work to improve the patrol. 

One way yeh can do it is with patrol competitions, eh?  Havin' all your patrol-mates up-to-speed on various skills is how yeh can kick those silly Bobwhite's butts on the next campout.   Could be that the second-year boy sees a chance to teach the first year lad how to tie a knot or do better in fire-building to help his patrol, eh?  It doesn't have to be da PL or some assigned "instructor".

An alternative that I've seen 2 troops use is to do "Patrol Points" like Hogwarts points.  This was a part of Green Bar Bill's BSA program back in the day, where patrol competitions went on for 3-6 months.  Yeh could get points for havin' a boy advance a rank, or earn a badge, or for da patrol to complete X number of man-hours of service or win the meeting night knot race or whatever.

Another permutation yeh can try that I've seen one troop use is that only da PLs can sign off on requirements for S-T-2-1, but they can't sign off for their own guys.   So they have to prepare their guys to go to a different patrol's leader for testing and signoff.   It works well for 'em, because it makes da PLs really pay attention to preparin' their guys well. 

Always remember that positions and job descriptions and organizational charts and all that are adult impositions on da boys' world.  Boys organize themselves more organically and naturally, and learn better that way.   Yeh just provide challenges and incentives, and let them figure it out how to play the game to win.  Think video game, eh?  Not corporation.

Beavah

All it takes is one beef with a kid and if there's no 2nd adult to back you up, it's his word against yours......and it would seem that in this day and age, yours doesn't count.

 

Take my word for it.  The police will listen to "your side of the story", but all they are interested in is "Where there any witnesses?"  Your word is meaningless.

This is a good reason not to be a Scouting volunteer, eh?      

It's not a good reason not to use electronic media.  Electronic media leaves an objective, permanent trail not dependent on your word, or your memory, or witnesses.   (And witnesses are often useless, eh?  Never ever think of a second adult as a Magical Talisman of Protection.)

Da main reason not to be social media "friends" with scouts is that it exposes some aspects of your life and friendships outside of Scouting to the lads.  Dependin' on who yeh are and where yeh are in your life, that might not be appropriate for the boys to see.   Each of us should evaluate that thoughtfully, for sure.

Beyond that, it's no different than bein' with boys on a long car ride, and safer than talkin' with 'em for a Scoutmaster conference.

Beavah

Yah, nice job on da new troop startup so far, @Mr Ed T24!   Sounds like yeh have good things going on.

One of your roles as Scoutmaster is Keeper of the Flame, eh?   The fellow who is in charge of having vision and movin' people toward action on that vision.   Yeh have to speak it often, yeh have to do some minor corrections here and there to keep folks rowing together, and yeh have to find da right people to help and the right role for each person.

Any of us long-timers will tell you that parents who are coming out of Cub Scouts need to be deprogrammed, eh?   Personally, I don't think yeh should ever make 'em ASMs right away.  Better to use 'em as MCs until they get the hang of da program and their son finds his feet.    Cub Scout parents naturally want to continue da Cub Scout model of Do Your Best and advance (easily) together, rather than the Boy Scout model of develop real skills, and take as long as yeh need to advance individually.

So now yeh have to make a decision, eh?  Is your ASM open to learning, or is he one of those book-smart fellows who went to one training session and now mutters "don't add to the requirements" in his sleep?   If he's open to learning, then you (and your SPL, and ASPL, and CC, and Advancement Chair) take the fellow in hand and slowly retrain him.   Do some teaching together.   Have him participate as a learner in a MB effort that shows real counseling, then have him participate as a junior instructor, then let him do some instructin' where you shadow and give him feedback.

If your ASM isn't open to learning, then it's time to find a committee role for him out of the way.   Maybe managing recharter paperwork?  Or wrangling drivers?

Goin' forward, get your committee and COR on board with da notion that nobody just gets to be an ASM.   ASMs need to be carefully vetted and chosen, eh?  Preferably after yeh have known 'em and seen 'em work with kids for a bit.

As Scoutmaster, you get to decide who signs off on requirements, eh?  If yeh don't like where that's goin', it's just fine to pull it in tighter.   Use the boys rather than the adults for S-T-2-1.   As Scoutmaster, you get to decide who does the instructing, eh?  If yeh don't think someone's doin' a good job, find someone else.  Use the boys rather than the adults where you can.

In the end, if yeh want some covering fire, yeh can use da Committee Members on a BOR to give the ASM feedback.   "Billy said that he never really learned how to light a stove, he just did it once.  We really let Billy down, because he's going to need that skill to be capable and safe.   Go back and make sure he's really learned it (and all his other skills), Mr. ASM."

Your vision is right, and your heart is right, @Mr Ed.   Now go do what yeh have to do for the boys.

Beavah

------

A Boy Scout Badge represents what a scout is able to do; it is not a reward for what he has done.  -Boy Scouts of America