ScoutDaddy21

Hi all,

Many thanks for your thoughts. Please find responses to various questions. the only patch that was missing was an centennial unit patch. my kid had the old 2009 one and seems there was a new one that should have replaced it. He had every other patch in right places and he was in complete uniform. Seems this patch was given about 2 years ago and so many uniform inspections have happened, advancements have happened, there have been no mention whats-so-ever.

Mr.Twocubdad,

You are spot on. Its my sons issue and he is upset. The Advance chair js a nasty person and has "Gotcha" attitude. If they could, they would crucify the kids. I am trying to coach my kid as how to objectively look at things, do research and stand up for whats right. Its then we got stuck up-For no where we could find any mention of all patches being place for a SMC or BOR. Anytime in doubt, I would ask my kid to refer to Scouts handbook and there was no mention. So I was wondering was my premise to refer SHB is correct or we should be referring to others as well?

May be there are other docs we should refer and until to-date we got lucky. I wanted to verify, hence posted the question.

You are right. We do have a person who probably would fit like a T in Nazi Gestapo, where some of the treatments border on harrassment. Besides changing troops, is there any resourse to address these malicious adult leaders who are mother loads for civil/criminal law suits?

Mr DesertRat,

Thanks for your response. The patch that was to be there was a centennial unit patch. He had the 2009 one. apparently there was a new one which should have been there. All other (First class, Den chief, etc) were spot on.

Mr .Beavah, your advice and kind words are duely noted. Many thanks.

A simple scouting dad, looking for direction.

Today my kid, who is first class, went for SMC and BOR. In our troop, the last Tuesday is always BOR and SMC for advancements. Though my kid had all requirements and paper work, he was refused SMC for he was missing a patch which was about 2 years old. Does this sound right? I did go through the complete handbook to see this requirement and did not find any. Pls advice.

Perdidochas,

Thanks for your response. Thats exactly many of us in the troop believe. Yes, the requirements are inter dependent but not all or none. btw, I did not get your comment "It does not require the boy to secure the provisions". 4b says ...secure ingredients. So are you saying we can sign off 4b?

We have a 13 year old second class scout, who has finished all his requirements for first class. He is eagerly working being a first class by next board of review (in 3 weeks). He is a great kid, been a scout now for 5 years. His only pending requirement was 4a,b,c and e. He has already got 4d signed off.

He recently went to a camp out. He helped plan the menu, made a list, got prices, cooked,cleaned and his patrol leader vouches for it. He came to me for requirement sign off and we realized he had everything but he had not secured the provision. Many of us believe all requirements should be signed off except 4b as he has not met it. However, the ASM believes that requirement 4 of first class is all or none, so none of the requirements should be signed off. Some of the other first classes have not been held to same standard many of think this is not logical nor fair. Just wondering if any of you faced similar situation and what is the right thing to do? Is it right and fair to hold back all 4a,b,c and e requirements?(This message has been edited by Scoutdaddy21)